The rôle of the organization in the production of techno-scientific knowledge

Social Studies of Science

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 1999, Pages 913-943

  Vaughan, Diane ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033249498     PISSN: 03063127     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/030631299029006005     Document Type: Article

References (199)

1. James S. Coleman, Power and the Structure of Society (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974).
2. See, for example, in chronological order: H.M. Collins, 'The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks', Science Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2 (May 1974), 165-86; Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (London: Sage, 1979); Karin Knorr-Cetina, The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science (Oxford: Pergamon, 1981); Michael Lynch, Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985); Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985); H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London: Sage, 1985); Sharon Traweek, Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); S. Leigh Star, Regions of the Mind: Brain Research and the Quest for Scientific Certainty (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1989); Adele Clarke and Joan Fujimura (eds), The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992); Hugh Gusterson, Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Steven Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Peter Galison, Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1997); Thomas F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1999); Karin Knorr Cetina, Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
3. See, for example, in chronological order: H.M. Collins, 'The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks', Science Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2 (May 1974), 165-86; Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (London: Sage, 1979); Karin Knorr-Cetina, The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science (Oxford: Pergamon, 1981); Michael Lynch, Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985); Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985); H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London: Sage, 1985); Sharon Traweek, Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); S. Leigh Star, Regions of the Mind: Brain Research and the Quest for Scientific Certainty (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1989); Adele Clarke and Joan Fujimura (eds), The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992); Hugh Gusterson, Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Steven Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Peter Galison, Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1997); Thomas F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1999); Karin Knorr Cetina, Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
4. See, for example, in chronological order: H.M. Collins, 'The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks', Science Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2 (May 1974), 165-86; Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (London: Sage, 1979); Karin Knorr-Cetina, The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science (Oxford: Pergamon, 1981); Michael Lynch, Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985); Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985); H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London: Sage, 1985); Sharon Traweek, Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); S. Leigh Star, Regions of the Mind: Brain Research and the Quest for Scientific Certainty (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1989); Adele Clarke and Joan Fujimura (eds), The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992); Hugh Gusterson, Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Steven Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Peter Galison, Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1997); Thomas F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1999); Karin Knorr Cetina, Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
5. See, for example, in chronological order: H.M. Collins, 'The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks', Science Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2 (May 1974), 165-86; Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (London: Sage, 1979); Karin Knorr-Cetina, The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science (Oxford: Pergamon, 1981); Michael Lynch, Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985); Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985); H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London: Sage, 1985); Sharon Traweek, Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); S. Leigh Star, Regions of the Mind: Brain Research and the Quest for Scientific Certainty (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1989); Adele Clarke and Joan Fujimura (eds), The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992); Hugh Gusterson, Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Steven Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Peter Galison, Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1997); Thomas F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1999); Karin Knorr Cetina, Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
6. See, for example, in chronological order: H.M. Collins, 'The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks', Science Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2 (May 1974), 165-86; Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (London: Sage, 1979); Karin Knorr-Cetina, The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science (Oxford: Pergamon, 1981); Michael Lynch, Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985); Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985); H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London: Sage, 1985); Sharon Traweek, Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); S. Leigh Star, Regions of the Mind: Brain Research and the Quest for Scientific Certainty (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1989); Adele Clarke and Joan Fujimura (eds), The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992); Hugh Gusterson, Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Steven Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Peter Galison, Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1997); Thomas F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1999); Karin Knorr Cetina, Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
7. See, for example, in chronological order: H.M. Collins, 'The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks', Science Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2 (May 1974), 165-86; Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (London: Sage, 1979); Karin Knorr-Cetina, The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science (Oxford: Pergamon, 1981); Michael Lynch, Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985); Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985); H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London: Sage, 1985); Sharon Traweek, Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); S. Leigh Star, Regions of the Mind: Brain Research and the Quest for Scientific Certainty (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1989); Adele Clarke and Joan Fujimura (eds), The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992); Hugh Gusterson, Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Steven Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Peter Galison, Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1997); Thomas F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1999); Karin Knorr Cetina, Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
8. See, for example, in chronological order: H.M. Collins, 'The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks', Science Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2 (May 1974), 165-86; Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (London: Sage, 1979); Karin Knorr-Cetina, The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science (Oxford: Pergamon, 1981); Michael Lynch, Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985); Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985); H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London: Sage, 1985); Sharon Traweek, Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); S. Leigh Star, Regions of the Mind: Brain Research and the Quest for Scientific Certainty (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1989); Adele Clarke and Joan Fujimura (eds), The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992); Hugh Gusterson, Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Steven Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Peter Galison, Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1997); Thomas F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1999); Karin Knorr Cetina, Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
9. See, for example, in chronological order: H.M. Collins, 'The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks', Science Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2 (May 1974), 165-86; Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (London: Sage, 1979); Karin Knorr-Cetina, The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science (Oxford: Pergamon, 1981); Michael Lynch, Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985); Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985); H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London: Sage, 1985); Sharon Traweek, Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); S. Leigh Star, Regions of the Mind: Brain Research and the Quest for Scientific Certainty (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1989); Adele Clarke and Joan Fujimura (eds), The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992); Hugh Gusterson, Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Steven Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Peter Galison, Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1997); Thomas F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1999); Karin Knorr Cetina, Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
10. See, for example, in chronological order: H.M. Collins, 'The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks', Science Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2 (May 1974), 165-86; Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (London: Sage, 1979); Karin Knorr-Cetina, The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science (Oxford: Pergamon, 1981); Michael Lynch, Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985); Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985); H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London: Sage, 1985); Sharon Traweek, Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); S. Leigh Star, Regions of the Mind: Brain Research and the Quest for Scientific Certainty (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1989); Adele Clarke and Joan Fujimura (eds), The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992); Hugh Gusterson, Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Steven Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Peter Galison, Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1997); Thomas F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1999); Karin Knorr Cetina, Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
11. See, for example, in chronological order: H.M. Collins, 'The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks', Science Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2 (May 1974), 165-86; Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (London: Sage, 1979); Karin Knorr-Cetina, The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science (Oxford: Pergamon, 1981); Michael Lynch, Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985); Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985); H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London: Sage, 1985); Sharon Traweek, Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); S. Leigh Star, Regions of the Mind: Brain Research and the Quest for Scientific Certainty (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1989); Adele Clarke and Joan Fujimura (eds), The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992); Hugh Gusterson, Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Steven Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Peter Galison, Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1997); Thomas F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1999); Karin Knorr Cetina, Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
12. See, for example, in chronological order: H.M. Collins, 'The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks', Science Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2 (May 1974), 165-86; Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (London: Sage, 1979); Karin Knorr-Cetina, The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science (Oxford: Pergamon, 1981); Michael Lynch, Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985); Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985); H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London: Sage, 1985); Sharon Traweek, Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); S. Leigh Star, Regions of the Mind: Brain Research and the Quest for Scientific Certainty (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1989); Adele Clarke and Joan Fujimura (eds), The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992); Hugh Gusterson, Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Steven Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Peter Galison, Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1997); Thomas F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1999); Karin Knorr Cetina, Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
13. See, for example, in chronological order: H.M. Collins, 'The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks', Science Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2 (May 1974), 165-86; Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (London: Sage, 1979); Karin Knorr-Cetina, The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science (Oxford: Pergamon, 1981); Michael Lynch, Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985); Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985); H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London: Sage, 1985); Sharon Traweek, Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); S. Leigh Star, Regions of the Mind: Brain Research and the Quest for Scientific Certainty (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1989); Adele Clarke and Joan Fujimura (eds), The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992); Hugh Gusterson, Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Steven Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Peter Galison, Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1997); Thomas F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1999); Karin Knorr Cetina, Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
14. See, for example, in chronological order: H.M. Collins, 'The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks', Science Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2 (May 1974), 165-86; Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (London: Sage, 1979); Karin Knorr-Cetina, The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science (Oxford: Pergamon, 1981); Michael Lynch, Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985); Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985); H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London: Sage, 1985); Sharon Traweek, Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); S. Leigh Star, Regions of the Mind: Brain Research and the Quest for Scientific Certainty (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1989); Adele Clarke and Joan Fujimura (eds), The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992); Hugh Gusterson, Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Steven Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Peter Galison, Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1997); Thomas F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1999); Karin Knorr Cetina, Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
15. See, for example, in chronological order: H.M. Collins, 'The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks', Science Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2 (May 1974), 165-86; Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts (London: Sage, 1979); Karin Knorr-Cetina, The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science (Oxford: Pergamon, 1981); Michael Lynch, Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985); Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985); H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London: Sage, 1985); Sharon Traweek, Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); S. Leigh Star, Regions of the Mind: Brain Research and the Quest for Scientific Certainty (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1989); Adele Clarke and Joan Fujimura (eds), The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992); Hugh Gusterson, Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Steven Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); Peter Galison, Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1997); Thomas F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1999); Karin Knorr Cetina, Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).
