1
STS on
STS – A Perspective of Science and Technology Studies on the STS Field Itself
Gabriella Hammarin
2011–05-30
Bachelor thesis
Department of Economic History
Uppsala University
Supervised by Magnus Eklund, PhD, Department of Economic History
2
Abstract: STS, today the abbreviation for Science and Technology Studies (formerly Science, Technology and Society), is an elusive field characterized by widely varying applications and intents, highly dependent on individual people and facets, yet sharing some common aims and practices. STS has risen since the 1960s and this empirical study presents a view on STS today and a discussion on how it has developed by the analysis of five different representatives from different locations in the field of STS.
3
Table of contents Introduction and Background of this Study ........................................................................................ 4
Objectives ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Background – The STS Society from the 1960s to the Present ........................................................... 5
Timeline ........................................................................................................................................... 5
The Beginnings – 1960s and 1970s ................................................................................................. 8
STS during the 1980s – Adolescence and Crisis............................................................................. 10
1990-2011- STS Rises from the Ashes and Prospers ..................................................................... 10
The Science Wars........................................................................................................................... 11
Literature Review .................................................................................................................................. 13
Concerning Innovation Studies ......................................................................................................... 13
Concerning Interdisciplinary Science ................................................................................................ 14
Jürgen Habermas on Knowledge Interests ........................................................................................ 16
The New Production of Knowledge ................................................................................................... 16
Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 18
Inquiry Form .................................................................................................................................. 19
Interviews ...................................................................................................................................... 21
Interviewees .................................................................................................................................. 21
Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Uppsala University ...................................................... 23
Institution of Tema: Technology and Social Change, Linköping University ...................................... 23
Department of Science, Technology and Policy Studies, University of Twente ................................ 24
Empirical review .................................................................................................................................... 26
History: How did we get here? .......................................................................................................... 26
Identity: Who are we today? ............................................................................................................. 29
Relations, Society, Politics: Us among Others in a Local and Global Context ................................... 33
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 36
About History .................................................................................................................................... 36
About Identity ................................................................................................................................... 36
About Relations ................................................................................................................................. 37
Reference List ........................................................................................................................................ 39
Interviews .......................................................................................................................................... 39
Internet Sources ................................................................................................................................ 39
Litterature.......................................................................................................................................... 39
Appendix: Inquiry Form
4
Introduction and background of this study STS [Science and Technology Studies or Sociotechnical Studies or Science, Technology and Society] has
grown from an idea pursued by only a few people in the 1960s into a discipline practiced at a great
number of universities around the world. Today, STS is a full-blown international research track with
its own institutions, educational programs, conferences and journals.1
STS could be described as a meta-field since its intent is to study the origin and practice of knowledge
production, as science and technology, as the long and the short of it, research on research.
STS’s main concern is the practice of knowledge production within the realm of science and
technology, but few have performed corresponding studies on STS itself. In this thesis, opinions and
thoughts from five representatives of three different facets of STS are heard concerning the
importance, constitution, identity and emergence of STS as they know it.
Views about STS differ to some extent according to local sites and aims, yet the field appears to be
held together by a set of characteristics, values, difficulties, and to some extent methodology and
literature, as visible in the empirical review further on. It’s often not applicable to talk about
“institutions of STS”, since this field is rarely having formal institutions at universities, rather research
centers, seminars and similar.
Sheila Jasanoff explains the scholarly world as an archipelago of large and small islands rather than as
one of a continuous landmass, which is to say that academic fields continue to remain separate from
one another rather than act as one. STS, in the archipelago, consists either of many separate islands,
rocks and reefs or is possibly one connected island2.
Adding to this metaphor, Boel Berner envisions STS as a central island, which many scholars with
neo-disciplinary ambitions wish to colonize, but also consists of other islands at different distances,
which are connected to the main island by more or less significant connections of bridges and boats.
These outlying islands are other disciplines or research areas. STS, therefore, is the network of all
these interconnected groups3.
1 Berner, 2011
2 As described by Boel Berner, Berner 2011
3 Berner, 2011
5
This thesis intends to explore the multiple fields of STS in order to see their interconnectivity not only
at Uppsala University but also at other institutions in Sweden and the Netherlands, which should be
of interest to all members of STS as we are studying precisely wider interactions in society. In other
words, STS will be put into a larger context.
Objectives This study is meant to partially create an individual- and location-oriented map of the STS field at
universities today. Its focus lies heavily on representatives of STS-activities and their institutions’
views on STS, both today and in its beginnings, to illustrate how STS has developed.
These representatives were provided with a specific set of questions during interviews to bring forth
their impressions about STS as STS is an especially elusive field due to its sprawling nature, which is
to a considerable degree shaped by the interests of individuals and the goals they wish to
accomplish.
To provide a background for the following discussion, one chapter of historical review and one of
selected literature review follow below. In addition to the methodology chapter, there is a brief
presentation of the representatives and their local STS-facets
Background – the STS Society from the 1960s to the Present To be able to put the appearance of the STS of today in a historical context, this background chapter
is intended to provide a review on its development.
Timeline
This timeline is a brief presentation of some of the most significant landmarks in the development of
STS as we know it today, together with some other relevant events pertaining to this study. The
landmarks are further introduced and explained in the following text.
1960s
1962 -- Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions is first published
1969 -- Cornell University and Pennsylvania State University establish formal programs of
Science, Technology and Society4
4 Cutcliffe, 1996
6
Late 1960s -- The University of Sussex establishes a degree course in the History, Philosophy
and Social Studies of Science, which is also done by the Science Policy Research Unit5
Several universities in the USA, including Cornell, Harvard, MIT, Penn State, and Stanford also
form programs in Science, Technology and Society 6
The “Strong programme” is initiated at the University of Edinburgh7
Concepts forming the “Bath school ” originated at this time8
1970s
STS became established as a field of specialization in the Netherlands, the Scandinavian
countries, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom9
1975 -- The 4S [The Society for Social Studies of Science] is formed
1977 -- Ina Spiegel-Rösing and Derek J de Solla Price organized and edited The Handbook of
Science Technology and Society because they felt “a strong need for some sort of cross-
disciplinary mode of access to this entire spectrum of scholarship”, and also wanted to
contribute to the intellectual integration of the emergent field10.
1979 -- Latour and Woolgar’s Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts is
first published
1980s
STS is commonly referred to as Science and Technology Studies
The “Turn to Technology”
1980: Institution of Tema is founded at the Linköping University
1981 -- EASST [The European Association for the Study of Science and Technology] is formed
Founding of the Department of STePS, Twente University
5 Rip, 2004
6 Jasanoff, page 8
7 Berner,2011, page36
8 Berner, 2011, page 36
9 Jasanoff, page 17
10 Hackett et al, 2008
7
Addition of anthropological and sociological methods11
STS enters research labs and construction sites12
Addition of elements of feminism13
Analysis of commonplace interpretations and reconstructions of scientific knowledge as well
as technical artifacts.14
Mid-1980s -- Many STS programs in the United States, such as Harvard’s and Cornell’s, either
die a quiet death or substantially lose momentum15
The Actor-Network Theory is introduced by Michel Callon, Bruno Latour and others
1987 -- Social Construction of Technology Theory (SCOT) is introduced16
1990s
Departments at USCD, Cornell, and Minnesota are subsequently formed after an initiative
from the US National Science Foundation (NSF) to open a nationwide competition to support
interdisciplinary graduate training in Science and Technology Studies17
”The Science Wars”
1993 -- Philosophy, Rhetoric and the End of Knowledge: the Coming of Science and
Technology Studies, by Steven Fuller, is first published
1995 – The handbook of Science and Technology Studies was published, “providing ‘a map of
a half-seen world’ characterized by ‘excitement and unpredictability’”18
2000s
2000: STS appears in the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences
(IESBS)
2001: The STS Centre at Uppsala University is founded
11
Berner, 2011, page 38 12
Berner, 2011, page 38 13
Berner, 2011, page 38 14
Berner, 2011, page 38 15
Jasanoff, page10 16
Bijker, 1987 17
Jasanoff, page 15 18
Hackett et al, 2008
8
During the development of what is now known as STS, its abbreviations, approaches and focuses
have changed, for example, from Science, Technology and Society during the 1970s and 1980s to
Science and Technology Studies as it is today. Thus, the focus has shifted from being centered on
society to being concerned with many science and technology development processes, and how they
are shaped.
