Thesis (PhD) -- Macquarie University, Division of Society, Culture, Media and Philosophy, Dept. of Sociology, 2008. / Bibliography: p. 233-248. / Academic vessels: STS and HPS -- SSK : scientism as empirical relativism -- Latour and actor-network-theory -- Tensions and dilemmas in science studies -- Kuhn - paradigm of an uncritical turn -- Critical theory of technology: Andrew Feenberg -- Critical theory and science studies: Jürgen Habermas -- Concluding remarks: normativity and synthesis. / Science Studies is an interdisciplinary area of scholarship comprising two different traditions, the philosophical History and Philosophy of Science (HPS) and the sociological Science and Technology Studies (STS). The elementary tension between the two is based on their differing scholarly values, one based on philosophy, the other on sociology. This tension has been both animating the field of Science Studies and complicating its internal self-understanding. --This thesis sets out to reconstruct the main episodes in the history of Science Studies that have come to formulate competing constructions of the cultural value and meaning of science and technology. It tells a story of various failed efforts to resolve existing antimonies and suggests that the best way to grapple with the complexity of the issues at stake is to work towards establishing a common ground and dialogue between the rival disciplinary formations: HPS and STS. --First I examine two recent theories in Science Studies, Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK) and Actor-Network Theory (ANT). Both of them are found to be inadequate as they share a distorted view of the HPS-STS divide and both try to colonise the sociology of science with the tools of HPS. The genesis of this colonizing impulse is then traced back to the Science Wars which again is underpinned by a lack of clarity about the HPS-STS relationship. This finding further highlights the responsibility of currently fashionable theories such as ANT that have contributed to this deficit of understanding and dialogue. / This same trend is then traced to the work of Thomas Kuhn. He is credited with moderate achievements but recent re-evaluations of his work point to his culpability in closing the field to critical possibilities, stifling the sociological side and giving rise to a distorted view of the HPS-STS relationship as seen in SSK and ANT. Now that the origins of the confused and politically divided state of Science Studies is understood, there is the urgent task of re-establishing a balance and dialogue between the HPS and the STS sides. --I use two important theoretical threads in critical theory of science and technology to bring clarity to the study of these interrelated yet culturally distinct practices. Firstly I look at the solid line of research established by Andrew Feenberg in the critical theory of technology that uses social constructivism to subvert the embedded values in the technical code and hence democratize technology. --Secondly I look at the work of Jürgen Habermas's formidable Critical Theory of science that sheds light on the basic human interests inside science and technology and establishes both the limits and extent to which social constructivism can be used to study them. --Together Feenberg and Habermas show the way forward for Science Studies, a way to establish a common ground that enables close scholarly dialogue between HPS and STS yet understands and maintains the critical difference between the philosophical and the sociological approaches that prevents them from being collapsed into one indistinguishable entity. Together they can restore the HPS-STS balance and through their shared emancipatory vision for society facilitate the bringing of science and technology into a democratic societal oversight, correcting the deficits and shortcomings of recent theories in the field of Science Studies. / Mode of access: World Wide Web. / vii, 248 p

Made available in DSpace on 2016-06-02T20:39:11Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 2645.pdf: 637881 bytes, checksum: 4aec1fbbf1c340b1dfb6372e58408184 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009-08-28 / Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos / The goal of this dissertation is to investigate as agroecology, alternative approach to agriculture characterized by socio-environmental concerns, becomes a prospect that internalises in public institutions of research devoted to agriculture. Analyzing the case of Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria (Embrapa), which was historically linked to agricultural modernization in Brazil, the research aims to investigate what the conditions of insertion of the agroecology theme is how the process of legitimation of this. The research consisted of a case study on the institutional process of legitimization of agroecology in EMBRAPA. First, we analyze the official discourse of the company, the institutional position, defined in documents published on the subject. A second step of analysis aims to evaluate how this process is reflected in the level of daily practices of agents. For this, interviews were conducted with experts and researchers from Embrapa Meio Ambiente, located in Jaguariúna- SP. Understanding the Embrapa Meio Ambiente as a field of provisions in dispute, where the agents compete for the accumulation of specific, we show that the environmental issue, and particularly the discussion