16. See, for example, in chronological order: Lucy A. Suchman, Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Interaction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Michael Lynch, 'Laboratory Space and the Technological Complex: An Investigation of Topical Contextures', Science in Context, Vol. 4 (1991), 51-78; Graham Button (ed.), Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction and Technology (London: Routledge, 1993); Diane Forsythe, 'Engineering Knowledge: The Construction of Knowledge in Artificial Intelligence', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23, No. 3 (August 1993), 445-77; Susan Leigh Star, 'The Politics of Formal Representations: Wizards, Gurus, and Organizational Complexity', in Star (ed.), Ecologies of Knowledge: Work and Politics in Science and Technology (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 88-118; Kathryn Henderson, 'The Visual Culture of Engineers', in S.L. Star (ed.), The Cultures of Computing (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995), 196-218; Julian E. Orr, Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1996); Stephen R. Barley and J.E. Orr, Between Craft and Science: Technical Work in US Settings (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1997); Graham Button and Wes Sharrock, 'The Organizational Accountability of Technological Work', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 28, No. 1 (February 1998), 73-102; Harry Collins and Martin Kusch, 'Organizations and Machines', in Collins and Kusch, The Shape of Actions: What Humans and Machines Can Do (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), 137-62.
17. See, for example, in chronological order: Lucy A. Suchman, Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Interaction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Michael Lynch, 'Laboratory Space and the Technological Complex: An Investigation of Topical Contextures', Science in Context, Vol. 4 (1991), 51-78; Graham Button (ed.), Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction and Technology (London: Routledge, 1993); Diane Forsythe, 'Engineering Knowledge: The Construction of Knowledge in Artificial Intelligence', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23, No. 3 (August 1993), 445-77; Susan Leigh Star, 'The Politics of Formal Representations: Wizards, Gurus, and Organizational Complexity', in Star (ed.), Ecologies of Knowledge: Work and Politics in Science and Technology (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 88-118; Kathryn Henderson, 'The Visual Culture of Engineers', in S.L. Star (ed.), The Cultures of Computing (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995), 196-218; Julian E. Orr, Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1996); Stephen R. Barley and J.E. Orr, Between Craft and Science: Technical Work in US Settings (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1997); Graham Button and Wes Sharrock, 'The Organizational Accountability of Technological Work', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 28, No. 1 (February 1998), 73-102; Harry Collins and Martin Kusch, 'Organizations and Machines', in Collins and Kusch, The Shape of Actions: What Humans and Machines Can Do (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), 137-62.
18. See, for example, in chronological order: Lucy A. Suchman, Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Interaction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Michael Lynch, 'Laboratory Space and the Technological Complex: An Investigation of Topical Contextures', Science in Context, Vol. 4 (1991), 51-78; Graham Button (ed.), Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction and Technology (London: Routledge, 1993); Diane Forsythe, 'Engineering Knowledge: The Construction of Knowledge in Artificial Intelligence', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23, No. 3 (August 1993), 445-77; Susan Leigh Star, 'The Politics of Formal Representations: Wizards, Gurus, and Organizational Complexity', in Star (ed.), Ecologies of Knowledge: Work and Politics in Science and Technology (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 88-118; Kathryn Henderson, 'The Visual Culture of Engineers', in S.L. Star (ed.), The Cultures of Computing (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995), 196-218; Julian E. Orr, Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1996); Stephen R. Barley and J.E. Orr, Between Craft and Science: Technical Work in US Settings (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1997); Graham Button and Wes Sharrock, 'The Organizational Accountability of Technological Work', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 28, No. 1 (February 1998), 73-102; Harry Collins and Martin Kusch, 'Organizations and Machines', in Collins and Kusch, The Shape of Actions: What Humans and Machines Can Do (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), 137-62.
19. See, for example, in chronological order: Lucy A. Suchman, Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Interaction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Michael Lynch, 'Laboratory Space and the Technological Complex: An Investigation of Topical Contextures', Science in Context, Vol. 4 (1991), 51-78; Graham Button (ed.), Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction and Technology (London: Routledge, 1993); Diane Forsythe, 'Engineering Knowledge: The Construction of Knowledge in Artificial Intelligence', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23, No. 3 (August 1993), 445-77; Susan Leigh Star, 'The Politics of Formal Representations: Wizards, Gurus, and Organizational Complexity', in Star (ed.), Ecologies of Knowledge: Work and Politics in Science and Technology (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 88-118; Kathryn Henderson, 'The Visual Culture of Engineers', in S.L. Star (ed.), The Cultures of Computing (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995), 196-218; Julian E. Orr, Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1996); Stephen R. Barley and J.E. Orr, Between Craft and Science: Technical Work in US Settings (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1997); Graham Button and Wes Sharrock, 'The Organizational Accountability of Technological Work', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 28, No. 1 (February 1998), 73-102; Harry Collins and Martin Kusch, 'Organizations and Machines', in Collins and Kusch, The Shape of Actions: What Humans and Machines Can Do (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), 137-62.
20. See, for example, in chronological order: Lucy A. Suchman, Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Interaction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Michael Lynch, 'Laboratory Space and the Technological Complex: An Investigation of Topical Contextures', Science in Context, Vol. 4 (1991), 51-78; Graham Button (ed.), Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction and Technology (London: Routledge, 1993); Diane Forsythe, 'Engineering Knowledge: The Construction of Knowledge in Artificial Intelligence', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23, No. 3 (August 1993), 445-77; Susan Leigh Star, 'The Politics of Formal Representations: Wizards, Gurus, and Organizational Complexity', in Star (ed.), Ecologies of Knowledge: Work and Politics in Science and Technology (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 88-118; Kathryn Henderson, 'The Visual Culture of Engineers', in S.L. Star (ed.), The Cultures of Computing (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995), 196-218; Julian E. Orr, Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1996); Stephen R. Barley and J.E. Orr, Between Craft and Science: Technical Work in US Settings (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1997); Graham Button and Wes Sharrock, 'The Organizational Accountability of Technological Work', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 28, No. 1 (February 1998), 73-102; Harry Collins and Martin Kusch, 'Organizations and Machines', in Collins and Kusch, The Shape of Actions: What Humans and Machines Can Do (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), 137-62.
21. See, for example, in chronological order: Lucy A. Suchman, Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Interaction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Michael Lynch, 'Laboratory Space and the Technological Complex: An Investigation of Topical Contextures', Science in Context, Vol. 4 (1991), 51-78; Graham Button (ed.), Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction and Technology (London: Routledge, 1993); Diane Forsythe, 'Engineering Knowledge: The Construction of Knowledge in Artificial Intelligence', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23, No. 3 (August 1993), 445-77; Susan Leigh Star, 'The Politics of Formal Representations: Wizards, Gurus, and Organizational Complexity', in Star (ed.), Ecologies of Knowledge: Work and Politics in Science and Technology (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 88-118; Kathryn Henderson, 'The Visual Culture of Engineers', in S.L. Star (ed.), The Cultures of Computing (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995), 196-218; Julian E. Orr, Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1996); Stephen R. Barley and J.E. Orr, Between Craft and Science: Technical Work in US Settings (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1997); Graham Button and Wes Sharrock, 'The Organizational Accountability of Technological Work', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 28, No. 1 (February 1998), 73-102; Harry Collins and Martin Kusch, 'Organizations and Machines', in Collins and Kusch, The Shape of Actions: What Humans and Machines Can Do (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), 137-62.