This change could be described as STS in its formative days thought of science and technology as
consisting of discursive, social and material activities, which was then considered a philosophically
radical project. Thirty years later, STS has focused instead on understanding social issues linked to
developments in science and technology, and how those developments could be harnessed for
democratic and egalitarian ideals19. The society is no longer regarded as an independent actor in the
interaction, but as a factor among others that are taken into account for affecting knowledge
production.
STS as a whole is said to have expanded so rapidly that these two epitomes blended together. These
two different approaches and conceptions widened and were found to be applicable to joint issues.
For example, one approach originated from issues about the legitimate place of expertise and
science in public spheres as well as the place of public interests in scientific decision making. On the
other hand, the second approach was concerned with understanding the dynamics of science,
technology and medicine. These two sides were approaching each other all along until they
eventually were indistinguishable. 20
The Beginnings – 1960s and 1970s
Science and Technology Studies emerged in Europe and the United States in the late 1960s and early
1970s. Already during the interwar period, some scientists, mostly sociologists and historians but also
scientists and engineers,21 took an interest in studying the relations between the practice of science
and its products. This development was reinforced by some especially notable researchers, who were
publishing books and articles concerning these meta-like views on science and knowledge production
itself. One of the most significant authors was Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) who in 1962 published his
work Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which became one of the trend-setting works of STS at that
time due to his theories on the analysis of history of science and triggered reactions from many other
scientists, which later led to a paradigm shift in the practice of science.
19
Sismondo, 2010 20
Sismondo, 2010 21
Jasanoff,page 4
9
In the following years, these kinds of topics became established at different institutions around the
world. In 1969, the antecedent of STS had reached the USA by way of Cornell and Pennsylvania
University, both of which established formal STS programs. Even Harvard, MIT and Stanford formed
some kind of similar program22. Meanwhile, in Europe, the University of Sussex established a degree
program in the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science, which was paralleled by the Science
Policy Research Unit. 23
An important landmark of the 1960s for the promotion of STS was the initiation of the “Strong
programme” at the University of Edinburgh, which consisted of researchers aiming to study science
in a “symmetrical” manner, implying that both accepted and rejected results from research would
need to be explained socially and by the same theoretical premises, both of them being produced in
the same political and cultural manner.24At the same time in England, the “Bath School” originated
with the ambition of studying argumentation and power plays in correlation with scientific
controversies. 25 These two doctrines share an interest in how social interaction and cultural
prejudice within researchers affect the processes of how conflicts originate and are resolved,
especially concerning putative disinterested explanation of natural phenomenon.
The Strong programme and the Bath School had a great impact on STS since these were among the
first initiatives to problematize the practice of science in its social context affecting the perception of
“true” or “rational” results.
Altogether, this era introduced new viewpoints on science, which somewhat emerged in relation to
contemporary political reforms. Karl Marx and Friedriech Engels already in the second half of the 19th
century understood the great importance that science and technology would come to have on the
changing society of their time. In the 1960s, tenets of Marxism used to analyze science and
technology was considered part of social criticism. Concurrently, international joint committees and
governments discovered science and technology were important sources of financial growth. During
this decade, queries about how to steer and exploit these potential resources, but also their
consequences, were posed which increased the interest of studying these matters in academia, inter
alia STS. 26
22
Jasanoff, page 8 23
Rip, 2004 24
Berner 2011, page 36 25
Berner, 2011, page 36 26
Berner, 2011, pages 29-31
10
STS during the 1980s – Adolescence and Crisis
Ergo, the movement coincided with the rise of Science and Technology Studies (formerly not equal to
Science, Technology and Society). This was the beginning of the modern STS, with the fusion of these two
approaches, claimed not to be accidental. The differences between them are said to be that the former
were linked to scholarly disciplines, while the latter was an initiative to widen the considerations of the
university education of scientists and engineers.
STS was now more widely accepted, but the political sting that had reinforced and pushed STS was not
as substantial anymore.27 The society and researchers were not the same as the ones that had been
standing on the barricades, and scholarly achievements had become important in order to maintain
STS’s position in the university. This led to the withering of some STS programs but also to emphasizing
some characteristics of the movement: the interest in the democratization of science, in technology
assessment and control, and in emancipation.28
The new blood that was transferred to STS with the new generation of researchers carried the addition
of some new elements that became assimilated, such as the addition of anthropological, sociological and
feminist methods. 29
During this decade, methodical development occurred within Actor-Network Theory (ANT) and Social
Construction of Technology (SCOT), which became popular among STS-practitioners and is widely
used for analysis in STS-related cases even today.
1990-2011- STS Rises from the Ashes and Prospers
A field of study can be said to have fully matured with the establishment of professional societies and
journals for the exchange of scholarly and educational pursuits, which describes the field of STS
during the past two decades. The STS-field seems to have developed into at least three different
research and educational approaches describing different ways of striving towards similar goals even
though they diverge30:
1. Science, technology and public policy: a professionally oriented track generally
focusing on the analysis of large-scale socio-technical interactions and their
management. This has strong scientific and technical orientation and stresses the need
for training in appropriate policy and management fields.
27
Rip, 2004 28
Rip, 2004 29
Berner,2011, page 38 30
Cutcliffe, 1996
11
2. Science and technology studies: a track that involves more theoretical investigations
into the social and cultural context of science and technology and their functioning as
social processes.
3. Science, technology and society: similar to the previous, but with a more
pronounced focus on the societal context.
Today, STS seems to be concerned with altruism and social benefits by promoting socially responsible
science31 and use of technology. It is now considered that academia and industry share the mass of
researchers, knowledge and tools, which raises issues about controlling the quality of science, social
systems, knowledge properties and pragmatics.
During the 1990s, theories on local and national innovation systems were developed and implicated
as an effect of specific research on politics and financial aspects concerning innovation progress.32
The researcher was now, to some extent, expected to solve financial and political issues, and to also
provide expertise and guidelines for society in order to promote innovations, and efficiently frame
research and politics on technology.
The Science Wars
The Science Wars were, and are in some senses, an episode of more or less heated debate
concerning the use of “science” as an etiquette on any knowledge product, and on how science
should be excluded from “anti-science”. This war was not an opposition between scientists and
science studies scholars, but rather a disagreement between science and the “social constructivist”
and relativist type of sociology33, which was fought with pencils over the world in journals and books.
A particular school within STS, the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK), was already highly
involved about twenty years before the Science Wars with its aim of social constructivist and
relativist orientations. The Science Wars became visible during the early 1990s and by that time,
there also existed an internal intellectual opposition to precisely that social constructivism within STS
itself.34 The work of Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, is said to have been one of
the opposition’s great inspirations. New minorities had taken form during the latest decades and
were now on both sides of the battlefield, all with new views on the world of science, and among
31
Cutcliffe, 1996 32
Cutcliffe, 1996 33
Segerstråle, 2001, page 2 34
Segerstråle, 2001, page 2
12
them, the new sociologists of science took their chance to introduce social, rather than philosophical,
explanations for scientific change, which is the exact message Kuhn suggested35.
One of the core issues of the Science Wars was the constructivist assertion that scientific facts
themselves were socially constructed, which caused some parts of the scientific world to fall into
pieces. Some people on the “scientist side” (in opposite to the side of science studies) began to refer
to an “academic left”, consisting of different groups of academic endeavors bunched together.
The essence of the Science Wars concerned who had the right to criticize science, whether it was
those within or outside of the field, and which originated from a dissatisfaction concerning existing
paradigms for explaining science, resulting in both sides accusing the other to be “unscientific”. At
the end of the decade, STS had come into the line of fire, instead of the “academic left”36. Another
issue that now entered the stage was the one concerning the relationship between science and
society, since society was no longer the same after the world wars and the Cold War.
35
Segerstråle, 2001, page 4 36
Segerstråle, 2001, page 22
13
Literature Review In this section, theoretical background is presented to serve as support for the framing of the topics
for the interviews and also for the analysis of the received answers. First, the fairly new field of
Innovation Studies is presented. As it coincides with STS, it provides an example of what STS is not,
something that dwells outside its boundaries. The two fields of IS and STS are, in fact, somewhat
overlapping yet still different due to their separate identities.
