Special Section

Science, Technology, & Human Values

37(2) 226-240
ª The Author(s) 2012
Science Policy and Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
STS from Other DOI: 10.1177/0162243911417137
http://sthv.sagepub.com

Epistemic Places

Lisa Garforth1 and Tereza Stöckelová2

Abstract
Recently there have been pleas for STS to make a difference in how science
policies are constructed and enacted. Much less remarked upon is the
possibility that there may be troubling alignments between science studies
and research policies in the form of shared conceptual, epistemological
and methodological assumptions. Both have come to emphasise material
outputs and visible activity, obscuring other processes, relationships and
orderings involved in science work. This collection of papers focuses on
these connections between STS and contemporary research policies.
They explore empirical material from ‘other epistemic places’ (disciplinary,
geo-political and spatial) to foreground and critique what is privileged and
rewarded by science policies. But they also seek to make a theoretical
contribution to STS itself, showing how its early focus on the hard centres
of global technoscience have been constitutive of its characteristic
concerns, epistemologies -and blind spots. As science studies moves out of
the lab andbeyond the heartlands of the political West and global North, we

1
School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne,
United Kingdom
2
Institute of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech
Republic

Corresponding Author:
Lisa Garforth, School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University, Claremont
Bridge Building, Claremont Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, United Kingdom
Email: Lisa.garforth@ncl.ac.uk

Downloaded from sth.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

Garforth and Stöckelová 227

argue that acknowledging some problematic affinities between science

studies and science policy is both a critical necessity and an opportunity for
new insights.

Keywords
epistemology, research policies, governance, space/place/scale dynamics

Introduction
Recently there have been well-publicized pleas for science and technology
studies (STS) to enter the ‘‘policy room’’ (or explore different policy
rooms) and make a difference in how science policies are constructed and
enacted (Nowotny 2007; Webster 2007; Wynne 2007). Others have ana-
lyzed the impacts of neoliberal regimes of scientific management on the
organization and content of research (Lave, Mirowski, and Randalls
2010). Much less remarked upon, however, is the troubling possibility that
science studies and contemporary research policies share some conceptual,
epistemological, and methodological assumptions. Over the past few
decades, both have come to place a strong emphasis on material outputs and
visible activity, obscuring multiple other processes, relationships, and
orderings involved in science work. Both have privileged models of knowl-
edge production and circulation derived from the practical activities and
cultural norms of natural sciences in the West. The articles in this special
section explore these less visible and more risky connections between STS
and the governance and regulation of knowledge production. They speak
from other epistemic places, from positions in various ways at odds with the
organizational, geopolitical, and disciplinary centers of science policy and
science studies. Our material has been generated in the Czech Republic as well
as the United Kingdom. We have studied the epistemic practices and cultures
of researchers in sociology, social policy, and affiliated applied social science
disciplines as well as those of bioscientists and chemists. We also move
between the laboratory and its others: the office, the seminar room, and even
a countryside retreat where researchers’ work and private lives came
together in a Czech research symposium (Lorenz-Meyer, in press).
From our empirical studies at these research sites, we join recent efforts
to analyze science policies and the ways in which they are reshaping the
organization of research and its cultures and practices (Morris and Rip
2006; Nowotny, Scott, and Gibbons 2001; Slaughter and Rhoades 2004).

Downloaded from sth.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

228 Science, Technology, & Human Values 37(2)

At the same time, the articles examine shared assumptions and approaches
of STS and science policies. In the spirit of constructive criticism and cri-
tique, we want to reflexively apply some STS analytical devices to the field
itself. In what follows, we first outline our argument about the affinities
between research policies and science studies, and suggest that they might
be explained by the investments of both in geopolitical and natural science
heartlands. We go on to outline how research on epistemic work on the
edges of these heartlands opens up new methodological, theoretical, and
critical questions for science studies. Finally, we preview the three articles
in this special section and their shared themes.