22. See, for example, in chronological order: Lucy A. Suchman, Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Interaction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Michael Lynch, 'Laboratory Space and the Technological Complex: An Investigation of Topical Contextures', Science in Context, Vol. 4 (1991), 51-78; Graham Button (ed.), Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction and Technology (London: Routledge, 1993); Diane Forsythe, 'Engineering Knowledge: The Construction of Knowledge in Artificial Intelligence', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23, No. 3 (August 1993), 445-77; Susan Leigh Star, 'The Politics of Formal Representations: Wizards, Gurus, and Organizational Complexity', in Star (ed.), Ecologies of Knowledge: Work and Politics in Science and Technology (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 88-118; Kathryn Henderson, 'The Visual Culture of Engineers', in S.L. Star (ed.), The Cultures of Computing (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995), 196-218; Julian E. Orr, Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1996); Stephen R. Barley and J.E. Orr, Between Craft and Science: Technical Work in US Settings (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1997); Graham Button and Wes Sharrock, 'The Organizational Accountability of Technological Work', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 28, No. 1 (February 1998), 73-102; Harry Collins and Martin Kusch, 'Organizations and Machines', in Collins and Kusch, The Shape of Actions: What Humans and Machines Can Do (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), 137-62.
23. See, for example, in chronological order: Lucy A. Suchman, Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Interaction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Michael Lynch, 'Laboratory Space and the Technological Complex: An Investigation of Topical Contextures', Science in Context, Vol. 4 (1991), 51-78; Graham Button (ed.), Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction and Technology (London: Routledge, 1993); Diane Forsythe, 'Engineering Knowledge: The Construction of Knowledge in Artificial Intelligence', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23, No. 3 (August 1993), 445-77; Susan Leigh Star, 'The Politics of Formal Representations: Wizards, Gurus, and Organizational Complexity', in Star (ed.), Ecologies of Knowledge: Work and Politics in Science and Technology (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 88-118; Kathryn Henderson, 'The Visual Culture of Engineers', in S.L. Star (ed.), The Cultures of Computing (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995), 196-218; Julian E. Orr, Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1996); Stephen R. Barley and J.E. Orr, Between Craft and Science: Technical Work in US Settings (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1997); Graham Button and Wes Sharrock, 'The Organizational Accountability of Technological Work', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 28, No. 1 (February 1998), 73-102; Harry Collins and Martin Kusch, 'Organizations and Machines', in Collins and Kusch, The Shape of Actions: What Humans and Machines Can Do (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), 137-62.
24. See, for example, in chronological order: Lucy A. Suchman, Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Interaction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Michael Lynch, 'Laboratory Space and the Technological Complex: An Investigation of Topical Contextures', Science in Context, Vol. 4 (1991), 51-78; Graham Button (ed.), Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction and Technology (London: Routledge, 1993); Diane Forsythe, 'Engineering Knowledge: The Construction of Knowledge in Artificial Intelligence', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23, No. 3 (August 1993), 445-77; Susan Leigh Star, 'The Politics of Formal Representations: Wizards, Gurus, and Organizational Complexity', in Star (ed.), Ecologies of Knowledge: Work and Politics in Science and Technology (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 88-118; Kathryn Henderson, 'The Visual Culture of Engineers', in S.L. Star (ed.), The Cultures of Computing (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995), 196-218; Julian E. Orr, Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1996); Stephen R. Barley and J.E. Orr, Between Craft and Science: Technical Work in US Settings (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1997); Graham Button and Wes Sharrock, 'The Organizational Accountability of Technological Work', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 28, No. 1 (February 1998), 73-102; Harry Collins and Martin Kusch, 'Organizations and Machines', in Collins and Kusch, The Shape of Actions: What Humans and Machines Can Do (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), 137-62.
25. See, for example, in chronological order: Lucy A. Suchman, Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Interaction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Michael Lynch, 'Laboratory Space and the Technological Complex: An Investigation of Topical Contextures', Science in Context, Vol. 4 (1991), 51-78; Graham Button (ed.), Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction and Technology (London: Routledge, 1993); Diane Forsythe, 'Engineering Knowledge: The Construction of Knowledge in Artificial Intelligence', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23, No. 3 (August 1993), 445-77; Susan Leigh Star, 'The Politics of Formal Representations: Wizards, Gurus, and Organizational Complexity', in Star (ed.), Ecologies of Knowledge: Work and Politics in Science and Technology (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 88-118; Kathryn Henderson, 'The Visual Culture of Engineers', in S.L. Star (ed.), The Cultures of Computing (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995), 196-218; Julian E. Orr, Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1996); Stephen R. Barley and J.E. Orr, Between Craft and Science: Technical Work in US Settings (Ithaca, NY: ILR Press, 1997); Graham Button and Wes Sharrock, 'The Organizational Accountability of Technological Work', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 28, No. 1 (February 1998), 73-102; Harry Collins and Martin Kusch, 'Organizations and Machines', in Collins and Kusch, The Shape of Actions: What Humans and Machines Can Do (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), 137-62.
26. Many studies of scientific organizations have been conducted by sociologists and historians of science. Here, however, we are concerned with the relationship between organizations and the knowledge production process that goes on within them. See, for example, Michel Callon and J.P. Vignolle, 'Breaking Down the Organization: Local Conflicts and Societal Systems of Action', Social Science Information, Vol. 16 (1977), 147-67; Karin D. Knorr, 'Contextuality and Indexicality of Organizational Action: Toward a Transorganizational Theory of Organizations', ibid.,Vol. 18 (1979), 79-101; Bruno Latour, 'Give Me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World', in Karin Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay (eds), Science Observed (London: Sage, 1983), 141-71; Edward W. Constant II, 'The Social Locus of Technological Practice: Community, System, or Organization?', in Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes and Trevor J. Pinch (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987), 223-42; Star, 'The Politics of Formal Representations', op. cit. note 3; Collins & Kusch, op. cit. note 3; Button & Sharrock, op. cit. note 3; John Law, Organizing Modernity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994); Knorr Cetina (1999), op. cit. note 2, Chapters 3, 7 & 8; Gusterson, op. cit. note 2.
27. Many studies of scientific organizations have been conducted by sociologists and historians of science. Here, however, we are concerned with the relationship between organizations and the knowledge production process that goes on within them. See, for example, Michel Callon and J.P. Vignolle, 'Breaking Down the Organization: Local Conflicts and Societal Systems of Action', Social Science Information, Vol. 16 (1977), 147-67; Karin D. Knorr, 'Contextuality and Indexicality of Organizational Action: Toward a Transorganizational Theory of Organizations', ibid.,Vol. 18 (1979), 79-101; Bruno Latour, 'Give Me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World', in Karin Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay (eds), Science Observed (London: Sage, 1983), 141-71; Edward W. Constant II, 'The Social Locus of Technological Practice: Community, System, or Organization?', in Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes and Trevor J. Pinch (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987), 223-42; Star, 'The Politics of Formal Representations', op. cit. note 3; Collins & Kusch, op. cit. note 3; Button & Sharrock, op. cit. note 3; John Law, Organizing Modernity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994); Knorr Cetina (1999), op. cit. note 2, Chapters 3, 7 & 8; Gusterson, op. cit. note 2.
