|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
On the Mid RangeAn Exercise in Disposing (or Minding the Gaps)
Brian Rappert
University of Exeter
Many efforts to establish concepts and theories of the middle range have sought to find an appropriate balance between theoretical abstraction and the desire to remain faithful to the empirical complexity of phenomenon. As with other forms of expertise, those analyzing socio-technical life face acute tensions in attempting to reconcile the general and the specific in a manner which is regarded as credible. Through a consideration of the self-referential implications of STS critiques of traditional notions of science as well as attempts to establish rules for the acceptability of coercive force, this article develops a sense of what is at stake in attempts by actors and analysts to grasp the general and the specific together. Instead of seeking to identify a point of resolution for the two, it advocates and exemplifies the need to attend to the dilemmas associated with the movement between the general and the specific. The middle range concept of "disposal strategies" is offered both as an aid to the study of socio-technical life and as an example of attending to the movement between the general and specific.
Key Words: reflexivity • arms control • disposal strategies • middle range theory
References
- Abraham, J. 2002. A social science framework for the analysis of health technology: The risks and benefits of innovative pharmaceuticals in a comparative context. Health, Risk and Society 4(3): 305-324.[CrossRef]
- Ashmore, M. 1989. The reflexive thesis: Wrighting sociology of scientific knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Bloor, D. 1976. Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge.
- Collins, H.M., and S. Yearley. 1992. Epistemological chicken. In Science as practice and culture, edited by A. Pickering, 301-326. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Gieryn, T. 1999. Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Heritage, J. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Latour, B. 1988. The politics of explanation. In Knowledge and reflexivity: New frontiers in the sociology of knowledge, edited by S. Woolgar, 155-176. London: Sage.
- — 2000. When things strike back: A possible contribution of science studies. British Journal of Sociology 51(1): 107-123.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
- Lee, N. 1999. The challenge of childhood: Distributions of childhood ambiguity in adult institutions. Childhood 6(1): 455-474.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Lynch, M. 2004. Editorial. Social Studies of Science August: 467-468.
- Merton, R. 1968. Social theory and social structure. New York: The Free Press.
- Mills, C.W. 1959. The sociological imagination. London: Penguin.
- Mulkay, M. 1985. The word and the world: Explorations in the form of sociological analysis. London: Allen and Unwin.
- Pinch, T. 1993. Turn, turn, and turn again: The Woolgar formula. Science, Technology, & Human Values 18(4): 511-522.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Rappert, B. 2001. The distribution and the resolution of the ambiguities of technology, or Why Bobby can't spray. Social Studies of Science 31(4): 557-592.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- — 2005a. Prohibitions, weapons and controversy: Managing the problems of ordering. Social Studies of Science 35(2): 211-240.[Abstract]
- — 2005b. Out of balance: The UK Government's efforts to understand cluster munitions and international humanitarian law. London: Landmine Action.
- — 2006. Controlling the weapons of war: Politics, persuasion and the prohibition of inhumanity. London: Routledge.
- Rappert, B., and R. Moyes. 2006. Failure to protect: A case for the prohibition of cluster munitions. London: Landmine Action.
- Sharrock, W., and G. Button. 1999. Do the right thing!: Rule finitsm, rule scepticism and rule following. Human Studies 22: 193-210.
- Sjögren, E., and C.F. Helgesson. 2004. The Q(u)ALYfying hand. Presentation for the 4S/EASST Conference, Paris, Ecole des Mines, August 16.
- Teil, G. 2004. Performing a qualification. Presentation for the 4S/EASST Conference, Paris, Ecole des Mines, August 16.
- Thackray, A. ed. 1998. Private science: Biotechnology and the rise of the molecular sciences. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
- Timmermans, S., and M. Berg. 2003. The gold standard: The challenge of evidence-based medicine and standardization in health care. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
- van Zwanenberg, P., and E. Millstone. 2000. Beyond skeptical relativism: Evaluating the social constructions of expert risk assessments. Science, Technology, and Human Values 25(3): 259-282.
- Wittgenstein, L. 1967. Zettel. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Winner, L. 1993. Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values 18(3): 362-378.[Free Full Text]
- Woolgar, S. ed. 1988. Knowledge and reflexivity: New frontiers in the sociology of knowledge. London: Sage.
- — 2000. Personal correspondence: Letter from Brian Peabody to Professor Steve Woolgar. 6 June 2000. Paper presented at 4S/EASST Conference, Vienna, September 29.
- — 2005. Ontological disobedience—definitely! {maybe}. In A disobedient generation: Social theories in the sixties, edited by A. Sica and S. Turner. Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp. 309—324.
This version was published on November
1, 2007
Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol. 32, No. 6,
693-712 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0162243907303599
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
|
|