Second, interdisciplinary science is a versatile term, which might involve many different kinds of
collaboration-oriented activities. STS-activities are typically interdisciplinary, and to examine the
different environments in this study, a framework by Boel Berner is used, determining three types of
such activities: multidisciplinary, interdiciplinary and transdisciplinary.
Third, the theories of knowledge interests by Jürgen Habermas will provide a foundation on which to
build the discussion on the rise of disciplines and the relations between society and STS.
Finally, the appreciation of new practices on knowledge production is brought forth by Gibbons et al.
If the world of science and knowledge production has gone through a mode change in the latest half-
century, STS should probably be affected by it, or, has been affecting it. Further, many of the
characteristics of STS-environments correspond to the set of characteristics that is set up to depict
activities of knowledge production subsequent to the mode change, which is apparent in both
questions and responses from the interviews, implicitly and explicitly.
Concerning Innovation Studies37 Innovation Studies it yet another field of research that has arisen during the 20th century, subsequent
to the suggested demand for new types of knowledge. Its main concern regards entrepreneurs
within the scientific world and aims to advise governments to design innovation policies and steer
the national innovation processes.
The field is said to have originated from the work of Josef Schumpeter in the 1960s, whose ideas
started to gain currency at the same time as he “combined insights from economics, sociology and
history into a highly original approach to the study of long run economic and social change, focusing
in particular on the crucial role played by innovation and the factors influencing it”38.
Since then, the field has grown to roughly several thousands of scholars worldwide as followers.
Innovation Studies as an academic field increased particularly rapidly since the early 1990s, but is still
not a scientific discipline in the sense that is used throughout this thesis. Fagerberg & Verspagen
37
Fagerberg & Verspagen, 2009 38
Fagerberg & Verspagen, 2009, page 8
14
claim that “the development of innovation studies as a scientific field is part of a broader trend
towards increased diversification and specialization of knowledge that blurs traditional boundaries
and challenges existing patterns of organization within science (including social science)”.39
The overall concept of Innovation Studies generally adopts a system-oriented approach, whereas
Innovation Systems relies on the different historical trajectories of innovation thinking. The
innovation system concept was first established in policy and academic circles around 1990, and has
developed since, in different directions. One of the directions taken is the one featured by the
already visible, strong national focus being increasingly complemented “by alternative delimitations
of the relevant innovation environment”. Subsequent to this path, many scholars made use the
concept, “directing their interest to the regional environment supporting innovative activities, or the
environment surrounding innovation in certain economic sectors or for different technologies”40.
Concerning Interdisciplinary Science41 Interdisciplinary collaborations could be considered as rhetorically more adaptable to fulfill the
demands of society on relevance in comparison to the more traditional disciplinary research. This
concept is suggested by Boel Berner, who presents a discussion on the view of the narrow-minded
and less society-relevant disciplinary research, which is sometimes featured. It’s presented that
studies have shown that at least some disciplines have had quite a lot of dealings with each other,
and the rate is increasing as well. This could be made visible by the way publications are made, who
is cited, joint theories and methodology, and organizational co-operations, mostly between closely
related disciplines. These co-operations are creating networks or clusters, consisting of contacts and
cross-references. Additionally, there have for long time existed dense network between researchers
at universities, government and industry to develop new technology or new medications; it’s not a
1990s phenomenon.
The differentiation by disciplines is kept at most universities though, which is shaping research
identities and careers, is manifested in educations, journals, scientific alignments and conferences
and is visible in councils and boards of important decision-making organs. The view of differentiation
as fair and necessary is shared by many researchers, according to Berner. The disciplines are needed
for development of theories and method, and for maintaining the depth and quality of research,
according to their supporters, but are seen as obsolete by others.
39
Fagerberg & Verspagen, 2009, page 3 40
Eklund, 2007 41
Berner, 2011, pages 15-27
15
Berner intends to loosen up that binary view by sorting out three grades of collaborative work
between disciplines: as multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary.
Multidisciplinarity
Multidisciplinary research is characterized by researchers from different subjects collaborating to
understand a specific problem, an issue too big or too complex to be properly covered by experts
from only one or a few disciplines. Each subject is contributing, but the ambition is not to integrate
or change the original perspectives. A common example of this is using each other’s methods,
concepts or theories.
Rather than affecting the organizational structure of disciplines in research, multidisciplinary science
generates a hierarchal division of labor that emphasizes the boundaries between disciplines, e. g. a
subject is used by another as a kind of service discipline.
Interdisciplinarity
Interdisciplinary work aims to integrate theories, methods and results of different disciplines, on an
equal basis. The objective could be concerning the solution of the own issues, creating innovations or
solving urgent problems in society, in alles most heterogeneous in interdisciplinary goals.
Transdisciplinarity
Transdisciplinarity is the most far-reaching form of collaborative work, implying the development of
new topics and stances without any obvious basis in a certain discipline. The aim is to create new
fields of research on new scientific objects. These kinds of new fields arise and consolidate
themselves in different manners, such as identifying a new societal problem area, and often have
political premises. If the origin is more of an internal academic kind, another shape of
transdisciplinarity is provided, framed as scientific combinations or hybrids. A third option to claim a
new field of study is based on wider theoretical models with claims on a new conception of the world
or mankind, or a new epistemological credo. This is an attempt to behold new phenomena in
divergent manners from traditional disciplinary thinking. The new field of study is not fueled by the
issues, but a consequence of the new way of addressing the issues.
Some trans- or interdisciplinary research has given rise to new and autonomous fields, which have
become established as new subjects or neo-disciplines. However, there is no consensus whether this
is a natural or a problematical development, possibly leading to territoriality and an obstruction of
perspectives. It’s said to be a concern that some suspect a disciplinary-like organization would imply
a reliable route to academic recognition, funding and careers.
16
Jürgen Habermas on Knowledge Interests Professor Jürgen Habermas presents in his work, Knowledge and human interest, theories on the
significant factors impacting the production of knowledge, and introduces a number of objectives
that are assumed to be of importance when evaluating scientific surroundings, scientists and
products. The three fundamental aims for the workings of a scientific discipline are the technical
interest, the hermeneutic interest and the emancipatoric interest. These three are summarized and
explained by Professor Aant Elzinga as:
- The technical (instrumental) interest: with the primary goal to gain control over nature and
human behavior. It is concerned with empirical and analytical science and will mainly study
the nature or society as it is and the most common critique is on elements of positivism. The
typical science of this interest is natural sciences(including technology and medicine)
- The hermeneutic (interpretative) interest: with emphasis on the interaction and
communication between humans. The understanding is gained by reaching beyond the
apparent and that could be manifested as service disciplines for political aims. The
characteristic science of this interest is cultural sciences or humanities.
- The emancipatoric interest: with orientation to the upheaval of social structures, obstacles
and boundaries, towards a liberation of the man from suppression within or on the without
of herself. The characteristic science of these values are critical social sciences.
Elzinga is suggesting the use for this schema as a general view on the classical scientific theoretical
disciplines, which should be used with the background to Habermas assumptions on the modern
society, characterized by a significant division of global domains with internal goals and criteria, or
game rules – moral (the good), art (the beautiful), justice (the right) and science (the true)42.
The New Production of Knowledge43
This book is intended to explore the changes in knowledge production of different disciplines by
presenting a number of characteristics to define the activities and the actors. The theories of Gibbon
et al state that a transformation in the mode of knowledge production occurred at some time during
the 20th century. The manners thought of as traditional are referred to as Mode 1 and the contrasting
manners as Mode 2. Together, these two modes constitute the research society of similarities and
differences.
42
Elzinga, 2009, page 17 43
Gibbons et al, 1994, pages 1-15
17
Mode 1 is said to coincide with the idea of ideal knowledge production for many people, typically
Newtonian models like empirical and mathematical physics. This affects what are concerned as
significant problems, who a scientist is, and distinguishing scientific from non-scientific forms of
knowledge. Mode 2, on the other hand, is describing knowledge and practitioners that are not
behaving according to the norms of Mode 1.
The set of characteristics of Mode 1 include:
- Problems are set and solved in a context governed by the interests of a specific community,
basic research, or academic science.
- Traditional discipline structure
- Homogeneity
- Preserves its form in an hierarchal manner
- Quality control is determined essentially through the paper review judgments about the
contributions made by individuals. Control is maintained by the careful selection of those
judged competent to act as peers, which is in part determined by their previous
contributions to their discipline.