28. Many studies of scientific organizations have been conducted by sociologists and historians of science. Here, however, we are concerned with the relationship between organizations and the knowledge production process that goes on within them. See, for example, Michel Callon and J.P. Vignolle, 'Breaking Down the Organization: Local Conflicts and Societal Systems of Action', Social Science Information, Vol. 16 (1977), 147-67; Karin D. Knorr, 'Contextuality and Indexicality of Organizational Action: Toward a Transorganizational Theory of Organizations', ibid.,Vol. 18 (1979), 79-101; Bruno Latour, 'Give Me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World', in Karin Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay (eds), Science Observed (London: Sage, 1983), 141-71; Edward W. Constant II, 'The Social Locus of Technological Practice: Community, System, or Organization?', in Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes and Trevor J. Pinch (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987), 223-42; Star, 'The Politics of Formal Representations', op. cit. note 3; Collins & Kusch, op. cit. note 3; Button & Sharrock, op. cit. note 3; John Law, Organizing Modernity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994); Knorr Cetina (1999), op. cit. note 2, Chapters 3, 7 & 8; Gusterson, op. cit. note 2.
29. Many studies of scientific organizations have been conducted by sociologists and historians of science. Here, however, we are concerned with the relationship between organizations and the knowledge production process that goes on within them. See, for example, Michel Callon and J.P. Vignolle, 'Breaking Down the Organization: Local Conflicts and Societal Systems of Action', Social Science Information, Vol. 16 (1977), 147-67; Karin D. Knorr, 'Contextuality and Indexicality of Organizational Action: Toward a Transorganizational Theory of Organizations', ibid.,Vol. 18 (1979), 79-101; Bruno Latour, 'Give Me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World', in Karin Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay (eds), Science Observed (London: Sage, 1983), 141-71; Edward W. Constant II, 'The Social Locus of Technological Practice: Community, System, or Organization?', in Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes and Trevor J. Pinch (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987), 223-42; Star, 'The Politics of Formal Representations', op. cit. note 3; Collins & Kusch, op. cit. note 3; Button & Sharrock, op. cit. note 3; John Law, Organizing Modernity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994); Knorr Cetina (1999), op. cit. note 2, Chapters 3, 7 & 8; Gusterson, op. cit. note 2.
30. Many studies of scientific organizations have been conducted by sociologists and historians of science. Here, however, we are concerned with the relationship between organizations and the knowledge production process that goes on within them. See, for example, Michel Callon and J.P. Vignolle, 'Breaking Down the Organization: Local Conflicts and Societal Systems of Action', Social Science Information, Vol. 16 (1977), 147-67; Karin D. Knorr, 'Contextuality and Indexicality of Organizational Action: Toward a Transorganizational Theory of Organizations', ibid.,Vol. 18 (1979), 79-101; Bruno Latour, 'Give Me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World', in Karin Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay (eds), Science Observed (London: Sage, 1983), 141-71; Edward W. Constant II, 'The Social Locus of Technological Practice: Community, System, or Organization?', in Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes and Trevor J. Pinch (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987), 223-42; Star, 'The Politics of Formal Representations', op. cit. note 3; Collins & Kusch, op. cit. note 3; Button & Sharrock, op. cit. note 3; John Law, Organizing Modernity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994); Knorr Cetina (1999), op. cit. note 2, Chapters 3, 7 & 8; Gusterson, op. cit. note 2.
31. Many studies of scientific organizations have been conducted by sociologists and historians of science. Here, however, we are concerned with the relationship between organizations and the knowledge production process that goes on within them. See, for example, Michel Callon and J.P. Vignolle, 'Breaking Down the Organization: Local Conflicts and Societal Systems of Action', Social Science Information, Vol. 16 (1977), 147-67; Karin D. Knorr, 'Contextuality and Indexicality of Organizational Action: Toward a Transorganizational Theory of Organizations', ibid.,Vol. 18 (1979), 79-101; Bruno Latour, 'Give Me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World', in Karin Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay (eds), Science Observed (London: Sage, 1983), 141-71; Edward W. Constant II, 'The Social Locus of Technological Practice: Community, System, or Organization?', in Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes and Trevor J. Pinch (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987), 223-42; Star, 'The Politics of Formal Representations', op. cit. note 3; Collins & Kusch, op. cit. note 3; Button & Sharrock, op. cit. note 3; John Law, Organizing Modernity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994); Knorr Cetina (1999), op. cit. note 2, Chapters 3, 7 & 8; Gusterson, op. cit. note 2.
32. Many studies of scientific organizations have been conducted by sociologists and historians of science. Here, however, we are concerned with the relationship between organizations and the knowledge production process that goes on within them. See, for example, Michel Callon and J.P. Vignolle, 'Breaking Down the Organization: Local Conflicts and Societal Systems of Action', Social Science Information, Vol. 16 (1977), 147-67; Karin D. Knorr, 'Contextuality and Indexicality of Organizational Action: Toward a Transorganizational Theory of Organizations', ibid.,Vol. 18 (1979), 79-101; Bruno Latour, 'Give Me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World', in Karin Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay (eds), Science Observed (London: Sage, 1983), 141-71; Edward W. Constant II, 'The Social Locus of Technological Practice: Community, System, or Organization?', in Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes and Trevor J. Pinch (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987), 223-42; Star, 'The Politics of Formal Representations', op. cit. note 3; Collins & Kusch, op. cit. note 3; Button & Sharrock, op. cit. note 3; John Law, Organizing Modernity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994); Knorr Cetina (1999), op. cit. note 2, Chapters 3, 7 & 8; Gusterson, op. cit. note 2.
33. Many studies of scientific organizations have been conducted by sociologists and historians of science. Here, however, we are concerned with the relationship between organizations and the knowledge production process that goes on within them. See, for example, Michel Callon and J.P. Vignolle, 'Breaking Down the Organization: Local Conflicts and Societal Systems of Action', Social Science Information, Vol. 16 (1977), 147-67; Karin D. Knorr, 'Contextuality and Indexicality of Organizational Action: Toward a Transorganizational Theory of Organizations', ibid.,Vol. 18 (1979), 79-101; Bruno Latour, 'Give Me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World', in Karin Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay (eds), Science Observed (London: Sage, 1983), 141-71; Edward W. Constant II, 'The Social Locus of Technological Practice: Community, System, or Organization?', in Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes and Trevor J. Pinch (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987), 223-42; Star, 'The Politics of Formal Representations', op. cit. note 3; Collins & Kusch, op. cit. note 3; Button & Sharrock, op. cit. note 3; John Law, Organizing Modernity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994); Knorr Cetina (1999), op. cit. note 2, Chapters 3, 7 & 8; Gusterson, op. cit. note 2.
34. Many studies of scientific organizations have been conducted by sociologists and historians of science. Here, however, we are concerned with the relationship between organizations and the knowledge production process that goes on within them. See, for example, Michel Callon and J.P. Vignolle, 'Breaking Down the Organization: Local Conflicts and Societal Systems of Action', Social Science Information, Vol. 16 (1977), 147-67; Karin D. Knorr, 'Contextuality and Indexicality of Organizational Action: Toward a Transorganizational Theory of Organizations', ibid.,Vol. 18 (1979), 79-101; Bruno Latour, 'Give Me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World', in Karin Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay (eds), Science Observed (London: Sage, 1983), 141-71; Edward W. Constant II, 'The Social Locus of Technological Practice: Community, System, or Organization?', in Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes and Trevor J. Pinch (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987), 223-42; Star, 'The Politics of Formal Representations', op. cit. note 3; Collins & Kusch, op. cit. note 3; Button & Sharrock, op. cit. note 3; John Law, Organizing Modernity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994); Knorr Cetina (1999), op. cit. note 2, Chapters 3, 7 & 8; Gusterson, op. cit. note 2.
