tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post6617673184561120045..comments2023-11-03T08:02:25.369-04:00Comments on AmericanScience: A Team Blog: STS and the Spectre of ELSIDavid Roth Singermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12841041983824755867noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post-35005321777116517952012-04-26T14:55:00.469-04:002012-04-26T14:55:00.469-04:00Oh, no, no, no. I definitely don't want to say...Oh, no, no, no. I definitely don't want to say this latter thing about the archives. I mean "work" in the broad sense of social science/humanities methodology. I'm equally as impressed with excellent ethnographies, studies that include in-depth interviews, you name it, as I am with archival work. I am less impressed with "media studies" type work that only focuses on "texts." I mean reading out texts or reading them "sideways" or whatever is absolutely essential to all of these other kinds of work, but I don't think it often stands well on its own.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14164091550633430973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post-2770466448246198692012-04-26T14:37:55.531-04:002012-04-26T14:37:55.531-04:00Uh-oh, Lee: "I am often surprised at how litt...Uh-oh, Lee: "I am often surprised at how little empirical work goes into--even senior scholars'--work on science and technology policy. They often rely on published reports, laws, speeches, etc., all easily available and requiring no work." I guess I'd need to hear what you mean by "empirical work" and "work," but it seems to me that one can do good stuff in all sorts of fields without doing what it seems you mean by "work." Do you mean that it's bad when scholars *claim* to do empirical work of the sort you mean and then don't, or do you really think it's not "work" if you study this stuff without going to the archive?Hankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02841787256060612291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post-39107685812472592632012-04-26T14:32:00.876-04:002012-04-26T14:32:00.876-04:00Yeah, I see these things all over the place in STS...Yeah, I see these things all over the place in STS, though rarely are they all evidenced in one work. I think the trend will increase if the ELSI model expands. <br /><br />It would be unkind of me to beat up on individual works here, but I think I can handle these issues at a general level. I am often surprised at how little empirical work goes into--even senior scholars'--work on science and technology policy. They often rely on published reports, laws, speeches, etc., all easily available and requiring no work. Now, I can go along with people who say that evidence is just a claim to authority that does not get us any closer to the "truth" (even if I don't buy that line of reasoning in my heart of hearts). I can even get on board with those people who say that the ultimate goal of research in the humanities and social sciences is to be "interesting" (even if I prefer the interesting and useful). But what I find is that the most engaging work uses evidence in cool ways. So, the work being done in STS that is superficial is not only bad from a scholarly standpoint (though it is certainly that) but also boring.<br /><br />STS's focus on the normative dimensions of science and technology is widely perceived, I think. You have told me that people in HOS often think of STS as studies of science and technology "policy," which is not wholly unfair. You also see this line of critique in Lorraine Daston's piece in Critical Inquiry (which you've previously discussed on American Science), though I think some of her points are overstated. I think that more people in STS should work less fraught science and technology issues in order to provide a truly robust account, while still remembering that nothing is amoral or apolitical. (For instance, instead of building a particle accelerator or putting whitey on the moon, we could feed the poor.) Still, what about, for example, the role of play and games in creating scientific knowledge and technological change? What about the hackers and the phreaks and the makers? <br /><br />On the inverse side of people being "captured" (in the regulatory sense) by their own research subjects and forced to pull punches, I think this is also a pretty well known phenomenon. People often say that Rabinow was selected to work at SynBERC because he is so pro-biotech; he was seen as a friendly actor. Do ELSI-like STS researchers become to the technoscientific venture what Alfred Chandler was to the large corporation?<br /><br />Finally, STS's focus on emerging technologies is also famous. Just scanning the program from last year's 4S meeting in Cleveland, many of the papers were on emerging technologies, and nearly nothing dealt with topics before 1945. Industrial and other non-emerging technologies were conspicuously absent. The one exception is maybe nuclear, which is experiencing re-enlivened interest because of Fukushima. I can be massively curmudgeonly about this kind of follow-the-wind academic faddishness.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14164091550633430973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1030220433025894048.post-10243411471534779322012-04-23T14:50:50.290-04:002012-04-23T14:50:50.290-04:00Good things, Lee – stuffed with ideas. Are these i...Good things, Lee – stuffed with ideas. Are these impacts you're already seeing (if so, where?), or are they impacts you project based on the potential increase in STSers and others seeking funding that's legitimated on an ELSI model? <br /><br />I ask because this weekend at the Joint Atlantic Seminar for the History of Biology, the rise in research on "recent science" was noted in a retrospective plenary discussion, and I wonder whether there might be something similar at work in that community..Hankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02841787256060612291noreply@blogger.com