agroecology, introduce new elements and provide conflicting dynamics. The agroecological perspective takes a marginal seat, or dominated the field in relation to conventional farming, and thus the defenders of agroecology looking agents make use of various strategies, seeking state their views and their understanding of science. If on the one hand social movements seeking intervention in the company entering new perspectives on the other hand, the institution makes use of a series of devices to accommodate new practices to their routines. / O objetivo desta dissertação consiste em investigar como a agroecologia, abordagem alternativa de agricultura caracterizada por preocupações sócio-ambientais, passa a ser uma perspectiva que se internaliza em instituições públicas de pesquisa voltadas ao setor agropecuário. Analisando o caso da Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa), que historicamente esteve vinculada à modernização agrícola no Brasil, a pesquisa pretende investigar quais as condições da inserção da temática da agroecologia e como se dá o processo de legitimação desta perspectiva. A pesquisa consistiu em um estudo de caso sobre o processo de legitimação institucional da agroecologia na EMBRAPA. Num primeiro momento, analisamos o discurso oficial da empresa, a posição institucional, definida nos documentos publicados, relativa ao tema. Um segundo passo da análise buscou verificar como esse processo se traduz no nível das práticas cotidianas dos agentes. Para tanto, foram realizadas entrevistas com técnicos e pesquisadores da unidade descentralizada Embrapa Meio Ambiente, localizada em Jaguariúna-SP. Entendendo a Embrapa Meio Ambiente como um campo de disposições em disputa, onde os agentes concorrem para a acumulação de capital específico, mostramos que a temática ambiental e, em especial, o debate agroecológico, introduzem elementos novos e estabelecem dinâmicas conflitivas. A perspectiva agroecológica toma um lugar marginal, ou dominado no campo, em relação à agricultura convencional e, assim, os agentes defensores da agroecologia procuram lançar mão de diversas estratégias, buscando afirmar seu ponto de vista e seu entendimento de ciência. Se por um lado os movimentos sociais buscam intervir na empresa inserindo novas perspectivas, por outro, a instituição lança mão de uma série de dispositivos para acomodar novas práticas às suas rotinas.

Nas últimas décadas um grande esforço governamental tem sido feito na adoção de políticas públicas e arranjos institucionais com o objetivo ampliar o índice de inovação tecnológica do País. No entanto, os estudos que dão suporte e influenciam a formulação de políticas públicas nem sempre levam em consideração elementos históricos, sociais, culturais que também condicionam este setor. Nesta pesquisa, a C&T é considerada um campo social com regras próprias, dentro do qual atores (indivíduos e instituições) estabelecem relações de poder e jogos de interesses que permeiam e condicionam a produção científica e tecnológica. A análise do campo científico é baseada no modelo estruturalista de Pierre Bourdieu e em alguns conceitos da Teoria Ator-Rede de Bruno Latour. O estudo de caso analisou a história e os desenvolvimentos da Divisão de Processamento de Imagens (DPI), do Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE). O foco de análise voltou-se para à combinação dos condicionantes macro-políticos com os elementos micro-sociológicos que atuam e orientam as práticas científicas e tecnológicas. Apesar de os elementos estruturais determinarem as ações dos sujeitos, o estudo de caso mostrou como é possível tal equação se inverter, ou seja, atores e instituições modificarem a estrutura, de um ponto de vista do construtivismo, mesmo que de forma limitada. A análise procurou trazer uma contribuição aos estudos de políticas de ciência e tecnologia a partir da perspectiva das ciências humanas, diferente da visão econômica que domina a área. / In the last decades, a great governmental effort has been made to adopt public policies and institutional arrangements to increase the national index of technological innovation. However, the studies that support as well as influence the formulation of public policies not always take into consideration historical, social and cultural elements that condition this specific area. In this research, S&T is considered a social field with its own rules, in which actors (individuals and institutions) establish power relations and interest games that permeate and condition technological and scientific production. Scientific field analysis is based on Pierre Bourdieu structural model and on some concepts of Actor-Net Theory from Bruno Latour. The case study has examined the history and the developments of Image Processing Department (DPI) of National Institute of Space Research (INPE). The analysis focus has been applied to the combination of macro political conditionings and micro sociological elements s that act over and direct technological and scientific practices. Although the structural elements determine individual or institutional actions, the case study has demonstrated how it is possible to invert that equation, that is, actors and institutions can change the structure, from a constructivist point of view, even if in a limited way. The analysis has intended to offer a contribution to scientific and technological policies from a human science perspective, different from the economic view which dominates this area.