35. Many studies of scientific organizations have been conducted by sociologists and historians of science. Here, however, we are concerned with the relationship between organizations and the knowledge production process that goes on within them. See, for example, Michel Callon and J.P. Vignolle, 'Breaking Down the Organization: Local Conflicts and Societal Systems of Action', Social Science Information, Vol. 16 (1977), 147-67; Karin D. Knorr, 'Contextuality and Indexicality of Organizational Action: Toward a Transorganizational Theory of Organizations', ibid.,Vol. 18 (1979), 79-101; Bruno Latour, 'Give Me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World', in Karin Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay (eds), Science Observed (London: Sage, 1983), 141-71; Edward W. Constant II, 'The Social Locus of Technological Practice: Community, System, or Organization?', in Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes and Trevor J. Pinch (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987), 223-42; Star, 'The Politics of Formal Representations', op. cit. note 3; Collins & Kusch, op. cit. note 3; Button & Sharrock, op. cit. note 3; John Law, Organizing Modernity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994); Knorr Cetina (1999), op. cit. note 2, Chapters 3, 7 & 8; Gusterson, op. cit. note 2.
36. For excellent discussion and review of literature on organization theory, including research and theory probing the relationship between organizations and technology, see Charles B. Perrow, Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1986); W. Richard Scott, Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998); Richard H. Hall, Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999).
37. For excellent discussion and review of literature on organization theory, including research and theory probing the relationship between organizations and technology, see Charles B. Perrow, Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1986); W. Richard Scott, Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998); Richard H. Hall, Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999).
38. For excellent discussion and review of literature on organization theory, including research and theory probing the relationship between organizations and technology, see Charles B. Perrow, Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1986); W. Richard Scott, Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998); Richard H. Hall, Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999).
39. For an overview of recent work, see Diane Vaughan, 'The Dark Side of Organizations: Mistake, Misconduct, and Disaster', Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 25 (1999), 271-305.
40. Two classic works are Collins, 'TEA Set', op. cit. note 2, and Trevor Pinch and Wiebe Bijker, 'The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 14, No. 3 (August 1984), 399-441.
41. Two classic works are Collins, 'TEA Set', op. cit. note 2, and Trevor Pinch and Wiebe Bijker, 'The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 14, No. 3 (August 1984), 399-441.
42. For a full exegesis of the dark side of organizations, with examples, see Vaughan, op. cit. note 6.
43. Diane Vaughan, The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1996) [Vaughan, 1996].
44. Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, Report to the President by the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, 5 Vols (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1986); US House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Technology, Investigation of the
45. Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, Report to the President by the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, 5 Vols (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1986); US House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Technology, Investigation of the Challenger Accident: Report (Washington, DC: US GPO, 1986) and Hearings, 2 Vols (Washington, DC: US GPO, 1986).
46. Michael Lynch, 'The Discursive Production of Uncertainty: The OJ Simpson "Dream Team" and the Sociology of Knowledge Machine', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 28, Nos 5-6 (October-December 1998), 829-68.
47. The data discussed in this paper are condensed from Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Vaughan, op. cit. note 9 [Vaughan, 1996]. In the introduction to each section, I identify the pages in the original for readers seeking more detail. Because this is new writing, much of which pulls together ideas scattered throughout the original, I have not been able to cite specific sources in all instances. Although the condensation does not permit references to all the literature cited in the original, I have included some that support essential points and major themes, as this new interpretation permits.
48. See, for example, Ludwik Fleck, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press [1935], 1979); Latour & Woolgar, op. cit. note 2; Donald MacKenzie, Statistics in Britain, 1865-1930: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981); Knorr-Cetina (1981), op. cit. note 2; Lynch, op. cit. note 2; Pinch & Bijker, op. cit. note 7; Shapin & Schaffer, op. cit. note 2; Susan Leigh Star and Elihu Gerson, 'The Management and Dynamics of Anomalies in Scientific Work', Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 28 (1987), 147-69; Brian Wynne, 'Unruly Technology: Practical Rules, Impractical Discourses, and Public Understanding', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 18, No. 1 (February 1988), 147-67; D.A. MacKenzie, Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990); Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994).
49. See, for example, Ludwik Fleck, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press [1935], 1979); Latour & Woolgar, op. cit. note 2; Donald MacKenzie, Statistics in Britain, 1865-1930: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981); Knorr-Cetina (1981), op. cit. note 2; Lynch, op. cit. note 2; Pinch & Bijker, op. cit. note 7; Shapin & Schaffer, op. cit. note 2; Susan Leigh Star and Elihu Gerson, 'The Management and Dynamics of Anomalies in Scientific Work', Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 28 (1987), 147-69; Brian Wynne, 'Unruly Technology: Practical Rules, Impractical Discourses, and Public Understanding', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 18, No. 1 (February 1988), 147-67; D.A. MacKenzie, Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990); Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994).
50. See, for example, Ludwik Fleck, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press [1935], 1979); Latour & Woolgar, op. cit. note 2; Donald MacKenzie, Statistics in Britain, 1865-1930: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981); Knorr-Cetina (1981), op. cit. note 2; Lynch, op. cit. note 2; Pinch & Bijker, op. cit. note 7; Shapin & Schaffer, op. cit. note 2; Susan Leigh Star and Elihu Gerson, 'The Management and Dynamics of Anomalies in Scientific Work', Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 28 (1987), 147-69; Brian Wynne, 'Unruly Technology: Practical Rules, Impractical Discourses, and Public Understanding', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 18, No. 1 (February 1988), 147-67; D.A. MacKenzie, Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990); Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994).
51. See, for example, Ludwik Fleck, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press [1935], 1979); Latour & Woolgar, op. cit. note 2; Donald MacKenzie, Statistics in Britain, 1865-1930: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981); Knorr-Cetina (1981), op. cit. note 2; Lynch, op. cit. note 2; Pinch & Bijker, op. cit. note 7; Shapin & Schaffer, op. cit. note 2; Susan Leigh Star and Elihu Gerson, 'The Management and Dynamics of Anomalies in Scientific Work', Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 28 (1987), 147-69; Brian Wynne, 'Unruly Technology: Practical Rules, Impractical Discourses, and Public Understanding', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 18, No. 1 (February 1988), 147-67; D.A. MacKenzie, Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990); Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994).
52. See, for example, Ludwik Fleck, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press [1935], 1979); Latour & Woolgar, op. cit. note 2; Donald MacKenzie, Statistics in Britain, 1865-1930: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981); Knorr-Cetina (1981), op. cit. note 2; Lynch, op. cit. note 2; Pinch & Bijker, op. cit. note 7; Shapin & Schaffer, op. cit. note 2; Susan Leigh Star and Elihu Gerson, 'The Management and Dynamics of Anomalies in Scientific Work', Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 28 (1987), 147-69; Brian Wynne, 'Unruly Technology: Practical Rules, Impractical Discourses, and Public Understanding', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 18, No. 1 (February 1988), 147-67; D.A. MacKenzie, Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990); Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994).
53. See, for example, Ludwik Fleck, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press [1935], 1979); Latour & Woolgar, op. cit. note 2; Donald MacKenzie, Statistics in Britain, 1865-1930: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981); Knorr-Cetina (1981), op. cit. note 2; Lynch, op. cit. note 2; Pinch & Bijker, op. cit. note 7; Shapin & Schaffer, op. cit. note 2; Susan Leigh Star and Elihu Gerson, 'The Management and Dynamics of Anomalies in Scientific Work', Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 28 (1987), 147-69; Brian Wynne, 'Unruly Technology: Practical Rules, Impractical Discourses, and Public Understanding', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 18, No. 1 (February 1988), 147-67; D.A. MacKenzie, Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990); Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994).
54. See, for example, Ludwik Fleck, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press [1935], 1979); Latour & Woolgar, op. cit. note 2; Donald MacKenzie, Statistics in Britain, 1865-1930: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981); Knorr-Cetina (1981), op. cit. note 2; Lynch, op. cit. note 2; Pinch & Bijker, op. cit. note 7; Shapin & Schaffer, op. cit. note 2; Susan Leigh Star and Elihu Gerson, 'The Management and Dynamics of Anomalies in Scientific Work', Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 28 (1987), 147-69; Brian Wynne, 'Unruly Technology: Practical Rules, Impractical Discourses, and Public Understanding', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 18, No. 1 (February 1988), 147-67; D.A. MacKenzie, Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990); Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994).