The set of characteristics of Mode 2 include:
- The context of application is always present in knowledge production and the results are
intended to be useful for someone or society as a whole. The interest of various actors is also
present and the production is performed under an aspect of continuous negotiation, and is
also the outcome of supply and demand, intellectual and social. The product is then diffused
throughout the society.
- Transdisciplinarity: The contributing disciplines will all add elements of their knowledge into
production and the resulting solution will be beyond that of any single contributing
discipline; and once attained, it cannot easily be reduced to disciplinary parts. Diffusion
occurs as the practitioners move to a new problem context, rather than through reporting
results in professional journals or conferences. Communication, through formal and informal
channels, is crucial.
- Heterogeneity, in terms of skills and the experience people bring to it. Compositions of teams
evolve without being planned or centrally coordinated.
18
- Flexibility and response time are crucial, leading to heterarchial and transient processing.
- Quality control is of a composite, multidimensional kind.
- Socially accountable and reflexive with a growing awareness about the variety of ways in
which advances in science and technology can affect the public interest, which will also
increase the number of groups that wish to influence the outcome of the research process.
- A wider, more temporary and heterogeneous set of practitioners, collaborating on a problem
defined in a specific and localized context. The problem is often not possible to solve without
involving expertise from different disciplines or instances in society, and the individuals will
affect both the outcome and the performance of the solution.
Methodology The study will assimilate an understanding on the STS field by letting representatives speak about it
and present their views on certain topics concerning STS. The number of representative will be
limited to five due to the restriction of time and the extent of the study.
The spokespersons of the STS facets will be chosen to:
- Reflect activities of research as well as education
- Describe, discuss and speculate on the development of STS, globally and local.
- Be connected to a university that has a formally consolidated institutionalization of STS.
- Define themselves and their work with STS
To create a representative view of STS, certain factors must be considered from many angles:
- Representatives of different types of institutionalizations of STS
- Different levels of connection to STS – native discipline
- Nationality and/or experience of other STS environments
- “Native” disciplines
To investigate the place of STS in scientific society, a set of interview questions were posed to the
representatives. The questions touched upon topics such as:
19
- The importance of STS’s history on current activities and where the development of STS
takes place (from grass roots or at higher levels?)
- The identity of STS as a field, locally and globally
- Relations to other fields and contexts and whether the increasing importance of STS in
scientific society may be described by the widened interfaces between disciplines
These five STS narratives will help compose a review about STS today. The goal is to emphasize
insights that are relevant to apply on the fields of STS as a whole.
Inquiry Form
The inquiry form was designed to cover three areas: the history of local STS-environment, identity,
and relations to society and politics and other disciplines (complete inquiry form in Appendix).
Concerning topics on local history, information was requested about foundations or establishments,
and subsequently how such descriptions differ from the present. The circumstances of the birth of
the local STS were determined by questions concerning which disciplines STS arose from, if any of
them were especially motivated, which university demands helped shape a new “discipline,” and why
and if the local STS-environment arose from grass-roots efforts or from above (a university board or
similar). An establishment on demands from society or industry was suggested, especially in regards
to the final question. These questions together chart influential factors, which defined the local STS,
its original objectives, and who set them up.
Currently, the local STS has moved away from its origins. To clarify the differences, interviewees were
asked to describe contemporary STS in terms of its abbreviation, composition of people from
different disciplines, the degree which STS is institutionalized (both with respect to benefits and
disadvantages), and whether they consider the present STS to be the same as the American and
British originals of the 1960s.
Concerning the identity of the present STS, both implicit and explicit aims are assumed to contribute
to the apprehension, both within practitioners and externals. The interviewees were asked to
provide both official motivations for the existence and objective(s) of their local environments and
also the perceived views of the STSers themselves, their personal objectives. Objectives and interests
of science practice could be compared to Habarmas’ theories, so the interviewees were asked if STS
would fit into any of the three suggested classifications.
STS is said to be a sprawling field, and it is not readily apparent who consider herself to be an STSer.
The interviewees were allowed to determine whether they and their colleagues are active primarily
20
in STS or in their respective original discipline. Since the origins and practices of STS are quite varied,
this project tries to discern common aims and practices. For example, what is it that STSers have in
common and what unites them as a collective? Such a division is an opening for questions about
whether one can truly be considered an STSer at all and if their work belongs to the field of STS.
There is of course no absolute answer, but certainly there are certain elements that STSers are
disaffiliated from.
The identity of local STS groups will also take shape in relation to its apprehension by others, which
makes it important to be able to explain/legitimate one’s existence. The importance of the local STS
is questioned at three instances: for the respective university in official and tacit terms, for the local
society, and for the STS-people themselves.
STS consists to a great measure of inheritances from other pre-existing disciplines, which of course
color its activities. The local composition of different disciplines that build up a foundation for STS
can appear in many different ways, which is why the representatives are to present a sketch of the
division of labor.
Some of the reference literature suggests that STS has a “leftish” identity, which is an interesting part
of the local identity since it can be more or less visible, or it might even be inaccurate. The question is
posed whether it is possible at all to place STS in the left-right political spectrum. Independently, the
local STS might as well be influenced by the local political context, which is partly why its
representatives tell how they look upon how it has come to affect their specific facet.
Society itself has gone through a lot of changes since the rise of STS, in regards to higher education,
governance and law, requests for new knowledge and educations, and technology. The degree to
which these changes have influenced STS is fluid, especially at the local level. This is also connected
to the idea of a mode change in knowledge production, since it argues for the existence and reason
for these types of changes in society and science, as each affects the other. The interviewees now
have an opening to reflect on which of these factors have been visible (if at all) at their university.
The issue of prestige and what legitimizes a group’s existence and practices is important for any field
and certainly STS as it plays a major role in funding and attention or publication in journals, both
institutional and public-oriented. As a fairly new field, STS should be especially keen on gaining such
assets. There is no historical background to build upon. Therefore, the present status of STS requires
effort to penetrate these areas.
One of the more significant characteristics of STS is the interdisciplinary collaborations. The request
for combined knowledge/education might have risen from the society, eventually subsequent to a
21
mode change. This topic is introduced together with a follow-up question concerning if it, if so, is
local or global needs.
The overlapping field of Innovation studies seems to have a lot in common with STS, which is
probably already known by the interviewees, so it is suggested that there exists a relation between
them. If so, it should consist of elements which they have in common and which elements distinguish
them from one another, which the inquiry form seeks to define.
Interviews
The representatives were interviewed at their respective university, if possible, and the utilized
language was either English (Arie Rip) or Swedish (the others). The interviews were conducted with
only a representative and the interviewer present, were recorded, transcribed and translated into
English, when needed. Each interview lasted between 1.5-2.5 hours and was, in some cases, followed
up with further questions by e-mail.
The representatives were provided with the questions for the initial interview beforehand, if
requested.
All of the representatives answered the same questions, but were encouraged to speak freely. The
inquiry form was principally pursued, except in cases when they were either irrelevant, since an
answer was already provided, or obsolete, due to the specific person or site. In a few cases, the order
of the questions was rearranged, when a reply touched upon another, not immediately subsequent
question. The same form was used for every (initial) interview.
Some of the interviewees also provided writings of their own for further response to the topics; in
these cases, I have also let the text speak for the respective person in addition to the information
gathered during the interviews.
