Feminism, sociology of scientific knowledge and postmodernism: Politics, theory and me

Social Studies of Science

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 445-468

  Singleton, Vicky ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030526873     PISSN: 03063127     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/030631296026002010     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Linda J. Nicholson (ed.), Feminism/Postmodernism (New York & London: Routledge, 1990).
2. Sandra Harding, Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women's Lives (Milton Keynes, Bucks.: Open University Press, 1991), 304. See also Nicholson, op. cit. note 1.
3. Sandra Harding, Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women's Lives (Milton Keynes, Bucks.: Open University Press, 1991), 304. See also Nicholson, op. cit. note 1.
4. Previous accounts of my application of the actor-network approach to the UK CSP include Vicky Singleton and Mike Michael, 'Actor-Networks and Ambivalence: General Practitioners in the Cervical Screening Programme', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23, No. 2 (May 1993), 227-64; and Singleton, Science, Women and Ambivalence: An Actor-Network Analysis of the Cervical Screening Programme (unpublished PhD thesis, School of Independent Studies, Lancaster University, 1992). For another attempt of mine to put feminist approaches into dialogue with the actor-network approach, through a case study of the roles played by feminists and lay women in the cervical screening programme, see Singleton, 'Networking Constructions of Gender and Constructing Gender Networks: Considering Definitions of Woman in the British Cervical Screening Programme', in Keith Grint and Rosalind Gill (eds), The Gender/Technology Relation: Contemporary Theory and Research (London: Taylor & Francis, 1995), 146-73.
5. Previous accounts of my application of the actor-network approach to the UK CSP include Vicky Singleton and Mike Michael, 'Actor-Networks and Ambivalence: General Practitioners in the Cervical Screening Programme', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23, No. 2 (May 1993), 227-64; and Singleton, Science, Women and Ambivalence: An Actor-Network Analysis of the Cervical Screening Programme (unpublished PhD thesis, School of Independent Studies, Lancaster University, 1992). For another attempt of mine to put feminist approaches into dialogue with the actor-network approach, through a case study of the roles played by feminists and lay women in the cervical screening programme, see Singleton, 'Networking Constructions of Gender and Constructing Gender Networks: Considering Definitions of Woman in the British Cervical Screening Programme', in Keith Grint and Rosalind Gill (eds), The Gender/Technology Relation: Contemporary Theory and Research (London: Taylor & Francis, 1995), 146-73.
6. Previous accounts of my application of the actor-network approach to the UK CSP include Vicky Singleton and Mike Michael, 'Actor-Networks and Ambivalence: General Practitioners in the Cervical Screening Programme', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23, No. 2 (May 1993), 227-64; and Singleton, Science, Women and Ambivalence: An Actor-Network Analysis of the Cervical Screening Programme (unpublished PhD thesis, School of Independent Studies, Lancaster University, 1992). For another attempt of mine to put feminist approaches into dialogue with the actor-network approach, through a case study of the roles played by feminists and lay women in the cervical screening programme, see Singleton, 'Networking Constructions of Gender and Constructing Gender Networks: Considering Definitions of Woman in the British Cervical Screening Programme', in Keith Grint and Rosalind Gill (eds), The Gender/Technology Relation: Contemporary Theory and Research (London: Taylor & Francis, 1995), 146-73.
7. I am referring to the actor-network approach as developed within SSK and associated, in the main, with Michel Callon, Bruno Latour and John Law. For the main texts describing and developing this approach, see Michel CalIon, 'Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay', in J. Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief (London: Routledge, 1986), 196-233; Callon, 'The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle', in M. Gallon et al. (eds), Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology (London: Macmillan, 1986), 19-34; CalIon, 'Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis', in Wiebe E. Bijker et al. (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems (Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press, 1987), 83-103; Callon, 'Techno-Economic Networks and Irreversibility', in Law (ed.), A Sociology of Monsters? Essays on Power, Technology and Domination (London: Routledge, 1991), 132-61; Bruno Latour, Technology is Society Made Durable', in Law (ed.), ibid., 103-31; Latour, Science in Action: How To Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Milton Keynes, Bucks.: Open University Press, 1987); Latour, The Pasteurization of France (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); Latour, 'Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer', Social Problems, Vol. 35 (1988), 298-310; John Law, 'Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case of Portuguese Expansion', in Bijker et al. (eds), op. cit., 111-34; Law, 'Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity', Systems Practice, Vol. 5 (1992), 379-93.
