Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The very idea of cultural and social studies of sciences and technologies is
surprising and the use of plurals rather than singulars underscores the strangeness. I would like in this essay to introduce these new researchers, indicate what
is distinctive about them, and suggest what they might contribute to our
understanding of scientific, medical, and technological practices as part of
human cultures. I believe this is necessary in order to situate the studies included
in this volume among those being conducted in other fields of inquiry about
science and technology. Certainly the readers of this journal are familiar with
the established field of anthropology of medicine. Several of the papers included
in this particular volume, however, are not written by specialists in the anthropology of medicine, and those who are drawing upon developments in other fields
for the work they describe here. I hasten to add that this introduction to new
analytic approaches to the social and cultural studies of sciences and technologies is an idiosyncratic one; more specifically, it is mine and it is exceedingly brief. In the bibliography I have listed several more inclusive review
articles and books covering the several fields I address here: social epistemology
of sciences, European social studies of sciences and technologies, American
sociology of science, cultural studies, and gender studies of sciences and
technologies.
SHARON TRAWEEK
SHARONTRAWEEK
foundations. Since about 1970 many universities in Europe, North America, and
Australia have grouped some combination of these researchers into centers,
departments, institutes, or programs which often include the words "science,"
"technology," "medicine," "values," "policy," and/or "society" in their titles; the
three main types of programs are "STS" programs (for science, technology, and
society), ethics programs, and policy programs. (In 1980 there were over one
hundred STS programs in the United States.)
These ethics, policy, and STS programs have encouraged interdisciplinary
study of some major contemporary public medical, scientific, and engineering
policy and ethics issues; these include: AIDS, genetic engineering, reproductive
technologies, space programs, energy policies, food production technologies,
weapons (including chemical and nucelar), prediction of earthquakes and other
forms of "natural" disasters, pollution, genetic disease prediction, health care
delivery, risk assessment, et cetera. Besides encouraging faculty research STS,
ethics, and policy programs also usually offer instruction and degrees at the
undergraduate and graduate level. I should add that in the United States policy
and ethics studies are usually divorced from all the other research areas; both
policy and ethics studies groups also often have much higher representation of
practicing scientists, engineers, and physicians than any of the other groups
listed and such people usually dominate the policy studies programs. (For an
example of work done at the intersection of technology, medicine, ethics, and
society, see Wilkinson and Perry.) In addition the programs based in medical
schools, law schools, and business schools usually have few ties to the other
groups listed.
I would like to focus now on five areas of analytic innovation in science,
technology, and medical studies which have emerged during the last twenty
years. Almost all of this work has addressed the production of scientific,
medical, and technical knowledges and the producers of that knowledge. Much
less of the analytically innovative work has attended to the funders and consumers of these priviledged knowledges; the primary exceptions are in studies of
reproductive technologies and AIDS policies. I do not mean to suggest that
current research conducted within more traditional analytic approaches is
uninteresting; I am arguing that it order to understand fully the papers in this
volume, they need to be situated in the context of these particular ongoing
analytic debates. The five areas are: social epistemologies of sciences and
European social studies of sciences and technologies, as well as current
American sociology, cultural studies, and gender studies of sciences, technologies, and medical practices.
C. SOCIALEPISTEMOLOGIESOF SCIENCE
The epistemological assumptions of the earliest studies of science, technology,
and medicine began to be challenged by the early 1960s. A confluence of
diverse intellectual, social, economic, and political forces together undermined
the image of a singular, universal Scientific Revolution, a singular, universal
Industrial Revolution, and singular, universal standards for beauty, truth, and
logic. During the 1950s the rich industrialized nations had devised policies for
the transfer of technological and scientific knowledge to their former colonies,
particularl3~ in Africa, with the expectation that industrialization and wealth
would follow; these economic development policies often failed. Those policies
were based on the then prevailing theories of economic change which were
founded in European experience. That is, in England the so-called Industrial
Revolution was preceded by a mercantile infrastructure, capital accumulation,
an increase in agricultural production, emergence of a surplus labor force, and
technological innovation; subsequently France, Germany, and later Russia
industrialized in roughly the same way, although with increasing levels of state
intervention. Generalizing from this experience Europeans, Soviets, and North
Americans assumed that they could export industrialism. Failure of these
policies led to questioning the appropriateness of this European model of
economic change.
Furthermore, anthropological studies of reasoning had questioned the notion
that only Europeans had invented ways of carefully making sense of the
phenomenal world. In particular Robin Horton, a well-known British
anthropologist of Africa working on cultural differences in cognition, argued
that debates in traditional societies were often conducted with as much rigor,
complexity, and subtlety as in our own. (Horton was building on the work of
many anthropologists, of course, but Horton's is that most likely to be cited by
contemporary researchers in social studies of science and technology.)
Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions (first published in 1963) is
a well known marker of one of these trends, but his work was only part of a then
current, articulate, complex, active debate within history and philosophy of
science. They all challenged Karl Popper's widely accepted notion of science as
a body of thought which developed by a stair-step, cumulative process and by
means of a specific logic of refutation. Kuhn and others claimed that science is a
kind of knowledge produced by communities with strong commitments to
specific assumptions, types of research equipment, modes of discourse, and
techniques of data analysis (Fleck, Hanson, Lakatos, Polanyi). They further
claimed that scientific revolutions were more precisely defined as shifts in these
commitments which were made quite reluctantly and even then often by
newcomers in the field. Perhaps most shockingly, some argued that there had
not been a singular scientific revolution, but several; others claimed there was
SHARONTRAWEEK
no singular scientific method (Feyerabend). More recently, this work has been
expanded and refined by Fuller, Hacking, and Longino in their separate theories
of social epistemology. Generally, they argue that the ways data are generated
and data are transformed into facts necessarily include social processes of
adjudication.
D. ANALYTIC INNOVATIONS:
EUROPEAN SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
For a complex set of reasons the social studies of science and technology, begun
in the 1970s, was very much a European phenomenon, and situated primarily in
Scotland, England, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, and Sweden.
Some of this work initially was very much associated with the sociolinguistic
research techniques developed by Harold Garfinkel at UCLA and Aaron
Cicourel at UC San Diego. These techniques were designed to define what
people actually did, behaviorally, second by second, in conversations; these
researchers often use as their data what they regard as minutely correct transcriptions from tape and video recordings. A key analytic approach of this school is
to emphasize how people in conversations, especially at work, "repair" miscommunication. One of Garfinkel's mandates was that ethnomethodologists (as his
followers are called) should not focus their attention on what the practitioners
regard as the goal of their work or on the practitioners themselves; instead,
ethnomethodologists were to attend to the work activity alone. Some of the
European sociologists of science and technology adapted these research
techniques and analytic tools to laboratory settings as a work site; they want to
characterize precisely how scientists and engineers verbally and visually
produce their experimental designs, ideas, arguments, and papers in face-to-face
interactions (Knorr, Law, Woolgar).
Three Americans whose work is informed by ethnomethodology have played
significant roles in this drama. Michael Lynch, a former student of Garfinkel,
concentrates on scientists' production and interpretation of visual images and
several Europeans have adapted his research techniques and interpretations
(Knorr, Latour). Lucy Suchman, a linguistic anthropologist strongly influenced
by Garfinkel, expanded the notion of conversation to include machine-human
communication, and her research has also been emulated in Europe (Latour).
Jean Lave, a cognitive anthropologist who has studied how people in Africa and
North America calculate in diverse settings, has shaped some of the Europeans'
work on practical reasoning in labs (Knorr, Latour, Woolgar).
Another group of European sociologists and social historians are more
interested in theories of social action and epistemology. Their studies have
concentrated on how social actors in science, medicine, and engineering amass
10
SHARONTRAWEEK
nevertheless ignored the distinctive social features of the people in the labs, the
goals of those people, the sources of their funding, and the ends to which their
work is put. These forms of power, interestingly, are more often addressed by
North Americans, including several authors whose work appears in this volume
(Fleising an~l Smart, Mukerji, Noble, Rabinow, Shaiken, Solingen, Traweek). In
addition, gender plays no role in this European research; consequently, they
ignore how all these features contribute to the production of knowledge. Again,
North Americans have been much more active in mapping this terrain (Haraway,
Martin, Rapp, Traweek) with a few notable exceptions in England (Brighton,
Rose & Rose). The Europeans have also been reluctant to locate their own
power in the production of their knowledge claims; their interest in "reflexivity,"
in my opinion, is firmly situated in eighteenth and nineteenth century philosophical debates about solipcism. Some forms of cultural studies and gender studies
of sciences, medicines, and technologies have developed strategies for exploring
not only the construction and reproduction of practices in sciences, medicines,
and technologies, for the construction and reproduction of the practitioners, their
goals, and the uses of their work, and for situating the producers of these
knowledge claims about sciences, technologies, and medical practices.
11
12
SHARON TRAWEEK
F. ANALYTICINNOVATIONS: AMERICANSOCIOLOGY
OF SCIENCE, MEDICINE,AND TECHNOLOGY
The approach developed at Columbia University by Robert Merton emphasized
the study of science as an occupation with certain distinctive values which are
reinforced through peer review (Chubin, Cole & Cole, Cozzens, Crane, Zuckerman). They developed a set of statistical techniques which they eventually
applied to the then new Science Citation I~dex, based at Philadelphia. From the
study of citation practices as an indicator Of quality or the diffusion of scientific
ideas, these sociologists identified clusters of citations emerging and dissolving
over time and thus were able to map the emergence of new specialties (Chubin,
Cozzens). Co-citation clusters were adapted by some of the Europeans to chart
networks and factions (Callon, Courtial, Law). Some historians of science,
particularly those associated with the late Derek de Solla Price of Yale, began to
do similar statistical studies for the past. Much of this statistical study of
scientific activity can be found in the journal Scientometrics.
Several American sociologists of science have been associated with the
Tremont Research Institute in San Franscisco, established by Elihu Gerson and
Anselm Strauss, a prominent American sociologist of medicine. In addition to
Gerson and Strauss, they include Joan Fujimura, now at Harvard, and Leigh
Starr at the University of Keele in England. These people were among the first
American sociologists to assimilate the work of the European sociologists of
science to the American statistical approaches. Fujimura and Starr both do very
carefully reasoned studies of the processes for constructing knowledge in
specific subfields of biology. Finally, there are a few independent American
sociologists of science who work within neither the statistical nor the Tremont
approach. Most notable among them, in my opinion, is Sal Restivo at Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute; in a series of studies he has attended to how scientists,
especially mathematicians, learn to produce effective arguments.
G. ANALYTICINNOVATIONS: CULTURALSTUDIES
OF SCIENCES,TECHNOLOGIES,AND MEDICALPRACTICES
Many kinds of studies of science and technology are now being called "cultural
13
studies." One I will call "kultur" takes exceptional scientific, medical, and
technological knowledge to be a part of high cultural knowledge and thus
explores it as one would masterpieces of music, art, literature, etc, in terms of
genre, form, style, symbolism, metaphor, etc. A second kind I think of as a
"mentalities" approach asserts that scientific, medical, and technological
knowledge is produced in specific historical times and sites and in order to
understand scientific, medical, and technological knowledge and their producers
one must understand their specific relationships with concurrent political,
economic, social, and intellectual forces (Bagioli, Bijker, Findlen, Gooding et al,
Holton, Hwa, Krieger, Lenoir, Rudwick, Pinch, Porter, Shafer, Shapin, Smith,
Staudenmeier).
Another mode analyzes scientific, medical, and technological discourses,
arguments, and debates (visual, verbal, and mathematical) for their diverse
epistemological structures, ontological assumptions, and/or rhetorical techniques, including the constraining and creative uses of metaphor (Bazerman,
Gross, Lyon, Restivo). A fourth I will label "ethnic exchange" describes
scientific, medical, and technological communities along the lines of urban
sociology and anthropology of exchange: a laboratory or clinic is the site at
which many ethnic-like occupational subgroups interact and exchange, often
using a distinctive kind of language generated by the nature of the exchanges
(Galison, Dubinskas).
A fifth group is closely identified with approaches usually called "cultural
studies" by those in the humanities and the humanistically-inclined parts of the
social sciences, such as classics, history, art, literature, anthropology, legal
studies, and sociology. These studies most definitely eschew any ranking of
knowledges and attend to the processes not only of producing knowledges,
reproducing the knowledge producers, and commodifying and marketing the
knowledge for users, but also the processes of privileging, marginalizing, and
suppressing certain knowledges, knowledge producers, and knowledge users. In
this sort of cultural studies of science, medicine, and technology the researchers
characterize the range and variation of a group's strategic practices (visual,
verbal, mathematical, mechanistic, etc) and mark how those strategies shape and
are shaped by the group's environment. Patterns in those strategic practices are
studied for their correspondence to other patterned strategic cultural activities,
from poems and symphonies to Disneylands and television shows (Downey,
Haraway, Heath, Hess, Martin, Rabinow, Traweek, Tudor, Weeks, Zabusky).
In my opinion there are now at least five different subfields in gender studies of
14
SHARONTRAWEEK
sciences, technologies, and medical practices in the United States. Almost all
those studies either directly or parenthetically address the relation between
gender minorities and other minorities; however, gender issues definitely
dominate these studies. (1) The first and perhaps most familiar studies the
usually forgotten women who have made important contributions to scientific
and technological knowledge in the past. Examples include Pnina-Abir-am's
series at Rutgers University Press, Evelyn Fox Keller's biography of Barbara
McClintock, and Maragaret Rossiter's historical statistical study of American
women in science from 1865 to 1940 with another volume covering 1940 to the
present underway. (See also Chamberlain and Haas.) (2) A second approach
examines the processes for excluding women from scientific, medical, and
technological work and the processes by which women decide not to pursue
work in these fields. I would include here the work of the late Sally Hacker and
Sheila Tobias. (See also Betz and Rosser.) (3) A very large third sub-field
focusses on the effects of gender bias in scientific, medical, and technological
research. Ruth Bleier, Ruth Schwartz Cowan, Anne Fausto-Sterling, Donna
Haraway, Helen Longino, and Emily Martin have mapped this terrain. (See also
MacCormack & Strathern, Merchant, Ochs, Ortner & Whitehead, Reiter,
Rosaldo & Lamphere, Rothschild, and Trescott.) (4) A much smaller group is
attending to the gender assumptions in even the very best science, medicine, and
engineering. That is, they are not arguing that gender issues in science,
medicine, and engineering can be excised like a tumor, leaving a healthier, more
accurate, more logical enterprise, truer to its own long standing goals. It is their
research goal to identify how sciences, medicine, and engineering can be
practiced in ways that are not based on sexist assumptions. The pioneers here are
Donna Haraway, Sandra Harding, Evelyn Fox Keller. (See also Longino, Rose,
Stone, and Tuana.)
I believe that six senior scholars have established the research field of gender
and science in the United States: the late Ruth Blier, Ann Fausto-Sterling of
Brown University, Sandra Harding of University of Delaware, Donna Haraway
of the University of California at Santa Cruz, Ruth Hubbard of Harvard
University, Evelyn Fox Keller of the University of California at Berkeley, and
Margaret Rossiter of Cornell University. Blier, Fausto-Sterling, and Hubbard
focus on the practice of biology, Keller on evolutionary biology and biophysics,
Haraway on primatology and weapons research, Rossiter on the prosopography
of American women in science and technology, and Harding on the philosophical underpinnings of the theories and methods of research. Furthermore,
Haraway, Harding, and Keller have each defined major approaches to feminist
epistemology, explicating how the production of scientific and technological
knowledge has been engendered. Haraway does cultural history of science using
interpretive tools from post-structuralist theories; Keller attends to the role of
language of research practice and scientific theories; and Harding, a philosopher
15
16
SHARON TRAWEEK
I. CONCLUSION
With this exceedingly brief, idiosyncratic survey of some significant analytic
innovations in social and cultural studies of sciences, technologies, and medical
practices I have tried to introduce the context within which the following articles
were written. The authors here are not writing with assumptions based upon
positivist hierarchies of knowledge, knowledge producers, and knowledge users;
instead they are investigating those hierarchies. Most anthropologists making
use of these developments have focussed on medical practices, the life sciences,
and genetic engineering, as these articles suggest. I think their most important
contribution in turn is to challenge those researchers in the social and cultural
studies of sciences, technologies, and medical practices to attend to how power
is produced and reproduced in these multiple sites, interactions, machines,
discourses, and texts, locally and globally.
Anthropology Department
Rice University
Houston, Texas, USA 77251-1892
REFERENCES
Selective Bibliography of Social and Cultural Studies of Science and Technology
[See also articles in the journals Isis; Science, Technology & Human Values; Scien-
17
18
SHARON TRAWEEK
19
20
SHARON TRAWEEK
Hayles, Katherine
1990 Chaos Bound: Orderly Disorder in Contemporary Literature and Science.
Ithaca, NY: Comell University Press.
Hess, David
forthcoming Science in the New Age: The Paranormal, its Defenders and Debunkers,
and American Culture. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
1990 The New Ethnography and the Anthropology of Science and Technology. In
Linda Layne and David Hess, eds., Knowledge and Society. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Hilgartner, Stephen
1990 The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses.
Social Studies of Science 20:519-539.
Holton, Gerald
1978 The Scientific Imagination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hubbard, Ruth, Mary Sue Henifin, and Barbara Fried, eds.
1979 Women Look at Biology Looking at Women. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman
Publishing.
Hubbard, Ruth and Marian Lowe, eds.
1979 Genes and Gender II. New York: Gordian Press.
Hwa, Chung-lin
1986 Representations of Nature in Cybemetic and Evolutionary Ecology. In P.
Weingartner and G. Dom, eds., Foundations of Biology. Vienna: HoelderPichler-Tempsky.
1989 Mimicking Nature: The Development of Systems Ecology in the United States,
1950-1975. Doctoral Thesis, University of Amsterdam.
Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy
1991 Speciat issue on Ecological Feminism 6(1).
1987 Special issue on Gender and Science 2(3).
1988 Special issue on Gender and Science 3(1).
Jacobus, M., E. F. Keller, and S. Shuttleworth, eds.
1990 Body/Politics: Women and the Discourses of Science. New York: Routledge.
Keller, Evelyn Fox
1983 A Feeling for the Organism. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co.,
1985 Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
1987 Women Scientists and Feminist Critics of Science. Daedalus 116(4):77-91.
Knorr, Karen, Roger Krohn, and Richard Whitley, eds.
1981 The Social Process of Scientific Investigation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer.
Knorr-Cetina, Karin
1981 The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. New York: Pergamon.
Knorr-Cetina, Karin and A. Cicourel, eds.
1981 Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Microand Macro-Sociologies. New York: Routledge.
Knorr-Cetina, Karin and Michael Mulkay, eds.
1983 Science observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Knorr-Cetina, Karin, and Klaus Amann
1990 Image Dissection in Natural Scientific Inquiry. Science, Technology and
Human Values 15(3):259-283.
Kramarae, Cheris, and Paula Treichler
1985 Feminist Dictionary. Boston: Pandora.
Krieger, Martin
1992 Doing Physics: How Physicists Take Hold of the World. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
21
Kuhn, Thomas
1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1977 the Essential Tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos, Imre, and Alan Musgrave, eds.
1970 Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Latour, Bruno
1986 Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
1988 The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar
1986 Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Lave, Jean
1988 Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics, and Culture in Everyday Life.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger
1992 Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Law, John
1986 Power, Action, and Belief. New York: Routledge.
Law, John, ed.
forthcoming Power, Technology, and the Modem World.
Layne, Linda
199t Imagining the Fetus: Technological and Eschatological Representations. In L.
Layne and David Hess, eds., Knowledge and Society 1990. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Lenoir, Timothy
1982 The Strategy of Life: Teleology and Mechanics in Nineteenth Century Biology.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Longino, Helen
1990 Science as a Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lynch, Michael
1985 Art and Artefact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk
in a Research Laboratory. New York: Routiedge.
1990 Discipline and the Material Form of Images: An Analysis of Scientific
Visibility. Social Studies of Science 15:37-66.
Lynch, Michael, and Steve Woolgar, eds.
1990 Representation in Scientific Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
MacCormack, Carol, and Marilyn Strathem, eds.
1980 Nature, Culture, Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mackenzie, Donald
1981 Statistics in Britain, 1865-1930: The Social Construction of Scientific
Knowledge. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Manning, Kenneth
1983 Black Apollo of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Martin, Emily
1987 The Woman in the Body: A Cultural Analysis of Reproduction. Boston:
Beacon Press.
Merchant, Carolyn
1980 The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution. New
York: Harper and Row.
Merton, Robert K.
1957 Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
22
SHARON TRAWEEK
23
gamon 1988.
Rossiter, Margaret
1982 Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940. Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Rothman, Barbara Katz
1986 The Tentative Pregnancy. New York: Viking.
Rothschild, Joan, ed.
1983 Machina Ex Dea: Feminist Perspectives on Technology. New York: Pergamon.
Rouse, Joseph
1987 Knowledge and Power: Towards a Political Philosophy of Science. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Rudwick, Jartin J. S.
1985 The Great Devonian Controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sage: A Scholarly Journal on Black Women
1990 Special Issue on Science and Technology: 6(2).
Sarton, George
1936 The Study of the History of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Schiebinger, Londa
1987 The History and Philosophy of Women in Science: A Review Essay. Signs
12(2):305-32.
