SHARONTRAWEEK

AN I N T R O D U C T I O N TO C U L T U R A L AND SOCIAL STUDIES

OF SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES

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.

A. POST-WAR HISTORY, PHILOSOPHY, AND SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE

Most areas of academic inquiry about sciences, technologies, and societies have
emerged since World War I!. The major exceptions are history and philosophy
of science. Credit for founding the history of science as an academic research
specialty, at least in the United States, is given George Sarton, a Belgian
physician who coordinated relief efforts immediately after World War I. He
thought that if more people understood the role of science, technology, and
medicine in human affairs it might eliminate war; he immigrated to the United
States and eventually established such a program at Harvard University. (Robert
Merton, usually credited with establishing sociology of science in the United
States during the 1950s, studied with Sarton who was also the father of poet
May Sarton.)
The historians focussed on the chronological development of the most notable
Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 17: 3-25, 1993.
9 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

SHARON TRAWEEK

scientific ideas and experiments, secondly on biographies of the people credited

with the most important discoveries and inventions, and thirdly with histories of
eminent laboratories. What counted as most important and notable were the
antecedents of contemporary practices. Although this sort of history ordinarily
would not be taken seriously because it judged the past primarily in terms of the
present rather than its own terms, it was and often is acceptable to historians of
science and technology. That is because of their deeply held beliefs about the
ways scientific knowledge changes: bad ideas are eventually proved wrong and
correct ones survive and triumph, a notion most of us would find hard to accept
about other areas of human endeavor.
The earliest and much current Anglo-American philosophy of science is
usually associated with the study of logic and language, growing out of the
movements for analytic philosophy and logical positivism. They attended to the
logical relations between successful scientific ideas. Early historians and
philosophers of science both assumed that the sciences had happened upon a
singular and more perfect way of knowing. They conducted their researches
without questioning this assumption and this epistemological attitude informed
almost all researches about scientific, medical, and engineering practices until
about twenty-five years ago and still informs most such studies.

B. PROLIFERATIONOF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY,AND MEDICINE STUDIES

Since World War II there has been a near avalanche of research on the way
communities of scientists, engineers, and physicians make knowledge. Furthermore, this research is stunningly diverse. There are experts in at least twenty
academic disciplines studying science, medicine, and technology as social
phenomena. Because I want to emphasize the diversity and depth of the work
already underway, for the rest of this paragraph I shall list those disciplines and
some of their main areas of research about sciences, medicines, and technologies. My list, albeit incomplete, includes: anthropology (archeo-astronomy,
cognitive anthropology, ethnobotany, ethnoscience, material culture, and
medical anthropology); architecture (laboratory design and planning of science
cities); art history (medicine, science, and technology in artistic materials, forms,
and themes); business and public administration (management of research and
development, hospital and laboratory administration, organizational studies,
venture capital investment in high technology, and investment policies for
research and development); economics (cost-benefit analyses and quality
indicators for science, technology, and medicine; relationship of research and
development to economic change; role of innovation in economic change; and
role of medical, scientific, and technological transfer in economic development);
education (science education at all levels; engineering, medical, and scientific

SOCIAL STUDIESOF SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES

human resources; engineering, medical, and scientific professional education;