8. I am referring to the actor-network approach as developed within SSK and associated, in the main, with Michel Callon, Bruno Latour and John Law. For the main texts describing and developing this approach, see Michel CalIon, 'Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay', in J. Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief (London: Routledge, 1986), 196-233; Callon, 'The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle', in M. Gallon et al. (eds), Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology (London: Macmillan, 1986), 19-34; CalIon, 'Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis', in Wiebe E. Bijker et al. (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems (Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press, 1987), 83-103; Callon, 'Techno-Economic Networks and Irreversibility', in Law (ed.), A Sociology of Monsters? Essays on Power, Technology and Domination (London: Routledge, 1991), 132-61; Bruno Latour, Technology is Society Made Durable', in Law (ed.), ibid., 103-31; Latour, Science in Action: How To Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Milton Keynes, Bucks.: Open University Press, 1987); Latour, The Pasteurization of France (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); Latour, 'Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer', Social Problems, Vol. 35 (1988), 298-310; John Law, 'Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case of Portuguese Expansion', in Bijker et al. (eds), op. cit., 111-34; Law, 'Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity', Systems Practice, Vol. 5 (1992), 379-93.
9. I am referring to the actor-network approach as developed within SSK and associated, in the main, with Michel Callon, Bruno Latour and John Law. For the main texts describing and developing this approach, see Michel CalIon, 'Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay', in J. Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief (London: Routledge, 1986), 196-233; Callon, 'The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle', in M. Gallon et al. (eds), Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology (London: Macmillan, 1986), 19-34; CalIon, 'Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis', in Wiebe E. Bijker et al. (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems (Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press, 1987), 83-103; Callon, 'Techno-Economic Networks and Irreversibility', in Law (ed.), A Sociology of Monsters? Essays on Power, Technology and Domination (London: Routledge, 1991), 132-61; Bruno Latour, Technology is Society Made Durable', in Law (ed.), ibid., 103-31; Latour, Science in Action: How To Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Milton Keynes, Bucks.: Open University Press, 1987); Latour, The Pasteurization of France (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); Latour, 'Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer', Social Problems, Vol. 35 (1988), 298-310; John Law, 'Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case of Portuguese Expansion', in Bijker et al. (eds), op. cit., 111-34; Law, 'Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity', Systems Practice, Vol. 5 (1992), 379-93.
10. I am referring to the actor-network approach as developed within SSK and associated, in the main, with Michel Callon, Bruno Latour and John Law. For the main texts describing and developing this approach, see Michel CalIon, 'Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay', in J. Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief (London: Routledge, 1986), 196-233; Callon, 'The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle', in M. Gallon et al. (eds), Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology (London: Macmillan, 1986), 19-34; CalIon, 'Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis', in Wiebe E. Bijker et al. (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems (Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press, 1987), 83-103; Callon, 'Techno-Economic Networks and Irreversibility', in Law (ed.), A Sociology of Monsters? Essays on Power, Technology and Domination (London: Routledge, 1991), 132-61; Bruno Latour, Technology is Society Made Durable', in Law (ed.), ibid., 103-31; Latour, Science in Action: How To Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Milton Keynes, Bucks.: Open University Press, 1987); Latour, The Pasteurization of France (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); Latour, 'Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer', Social Problems, Vol. 35 (1988), 298-310; John Law, 'Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case of Portuguese Expansion', in Bijker et al. (eds), op. cit., 111-34; Law, 'Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity', Systems Practice, Vol. 5 (1992), 379-93.
11. I am referring to the actor-network approach as developed within SSK and associated, in the main, with Michel Callon, Bruno Latour and John Law. For the main texts describing and developing this approach, see Michel CalIon, 'Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay', in J. Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief (London: Routledge, 1986), 196-233; Callon, 'The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle', in M. Gallon et al. (eds), Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology (London: Macmillan, 1986), 19-34; CalIon, 'Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis', in Wiebe E. Bijker et al. (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems (Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press, 1987), 83-103; Callon, 'Techno-Economic Networks and Irreversibility', in Law (ed.), A Sociology of Monsters? Essays on Power, Technology and Domination (London: Routledge, 1991), 132-61; Bruno Latour, Technology is Society Made Durable', in Law (ed.), ibid., 103-31; Latour, Science in Action: How To Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Milton Keynes, Bucks.: Open University Press, 1987); Latour, The Pasteurization of France (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); Latour, 'Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer', Social Problems, Vol. 35 (1988), 298-310; John Law, 'Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case of Portuguese Expansion', in Bijker et al. (eds), op. cit., 111-34; Law, 'Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity', Systems Practice, Vol. 5 (1992), 379-93.
