The Science of Practice and the Practice of Science: Pierre Bourdieu and the History of Science

Tampakis, Kostas

doi:10.1111/soc4.12402

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…SSK scholars and sociologists specialising in the study of social worlds other than science can learn a great deal from each other. SSK scholars should actively participate in mainstream sociological debates (Tampakis, ) and theorise further from the rich collection of case studies painstakingly generated over the last 50 years to inspire thinking about social order at large. One important sociological debate to which SSK scholars can contribute is the extent to which, in the current context of modernity, we have shifted from trusting face‐to‐face, personally known experts to trusting anonymous, delocalised and “distributed” systems of expertise (Botsman, ; Giddens, ; Luhmann, ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trust, scepticism, and social order: A contribution from the sociology of scientific knowledge

Ramírez-i-Ollé

2018

Sociology Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK), which studies the organisation and content of science, has made two original contributions to the understanding of social order at large. First, SSK scholars regard social order as a problem of establishing “cognitive order” and knowledge. A wealth of case studies has demonstrated that interpersonal trust is necessary to achieve agreement and shared perception among particular collectives of specialists. Second, SSK scholars insist that all types of cognitive order and knowledge, whether “scientific” or “lay,” are the result of socially organised scepticism being parasitic upon existing trust and background expectations (an argument that I call “the Parasitic View of Scepticism”). Sociologists with an interest in today's so‐called “knowledge” and “information” societies, and more specifically, in the social distribution and political uses of doubt and unknowns (including “post‐truth”), would benefit from adopting the Parasitic View of Scepticism and investigating the corrosive and generative consequences of scepticism on the trust relations and the cognitive/social order upon which it is based, in line with insights from the emerging fields of agnotology and the sociology of ignorance.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trust, scepticism, and social order: A contribution from the sociology of scientific knowledge

Ramírez-i-Ollé

2018

Sociology Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The author presented it as a theory of practice whose goal would be to overcome false oppositions in the social sciences, embodied by the objectivism-subjectivism antagonism (Lentacker 2010). The habitus, field and capital are the key concepts of Bourdieu's sociology (Tampakis 2016).…”

Section: Pierre Bourdieu's Sociological Epistemologymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Writing of the History of Science from the Notion of Scientific Field

Gurgel

Watanabe

2020

Transversal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does science depend on its historical context? Does understanding science as a social construction demand us to abandon rationalist perspectives of knowledge? Based on these issues, this article aims to discuss epistemological questions concerning the problem of the historicity of sciences. In first part, we analyze how different philosophical systems conceptualize this problem and point out to tensions that emerge when one tries to reconcile a rationalist with a historicist perspective of knowledge. Then, we discuss the sociological epistemology of Pierre Bourdieu arguing that the field autonomy is a key concept to understand what the author denominates the “social conditions of the progress of reason”. Finally, we present criteria to delimit the most relevant contexts in a case study on the history of science.

show abstract

Domesticities and the Sciences

Opitz

2022

Histories

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ubiquity and yet distinctiveness of domestic sites for scientific research have attracted an unprecedented focus in recent years, especially in studies concerned with the gendering of science and the rise of citizen science movements of the late twentieth century. It is fair to say this “new” subfield has now entered a stage of maturity, even as it continues to grow and adopt new theoretical perspectives. Following an historiographical shift we might call the “domestic turn” in histories of science, “domesticities” emerges as a critical, analytical lens through which to view scientific developments in a range of historical contexts globally. The emphasis in the literature has moved from one on the “house of experiment” to one on the “laboratory of domesticity”, attending particularly to the permeability, plasticity, portability, and plurality of instances of entanglement between domesticities and science. In view of the emergence of new empirical cases and theoretical perspectives, this paper revisits the status of domesticities within histories of science to consider the current status of the historiography and to suggest even further directions for new research.

show abstract

The Science of Practice and the Practice of Science: Pierre Bourdieu and the History of Science

Cited by 3 publications

References 34 publications

Trust, scepticism, and social order: A contribution from the sociology of scientific knowledge

Trust, scepticism, and social order: A contribution from the sociology of scientific knowledge

The Writing of the History of Science from the Notion of Scientific Field

Domesticities and the Sciences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About