Alex WellersteinVerified account

Jasanoff: What does it mean to have a critical perspective on the stories that one is telling? After all, #histSTM isn’t about simple genealogical narratives. How can we (historians & #STS scholars) avoid being coopted by the institutions that we study? #HSS19

But Jasanoff notes that there are also divisions within #STS, i.e. a field that was born to study controversies suffers from its own internal controversies. (For example, does STS stand for Science & Technology Studies or Science, Technology & Society?) #HSS19

Jasanoff now launches a two-pronged attack against disciplinary (and overly simplistic efforts to categorize/bridge them) and interdisciplinarity (which also has its own shortcomings, e.g. reductionism—throw in a quote by Geertz=doing anthropology) #HSS19

Jasanoff (building upon Roberts’ introduction): How do we know that in critiquing knowledge making, we are not giving aid and comfort to those we do not wish to advance, particularly in the present moment? [Well...that’s a somewhat chilling thought.] #histSTM #HSS19

Question for the #HSS19 crowd: To what extent do #histSTM/#STS methodology courses read key texts of the science wars, e.g. Higher Superstition by Paul Gross* and Norman Levitt—which Jasanoff quotes at length here? #HSS19 * No relation

Jasanoff suggests that in today’s siloed world, it may be worth moving beyond asking “who’s right or wrong?” Instead consider: Who claims to know? Who asked the question first? On what authority? With what evidence? And subject to what oversight? (Among many others...) #HSS19