Although scholarship in the social construction of technology (SCOT) has contributed much to illuminating technological development, most work using this theoretical approach is committed to an agency-centered approach. SCOT scholars have made only limited contributions to illustrating the influence of social structures. In this article, the authors argue for the importance of structural concepts to understanding technological development. They summarize the SCOT conceptual framework defined by Trevor Pinch and Wiebe Bijker and survey some of the methodological and explanatory difficulties that arise with their approach. Then the authors present concepts from organizational sociology and political economy that illuminate structural influences in shaping phenomena of interest to SCOT scholars. These structural concepts can be applied to the study of the design, development, and transformation of technology. The authors conclude that the limited amount of scholarship on structural factors in the social shaping of technological development presents numerous opportunities for research.

Efforts to understand the structure of the emerging knowledge economy have paid particular attention to the shifting boundary between academic and commercial (for-profit) research, especially in life sciences. Yet, empirical studies have tended to adopt a segmented approach, focusing on either industry or the academy, thus obscuring the increasingly interwoven nature of these two domains. In this paper, we explore the changing organizational logics that govern both academic and corporate science, using interview data gathered from two important clusters of the biotechnology industry: Route 128 in Massachusetts and the San Francisco Bay area. These data, while provisional, lead us to suggest that cultural traffic between university and commercial science has increased, blurring the boundary between them and generating a new and often contradictory knowledge regime, the product of a growing confluence of organizational logics that had previously been distinct. The emergence of this regime, which conforms to Stark's (2001) notion of 'heterarchy', holds important implications for prevailing theories of university-industry relations and of organizational change as well.

The political ideology of neoliberalism is widely recognized as having influenced the organization of national and global economies and public policies since the 1970s. In this article, we examine the relationship between the neoliberal variant of globalization and science. To do so, we develop a framework for sociology of science that emphasizes closer ties among political sociology, the sociology of social movements, and economic and organizational sociology and that draws attention to patterns of increasing and uneven industrial influence amid several countervailing processes. Specifically, we explore three fundamental changes since the 1970s: the advent of the knowledge economy and the increasing interchange between academic and industrial research and development signified by academic capitalism and asymmetric convergence; the increasing prominence of science-based regulation of technology in global trade liberalization, marked by the heightened role of international organizations and the convergence of scientism and neoliberalism; and the epistemic modernization of the relationship between scientists and publics, represented by the proliferation of new institutions of deliberation, participation, activism, enterprise, and social movement mobilization.

This article utilizes the ongoing debates over the role of certain agricultural insecticides in causing Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD)—the phenomenon of accelerated bee die-offs in the United States and elsewhere—as an opportunity to contribute to the emerging literature on the social production of ignorance. In our effort to understand the social contexts that shape knowledge/nonknowledge production in this case, we develop the concept of epistemic form. Epistemic form is the suite of concepts, methods, measures, and interpretations that shapes the ways in which actors produce knowledge and ignorance in their professional/intellectual fields of practice. In the CCD controversy, we examine how the (historically influenced) privileging of certain epistemic forms intersects with the social dynamics of academic, regulatory, and corporate organizations to lead to the institutionalization of three interrelated and overlapping types of ignorance. We consider the effects of these types of ignorance on US regulatory policy and on the lives of different stakeholders.

Research suggests that deliberative experiences may improve citizens' perceptions of their abilities to participate meaningfully in political and societal issues. Previous studies, however, have not looked in depth at citizens' perceptions after participating in consensus conferences. In this case study, drawing on in-depth interviews with participants of a consensus conference on nanotechnology, we consider the following questions: 1) How do citizen participants feel the consensus conference experience affected their knowledge and efficacy related to participation in nanotechnology issues? 2) Which aspects of the conference (if any) do citizens think shaped their knowledge and efficacy? 3) Are citizens motivated to engage in future participatory mechanisms related to nanotechnology issues, and why or why not? Although our case study is exploratory, it suggests that even if consensus conferences have little or no influence on policy or policymakers, they may empower citizens by improving their perceived abilities to participate meaningfully in technoscientific issues.

In this article, we explore the politics of expertise in an ongoing controversy in the United States over the role of certain insecticides in colony collapse disorder – a phenomenon involving mass die-offs of honey bees. Numerous long-time commercial beekeepers contend that newer systemic agricultural insecticides are a crucial part of the cocktail of factors responsible for colony collapse disorder. Many scientists actively researching colony collapse disorder reject the beekeepers’ claims, citing the lack of conclusive evidence from field experiments by academic and industry toxicologists. US Environmental Protection Agency regulators, in turn, privilege the latters’ approach to the issue, and use the lack of conclusive evidence of systemic insecticides’ role in colony collapse disorder to justify permitting these chemicals to remain on the market. Drawing on semistructured interviews with key players in the controversy, as well as published documents and ethnographic data, we show how a set of research norms and practices from agricultural entomology came to dominate the investigation of the links between pesticides and honey bee health, and how the epistemological dominance of these norms and practices served to marginalize the knowledge claims and policy positions of commercial beekeepers in the colony collapse disorder controversy. We conclude with a discussion of how the colony collapse disorder case can help us think about the nature and politics of expertise.

No abstract

The past twenty years have been an incredibly productive period in science studies. Still, because recent work in science studies puts a spotlight on agency and enabling situations, many practitioners in the field ignore, underplay, or dismiss the possibility that historically established, structurally stable attributes of the world may systemically shape practice at the laboratory level. This article questions this general position. Drawing on data from a participant observation study of a university biology laboratory, it describes five features of the institutional landscape that shape this laboratory's practice.The past twenty years have been an incredibly productive period in science and technology studies. Most fundamentally, recent research has helped challenge idealized images of science as a distinctive asocial realm in which strict adherence to formal rules allows scientists to &dquo;read&dquo; nature to explain the operation of physical and biological systems. Such an idealized image has been replaced by a picture of science-as-craft in which practical reasoners act in local contexts in often highly contingent ways.