Interviewees
Boel Berner (BB) is a Professor at the Department of Technology and Social Change at Linköping
University since 1991 and has a degree in sociology. Berner is currently responsible for the research
program on “Technology, practice, identity”. Her research interests concern medical technology and
practices, the characteristics and social roles of technical knowledge, gender and technology, and
factors regarding risk and uncertainty. She has ongoing projects concerning blood donation, distance
health-care, professional identities, and learning processes in technology. 44
44
Website of Linköping University, http://www.tema.liu.se/tema-t/medarbetare/berner-boel?l=en
22
Mats Bladh (MB) is a Senior lecturer at the Department of Technology and Social Change at
Linköping University and has a degree in economic history. His current publications concern topics
such as deregulation of electricity in Sweden, electricity and lightning in homes, path dependency,
issues concerning the building of accommodations, criticism of capitalism, environmental labeling in
Sweden, Large Technical Systems and housing policies.45
Arie Rip (AR) is a professor of Philosophy of Science and Technology in the School of Management
and Governance at the University of Twente with great STS experience, but a background in physical
chemistry. He is also stated as “key figure in the Center for Studies of Science, Technology and
Society, which comprises studies of new technology and users, long-term developments of
technology and consumer society, technology assessment, especially constructive technology policy
instrumentation, national systems of research and innovation and their evolution”46. He is also a
member of the editorial boards of: Social Studies of Science , Journal of Risk Research , New Genetics
and Society , Science, Technology and Society , International Journal of Foresight and Innovation
Policy , Genomics, Society and Policy , Science Studies . 47
Alexandra Waluszewski (AW) is Research Leader of Science, Technology, Business and a
professor at the Department of Economic History at Uppsala University. Her research
areas are within STS, with a focus on interaction between science, technology and
industrial development and economic science and society. She works in projects
concerning Life Science with the emergence of a biotech valley in Uppsala, the creation of
economic values in Life Science/Biotech in Uppsala and Economic Science and Society –
how the understanding of an economic world is colored by our research tools.48
Sven Widmalm (SW), is a professor in history of ideas at Uppsala University, a member of the
board of Uppsala STS and a professor at Tema T: technology and social change in Linköping. He has
worked with technological, social, political and industrial aspects of the history of science after 1700,
especially the history of astronomy, physics and biology.49
Short presentations of the three facets of STS that are represented in this study follow below:
45
Website of Linköping University, http://www.tema.liu.se/tema-t/medarbetare/bladh-mats?l=sv 46
Website of STePS, University of Twente 47
Website of University of Twente, http://www.utwente.nl/mb/steps/people/adjoined/rip/ 48
Website of Uppsala University, http://www.sts.uu.se/profileShow.php?profile=AWaluszewski 49
Website of Uppsala University, http://www.vethist.idehist.uu.se/Personal/Sven_Widmalm.html
23
Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Uppsala University
The Research Center of Science and Technology Studies at Uppsala University was first seriously
considered by Vice-chancellor Bo Sundqvist with an initiative for investigation on March 13, 2001 and
was formally given funding on June 14, 2002 after it was found to be an interesting concept with
great potential. A prerequisite was that the center was to be run by means from contributing
departments50.
Today, it is an interdisciplinary research center located at the Faculty of Social Sciences, led by
director Ylva Hasselberg, with research leaders Alexandra Waluzsewski and Sharon Rider along with a
board of seven people, which represents researchers, doctoral students and undergraduates. 22
researchers of different “native” disciplines are working with projects carried out in co-operation
with the center. Two courses are given for students, both on undergraduate and graduate level, and
the center is also responsible for elements in the education of civil engineers at the master’s program
in Sociotechnical Systems Engineering51.
The webpage of the center has a presentation of its aim:
“As the scientific and social context changes and as research policy emerges as a central
concern in national as well as trans-national politics, critical analyses of the relationship
between science, technology and society are more salient than ever. The aim of Uppsala
STS is to initiate and support such research, as well as contribute to educational programs
in the field”52
.
Uppsala is explicitly critical, which probably contributes to the fact that the center is not recognized
as a service discipline or for providing direct support to the commercial sector. It’s stated to be a
multidisciplinary research center, but by the definitions of Boel Berner, it’s more of an
interdisciplinary one because of the integration of staff and methods on an equal basis rather than
mere borrowing.
Uppsala STS has its roots in a multidisciplinary research project, though, which is further explained in
the empirical review.
Institution of Tema: Technology and Social Change, Linköping University Linköping University is unique in Sweden for its organization of transdisciplinary research, gathered
in departments with different focuses, such as Child studies, Gender Studies, Water and
50
Remittance document concerning Science and technology studies in Uppsala, 2003-10-14 51
Webpage of Uppsala STS 52
Webpage of Uppsala STS
24
Environmental Studies, and Technology and Social Change. All of these departments are housed at
the Institution of Tema (English: Theme), founded in 198053.
This framework is meant to provide a favorable environment for research between and beyond
disciplinary boundaries, and to be of vital social and environmental importance to the named fields
of knowledge. Research excellences should thereby meld together with educational pursuits. In
addition to two engaged administrators, there are 22 researchers and teachers, and 32 PhD students,
who hail from different “native” disciplines, such as the humanities, social sciences and technology.
Tema T also offers an international Master’s program and several undergraduate courses54.
In Boel Berner’s definition, this is an example of true transdisciplinarity, since it has left the standard
division of disciplines and is now an institution of its own, intended to form solutions to problems
that require more than an ordinary, single-disciplinary approach. However, it is neither claiming to be
a new discipline nor rejecting the traditional ones.
Department of Science, Technology and Policy Studies, University of Twente According to its webpage,55 the Department of Science, Technology and Policy Studies is an
“interdisciplinary group that combines input from a number of social sciences, history and other
humanities”. The current staff represents a wide range of origins: sociology, history, political science,
policy studies, science and technology studies, and it is said to have expertise in substantial areas of
science, technology and innovation.
The scientific staff consists of 15 people in addition to 9 research associates/adjoined staff, 3
administrators, and 12 PhD students and postdocs.
The research program is said to focus on the dynamics and governance of Science, Technology and
Innovation, and the study of the nature and actual dynamics of the processes of STI is considered “a
goal in itself and also an important prerequisite to investigate the governance of STI”56. There is also
a statement that the view that STI should be considered as social processes underlies the design of
their research program. The program aims to “cover the whole spectrum of the ‘life trajectory’ of
techno-scientific developments, ranging from historical to forecast and policy studies”.
53
Webpage of Tema T 54
Webpage of Tema T 55
Webpage of the Department for Science, Technology and Policy Studies, University of Twente 56
Webpage of the Department for Science, Technology and Policy Studies, University of Twente
25
Before STS had its own institution, it was a part of Philosophy. By certain initiatives from department
staff, people devoted for empirical studies in science and technology in society were requested. The
STS unit grew and became as big as the general philosophy unit and it became independent, keeping
the title of STS and moved into the faculty of management and governance. Along with the original
STS were the adjacent fields of history of science and technology and policy studies57.
So, the name of Science, Technology and Policy Studies houses somewhat differing activities but
adjacent enough to be able to collaborate and gather around joint interest and topics.
57
Interview with Arie Rip
26
Empirical Review The three different environments of STS-activities that the representatives are representing have, of
course, their own history and present cast. Even though we all could speak of STS as what the
respective researcher and university is practicing, the abbreviation or local label on it is differing
between the sites. In Uppsala, SW suggests Science and Technology Studies and AW underscores that
it’s not the abbreviation that explains the activities but rather the actual intellectual contents,
whatever they might be named. The naming is a label on a set of people and activities, which is
chosen as something that is appropriate for gaining acceptance at the moment, but is not what
determines the outcome. In Linköping, STS-people are working under the flag of the Department of
Thematic Studies – Technology and Social Change and internally speak of STS as Science and
Technology Studies, according to BB and MB. In Twente, the department has taken the name of
Science, Technology and Policy Studies (STePS), after the merging of the departments of Philosophy
of Science and Technology and Policy Studies.
History: How did we get here? The history and local composition of STS is shaping the view that people have on their different
environments and upon their roles (to some extent) as STS-people. Also, the shaping of activities is
highly framed at the individual level, which happens to be in the place of development and what
one’s personal interests are. The STS of Uppsala has, since the beginning, had an inclination toward
economic history and business studies, which is not in accordance with the international norm, but
has, according to AW, been luckily blessed with researchers from a range of disciplines covering the
area from science studies to knowledge using practices in firms58. Both AW and SW also imply the
importance of individuals, which is assumed to have a great impact on the local activities, depending
on who happens to be engaged in that specific site. STS-people of Uppsala are an elusive group, since
a lot of the practitioners might use STS as a framework for research on their relevant areas, rather
than using the research center itself59. The origin of the interest among a certain group of
researchers was of a research program on science, technological development and industrial
renewal, which also acted as a source of inspiration60. People at Uppsala STS still don’t primarily
define themselves as STSers to the extent of using the label on their respective “native” disciplines,
which is suggested to be due to the boundary-crossing nature of the STS-activities. No one can claim
they only work in their native discipline; the common view keeping the group together in the
58
Interview with Alexandra Waluszewski 59
Interview with Sven Widmalm 60
Interview with Alexandra Waluszewski
27
figurative sense, is the one of a critical attitude towards the relation between science, technology
and social or industrial development, a system approach on technology and knowledge61.