12. I am referring to the actor-network approach as developed within SSK and associated, in the main, with Michel Callon, Bruno Latour and John Law. For the main texts describing and developing this approach, see Michel CalIon, 'Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay', in J. Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief (London: Routledge, 1986), 196-233; Callon, 'The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle', in M. Gallon et al. (eds), Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology (London: Macmillan, 1986), 19-34; CalIon, 'Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis', in Wiebe E. Bijker et al. (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems (Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press, 1987), 83-103; Callon, 'Techno-Economic Networks and Irreversibility', in Law (ed.), A Sociology of Monsters? Essays on Power, Technology and Domination (London: Routledge, 1991), 132-61; Bruno Latour, Technology is Society Made Durable', in Law (ed.), ibid., 103-31; Latour, Science in Action: How To Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Milton Keynes, Bucks.: Open University Press, 1987); Latour, The Pasteurization of France (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); Latour, 'Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer', Social Problems, Vol. 35 (1988), 298-310; John Law, 'Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case of Portuguese Expansion', in Bijker et al. (eds), op. cit., 111-34; Law, 'Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity', Systems Practice, Vol. 5 (1992), 379-93.
13. I am referring to the actor-network approach as developed within SSK and associated, in the main, with Michel Callon, Bruno Latour and John Law. For the main texts describing and developing this approach, see Michel CalIon, 'Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay', in J. Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief (London: Routledge, 1986), 196-233; Callon, 'The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle', in M. Gallon et al. (eds), Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology (London: Macmillan, 1986), 19-34; CalIon, 'Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis', in Wiebe E. Bijker et al. (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems (Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press, 1987), 83-103; Callon, 'Techno-Economic Networks and Irreversibility', in Law (ed.), A Sociology of Monsters? Essays on Power, Technology and Domination (London: Routledge, 1991), 132-61; Bruno Latour, Technology is Society Made Durable', in Law (ed.), ibid., 103-31; Latour, Science in Action: How To Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Milton Keynes, Bucks.: Open University Press, 1987); Latour, The Pasteurization of France (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); Latour, 'Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer', Social Problems, Vol. 35 (1988), 298-310; John Law, 'Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case of Portuguese Expansion', in Bijker et al. (eds), op. cit., 111-34; Law, 'Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity', Systems Practice, Vol. 5 (1992), 379-93.
14. I am referring to the actor-network approach as developed within SSK and associated, in the main, with Michel Callon, Bruno Latour and John Law. For the main texts describing and developing this approach, see Michel CalIon, 'Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay', in J. Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief (London: Routledge, 1986), 196-233; Callon, 'The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle', in M. Gallon et al. (eds), Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology (London: Macmillan, 1986), 19-34; CalIon, 'Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis', in Wiebe E. Bijker et al. (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems (Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press, 1987), 83-103; Callon, 'Techno-Economic Networks and Irreversibility', in Law (ed.), A Sociology of Monsters? Essays on Power, Technology and Domination (London: Routledge, 1991), 132-61; Bruno Latour, Technology is Society Made Durable', in Law (ed.), ibid., 103-31; Latour, Science in Action: How To Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Milton Keynes, Bucks.: Open University Press, 1987); Latour, The Pasteurization of France (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); Latour, 'Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer', Social Problems, Vol. 35 (1988), 298-310; John Law, 'Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case of Portuguese Expansion', in Bijker et al. (eds), op. cit., 111-34; Law, 'Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity', Systems Practice, Vol. 5 (1992), 379-93.
15. I am referring to the actor-network approach as developed within SSK and associated, in the main, with Michel Callon, Bruno Latour and John Law. For the main texts describing and developing this approach, see Michel CalIon, 'Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay', in J. Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief (London: Routledge, 1986), 196-233; Callon, 'The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle', in M. Gallon et al. (eds), Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology (London: Macmillan, 1986), 19-34; CalIon, 'Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis', in Wiebe E. Bijker et al. (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems (Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press, 1987), 83-103; Callon, 'Techno-Economic Networks and Irreversibility', in Law (ed.), A Sociology of Monsters? Essays on Power, Technology and Domination (London: Routledge, 1991), 132-61; Bruno Latour, Technology is Society Made Durable', in Law (ed.), ibid., 103-31; Latour, Science in Action: How To Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Milton Keynes, Bucks.: Open University Press, 1987); Latour, The Pasteurization of France (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); Latour, 'Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer', Social Problems, Vol. 35 (1988), 298-310; John Law, 'Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case of Portuguese Expansion', in Bijker et al. (eds), op. cit., 111-34; Law, 'Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity', Systems Practice, Vol. 5 (1992), 379-93.