55. See, for example, Ludwik Fleck, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press [1935], 1979); Latour & Woolgar, op. cit. note 2; Donald MacKenzie, Statistics in Britain, 1865-1930: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981); Knorr-Cetina (1981), op. cit. note 2; Lynch, op. cit. note 2; Pinch & Bijker, op. cit. note 7; Shapin & Schaffer, op. cit. note 2; Susan Leigh Star and Elihu Gerson, 'The Management and Dynamics of Anomalies in Scientific Work', Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 28 (1987), 147-69; Brian Wynne, 'Unruly Technology: Practical Rules, Impractical Discourses, and Public Understanding', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 18, No. 1 (February 1988), 147-67; D.A. MacKenzie, Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990); Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994).
56. See, for example, Ludwik Fleck, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press [1935], 1979); Latour & Woolgar, op. cit. note 2; Donald MacKenzie, Statistics in Britain, 1865-1930: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981); Knorr-Cetina (1981), op. cit. note 2; Lynch, op. cit. note 2; Pinch & Bijker, op. cit. note 7; Shapin & Schaffer, op. cit. note 2; Susan Leigh Star and Elihu Gerson, 'The Management and Dynamics of Anomalies in Scientific Work', Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 28 (1987), 147-69; Brian Wynne, 'Unruly Technology: Practical Rules, Impractical Discourses, and Public Understanding', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 18, No. 1 (February 1988), 147-67; D.A. MacKenzie, Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990); Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994).
57. See, for example, Ludwik Fleck, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press [1935], 1979); Latour & Woolgar, op. cit. note 2; Donald MacKenzie, Statistics in Britain, 1865-1930: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981); Knorr-Cetina (1981), op. cit. note 2; Lynch, op. cit. note 2; Pinch & Bijker, op. cit. note 7; Shapin & Schaffer, op. cit. note 2; Susan Leigh Star and Elihu Gerson, 'The Management and Dynamics of Anomalies in Scientific Work', Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 28 (1987), 147-69; Brian Wynne, 'Unruly Technology: Practical Rules, Impractical Discourses, and Public Understanding', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 18, No. 1 (February 1988), 147-67; D.A. MacKenzie, Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990); Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994).
58. See, for example, Ludwik Fleck, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press [1935], 1979); Latour & Woolgar, op. cit. note 2; Donald MacKenzie, Statistics in Britain, 1865-1930: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981); Knorr-Cetina (1981), op. cit. note 2; Lynch, op. cit. note 2; Pinch & Bijker, op. cit. note 7; Shapin & Schaffer, op. cit. note 2; Susan Leigh Star and Elihu Gerson, 'The Management and Dynamics of Anomalies in Scientific Work', Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 28 (1987), 147-69; Brian Wynne, 'Unruly Technology: Practical Rules, Impractical Discourses, and Public Understanding', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 18, No. 1 (February 1988), 147-67; D.A. MacKenzie, Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990); Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994).
59. Susan Leigh Star, 'Scientific Work and Uncertainty', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 15, No. 3 (August 1985), 391-427. See also (for example) Latour & Woolgar, op. cit. note 2; Collins, Changing Order, op. cit. note 2; S.L. Star, 'Simplification in Scientific Work: An Example from Neuroscience Research', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 13, No. 2 (May 1983), 205-28; Traweek, op. cit. note 2; Star, Regions of the Mind, op. cit. note 2; MacKenzie (1990), op. cit. note 13.
60. Susan Leigh Star, 'Scientific Work and Uncertainty', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 15, No. 3 (August 1985), 391-427. See also (for example) Latour & Woolgar, op. cit. note 2; Collins, Changing Order, op. cit. note 2; S.L. Star, 'Simplification in Scientific Work: An Example from Neuroscience Research', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 13, No. 2 (May 1983), 205-28; Traweek, op. cit. note 2; Star, Regions of the Mind, op. cit. note 2; MacKenzie (1990), op. cit. note 13.
61. Susan Leigh Star, 'Scientific Work and Uncertainty', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 15, No. 3 (August 1985), 391-427. See also (for example) Latour & Woolgar, op. cit. note 2; Collins, Changing Order, op. cit. note 2; S.L. Star, 'Simplification in Scientific Work: An Example from Neuroscience Research', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 13, No. 2 (May 1983), 205-28; Traweek, op. cit. note 2; Star, Regions of the Mind, op. cit. note 2; MacKenzie (1990), op. cit. note 13.
62. Susan Leigh Star, 'Scientific Work and Uncertainty', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 15, No. 3 (August 1985), 391-427. See also (for example) Latour & Woolgar, op. cit. note 2; Collins, Changing Order, op. cit. note 2; S.L. Star, 'Simplification in Scientific Work: An Example from Neuroscience Research', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 13, No. 2 (May 1983), 205-28; Traweek, op. cit. note 2; Star, Regions of the Mind, op. cit. note 2; MacKenzie (1990), op. cit. note 13.
63. Susan Leigh Star, 'Scientific Work and Uncertainty', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 15, No. 3 (August 1985), 391-427. See also (for example) Latour & Woolgar, op. cit. note 2; Collins, Changing Order, op. cit. note 2; S.L. Star, 'Simplification in Scientific Work: An Example from Neuroscience Research', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 13, No. 2 (May 1983), 205-28; Traweek, op. cit. note 2; Star, Regions of the Mind, op. cit. note 2; MacKenzie (1990), op. cit. note 13.
64. Susan Leigh Star, 'Scientific Work and Uncertainty', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 15, No. 3 (August 1985), 391-427. See also (for example) Latour & Woolgar, op. cit. note 2; Collins, Changing Order, op. cit. note 2; S.L. Star, 'Simplification in Scientific Work: An Example from Neuroscience Research', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 13, No. 2 (May 1983), 205-28; Traweek, op. cit. note 2; Star, Regions of the Mind, op. cit. note 2; MacKenzie (1990), op. cit. note 13.
65. Susan Leigh Star, 'Scientific Work and Uncertainty', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 15, No. 3 (August 1985), 391-427. See also (for example) Latour & Woolgar, op. cit. note 2; Collins, Changing Order, op. cit. note 2; S.L. Star, 'Simplification in Scientific Work: An Example from Neuroscience Research', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 13, No. 2 (May 1983), 205-28; Traweek, op. cit. note 2; Star, Regions of the Mind, op. cit. note 2; MacKenzie (1990), op. cit. note 13.
66. Pinch & Bijker, op. cit. note 7.
67. Karl E. Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing (Reading, MA: Addison Wesley [1969], 1979); Weick, Sensemaking in Organizations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995). In the latter, Weick has crafted a brilliant ethnomethodological analysis of knowledge processes in organizations.
68. Karl E. Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing (Reading, MA: Addison Wesley [1969], 1979); Weick, Sensemaking in Organizations (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995). In the latter, Weick has crafted a brilliant ethnomethodological analysis of knowledge processes in organizations.
69. Clifford Geertz, Local Knowledge (New York: Basic Books, 1973), 4.
70. For related ideas, see Alvin Gouldner, 'Reciprocity and Autonomy in Functional Theory', in Llewellyn Gross (ed.), Symposium on Sociological Theory (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 241-70; Gordon Tullock, The Politics of Bureaucracy (Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press, 1964); Karl E. Weick, 'Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems', Administrative Science Quarterly,Vol. 21 (1976), 1-19.
71. For related ideas, see Alvin Gouldner, 'Reciprocity and Autonomy in Functional Theory', in Llewellyn Gross (ed.), Symposium on Sociological Theory (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 241-70; Gordon Tullock, The Politics of Bureaucracy (Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press, 1964); Karl E. Weick, 'Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems', Administrative Science Quarterly,Vol. 21 (1976), 1-19.
72. For related ideas, see Alvin Gouldner, 'Reciprocity and Autonomy in Functional Theory', in Llewellyn Gross (ed.), Symposium on Sociological Theory (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 241-70; Gordon Tullock, The Politics of Bureaucracy (Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press, 1964); Karl E. Weick, 'Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems', Administrative Science Quarterly,Vol. 21 (1976), 1-19.
73. This position is in contrast to conventional understandings of secrecy as a characteristic of individuals who intentionally withhold information. Intentional secrecy can be a normative aspect of organizations, however: see Gusterson, op. cit. note 2, esp. 68-87, 90-92.
74. This point is empirically demonstrated and theoretically elaborated in Diane Vaughan, Controlling Unlawful Organizational Behavior: Social Structure and Corporate Misconduct (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1983), 84-87; Vaughan, Uncoupling: Turning Points in Intimate Relationships (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); as well as in Vaughan, op. cit. note 9 [Vaughan, 1996].
75. This point is empirically demonstrated and theoretically elaborated in Diane Vaughan, Controlling Unlawful Organizational Behavior: Social Structure and Corporate Misconduct (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1983), 84-87; Vaughan, Uncoupling: Turning Points in Intimate Relationships (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); as well as in Vaughan, op. cit. note 9 [Vaughan, 1996].
76. This point is empirically demonstrated and theoretically elaborated in Diane Vaughan, Controlling Unlawful Organizational Behavior: Social Structure and Corporate Misconduct (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1983), 84-87; Vaughan, Uncoupling: Turning Points in Intimate Relationships (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986); as well as in Vaughan, op. cit. note 9 [Vaughan, 1996].
77. Collins, 'TEA Set', op. cit. note 2.
78. Star, 'The Politics of Formal Representations', op. cit. note 3, 112.
79. Martha Feldman, Order without Design (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1989).
80. Martha S. Feldman and James G. March, 'Information in Organizations as Sign and Symbol', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26 (1981), 171-84.
81. Collins, 'TEA Set', op. cit. note 2; H.M. Collins, 'The Place of the "Core-Set" in Modern Science: Social Contingency with Methodological Propriety', History of Science, Vol. 19 (1981), 6-19, at 8. The legitimacy of using a concept (such as 'core-set') and applying it to organizational forms that differ in size, complexity and function (for example, from groups to subunits of a formal organization) is based on structural and processual similarities across a variety of organizational forms. The theoretical rationale and historical precedent for this approach, called 'analogical theorizing', can be found in Diane Vaughan, 'Theory Elaboration: The Heuristics of Case Analysis', in Charles C. Ragin and Howard S. Becker (eds), What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 173-203, and Vaughan, Theorizing: Analogy, Cases, and Comparative Social Organization (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, in preparation). To what extent a comparison is analogical or different is an empirical question. NASA work groups do fit Collins' definition of core-set, as I have stated it in the text. Work groups do differ, but in ways that I believe are compatible with his conceptualization. Collins contrasts the core-set with the concept of a 'group', deciding to call it a 'set' because its members do not necessarily interact frequently; some may not because they are enemies, which can lead to a lack of communication. The work groups at NASA are mandated by the space agency, and specifically assigned to a Project Manager for the duration of a project, so they do interact frequently. However, as will be clear in the discussion of interorganizational relations in the next section, they are comprised of 'allies' and 'enemies' bound together in continuing controversies, trying to resolve them. This usage fits Collins' definition in additional ways. The beginnings of a work group can be hard to detect, since members are assigned to a Project because of previous work experience that is relevant to it. At the same time as they become formal and permanent, they are ephemeral, because when the Project is complete, the members disperse, perhaps to be assigned to another Project, but some may continue to work on the experiments, calculations and theories of a component part, even though it is no longer officially a 'Project'.
82. Collins, 'TEA Set', op. cit. note 2; H.M. Collins, 'The Place of the "Core-Set" in Modern Science: Social Contingency with Methodological Propriety', History of Science, Vol. 19 (1981), 6-19, at 8. The legitimacy of using a concept (such as 'core-set') and applying it to organizational forms that differ in size, complexity and function (for example, from groups to subunits of a formal organization) is based on structural and processual similarities across a variety of organizational forms. The theoretical rationale and historical precedent for this approach, called 'analogical theorizing', can be found in Diane Vaughan, 'Theory Elaboration: The Heuristics of Case Analysis', in Charles C. Ragin and Howard S. Becker (eds), What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 173-203, and Vaughan, Theorizing: Analogy, Cases, and Comparative Social Organization (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, in preparation). To what extent a comparison is analogical or different is an empirical question. NASA work groups do fit Collins' definition of core-set, as I have stated it in the text. Work groups do differ, but in ways that I believe are compatible with his conceptualization. Collins contrasts the core-set with the concept of a 'group', deciding to call it a 'set' because its members do not necessarily interact frequently; some may not because they are enemies, which can lead to a lack of communication. The work groups at NASA are mandated by the space agency, and specifically assigned to a Project Manager for the duration of a project, so they do interact frequently. However, as will be clear in the discussion of interorganizational relations in the next section, they are comprised of 'allies' and 'enemies' bound together in continuing controversies, trying to resolve them. This usage fits Collins' definition in additional ways. The beginnings of a work group can be hard to detect, since members are assigned to a Project because of previous work experience that is relevant to it. At the same time as they become formal and permanent, they are ephemeral, because when the Project is complete, the members disperse, perhaps to be assigned to another Project, but some may continue to work on the experiments, calculations and theories of a component part, even though it is no longer officially a 'Project'.
83. Collins, 'TEA Set', op. cit. note 2; H.M. Collins, 'The Place of the "Core-Set" in Modern Science: Social Contingency with Methodological Propriety', History of Science, Vol. 19 (1981), 6-19, at 8. The legitimacy of using a concept (such as 'core-set') and applying it to organizational forms that differ in size, complexity and function (for example, from groups to subunits of a formal organization) is based on structural and processual similarities across a variety of organizational forms. The theoretical rationale and historical precedent for this approach, called 'analogical theorizing', can be found in Diane Vaughan, 'Theory Elaboration: The Heuristics of Case Analysis', in Charles C. Ragin and Howard S. Becker (eds), What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 173-203, and Vaughan, Theorizing: Analogy, Cases, and Comparative Social Organization (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, in preparation). To what extent a comparison is analogical or different is an empirical question. NASA work groups do fit Collins' definition of core-set, as I have stated it in the text. Work groups do differ, but in ways that I believe are compatible with his conceptualization. Collins contrasts the core-set with the concept of a 'group', deciding to call it a 'set' because its members do not necessarily interact frequently; some may not because they are enemies, which can lead to a lack of communication. The work groups at NASA are mandated by the space agency, and specifically assigned to a Project Manager for the duration of a project, so they do interact frequently. However, as will be clear in the discussion of interorganizational relations in the next section, they are comprised of 'allies' and 'enemies' bound together in continuing controversies, trying to resolve them. This usage fits Collins' definition in additional ways. The beginnings of a work group can be hard to detect, since members are assigned to a Project because of previous work experience that is relevant to it. At the same time as they become formal and permanent, they are ephemeral, because when the Project is complete, the members disperse, perhaps to be assigned to another Project, but some may continue to work on the experiments, calculations and theories of a component part, even though it is no longer officially a 'Project'.