At Tema T in Linköping, there are a range of people with a different devotion to STS, according to BB.
Due to the (comparatively) long history and consolidation of the Institution of Tema, is has an
identity of its own that probably is more commonly adopted than the one of STS62. MB describes the
addition of STS as a later-introduced concept by individuals who found it at external conferences and
in writings. Each person shares both the role of Tema T (technology and social change) and the native
discipline (and eventually STS), which MB believes to depend on the individual and her personal
background, which are merged at Tema T because of the collaboration with other disciplines, and
provides the researcher with a new identity, the one of Tema T, which might be hard to reverse once
taken on63. BB suggests that the label of STS was easier to use for universities without any precedent
activities of that kind, providing a new identity, some prestige and a link to an international
movement, which provided an accepted field with possibilities of career, international acceptance,
and solid theoretical substance. BB also interjects that introducing oneself as STSer has no valid
meaning, since it’s only a minority that will associate anything with the abbreviation64.
The University of Twente was earlier going under the device of being a “two core university” with
technical sciences and social sciences, implying a need for people or groups that could bridge the
gap, which what was later what STS came to fulfill. AR explains that historically, 80% of the people in
STS in the 1970s came from science and engineering, the rest from philosophy, and circumscribes the
heart of STS as “pragmatic constructivism”. He tells of an aggregation process that is something of a
mutual process, mostly not pre-determined. From the 1980s onward, the combinations of people
involved in STS became more varied, so the percentage of 80% decreased as there was quite a lot of
entrants from social sciences, like sociology, critical science and anthropology doing STS recognizably
because of the freedom to choose one’s own directions. But yet, many of the entrants into STS never
had to leave their original disciplines, because this pragmatic constructivism approach was also
becoming more popular there65.
The importance of individuals is again pointed out by AR, in two particular ways. First, when you have
people interested in STS and they can do it in different places where there is no STS in the description
61
Interview with Alexandra Waluszewski 62
Interview with Boel Berner 63
Interview with Mats Bladh 64
Interview with Boel Berner 65
Interview with Arie Rip
28
or a title, one can identify these people and create collaborations with the lack of institutional space;
the importance of people is because the presence of the informal network, which comes in use when
new opportunities arise, demands the advantages of the network of interested people, which is not
always a visible resource. In another way, when there is a chair or a name on a department, the
direction may change when the people change66.
While at the recently gained room at the university, the empirical review suggests that STS has to
conform and submit to the same requirements as any other field by teaching, doing research and
publishing in the right journals. AR tells about big debates concerning this issue in the Netherlands in
the 1980s in the world of STS movement about whether to accommodate these demands. MB points
out the bibliometrical issue, the pressure to write articles, which is a challenged issue, but is not yet
an actuality.67
According to the responses, Being a STSer today seems to be concerning some central activities, such
as reading specific literature, visiting STS conferences, having the knowledge of the most popular
STS-methodology and concepts such as ANT and SCOT. What STSers have in common is depicted as
something mobile, somewhat sprawling but yet moving in one direction, as a flock, according to the
change of context and research initiatives. What is solid is the kernel of the critical review and the
interest for the use of technology and science and of not being technological-deterministic.
AR speaks of it thusly:
“What is common for STS people is that they will relate to science and technology in society
and there is a sort of implicit enlightenment idea. This notion of science and technology is very
important in modern and late relate problem in societies and that’s why you want to look at
science in technology and society. You could argue that property and perhaps social welfare is
much more important topics, concerned about society, but STS people don’t go there, they go
to science and technology in society. So there is a sort of conviction, which is not left or right,
it’s across the border and the idea that science and technology are important. It’s a bit like
Bernal but more sophisticated.”68
Altogether according to the gathered replies, STS seems to be a vaguely institutionalized field, with
different locations handling the formalization in different ways, typically as research centers,
networks, interdisciplinary units, or educational programs. The drawbacks are about succession, how
66
Interview with Arie Rip 67
Interview with Arie Rip 68
Interview with Arie Rip
29
to make additions to present knowledge, advancement in research, vulnerability for quick changes,
its loose affiliations, recruitment and keeping the knowledge alive.
However, the benefits are flexibility and the possibility to change direction depending on news in
research, education or interest.
Identity: Who are we today?
The local sites have both official and visionary aims with their practice of STS. In some cases, this is
something that has grown together with the field; in other cases, it is something that was stated
from the very beginning. SW has describes the aim of Uppsala STS:
“ To be a forum and a platform for people involved in research on science and
technology studies, in a wider sense in society and humanities featured by the interest
for science and technology. And to be a critical instance reflecting and analyzing the
role and function of science and technology in society and culture, without any
directing from financial instances or politicians. The professional, scholarly identity of
STS has become stronger, adjoined by the interest for analyzing technology, science
and society. That’s how interdisciplinary areas arise, when people originating from
different disciplines share the same interests.”69
In addition to the above, AW accentuates the personal aim of the individuals involved “to work with
the topics that engages us”70, which formulates something that is to be read between the lines in all
five of the interviews.
Tema T in Linköping, has, according to BB, the aim to study technology both from a present and
historical perspective and try to sort out how it’s interweaved with social, cultural and financial
aspects in society71. This aim is somewhat similar to the aim of Twente, as formulated by AR on the
topic of the importance of STS in society to be a critical view on establishment practices. AR also
accentuates that modern societies need STS as a scholarly discipline or as a quality control, but also
because it actually trains people in the service of teaching scientists and engineers to competently
look at their fields when graduate students72.
The objective for STS’s role in society is also suggested by AR to be one of new ideals:
69
Interview with Sven Widmalm 70
Interview with Alexandra Waluszewski 71
Interview with Boel Berner 72
Interview with Arie Rip
30
The message of STS, on one hand it is pragmatic constructivism, on the other hand it is
this it’s almost like a legacy from the 1970s, this sort of critical view on establishment
practices, saying that what happens is different from the official boards. It’s not just
STS that says this, it has become a very ideological approach, in new Marxism because
there they talk about the bourgeoisie and capitalism, creating a whole level of
discourse. The STS you could say is sort of a soft version of that.
In the 1970s, there was an interesting overlap between STS and neomarxism, in a
similar societal critique but also a difference. So, in the Netherlands for example we
had the whole range in the national community, and they did have different
strategies. In the UK, it was even more interesting because they in around 1970s it was
sort of a big melting pot, the same as we had, then became difference in not just
strategies but also in intellectual analysis, that the STS side was very much into the
constructivism. In constructivism you start to reflect about your own situation and not
consider it obvious, so it became reflexive. And the Marxism part of the same
movement, said this is very risky for if you start to be too reflexive then you have no
starting point for action to change the world to the better. So a gap emerged between
the reflexivists and the activists for change. There were some discussions in journals of
the hyperreflexism of STS, that was the Marxists and similar people would say. On the
other hand there was still a lot of interaction, one of the key persons in the
neomarxism part was asked to be the first president of the Science and technology in
society association in Britain. So it was not a complete separation. I think it’s still
visible. Reflexivism is soft criticism compared to hard criticism in the Marxism. They
move in and out of the STS, the Marxists, not really part of it. 73
The framework of Jürgen Habermas is suggesting a categorization of science in three categories by
their objectives: as supportive science, as a critical science, or to study the nature of society as it is.
This classification is applicable and relevant when discussing STS because STS is a moving field, even
though the representatives of STS in this study imply a common kernel. The three suggested
objectives might give a hint on where this kernel lies, and what the direction of the movement is.
