Summary
Several, seemingly unrelated problems of empirical research in the ‘sociology of scientific knowledge’ can be analyzed as following from initial assumptions with respect to the status of the knowledge content of science. These problems involve: (1) the relation between the level of the scientific field and the group level; (2) the boundaries and the status of ‘contexts’, and (3) the emergence of so-called ‘asymmetry’ in discourse analysis. It is suggested that these problems can be clarified by allowing for cognitive factors as independent (‘heterogeneous’) variables, in addition to and in interaction with (i.e., not only as attributes of) social factors.
In the ‘sociology of translation’, ‘heterogeneity’ among scientists, cognitions and textual elements has been made a basic assumption. This heterogeneity is bound together in an ‘actor network’. However, since the ‘actor network’ is an empirical category, the methodological problems remain unresolved. This has consequences for the relation between empirical data and theoretical inferences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amsterdamska, O.: 1990, ‘Surely You Are Joking, Monsieur Latour!’,Science, Technology and Human Values 15, 495–504.
Amsterdamska, O. and L. Leydesdorff: 1989, ‘Citations: Indicators of Significance?’,Scientometrics 15, 449–71.
Bloor, D.: 1976,Knowledge and Social Imagery, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, etc.
Bloor, D.: 1982, ‘Polyhedra and the Abominations of Leviticus: Cognitive Styles in Mathematics,’, in Douglas, M. (ed.),Essays in the Sociology of Perception, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London/Boston, pp. 191–218.
Bloor, D.: 1983,Wittgenstein: A Social Theory of Knowledge, Columbia University Press, New York.
Bloor, D.: 1984, ‘The Sociology of Reasons: Or Why “Epistemic Factors” Are Really “Social Factors”, in Brown, J. (ed.),Scientific Rationality: The Sociological Turn, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 295–324.
Burt, R. S.: 1982,Toward a Structuralist Theory of Action, Academic Press, New York, etc.
Callon, M.: 1985, ‘Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay’, in Law, J. (ed.),Power, Action and Belief. A New Sociology of Knowledge, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, etc. pp. 196–233.
Callon, M. and B. Latour: 1981, ‘Unscrewing the Big Leviathan: How Actors Macro-structure Reality and How Sociologists Help Them to Do so’, in Knorr-Cetina, K. D. and A. V. Cicourel (eds.),Advances in Social Theory and Methodology, Toward an Integration of Micro- end Macro-Sociologies, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, pp. 277–303.
Callon, M., J.-P. Courtial, W. A. Turner, and S. Bauin: 1983, ‘From Translations to Problematic Networks: An Introduction to Co-word Analysis’,Social Science Information 22, 191–235.
Callon, M., J. Law, and A. Rip (eds.): 1986,Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology, MacMillan, London.
Callon, M., and J.-P. Courtial: 1989,Co-Word Analysis: A Tool for the Evaluation of Public Research Policy, Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Mines, Paris.
Collins, H. M.: 1983, ‘The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: Studies of Contemporary Science’,Annual Review of Sociology 9, 265–85.
Collins, H. M.: 1985, ‘The Possibilities of Science Policy’15, 554–8.
Collins, H. M. and T. J. Pinch: 1979, ‘The Construction of the Paranormal: Nothing Unscientific is Happening’, in Wallis (1979), pp. 237–70.
Collins, H. M. and S. Yearley: 1992, ‘Epistemological Chicken’, in Pickering, A. (ed.),Science as Practice and Culture, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Courtial, J.-P.: 1989, ‘Qualitative Models, Quantitative Tools and Network Analysis’,Scientometrics 15, 527–34.
Crane, D.: 1969, ‘Social Structure in a Group of Scientists’,American Sociological Review 36, 335–52.
Crane, D.: 1972,Invisible Colleges, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Durkheim, E.: 1912,Les formes élémentaires de la vie réligieuse, F. Alcan, Paris.
Freeman, L. C.: 1978, ‘Centrality in Social Networks. Conceptual Clarification’,Social Networks 1, 215–39.
Fujimura, J. H.: 1991, ‘On Methods, Ontologies, and Representation in the Sociology of Science: Where do We Stand?’ in Maines, D. (ed.),Social Organization and Social Process: Essays in Honor of Anselm L. Strauss, Aldine de Gruyter, Haythorne, NY.
Giere, R.: 1988,Explaining Science. A Cognitive Approach, Chicago University Press, Chicago/London.
Henderson, D.: 1990, ‘Sociology of Science and the Continuing Importance of Epistomologically Couched Accounts’,Social Studies of Science 20, 112–48.
Hesse, M.: 1980,Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science, Harvester Press, London.
Holzner, B., W. N. Dunn, and M. Shabidullah: 1987, ‘An Accounting Scheme for Designing Science Impact Indicators: The Knowledge System Perspective’,Knowledge 9, 173–204.
Hughes, T. P.: 1986, ‘The Seemless Webb: Technology, Science, Etcetera, Etcetera’Social Studies of Science 16, 281–92.
