STS KEY QUESTIONS EXAM

Explain the meaning of the notion of "cultures of evidence" and use an example to illustrate this. (L: 8)

"Cultures of evidence" refer to evidence-based decision making. These evidences are different between every culture, society, countries, etc. depending on regulatory standards. Example 1: Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) case (see above) Example 2: Nuclear waste (maybe useful if Felt is doing the exam) When looking at standards and regulations between different cultures one can use this as an example to show that "evidence", meaning what factors decisions of eg waste deposit or transport are based on, might vary (example: different levels of toxicity)

Sketch the emergence of the scientific journal as a scientific institution and the roles associated with it. In particular, explain the role of "peer-reviewing".

LONG VERSION BASED ON SLIDES: Due to the emergence of scientific spaces like laboratories arose a need to communicate the outcomes of these experiences to a wider public which could not attend for reasons like material and spatial limitations to direct spectatorship. However, writing books about experiments was not useful, also because they were very slow ways of communication (knowledge changed already, people who where interested were also already dead etc.). This fostered the need to come up with a quicker way of communication: The scientific journal. In a very short span of time we can see how the institution takes shape and changes over time: In 1665 Henry Oldenburg, secretary of the Royal Society founds started the first thing which resembled a journal: Philosophical Transactions. Note that this was also for economic reasons: He was not rich and wanted to sell something to an interested audience. Therefore, he used an accessible style for the general public to maximize readership. We see that language, openness and financial benefit are therefore timeless aspects of scientific publishing discourse. Increasingly, Oldenburg writes about experiments reported to him in letters by researchers. To make the journal interesting, he stresses controversial and contradictory findings. This is an important first step in establishing a culture of exchange and mutual criticism. However, this crashed with existing conventions of courtesy and led to strong resistance by many researchers. As conflicts rise and the science system grows and becomes more complex, Oldenburg increasingly ceases to write himself and publishes letters by scientists directly. This led to a new situation for authors: they can't blame the editor for any imprecision and errors. A new, more defensive and technical style of writing sets in. This came with t

Describe the role of the experiment as a new way of producing knowledge in early modern science.

early 17th century as turning point earlier "scholars" had focused on the preservation of ancient knowledge rather than the production of new knowledge gradually scientists start to use the experimental method as privileged way of knowledge production method of experiment as a combination of perspectives from artists (study of nature and its representation), craftsmen (hands on) and scholars (theories and concepts) early modern scientists emphasized direct engagement with the natural world through systematic observation and experimentation, setting the stage for the development of modern scientific methods and principles.

44. What is the role of standardization in contemporary societies? Sketch the advantages and problems. Give one example where standards matter.

"In one way or another, we are attached to the idea that if our lives, our organisations, our social theories or our societies, were 'properly ordered' then all would be well." (Law 2004) • Modern societies seem to strongly believe in their capacities to order the world, but also that this ordering ultimately leads to better ways of living in this world. • "overwhelming appeal of quantification" and our deep "trust in numbers" (Porter 1995) ==> believed to be an objective, apolitical way of representing our world • Role of standardization and classification as a dominant way to order our world Standards (promise) to make the world better by making it predictable. An easy example that we also discussed at length in the lecture is about the layout of the keyboard. Which was originally laid out like that to minimize the keys getting stuck together due to the mechanics of the typewriter machine. Later when newer technologies were adopted this layout was preserved because it had become the standard and people had adjusted to it. If they had changed it, people would have had trouble adjusting and lost the skills of typing fast (at least for some time). The exact layout depends on the country/language because the optimal layout of the keys at the time of the mechanical typewriter varied to the language structure and stayed that way. Any number of other examples are possible. For example the standard size of the lightbulb, when you go to the store you can expect that provided you look at a couple of numbers on your lamp or previous lightbulb you can find a new one from the store that will fit and work as expected. Food standards, in Europe at least you can generally expect that if the packaging says that whats inside is pork, it won't be horse meat (with notable exceptions), or that if a product has a k

Explain the concept of "civic epistemology" and give an example. (L:8, T: Jasanoff 2005)

"Refers to the institutionalized practices by which members of a given society test and deploy knowledge claims used as a basis for making collective choices" (Jasanoff 2006, p. 225) It refers to the ways in which knowledge and expertise are recognised, valued and utilized in different cultural contexts. That involves public decision-making, and governance, and encompasses diverse forms of knowledge, including scientific knowledge and community-based knowledge (& relations between the two). Saying that we need to investigate public knowledge practices and how they embrace constructing, reviewing, validation and deliberating politically relevant knowledge. (In: The role of knowledge in policy processes) This is done collectively (societal process) and not individually. Example: Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) Compared to q. 55 we understand this to be the decision making process and the culture of evidence to be more the basis on which decisions are being made.

What does Wynne mean by "lay reflexivity" and how does he relate it to science communication? (L: 8, T: Wynne 1996)

"The lay people in this case showed themselves to be more ready than the scientific experts to reflect upon the status of their own knowledge, and to relate it to that of others and their own social identities" "The case shows the unacknowledged reflexive capability of lay people in articulation responses to scientific expertise They are able to reflect on and develop their own social position as past of a 'dependent' response in which they are supposed to enjoy no powers of independent critical rationality autonomous from 'proper' assimilation of scientific understanding." (Wynne 1996, p.40, p.43) This relates to science communication as it highlights the importance of trust and credibility when it comes to scientists. Wynne (1996) also states that the cultural dimension should not be put aside. "Lay reflexivity" plays a big role in seeing both sides of science communication even though it is often overlooked and unacknowledged. Wynne ascribes this characteristic of reflection of their own social position only to the side of the public, in this case the farmers. Reflection is thus missing in the debate of science communication. Provokes the question if only scientists can be experts? (Answer in L:8, also lay people can be experts for specific questions)

Discuss CCD as a "slow disaster", and comment on why it is difficult to identify the cause for this disaster.

(PPT 8: 30.11 & Suryanarayanan & Kleinman 2012) Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is seen as an example of a slow disaster. Bee colonies, and their death, have a great influence on our ecology, and bee extinction would be a great disaster. Slowly massive amounts of bee colonies die. As it moves slowly, CCD goes against our common perception of a disaster. There is no immediate moment where all the bee colonies are gone, and the effects are visible. The difficulty in identifying the cause of CCD is that the causal effects of conditions between the laboratory and the field are difficult to answer conclusively; the complex interactions of chemical and environmental factors differ between the laboratory and the field. In the U.S., beekeepers and scientists, both experts, disagree on whether CCD is caused by pesticides. Additionally, bee research is often conducted in departments of and by researchers trained in entomology. In the USA, historically, this field has focused more on killing insects than preserving them, and on toxicology rather than ecology. This results in mono-causal results than more complex but less significant (multi-factorial) models. The scientists' epistemology is prioritized in regulation and policy-making.

Discuss two key questions and debates in STS scholarship on science communication that Davies and Horst identify.

(the according paper is in the required reading, 8b - all quotes are copied from it, the paper is also not published yet; there are more than 3 debates mentioned so you may choose :)) why do research on science communication? "science communication research frequently aims to make science communication practice 'better' in some way, for instance by more effectively promoting learning" STS is known for "primarily being oriented to questions of power and efforts to democratise science" && "seek[ing] to render science policy and practice more open to public values and knowledges" cultural turn of science communication research:: "science communication is studied as one aspect of public meaning-making. Such research thus attempts to disengage from the immediate aims of science communication in order to examine how it is being articulated within particular societies and contexts" what is the nature & purpose of science communication "public science communication can be hard to differentiate from 'normal' academic dissemination between scientists", bc 'science' and 'society' are not clearly distinct in STS research, and also boundaries are more blurry "in a time of open science and 'academic Twitter'" knowledge production & communication are never separate! → "scientific 'facts' are re-made, transformed, and appropriated in both public and novel scientific contexts, and that communication is constitutive of science itself. Such work thus emphasises that science communication is not separate from science, but closely entangled with its knowledge production as well as with scientific identities." how to render science communication more inclusive? critical exploration questions of equity, diversity, and justice in science communication (intersections with post-, & decolonia

Explain the concept of "responsible research and innovation" and shortly outline its four dimensions.

According to Felt et al (2023), The concept of RRI can be unfolded differently depending on the cultural context, the innovation domains where are applied, and how societal actors feel affected by the change. While can be considered as an open and vague concept, open to many specific contextual interpretations, authors like Stilgoe, Owen and Macnaghten (2013) says "Responsible innovation means taking care of the future through collective stewardship of science and innovation in the present." and propose four key dimensions to handle this issue: 1) anticipation: The increasing of the resilience as a responsibility of the actors involved. 2) Inclusion / Inclusiveness: Who is included in the way which innovation is being done. Refers to the quality of dialogues as a learning exercise, and sensibility towards different values. 3) Reflexion / Reflexivity: Both individual and institutional. how things are framed and what are the limits of knowledge. Also speaks about assessing societal expectations. 4) Responsiveness. Speaks about responding to demands and inequities from certain societal actors. Refers to commitment to the public interest, alignment of actors, realistic assessments of limits and potential mistakes, open handling of conflict of interest and adaptative to chance. On the other hand, the European Commission chose a different approach, with a definition like: "It allows all societal actors (researchers, citizens, policy makers, business, third sector organisations etc.) to work together during the whole research and innovation process in order to better align both the process and its outcomes with the values, needs and expectations of European society. This approach to research and innovation is called Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)" The approaches included are ethics, gender quality, science

Explain the different meanings of responsibility in science that Glerup and Horst identify.