and public understanding of engineering, medicine, and science); history
(history of medicine, history of science, history of technology, and museums);
international relations (science and technology policy, public health policy; arms
control and disarmament policy; science and technology transfer; and international economic development policies); law (ecological law; technological
evidence, such as the status of photography, genetic "fingerprinting," voice
prints, etc.; expert testimony, international laws concerning sciences, medicine,
and technologies; law of the seas; law of space; patent law); libraries for
engineering, medicine, and science (archives, collections, indices, information
retrieval systems, and information networks); literature (medical, scientific, and
engineering rhetoric; medical, scientific, and engineering writing; medicine,
science, and technology in literary forms and themes; science fiction, including
s/f, speculative fiction, and fantasy; and autobiography in medicine, science, and
engineering); medical school programs on medical ethics, history, law, and
policy; philosophy (epistemology, ethics, philosophy of science, and philosophy
of technology); political science (health policy; large-scale systems organization, risk analyses of engineering, medical, and scientific practices; science and
technology policy, including local, state, regional, national, and international
policies; science, medicine, and technology in international relations); psychology (clinical psychology of scientists, cognitive psychology of scientific
reasoning, creativity among scientists, comparative psychology of healing,
wellness, and illness); public health (administration, ethics, law, policy);
religious studies (cosmologies; relationship between religion, medicine, science,
and technology; relationship between humans, phenomenal world, and healing);
sociology (ethnomethodology; human resources for engineering, medicine, and
science; medical sociology; sociology of professions; sociology of science);
statistics (scientometrics); and women's studies (women engineers, physicians,
and scientists; discriminatory practices among engineers, physicians, and
scientists; gender, race, class, and national biases in engineering, medical, and
scientific researches; engendered epistemologies in engineering, medicine, and
science).
There is significant variation within each of these areas of specialization and
there are also major theoretical, methodological, analytic, and interpretive
differences. Indeed, there are national differences in the practice of these
specialities. Most of these subfields have their own associations, journals, and
conferences; the most active interdisciplinary organizations include the Society
for the Social Studies of Science, often called "4S," and the European Association for the Social Study of Science and Technology, usually referred to by its
acronym, EASSST. University presses publish series in most of these fields and
funding sources are diverse; in the United States these would include government agencies such as the NSF, NIH, and NEH, as well as numerous private

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.

SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCESAND TECHNOLOGIES

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

SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES

the resources necessary to conduct research, such as reputations, students, lab

techniques, equipment, networks, and funding. They also study how these
massed resources serve as investments, as reserve capital, not only for enabling
research, but also for restraining the researchers from choosing to work on
problems for which they have no accumulated resources (Barnes, Bloor, Collins,
Knorr, Latour, Law, Picketing, Pinch, Shafer & Shapin). A few of these
sociologists and social historians have been very interested in how credit is
allocated for innovation and discovery, such as in competition for patents,
especially in molecular biology and genetic engineering (Cambrosio, Mackenzie). The group working primarily on technology (Bijker, Pinch) have
emphasized the complex interplay among innovation, design, and social change,
demonstrating that "social impact" models of the relations between technologies
and societies are crude. All have argued that the research strategies employed by
scientists, engineers, and physicians are remarkably diverse rather than abiding
by some singular "scientific method." Each subfield has its own traditional
practices for the rigorous production of data and adjudication about that data. It
is particularly from this research that we now understand that there is no unitary
science, technology, or medicine, only plural practices.
These resolutely empiricist European and American sociologists and social
historians doing social studies of sciences, technologies, and medical practices
have steadfastly refused to accept the ontology of the scientists, physicians, and
engineers (the "discoverers," the "inventors," the "discovered," the "invented")
as natural facts or as facts of nature. They also do not accept the scientists',
physicians', and engineers' point of view about the most significant scientific,
medical, and technological work (as most traditional philosophers, historians,
and sociologists do). They do not confine themselves to the practitioners' selfreporting about their values, goals, practices, or accomplishments (whether the
official documents of discovery, articles and log books, or memoires). They also
do not indulge in the construct of some unitary "scientist," "engineer," or
"physician;" they are specific, diverse, plural actors. Most even think that they
can provide a more accurate representation of how scientific, medical, and
engineering knowledge is actually constructed than either the practitioners or the
traditional philosophers, sociologists, and historians of sciences, technologies,
and medical practices (Collins, Latour, Woolgar). They also believe that
scientists, physicians, and engineers should welcome this research so that they
can improve their practices. It is also crucial to some of these sociologists that
they examine their own analytic, methodological, rhetorical, and epistemological assumptions as carefully as they examine those of their subjects; their goal is
to improve sociology as well as science, medicine, and engineering (Ashmore,
Pinch, Woolgar).
In bearing witness to the scientists' and engineers' work activities, these
Europeans doing social studies of sciences, medicines, and technologies have

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.

