Search results

Over the past thirty years, intersectionality has become a nearly ubiquitous framework for understanding, critiquing, and intervening in complex social inequalities. Emerging from critical race and feminist studies, intersectionality has many shared analytic priorities with science and technology studies (STS), including an emphasis on co-emergent social forces, historical contingency, and interventions that challenge and enhance knowledge production. Despite these shared affinities, STS and intersectionality remain largely nonoverlapping scholarly discourses. Based on a systematic review of intersectionality in eight STS journals, we observe a slight increase in intersectionality's usage over time but find that its relevance is contained largely to venues outside of the STS mainstream. Our study identifies some ways STS scholars have modeled intersectionality's responsible use through citation practices, methodological integration, and normative claims about justice/injustice. We also consider what epistemic exclusion of intersectionality might foreclose. We argue that increased use of intersectionality would amplify engagement with justice in STS work, not only by introducing new questions and theoretical frames but also opening possibilities for new interdisciplinary formations. This is not simply an argument for greater inclusion of a term, but rather for transformation in epistemic accountability toward feminist studies and other social justice–oriented fields.

Anknüpfend an aktuelle Diskussionen in den Gender/Queer Studies kombiniert der vorliegende Aufsatz eine queere Perspektive mit dem Konzept des Geschlechterwissens, um sich der Produktion von wissenschaftlichem Geschlechterwissen zu widmen. Dabei steht die Herstellung marginaler/hegemonialer Positionen und Normsetzungen in der in den letzten zwei Jahrzehnten hochdotierten und den Medien entsprechend stark präsenten Hirnforschung im Fokus. Basierend auf einer queeren Perspektive aus den Science and Technology Studies werden zwei psychologische Untersuchungen zu Geschlecht und Intelligenz exemplarisch hinsichtlich ihres Beitrages zur Stabilisierung und Reproduktion des Systems der Zweigeschlechtlichkeit analysiert. Fragen, die an die zwei Studien gerichtet werden, lauten: Welcher theoretische Standpunkt wurde gewählt, welche Konzepte fehlen? Welche Methoden kamen in den Studien zur Anwendung? Welche Ergebnisse werden (nicht) hervorgehoben? Welches wissenschaftliche Geschlechterwissen wird durch die Forschung produziert?

The Society for Social Studies of Science (4S) annually awards the John Desmond Bernal Prize to one or more individuals who have made distinguished contributions to the field of Science and Technology Studies. Past winners have included founders of the field, along with outstanding scholars who have devoted their careers to the understanding of the social dimensions of science and technology. This article is the revised text of Warwick Anderson's 2023 Bernal Lecture.

This article sets out to show how different understandings of technology as suggested by Science and Technology Studies (STS) help reveal different political facets of cybersecurity. Using cybersecurity research as empirical site, it is shown that two separate ways of understanding cybertechnologies are prevalent in society. The primary one sees cybertechnologies as apolitical, flawed, material objects that need to be fixed in order to create more security; the other understands them as mere political tools in the hands of social actors without considering technological (im)possibilities. This article suggests a focus on a third understanding to bridge the uneasy gap between the two others: technology defined as an embodiment of societal knowledge. The article posits that in line with that, the study of cyberpolitics would benefit from two innovations: a focus on cybersecurity as social practice―enacted and stabilized through the circulation of knowledge about vulnerabilities―and a focus on the practices employed in the discovery, exploitation and removal of those vulnerabilities.

El constante avance de los diversos campos científicos a nivel mundial genera nuevas necesidades y preocupaciones, dentro de ellas también en el quehacer científico social. En buena parte de es en lo que se encuentra enmarcado en este presente handbook, publicado hace ya varios años por el Instituto Tecnológico de Massachusetts (MIT por sus siglas en inglés), bajo el patrocinio de la Society for Social Studies of Science o 4S como mejor se le conoce, en comparación con el desarrollo de las dos anteriores versiones podemos ver en este libro u campo mucho mejor definido tanto en el sentido teórico como empírico. Se encuentra compuesto por 38 artículos de investigadores reconocidos en cada uno de los temas en cuestión. Lamentablemente, no podemos aquí reseñar todas las contribuciones de modo que en honor a la brevedad, analizaremos los grandes bloques bajo los cuales ha sido dividido este libro.