According to Glerup & Horst (2014), there are different meanings of responsibility in practice and they divide it in four political rationalities. These rationalities "are arranged in relation to whether they advocate internal or external regulation of science and if they propose the process of science or the outcome of science as their object of steering." The four rationalities are: Reflexivity: Science should learn from societal problems and provide solutions Contribution: Science should be regulated by society to ensure that outcomes are useful Demarcation: Science should continuously questions its own motives and methods Integration: Societal actors should be included in the process and conduct of science in order to influence the direction of research.

On which forms of social organization has trust within science been based historically? Discuss the different means of achieving social order and give examples.

Considering the Shapin text, trust within science has historically been based on a scientist's credentials. John Locke, among others, advised practitioners to factor the creditworthiness of the source by the credibility of the matter claimed by that source. They argued that you might accept an implausible outcome from a creditworthy source and reject plausible claims from sources lacking creditworthiness. Calibrating a person's trustworthiness could be done based on what they claimed to have witnessed. Also, certain people were known to be more trustworthy than others. Roughly speaking, the distribution of credibility followed the contours of English society. In such a setting, one knew what types of people were credible, just as one knew who were suspect. Some people argued that trust should be based on the testimonies of things rather than the testimonies of types of people. An interesting example presented in the Shapin text described how a man who was poor and possibly mad, but at the same time a Cambridge graduate was the perfect subject for an experiment on the transfusion of animal blood into a human body. Due to his condition, it was convenient, though possibly immoral, to use him, but the credibility of his experience would be intact.

Explain the meaning of critique for STS. What is the relation between de-constructing and re- constructing in critical work in STS?

Context Modernity: STS problematize the clear cut distinction between nature and culture embedded in research, modernity relies on the purification and separation of society from nature and vice versa: translation things/challenges we encounter take shape in heterogenous networks of humans/non-humans; relations between all entities matter Critique We live in a world where scientific knowledge and techno artifacts just play a key role, most of the time we do not question the order created through them STS when engages with it, overly deconstructive: where do we solutions, what do we think of critique "Not matter of saying that things are not right as they are...pointing out assumptions, challenging familiar, unquestioned modes of thinking that we accept; to try to change it Multiple solutions Deconstruction: what can I question? What does our investigation/questioning mean for changing the way we live in the world, developing new/different notions of science/techno/innovation for "common good" Reconstruction: aware that things could be different, seeing that the world could work differently; understand how we identify problems, whose values are involved Defining what the problem is already means we have decided on a framing Science is always situated in a context

Name two key laboratory studies in STS and briefly explain their focus.

Culture and practices are related to the knowledge produced - eg. sample sizes If the practices/ cultures changes, then the knowledge will also change These early lab studies were preoccupied with showing that science is a cultural practice in the first place: 1) Latour, Bruno, and Woolgar, Steve. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1986 [1979] The goal of both authors was to rule out the planned character of science - it is much messier. Therefore, they consciously did their study in a Lab of very established scientists (eg. a Nobel Prize winner) to show that also the top tier of science works doesn´t follow this idealized way of doing science, but is messier, opportunistic and random as we want to acknowledge. Therefore, they focused their study on a neuroendocrinology laboratory at the Salk Institute using a participant-observation design to see how scientific facts are constructed.[7] They could show how biologists are entangled in different literature (scientific lit. and their own field reports) and how facts are produced by changing "modalities"- the way the fact becomes divorced from its contexts and origin as it leaves the laboratory setting. Latour and Woolgar come from a more semiotic way (to show how materialized science is) and use the gag that they observe the scientists like a tribe of natives in the amazon (like studying something very exotic). The goal was to study something which seemed to be completely out of culture and use the methods already existing to observe now the scientific practices as something estranged. (ethnography). 2) Karin Knorr-Cetina: The Manufacture of Knowledge. An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981 Knorr-Cetina studies in her book a plant protein laboratory at Berkley a

Describe briefly the different stages in Kuhn's model of scientific development. Sketch each of the stages.

Development of science I. Pre-science - co-existence of multiple paradigms · Incompatible frames of reference from different paradigms · → no cumulative integration of knowledge possible I.5 Focus on one dominant paradigm II. Normal science - "solving puzzles" · Common theories, methods, questions are defined and refined · Disciplines established · Observations that can't align with paradigm are ignored or classified as anomalies III. Crisis - too many, too strong anomalies · Anomalies and inconsistencies within existing paradigm accumulate, leading to a sense of crisis · Scientists become aware of limitations and contradictions in the current paradigm IV. Revolution - "bring in the new puzzle" · paradigm shift · new scientific frameworks IV.5 General acceptance of new paradigm V. & II. Normal science (again) 11. Discuss some main similarities and differences of Thomas Kuhn's and Ludwik Fleck's theories of the development of scientific knowledge Similarities - both argue that scientific knowledge is socially constructed and the genesis of knowledge adheres to its social context - both emphasize that knowledge is produced through collective processes, scientific communities Differences Paradigms vs. Thought styles - Kuhn: established the notion of paradigms, which guide knowledge production within a discipline - Fleck: introduced concept of thought styles, which refers to shared assumptions and thought patterns in a scientific community à contrary to paradigms, they are not exclusive to scientific communities but apply to all kind of communities + they are more specific and not overarching like paradigms Historical context - Kuhn: development of scientific knowledge as the development of paradigms and disciplines over time - Fleck: scientific knowledge is shaped by the specific social a

Explain what Brown and Michael mean by "retrospecting prospects" and "prospecting retrospects". Give an example. (L:6)

Directly connected to Anticipation of previous question, specifically: Sociology of expectations (e.g. Brown & Michael 2003) · Used to understand/analyze/deconstruct visions of future & how are they produced in a specific societal context 1. Retrospecting prospects: · the recollection of past futures or how the future was once represented · e.g., how nuclear energy was advertised in 1950s/1990s?, · e.g. Google Glass (2013), how it presented past future visions & resulted in questions of privacy & intrusive design 2. Prospecting retrospects: · how these prospects/past futures are deployed now to construct futures · e.g., how in the discussion about nuclear energy future in Austria, people referenced back to past vision of future & how genetic technologies on agriculture were discussed (Felt, 2015), · e.g. Smart Glasses (2019), rebranding of Google Glass (2013) & how this was developed/improved from past vision connected to Google Glass (2013) Other Vocabulary: · Future pasts o the present is a story to be told; it is the object of a future memory; „anticipation of the story we will tell later, envisaging the present as past" (Currie 2010).

What is the problem with the notion of "discovery" in research? Briefly reflect the meaning of the term and point at some of its problems.

Discovery: knowledge is always connected to a specific situation → situatedness of knowledge → need to contextualise: What you are trying to answer shapes what you observe What counts as discovery is related to Social processes of validation Context in which the discovery is interpreted What is discovery? When does discovery happen? Observation or publication/socially acknowledged? Deconstructing discovery: it's about history, history as a tool that creates and reproduces a narrative In reality there is a plurality of truths/discoveries Discovery is always the creation of what we know; making certain things visible and rendering others invisible Problems: The object of natural law discovered is assumed to exist independently of its context of discovery, it is not changed by being discovered problem: ignores the role of ideas/theories/social contexts we already hold when "discovering" something and find it "unexpected" Thought styles The person who discovers: neglects complex contexts and networks in which knowledge and innovation is made; reduces discovery to a specific moment

. Name and shortly explain Nelkin's typology of disputes (4 types)

Dorothy Nelkin named four different ways to classify controversies 1. Social, moral, and religious implications of knowledge or technology These controversies relate to debates on different ethical principles of techno-scientific innovations. The example in the lecture was given to the 'saviour siblings' where an embryo could provide through their umbilical cord stem cells and other tissue to treat an older sibling who suffers from a (serious) medical condition. Different social, moral, and religious debates could be argued around this dispute. 2. Tensions between environmental values and political and economic priorities Hajer's (1996) concept of "emblematic events/issues" is useful to reflect on how certain kinds of events fulfill a key role in order to raise awareness of environmental issues. The issue's focus or the issue itself might change. But these issues are crucial to understanding what the environmental problem is. (This is not a text we read for this course). The examples that were given in the lecture were around the unequal distribution of risks, related to the environments people live in: risks of living next to a nuclear waste disposal. Waste disposal, in general, showcases the tensions well. Other examples were debates around urban air pollution, acid rain (1980s) & global warming. 3. Health hazards associated with industrial and commercial practices Examples included the debate around (invisible) risks due to food additives, dioxin in animal products (e.g. meat), air pollution, and asbestos. 4. Tensions between individual expectations and social and community goals. Examples include the tension between individual health behaviors versus the consequences for public health and others. Obesity and vaccination are typical illustrations of this dispute Another related example is the right to i

Describe the basic tenets of the linear innovation model and its critique.