E. A DIGRESSIONABOUT SOCIOLOGYAND ANTHROPOLOGYIN EUROPE,

THE COMMONWEALTH,AND THE UNITED STATES
To understand the difference between European and American sociology of
science it may be important to remember that sociology as an academic
discipline is much larger and institutionally stronger in the United States than in
Europe or the British Commonwealth. In the United States, for example,
sociology has approximately ten times the number of university and college
faculty in anthropology, and, unlike anthropology, sociology graduates have
many professional opportunities beyond academia, usually assessing markets
and public opinion or formulating and implementing social policies. There are
also many more funding opportunities for sociological research, particularly
those employing quantitative methods which have come to dominate the field.
By contrast, in Europe and the United Kingdom sociology has usually remained
attached to anthropology departments with fewer faculty, students, and funds.
The significant exception is that during Margaret Thatcher's administration
sociology of science was spared many of the funding cuts imposed upon
academic research of all kinds and in some cases sociology of science programs
even expanded. Nevertheless, most European sociologists of science received
their education in departments combining sociology and social anthropology;
they also have strong interests in philosophical theories of social action.
Furthermore, there are significant differences between European, Common-

SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES

11

wealth, and American anthropology. Throughout the British Commonwealth my

disciplinary colleagues call our subject social anthropology and they want to
know all about the profane: social structure, social hierarchies, lineages,
ownership, and Social boundaries. They tell us how rationally actors engage in
functional decision-making and disputes about the aforementioned profanities.
In Francophonie they do the sacred: quite precise Marxist and structuralist
analyses of the language of kinship, myth, and initiation. In Germania they do
Linnaean exotica: classificatory schemas of odd human communities according
to diverse amusing criteria (and on occasion there have been social Darwinist or
Marxist rankings to add a rather dynamic, genetic twist to the story). There are a
few polyglots who do a sort of Euro-anthropology, concentrating on how to
transgress these tidy classifications, sacred languages, and social structures, how
to violate the centers of these worlds.
Anthropologists in the United States usually try to tell anthropology stories
differently. There are lots of anthropologies here and each has its own organization, by-laws, membership, journal, favorite stories, and such, since we
Americans always want a "choice": there is an economic, legal, political,
medical, psychological, ecological, humanistic, visual, demographic, and
linguistic anthropology and there are certainly others. Some of us call this
melange cultural anthropology and we tell stories about 'culture': what makes
people think-feel-talk-mean-act in ways that everyone in their group takes to be
normal (or a meaningful variant, including eccentricity) and everyone outside it
takes to be utterly strange and ultimately meaningless and how all this changes
across generations and in shifting ecologies. Of course, there are also a full
complement of theoretical approaches in cultural anthropology: feminist,
interpretive, Marxist, materialist, psychoanalytic, socialist, structuralist,
symbolic, world systems, and so on, some of which intersect on occasion. The
most recent of these, the interpretive approach, has emerged in the late seventies
as world political economies began to blur old borders, as the richest economies
shifted from manufacturing to knowledge and service production, as the rich and
poor (including academics) began to travel internationally for work (Asad,
Clifford & Deshawar, Harvey, and Trin Min-ha).
We interpretive anthropologists usually align ourselves with those literary
theorists, art historians, classicists, economists, philosophers, historians, legal
studies researchers and so on who do "cultural studies": we all attend to
patterned interactions, such as oral and written discourse, or any other "social
text" such as a poem, an article, a scientist, a detector, a policy, a set of terms, or
a conference, in which the form and the content reverberate to evoke significant
strategic meaning to those who know the local patterns. Discursive, strategic,
evocative practices are key terms in our lexicon. For many years now these
researchers have been concerned with how relations of power are
enacted/performed/(re)produced locally and globally through discursive

12

SHARON TRAWEEK

practices/representations/evocations. This is the sort of anthropology of science I

am practicing; there are certainly others. Anthropologists using this approach to
study science, technology, and medicine include Downey, Flower, Forsythe,
Georges, Heath, Hess, Lane, Lyon, Rabinow, Traweek, Tudor, Weeks, and
Zabersky.

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

SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES

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).