Science Studies and Science Policy

Science studies emerged in the 1970s and 1980s as a shocking description
of scientific practice and a subversion of scientific common sense. STS pro-
voked by exposing the (natural) sciences to the scrutiny of external actors,
suspending the concepts of truth and representation as correspondence with
reality, explaining universality as an effect of networking practices, treating
societal interests as part of science, and assigning a central role to material
practice and performance rather than privileging special forms of cognition
and method (for systematic argument see e.g., Latour 1987). The suppo-
sedly closed institution of science and its self-representations were opened
up, boundaries were transgressed, and science/society topologies remapped.
However, some forty years later these once-shocking propositions
appear much less controversial in the context of current policy talk and
dominant contemporary imaginations of research cultures. Intense scrutiny
and governance of scientific research by external actors have become the
norm, and scientific knowledges can be valued as much for their impacts
or effects as for their intrinsic truth. In our own national contexts, the
U.K. Research Assessment Exercise (RAE, now the Research Excellence
Framework) has normalized the audit of academic outputs in the name of
research excellence and funding selectivity since 1986 (RAE 2008). In the
Czech Republic, the recent introduction of similar, and perhaps rather
cruder, audit measures (see Stöckelová, in press) has stimulated critique
and even outright opposition, but is treated by policy makers and many
scientists as a necessary and inevitable condition of performing national
research excellence in the context of European and global knowledge and
innovation economies. Science policies everywhere put increasing empha-
sis on efficiency, utility, and performance. They invite or demand that
science opens up its networks to become accountable to economic and

Downloaded from sth.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

Garforth and Stöckelová 229

societal interests, and translate knowledge into productive objects. The

ideal of the universality of scientific knowledge claims has been reshaped
in terms of global success and competition. Policies privilege visible, mate-
rialized, and measurable activities and outputs (papers, citations and, in the
rubric of the UK RAE, ‘‘research activity’’) while undervaluing processes
that cannot be made externally accountable (Strathern 2000).
Of course, there are crucial differences between STS and science poli-
cies. Science studies connect epistemology with the organization of science
and formulate an explicit critique of modern representational rationalities.
Science policies, by contrast, are content to leave scientists with modern
epistemological models, provided they are willing to submit to organiza-
tional governance (e.g., peer review remains largely in the hands of scien-
tists—see Morris and Rip 2006). STS has always sought to recognize and
value practice and process in the production of knowledge claims, while
contemporary science policies are largely oriented in instrumental terms
to outputs and uses. STS is concerned to describe what science-in-action
is and does, while policy works routinely with normative ideals for what
science should be and do. But in both cases, we draw attention to a shared
tendency to privilege knowledge objects and outputs and to focus on
observable and measurable activities of knowledge production rather than
less visible processes involving thinking work and the undervalued and
often institutionally invisible practices of reproduction and organization
that are crucial to sustaining and extending knowledge communities. We
argue that despite these important resonances between STS and contempo-
rary policies governing and shaping research cultures, science studies have
paid surprisingly little attention to the geopolitical, epistemic, and historical
contexts that have shaped its own program.
This inattention to the location and history of STS itself is examined by
Fuller in ‘‘Why science studies has never been critical of science’’ (2000).
In this polemic against Paris School STS, Fuller accuses actor-network the-
ory (ANT) and its Anglophone followers of clientism and quietism (2000,
29-30). Tying the insights of Latourian science studies directly to their con-
texts of production (the introduction of weak democratization and a strong
neoliberal agenda into the relationship between the French state and elite
academic institutions in the 1970s and 1980s), Fuller argues that the popu-
larity of ANT-influenced science studies can be explained by its capacity to
serve the interests of an increasingly capitalist and entrepreneurial academic
system. The emphasis in ANT on nonhuman agency is portrayed as a ‘‘gift’’
for scientists keen to reject arguments that science serves social interests
(Fuller 2000, 7).1 Its interest in innovation within technoscientific

