Sociology of Science and Sociology of Social Problems. Discussions and Perspectives
Keywords:
sociology of science, sociology of social problems, social problems and knowledge problems, scientific construction of social problemsAbstract
Until the 1970s, Robert Merton was a central figure in American sociology. His contributions regarding social problems and the production of scientific knowledge (framed within a positivist and functionalist paradigm) were later criticized from constructivist perspectives. From that criticism, two schools of research emerged and addressed, on one hand, the socially constructed nature of science and, on the other, that of social problems. Although both approaches undertook some problems in common, the overlap between the two has been little attended. Their specific contributions and shortcomings concerning thoughts on the scientific construction of social problems was also insufficiently investigated. Researching these gaps has not only a theoretical value, but also a political one, as science has become, in recent decades, a fundamental part of decision-making in developing solutions to public problems. This article presents a bibliographic review of the development of both schools based on three objectives. Firstly, we analyze how the construction of social problems implies the development of research agendas aimed at reordering society. Secondly, we analyze the complex articulation of interests and material resources in the design of scientific facts that define social intervention dynamics. Finally, we analyze how scientific objects articulate social and knowledge problems. The conclusion shows how both approaches can enrich each other and proposes the concept of “problematic object” to think about how research framed in social problems influences the dynamics of public intervention.Downloads
References
Bloor, D. (1976). Conocimiento e imaginario social. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Callon, M. (1984). Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32(1), 196-233.
Callon, M. (1998). El proceso de construcción de la sociedad. El estudio de la tecnología como herramienta para el análisis sociológico. En M. Domenech y F. J. Tirado (Eds.), Sociología simétrica (77-105). Madrid: Gedisa.
Callon, M. (2006). Luchas y negociaciones para definir qué es y qué no es problemático: La socio-lógica de la traducción. REDES, 12(22), 23-58.
Cefaï, D. (2011). Diez propuestas para el estudio de las movilizaciones colectivas. De la experiencia al compromiso. Revista de Sociología, 26, 137-155.
Durkheim, E. (1989). El suicidio. Madrid: Ediciones Akal.
Etzkowitz, H. y Leydesdorff, L. (1998). The endless transition: a'Triple Helix'of university industry government relations. Minerva, 36(3), 203-208.
Etzkowitz, H. y Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research policy, 29(2), 109-123.
Fujimura, J. H. (1992). Crafting science: Standardized packages, boundary objects, and “translation”. Science as practice and culture, 168, 168-169.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. y Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Londres: Sage.
Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 8, 781-795.
Gusfield, J. (1975). Categories of ownership and responsibility in social issues: Alcohol abuse and automobile use. Journal of Drug Issues, 5(4), 285-303.
Gusfield, J. (1984). The culture of public problems: Drinking-driving and the symbolic order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ibarra, P. (2008). Strict and Contextual Constructionism in the Sociology of Deviance and Social Problems. En J. A. Holstein y J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (355-373). Nueva York y Londres: The Guilford Press.
Jasanoff, S. (2010). A new climate for society. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2-3), 233-253.
Jasanoff, S. (2015). Future imperfect: Science, technology, and the imaginations of modernity. En S. Jasanoff (Ed.), Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power (5-54). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kitsuse, J. I. y Spector, M. (1973). Toward a sociology of social problems: Social conditions, value-judgments, and social problems. Social problems, 20(4), 407-419.
Knorr Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge. Nueva York: Pergamon.
Knorr Cetina, K. (1996). ¿Comunidades científicas o arenas transepistémicas de investigación? Una crítica de los modelos cuasi-económicos de la ciencia. REDES, 3(7), 129-170.
Kreimer, P. (1999). De probetas, computadoras y ratones: La construcción de una mirada sociológica sobre la ciencia. Bernal: Universidad nacional de Quilmes.
Kreimer, P. (2002). ¿De qué objeto hablamos? Crítica a los conceptos de Triple Hélice y Nueva Producción de Conocimientos. REDES, 9(18), 6-46.
Kreimer, P. (2011). Desarmando ficciones. Problemas sociales-problemas de conocimiento en América Latina. In H. Vessuri (Ed.), Estudio social de la ciencia y la tecnología desde América Latina (127-166). Bogotá: Siglo del Hombre Editores.
Kreimer, P. (2019). Science and Society in Latin America: Peripheral Modernities. Londres: Routledge.
Kreimer, P. y Zabala, J. P. (2008). Quelle connaissance et pour qui? Revue d'anthropologie des connaissances, 2(3), 413-439. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.3917/rac.005.0413.
Latour, B. (1983). Give Me a Laboratory and i will Raice the World. En K. D. Knorr-Cetina y M. Mulkay (Eds.), Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science (141-170). Londres: Sage.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (2017). Facing Gaia: eight lectures on the new climatic regime. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Latour, B., Jensen, P., Venturini, T., Grauwin, S. y Boullier, D. (2012). ‘The whole is always smaller than its parts’–a digital test of G abriel T ardes' monads. The British Journal of Sociology, 63(4), 590-615.
Law, J. y Mol, A. (2008). El actor-actuado: La oveja de la Cumbria en 2001. Política y Sociedad, 45(3), 75-92.
Merton, R. (1977). La estructura normativa de la ciencia. La sociología de la ciencia, 2, 355-368.
Merton, R. y Nisbet, R. A. (1961). Contemporary social problems. Nueva York: Harcourt College Pub.
Restivo, S. y Croissant, J. (2008). Social constructionism in science and technology studies. En J. A. Holstein y J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (213-229). Londres: Sage.
Schneider, J. W. (1985). Social problems theory: The constructionist view. Annual Review of Sociology, 11(1), 209-229.
Shapin, S. y Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Shinn, T. (2002). Debate: En torno a la nueva producción de conocimiento y la triple hélice. REDES, 9(18), 125-155.
Sosiuk, E. (2020). ¿Cuál es el problema? El rol de los científicos en la construcción de problemas sociales ligados a la actividad pesquera en Argentina en el siglo XX. (Tesis de doctorado). Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Spector, M. (2019). Constructing Social Problems forty years later. The American Sociologist, 50(2), 175-181. Recuperado de: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12108-018-9391-3.
Weber, M. (1964). Economía y Sociedad. Esbozo de sociología comprensiva. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Whitley, R. (2010). Reconfiguring the Public Sciences. En R. Whitley, J. Gläser y L. Engwall (Eds.), Reconfiguring knowledge production: Changing authority relationships in the sciences and their consequences for intellectual innovation (11-55). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
All CTS's issues and academic articles are under a CC-BY license.
Since 2007, CTS has provided open and free access to all its contents, including the complete archive of its quarterly edition and the different products presented in its electronic platform. This decision is based on the belief that offering free access to published materials helps to build a greater and better exchange of knowledge.
In turn, for the quarterly edition, CTS allows institutional and thematic repositories, as well as personal web pages, to self-archive articles in their post-print or editorial version, immediately after the publication of the final version of each issue and under the condition that a link to the original source will be incorporated into the self-archive.