16. I am referring to the actor-network approach as developed within SSK and associated, in the main, with Michel Callon, Bruno Latour and John Law. For the main texts describing and developing this approach, see Michel CalIon, 'Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay', in J. Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief (London: Routledge, 1986), 196-233; Callon, 'The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle', in M. Gallon et al. (eds), Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology (London: Macmillan, 1986), 19-34; CalIon, 'Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis', in Wiebe E. Bijker et al. (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems (Cambridge, MA & London: MIT Press, 1987), 83-103; Callon, 'Techno-Economic Networks and Irreversibility', in Law (ed.), A Sociology of Monsters? Essays on Power, Technology and Domination (London: Routledge, 1991), 132-61; Bruno Latour, Technology is Society Made Durable', in Law (ed.), ibid., 103-31; Latour, Science in Action: How To Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Milton Keynes, Bucks.: Open University Press, 1987); Latour, The Pasteurization of France (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); Latour, 'Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer', Social Problems, Vol. 35 (1988), 298-310; John Law, 'Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case of Portuguese Expansion', in Bijker et al. (eds), op. cit., 111-34; Law, 'Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity', Systems Practice, Vol. 5 (1992), 379-93.
17. Keith Grint and Steve Woolgar, On Some Failures of Nerve in Constructivist and Feminist Analyses of Technology', Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Summer 1995), 286-310; and in Grint & Gill (eds), op. cit. note 3.
18. Keith Grint and Steve Woolgar, On Some Failures of Nerve in Constructivist and Feminist Analyses of Technology', Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Summer 1995), 286-310; and in Grint & Gill (eds), op. cit. note 3.
19. Judith Squires (ed.), Principled Positions: Postmodernism and the Rediscovery of Value (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1993), 6.
20. H.M. Collins and Steven Yearley, 'Epistemological Chicken', in Andrew Pickering (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 301-26; M. GalIon and B. Latour, 'Don't Throw the Baby Out With the Bath School: A Reply To Collins and Yearley', ibid., 343-68.
21. H.M. Collins and Steven Yearley, 'Epistemological Chicken', in Andrew Pickering (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 301-26; M. GalIon and B. Latour, 'Don't Throw the Baby Out With the Bath School: A Reply To Collins and Yearley', ibid., 343-68.
22. Details about the programme are taken from government documents that defined and developed it. Great Britain Ministry of Health, Population Screening for Cancer of the Cervix, Health Memorandum, HM(66)76 (London: Ministry of Health, 1966); Great Britain Department of Health and Social Security, Screening for Cervical Cancer, Health Circular, HC(84)17 (London: Department of Health and Social Security, 1984); Great Britain Department of Health and Social Security, Cervical Cancer Screening, Health Circular, HC(88)1 (London: Department of Health and Social Security, 1988).
23. Details about the programme are taken from government documents that defined and developed it. Great Britain Ministry of Health, Population Screening for Cancer of the Cervix, Health Memorandum, HM(66)76 (London: Ministry of Health, 1966); Great Britain Department of Health and Social Security, Screening for Cervical Cancer, Health Circular, HC(84)17 (London: Department of Health and Social Security, 1984); Great Britain Department of Health and Social Security, Cervical Cancer Screening, Health Circular, HC(88)1 (London: Department of Health and Social Security, 1988).
24. Details about the programme are taken from government documents that defined and developed it. Great Britain Ministry of Health, Population Screening for Cancer of the Cervix, Health Memorandum, HM(66)76 (London: Ministry of Health, 1966); Great Britain Department of Health and Social Security, Screening for Cervical Cancer, Health Circular, HC(84)17 (London: Department of Health and Social Security, 1984); Great Britain Department of Health and Social Security, Cervical Cancer Screening, Health Circular, HC(88)1 (London: Department of Health and Social Security, 1988).
25. Wendy Savage and Anne McPherson, 'Cervical Cytology', in McPherson and A. Anderson (eds), Women's Problems in General Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 179-202. This text is written for medical practitioners. Savage and McPherson review the available medical literature and demonstrate that while there is uncertainty over this issue, there is a medical consensus that cervical cancer is linked to sexual activity and to multiple sexual partners. Laboratory staff analyzing cervical cell samples are instructed to report on finding Human Papilloma Virus or Herpes Virus, and the women so affected are thereafter placed in a high-risk category and requested to attend more frequently for cervical smear tests. Both of these diseases are defined as sexually transmitted. (Laboratory fieldwork, 1990-92.)
