Collaboration and Scandal: A Comment on Labinger.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Collaboration and Scandal: A Comment on Labinger.
Authors: Lynch, Michael1 Michael.Lynch@brunel.ac.uk
Source: Social Studies of Science (Sage Publications, Ltd.). May95, Vol. 25 Issue 2, p324-329. 6p.
Subject Terms: *Cultural studies, Science & society, Philosophy of science, Social psychology, Social scientists, Constructivism (Philosophy)
Abstract: In the article, the author comments on the article "Science As Culture: A View From the Petri Dish," by Jay A. Labinger, published in this issue of the journal "Social Studies of Science." The author discusses on the scientific and cultural aspects of collaboration and scandal. According to the author, Labinger's views are well intended and well-documented discussion of social studies of science which invites intellectuals to reconsider their treatments of science and scientists. He objects to how earlier studies often place scientists in the role of specimens. The author thinks that Labinger, through no fault of his own, fails to recognize the extent to which the collaboration he advocates between practitioners and analysts already is a substantial part of the science studies field. The problem is that it has been buried under the polemics of the realist-constructivist debate. Collaborations of the sort that Labinger seems to have in mind are well underway, although less in science studies than in the related field of technology studies.
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:In the article, the author comments on the article "Science As Culture: A View From the Petri Dish," by Jay A. Labinger, published in this issue of the journal "Social Studies of Science." The author discusses on the scientific and cultural aspects of collaboration and scandal. According to the author, Labinger's views are well intended and well-documented discussion of social studies of science which invites intellectuals to reconsider their treatments of science and scientists. He objects to how earlier studies often place scientists in the role of specimens. The author thinks that Labinger, through no fault of his own, fails to recognize the extent to which the collaboration he advocates between practitioners and analysts already is a substantial part of the science studies field. The problem is that it has been buried under the polemics of the realist-constructivist debate. Collaborations of the sort that Labinger seems to have in mind are well underway, although less in science studies than in the related field of technology studies.
ISSN:03063127
DOI:10.1177/030631295025002010