Guest Editorial

Cohen, Benjamin; Galusky, Wyatt

doi:10.1080/09505430903557924

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Transgressive Expertise involves a form of antagonistic boundary-work, specifically 'expansion of authority or expertise into domains claimed by other professions or occupations' (Gieryn, 1983, p. 791;Purdue, 1996, p. 535). Examples include when STS scholars intervene in discipline-bound science or technology debates (Fortun and Cherkasky, 1998a;Cohen and Galusky, 2010) or when non-medical, white-collar professionals become involved in the moral and clinical debate about the appropriate design of clinical trials to test HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals (Epstein, 1995(Epstein, , p. 1996.…”

Section: New Typology Of Counter-expertisementioning

confidence: 99%

Guest Editorial: Conceptualizing Justice and Counter-Expertise

Williams

Moore

2019

Science as Culture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systemic injustices exclude counter-experts from telling their stories and influencing the collective imagination. Four papers and some discussant essays illustrate the ways in which counter-experts cross boundaries to contest knowledge claims, legal institutions, and forms of data in order to resist various forms of injustice. Literature on counter-expertise, socio-technical imaginaries, and epistemic injustice highlights how marginalized groups are prevented from participating in the process of collective imagining. A definition of counter-expertise and a new typology of counter-expertise demonstrate how marginalized groups navigate boundaries to pursue epistemic justice. The four papers in the special issue exemplify the ways in which counter-experts navigate identity politics. To combat epistemic injustice within our field, STS scholars can be more inclusive with teaching, mentoring, reviewing and other forms of scholarly gatekeeping.

show abstract

Section: New Typology Of Counter-expertisementioning

confidence: 99%

Guest Editorial: Conceptualizing Justice and Counter-Expertise

Williams

Moore

2019

Science as Culture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recent special issue of Science as Culture (Cohen and Galusky, 2010) is dedicated to reflexivity conceived as how personal narrative and experience can lead to STS-relevant insights. A recent special issue of Science as Culture (Cohen and Galusky, 2010) is dedicated to reflexivity conceived as how personal narrative and experience can lead to STS-relevant insights.…”

Section: Sts' Topical Extensionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflexivity in Science and Technology Studies

Ashmore

2015

International Encyclopedia of the Social &Amp; Behavioral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although any easy distinction between description and intervention has been criticised by many involved in ethnographic science and technology studies for years (e.g. Cohen & Galusky, 2010, Downey & Dumit, 1997, Zuiderent-Jerak & Jensen, 2007, in discussions on action-oriented approaches it regularly continues to raise academic discussions and disputes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critique in action: assembling shared matters of concern with corporate R&D

Radstake¹,

Penders²

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An ethnographic study in Unilever - a large multinational food company – performed an unintended intervention in the assessment of the value of basic science by the management of Unilever R&D. Using accounts by the ethnographer and by a corporate R&D manager, we describe how the ethnographer’s interest in good food design was connected to issues of R&D organization in an interactive research process. The particular setting required regular involvement of key actors in the set-up and design of the research process and in the assessment of its preliminary results. That invited a collaborative critical analysis of health claims on food products by the ethnographer and those who were part of the practices he studied. We use Bruno Latour’s notion of matters of concern and related understandings of critique from science and technology studies to describe intervention as an outcome rather than an intention of their analysis, and reflect on corporate research practices as a field that may invite critique, rather than oppose to it. We use the term ‘critique in action’ (CiA) to describe the interactive research process and discuss its potential for further deployment.

show abstract

Guest Editorial

Cited by 6 publications

References 26 publications

Guest Editorial: Conceptualizing Justice and Counter-Expertise

Guest Editorial: Conceptualizing Justice and Counter-Expertise

Reflexivity in Science and Technology Studies

Critique in action: assembling shared matters of concern with corporate R&D

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Guest Editorial

Cited by 6 publications

References 26 publications

Guest Editorial: Conceptualizing Justice and Counter-Expertise

Guest Editorial: Conceptualizing Justice and Counter-Expertise

Reflexivity in Science and Technology Studies

Critique in action: assembling shared matters of concern with corporate R&amp;D

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Critique in action: assembling shared matters of concern with corporate R&D