Downloaded from sth.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

230 Science, Technology, & Human Values 37(2)

complexes serves the goals of a technocratic state in the thrall of the

knowledge economy (2000, 12). Its concern with networks and their exten-
sion (see e.g. Latour 1992), constitutes a self-interested case for enhancing
the power of knowledge mediators, who include science studies analysts
themselves. Work in the Latourian tradition is read as at best the product
of and at worst an apologia for the power of mass (social) engineering
which, in its focus purely upon the means by which knowledge claims come
to constitute realities, dangerously distracts from critical discussion of the
ends of scientific endeavor. ANT-influenced STS may appear radical within
its own limited field, but is harmless in—or, worse, complicit with—the
wider field of state–science–capitalist relations (Fuller 2000, 17).
We do not wish to endorse the hyperbolic and reductive elements of Full-
er’s case. Little evidence is offered in relation to accusations of clientism,
which seem to be rather crudely read off from the institutional positions
of the best-known French theorists. We do not agree that there is a mono-
lithic, unidirectional, and causal relationship between the neoliberal state
and the content of ANT-influenced STS. Many other STS scholars have
attested to the critical spirit of STS and the capacity even of descriptive
studies of knowledge practices to provide resources for multiple interven-
tions into science–society relationships. However, we do agree that the
adoption in some spheres of STS of a model of knowledge production
which emphasizes agonistic2 and competitive action, and its epistemologi-
cal investment in agnostic description rather than committed evaluation and
critique, means that in some respects it has come to ‘‘uncannily reproduce
. . . the value orientation of contemporary Big Science in the sites it has
chosen to study’’ (Fuller 2000, 26).3 By treating these sites of Western tech-
noculture as privileged methodological and epistemological fields for STS
as well as natural science knowledge production (Garforth, this volume),
resonances and connections between science studies and science policy are
produced.
In this context, it is useful to recall the argument developed by Boltanski
and Chiapello in The new spirit of capitalism (2007). Their analysis
explores the ways in which the anticapitalist critiques of the 1960s were
implicated in the transformation of capitalism into its current network,
project-oriented, and flexibility-driven forms. What once constituted a
radical critique was unwittingly appropriated by reconfigured institutions.
Boltanski and Chiapello show how academic discourse (including the
sociology of science developed by Callon and Latour) participated in the
formulation of the elements of the new capitalism, contributing central and
performative concepts such as the network, which shifted from a rather

Downloaded from sth.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

Garforth and Stöckelová 231

normative term, referring mostly to clandestine and hidden structures in

organizations, to a descriptive term which increasingly functions to natur-
alize specific realities (Boltanski and Chiapello 2007, 143-9).4 Their work
reminds us that the interplay between critical analysis and its subject is
always a complicated and multidirectional one which may, if we build on
Boltanski and Chiapello’s conceptual debts to Weber, work through elec-
tive affinities and have unintended consequences (Weber 2002; Turner
1996). Similarly, as Strathern has noted specifically in the context of audit
cultures, in a world of ‘‘supercomplexity,’’ criticism is ‘‘speedily gobbled
up as part of reflexivity,’’ with the attendant risk of contributing to the rein-
forcement and enhancement of the regimes being criticized (Strathern 2006,
200).

Science/Policy in the Heartlands

We believe that a key reason for the affinities we have identified between
STS and science policies is that both have been developed within the geo-
political heartlands of the United States and Western Europe, and with an
often unreflexive focus on the natural and technical sciences. In the case
of science policy, these have been the models of science that have formed
the policy ideal. In the case of science studies, they have functioned as the
hard centers of modern science that must be opened up and conquered. In
that subversive move, however, they are arguably reconstructed as centers.
A similar pattern seems to have emerged over the last twenty years or so as
STS has turned its attention to the study of finance and markets (Callon
1998; Knorr Cetina and Preda 2004; MacKenzie 2006). Social science dis-
ciplines are shown to have the same constitutive and performative powers
as the natural sciences—but the focus once again is on prestigious disci-
plines and subdisciplines (macro economics and financial economics) and
their capacity to produce quantitative models and standardized forms of cal-
culation analogous to the immutable mobiles so central to ANT analyses of
mainstream technoscience.
One way of challenging the emphasis in science studies on the ‘‘hard
centers’’ of science involves returning to laboratories. This may seem odd
at first glance. Remaining focused on the institutional sites and practices
of the natural sciences risks once again reproducing their centrality. But
as Henke and Gieryn have observed, in these approaches interest in specific
laboratories as places in their own right has been limited (2008, 354). In
ANT studies in particular, ‘‘the ‘local’ can seem quite abstract’’—places are
stripped of their historical and social specificity (Anderson and Adams