BB: “Probably there are elements of all three of them, and it’s also an individual
answer to that: one can do things that is interesting and usable to the society, but still
73
Interview with Arie Rip
31
with a critical element, eventually by questioning norms. Some are more application-
aimed. One has to have a critical review, but it can also be usable.”74
AR: “Again, I think it’s good to make a distinction between the core identity or
sometimes self-assumed identity, and the whole range of STS activities. So, for the
core, the sort of knowledge interest that Habermas talks about, is quite clear and is
related to the soft criticism, that implies that you are not going to help society as it is,
if you do that people are going to, who do contract for government agencies they’re
considered to be somewhat suspect. So you can see that core STS is trying to keep
away from servicing the society as it is. On the other hand, it doesn’t turn that around
in saying okay we have to act to make it better, in the mind of the establishment. And
so the critical interest is there but it’s limited to reflexivity, that’s why I call it soft
criticism. I don’t know if the Habermas typology has a place for that.”75
The multiple but co-existing objectives of STS might be means for facilitating the introduction of it in
new contexts. New disciplines have a need for legitimating themselves and shaping an identity for
the followers to fall back on, which can unite them towards the jungle of upcoming new fields, all
crying for attention in the research world. How can STS’s existence at its respective university be
defended? All five of the people interviewed had a view on this:
Uppsala:
SW: “It’s an important research area that many people have reasons to be aware of,
and which is including a lot of interesting issues that is deliberated. There is a lively
discussion concerning these issues internationally and a big university as Uppsala with
research and education in most of the humanistic and social, natural, medical and
technological areas should not stand outside such an important research direction. It’s
important for the society since technology and science are important for the society,
then it’s important to have an instance that is studying these phenomena critically. “76
AW: “These topics are concerning so many subjects. The issues, what is research, what
is science, which is the role of science in the society, in business, what is the role on
business for research and so in, they range over disciplinary boundaries, you might
have to consult someone with the competence of science philosophy, sociology,
history of ideas, international economy, economic history, it’s necessary. STS is a door-
74
Interview with Boel Berner 75
Interview with Arie Rip 76
Interview with Sven Widmalm
32
opener to the knowledge of other disciplines, and it gives access to different sources.
We shouldn’t care about the societies aim with STS, the important is that we believe
these issues are relevant as research, not assuring direct profit for the society. It’s of
benefit to the society since we are educating people, but we can’t tell how they will
use the knowledge. For researchers themselves, it’s important to gain this perspective
on the own research and access to the knowledge of others. “77
Twente:
AR: “There is this argument about science and technology being important in modern
societies. And so you better know what they are and what they do, rather than going
on with the stereotypical views that might not be applicable. And particularly when
things are changing, then stereotypes are not sufficient anymore, people themselves
will feel that. And then there are this explicit mean for something like STS which has
this sort of natural view on science and is not accepting the stereotypes, asking what’s
actually happening. I think that’s indeed important and that goes with the pragmatic
constructivism. I think there are reasons to have STS and I will always defend it. I say
that modern societies need STS as a scholarly discipline or as quality control and also
because it actually trains people in the service teaching scientist and engineers in the
dedicated teaching to graduate students into competence to actually look at science
and technology.”78
Linköping:
BB: “There are of course a lot of predefined ideas about the role of technology in
society, and if we can nuance that and illustrate how technology is used and what is
affecting the shaping of technology, then it is a democratic issue concerning how has
the possibility to affect technology, where lies the power.” 79
MB : “It’s a societal interesting and growing tendency, internationally.”80
During the Science Wars, some disciplines were together seen as the “academic left”. A closer look
on the idea of left and right in the world of science explains some of the traits of STS, which leads on
77
Interview with Alexandra Waluszewski 78
Interview with Arie Rip 79
Interview with Boel Berner 80
Interview with Mats Bladh
33
to the question if it would be possible to place STS in the left–right political spectrum. Judging from
the collected responses, it seems possible to affirm the left-orientation of STS through arguments
that STS is critical against deregulations, has opinions on environmental issues, questions
technological-determinism, and since the field originated as left-leaning in the late 1960s with
student revolts, societal criticism and such. It is underlined though, that the theories of STS might be
driving the scientist to the left, but the scientist may choose differently; it’s not as clear since there
are variants of STS too. BB exemplifies it as follows: “if you are working with helping firms to create
innovations or the state to steer innovation politics, you are probably more in the middle of the
spectra than to the right, even though individuals might be oriented to the left”81. In summation, this
reasoning is resuming to the critical aims of STS, in regard to such as the claim of knowledge by
experts and where we are heading in the technological development, which is hard to combine with
any political interest.
Relations, Society, Politics: Us among Others in a Local and Global Context Most of the people interviewed agreed on political ideologies having similarities with some of the
core issues of STS. What STS has to do with the political scene in society also concerns STS in the
wider extent: broader society and politics.
According to SW, the connection of technology, science and politics is visible as issues of knowledge
are very political, since one is trying to understand how political activities affect scientific
development and the other way round. An example given is that STS has been used by politicians in
Norway: the minister of education pointed out that since STS research has shown that there’s no
difference between science and technology, there’s no reason to make any difference in the politics
of science.82
STS has some specific interests of political practice, according to MB, as one of the points of STS is to
seek out the political in what seems to be neutral, but is in fact not: for example, technology which is
sometimes thought of as something neutral and based on objective science. STS typically breaks
down such views83.
It’s said that society has gone through a lot of changes since the beginning of STS. The influence
these changes had on STS also answers the query about the eventual prestige or status of STS. It is
suggested that there probably is prestige in STS internally as 4S awards prizes every year, for
81
Interview with Boel Berner 82
Interview with Sven Widmalm 83
Interview with Mats Bladh
34
example. From the outside, STS is recognized as a field that has done some very interesting things
but is assumed to lack merit as it has not yet become well known84.
According to the theories on the mode change in knowledge production, the change implied
elements of transdisciplinarity to resolve new types of problems demanding the collaboration of
different competences. AR sketches a picture of longer term developments.
“You would have education and developments as well because education used to be education
for qualifications and now there is this whole motion of lifelong learning education for
competence, so there are changes there. On the other side knowledge/research knowledge in
its forms is being around and remains important and then you got a movement from say the
mid 19th century that depicted knowledge production in controlled circumstances so education
in universities in particularly, education is in training in how to do research rather than for
acquire competence or surviving in society. And that was opened up part in the science and
society movements, criticizing this kind of education, just doing research because there was so
much else. That was sort of criticism against the received view. In 1990s and 2000s, the whole
importance of Innovation Studies is being nuanced. So that’s a shift again in how we look at
knowledge production, much to do with education, I think. It has a bit to do with the status of
university education. If the status of that becomes less than the status of universities become
less. “85
STS seem to have a lot in common with innovation studies, since it’s another quite new field of study
and it also contains elements of combined competences and untraditional problem-solving on
society’s use of technology. The relation between them is described as substantial, however. SW
suggests the difference to be that Innovation Studies hasn’t been interested in analyzing issues of
knowledge, but focuses instead on economics86. The boundary is economics, STS can be more critical
whereas the traditional Innovation Studies acts more as a service for politicians.
AR develops this idea further:
“ The field of Innovation Studies itself is quite heterogeneous. All the studies that you do are
oriented to be more successful in innovation, rather than understanding the processes of
innovation. Then there’s a difference between the people who go for case studies, and the
people who go for statistic analysis of correlations. Since STS has strong focus on case studies,
there’s little overlap between the survey statistical analysis stuff in Innovation Studies overlap,
84
Interview with Arie Rip 85
Interview with Arie Rip 86
Interview with Sven Widmalm
35
but the case studies has a lot of overlap obviously and some of the things that are published in
STS journals could go to some Innovation Studies journals, not all. There is also this
evolutionary approach in economics but also in Innovation Studies. Their interest is not in
joining with STS because then they would be softer and not be as accepted in journals of
economics. Both are quite complex depending on where you stand in these two fields. ”87
The area of STS is said to be moving, and somewhat sprawling, but are there any boundaries for what
STS can be? The responses refer to the already enounced conditions concerning what STS is not and
what STS-people won’t do.
AR: I think there’s a very strong of divide between scholars but also people in general, there is
some sort of foundation on which we can build, that foundation is shaped and we know what
to do now. While STS has this strong conviction of no foundation, there only being ongoing
processes on which things are constructed, of temporary stability.88
87
Interview with Arie Rip 88
Interview with Arie Rip
36
Conclusions The empirical interview material has given a highly individual yet coherent review on the field of STS:
what it is today, why it came to be, and what its objectives were and are. Five people from different
backgrounds and native disciplines have been able to contribute their views on these topics, and
together they have sketched an image of an advancing field. What they all have in common is their
experience of working, defending, explaining, legitimating and educating STS.
To make this study thorough, one would need to conduct interviews with many more STSers, if not
every single one. The range of ideas of only these five representatives are so versatile that they are
themselves fulfilling the objective of creating only a partial map, though quite representative for the
world of STS as one of its characteristics is the many feasible, personal interpretations possible.
