This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
The identification of these three forms of capital is based on Bourdieu’s empirical research, which predominantly focused on French society between the 1960s and 1990s. The dominant forms of capital in other societies may be different.
Adapted and translated by the authors.
Bourdieu's theoretical tools are especially well-suited to grasp the social mechanisms underlying the current power shift between the fields of science and economics and to analyze how certain performative discourses, both from inside and outside academia, function as a device legitimizing this shift.
In contrast with Merton's thesis (1973), according to whom scientists' behaviour is determined by their compliance to field specific norms, Bourdieu argues that scientists' actions are determined by their scientific habitus. Scientists create rational arguments and disseminate their work, not because it is the norm to do so, but because it is the legitimate "weapon" to use in the autonomous field of science for defeating an adversary. In other words, scientists pursue their self-interest (the acquisition of power) but they do so according to the specific logic of practice of the field of science, which makes them engage in the struggle “armed” with rational arguments. See Kim (2009) for an insightful discussion of Bourdieu's concepts of “logic of practice” and “scientific habitus” and their differences from Merton's moral norms.
References
Albert, Mathieu, Suzanne Laberge, and Brian D. Hodges. 2009. Boundary work in the health research field: Biomedical and clinician scientists’ perceptions of social science research. Minerva 47(2): 171–194.
Albert, Mathieu, Suzanne Laberge, Brian D. Hodges, Glenn Regehr, and Lorelei Lingard. 2008. Biomedical scientists’ perception of social science in health research. Social Science & Medicine 66: 2520–2531.
Barnes, Barry and Donald MacKenzie. 1979. On the Role of Interests in Scientific Change. In On the Martins of Science, ed. Roy Wallis, 49-66. Sociological Review Monograph, No. 27. University of Keele, UK.
Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1975. The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information. Information sur les sciences sociales 6: 19–47.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984 [1979]. Distinction. A social critique of the judgment of taste (trans: Nice, R.). London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988a [1984]. Homo Academicus (trans. Collier P.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988b. Vive la crise! For heterodoxy in social science. Theory and Society 17: 773–787.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. The Peculiar History of Scientific Reason. Sociological Forum 6(1): 3–26.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. Sociology in question. London: Sage.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1995. La cause de la science. Comment l’histoire sociale des sciences sociales peut servir le progrès de ces sciences. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 106–107: 3–10.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1996 [1992]. The Rules of art: Genesis and structure of the literary field (trans. Emanuel S.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1997. Les usages sociaux de la science. Pour une sociologie clinique du champ scientifique. Paris: Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2000 [1997]. Pascalian Meditations (trans: Nice R.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2004 [2001]. Science of science and reflexivity (trans: Nice R.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loic Wacquant. 1992. Introduction to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre, and Monique de Saint-Martin. 1976. Anatomie du goût. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 2(5): 2–81.
Brubaker, Rogers. 1985. Rethinking Classical Social Theory: The Sociological Vision of Pierre Bourdieu. Theory and society 14(6): 745–775.
Calhoun, Craig, Edward LiPuma, and Moishe Postone. 1993. Bourdieu: Critical perspectives. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Clarke, Adele E. 1990. A Social Worlds Research Adventure: The Case of Reproductive Science. In Theories of Science in Society, eds. Susan Cozzens, and Thomas Gieryn, 15–42. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Cooper, Mark H. 2009. Commercialization of the University and Problem Choice by Academic Biological Scientists. Science, Technology and Human Values 34(5): 629–653.
Fourcade, Marion. 2009. Economists and societies: discipline and profession in the United States, Britain, and France, 1890s to 1990s. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Frickel, Scott, and Kelly Moore. 2006. The New Political Sociology of Science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Fujimura, Joan. 1987. “Constructing ‘do-able’ Problems in Cancer Research: Articulating Alignment. Social Studies of Science 17: 257–293.
Fujimura, Joan. 1988. The Molecular Biological Bandwagon in Cancer Research: Where Social Worlds Meet. Social Problems 35(3): 261–283.
Fujimura, Joan. 1996. Crafting Science: A Sociohistory of the Quest for the Genetics of Cancer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hinchliffe, Steve. 1996. Technology, Power, and Space: The Means and Ends of Geographies of Technology. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 14: 659–682.
Hong, Wei. 2008. Domination in a scientific field: Capital struggle in a Chinese isotope lab. Social Studies of Science 38(4): 543–570.
Kim, Kyung-Man. 2009. What would a Bourdieuan sociology of scientific truth look like? Social Science Information. Information sur les sciences sociales 48(1): 57–79.
Kleinman, Daniel. 2003. Impure Cultures: University Biology and the World of Commerce. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Law, John, and John Hassard. 1999. Actor Network Theory and After. London: Blackwell Publishers.
Merton, Robert K. 1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Murdoch, Jonathan. 1998. The Spaces of Actor Network Theory. Geoforum 29(4): 357–374.
Ray, Amit and Evan Selinger, 2008. Jagannath’s Saligram: On Bruno Latour and Literary Critique After Postcoloniality. Postmodern Culture 18(2). On line journal.
Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘Translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Soc Stud Sci 19(3):387–420
Swartz, David. 1997. Culture & power: the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Vandenberghe, Frédéric. 1999. The Real is relational: An epistemological analysis of Pierre Bourdieu’s generative structuralism. Sociological Theory 17(1): 32–67.
Wacquant, Loïc. 1992. Toward a social praxeology: The structure and logic of Bourdieu`s sociology. In An invitation to reflexive sociology, eds. Pierre Bourdieu, and Loïc Wacquant, 2–59. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Albert, M., Kleinman, D.L. Bringing Pierre Bourdieu to Science and Technology Studies. Minerva 49, 263–273 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-011-9174-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-011-9174-2