Downloaded from sth.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

232 Science, Technology, & Human Values 37(2)

2008, 190). By returning to the laboratory with these elements in mind, we

foreground the textures and complexities of transactions involved in episte-
mic geopolitics in relation to both science politics and science studies.
Another way of challenging the focus in science studies on the ‘‘hard cen-
ters’’ is to start researching beyond the laboratory and epistemic and geopo-
litical centers of calculation. In this way, we aim to add to emerging STS
studies of the knowledge production practices of the ‘‘soft,’’ qualitative
social sciences (Mayer 2009; Červinková, Mayer, and Wöhrer 2008; Dono-
van 2009; Law 2004). But in moving out into the peripheries of knowledge
production, it is important to avoid trying to squeeze data into conceptual
frames developed for grasping the heartlands. Here we also seek to question
the relevance of such frames for understanding science more broadly (in
both disciplinary and geographical terms), and even their exclusive ade-
quacy for understanding the centers.
In these articles, then, we want to join with a range of strands of science
studies attending to the importance of geographies, politics, and places in
knowledge production. ANT is of course deeply characterized by its interest
in global networks and power. Its has long been concerned with the
movement, circulation, and flow of technoscientific objects and with the
conditions and possibilities of action and even control at a distance associ-
ated with modern Western science and imperialism (Law 1986). Yet as
Anderson and Adams have argued, these approaches have ‘‘yet to capture
the full range of material transactions, translations, and transformations that
occur in making and mobilizing technoscience’’ (2008, 181). In response,
recent studies have increasingly foregrounded not just the distinctive spaces
(laboratories and networks) of epistemic cultures, but also how particular
places have shaped knowledge-in-the-making, paying attention to the geo-
political centers and peripheries of science (Henke and Gieryn 2008;
Livingstone 2003; Shapin 1998). These issues have been especially flagged
within postcolonial STS (e.g., Harding 2009; McNeil 2005; Verran 2002).
Drawing inspiration from these approaches (see especially Anderson and
Adams’ 2008 overview), we argue that by working from positions at odds
with the geopolitical heartlands of science—in the East in Europe, in the
soft/qualitative social sciences—we can create new analytical viewpoints
and look again at both science studies and the workings of policies for the
evaluation of science and research.
Our distinctive contribution is to consider both specific knowledge sites
and STS/ANT theories in relation to contemporary dynamics of science
assessment policies. In particular, we seek to explore how by speaking
largely from the geopolitical and natural science heartlands, STS has come

Downloaded from sth.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

Garforth and Stöckelová 233

to share certain conceptual assumptions with the logics of contemporary

research evaluation, which we go on to outline below.