26. Useful overviews of the debates include Jocelyn Chamberlain, 'Failures of the Cervical Cytology Screening Programme', British Medical Journal, Vol. 289 (6 October 1984), 853-54; National Co-ordinating Network, First Annual Report: NHSCSP (Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford: National Co-ordinating Network, 1991); A. Singer and A. Szarewski, Cervical Smear Test: What Every Woman Should Know (London: Macdonald, 1988).
27. Useful overviews of the debates include Jocelyn Chamberlain, 'Failures of the Cervical Cytology Screening Programme', British Medical Journal, Vol. 289 (6 October 1984), 853-54; National Co-ordinating Network, First Annual Report: NHSCSP (Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford: National Co-ordinating Network, 1991); A. Singer and A. Szarewski, Cervical Smear Test: What Every Woman Should Know (London: Macdonald, 1988).
28. Useful overviews of the debates include Jocelyn Chamberlain, 'Failures of the Cervical Cytology Screening Programme', British Medical Journal, Vol. 289 (6 October 1984), 853-54; National Co-ordinating Network, First Annual Report: NHSCSP (Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford: National Co-ordinating Network, 1991); A. Singer and A. Szarewski, Cervical Smear Test: What Every Woman Should Know (London: Macdonald, 1988).
29. J. Chomet and J. Chomet, Cervical Cancer: All You and Your Partner Need to Know about its Prevention, Detection and Treatment (Wellingborough, Northants.: Thorsons, 1989), 52. There was an internal review of this incident which concluded that a particular consultant pathologist had made massive errors of professional judgement for which there was no logical explanation. Laboratory quality control procedures were implemented country-wide. There was a campaign for a public inquiry, headed by one of the Liverpool women involved (LH). However, there was no public inquiry, although LH did make a statement to the internal review. The author has spoken to LH on a number of occasions, and LH has recently published a book documenting her experiences: Lily Hopkins, I'm Alive (Liverpool: Changing Places Publications, 1991).
30. J. Chomet and J. Chomet, Cervical Cancer: All You and Your Partner Need to Know about its Prevention, Detection and Treatment (Wellingborough, Northants.: Thorsons, 1989), 52. There was an internal review of this incident which concluded that a particular consultant pathologist had made massive errors of professional judgement for which there was no logical explanation. Laboratory quality control procedures were implemented country-wide. There was a campaign for a public inquiry, headed by one of the Liverpool women involved (LH). However, there was no public inquiry, although LH did make a statement to the internal review. The author has spoken to LH on a number of occasions, and LH has recently published a book documenting her experiences: Lily Hopkins, I'm Alive (Liverpool: Changing Places Publications, 1991).
31. In an influential review of the UK CSP, Roberts stated that there were 2068 deaths from cervical cancer in 1980, compared to 2434 deaths in 1968: see A. Roberts, 'Cervical Cytology in England and Wales, 1965-80', Health Trends, Vol. 14 (1982), 41-43. Following comparisons with the mortality statistics of other countries with CSPs, a Working Party set up by the Department of Health and Social Security Committee on Gynaecological Cytology in 1980 reported that 'the UK screening programme appears to be a relative failure': G.J. Draper, 'Screening for Cervical Cancer: Revised Policy. The Recommendations of the DHSS Committee on Gynaecological Cytology', Health Trends, Vol. 14 (1982), 37-40, at 37. For a recent review of the literature and an indication of the consensus over the failure of the UK CSP to reduce mortality from cervical cancer, see K. Johnston, Screening for Cervical Cancer: A Review of the Literature (University of Aberdeen: Health Economics Research Unit Discussion Paper, April 1989). See also National Co-ordinating Network, First Annual Report, op. cit. note 10.
32. In an influential review of the UK CSP, Roberts stated that there were 2068 deaths from cervical cancer in 1980, compared to 2434 deaths in 1968: see A. Roberts, 'Cervical Cytology in England and Wales, 1965-80', Health Trends, Vol. 14 (1982), 41-43. Following comparisons with the mortality statistics of other countries with CSPs, a Working Party set up by the Department of Health and Social Security Committee on Gynaecological Cytology in 1980 reported that 'the UK screening programme appears to be a relative failure': G.J. Draper, 'Screening for Cervical Cancer: Revised Policy. The Recommendations of the DHSS Committee on Gynaecological Cytology', Health Trends, Vol. 14 (1982), 37-40, at 37. For a recent review of the literature and an indication of the consensus over the failure of the UK CSP to reduce mortality from cervical cancer, see K. Johnston, Screening for Cervical Cancer: A Review of the Literature (University of Aberdeen: Health Economics Research Unit Discussion Paper, April 1989). See also National Co-ordinating Network, First Annual Report, op. cit. note 10.
