Abstract
Moments of commemoration such as anniversaries or the beginning of a new century/millennium are often used as occasions to do both, look back and analyse past expectations in the light of present experiences as well as speculate about future challenges to be taken up. The heterogeneous ensemble of investigations which identify themselves or are identified as part of the research field ‘science and technology studies (STS)’,2 can surely look back upon a lively development throughout the last 30 years, having opened up areas of debate and introduced profound reflection on the mutual shaping processes between (techno)science and society. To varying degrees — largely depending on national contingencies and traditions, but also on the investment of individuals and networks — STS has managed to get institutionally established as a research and teaching domain and gained some visibility. Curricula allow for reproduction; regular international conferences3 highlight the issues at stake; publication networks bear witness to the large variety of academic production;4 academic societies try to give visibility and coherence to the rather spread out community; and finally the expertise available in the field is partly integrated on the policy level. So, everything’s at best?
I would like to thank Brian Wynne for his most valuable comments on the draft version of the paper.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ashworth, John (ed.) (1997), Science, Policy and Risk, London: The Royal Society.
Beck, Ulrich (1986), Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne, Frankfurt a.M: Suhrkamp.
Bucchi, Massimiano (1998), Science and the Media. Alternative routes in scientific communication. London: Routledg, 1998.
Goître, Michel and Terry Shinn (1986), ‘Enclavement et diffusion du savoir’, Information sur les Sciences Sociales 25(1): 161–87.
Collins, Harry M. (1987), ‘Certainty and the public understanding of science: Science on television’, Social Studies of Science 17(4): 689–713.
Collins, Harry M. and Trevor Pinch (1993), The Golem — What Everybody Should Know About Science, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dierkes, Meinolf and Claudia von Grothe (2000), Between Understanding and Trust — The Public, Science and Technology, Sidney, Australia: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Durant, John R., Geoffrey A. Evans and Geoffrey P. Thomas (1989), ‘The public understanding of science’, Nature 340 (6 July 1989): 11–14.
Durant, John R., Geoffrey A. Evans and Geoffrey P. Thomas (1992), ‘Public understanding of science in Britain: The role of medicine in the popular representation of science’, Public Understanding of Science 1(2): 161–82.
Felt, Ulrike (1997), Wissenschaft auf der Bühne der Öffentlichkeit. Die alltägliche Popularisierung der Wissenschaften in Wien, 1900-1938, Habilitationsschrift, University of Vienna.
Felt, Ulrike (1999), Optimizing Public Understanding of Science, Network in the 5th Framework Programme/Raising Public Awareness of Science and Technology (2000-2003), Manuscript (see http://www.univie.ac.at/wissenschaftstheorie/OPUS).
Felt, Ulrike (2000), ‘Why should the public “understand” science? Some aspects of public understanding of science from a historical perspective’, in M Dierkes und C. von Grote (eds.), Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology. Berkshire: Harwood Academic Publishers, pp. 7–38.
Felt, Ulrike (2001), Evaluierung der Science Week @ Austria 2001: Analyse eines Experimentes der Wissenschaftskommunikation im österreichischen Kontext, Research documantation prepared in collaboration with Annina Müller und Sophie Schober (62 pages).
Fleck, Ludwik (1980 [1935]), Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Fuller, Steve (1997), Science, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Gieryn, Thomas F. (1995), ‘Boundaries of science’, in S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen and T. Pinch (eds.), Handbook of Science and Techology Studies, Thousand Oaks, CA, London and New Delhi: SAGE Publications, pp. 393–443.
Gieryn Thomas (1999), Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Giddens, Anthony (1991), Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Hargreave, Ian and Galit Ferguson (2001), Who’s Misunderstanding Whom?, London: ESRC.
Heidenreich, Martin (2002), Merkmale der Wissensgesellschaft, Manuscript, http://www.uni-bamberg.de/sowi/europastudies/dokumente/blk.pdf.
Hilgartner, Stephen (1990), ‘The dominant view of popularisation: Conceptual problems, political issues’, Social Studies of Science 20: 519–39.