Knowing in Other Places

The articles in this collection grew out of the EU sixth Framework Program
Project KNOWING: Knowledge, Gender and Institutions, which compared
national and disciplinary contexts of knowledge work. The project aimed to
consider knowledge-in-the-making alongside gender-in-the-making. It
focused on multiple and cross-cutting dynamics of gender and ‘‘East–
West’’ in science, and contrasted epistemic cultures (Knorr Cetina 1999)
in the natural and social sciences.5 While the project’s focus on gender is
not explicitly or centrally part of the analysis in the articles that follow, all
were informed by a critical attention to what objects, relations, and order-
ings get othered or made peripheral in science and in the governance and
study of science. The three articles in this special section explore other/
othered epistemic places, consider how they are positioned and produced
in relation to research policies, and use those places as sites from which
to speak back to science studies. We are particularly interested in how sci-
ence policies of various kinds (European, national, and institutional) are
taken up on the ground to become part of the routine orderings—and con-
testations—of epistemic cultures and organizations. But our articles not
only use the analytical toolbox of science studies to reflect critically on pol-
icy. They also look at the entanglement of policy imaginations and STS ana-
lytical assumptions on the ground.
A key way in which the three articles in this collection do that is by
returning to varying extents and with different emphases to an originary
scene of science studies knowledge production—the laboratory and its
influential reading in Laboratory Life (Latour and Woolgar 1986). We are
aware that recent accounts have emphasized the move out of the laboratory
and that many voices in the field are increasingly calling for multisited and
middle range studies of scientific knowledge production and circulation
(Hine 2007; Beaulieu, Scharnhorst, and Wouters 2007). However, these
early articulations of what matters in STS continue to resonate in the field,
and we return to them in order to explore their epistemic limits and blind
spots. We propose some ways of seeing laboratories differently: by drawing
attention to their geopolitical locations and by positioning them in relation
to epistemic cultures and places of work and reception in the nonnatural
sciences. These new lenses on the lab allow us to reconsider elements of
some influential early stories of STS/ANT in relation to new models of

Downloaded from sth.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

234 Science, Technology, & Human Values 37(2)

scientific excellence in national and institutional research policies, empha-

sizing a shared focus on elite laboratories, powerful networks, materialized
knowledge claims, visible scientific activity, and immutable mobiles.
We look closely at how and where these entities are made, both materi-
ally and epistemologically, and at what enables them to circulate as ‘‘glo-
bal’’ and ‘‘excellent.’’ As is now traditional in STS, our focus is on the
irreducibly local circumstances that are part of and not simply a backdrop
to knowledge-in-the-making. But we take local and contingent to mean not
just the ways in which the laboratory stands for the specificity of practice
per se, but also to include how particular laboratories themselves are made,
remade and extended, and the geopolitical context of sites of knowledge
production and circulation. The laboratory is treated in influential STS stud-
ies as a primary scene of knowledge-in-the-making—but how is the labora-
tory itself reproduced, maintained, extended, and ordered in the activity of
organizing scientific work? The laboratory has been important methodolo-
gically in STS, offering convenient field sites for the observation of science
in action—but what is invisible in the laboratory study, and why might
tropes of visibility and invisibility matter in both STS and science policy?
The laboratory is also the epistemic scene where the immutable mobiles
(Latour and Woolgar 1986) that have come to saturate science studies are
produced. But do all disciplines produce such highly materialized and
stabilized knowledge–objects? How might contesting immutability and
mobility challenge not only the evaluative models of science policy but also
some foundational assumptions of science studies?
In ‘‘Immutable mobiles derailed: STS, geopolitics and research assess-
ment,’’ Tereza Stöckelová examines the introduction of new audit measures
in the Czech Republic and analyses how researchers have responded to
them, in particular academics working in social science disciplines. She
argues that such assessments not only reinforce a model of scientific excel-
lence based on Western institutions and natural and technical science disci-
plines but can also be analyzed in terms of their affinity with the centrality
of in STS imaginaries of immutable mobile, that is, knowledge and objects
that are able to travel between nodes of a technoscientific network while
keeping the chain of reference intact. She argues that while providing a
description of how scientific facts are produced and recognized, and their
networks extended, Latour’s idea simultaneously risks reinforcing an ideal
of mobility and unchangeability, which is shared with the self-image of
scientists and increasingly underwrites the logics of contemporary science
policies. Insofar as knowledge objects in the social sciences and humanities
tend to be characterized by ‘‘disorderly mobilities and relative mutability,’’

Downloaded from sth.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

Garforth and Stöckelová 235

they can appear as deficits in the dominant logic. Stöckelová argues that
critically addressing such logics in national and institutional research
policies also demands a reconsideration of its continuing, if implicit, centrality
in science studies.
In ‘‘Locating excellence and enacting locality,’’ Dagmar Lorenz-Meyer
notes that the intense focus of early laboratory studies on opening up the
contents of science has meant that the tradition has had little to say expli-
citly about the organization, maintenance, and sociality of the laboratory
group. In this move, science studies may reproduce science policy’s deva-
luation of the work of care, maintenance and reproduction involved in sus-
taining, organizing and extending communities of research practice.
Drawing on detailed observational studies in two Czech physical science
laboratories, she draws attention to the laboratory as a location, in particular
the ways in which laboratories enact and order themselves as enterprising
and international/Westward focused. She also examines the laboratory as
a locale that involves material-affective work of care and sociality that
is routinely made invisible in both science studies and science policy.
Her article emphasizes the ways in which laboratories can be seen as both
policy actors and as sites of invisible labor that challenge us to rethink what
is involved in epistemic work and its evaluation.
In ‘‘In/visibilities of research: Seeing and knowing in STS,’’ Lisa
Garforth focuses on logics of visibility and practices of visibilising in both
science studies and science policies, beginning with the laboratory as a key
epistemic site for STS as well as the natural sciences. Laboratory studies
and observational methods have been tied up together in the STS project
of making scientific practice visible. In this article, Garforth explores the
dynamics of seeing and not seeing in fieldwork undertaken in bioscience
laboratories and social science fields and offices. She suggests that attend-
ing to these dynamics reveals some crucial practical and social limits of
vision for empirical researchers, as well as some theoretical problems
related to the epistemological and discursive investment in witnessing and
revealing science in action in the STS lab studies tradition. She goes on to
identify the ways in which both science studies and science policies fre-
quently conceive of academic knowledge in terms of visible and hence
auditable research activity, exemplified by a discussion of contemporary
U.K. research policies. Both frameworks emphasize material outputs and
visible activity at the expense of considering the role of cognitive practices
in knowledge production.
Thinking from and about the other epistemic places outlined above helps
us to work from our empirical material to foreground and critique what is

Downloaded from sth.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

236 Science, Technology, & Human Values 37(2)

privileged and rewarded by science policies. But we seek also to make a

theoretical contribution to the development of STS itself, by showing how
its early focus on the hard centers of global technoscience has been consti-
tutive of its own characteristic concerns, epistemologies, and blind spots.
As science studies increasingly moves out of the lab and into the field, the
network and the office, as it attends to ambiguous and hybrid terrains in the
social sciences and beyond the heartlands of the political West and global
North, we argue that acknowledging some of the problematic affinities
between science studies and science is not only a critical necessity but an
opportunity for making new insights.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank all those who participated in their empirical
research. They are also grateful to partners in the KNOWING project for the genera-
tive discussions that helped to develop the idea for this special section. The authors
especially acknowledge Morgan Meyer for his help in the early stages of this special
section and his helpful comments on early drafts of the manuscripts.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Notes
1. Such as those of the ‘‘Strong Programme’’ in SSK, and Fuller’s own social epis-
temology (Fuller 2002).
2. See Haraway 1997 (inter alia) for a critique of Latour’s ‘‘agonistic’’ model of
science in action (in Latour 1987) and the ways in which its emphasis on ‘‘trials
of strength,’’ the amassing of allies, and successful world-building mimics and
reproduces a heroic and masculine narrative of technoscience as a game of win-
ners and losers (Haraway 1997, 34).
3. Fuller draws attention in particular to Knorr Cetina’s (1999) Epistemic Cultures
which took as its field sites CERN and a major molecular biology laboratory.
4. For more conceptual and political (though not policy in a strict sense) reasons,
Law (2002) cautions, within STS itself, against naturalizing a network in ANT.
5. KNOWING was funded under the EC’s sixth Framework Program, Structuring
the ERA, Specific Targeted Research Project No. SAS-CT-2005-017617,

Downloaded from sth.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

Garforth and Stöckelová 237

conducted 2006-2008. More information about the project can be found online at
www.knowing.cs.cz, and the final comparative project findings can be found in
Felt 2009. The views expressed in this article are those of the writers and do not
necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission.

References
Anderson, Warwick, and Vincanne Adams. 2008. ‘‘Pramoedya’s Chickens: Postco-
lonial Studies of Technoscience.’’ In The Handbook of Science and Technology
Studies, edited by Edward J. Hackett, Amsterdamska Olga, Lynch Michael and
Wajcman Judy, 3rd ed. 181–204. London: Sage.
Beaulieu, Anne, Andrea Scharnhorst, and Paul Wouters. 2007. ‘‘Not Another
Case Study: A Middle-Range Interrogation of Ethnographic Case Studies in
the Exploration of E-Science.’’ Science, Technology, & Human Values 32:
672–92.
Boltanski, Luc, and Eve Chiapello. 2007. The New Spirit of Capitalism. London: Verso.
Callon, Michel. 1998. ‘‘Introduction.’’ In The Laws of the Markets, edited by Michel.
Callon. Oxford: Blackwell.
Červinková, Alice, Katja Mayer, and Veronika Wöhrer. 2007. Workshop
Report: Research on Social Sciences and Humanities: Sharing Experiences
and Discussing Methodological Approaches. Workshops in Vienna: October
18-20, 2007 and Prague: December 11-13, 2007. Accessed July 3, 2010.
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/katja.mayer/ssh/SSHreport_final.pdf.
Donovan, Claire. 2009. ‘‘Gradgrinding the Social Sciences: The Politics of Metrics
of Political Science.’’ Political Studies Review 7:73–83.
Felt, Ulrike, ed. 2009. Knowing and Living in Academic Research. Convergence
and Heterogeneity in Research Cultures in the European Context. Prague: Institute
of Sociology of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.
Fuller, Stephen. 2000. ‘‘Why Science Studies has Never Been Critical of Science: Some
Recent Lessons on how to be a Helpful Nuisance and a Harmless Radical.’’ Philo-
sophy of the Social Sciences 30:5–32.
Fuller, Stephen. 2002. Social Epistemology. 2nd ed. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Haraway, Donna J. 1997. Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan#_
Meets_OncoMouseÔ. London: Routledge.
Harding, Sandra. 2009. ‘‘Postcolonial and Feminist Philosophies of Science and
Technology: Convergences and Dissonances.’’ Postcolonial Studies 12:
401–21.
Henke, Christopher R., and Thomas F. Gieryn. 2008. ‘‘Sites of Scientific Practice:
The Enduring Importance of Place.’’ In The Handbook of Science and Technology

Downloaded from sth.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

238 Science, Technology, & Human Values 37(2)

Studies, edited by Edward J. Hackett , Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and

Judy Wajcman, 3rd ed., 353–402. London: Sage.
Hine, Christine. 2007. ‘‘Multi-Sited Ethnography as a Middle Range Methodol-
ogy for Contemporary STS.’’ Science, Technology, & Human Values 32:
652–71.
Knorr Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Knorr Cetina, Karin, and Alex Preda, eds. 2004. The Sociology of Financial Mar-
kets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers
Through Society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Latour, Bruno. 1992. ‘‘Where are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a few Mun-
dane Objects.’’ In Shaping Technology, edited by Weibe Bijker and John Law,
225–58. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Latour, Bruno, and Stephen Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory Life: the Construction of
Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lave, Rebecca, Philip Mirowski, and Samuel Randalls. 2010. ‘‘Introduction: STS
and Neoliberal Science.’’ Social Studies of Science 40:659–75.
Law, John. 1986. ‘‘On the Methods of Long Distance Control: Vessels, Navigation
and the Portugese Route to India.’’ In Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology
of Knowledge?, edited by John Law. 231–260. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Law, John. 2002. ‘‘Objects and Spaces.’’ Theory, Culture & Society 19:91–105.
Law, John. 2004. After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London:
Routledge.
Livingstone, David. 2003. Putting Science in its Place: Geographies of Scientific
Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lorenz-Meyer. (in press). ‘‘Locating excellence and enacting locality.’’ Science,
Technology, & Human Values.
MacKenzie, Donald. 2006. An Engine, not a Camera: Finance Theory and the
Making of Markets. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mayer, Katja. 2009. ‘‘Acting with Social Sciences and Humanities.’’ Session
Report, EASST Review 28:7–14.
McNeil, Maureen. 2005. ‘‘Introduction: Post-Colonial Technoscience.’’ Science as
Culture 14:104–12.
Morris, Norma, and Arie Rip. 2006. ‘‘Proactive Adaptation: Scientists’ Coping Stra-
tegies in an Evolving Research System: The Case of Life Scientists in the UK.’’
Science and Public Policy 33:253–63.
Nowotny, Helga. 2007. ‘‘How Many Policy Rooms are There?’’ Science, Technol-
ogy, & Human Values 32:479–90.

