Issue in brief (PDF is here: 1976 Volume 1 Issue 4 Fall).
- Specific but preliminary schedule for the first annual meeting — John Law, Karen Knorr, Nicholas Mullins, Sal Restivo, Robert Merton, Steve Woolgar, Bruno Latour (at the Salk Labs at the time!), H.M. Collins, and a 6:00pm cocktail hour.
- Plans for the second meeting chaired by Nicholas Mullins.
- List of current publications includes a few from Kuhn, Merton, and Nelkin.
- In the dissertations section, H.M. Collins’s dissertation from University of Bath is mentioned along with Donald McKenzie’s dissertation from University of Edinbugh and Steve Woolgar’s dissertation from University of Cambridge. A good year…
- Extremely odd: there must have been a misprint this issue because, as Trever Pinch’s bold arrow drawing verifies, we go from page 8 to page 21.
Given that a few pages are missing, this review is a bit limited. I wish I had a full copy — if anybody does, please write (njr12@psu.edu).
Arnold Thackray writes a short innocuous piece about the future of the burgeoning — purportedly, the society boasts 400+ members since its inception in a San Francisco meeting (anybody know anything about that particular founding meeting?) — society that reflections on the need for professional societies to attend to annual meetings and publication outlets for its members.
The first annual meeting program is in this issue too. The meeting was held in Ithaca, NY, at Cornell University. The meeting started November 4 (Thursday) with an invited panel on interdisciplinary in the social studies of science (including Jean-Jacque Salomon). After lunch, John Law give a talk “Anomie and Normal Science” (I’m not sure what project this relates to in his long publication history) and Karen Knorr gives a talk “Policy Makers’ use of social science knowledge: Symbolic or instrumental?”. The next session is about the structure of science where Nicholas Mullins and a big group from Indiana University present. On Friday morning the next session starts with Karen Knorr giving another presentation, this time about the organization of research units, along with Sal Restivo’s talk about Chinese social studies of science — interesting. After lunch, business meetings ensue, a cocktail hour at 6:00pm, and then during the banquet Nelson Polsby introduces Robert Merton’s presidential address. On Saturday morning (November 6, 1976) — I would really have loved to see this session, although I was not yet alive — “Problems in the Social Studies of Science” could be applied to the topics (and the participants), which includes Steve Woolgar’s (Brunel University) “Problems and Possibilities of the Sociological Analysis of Scientific Accounts,” Bruno Latour’s (The Salk Institute) “Including Citation Counting in the System of Actions of Scientific Papers,” and — another classic — H.M. Collins’ (University of Bath) “Upon the Replication of Scientific Findings: A Discussion Illuminated by the Experiences of Researchers into Paraphychology” (the research project that Ashmore later lambastes him for in The Reflexivity Thesis under … Steve Woolgar’s tutelage — perhaps Ashmore attended the session). After lunch we see another session by the same title with invited scholars — possibly from the ISA — from Bielefeld, Kiev, Hungary, and East Berlin).
Not a lot more of interest given that a few pages are missing — the missing pages include notes on the forthcoming meeting as well as an unnamed book review — but the list of just-completed dissertations is a fun tour of the past.
Nowakowska’s chapter (starting page 295) seems, both in style and structure, NOT to have caught-on in STS — at least, in a way that is recognizable today. Mainly predicated on the quantification of scientific careers, there is still a small corner of STS curious about citation indexing and counting publications and so on (classical sociological stuff where gender, some indication of hierarchy, and race place significant roles).
LikeLike
Determinants and Controls of Scientific Development
edited by K.D. Knorr, H. Strasser, H.G. Zilian
LikeLike
Nowak — really good question; my guess is that part of the answer will be found in future programs (not sure how many presentations Nowakowski presented), but the company in that session should indicate quite clearly the stature of her thinking.
As I review more newsletters, we will keep an eye on her.
>
LikeLike
In session with Latour a presenter was a polish scientist prof. Maria Nowakowska, she was quite interesting scholar, unfortunetly she died in 1989. I am curious if she influence this early stage of STS. She developed intersting epidemical model of science: Nowakowska M., „Epidemical models of the development of science”, Science of Science , 2 (1981). Thanks for this, I will use as a example in my talk in Torun.
LikeLike