H. GENDER STUDIESOF SCIENCES,

TECHNOLOGIES, AND MEDICAL PRACTICES

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

SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES

15

of science, explores how gender studies lead us to revise our understanding of

epistemology (objectivity, rationality, logic, theories, and methods) in both the
natural and social sciences. Each of these three scholars' work is internationally
known; each is also read as provocative and even disturbing by researchers
using their fields' more conventional methods. Of course, many intellectuals
find extremely irritating the very idea that highly respected epistemologies
might be saturated with gender assumptions. What I find interesting is the
debates their work generates, the debates between them, and the research their
work has inspired, notably that of Helen Longino.
I am sure the readers of this journal know there is now a very large body of
research on the social, cultural, and political issues in reproductive technologies,
a set of technologies that have had a stunning impact on women under fifty in
industrialized countries and which now are rapidly spreading over the rest of the
world. (See Arditti, Brighton, Hartouni, Jacobus, Layne, Martin, O'Brien, Ochs,
Petchesky, Rapp, Rothman, Stanworth, Zimmerman.) The rapid development of
new reproductive technologies in the last thirty years include those for prevention of pregnancy ("the pill" and intrauterine devices), inducing pregnancy
(artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization), surveillance of pregnancy
(fetal heart monitoring, ultrasound, amniocentesis, and chorionic villus
sampling- CVS), birthing, termination of pregnancy, and infertility testing.
These new technologies became available in the United States as the "baby
boom" generation reached reproductive age and as the women's movement
increased many women's interest in gaining a more active decision-making role
in their pregnancies than had been the custom for their mothers. The cohort with
the most experience with these new technologies also happens to be that part of
the baby boom generation which has produced both a large number of women
academics and a vast amount of research on women and gender. It is, therefore,
perhaps not surprising that most of the research on women, sciences, technologies, and medical practices concerns reproductive technologies. It also
happens to be the case that most feminist theory about sciences, technologies,
and medical practices concerns reproductive technologies.
The academic home for most of this research has been in the anthropology
and sociology of medicine, history of technology, religious studies, and
women's studies; I think the first notable work in anthropology has been done
by Emily Martin at Johns Hopkins and Rayna Rapp at the New School, both of
whom have focussed on the interpretations of technologies of pregnancy
surveillance among diverse client populations and how those meanings reverberate with other parts of these women's lives. Both researchers have drawn
heavily from symbolic, political, and feminist anthropology for their arguments.
Emily Martin has drawn too upon Foucault for interpreting how surveillance of
pregnancy resembles government surveillance and classification of citizens.
Other work outside anthropology, such as the recent research on the role of

16

SHARON TRAWEEK

images in the production of scientific knowledge (by Karin Knorr, Bruno

Latour, and Michael Lynch, among others) can also be brought to bear on the
issues of how medical discourses about reproductive technologies are created, as
can the new research on the social history of reproductive technologies. For
example, Linda Layne at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute attends to the way
parents are creating a discourse about their pregnancy loss where no such prior
discourse exists. The new technologies are creating decisions and experience for
which there are no recognized antecedents. Nonetheless, as Layne's work, that
done by Eugenia Georges at Rice University and several contributors to this
volume show, the new discourse does not emerge de novo; it emerges at a
specific historical moment, in a specific political economy, in specific social
classes, drawing upon specific moral, social, and scientific languages, and so on.
They and some researchers addressing AIDS focus on the variations in these
new discursive practices, the new limits exerted on this discourse, and the
textual and institutional sites for the emergence of this new discourse. (See also
Hartouni, Jacobus et al, Petchesky, Treichler, and Tudor.)

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-

SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES

17

tometrics, Social Studies of Science; Technology and Culture; Technoscience (Newsletter