King, M. D.: 1971, ‘Reason, Tradition, and the Progressiveness of Science’,History and Theory 21, 3–32.
Knorr-Cetina, K. D.: 1981,The Manufacture of Knowledge. An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science, Pergamom Press, Oxford/New York.
Krackhardt, D.: 1987, ‘Cognitive Social Structures’,Social Networks 9, 109–34.
Kuhn, T. S.: 1962,The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lakatos, I.: 1970, ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’, in I. Lakatos, and A. Musgrave (eds.),Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 91–196.
Latour, B.: 1987,Science in Action, Open University Press, Milton Keynes.
Latour, B. and S. Woolgar: 1979,Laboratory Life, Sage, Beverly Hills, etc.
Law, J.: 1986, ‘The Heterogeneity of Texts’, in Callonet al., 1986, pp. 67–83.
Law, J. and R. Williams: 1982, ‘Putting Facts Together: A Study of Scientific Persuasion’,Social Studies of Science 12, 535–58.
Law, J. and P. Lodge: 1984,Science for Social Scientists, Macmillan, London, etc.
Leydesdorff, L.: 1989, ‘Words and Co-Words as Indicators of Intellectual Organization’,Research Policy 18, 209–23.
Leydesdorff, L.: 1991, ‘A Validation Study of “LEXIMAPPE”’,Scientometrics (forthcoming).
Leydesdorff, L. and P. van der Schaar: 1987, ‘The Use of Scientometric Methods for Evaluating National Research Programs’,Science & Technology Studies 5, 22–31.
Leydesdorff, L. and O. Amsterdamka: 1990, ‘Dimensions of Citation Analysis’,Science, Technology and Human Values 15, 305–35.
Luhmann, N.: 1990,Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.
Martin, B. and J. Irvine: 1983, ‘Assessing Basic Research: Some Partial Indicators of Scientific Progress in Radio Astronomy’,Research Policy 12, 61–90.
Mulkay, M. J. Potter, and S. Yearley: 1983, ‘Why an Analysis of Scientific Discourse is Needed’, in Knorr, K. D. and M. J. Mulkay (eds.),Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, Sage, London, pp. 171–204.
Pinch, T.: 1982, ‘Kuhn— The Conservative and Radical Interpretations. Are Some Mertonians “Kuhnians” and Some “Kuhnians” Mertonians?’,Society for the Social Studies of Science 7, 10–25.
Pinch, T.: 1985, ‘Towards an Analysis of Scientific Observation: The Externality and Evidential Significance of Observational Reports in Physics’,Social Studies of Science 15, 3–36.
Quine, W. V. O.: 1962, ‘Carnap and Logical Truth’, inLogic and Language: Studies Dedicated to Professor Rudolf Carnap on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Rip, A., and J.-P. Courtial: 1984, ‘Co-word Maps of Biotechnology: An Example of Cognitive Scientometrics’,Scientometrics 6, 381–400.
Shapin, S.: 1979, ‘The Politics of Observation: Cerebral Anatomy and Social Interests in the Edinburgh Phrenology Disputes’, in Wallis (1979), pp. 139–78.
Shinn, T.: 1982, ‘Scientific Disciplines and Organizational Specificity: The Social and Cognitive Configuration of Laboratory Activities’, in Elias, N., H. Martins, and R. Whitley (eds.),Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 239–64.
Shinn, T.: 1988, ‘Hiérarchie des chercheur et formes des recherches’,Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 74 (1988) 2–22 (also: ‘Structure and Hierarchies of Science Research Results’, (unpublished).
Slezak, P.: 1989, ‘Computer Discovery and the Strong Programme’,Social Studies of Science 19, 562–600.
Van Steijn, F.: 1990,The Universities in Society. A Study of Part-Time Professors in the Netherlands, unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
Wallis, R. (ed.),On the Margins of Science: The Social Construction of Rejected Knowledge, Sociological Review Monograph, No. 27, University of Keele, Keele.
Whitley, R. D.: 1984,The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Whitley, R. D.: 1988, ‚Wissenschaftswissenschaft in Grossbrittannien‘, in Burrichter, C. and G. Lauterbach (eds.),Wissenschaftsforschung im internationaler Vergleich, Institut für Gesellschaft und Wissenschaft, Erlangen, pp. 41–57.
Whittaker, J.: 1989, ‘Keywords Versus Titles as Data for Co-Word Analysis’,Social Studies of Science 19, 473–96.
Woolgar, S.: 1988,Science. The Very Idea. Sage, Beverly Hills/London, etc.
Zeldenrust, S.: 1989,Ambiguity, Strategy and Choice of Research Problems, unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
I want to thank Olga Amsterdamska, Eda Kranakis, and Arie Rip, for comments on earlier drafts; and I am grateful to Gene Moore for correcting my English.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Leydesdorff, L. The knowledge content of science and the sociology of scientific knowledge. Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 23, 241–263 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01801451
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01801451