Como cientistas escolhem teorias? O objetivo de nossa tese é entender a resposta de Thomas Kuhn a este problema clássico da filosofia da ciência. Ao retirar o problema da escolha de teorias do campo metodológico e transportá-lo para o campo sociológico, Kuhn expõe os fundamentos de uma abordagem sociológica do desenvolvimento científico. Como tantos outros filósofos, Kuhn defende que teorias científicas são escolhidas a partir de valores epistêmicos critérios como precisão, consistência, abrangência, simplicidade e fecundidade. Segundo ele, porém, estes valores estão sujeitos a interpretações distintas: cientistas podem concordar quanto ao que se deve esperar de uma teoria, mas, em função de históricos pessoais e profissionais particulares, podem discordar em relação a qual delas melhor manifesta essas características. Mas se os cientistas aplicam os valores de maneiras distintas, em que sentido estes valores ditariam as suas escolhas? E, principalmente, como seria possível, dada a variabilidade dos valores, o consenso em uma comunidade de cientistas? A resposta de Kuhn, inaugurando sua abordagem sociológica, é a de que o acordo entre os membros da comunidade seria gerado por uma série de mecanismos sociais. Em primeiro lugar, a pedagogia e o treinamento dos cientistas, que tornaria as avaliações dos cientistas mais parecidas. Depois, a teoria de onda: a produção de novas evidências e argumentos responsáveis por convencer os adeptos de teorias rivais. Por último, a reestruturação da comunidade: a exclusão de membros resistentes e a divisão da comunidade em disciplinas distintas. A fim de esclarecer a natureza desta sociologia, discutiremos dois conjuntos de temas relacionados: os tipos de explicações de crença: racional e causal; e os níveis explicativos desta sociologia: indivíduos, comunidades e grupos. A última parte de nossa tese consiste em uma tentativa de sistematizar um modelo de explicação sociológica da dinâmica das controvérsias científicas, assim como apontar alguns caminhos para uma pesquisa empírica direcionada a estes tópicos. / How do scientists choose theories? The aim of our thesis is to understand Thomas Kuhn\'s answer to this classic problem in Philosophy of Science. By removing the theory-choice problem from the methodological field and transporting it to the sociological field, Kuhn sets out the foundations of a sociological approach to scientific development. Like so many other philosophers, Kuhn argues that scientific theories are chosen based on epistemic values criteria such as accuracy, consistency, scope, simplicity, and fruitfulness. However, these values are, according to him, subject to different interpretations: scientists may agree on what to expect from a theory, but depending on particular personal and professional histories, they may disagree as to which theory best expresses these characteristics. But if scientists apply values in different ways, in which sense would these values dictate scientists choices? And, especially, how could a consensus in a community of scientists be achieved, given the variability of values? Kuhn\'s answer, inaugurating his sociological approach, is that agreement among community members would be generated by a series of social mechanisms. First, the pedagogy and training of scientists, which make scientists appraisals more similar. Secondly, the wave-theory: the production of new evidence and arguments that convince the followers of rival theories. Finally, the restructuring of the community: the exclusion of resistant members and the division of the community into distinct disciplines. In order to clarify the nature of this sociology, we will discuss two sets of related themes: the types of explanations of belief: rational and causal; and the explanatory levels of this sociology: individuals, communities and groups. The last part of our thesis consists of an attempt to systematize a model of sociological explanation for the dynamics of scientific controversies, as well as to point out the ways to an empirical research directed to these topics.

Cette thèse porte sur les pratiques de jugement en sciences humaines et sociales à l’Agence d’évaluation de la recherche et de l’enseignement supérieur, créée en 2007. Au moyen d’entretiens, d’observations et d’un travail sur archives, cette enquête approche l’élaboration et les usages des instruments d’évaluation au plus près des acteurs qui les conçoivent et les mettent en œuvre. Au croisement de la sociologie de l’action publique, de la sociologie des sciences, et de la sociologie des professions, cette thèse montre que la définition des « bonnes pratiques » scientifiques se façonne au gré d’alliances et de conflits intra-professionnels, plutôt qu’elle ne serait le produit de réformes imposées par le haut à la profession. Étudier une activité routinière au sein de la communauté académique -l’évaluation scientifique- dans les moments critiques où ses règles se reconfigurent, permet d’appréhender les réformes contemporaines qui affectent le monde académique. Si ces réformes peuvent affaiblir le pouvoir professionnel, dans notre cas, les scientifiques restent centraux dans le dispositif d’évaluation. L’AERES apparaît alors comme un microcosme où se jouent des conflits qui traversent la communauté académique elle-même. En effet, l’élaboration des instruments encadrant le jugement est innervée par des savoirs scientifiques en concurrence, et ces instruments peuvent être abandonnés face aux controverses qu’ils suscitent dans la profession. C’est alors la position de l’AERES vis-vis des autres instances scientifiques qu’il convient d’interroger, pour comprendre à quelles conditions ces instruments s’institutionnalisent et redéfinissent les pratiques de recherche légitimes. / This dissertation studies research assessment in the Humanities and Social Sciences, in a French evaluation agency (AERES) created in 2007. Based on interviews, ethnographic observations and archives, it approaches the elaboration and the uses of evaluative instruments close to the actors who conceive and implement them. At the crossroad of public policy analysis, sociology of science and sociology of professions, I show that the definition of scientific “good practices” is manufactured through intra-professional alliances and conflicts, rather than it would reflect top down reforms imposed to the profession. Studying a routine activity in the academic world – the scientific assessment – in the critical moments when its rules are reshaped, allows apprehending the contemporary reforms that affect the scientific sector. If those reforms might erode the professional power, in the case I study, the scientists remain at the heart of the evaluative system. The AERES appears then as a microcosm where conflicts within the academic profession can be seized. The construction of the evaluative instruments is nourished by competing scientific knowledge, and those instruments might be abandoned when they become controversial in the profession. Hence, the position of the AERES with respect to the other academic institution has to be questioned, in order to understand under what conditions those instruments redefine the legitimate research and assessment practices.

,Was können Soziolog_innen Nützliches für die Gesellschaft tun?‘ Es gibt verschiedene Möglichkeiten und Perspektiven auf diese Frage zu antworten. Ich wähle eine gesellschafttheoretische und setzte an bei der Systemtheorie von Niklas Luhmann. ,Etwas Nützliches tun?‘, dies können Soziolog_innen nicht nur, und vielleicht auch nicht in erster Linie, indem Sie sich als Expert_innen für bestimmte Themenbereiche zu Wort melden und fest strukturiertes Fachwissen zur konkreten Problemlösung anbieten. Folgt man der systemtheoretischen Perspektive von Niklas Luhmann, so erhält man zunächst eher einen ,Überblick‘ über die ,Gesellschaft‘ als Ganzes und ihrer Ausdifferenzierung in verschiedene funktionale Teilsysteme (Wirtschaft, Politik, Wissenschaft, Kunst, Erziehung, u.a.), sowie deren Autonomie und dann deren dennoch wechselseitiger aufeinander bezogene Angewiesenheit, im Sinne des füreinander Zur – Verfügung- Stellens von Möglichkeitsbedingungen des je eigenen Operierens. Ein derartig abstrakter Blick, lässt die Frage nach der ,Nützlichkeit‘ soziologischer Reflektion schnell in den Hintergrund treten und man richtet es sich bequem ein im Elfenbeinturm faszinierender akademischer Begriffsspiele. Was man dabei schnell übersehen kann, ist, dass gerade der begrifflichen Abstraktion ein Potential inhärent ist, einen Beitrag für die Bearbeitung konkreter komplexer gesellschaftlicher Probleme zu liefern. In der vorliegenden Dissertation versuche ich, für diese Möglichkeit der Systemtheorie durch Arbeit an den Grundbegriffen quasi eine Vorarbeit zu leisten und mit Hilfe einer Integration pragmatistischer Modelle eine Perspektive zu entwickeln, die in der Lage ist, brückenbildende Kommunikationsprozesse zwischen den (relativ) autonomen Funktionssystemen zunächst theoretisch- begrifflich zu beschreiben. Die Arbeit ist so konzipiert, dass in einem weiteren Schritt im Anschluss an die durchgeführte Theoriearbeit ein Konzept ,soziologischer Gesellschaftsberatung‘ entwickelt werden kann, das sich der Aufgabe widmet, komplexe, langfristige Problemkonstellationen soziologisch zu beobachten und zu bearbeiten.

This study is to investigate the problem of connectivity between nationally produced science and national needs. It is a collective case study of two academic departments within Saudi academia, the departments of petroleum engineering at Alpha and Beta Universities. The rationale for using these departments is that Saudi Arabia has an advanced petroleum industry, making petroleum engineering a good case for investigating the connectivity of nationally produced science with national needs. The main tool of the study was in-depth tape-recorded interviews. Twenty-two interviews were conducted, sixteen with current and retired faculty members at the petroleum engineering departments of Alpha and Beta and six with administrators at both universities. In addition, documents and observation were used as tools. The two departments differ in their levels of connectivity with national industry. One is increasingly connected with national industry, while the other is completely isolated from national industry. Historical and regulatory factors play a role in this difference. Four themes were generated from the data: institutional arrangements, positive attitude and self confidence, social construction of the university, and rentier mentality. The data gathered show that the issue of connectivity is beyond the will and abilities of individual scientists; it is a result of organizational efforts of the scientific institutions reinforced by the willingness of the productive sectors to change their behavior toward national scientists. / Ph. D.

In zahlreichen Forschungsprojekten wird unter Einsatz großer finanzieller und personeller Ressourcen daran gearbeitet, dass Roboter die Fabrikhallen verlassen und Teil von Alltagswelten wie Krankenhäusern, Kindergärten und Privatwohnungen werden. Die Konstrukteurinnen und Konstrukteure stehen dabei vor einer nicht-trivialen Herausforderung: Sie müssen die Ambivalenzen und Kontingenzen alltäglicher Interaktion in die diskrete Sprache der Maschinen übersetzen. Wie sie dieser Herausforderung begegnen, welche Muster und Lösungen sie heranziehen und welche Implikationen für die Verwendung von Sozialrobotern dabei gelegt werden, ist der Gegenstand des Buches. Auf der Suche nach der Antwort, was Roboter sozial macht, hat Andreas Bischof Forschungslabore und Konferenzen in Europa und Nordamerika besucht und ethnografisch erforscht. Zu den wesentlichen Ergebnissen dieser Studie gehört die Typologisierung von Forschungszielen in der Sozialrobotik, eine epistemische Genealogie der Idee des Roboters in Alltagswelten, die Rekonstruktion der Bezüge zu 'echten' Alltagswelten in der Sozialrobotik-Entwicklung und die Analyse dreier Gattungen epistemischer Praktiken, derer sich die Ingenieurinnen und Ingenieure bedienen, um Roboter sozial zu machen.

Das Forschungsfeld der Bildungsforschung befindet sich seit der ersten PISA-Studie in einer starken Expansionsphase. Bisherige Analysen dieses Feldes beschränken sich allerdings auf allgemeine Übersichten zu verschiedenen Aspekten, etwa zum Personal, zur Finanzierung, zu Forschungsprojekten oder zu Publikationen. Das Ziel der Dissertation ist es dagegen, speziell die kognitiven Strukturen der Bildungsforschung in Deutschland, und hier insbesondere die in diesem Feld behandelten Forschungsthemen sowie seine Wissensbasis, mittels der bibliometrischen Methoden der Kowort- und der Referenzanalyse zu untersuchen. Die Datengrundlage bildeten zum einen die Schlagwörter zu 23389 Publikationen des Zeitraums 2000 bis 2009, die durch eine schlagwortbasierte Suche in der FIS Bildung Literaturdatenbank ermittelt wurden. Zum anderen die in den Beiträgen der dritten Auflage des Handbuchs Bildungsforschung zitierten 3921 Referenzen. Die Ergebnisse der Referenzanalysen zeigen eine nach wie vor sehr große Bedeutung der Publikationstypen Monographie und Sammelband und einen relativ starken nationalen Fokus im Zitationsverhalten, aber auch große Unterschiede in den Zitationsmustern zwischen den einzelnen Beiträgen. Zudem zeigt sich, dass die Schulleistungsstudien und die Bildungsberichte die einflussreichsten Publikationen der aktuellen Bildungsforschung darstellen und die Pädagogik, die Soziologie, die Psychologie sowie die Wirtschaftswissenschaften die wichtigsten Bezugsdisziplinen. In der Analyse der thematischen Schwerpunkte bestätigt sich die zentrale Rolle des Themenbereichs Schülerleistung und ist ein Bedeutungszuwachs der Forschung zum Thema Lernen zu erkennen. Aus den Analysen lässt sich folgern, dass Handbücher eine informative, aber noch wenig genutzte, Datenquelle der Wissenschaftsforschung darstellen. Ferner sind mit der