of the Society for Social Studies of Science]
Abir-Am, Pnina, and Dorinda Outram, eds.
1987 Uneasy Careers and Intimate Lives: Women in Science, 1789-1979. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Arditti, Rita; Renate Duelli-Klein, and Shelley Minden, eds.
1984 Test-Tube Women: What Future for Motherhood? New York: Routledge
(Pandora).
Asad, Talal, ed.
1973 Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. London: Ithaca Press.
Ashmore, Malcolm
1989 The Reflexive Thesis: Writing Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Bagioli, Mario
forthcoming Galileo Courtier. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Barnes, Barry
1977 Interests and the Growth of Knowledge. New York: Routledge.
Bazerman, Charles
1988 Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in
Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
1989 Introduction to the Symposium: Rhetoricians on the Rhetoric of Science.
Science, Technology & Human Values 14( 1):3-6.
Betz, Nancy E.
1990 What Stops Women and Minorities from Choosing and Completing Majors in
Science and Engineering? Washington, D.C.: Federation of Behavioral,
Psychological and Cognitive Sciences.
Bieker, Wiebe, Trevor Pinch, and Thomas Hughes, eds.
1987 The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the
Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bleier, Ruth
1984 Science and Gender. New York: Pergamon Press.
Bleier, Ruth, ed.
1986 Feminist Approaches to Science. New York: Pergamon Press.
Bloor, David
1976 Knowledge and Social Imagery. New York: Roufledge.
Botelho, Antonio Jose
1990 Far from Silicon Valley: Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World.
Paper presented at 15th annual meeting of Society for Social Studies of
Science.
Brighton Women and Science Group
1980 Alice through the Microscope: The Power of Science over Women's Lives.
London: Virago.
Callon, Michel
1978 De Problemes en Problemes: Itineraires d'un Laboratoire Universitaire Saisi
par l'Aventure Technique. Paris: Cordes.
Callon, Michel, and John Law
1982 On Interests and Their Transformation: Enrollment and Counter-Enrollment.
Social Studies of Science 12:615-625.
Callon, John Law, and Arie Rip, eds.
1986 Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in
the Real World. Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Macmillan.
Cambrozio, Alberto, and Peter Keating
1988 Going Monoclonal: Art, Science, and Magic in the Day-to-Day Use of
Hybridoma Technology. Social Problems 35:244-260.

18

SHARON TRAWEEK

Chamberlain, Madam, ed.

1988 Women in Academe: Progress and Prospects. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Chubin, Daryl, and Edward Hackett
1989 On the Virtues of 'Self-Study.' Science, Technology and Human Values
14:96-98.
Clifford, James and Vivek Dhareshwar, eds.
1989 Traveling Theories, Traveling Theorists. Inscriptions 5.
Cole, Jonathan, Stephen Cole, and L. Rubin
1978 Peer Review in the National Science Foundation: Phase I of a Study.
Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Cole, Jonathan, and Stephen Cole
1981 Peer Review in the National Science Foundation: Phase II of a Study.
Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
1973 Social Stratification in Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Collins, H. M., and Trevor Pinch
1982 Frames of Meaning: The Social Construction of Extraordinary Science. New
York: Routledge.
Collins, Harry M.
1985 Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Courtial, Jean-Pierre, and John Law
1989 A Co-Word Study of Artificial Intelligence. Social Studies of Science
19(2):301-312.
Cowan, Ruth Schwartz
1983 More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open
Hearth to the Microwave. New York: Basic Books.
Cozzens, Susan, and Thomas Gieryn, eds.
1990 Theories of Science in Society. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Crane, Diana
1972 Invisible Colleges. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1980 An Exploratory Study of Kuhnian Paradigms in Theoretical High Energy
Physics. Social Studies of Science 10:23-54.
Downey, Gary
1988 Reproducing Cultural Identity in Negotiating Nuclear Power: The Union of
Concerned Scientists and Emergency Core Cooling. Social Studies of Science
18(2):231-265.
Dubinskas, Frank, ed.
1988 Making Time: Ethnographic Studies of High-Technology Organizations.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Duster, Troy
1990 Eugenics through the Back Door. New York: Routledge.
Fausto-Sterling, Anne
1985 Myths of Gender. New York: Basic Books.
Feyerabend, Paul
1975 Against Method. London: New Left Books.
Findlen, Paula
1989 Museums, Collecting, and Scientific Culture in Early Modem Italy. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Fleck, Ludwig
1979 Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Forsythe, Diana
1992 Blaming the User in Medical Informatics: The Cultural Nature of Scientific
Practice. In L. Layne and D. Hess, eds. Knowledge and Society. Greenwich,

SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES

19

CT: JAI Press.