Innovation is viewed as a technologically centered process. The linear innovation model is a way of illustrating how this process works and consists of the following steps: 1) basic research, 2) applied research, 3) technological development, and 4) application. The first step concerns itself with research done for the sake of scientific inquiry and exploration. The second step researches the potential applications and uses for the findings. The third step is the development of tangible products or services. Lastly follows the application of the product or service among consumers. Critique of this model is for instance that the model is too focused on "step-by-step", is not nuanced enough, and disregards the messiness of the innovation process and other contributing factors. Furthermore, it neglects the phenomena of the coproduction of innovation and society. Critics also say that the model is too focused on the technological artifact and the developer as a single person, and therefore does not pay enough attention to the process of formation.

Techno-scientific controversies are struggles over .... Name and shortly explain the three lines of struggles discussed in class.

Firstly, controversies are a normal state of science. Some controversies become public ones, others stay within a scientific community. STS has been historically interested in controversies as they are sites where deep contradictions become visible. Furthermore, they highlight the social process of science. Controversies highlight the imaginaries, which are socially and culturally rooted, about the world. Techno-scientific controversies are struggles over who is responsible for and accountable in the contexts of science and technology. The three lines of struggle over controversies discussed in class are: 1) Meaning and morality: ethnicization of technoscientic issues, often in relation to radicalization of expression. It plays with the ambivalence of technoscientific advances. An example of this is the Frankensteinization of GMO foods. 2) Distribution of resources: an issue over who benefits from a controversy and who is able to partake in resources in a controversy. The idea of Wynne (his article about the controversy of experts for sheep-holders after Chernobyl) , who are invited and uninvited public to a controversial struggle. 3) Locus of power and control: is about who is in the position of an expert and is able to claim legitimacy over a technoscientific issue. At this line, it is also the question of when an issue is able to become a public issue.

How does Ludwik Fleck understand the emergence of "scientific facts"? Give a short description of his approach to conceptualizing knowledge production.

Fleck argues that scientific facts are not objective entities waiting to be discovered but are instead socially constructed within specific thought styles or thought collectives. A thought style is a set of shared beliefs, assumptions, and methods that characterize a scientific community at a given time. In Fleck's view, the emergence of scientific facts involves a two-step process. First, there is the establishment of a "pre-fact," which is a preliminary concept or idea. This pre-fact undergoes a process of stabilization and maturation within the thought collective. Once the pre-fact achieves a sufficient level of consensus and stability, it transforms into a "scientific fact." Overall, Fleck's approach challenges the traditional view of scientific objectivity and highlights the social and historical aspects of scientific knowledge production.

Explain the concepts "thought style", "thought collective" and „proto-idea" by Ludwik Fleck.

Flecks concepts to describe how knowledge is created Thought style · intellectual preparedness, both enables and constraints thinking · what and how we see and what and how we think depends on a collectively created thought style → assimilated through sustained interaction with others · example: thought style of "bedside medicine" determined how people were treated (treatment centred on patient's milieu) change to thought style of "clinical medicine" completely shifted medical treatment (treatment centred on clinic) Thought collective · "a community of persons mutually exchanging ideas or maintaining intellectual interaction" - scientific knowledge is a result of connections between concepts and ideas that are laid out by the community of researchers, laying the groundwork from which individual researchers can draw their conclusions · "truth" is thus always a relative value, expressed in the language/symbols of a specific thought collective Proto idea · pre-existing societal knowledge and ideas shape scientific innovation many established scientific facts are best understood as interpretations of prescientific, somewhat hazy 'proto-ideas' in the framework of a certain 'thought-style' · → ideas do not literally come from nowhere example: the modern knowledge of infection as an interpretation of the ancient proto-idea of diseases as caused by minute 'animalcules'

Which factors do Felt et al. describe as framing and limiting a co-creation environment?

Framing the domain of health in relation to co-creation are particularly three factors: 1) the funding scripts, 2) the format of the project, and 3) the sociotechnical infrastructure. The funding scripts for the digital health data platform Felt et al. researched was largely concerned with portraying the need for a digital platform because of society's success and longevity. The narrative of the platform focused on how digital innovation was the only way forward, and how any "reasonable citizen" would unconditionally accept the platform. The developers framed the story in such a way that people would think digital technologies are driving societal development and as the only reasonable way forward. As far as co-creation goes, it allowed for the platform to adapt to some user needs, but the platform was not disrupted or profoundly questioned. In other words, the script of the technology can be viewed as somewhat limiting co-creation, as it framed the platform as a necessity and reasonable tool for a very particular problem. Felt et al. also viewed the framing of the project to play an important role. In the case of the digital health data platform, the project and technology have already determined what "the problem that needs solving" is. By already defining the problem, they do not leave much room for discussing what the challenge consists of. Further, this means that they have the power to determine the solution to their defined problem. They defined the problem in a way where there was little to contest against the digital platform as a fitting solution. In the case of Felt et al., this meant prioritizing the digital solution over possible social dimensions to the solution. Once again, co-creation was limited due to the almost tailor-made problem and solution. Nevertheless, some forms of co-creation did happ

Name and shortly explain the four norms of science proposed by Robert K. Merton. Reflect also the critique it raised.

Note, that this was written in the 1940s, when this was the centre of debate (!) and therefore it encompasses an unusual degree of moral integrity. Virtue alone doesn´t work but there is something else, that guarantees trust in science and scientists. - Universalism: Truth claims are to be accepted or rejected according to pre-established impersonal criteria. Whether something is true or not should be independent of the person making the claim. There is an objective truth out there which we can explore and therefore our conclusions should be the same. Criticism: What about sexism, racism nepotism and nationalism in science? There are phenomena which are inherently different for different people (eg. the glass wall of society) - Commun(al)ism: The knowledge produced by science is commonly owned. There is no individual ownership. The ownership structure of scientific knowledge is communist: Everyone owns the knowledge produced. Therefore, there is no right of rent or profit from scientific knowledge. It belongs to everyone. Criticism: What about science funded by private interest or in a commercial context? What about patents? - Disinterestedness: Scientists prime motivation should be the general advancement of science, not their career, nor their personal benefit, [nor societal concerns]. This is what´s left of the virtues of science: One has to be selfless, not inflicted with personal issues when it comes to science. It is for the advancement of humanity, not personal career. Criticism: Can scientists today really be disinterested of their career? (economisation of science) What about societally relevant research? (birth control) - Organized Scepticism: The results of science are to be subjected to scrutiny and processes of confirmation and validation Basically Peer-review, results should be discussed and revalidated

What roles do future vision and anticipation play in the development of science and society? (L:6; T: Hoeyer, 2019)

Future Vision · Drive both science & society · Developments o In the past rather connected to i.e. religion vs. in contemporary societies more connected to technological innovation o Growing density of social investment in developing methods & techniques to anticipate futures § Care for societal developments more situate in the 'not-yet' rather than in the now · 'Futuring' gains authority o As argument & justification for technoscientific & societal choices o Citizens are requested to comply & support act adequate to avoid specific futures o E.g., pushing certain technologies/socio-technical change to mediate climate change · Promising of specific futures in which science & actors around innovation engaged in o Used to make political statements about the present (e.g., what to invest in & prioritize) o Can narrow our way of producing knowledge more research in ares with short term perspectives o Example Hoeyer (2019) Promissory data vs. Data-as-evidence § Promises can be fragile (e.g., Hoeyer (2019), promise of big data helping to increase quality of life in future) § Highlights question of accountability and responsibility o Example EU policy narratives § fostering more technological innovation in the economic context over social innovation (Innovation as technopolitical visions of the future) · Recent call for participatory futuring o Due to issues of local vs. global & socio-cultural differences · Need for attention to: o conditions of production and circulation -- the future making, moments (when), processes (how), places (where) and actors (who) involves -- play a pivotal role in (re)creating power relations and in ordering contemporary societies Anticipation (Work) · Adds emotional dimension to futures (longing for /dreading specific futures) o anticipation as "politics of temporalit

What does John Law mean when he says "Seeing like a survey"? Explain how surveys create a specific understanding of "publics" and of what they know about and which attitudes they have towards science. (L:9, T: Law 2009)

He shows how a method produces what it pretends to "measure". So in designing surveys, we insert a specific understanding of the people who are being surveyed & most often there are already predefined outcomes in mind. "seeing like a survey" refers to how survey data is made more homogeneous (equal) in this process leaving things out. Example (from the lecture): European survey where there seems to be one "European citizen". Other example: Binary gender options in surveys.

How did the role of the university as key institution of science change over time and how did this impact knowledge generation?

Historically, universities were not seen as places of knowledge production, but to conserve ancient knowledge. Basically they were more concerned with discussing Plato than inventing stuff. Over time, especially in the German context, there was a shift to the Humboltian ideal - the combination of teaching and research in one institution. Research and the discovery of new knowledge becomes institutionalised at universities; and because of that new professional roles (the scientist); and gradually also new spaces such as laboratories develop in university contexts. The goal was to be academic independent from the state and the church, be self-organized and strive for the German ideal of „Bildung" - roughly translated as "being knowledgeable/ educated" - rather than professional training. Note, that these aims were never fully meet. However, since the university is also under influence from society at large, there was always the question around what role the university plays. Here, in the "knowledge economy," the ideal shifted to a place where the global workforce should be trained. Moreover, rankings, markers and other metrics became more important; together with the idea of measuring the output of universities. The central category of the modern university is now productivity, measured in output. This notion of "institutions have to be productive" (which replaced that universities derive relevance/ authority sui generis = Bildung) leads also to the idea that universities have to have societal impact and be relevant. Therefore, next to research and teaching an active role in society ( Knowledgetransfer; further education/ life long learning; societal commitment) is expected - summarized under the term third mission. Helga Nowotny and other analysts highlight a transformation in the contemporary un

What are the basic premises of actor-network theory? (L:5; T: Latour 1992)

Important scalars: Bruno Latour, Michel Callon, John Law, Madeleine Akrich Main Premises 1. Proposes a social theory that includes technologies (and other non-human actors) (started to develop in the 80s) 2. Explores how relations between objects, people, and concepts are formed, rather than why they are formed · material-semiotic approach (i.e. ANT maps relations that are both material (between things) and 'semiotic' (between concepts)) · Critique on sociologism & technologism (Latour, 1991)/ technological determinism & social constructivism (Akrich, 1992) 3. Need to look at association & consider both - "the technological" & "the social" · "Socio-technical" · Seamless & flat webs between human & non-human actors (Max) · Each actor can be seen as a network itself e.g., a bank, a state. Other examples: Grading Algorithm in UK Development of Networks 1. Problematization by initial actors 2. Proposition of non-human actor as 'Obligatory Passage Point' · A node that is essential for the network to work 3. Social work of translating interests to enroll/mobilize actors to stabilize/expand network · Aligning interests through translation & negotiations (fragility of network/change or abandonment of technology if not successful) 4. Expansion & continued stabilization · Through devising & implementing strategies Other Important Vocabulary: · Punctualization o Networks appear to be operating as whole, its often treated as single entity o Network becomes invisible, until they break down

Explain Jasanoff's concept of technologies of humility. What problem does Jasanoff (2003) address with this concept?

In Jasanoff's perspective, there is a need to adopt a more humble approach regarding technology due to what is considered the "technologies of hubris". Technologies of hubris refers to the notion that with the modernity, in which we think that we can reach certainty, uncertainty is a treat to collective action, "the disease that knowledge must cure". That leads to different dilemas for decision-makers, to reduce at any cost uncertainty and feed the frenzy for new knowledge. "To reassure the public, and to keep the wheels of science and industry turning, governments have developed a series of predictive methods (e.g., risk assessment, costbenefit analysis, climate modelling) that are designed, on the whole, to facilitate management and control, even in areas of high uncertainty." (Jasanoff 2003) That is problematic because: Scientific consensus and certainty is the exception rather than the rule for controversial topics Current scientific consensus might be significantly revised later (e.g. sugar/fat controversies; health-related indicators) The focus on scientific input alone eclipses dimensions of the decision which are not reducible to scientific facts, but rather are social, ethical or political - Who benefits? Which kind of technology do we want for our society? On the other hand, technologies of humility means to slow down,take things slowly and understand that participation is a social technology. "...methods, or better yet institutionalized habits of thought, that try to come to grips with (...) the unknown, the uncertain, the ambiguous, and the uncontrollable. Acknowledging the limits of prediction and control, (...). They call for different expert capabilities (...). They require not only the formal mechanisms of participation but also an intellectual environment in which citizens are encoura

What is an "inscription device"? What role do inscription devices play in research?

Inscription device is a term used by Bruno Latour to describe the power of laboratory equipment to "transform[ing] a material substance into a figure or diagram" (1979: 51). Behind that lies the thought that the object (heat) and data (number of degrees in Celsius) are identical when they are in fact a translation by the inscription device (thermometer). The graph shows how an inscription device works. Crucially, it establishes the idea that its output, in the form of a graph, diagram or number resembles the measured object. In fact, the device transforms the qualities of the object into data. For social sciences: Surveys are an inscription device. In qualitative sciences, we do interviews where we record an interview, transcribe it and then code it. Each step is a translation of the actual object (the interview). Therefore, it is also according to Latour possible to have chains of translations (multiple inscription devices at work). Crucial is, that a multifaced object of any form is reduced to a specific set of data. A graph is not the object, but the reduction of an object etc. etc. Many scientists are, according to Latour, not aware of what they are doing with these devices. They are therefore black boxes: A lot of people used them before. When I learn to use it it's a ready made solution to a problem and not questioned (every black box is also a settled controversy: it is clear to everybody how an object should be measured). Because of that, the inscription is treated as the object and provides actors who can work with them power over others, who have to believe the scientists and can hardly criticize them. The way a fact is presented to the outside is a power move to shield their claims.[5] Mike's answer to q17: (L3) · Inscription device - any material device that turns 'object of study' into data (fig

Explain why we can speak of "making" scientific facts? Describe and reflect the steps in this process of making of facts (objectification process).

Knorr-Cetina and Latour/ Woolgar describe this in parallel as they talk about the scientific publication: How do scientific facts get produced (in science and public discourse)? This happens when a claim is stripped from its modalities (so to say the wider context) and moves to the public realm to become an objective fact (or a black box). At the beginning, what will be a fact is a very long sentence with a lot of modalities: I heard that A, a predoc, said to be that B, her boss, that unfortunately XXX did not work but somehow she discovered that with the help of device A substance 2 turns to substance 3. Over time, context (that is the controversies as much as the social contexts like stress or money issues) disappear while the described process gets thinned out: A claims that in experiment XXX she could show with device A that substance 2 turns to substance 3. A claims that in experiment XXX she could show that substance 2 can turn into substance 3. With experiment XXX you can turn substance 2 into substance 3 Substance 2 can turn into substance 3. Substance 3 exists. One could say that the ways in which laboratory/ scientific work is translated and made consumable to the public changes the identity of the process: A verb turned into a noun. In doing so, the context is removed and with it a lot of space to oppose the objective persona of the produced fact. By translating the experiment into a simple result and afterwards a fact, it is stripped of its uncertainty and can´t be that easily opposed. à Power struggle This doesn´t mean that facts are not legitimate. But one has to acknowledge that saying what is factual - what is true and what is false - is a powerful position because it shapes reality for a majority of people. Moreover, it is the establishment of a macro-perspective so that different scientists, bu

Name at least three reasons/rationales why the public should understand science and explain them. (L:9)

Knowledge economy: supporting the idea of economic progress based on technoscientifc innovations, raising acceptance and support toward innovation Accountability/ legitimation: science communication (sc) is performed in exchange for sustained financial support and in times of competition for resources Authority of knowledge: science communication is always about (re)establishing the authority of scientific knowledge, thus continuous (re)drawing of the border between science and non-science Monopoly of producing public proofs: citizens are expected to integrate science and technology in their way of thinking and making "rational decisions" in contemporary societies Democratic participation and governance discourse: the idea that people sacrifice knowledge first before they can participate in democratic decision making, thus "disciplined democracy" raising attractiveness of the profession: attract young people to becoming a scientist sharing the fascination for science as an activity inscribing science in the broader understanding of "culture" science communication as a cultural market the public is increasingly understood as a rather diverse set of addresses for science communication (is this a marketing strategy?) Possible follow up question: What is meant by understanding? → getting a feeling for how science functions (as a system of knowledge production) & be able to contribute in the production of distributed knowledge What is meant when the notion "science" is used in such communication contexts? → It is about asking if "science" is able to ask and answer questions. Also thinking about the contexts in which this is happening, knowledge being produced.

Explain Latour's idea of the delegation of morality to objects using the door closer as an example. (L: 5; T: Latour, 1992)

Latour's Main Arguments: · Technologies are the missing masses of social theory. · "People can ''act at a distance'' through the technologies they create and implement and how, from a user's perspective, a technology can appear to determine or compel certain actions" (Latour, 1992, 15) o Agency of humans can be taken away by non human actors & networks (Max) · Technologies organize society and social behavior & organize spaces and what actors can get in or not · Morality is delegated to objects The Door Closer/Automated Groom: 1. Premise/Moral & Social Norm · Door should be closed after entrance (e.g. for energy efficiency) 2. Problem · People are not disciplined enough to close door. 3. Preliminary Solution · "A nonhuman (the hinges) plus a human (the groom) have solved the wall-hole dilemma." (Latour, 1992, 156) · However, this demands high spending and discipline for human groom. 4. Substitution of Human Actors/Delegation to Non-Human Actor · Norm "door must be closed" is embedded/inscribed in design of automated groom. · Design of automated groom (e.g., its weight) raises issue of Prescription (Akrich, 1992): o "moral and ethical dimensions of mechanisms" (Latour, 1992, 157) o "it shapes human action by prescribing back what sort of people should pass through the door." (Latour, 1992, 160) · Agency & responsibility is taken away from humans & given to non-human groom Automated groom organizes society & spaces & enacts social order through influencing humans and their interaction with the world around them e.g., that a door closes automatically. Enforces norm silently, users adhere to norm unconsciously.

Does objectivity have a history? Explain Daston's and Galison's perspective on this question and give an example how the meaning of the term has changed historically.

Objectivity is a social convention not a state of being: value that should inform how science is practiced and scientific knowledge is created; meant to assure that scientific knowledge is superior to other knowledge History Tension: scientific knowledge would claim to be universal and timeless history always specifies the uniqueness of particular times and particular places-- isn't scientific knowledge distinguished by having transcended by local conditions

Aren't technologies neutral artefacts that are just used or misused by societal actors for moral purposes? Draw on material from the lecture to discuss this question.

One might argue that people are the ones who prescribe meaning to artifacts and that these values or meanings are not inherent. On the other hand, it is possible to argue that these meanings and values are central to why and how the artifacts exist. Latour (in the missing masses text) talks about the inscription of meaning or significance to non-human entities. He describes how it is a central part of the development process to script a reader of the artifact, the readers' qualities and behavior, as well as how they are going to perceive the artifact. Following this line of thought, every artifact has a circumscription, which is the developer's imagined frame of use for the artifact. It is reasonable to assume that a developer is a person with a particular position within a social system. This position can likely be affected by political, cultural, economic, and social factors. The developers are the ones who decide how a certain artifact will respond when being used by others. That is not to say that the reason for the way the artifact responds is particularly nuanced. When programming or creating the artifact, the developer might not have had sufficient knowledge of the diversity of the artifact's future readers. If the developer has not scripted diverse readers, the artifact might reflect the values, knowledge, and/or position of the developer as quite limited or one-sided. In other words, the social and cultural context of the development of the artifact is crucial to the final product - the artifact. The idea of co-production also speaks to the notion that artifacts are not free of inherent value or meaning. Co-production says that technologies and society shape each other. In other words, certain technologies might have to be altered to "fit" into a certain society, but societies and human behavior ca

What are the three paradoxes of science communication? Name and shortly explain them. How are they a product of the very process of communication? (L:9)

Paradox 1: Reconstructing distance through offering closeness: in bringing people closer to science its complexity and inaccessibility becomes more visible than ever. Example: Quantum Physics appear to be very interesting and logical when trying to understand in detail it appears to be very complex and inaccessible. Then, in order to understand it has to be broken down into pieces which largens the information. Paradox 2: While science is often depicted as pretending to produce "hard facts", it is much more popular accounts of science which do so. Through making the conditions of knowledge production invisible, knowledge is made unquestionable. Explanation: Because we don't know how certain facts became such, there is no way of understanding the process. Thus it appears to be set in stone. Think of the black box (shoutout Latour, mic drop). Paradox 3: Uncertainties related to technoscientific developments that have emerged through a deeper understanding of the limits of what science can know, thus many uncertainties cannot be remedied through simply producing more scientific knowledge; they are part and parcel of complex problems. Explanation: More knowledge does NOT always mean more clarity. oftentimes it makes processes or problems more complex. They are a product of the very process of communication because they inherit the problems that come with science communication. Paradox 1 explains how problems need to be broken down and explained though for example a mediator . Paradox 3 shows that new (techno)scientific knowledge and discoveries tend to lead to more questions than answers, and thus to more uncertainty.

Explain the notion of a script/inscription developed by M. Akrich? How does it help us explain the presence of society in technology development and design? (L: 5;T; Latour 1992)

Part of ANT Presence of society can be explained through: Script/Inscription: · Concept for investigating technologies. o De-scription is necessary to retrieve the script of technology. o To figure out how technology shapes social practices but also assumptions & social negotiations that shape design of technology · „A large part of the work of innovators is that of "inscribing" this vision of (or prediction about) the world in the technical content of the new object. (Akrich, 1992) o Reflects to a certain extent the cultural values & ethics of inventors. o Innovators are part of a specific social, cultural & historical context/ society/ (thought) collective that, through them, is reflected in technology through inscription. Pre-scribing: · Certain user roles & forms of use · "a technical object "like a film script [...] defines a framework of action together with the actors and the space in which they are supposed to act" (Akrich, 1992, 208) De-scribing: · Users & participants struggle with, attempt to shift, or to even reject the script o Due to different ideas/visions about technology, the world inscribed in it, their attributed roles · Re-negotiation process of technology in different settings/arrangements · Power plays an essential role (structure & strength of networks/role of user etc.)

Explain the crisis of expert-based risk management models.

Policy decisions are increasingly based on experts through their scientific knowledge. Experts have to mitigate as mediators between science, policy, and politics. The policies they advise are often made under conditions of uncertainty. The crisis in the expert-base risk management model is that: 1. Experts have conflicting opinions, especially on controversial topics. Thus, there are often no unilateral scientific opinions. a. And expert opinions could be labeled as expertise or counter-expertise. At the same time, their opinion is often presented as the sole, agreed-upon opinion. 2. There is a declining public trust in the ability of experts to predict and prevent risks. Therefore, the authority of experts as providers of independent and fact-based solutions has declined. a. Exacerbated is this by the role of expertise in the management of crisis. The example given was of Three Mile Island, where there was a partial nuclear meltdown in the Unit 2 reactor in Pennsylvania, USA ('79). The public knows about 1., which gets exacerbated by 2. and therefore managing risk based on expert models and presenting it as such is not as straightforward as policymakers deemed it to be. A key question related to this crisis is what the role of experts should be and what kind of experts are needed.

Which impacts of indicators on people working in academia and academic knowledge production do Rushforth and de Rijcke describe?

Quantitative performance indicators have become prominent in academia because of state policies increasingly seeking to ensure that academic research contributes to economic goals and societal progress. Examples of such metrics are a person's number of publications or citations. These indicators are shaping academia in a way where competition for funding, academic careers, and reputation is organized. I.e. Rushforth and de Rijcke describe cases where researchers aim for publishing in certain top-rated journals, or where universities are believed to strategically recruit faculty that will possibly help them climb university rankings. The text describes how quantitative indicators form so-called audit cultures, where the individual is autonomous, and socially adjusts their actions to score well against the metrics they will be judged against. The authors also highlight the term epistemic living spaces to describe how indicators impact researchers. Epistemic living spaces refer to how an individual or collective perceives and narratively reconstructs the structures that guide their potential actions within an institution. How these structures construct an "ideal researcher" might conflict with the researchers' values. Academics therefore might try to carve out habitable living spaces, to make academic life more endurable. Further, performance indicators provide academics with benchmarks that give them the ability to chart their progress and compare themselves in competition with others. Rushforth and de Rijcke describe this as academics internalizing the idea that they should act as enterprising agents responsible for their own performance destinies. Other researchers argue that performance indicators foster feelings of hopelessness, despondency, and aggression among colleagues, which mental and physical toll and

Explain Latour's distinction between "ready-made-science" and "science in action". Which of the two does he suggest to study and why?

Ready-made science could be described as the unproblematic content which other scientists use as artefacts to do their research and contribute to the scientific discourse. Latour calls that a Black Box, because under its surface lies a complex web of connections and now closed controversies that you can´t reopen for pragmatic reasons. This is not limited to theories and debate, but also inscription devices can be seen as petrified artefacts of scientific controversy. Science in action can be observed when one travels back in time when a controversial topic was still debated. Here, content and context fuse together (Latour, 1987: 6) and are not separable. Things we would consider as "scientific" like chemical terms (eg. formulars, calculations, terminology) are mixed with notions of delay, minimization of risks, entrepreneurial thinking, personal envy and other surrounding noises of scientific work. To put it in Latour´s words these queer words are part and parcel of the very chemical structure under investigation (ibid.) until the controversy is closed by convincing a critical number of actors. Latour urges us to investigate Science in the Making to observe the controversies, see how knowledge is created and stabilized and also acknowledge those claims that did not stabilize. However, that doesn´t mean that Ready Made Science is of no interest to him, but Science in Action is exactly the content of the black boxes he wishes to open. Most importantly, one could observe the uncertainty of scientific facts and how this uncertainty is transformed into certainty. (eg. when do you know enough to make a claim/ publish?) In the end, science in action enables us to not only see what is said, but who said it where and when, to whom, how and why. It is also interesting to see what alternatives were available and why they d

Explain the notion of the "experimenter's regress".

SLIDE: "The experimenter's regress" (H. Collins): Assessments of the adequacy and significance of experimental results rely on theoretical considerations and practical judgements; to judge the value of competing theories we rely on evidence; => circularity problem => it is difficult to take an experiment as testing ground for a theory The experimenter´s regress highlights the relationship between theory and empirical proof (=experiment). If we are confronted with two different theories on a new phenomenon and we wish to make an experiment, we need to evaluate the outcome of the experiment. Was the result "right"? To know that, we need to know what is an "right outcome." Collins puts it this way: "usually, successful practice of an experimental skill is evident in a successful outcome to an experiment, but where the detection of a novel phenomenon is in question, it is not clear what should count as a 'successful outcome' - detection or non detection of the phenomenon" (Collins 1981: 34).[4] This means that the theory is dependent on empirical proof but as long as we don´t know what would be the right way to see if a proof is right or wrong we can´t judge the outcome of this particular way. Therefore, when a phenomenon is explored for the first time, judgment about what matters is inevitable and requires considerable experience, tacit and practical knowledge. However, since there is no way to know when we have the right process achieved there is also no way to judge the outcome of an experiment as right or wrong. This opens the door to an endless debate about the experiment itself. Basically, Collins suggests that a controversy can go on forever by critizising an aspect of the experiment itself in favour of the preferred theory. · Maybe the setup misrepresented your theory? · Maybe the researchers w

Sketch Collins' argument about reproducibility in research.