1989 The Mind Has No Sex? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Science, Technology and Human Values
1989 Special Issue on the Rhetoric of Science: 14(1).
Seely, Bruce, and Bruce Sinclair, eds.
forthcoming Critical Problems and Research Frontiers in the History of Science and
History of Technology.
Shaiken, Harley
1985 Work Transformed: Automation and Labor in the Computer Age. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Shapin, Steve
1982 History of Science and its Sociological Reconstructions. History of Science
20:157-211.
1988 The House of Experiment in Seventeenth-Century England. Isis 79:373-404.
Shapin, Steve, and Simon Shaffer
1985 Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society
1976 Special Issue on Gender and Science: 1(3).
1978 Special Issue on Gender and Science: 4(1).
Spiegel-Rosing, Ina, and Derek de Solla Price, eds.
1977 Science, Technology, and Society: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Smith, Merritt Roe
1977 Harpers Ferry Armory and the New Technology: The Challenge of Change.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Solingen, Etel, ed.
1992 Physicists and the State: Comparative Political Economy of Science. Los
Angeles: University of Califomia Press.
Stanworth, Michelle, ed.
1987 Reproduction Technologies. Oxford: Polity Press.
Starr, Leigh
1989 Regions of the Mind: Brain Research and the Quest for Scientific Certainty.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
24
SHARON TRAWEEK
Staudenmeier, John
1990 Comment: Recent Trends in the History of Technology. American Historical
Review 95(2):715-725.
1985 Technology's Storytellers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stone, Alucquere Rosanne
1991 Will the Real Body Please Stand Up? Boundary Stories about Virtual Cultures.
In Michael Benedikt, ed., Cyberspace: First Steps. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Strauss, Anselm, Leonard Schatzman, Rue Bucher, Danuta Erlich, and Melvin Sabshin
1985 The Organization of Medical Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Suchman, Lucy
1987 Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Communication.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tobias, Sheila
1978 Overcoming Math Anxiety. New York: Norton.
1990 They're Not Dumb, They're Different: Stalking the Second Tier. Tucson: The
Research Corporation.
Tobias, Sheila, and Carl T. Tomizuka
forthcoming Breaking the Science Barrier.
Traweek, Sharon
1988 Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Treichler, Paula
1989 AIDS, Homophobia, and Biomedical Discourse: An Epidemic of Signification.
In Douglas Crimp, ed., AIDS: Cultural Analysis/Cultural Criticism.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Trescott, Martha Moore, ed.
1987 Dynamos and Virgins Revisited: Women and Technological Change in History.
Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.
Trinh, T. Minh-ha
1989 Woman, Native, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Tuana, Nancy
1989 Feminism and Science. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Tudor, Elizabeth
1992 Discourses about AIDS in Houston. Ph.D. dissertation, Rice University.
Vincenti, Walter
1990 What Engineers Know and How They Know It: Analytical Studies from
Aeronautical History. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Warner, John Harley
forthcoming History of Science and History of Medicine. In Bruce Seely and Bruce
Sinclair, eds., Critical Problems in History of Science and History of Technology.
Weeks, Priscilla, and Jane Packard
1991 Parkman and the Mullet Marshall: Science and Power Plays in Natural
Resource Management. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society
for Social Studies of Science.
Wilkinson, Susann L., and Seymour Perry
1991 Biotechnology and the Diagnosis of Genetic Disease: Forum on the Technical,
Regulatory, and Societal Issues. Washington, DC: Georgetown University
Medical Center Program on Technology and Health Care.
Winner, Langdon
1977 Autonomous Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
1986 The Whale and the Reactor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wise, Norton
1988 Mediating Machines. Science in Context 2.
25
1989 Work and Waste: Political Economy and Natural Philosophy in Nineteenth
Century Britain (I). History of Science 27:263-301.
Woolgar, Steve
1981 Discovery and Logic in a Scientific Text. In Karin Knorr, Roger Krohn, and
Richard Whitley, eds., The Social Process of Scientific Investigation.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
1988 Science: The Very Idea. New York: Tavistock.
Woolgar, Steve, ed.
1988 Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Zabusky, Stacia
1991 Ambassadors of Science: Scientists, Bureaucracy, and Community in the
European Space Agency. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society
for Social Studies of Science.
Zimmerman, Jan, ed.
1983 The Technological Woman: Interfacing with Tomorrow. New York: Praeger.
Zuckerman, Harriet
1987 Citation Analysis and the Complex Problem of Intellectual Influence.
Scientometrics 12:345-353.