33. In an influential review of the UK CSP, Roberts stated that there were 2068 deaths from cervical cancer in 1980, compared to 2434 deaths in 1968: see A. Roberts, 'Cervical Cytology in England and Wales, 1965-80', Health Trends, Vol. 14 (1982), 41-43. Following comparisons with the mortality statistics of other countries with CSPs, a Working Party set up by the Department of Health and Social Security Committee on Gynaecological Cytology in 1980 reported that 'the UK screening programme appears to be a relative failure': G.J. Draper, 'Screening for Cervical Cancer: Revised Policy. The Recommendations of the DHSS Committee on Gynaecological Cytology', Health Trends, Vol. 14 (1982), 37-40, at 37. For a recent review of the literature and an indication of the consensus over the failure of the UK CSP to reduce mortality from cervical cancer, see K. Johnston, Screening for Cervical Cancer: A Review of the Literature (University of Aberdeen: Health Economics Research Unit Discussion Paper, April 1989). See also National Co-ordinating Network, First Annual Report, op. cit. note 10.
34. In an influential review of the UK CSP, Roberts stated that there were 2068 deaths from cervical cancer in 1980, compared to 2434 deaths in 1968: see A. Roberts, 'Cervical Cytology in England and Wales, 1965-80', Health Trends, Vol. 14 (1982), 41-43. Following comparisons with the mortality statistics of other countries with CSPs, a Working Party set up by the Department of Health and Social Security Committee on Gynaecological Cytology in 1980 reported that 'the UK screening programme appears to be a relative failure': G.J. Draper, 'Screening for Cervical Cancer: Revised Policy. The Recommendations of the DHSS Committee on Gynaecological Cytology', Health Trends, Vol. 14 (1982), 37-40, at 37. For a recent review of the literature and an indication of the consensus over the failure of the UK CSP to reduce mortality from cervical cancer, see K. Johnston, Screening for Cervical Cancer: A Review of the Literature (University of Aberdeen: Health Economics Research Unit Discussion Paper, April 1989). See also National Co-ordinating Network, First Annual Report, op. cit. note 10.
35. For example, one leaflet states: 'The cervical smear test is a very simple, painless procedure. It is an early warning test which shows if there are any changes in the cells of the cervix which MIGHT develop into cancer': The Female Cancer: Cancer of the Cervix, Your Questions Answered (London: Durex Contraception Information Service in collaboration with the Women's National Cancer Control Campaign, 1989). Statements in the standard letters sent to women inviting them to have a CST include: 'The test is straightforward and painless and enables doctors to diagnose a condition which later may develop into cancer of the neck of the womb whilst it is still at a stage when treatment can prevent this happening'.
36. The CSP emerges from some texts written for lay women as a demonstration of the certitude and accomplishments of modern medical science. 'During the last two decades, . . . there have been enormous advances in the detection as well as the treatment of cancer. With the most modern screening techniques it is now possible to detect and to treat potential cancer of the cervix in its pre-cancerous state' (Chomet & Chomet, op. cit. note 11, Introduction). Tina Posnei and Martin Vessey refer to the CSP as an optimistic area of modern preventive medical science: Prevention of Cervical Cancer: The Patient's View (London: King Edward's Fund for London, 1988). References to the 'failure' of the CSP are often accompanied by references to continued mortality from cervical cancer despite the 20-plus-year existence of the programme (see the texts cited in note 12). In addition, see the interesting debate in the medical literature initiated by a paper suggesting not only that the CSP has failed, but that it may do more harm than good: J.S. McCormick, 'Cervical Smears: A Questionable Practice?', The Lancet (1989), Vol. 22 (22 July), 207-09, and especially the replies to McCormick in ibid. (9 September), 627-29.
37. The CSP emerges from some texts written for lay women as a demonstration of the certitude and accomplishments of modern medical science. 'During the last two decades, . . . there have been enormous advances in the detection as well as the treatment of cancer. With the most modern screening techniques it is now possible to detect and to treat potential cancer of the cervix in its pre-cancerous state' (Chomet & Chomet, op. cit. note 11, Introduction). Tina Posnei and Martin Vessey refer to the CSP as an optimistic area of modern preventive medical science: Prevention of Cervical Cancer: The Patient's View (London: King Edward's Fund for London, 1988). References to the 'failure' of the CSP are often accompanied by references to continued mortality from cervical cancer despite the 20-plus-year existence of the programme (see the texts cited in note 12). In addition, see the interesting debate in the medical literature initiated by a paper suggesting not only that the CSP has failed, but that it may do more harm than good: J.S. McCormick, 'Cervical Smears: A Questionable Practice?', The Lancet (1989), Vol. 22 (22 July), 207-09, and especially the replies to McCormick in ibid. (9 September), 627-29.