Hilgartner, Stephen (2000), Science on Stage — Expert Advice as Public Drama, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
INRA & Report International (1993), Europeans, Science and Technology — Public Understanding and Attitudes, Brussels: Commission of European Communities.
Irwin, Alan and Brian Wynne (eds.) (1996), Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Jacobi, Daniel and Bernard Schiele (eds.) (1988), Vulgariser la science — Le procès de l’ignorance, Seyssel, France: Champs Vallon.
Jasanoff, Sheila, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen and Trevor Pinch (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Thousand Oaks, CA, London and New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Jurdant, Baudouin (1993), ‘Popularisation of science as the autobiography of science’, Public Understanding of Science 2: 365–73.
Latour, Bruno and Steve Woolgar (1979/1986), Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lewenstein, Bruce (1995), ‘Science and the media’, in S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen and T. Pinch (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Thousand Oaks, CA, London and New Delhi: SAGE Publications, pp. 343–60.
Michael, Mike (1992), ‘Lay discourse of science: Science-in general, science-in-particular, and the self’, Science Technoloogy and Human Values 17(3): 313–33.
Miller, John D. (1983), The American People and Science Policy: The Role of Public Attitudes in the Policy Process, New York: Pergamon Press.
National Science Board (1989), Science and Engineering Indicators: 1991, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Nelkin, Dorothy (ed.) (1979). Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Nowotny, Helga, Michael Gibbons and Peter Scott (2001), Re-Thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
OECD (1997), Promoting Public Understanding of Science and Technology, Paris: OECD.
Paine, Robert (1992), ‘Chernobyl reaches Norway: The accident, science, and the threat to cultural knowledge’, Public Understanding of Science 1: 261–80.
Royal Society (1985), The Public Understanding of Science, Report of the adhoc group, London: Royal Society.
Science and Society (2000), Science and Society: Report by the Select Committee appointed to consider Science and Technology, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ldl99900/ldsctech/38/3801.htm.
Shinn, Terry and Richard Whitley (1985), Expository Science: Forms and Functions of Popularization, Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidl.
Star, Susan L. and James R. Griesemer (1989), ‘Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–1939’, Social Studies of Science 19:387–420.
Stifterverband (1999), Memorandum zum Dialog Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft, http://www.stifterverband.org.
Weingart, Peter (2001), Die Stunde der Wahrheit? Zum Verhältnis der Wissenschaft zu Politik, Wirtschaft und Medien in der Wissensgesellschaft, Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft.
Whitley, Richard (1985), ‘Knowledge Producers and Knowledge acquirers’, in T. Shinn Terry and R. Whitley (eds.), Expository Science: Forms and Functions of Popularization, Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidl, pp. 3–28.
White Paper dti (2001), Excellence and Opporunity — A Science and Innovation Policy for the 21st Century, Department of Trade and Industry, UK, http://www.dti.gov.uk/ost/aboutost/dtiwhite/.
White Paper on Governance (2001), Democratising Expertise And Establishing Scientific Reference Systems, Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/governance/areas/group2/report_en.pdf
Wynne, Brian (1980), ‘Technology, risk, and participation: The social treatment of uncertainty’, in J. Conrad (ed.), Society, Technology and Risk, London: Academic Press, pp. 83–107.
Wynne, Brian (1982), Rationality and Ritual: The Windscale Inquiry and Nuclear Decisions in Britain, Chal-font St. Giles, UK: British Society for the History of Science.
Wynne, Brian (1992), ‘Misunderstood misunderstandings: Social Identities and the public uptake of science’, Public Understanding of Science 1: 281–304.
Wynne, Brian (1995), ‘Public understanding of science’, in S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen and T. Pinch (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Thousand Oaks, CAm London and New Delhi: SAGE Publications, pp. 361–91.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Felt, U. (2003). Sciences, Science Studies and Their Publics: Speculating on Future Relations. In: Joerges, B., Nowotny, H. (eds) Social Studies of Science and Technology: Looking Back, Ahead. Sociology of the Sciences, vol 23. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0185-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0185-4_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1482-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-0185-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive