Science and the Committee Process
2004; SAGE Publishing; Volume: 34; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1177/0306312704043692
ISSN1460-3659
Autores Tópico(s)Climate Change Communication and Perception
ResumoI just love Professor Hilgartner's book. It has been 14 years since I last commented on a book at an Author Meets Critics session at the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S) Annual Meetings. That book was Science in Action at Amsterdam in 1987 (Latour, 1987). You may know that that book never won a book prize. It never won a prize because the 4S had no book prize no Fleck Prize, no Carson Award, no Mullins award. Now we have a lot of stuff, a lot of awards. I'm against awards myself. I'm not in favor of them at all and I'd do away with them if I were the King. But as long as we have to have them, I'd be very happy if this book could win one of them. In a word, Professor Hilgartner's book is great, not just because it is about an interesting subject, but because it reveals and celebrates the development of the field, the maturity of the field it is Latourian, but it is not actor networks. It links up with classical sociology the man himself, the Elvis of sociology, Erving Goffman. And it succeeds in what many have found a very difficult task. Everyone loves to talk about dramaturgy I've given at least one lecture a semester on it for 20 years. But actually executing a dramaturgical analysis is quite difficult. The book combines organizational analysis with discourse analysis impeccably, and throws in new literary forms for good measure. But most important, I think, are the questions that it raises a litany of some of the most significant issues for science studies. We all know that knowledge-claims generated from research studies are important these are High Science. We all know that media science is important press releases, science writing and so forth this is Low Science. But what is extremely significant is this intermediate area 'science advice' the
Referência(s)