Search results

The article discusses posthumanist tendencies occurring in the so-called Science and Technology Studies (STS), concentrating mainly upon B. Latour's Actor-Network Theory (ANT). Postconstructivist conceptions within STS emphasize the crucial role of material situatedness of technoscience that is dependent on non-humans in laboratory practice (allowingto extend and "delegate" cognitive capacities to the environment). What is more, ANT accepts the radical thesis ofnon-human agency. The text also analyses a larger posthumanist political trend present in STS and in other theories, rejecting the arrogance It emerges as an inevitable reaction towards the problem of possible ecological destabilization (modern systemic risk or axiological/political challenges created by the so-called "wet" technologies, such as biotechnology, biomedicine, pharmacology). ; The article discusses posthumanist tendencies occurring in the so-called Science and Technology Studies (STS), concentrating mainly upon B. Latour's Actor-Network Theory (ANT). Postconstructivist conceptions within STS emphasize the crucial role of material situatedness of technoscience that is dependent on non-humans in laboratory practice (allowingto extend and "delegate" cognitive capacities to the environment). What is more, ANT accepts the radical thesis ofnon-human agency. The text also analyses a larger posthumanist political trend present in STS and in other theories, rejecting the arrogance It emerges as an inevitable reaction towards the problem of possible ecological destabilization (modern systemic risk or axiological/political challenges created by the so-called "wet" technologies, such as biotechnology, biomedicine, pharmacology).

The article discusses posthumanist tendencies occurring in the so-called Science and Technology Studies (STS), concentrating mainly upon B. Latour's Actor-Network Theory (ANT). Postconstructivist conceptions within STS emphasize the crucial role of material situatedness of technoscience that is dependent on non-humans in laboratory practice (allowingto extend and "delegate" cognitive capacities to the environment). What is more, ANT accepts the radical thesis ofnon-human agency. The text also analyses a larger posthumanist political trend present in STS and in other theories, rejecting the arrogance It emerges as an inevitable reaction towards the problem of possible ecological destabilization (modern systemic risk or axiological/political challenges created by the so-called "wet" technologies, such as biotechnology, biomedicine, pharmacology). ; The article discusses posthumanist tendencies occurring in the so-called Science and Technology Studies (STS), concentrating mainly upon B. Latour's Actor-Network Theory (ANT). Postconstructivist conceptions within STS emphasize the crucial role of material situatedness of technoscience that is dependent on non-humans in laboratory practice (allowingto extend and "delegate" cognitive capacities to the environment). What is more, ANT accepts the radical thesis ofnon-human agency. The text also analyses a larger posthumanist political trend present in STS and in other theories, rejecting the arrogance It emerges as an inevitable reaction towards the problem of possible ecological destabilization (modern systemic risk or axiological/political challenges created by the so-called "wet" technologies, such as biotechnology, biomedicine, pharmacology).

The article discusses posthumanist tendencies occurring in the so-called Science and Technology Studies (STS), concentrating mainly upon B. Latour's Actor-Network Theory (ANT). Postconstructivist conceptions within STS emphasize the crucial role of material situatedness of technoscience that is dependent on non-humans in laboratory practice (allowing to extend and "delegate" cognitive capacities to the environment). What is more, ANT accepts the radical thesis of non-human agency. The text also analyses a larger posthumanist political trend present in STS and in other theories, rejecting the arrogance It emerges as an inevitable reaction towards the problem of possible ecological destabilization (modern systemic risk or axiological/political challenges created by the so-called "wet" technologies, such as biotechnology, biomedicine, pharmacology).

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.

What is it about the structure and organisation of science and technology that has led to the spectacularly successful growth of knowledge during this century? This book answers this important and much debated question in an innovative way, by using computer simulations. The computer simulation of societies and social processes is a methodology which is rapidly becoming recognised for its potential in the social sciences. This book will be among the first to apply the tools of simulation systematically to a specific domain: science and technology studies. The first introductory section is followed by three application areas: simulations of scientific discovery and theory formation; evolutionary models of science and technology; and models which explore the conditions and dependencies of scientific work

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.

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.

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.