Fujimura, Joan
1991 On Methods, Ontologies, and Representation in the Sociology of Science:
Where Do We Stand? In David Maines, ed. Social Organization and Social
Process: Essays in Honor of Anselm Strauss. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Fujimura, Joan, and Adele Clarke, eds.
1991 The Right Tools for the Job in 20th Century Life Sciences: Materials,
Instruments, Models, and Work Organization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Fuller, Steve
1988 Social Epistemology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Galison, Peter
1987 How Experiments End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1988 History, Philosophy, and the Metaphor. Science in Context 2:197-212.
Galison, Peter, ed.
1992 Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Garfield, Eugene
1979 Citation Indexing: Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and
Humanities. New York: Wiley.
Garfinkel, Harold
1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gerson, Elihu
1983 Scientific Work and Social Worlds. Knowledge 4:357-377.
Gooding, David, Trevor Pinch and Simon Schaffer, ed.
1989 The Uses of Experiment: Studies in the Natural Sciences. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gross, Alan
1990 Rhetoric of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Haas, Violet, and Carolyn Perruci, eds.
1984 Women in Scientific and Engineering Professions. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Hacker, Sally
1990 "Doing It the Hard Way": Investigations of Gender and Technology. Dorothy
Smith and Susan Turner, eds. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Hacking, Ian
1983 Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of the
Natural Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hanson, Norbert R.
1958 Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haraway, Donna
1989 Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modem Science.
New York: Routledge.
Harding, Sandra
1986 The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca, NY: Comell University Press.
1991 Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women's Lives. Ithaca,
NY: Comell University Press.
Harding, Sandra, ed.
1987 Feminism and Methodology: Social Science Issues. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Harding, San&a, and Jean O'Barr, eds.
1987 Sex and Scientific Inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hartouni, Valerie
1991 Containing Women: Reproductive Discourse(s) in the 1980's. In Constance
Penley and Andrew Ross, eds., Technoculture. New York: Routledge.

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.

SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES

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

1973 The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Norman

Storer, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mukerji, Chandra
1989 A Fragile Power: Scientists and the State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Noble, David
1977 America by Design. New York: Knopf.
O'Brien, Mary
1981 The Politics of Reproduction. New York: Routedge.
Ochs, Kathleen
forthcoming Women and Technology. In Bruce Seely and Bruce Sinclair, eds.,
Critical Problems in History of Science and History of Technology.
Ortner, Sherry, and Harriet Whitehead, eds.
1981 Sexual Meanings: The Cultural Construction of Gender and Sexuality.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Petchesky, Rosalind Pollack
1987 Fetal Images: The Power of Visual Culture in the Politics of Reproduction.
Feminist Studies 13(2):263-292.
Pickering, Andy
1984 Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Pickering, Andy, ed.
1992 Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pinch, Trevor
1986 Confronting Nature. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Polanyi, Michael
1958 Personal Knowledge. New York: Routledge.
1967 TheTacit Dimension. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
Popper, Karl
1968 The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper & Row.
Porter, Theodore M.
1986 The Rise of Statistical Thinking 1820-1900. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Price, Derek J. de Solla
1963 Big Science, Little Science. New York: Columbia University Press.
Reed, Evelyn
1978 Sexism and Science. New York: Pathfinder Press.
Reiter, Rayna Rapp, ed.
1975 Toward an Anthropology of Women. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Restivo, Sal
1980 Multiple Realities, Scientific Objectivity, and the Sociology of Knowledge.
Reflections 1(1):61-76.
Restivo, Sal, and Michael Zenzen
1982 The Mysterious Morphology of Immiscible Liquids. Social Science Information 21:447-473.
Restivo, Sal, and Julie Loughlin
1987 Critical Sociology of Science and Scientific Validity. Knowledge: Creation,
Diffusion, Utilization 8(3):486-508.
Rosaldo, Michelle Zimbalist and Louise Lamphere, eds.
1974 Women, Culture, and Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Rose, Hilary, and Seven, eds.
1976 The Radicalisation of Science. London: Macmillan.
1979 Ideology of/in the Natural Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing.
Rosser, Sue V., ed.
1988 Feminism within the Science and Healthcare Professions. New York: Per-

SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES

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.

SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES

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.