38. L. McTaggart, 'The Smear Campaign', What Doctors Don't Tell You, Vol. 1, No. 3 (March 1990), 1-2. This journal is published from 77 Grosvenor Avenue, London, N5 2NN, UK.
39. H.M. Collins, 'Certainty and the Public Understanding of Science: Science on Television', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 17, No. 4 (November 1987), 689-713. Collins suggests that the public's usual distance from the processes of scientific knowledge production leads to public enchantment with science and, conversely, that when the public gets closer to the scene of knowledge production and thus comes upon the inevitable negotiations, errors and uncertainty, the response is disenchantment and rejection.
40. Susan Leigh Star, 'Introduction: The Sociology of Science and Technology', Social Problems, Vol. 35 (1988), 197-205, at 198.
41. Commentaries on these issues are many; the debate is long-standing and ongoing. Useful references include: H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London: Sage, 1985); G. Nigel Gilbert and Michael Mulkay, Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); B. Latour, Science in Action, op. cit. note 4; Latour and S. Woolgar, Laboratory Life, The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1979); Mulkay, Sociology of Science: A Sociological Pilgrimage (Milton Keynes, Bucks.: Open University Press, 1991).
42. Commentaries on these issues are many; the debate is long-standing and ongoing. Useful references include: H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London: Sage, 1985); G. Nigel Gilbert and Michael Mulkay, Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); B. Latour, Science in Action, op. cit. note 4; Latour and S. Woolgar, Laboratory Life, The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1979); Mulkay, Sociology of Science: A Sociological Pilgrimage (Milton Keynes, Bucks.: Open University Press, 1991).
43. Commentaries on these issues are many; the debate is long-standing and ongoing. Useful references include: H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London: Sage, 1985); G. Nigel Gilbert and Michael Mulkay, Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); B. Latour, Science in Action, op. cit. note 4; Latour and S. Woolgar, Laboratory Life, The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1979); Mulkay, Sociology of Science: A Sociological Pilgrimage (Milton Keynes, Bucks.: Open University Press, 1991).
44. Commentaries on these issues are many; the debate is long-standing and ongoing. Useful references include: H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London: Sage, 1985); G. Nigel Gilbert and Michael Mulkay, Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); B. Latour, Science in Action, op. cit. note 4; Latour and S. Woolgar, Laboratory Life, The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1979); Mulkay, Sociology of Science: A Sociological Pilgrimage (Milton Keynes, Bucks.: Open University Press, 1991).
45. Commentaries on these issues are many; the debate is long-standing and ongoing. Useful references include: H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London: Sage, 1985); G. Nigel Gilbert and Michael Mulkay, Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); B. Latour, Science in Action, op. cit. note 4; Latour and S. Woolgar, Laboratory Life, The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1979); Mulkay, Sociology of Science: A Sociological Pilgrimage (Milton Keynes, Bucks.: Open University Press, 1991).
46. The debate on these issues is long-standing and continues to rage. Useful references include: Malcolm Ashmore, The Reflexive Thesis: Wrighting Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1989); Mulkay, op. cit. note 18; S. Woolgar, Science: The Very Idea (New York & London: Tavistock & Ellis Harwood, 1988); Woolgar (ed.), Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge (London: Sage, 1988).
47. The debate on these issues is long-standing and continues to rage. Useful references include: Malcolm Ashmore, The Reflexive Thesis: Wrighting Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1989); Mulkay, op. cit. note 18; S. Woolgar, Science: The Very Idea (New York & London: Tavistock & Ellis Harwood, 1988); Woolgar (ed.), Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge (London: Sage, 1988).
48. The debate on these issues is long-standing and continues to rage. Useful references include: Malcolm Ashmore, The Reflexive Thesis: Wrighting Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1989); Mulkay, op. cit. note 18; S. Woolgar, Science: The Very Idea (New York & London: Tavistock & Ellis Harwood, 1988); Woolgar (ed.), Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge (London: Sage, 1988).