About History
The history of the global STS is one consisting of the many small conquests of STS in local
communities. The development is emerging as more and more people adopt the concepts of STS,
leading to even further development when the rapid growth increases the awareness and interest in
it. According to the five spokespersons, some patterns seem to characterize the development
process, such as:
- Environments for STS seem to originate very much in the personal interest of specific
researchers at the grassroots level rather than any request from society or businesses.
- Mostly, they are not organized as formal institutions but more as loose groups, such as
research centers or networks. It is suggested that this fact is due the nature of STS itself. STS
doesn’t want to be institutionalized. It wants to roam free among the disciplines and
establish anchoring wherever it finds something interesting to study, without the demands of
cementation.
- The issue of legitimizing oneself is sometimes problematic because STS is still quite unknown
both in the research world and especially in broader society, which might be suppressing its
development.
About Identity
Identity could be concerned with either the identity one takes on as a STSer but also with the
collective identity of the field from an outside-perspective.
37
- The reason for engaging in STS is that one believes that there is more to discover in the
natural and technological sciences that can be important to society’s benefit.
- STS is not interested in what other people think about it, and doesn’t want to be told by
anyone what to do.
- STS was born in times of revolution, a heritage that is still visible since STS very much likes to
turn things around.
About Relations
No man or scientific field is an island and therefore, STS is affected by and affects its context. The
representatives interviewed are located at three different universities in two countries, but each has
also spoken for related sites in other states.
- STS is related to politics, but isn’t interested in following its lead.
- STS is related to other fields, different in regards to locations and individuals. STS likes to
assimilate from many areas, but is hostile to what it considers inaccurate.
- STS changes as society changes as STS is studying society.
Taking a step backwards and trying to grasp the overall picture of STS is not easy, which is quite
ironically since one of the key values of STS is precisely about exploring the complete scene. This
study was aimed to map a part of it, hopefully it’s representative for the whole continent of STS.
Times change, society changes, values change and today, in the beginning of the 21st century, STS
works efficiently with mapping out the behavior of science and technology, wherever it may occur.
STS seems very well suited for acting in the modern society of science, especially according to the set
up characteristics of modern disciplines by Gibbons et al. When comparing Mode 1 and 2 with STS,
STS seems to fit perfectly with the latter, due to its interdisciplinarity, heterogeneity, flexibility, and
applicability to actual practices.
STS is perhaps the golden child of Mode 2… or is Mode 2 a child of new fields such as STS? The
framework of the Mode changes might be applicable to varying degrees, but it’s clear that something
has happened since the beginning of the 20th century. The former paradigm is still recognized in
some areas of the world of sciences, but when approaching STS, it’s substantial that it is valued by
new appraisals. Even though concerned with societal issues and the transdisciplinary work, STS is still
one of the facets of Mode 1. STS is yet practiced in academia, publishes in scientific journals and
38
submits to peer review. Even though the objects of study are of both academic and societal origin,
the practice of STS itself is of the traditional kind.
Many are the phenomena that undergo a development of an increasing specialization, which most
often take an end in a revolution, which subsequently gives birth to new phenomena that get more
and more specialized, and so on. This thesis does not pursue any discussion concerning the future
prospects of STS; such is entrusted to future research.
In summation, STS today is about the three features: be a critical instance regarding the practice of
science and technology; the local constitution is highly depending on its respective people and
projects since a lot of different research can fit into STS; its own practices are of multidisciplinary
kinds, since the questions STS is concerned with demands review of many different stances.
39
Reference List
Interviews Boel Berner, May 11, 2011, Linköping
Mats Bladh, May 11,2011, Linköping
Arie Rip, May 6, 2011, Video conference
Alexandra Waluszewski, March 30, 2011, Uppsala
Sven Widmalm, March 30, 2011, Uppsala
Internet Sources - Website of Uppsala University, http://www.sts.uu.se/about.php, 2011-05-16
o Alexandra Waluszewski: http://www.sts.uu.se/profileShow.php?profile=AWaluszewski
o Sven Widmalm: http://www.vethist.idehist.uu.se/Personal/Sven_Widmalm.html
- Website of University of Twente, http://www.utwente.nl/mb/steps/, 2011-05-16
o Arie Rip: http://www.utwente.nl/mb/steps/people/adjoined/rip/
- Website of Tema T, Linköping University, http://www.tema.liu.se/tema-t/presentation?l=sv,
2011-05-16
o Boel Berner: http://www.tema.liu.se/tema-t/medarbetare/berner-boel?l=en
o Mats Bladh: http://www.tema.liu.se/tema-t/medarbetare/bladh-mats?l=sv
Literature Bijker, E Wiebe, Thomas P Hughes, Trevor Pinch (eds), “The Social construction of
Technological Systems”, 1987 Massachusetts institution of Technology
Berner, Boel ”Vad är tvärvetenskap och hur kan den göras?”, 2011, LIUtryck
Cutcliffe, Steven H, “National association for Science and technology studies”, published in
Science/technology/society as reform in science education, edited by Robert Eugene Yager,
published in 1996, State University of New York Press, Albany
Elzinga Aant ”Vad är vetenskap?”, 2009, Published by Högskolan i Borås
Eklund, Magnus, “Adaption of the Innovation System Concept in Sweden”, 2007, Acta
Universiatis Upsaliensis, Uppsala Studies in Economic History 81.
Fagerberg, Jan Ernst and Verspagen, Bart, (2009), “Innovation Studies – the emerging
structure of a new scientific field”, No 20090104, Working Papers on Innovation Studies,
Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
40
Gibbons, Michel, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, Martin
Trow, “The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in
contemporary societies”, 2009, first published 1994. SAGE Publications LTD, London
Habermas, Jürgen “Knowledge and human interests”, 1968, English translation by Jeremy J
Shapiro, published 1971 by Beacon Press,Boston
Hacket, Edward J, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch and Judy Wajcman(eds) “The
handbook of science and technology studies”, 3rd edition, Introduction chapter, 2008,
Massaschusetts Institute of Technology
Jasanoff, Sheila. "A Field of Its Own: The Emergence of Science and Technology
Studies." Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Ed. Robert Frodeman, Julie Thompson
Klein, and Carl Mitcham. Oxford University Press, 2010, 191-205.
Rip, Arie, “Strategic Research, Post-Modern Universities and Research Training, Higher
Education Policy”, Nr 17 (2004) 153-166.Arie Rip
Segerstråle, Ullica, “Science and Science studies – Enemies or allies?”, published in Beyond
the science wars, Ullica Segerstråle(ed) 2000, State University of New York Press, Albany
Sismondo, Sergio, “An introduction to science and technology studies”, 2nd edition,
2010,Blackwell publishing Ltd
41
Appendix: Inquiry Form
About the history of the local STS
At [University] what does STS stand for? (Abbreviation?)
How is the local composition of people from different disciplines? (Eventually, are people
STS only?)
From which disciplines did the local STS arise? Was any of them especially driving? (Why?)
Has the local STS-“institution” arisen from grass-roots or from above (university board or
similar)?
Or on demand from society? From industry?
What were the university’s demands on the shaping of a new discipline?
Is the STS similar to the primitive STS? (in US and UK , 1960’s)
Is STS at [University] a formal institution? Why/Why not?
Pro’s/con’s?
Identity
What is the objective of the local STS at [University]? Official/unofficial?
Disciplines can sometimes be categorized by their objective, e g as support for politics/critical
science/to study the society as it is, for the society’s sake…
Are the people active in STS first active in STS or in their respective original discipline? What
do they have in common? (Can you be either STS or not?)
Can anyone call herself an STS-person?
Why is the local STS important:
- For [University]? (Is there any official statement?)
- For the society?
- For the STS-people themselves?
How does the relation between the different disciplines included in the local STS look like? Is
the division of labor equal?
Would it be possible to place STS in the left–right political spectrum?
Relations, society, politics
Has STS whatsoever anything to do with politics? Local politics?
The society has went through a lot of changes since the beginning of STS, concerning within
higher education, changes in governance, law, requests for new knowledges and educations,
and new technology. How have these changes influenced STS?
Is there any prestige in STS? Is prestige (high status) of importance in research?
How is the request for combined knowledge/education from the society? Is it local or global
needs?
STS seem to have a lot in common with innovation studies, what’s the relation between
them? What do they have in common? What don’t they share?
What is not STS? (What is it that STS-people won’t do?)