SLIDE: It is a firm assumption about modern science that it progressively produces more and more certain knowledge by adding new experiments and studies.• But what if prior work cannot be reproduced?• Already in the 1980s, STS author Harry Collins showed that even successful reproduction is an achievement based on tacit knowledge. • It thus can only be understood within specific cultures and practice of science. Collins argument on reproduction is very hard to achieve. The term reproducibility crisis describes the state, that a lot of knowledge in the scientific world gets produced and never again validated by a follow-up study to reproduce the results down the line. Of course, this has a lot of reasons which are more connected to the functioning of the science sector (eg. economisation, individual careers, project-based funding, need to publish, etc. etc. etc.) but what Collins tried to show is that even if we try, reproduction of facts is hard to achieve and closely connected to tacit knowledge. In his book, Collins argued that it is very hard to replicate the experimental results of other scientists, even if they wish to do so. Collins brings an example of laser physicists who wanted to replicate their colleague's results, but it was very hard to do so. This is because of the tacit knowledge the original researchers used to conduct an experiment. This is knowledge that can´t be communicated to others in written communication but still influences the trials. Collins also claims that a lot of knowledge travels. In his examples, there were traveling technicians and as soon as they arrived the machines started to work because they brought the tacit knowledge necessary to begin. (another example would be a lab leader who can´t handle his machinery because he*she has no time to work with this machine and get to kn

Discuss the role of classifications in science and society. What is their function, what are their effects? Use the text by Bowker and Star as an example.

Science Ability to analyze, creation of analytical framework (even if it's actually not so clear cut; only hybrids exist) On the other hand by having a set of classifications Society Capacities to ordering the world which is believed to improve the world Is treated as an apolitical way to lead the world, which it is not In the Bowker and Star text it was a way to systematically oppress and control Bantu and coloured communities/ peoples, directing the way they can and can not live their lives. Can affect one's self-identity in different ways bc„Each standard and each category valorizes some point of view and silences another. This is not inherently a bad thing — indeed it is inescapable. But it is an ethical choice, and as such it is dangerous—not bad, but dangerous." (Bowker and Star, 5-6) For any individual, group or situation, classifications and standards give advantage or they give suffering. Jobs are made and lost; some regions benefit at the expense of others. How these choices are made, and how we may think about that invisible matching process, is at the core of the ethical project of this work. (Bowker and Star, 6)

What do we mean in STS when we speak of science as practice and culture? What do these two notions refer to and why is it important to study science from this perspective?

Science as practice and culture Historically, science was placed outside of culture, but the cultural contributions to science became relevant. Science as culture: understand science as a system of shared meanings, i.e. look at the production and circulation of these meanings → synchronically to culture where meanings are shared too Science as practice: understand science as an activity, i.e. investigate how knowledge work gets done and not only how knowledge is represented an entanglement of human and non-human (measuring devices, publication venues, ....) elements → Studying science as practice and culture enriches our understanding of science by acknowledging its embeddedness in societal and cultural contexts Benefits through · diversity of perspectives, · ethical considerations, · better science communication (social values are considered), · democratization of science

Explain the concept of "technopolitical culture" (give the different elements) and "technopolitics". (L: 6; T: Felt, 2015)

Similar to ANT, it also looks at relation between society & technology as a seamless web, but more focus on political aspects. Technopolitics (Hecht, 2001): · "the strategic practice of designing or using technology to constitute, embody, or enact political goals." (Hecht, 2001) Technopolitical culture (Hecht, 2001): · consist of specific practices, structures and mechanisms through which technologies are interwoven with society · intertwines national identity/political culture with technoscientific developments · often looked at on nation state level & at absence or presence of certain technology (why is what embraced/rejected?) o e.g., looking at nuclear energy/ use of social credit systems/organ donation as part of specific techno-political culture across Europe, costal protecting technologies as part of Dutch nationhood, Silicon Valley culture o e.g. looking a moments like Zwentendorf Referendum (Austria), reactions to Fukushima disaster (techno-natural disasters) · Elements: 1. Preferences in how to arrange and regulate the technological & the social o Includes broader socio-technical imaginaries, myths & narratives. o e.g., Austria's narrative of buying out of what the rest of the world is doing/being natural island in Europe (no nuclear energy, no genetic modified food etc.) 2. Set of political practices related to technoscience & recognized as legitime 3. Set of institutions meant to take care of technological change o e.g., ethics committees, technological assessment institutes 4. Legitimate ways of knowledge making & production of public proofs o e.g., who labels what AI is high risk, what proof do you need that specific AI is high risk? 5. Way of addressing technological change & societal order in public discourse 6. Imagination of how „the local" relates to „the regional/global" - in

Define a social institution, and give three examples for social institutions in science.

Social institutions stabilize society. Social institutions.... - structure and stabilize social order over time This means they are comparably stable and not dependent on individual persons but on social roles. (eg. Alexander van der Bellen is the Federal President, but the role of Federal President is independent from Alex). Moreover, people can rely on their work and how they force others to work similarly over time and can only be gradually changed. Examples are: Families, languages, rules of war. Therefore, they make life predictable. - ascribe/prescribe specific social roles; defines standards Social institutions develop certain roles within their institutional framework. Therefore, they structure how social interactions work in certain settings. (eg. a lecture works because we know who are the pupils and who is the lecture and how to behave in a pupil-lecturer interaction) This saves a lot of stress because we know how to address a person (eg. a cashier in the supermarket.) Moreover, they provide us with standards of what we can expect in certain situations. (so not only the role of the lecturer is standardized but also the lecture itself follows a pattern: there is input, we make notes, ask questions, etc.) - are explicit/implicit customs and patterns of behaviour Basically, how what programme a certain role follows, what´s appropriate; what´s not etc. - =>map out certain social spaces, and are related/tied to specific places Imagine a university, which is a very complex social space which defines how teaching is done, how scientific work is done etc. etc. (SO the role of a professor, and the standardized setting of a lecture might only work within this social space of a university and are hilariously weird within a supermarket) Examples for social institutions in science are: Scientific Journals Laboratories

Explain the notion of sociotechnical imaginaries. (L:6, T: Felt, 2015)

Sociotechnical Imaginaries · "... collectively held, institutionally stabilized, and publicly performed visions of desirable futures, animated by shared understandings of forms of social life and social order attainable through, and supportive of, advances in science and technology." (Jasanoff 2015) As stabilized relation of technoscientific & societal developments · Collective visions that particular communities have of how the future should look like o Debate of what the social collective is that shares a socio-technical imaginary, only one in a nation state? o Creates feeling of solidarity - a 'we' experience o Can "originate in the visions of single individuals or small collectives" (Jasanoff 2015) · Sensitizes us to (Felt, 2015, 104) o Profound entanglement of national technopolitical cultures & technologies o Mutual constitution of (non- )development of specific technoscientific projects & and imagined preferred ways of living, value structures, and social order o Consider ways in which sociotechnological ideas and experiences of different actor constellations matter when making choices about which societal futures are to be attained · Example o 'imaginary of the absent' in Austria national identity gets tied to an imaginary technological choice of refusing certain technologies to enter the country Creation & Stabilization Process (Felt, 2015 Example) 1. Entities (human & non-human) in assemblage & the "in-betweens" (connections) create first draft. 2. Still fragile, need to have opportunities to be rehearsed, complemented & stabilized (if rehearsal successful) 3. Regarded as stabilized if widely recognized & referred to · Gradual & Long-Term process o In this example: "imaginary was the outcome of a gradual, long- term, bottom- up formation, always in need of rehearsal and (re)sta

How does Shapin describe the emergence of science as a social institution in the 17th century, related to the different spaces and audiences for "trying" and "demonstrating" scientific experiments?

Spaces: science was usually performed in the homes of the researchers, and in some cases limited to those who were geographically privileged. Experimental trials were often conducted in private spaces due to their inherent uncertainty - the experiment might fail, and therefore be unfit to share with the public. Emergence: testimonies of experiments were crucial and relied on trust. But many viewed testimonies alone to be inadequate, and that consulting witnesses would be the best way to determine whether the research was valid. Trust in the witnesses and the scientist was still important, making an implausible phenomenon "more likely" if it came from a creditworthy source. The distribution of credibility followed the contours of English society, making the social and scientific world intertwined. After some time, it was deemed that spaces open to the public and with easy access would be the best for producing reliable knowledge. The legitimacy of experimental knowledge depended upon a public presence at some crucial stage or stages of knowledge-making. Conditions of access to the experimental laboratory would flow from decisions about what kind of place it was. Audiences: only people viewed as "highly intelligent", or "fellows" of society were permitted entry to experimental spaces, and it was strictly managed. People known by the other participants, either personally or by reputation (e.g. the royal family), would also be granted access to these sites. Access to experimental places was managed by calling upon the same sorts of conventions that regulated entry to gentlemen's houses in general. Social diversity was also considered important, but it was deemed essential that most participants had to be gentlemen, to ensure the reliability and objectivity of experimental knowledge.

Discuss the differences between the deficit model's and the critical public understanding of science's perspective on science-public relations. (L:9, T: Wynne 1992)

The critical public understanding (cpu) of science aims at a more fine-grained qualitative understanding of the relation between science/ scientist/ experts and different members of the public or publics. In investigating the complex processes of interaction between science and members of the public, a large number of studies have shown that the reasons for any lacking public support of science must not be sought with the public alone, but in a disturbed relationship between science and society, for which both sides may hold responsibility (cf. public controversies) - more information does NOT lead to more trust. Main difference is that cpu acts in both directions, thus there is a feedback process.

How do standardization and power relate to each other?

Standards and power are intimately linked. It defines a set of rules or categories that must be followed. Making only a mode or a set of modes of operation possible or at least significantly easier. Additionally, standards have the tendency to become normalized/naturalized and therefore unquestioned, subsequently acquiring anonymous power. Standards have the ability to make the world handy and predictable for some people or subsequently more difficult for those who do not fit the mold. As those who define or set standards in the first place are likely to occupy powerful positions already, they can have a reinforcing effect on the power structures in society. Those who set standards have the power. For example, before the chargers for apple products (especially laptops) would change with almost every new model, meaning that the old chargers were useless and the consumer you be forced to purchase the new charger, this for example would also make borrowing a charger between acquaintances impossible if they did not have the same charger. The European Union has decided to change this by ordering all mobile devices (in this case tablets and phones) from now on to use the same type of charger (USB C) allowing consumers to charge all their devices using the same charger and allowing them to decide whether or not to purchase a charger alongside with their new device.

What is meant by technological determinism? Explain why such a view on technology and society might be problematic.

Technological determinism (TD) is a theory that concentrates on how technology shapes society, culture, and human behavior. It proposes that technological advancements are the primary force behind social change, influencing how individuals think, behave, and interact with one another. Key aspects of TD are 1) the inevitability of technological progress, 2) the impact on society and culture, and 3) the autonomous influence of technology. The inevitability of technological progress: According to this perspective, technological advancements follow a predetermined path and are driven by their internal logic. It implies that technological development is inevitable and follows a linear progression toward more advanced and efficient forms. The impact on society and culture: TD argues that the introduction of new technologies fundamentally alters societal structures, cultural norms, and individual behaviors. It suggests that technological changes often lead to broader social changes, sometimes even restructuring entire societies. The autonomous influence of technology: The theory asserts that technologies have the power to shape human actions and social structures. It implies that technology shapes human behavior and societal norms more than individuals or society shapes the development of technology. Critics argue that technological determinism overly emphasizes the power of technology to shape society while downplaying or neglecting other influential factors such as social, cultural, political, and economic contexts. It tends to overlook the role of human agency and societal choices in shaping technology and its impact. Different societies might adopt and adapt technologies in various ways depending on their cultural values, norms, and existing infrastructures. The relationship between technology and society is often more re

What is meant when we speak about the co-production of (techno)science and society? What does the notion "co-production" (Jasanoff) stand for?

Technoscience bc science and technology cannot be separated, they are deeply entangled Coproduction : tracing production of identities, institutions, discourses, representations science/technology are shaped by contemp societies: values, social orders, imaginations Some nations have more power in defining what values, etc. matter in shaping Technoscientific developments need to be understood as embedded in societies Technoscience shapes contemp societies, cannot understand contemp societies without considering technoscience They are reflexively shaped Essential to study emergence and stabilization of new technoscientific objects and framings Emergence and resolution technoscience controversies Processed by which products of technoscience are made intelligible and portable across boundaries Adjustment of sciences cultural practices in response to the contexts in which science is done

Give the main elements of an STS definition for disaster, and explain the distinction between "fast" and "slow" disasters.

The STS definition of disasters is „failures of diverse, nested systems, producing injurious outcomes that cannot be straightforwardly confined in time or space, nor adequately addressed with standard operating procedures and established modes of thought." (Fortun et al. 2017, 1004). The main element of disasters in STS is that they are not extraordinary events, but are normal consequences of the complexity and interwovenness of technological systems (Perrow: Normal Accidents). This means that disasters are seen as human-made. This notion that disasters are human-made is reflected in wider society. Consequently, even "natural disasters" are also able to be framed as failures of technological systems to predict and anticipate disasters adequately. Fast and slow disasters often refer to the timespan in which they take place. This time of unfolding disasters has a great influence on the perception and action towards these disasters. Fast disasters are often highly visible in a forceful event. Slow disasters unfold slowly, often invisibly, spread out across time and space, and therefore they are often not addressed. Examples of slow disasters are around environmental poisoning, asbestos, and sick building syndrome (SBS). Moreover, Murphy's concept of „regimes of imperceptibility"is central to slow disasters. This concept asks how and when risks are identified. And how can the conditions for being at risk be identified?

How do Deville et al. discuss preparedness for disasters and how do they account for national differences in organizing preparedness?

The authors of the article "Concrete governmentality: shelters and the transformations of preparedness" take the example of shelters as a materialization, visualization of risk calculations in relation to preparedness. Shelters do not respond to risk but produce, react to, and transform risks and preparedness (Deville et al. 2014, p. 184). Deville et al. use Carr's theory (1932) of how disaster preparedness is co-produced with the material. Even in an absent transformative, it forms the sociality Deville et al. (2014) discuss preparedness as a form of political act in the absence of disasters. Important for Deville et al.'s idea was that preparedness for a disaster transforms the disaster independently of the disaster itself. The preparedness takes place in political risk calculations. These political risk calculations differ nationally as the perception of risk differs nationally. In India, shelters are built by the state to protect a vulnerable population against cyclones, in Switzerland, shelters are built by the state to protect the total population from a nuclear attack and in the UK to protect the bureaucracy, government, and administration. The main reason for the UK not to build shelters in the early 1950s was for financial reasons. But it also provides a message for the unlikelihood of a nuclear attack. These different forms of preparedness, when a disaster is deemed to occur and in the absence of disasters, are conceptualized by the authors as concrete governmentality. After the composition of a shelter, they are again differently de- and recomposed.

Briefly sketch the key characteristics of the deficit model of science-public relations. What are the problematic features of such a model? (L:9)

The deficit model of science-public relations represents "classical public understanding of science". (based on the 1985 UK Royal Society Report) Problematic assumptions build into the model: information only goes into one direction - from science to society (ideal of control) no feedback loops from "the public" towards science rather simplistic concept of "the public", no differentiation between the diverse constituencies of "the public", people need to be educated, thus aim: raise scientific literacy (often "controlled" by surveys) idea that more information on science will automatically build trust in science and will lead to people acting according to scientific advice - many case studies have shown that the contrary is the case

Explain why in an STS perspective "crucial experiments" alone cannot settle controversies in science.

The experiment is nothing god*-given and actually developed only in a post-cartesian world around the early 17th century. As we have read in the text "House of experiments" the public experiment became a central part of early scientific work as a way to connect (and stabilize) certainty with the honorary ways of the gentlemen. The experiment is a method to proof a theory by manipulating the phenomenon (ideally without interference outside of the phenomenon at stake) to observe the outcome of a trail. It is an artificial setting to test special relations between things. Consensus was seen as a stable basis for knowledge (also to end conflicts!, not only the naïve idea of producing facts). The British philosopher Robert Boyle (1627 - 1692) was an important protagonist of the experimental method.[1] Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626) was another philosopher connected to this early experimental movement who relates to two crucial ideas: 1. Scientific methods should work inductively. 2. Experimentum crucis - Use of experiment to decide between conflicting theories. SLIDE: an experiment designed to decide between two rivalling scientific theories, or to prove a specific theory and merit its acceptance as validated knowledge Connect this idea with the historical context and we see that it is highly political. Now, let´s turn to the question why the crucial experiment is not enough to settle controversies. Easy. Crucial experiments are crucial, because they are surrounded by (highly social) disputes or controversies with different sides.[2] Bacon´s idea implies that this process could be ended with one experiment which everybody accepts as the "truth." However, in STS controversies are not the exception but the regular case. Therefore, STS thinks that truth is not achievable, but that science works by closing controv

Briefly explain Langdon Winner's two categories of how an artifact may be political. Also give an example for each of them.

The first category includes artifacts that have a certain purpose but are being used in a way that enhances (possibly hidden or unknown) political consequences. These artifacts are more flexible, and the political consequences depend on the social system it is integrated into. For instance, Robert Moses' bridges to a beach in New York. At first glance, they might seem like regular bridges, serving the purpose of easier transportation and travel. However, these bridges were built in such a way that buses could not access the beach. It is believed that Moses developed these bridges with the intention that poor people and people of color would not be able to access the beach and that only "automobileowning whites of 'upper' and 'comfortable middle classes'" would be free to use the bridges. The second category includes artifacts that are inherently political in a specific way. According to this view, the adoption of certain technological systems unavoidably brings with it its political inscriptions. One example is the atomic bomb, it was created with the intention and purpose to pose a threat and possibly kill millions of people. As long as the atomic bomb exists, it demands a rigid, centralized chain of command, that is closed to all influences that might make the system unpredictable or unstable.

In reference to the Felt text, discuss the different steps in which a socio-technical imaginary is formed and stabilized.

The first step is assembling or putting together the first draft of the sociotechnical imaginary. This is done by the human, non-human entities and inbetweens. The recond step is rehearsals, this happens when the sociotechnical imaginary is still fragile. Through rehearsing and complementing the sociotechnical imaginary becomes stabilized. The sociotechnical imaginary can be regarded as stabilized once it is widely accepted and can be referred to. Ideas and identities can be transferred and integrated to form new assemblages regarding for example new technological advances. The multiple (stabilized) imaginaries can mutually reenforce and enlarge each other. The sociotechnical imaginaries are not stable or monolithic, multiple opposing imaginaries are possible. Memory & anticipation: connecting practices • Connecting past, present and future: centrality of memory practices are central; they are not simply a vehicle of tradition; they are the activities creating collective identities (Anderson 1983) ==> Situation of coproduction of public memories and collective identities ==> key to any anticipatory practice • Centrality of narratives the narrative = mode of knowing and ordering the world - specific plots are used to bring elements in meaningful wholes and make sense § Understand the sites where narratives are 'produced (concocted, fabricated), sold (told, circulated), and consumed (listened to, read, interpreted)—often all in the same performance' (Czarniawska 2004:45) Importance of narratives for governance of science in a mediatized world (Hajer 2009)

What role does the laboratory play in research? Explain how the laboratory "re-configures" nature and what advantages doing experiments in laboratories has?

The laboratory is the place where the magic happens. Within the Laboratory studies, the laboratory is described as a machinery to produce truth. The laboratory is the place where experiments are performed and can be witnessed. Knowledge is seen as a socio-material practice where the scientists together with the material arrangements produce facts. The goal was to see how truth was the outcome of a complex sociocultural and material process and provided the guiding mantra out of which also ANT would develop. The lab could be described as a somewhat isolated place, where nature is reconstructed, and certain arrangements are tested for causality. You could also say that the laboratory is the promise of modern science to create a place where phenomena of nature can be tested without outside interference. Knorr Cetina described at length how laboratories produce truth and how the translation of laboratory results to contexts outside of the lab is very complicated because the real world is a lot messier. The laboratory creates a new nature and allows us to study things which could not be studied in the "wild." (because it would take too long to observe). We reproduce conditions which resemble our interests: In the lab, nature gets reconfigured: It is now simplified to align with our interests, can be isolated from certain conditions is always available and arranged to have standardized, specific features (eg. a lab rat). This means that nature is readjusted to be comparable and atemporal. A very important idea in this context is the model organism: Here, specific organisms are used to do research and serve as a stand-in for other species (eg. rats for humans in medicine) to do research. These are completely restructured organisms (in the case of rats) which can be ordered according to specific profiles. SLIDE: in the lab

Explain the notions of risk and risk society.

The lectures mentioned two notions of risks: traditional and evolutionary risks. The traditional is through the insurance logic where individual risks have collective insurance. This risk depends on stable predictabilities. Evolutionary risks, on the other hand, are harder to predict, due to the uncertainties. New socio-technical risks are often framed as evolutionary risks. Ulrich Beck wrote the book Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (1986). Beck wrote that modernity is influenced by scientific culture. And that risk has become a central issue in many societal debates, due to techno-scientific development. We live in a risk culture, as the modern construction of risks is based on manufactured uncertainties. In this risk is in the assessment often quantified they are the side-effects and unintended consequences. Important questions are the moral question of who should be placed at risk and if there is actually an increase in risks or only an increased perception of risks (Beck)

What does Thomas Kuhn's notion of "paradigm" mean? Define it and sketch what "following a paradigm" means in science.

Thomas Kuhn: Paradigms · rules for science making (like a puzzle, scientists are "puzzle-solvers") · always related to a specific scientific community · an institutionalized pattern of basic assumptions and practices guiding the perception of a particular scientific community at a historic moment in time · → the sum of all values, methods, theories, questions, techniques used in producing knowledge Following a paradigm: "textbook" science · Using the dominant methods, theories, questions of a paradigm in order to contextualize observations · Follow a paradigm → enable cumulative integration of knowledge

Use the example of Schiebinger's history of the female skeleton to argue how gender orders matter in the production of scientific knowledge.

We construct nature: societies, their values, social orders are inscribed in the ways in which we describe and represent the skeleton and vice versa

Visual representations/visualisations play a key role in science. Discuss this in detail using Londa Schiebinger's history of the female skeleton or any other case from the course as potential examples.

We construct nature: societies, their values, social orders are inscribed in the ways in which we describe and represent the skeleton and vice versa; Women: Head is smaller, longer neck, wide hips = less intelligence, beauty ideals, giving birth: Differences have been overexpressed, female skeleton is placed in a natural context instead of within civilized society with buildings Encyclopedia text

Why was the early modern scientist regarded as morally superior? What role did this play for the development of science/scientific knowledge?

Within the three ways of achieving trust in a system (belief in individual virtues - belief in collective virtues - policing collective virtues) the earliest scientists, not by coincidence seen as gentlemen held moral values in high regard. S. Shapin writes in a book about the persona of the scientist and how trust in science was organized in the 17th century. The argument was, that scientists - who were in a complicated relationship with the church at the time - borrowed a bit of its moral authority. Nature was seen as the sacred work of god and hence those studying and „recognising" nature were ascribed particular moral authority. They argued that doing science needs a moral framework. A major challenge for early modern science in the 17th and 18th century was under which conditions could men (sic!) truthfully speak about nature. The ability to do this and to report about it was intricately tied to virtues ascribed to those doing science (The scientific genius and his qualities were intertwined and therefore seen as morally superior). Note, that this was also a time where genius could not be learned but was seen as an inherent quality of a person. Independence from worldly pressures and authorities was seen as crucial, hence the „gentleman" who was economically independent but not politically active was seen as the ideal "modest witness". The idea of the modest witness was crucial because only those were seen as to speak freely and without any deeper interest (a quality still inherent to Merton´s third principle). Note, that doing science was built on the exclusion (women, people who where economically dependent) of the unqualified majority (not much has changed tbh). Science was seen as a „calling" which also implied considerable economic and personal sacrifices. This interminglement between

What promises around the collection of data for personalized medicine does Hoeyer describe,and what effects of these promises does he identify?

promises: Building up a nationwide database of personal data; the more data is available the easier it is to diagnose public health issues and treat them/ develop a nationwide response etc. Trust in numbers Increased responsibility to contribute personal data to the common cause (p.532). Lack of accountability stemming from data based decision making (p.532). It is actually a mix of social inequalities that lead to poor health and not lack of data (p.547.) Due to the large scale data collection associated with the personal ID number, access to a wide variety of services is simplified Lack of critical assessment on the part of the people Individualized/personalized medicine allows a more accurate and user specific and therefore effective treatment Actually uses a lot of population data and therefore is misleading about how personalized it actually is (p.532) Cost cutting eventually Responsibility gets pushed into unknown future while unknown but probably huge amounts are spent in the now (p.543) Better medicine doesn't always mean less spent on medicine bc people live longer and require more expensive medicine eventually (p.543) It's claimed to be data driven and science based Actually often inaccurate, incomplete and often unscientific, which is paradoxically recognised (p.539) Excuse for needing to collect additional data allows the government to delay action until further evidence is gathered Data intensification is becoming a way for governments to respond to problems such as budget restraints and overpopulation for which they don't have solutions to.

What phenomena does Ruha Benjamin's term "the New Jim Code" point to?

text: Benjamin, R. (2019). Introduction. Discriminatory Design, Liberating Imagination. In Benjamin, R. (Ed.) Captivating technology: Race, carceral technoscience, and liberatory imagination in everyday life. Duke University Press. Ruha Benjamin (Phd) How technologies can reinforce interlocking forms of discrimination, especially when we think that they are insulated from human influence. "This insidious combination of coded bias and imagined objectivity is what I call the New Jim Code—innovation that enables social containment while appearing fairer than discriminatory practices of a previous era." (Benjamin, 2019:3) invisible domination; omnipresent appear necessary or even empowering, this is why they are effective ➡️"Thus, truly transformative abolitionist projects must seek an end to carcerality in all its forms, from the state-sanctioned exercise of social control à la Big Brother, to everyday forms of surveillance that people engage in as workers, employers, consumers, and neighbors à la little brother." "Indeed, abolishing the carceral continuum requires investment in a continuum of alternatives to address the many social problems that the prison industry is tasked with managing but, thereby, perpetuates." aim is not prison-like alternatives rather decarceration as our overarching strategy "The central questions animating the text are: Who and what are fixed in place to enable innovation in science and technology? What social groups are classified, corralled, coerced, and capitalized upon so others are free to tinker, experiment, design, and engineer the future? How are novel technologies deployed in carceral approaches to governing life well beyond the domain of policing?" examples of indivisible bias in technology: other important concepts to understand or use in answer: carcerality, c

What is the distinction between standards, tests and indicators? Give an example.

• Standards are the explicit or implicit definitions of the category to be classified (e.g. citizenship or weight) • Tests are practices aimed to determine the properties of a given entity along the defined standard (legal procedure of ascertaining citizenship or weighing using a scale). Of course, the standard itself in practice is also defined through testing operations (cf. the kilogram!) • An indicator is a material or textual signifier which communicates an entity's classification along a given standard (e.g. passport / weight of a product on a label or certificate)