Methode der Kowortanalyse auch differenziertere Untersuchungen von Forschungsfeldern, die nicht gut in Zitationsdatenbanken abgedeckt sind, möglich. / Since the first PISA study the field of educational research is going through a phase of strong expansion. Previous analyses of the field are largely confined to general overviews of various aspects like scientific staff, funding, research projects or publications. The aim of the thesis, in contrast, is to study the cognitive structures of educational research in Germany, in particular the research topics and the knowledge base of the field, using the bibliometric methods of co-word analysis and reference analysis. Two data sources were used: the keywords of 23389 publications from the period 2000 to 2009. These publications were identified by a keyword-based search in the German Education Index. And the 3921 references cited in the articles of the third edition of the Handbuch Bildungsforschung. The results of the reference analysis show a high relevance of the document types monograph and edited book and a relatively strong national focus but also considerable differences in the citation patterns of the individual articles. Furthermore, student assessment studies and education reports are the most influential publications of current educational research and pedagogy, socioloy, psychology and economics the main reference disciplines. The analysis of the thematic priorities reaffirms the central role of the topic student achievement and shows a growing importance of the issue of learning. It can be concluded that handbooks are an informative but still largely unexplored data source in science studies. Moreover, the method of co-word analysis facilitates more detailed investigations of research fields that are not well covered in citation indexes.

À la croisée des sociologies des sciences, de l’éducation et du travail, cette thèse présente, à partir d’une analyse de l’ensemble des disciplines de l’enseignement supérieur, une série de processus qui contribuent à la perpétuelle remise en cause de la légitimité scientifique des sciences sociales dans la recherche française contemporaine. Cette analyse en trois temps, historique, statistique puis par enquête par questionnaire et entretiens met en évidence un phénomène de désavantages cumulatifs de ces domaines. Institutionnalisées dans les facultés de lettres et de droit dans une période d’ascension forte de la légitimité de celle des sciences, les sciences sociales occupent une position inconfortable d’altérité et d’infériorité scientifiques, que l’enseignement secondaire contemporain contribue à entretenir. Situées à l’intersection des pratiques des sciences humaines, biologiques et mathématiques, ces disciplines se voient fréquemment accusées de ne pas répondre au modèle des sciences physiques. Scindées en deux facultés, les profils scolaires et sociaux de leurs étudiants et de carrières de leurs chercheurs sont plus hétérogènes que dans les sciences non sociales, ce qui affaiblit leur cohérence. Intériorisant leur position dominée, ces disciplines naturalisent la faiblesse des moyens qui leurs sont accordés en les justifiant par des besoins temporels spécifiques et une imprévisibilité indépassable. / Combining the sociology of science, of education and of professions, this thesis analyses the field of academic disciplines to present a series of social process contributing to the constant questionings regarding the scientificity of the social sciences in contemporary France. This three steps analysis (historical, statistical, and through surveys and interviews) unveils a phenomenon of cumulative disadvantages for these disciplines. Institutionalized in the Facultés of law and literature in a period of important rise to power of the scientific one, social sciences have been considered as “other” and “inferior” in terms of scientificity from the beginning, a situation that is strongly maintained today through the implicit hierarchies of fields taught in high school. At the crossroad of humanities, biological and mathematical sciences, the scientific practices of the social sciences are frequently evaluated and denigrated through the criteria of the physical sciences. Divided into two facultés, students and faculties in those fields have more heterogeneous social and educational backgrounds then those in other sciences, contributing to a social image of dissensus. Interiorizing their subordinated position, social scientists tend to justify the small share of resources that they receive through the valorization of specific temporal needs and unpredictability of their research.