Downloaded from sth.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

Garforth and Stöckelová 239

Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-Thinking Science:
Knowledge and the Public in an age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
RAE (Research Assessment Exercise). 2008. Website Frequently Asked Questions.
Accessed June 20, 2010. http://www.rae.ac.uk/aboutus/history.asp.
Shapin, Steven. 1998. ‘‘Placing the View from Nowhere: Historical and Sociologi-
cal Problems in the Location of Science.’’ Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers 23:5–12.
Slaughter, Sheila, and Gary Rhoades. 2004. Academic Capitalism and the new
Economy: Markets, States, and Higher Education. Baltimore, Maryland: The
John Hopkins University Press.
Stockelova. (in press). ‘‘Immutable mobiles derailed.’’ Science, Technology, &
Human Values.
Strathern, Marilyn, ed. 2000. Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Account-
ability, Ethics and the Academy. London: Routledge.
Strathern, Marilyn. 2006. ‘‘Bullet-Proofing: A Tale from the United Kingdom.’’ In
Documents: Artefacts of Modern Knowledge, edited by Anneliese Riles,
181–205. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Turner, Bryan S. 1996. For Weber: Essays on the Sociology of Fate. 2nd ed. London:
Sage.
Verran, Helen. 2002. ‘‘A Postcolonial Moment in Science Studies: Alternative Firing
Regimes of Environmental Scientists and Aboriginal Landowners.’’ Social Stud-
ies of Science 32:729–62.
Weber, Max. 2002. The Protestant Ethic and ‘the Spirit of Capitalism’. Middlesex:
Penguin. Translated by Peter Baehr and Gordon C. Wells [original English trans-
lation 1930].
Webster, Andrew. 2007. ‘‘Boundaries: Social Science in the Policy Room.’’ Science,
Technology, & Human Values 32:458–78.
Wöhrer, Veronika. 2008. Complicity and Ambivalence: Questioning the Boundaries of
a Research Field. Paper Presented at 4S/EASST Joint Conference Acting with Sci-
ence, Technology and Medicine, 20-23 August 2008, Rotterdam. Accessed June 6,
2011. http://homepage.univie.ac.at/katja.mayer/ssh/easst2008/woehrer.pdf.
Wynne, Brian. 2007. ‘‘Dazzled by the Mirage of Influence?’’ Science, Technology,
& Human Values 32:491–503.

Bioss
Lisa Garforth is a lecturer in Sociology at Newcastle University. She has published
on gender, academic organisations and epistemic practices, and on women and
science policies. Her other research interests are in environmental knowledges, in
particular the imagination of alternative futures with nature.

Downloaded from sth.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

240 Science, Technology, & Human Values 37(2)

Tereza Stöckelová is a research fellow at the Institute of Sociology of the Academy

of Sciences of the CR and a lecturer at Charles University, Prague. She collaborates
wih the Green Circle environmental NGL and is a spokesperson for the ProAlt civic
initiative. She is the author of Biotechnologization: legitimacy, materiality and
instantiations of resistance (2008) and edited the collection Czech science in flux:
ethnography of making, administering and enterprizing knowledge in the academy
(2009).

Downloaded from sth.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016