49. The debate on these issues is long-standing and continues to rage. Useful references include: Malcolm Ashmore, The Reflexive Thesis: Wrighting Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1989); Mulkay, op. cit. note 18; S. Woolgar, Science: The Very Idea (New York & London: Tavistock & Ellis Harwood, 1988); Woolgar (ed.), Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge (London: Sage, 1988).
50. B. Latour, 'The Politics of Explanation: An Alternative', in Woolgar (ed.) Knowledge and Reflexivity, op. cit. note 19, 155-76.
51. This question was initially addressed to me following the presentation of a paper, 'Actor-Network Theory - A Useful Tool for Feminists Approaching Science?' at the 'Feminism, Constructivism and Utility' conference, held at Brunel University, London, in September 1993; a revised version of this paper is published in Grint & Gill (eds), op. cit. note 3. I am grateful to the questioner for posing The Question, which led to an earlier version of the present paper being presented in the Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology at Keele University in January 1994. I appreciate the feedback I received from the participants in the latter seminar.
52. Actor-network theory has evolved a variety of terms with which to conceptualize the process whereby scientific and technological artefacts are constructed. A diversity of entities are enrolled into a network, and that network is conceptualized as constituting the artefact. That is, a diversity of entities are translated - defined and associated, and thereby given a specific role to play by a translator that sets itself up as their spokesperson. One paper which clearly outlines the use of these terms is Callon's 'Electric Vehicle' (op. cit. note 4). In the case of the CSP, in 1966 the documents defining the initial construction of the programme indicate that the British government set itself up as the translator spokesperson (Great Britain Ministry of Health, op. cit. note 8). It defined and associated a diversity of entities including hospital pathology laboratories, general practitioners, lay women, cervical cells and cervical cancer.
53. Woolgar, Science, op. cit. note 19.
54. As defined by Sandra Harding, The Science Question in Feminism (Milton Keynes, Bucks.: Open University Press, 1986).
55. J. Robinson, 'Cervical Cancer - Doctors Hide the Truth', in S. O'Sullivan (ed.), Women's Health: A Spare Rib Reader (New York & London: Pandora Press, 1987), 49-51, quote at 51.
56. T. Posner, An Abnormal Smear: What Does That Mean? (London: Women's Health and Reproductive Rights Information Centre, 1987), 4.
57. Chomet & Chomet, op. cit. note 14, 12.
58. J. Robinson, 'Cervical Cancer: A Feminist Critique', The Times Health Supplement (London), No. 5 (27 November 1981), 16.
59. Robinson, op. cit. note 25, quote at 51.
60. H.E. Longino, 'Can There Be a Feminist Science?', in A. Garry and M. Pearsall (eds), Women, Knowledge and Reality: Explorations in Feminist Philosophy (Boston, MA & London: Unwin Hyman, 1989), 203-16, quote at 212.
61. Bryan Turner, Medical Power and Social Knowledge (London: Sage, 1987), 224.
62. Harding (op. cit. note 24) reviews the literature and defines a feminist standpoint epistemology. See also Hilary Rose, 'Beyond Masculinist Realities: A Feminist Epistemology For the Sciences', in Ruth Bleier (ed.), Feminist Approaches to Science (New York: Pergamon Press, 1986), 57-76.
63. R. Barnett and R. Fox, A Feminist Approach to Pap Tests (Vancouver: Vancouver Women's Health Collective, 1986), 1.
64. Susan Quilliam, Positive Smear (London: Penguin, 1989), 79.
65. References here include an information sheet, L. Doyal, Women's Health and Cervical Cancer (London: Women's Health Information Centre, undated); and L. Saffron, 'Cervical Cancer - The Politics of Prevention', in O'Sullivan (ed.), op. cit. note 25, 42-49.
66. References here include an information sheet, L. Doyal, Women's Health and Cervical Cancer (London: Women's Health Information Centre, undated); and L. Saffron, 'Cervical Cancer - The Politics of Prevention', in O'Sullivan (ed.), op. cit. note 25, 42-49.
67. Ibid., 46.
68. S. Hayman, The Well Woman Handbook: A Guide For Women Throughout Their Lives (London: Penguin, 1989), 4-5.
69. Susan Leigh Star, 'Power, Technologies and the Phenomenology of Conventions: On Being Allergic To Onions', in Law (ed.), A Sociology of Monsters, op. cit. note 4, 26-56.
70. I have interviewed many lay women who voiced their ambivalent association with the CSP. For example, some women spoke about being a participant, in that they had had a cervical smear test in the past, but also about 'filing' subsequent recalls to have a further test with the intention to attend 'at some time'.
71. Harding, op. cit. note 24, 26.