84. Collins, 'TEA Set', op. cit. note 2; H.M. Collins, 'The Place of the "Core-Set" in Modern Science: Social Contingency with Methodological Propriety', History of Science, Vol. 19 (1981), 6-19, at 8. The legitimacy of using a concept (such as 'core-set') and applying it to organizational forms that differ in size, complexity and function (for example, from groups to subunits of a formal organization) is based on structural and processual similarities across a variety of organizational forms. The theoretical rationale and historical precedent for this approach, called 'analogical theorizing', can be found in Diane Vaughan, 'Theory Elaboration: The Heuristics of Case Analysis', in Charles C. Ragin and Howard S. Becker (eds), What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 173-203, and Vaughan, Theorizing: Analogy, Cases, and Comparative Social Organization (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, in preparation). To what extent a comparison is analogical or different is an empirical question. NASA work groups do fit Collins' definition of core-set, as I have stated it in the text. Work groups do differ, but in ways that I believe are compatible with his conceptualization. Collins contrasts the core-set with the concept of a 'group', deciding to call it a 'set' because its members do not necessarily interact frequently; some may not because they are enemies, which can lead to a lack of communication. The work groups at NASA are mandated by the space agency, and specifically assigned to a Project Manager for the duration of a project, so they do interact frequently. However, as will be clear in the discussion of interorganizational relations in the next section, they are comprised of 'allies' and 'enemies' bound together in continuing controversies, trying to resolve them. This usage fits Collins' definition in additional ways. The beginnings of a work group can be hard to detect, since members are assigned to a Project because of previous work experience that is relevant to it. At the same time as they become formal and permanent, they are ephemeral, because when the Project is complete, the members disperse, perhaps to be assigned to another Project, but some may continue to work on the experiments, calculations and theories of a component part, even though it is no longer officially a 'Project'.
85. The procedures were formalized in a document titled the 'Acceptable Risk Process', which NASA created in 1981, before the first shuttle flight. The Acceptable Risk Process was the basis of all technical decisions at NASA. In this document, NASA acknowledged that all shuttle components are risky: after everything that could be done to assure safety had been done, some residual risk would remain for each shuttle component. Therefore, before each launch, all components had to be assessed to determine if, in fact, each was an 'Acceptable Risk', a formal status that was the outcome of engineering analysis. See J.B. Hammack and M.L. Raines, Space Shuttle Safety Assessment Report (Johnson Space Center, Safety Division, 5 March 1981), National Archives, Washington, DC, 10.
86. See also Wynne, op. cit. note 13; Bijker, Hughes & Pinch (eds), op. cit. note 4; Pinch & Bijker, op. cit. note 7.
87. See also Wynne, op. cit. note 13; Bijker, Hughes & Pinch (eds), op. cit. note 4; Pinch & Bijker, op. cit. note 7.
88. See also Wynne, op. cit. note 13; Bijker, Hughes & Pinch (eds), op. cit. note 4; Pinch & Bijker, op. cit. note 7.
89. Relying on use, not testing, is common for technologies that are difficult to test or have conflicting test results: see, for example, MacKenzie, Inventing Accuracy, op. cit. note 13, Chapter 7; Benjamin Sims, 'Concrete Practices: Testing in an Earthquake-Engineering Laboratory', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 29, No. 4 (August 1999), 483-518.
90. Relying on use, not testing, is common for technologies that are difficult to test or have conflicting test results: see, for example, MacKenzie, Inventing Accuracy, op. cit. note 13, Chapter 7; Benjamin Sims, 'Concrete Practices: Testing in an Earthquake-Engineering Laboratory', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 29, No. 4 (August 1999), 483-518.
91. Wynne, op. cit. note 13.
92. Cf. William Starbuck and Francis Milliken, 'Challenger. Fine-Tuning the Odds until Something Breaks', Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 25 (1988), 319-40.
93. Trudy E. Bell and Karl Esche, 'The Fatal Flaw in Flight 51-L', IEEE Spectrum (February 1987), 36-51, at 44; Presidential Commission, op. cit. note 10, Vol. 1, 121.
94. Trudy E. Bell and Karl Esche, 'The Fatal Flaw in Flight 51-L', IEEE Spectrum (February 1987), 36-51, at 44; Presidential Commission, op. cit. note 10, Vol. 1, 121.
95. Akutagawa's story is best known through Kurosawa Akira's 1951 film, Rashomon, which combined Akutagawa's 'Rashomon' with another story of his, 'Yabu no naka' ('In a Grove', 1921).
96. See also Arthur L. Stinchcombe, 'Contracts as Hierarchical Documents', in Stinchcombe and Carole A. Heimer (eds), Organization Theory and Project Management: Administering Uncertainty in Norwegian Offshore Oil (Oslo: Norwegian University Press, 1985), 121-71.
97. The parameters of the problem of replication were first established in H.M. Collins, 'The Seven Sexes: A Study in the Sociology of a Phenomenon, or the Replication of Experiments in Physics', Sociology, Vol. 9 (1975), 205-24, and Collins, 'Upon the Replication of Scientific Findings: A Discussion Illuminated by the Experiences of Researchers into Parapsychology', Proceedings of the 4S/ISA Conference on Social Studies of Science (unpublished mimeo, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, November 1976), and elaborated in Collins, Changing Order, op. cit. note 2, 29-49. On confirmation power in experimentation, see especially ibid., 34-35.
98. The parameters of the problem of replication were first established in H.M. Collins, 'The Seven Sexes: A Study in the Sociology of a Phenomenon, or the Replication of Experiments in Physics', Sociology, Vol. 9 (1975), 205-24, and Collins, 'Upon the Replication of Scientific Findings: A Discussion Illuminated by the Experiences of Researchers into Parapsychology', Proceedings of the 4S/ISA Conference on Social Studies of Science (unpublished mimeo, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, November 1976), and elaborated in Collins, Changing Order, op. cit. note 2, 29-49. On confirmation power in experimentation, see especially ibid., 34-35.
99. The parameters of the problem of replication were first established in H.M. Collins, 'The Seven Sexes: A Study in the Sociology of a Phenomenon, or the Replication of Experiments in Physics', Sociology, Vol. 9 (1975), 205-24, and Collins, 'Upon the Replication of Scientific Findings: A Discussion Illuminated by the Experiences of Researchers into Parapsychology', Proceedings of the 4S/ISA Conference on Social Studies of Science (unpublished mimeo, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, November 1976), and elaborated in Collins, Changing Order, op. cit. note 2, 29-49. On confirmation power in experimentation, see especially ibid., 34-35.
100. The parameters of the problem of replication were first established in H.M. Collins, 'The Seven Sexes: A Study in the Sociology of a Phenomenon, or the Replication of Experiments in Physics', Sociology, Vol. 9 (1975), 205-24, and Collins, 'Upon the Replication of Scientific Findings: A Discussion Illuminated by the Experiences of Researchers into Parapsychology', Proceedings of the 4S/ISA Conference on Social Studies of Science (unpublished mimeo, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, November 1976), and elaborated in Collins, Changing Order, op. cit. note 2, 29-49. On confirmation power in experimentation, see especially ibid., 34-35.
101. Collins first identified the experimenters' regress in studies of scientists at work: see his Changing Order, op. cit. note 2, Chapters 3, 4 and 5. It was subsequently extended to 'the technologists' regress' when Collins and Pinch examined the practices of technical experts in Harry Collins andTrevor Pinch, The Golem at Large: What You Should Know About Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 106, 152. I have chosen to stick with the original term because these technologists were doing experiments.
102. Collins first identified the experimenters' regress in studies of scientists at work: see his Changing Order, op. cit. note 2, Chapters 3, 4 and 5. It was subsequently extended to 'the technologists' regress' when Collins and Pinch examined the practices of technical experts in Harry Collins andTrevor Pinch, The Golem at Large: What You Should Know About Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 106, 152. I have chosen to stick with the original term because these technologists were doing experiments.
103. W. Leon Ray, telephone interview by author (21 July 1992); Howard McIntosh, interview transcript (2 April 1986), Morton Thiokol Inc., files, US National Archives, Washington, DC, 16.
104. W. Leon Ray, telephone interview by author (21 July 1992); Howard McIntosh, interview transcript (2 April 1986), Morton Thiokol Inc., files, US National Archives, Washington, DC, 16.
105. W.L. Ray, interview transcript (25 March 1986), Marshall Space Flight Center files, US National Archives, Washington, DC, 62; McIntosh, interview transcript (2 April 1986), 9-16.
106. W.L. Ray, interview transcript (25 March 1986), Marshall Space Flight Center files, US National Archives, Washington, DC, 62; McIntosh, interview transcript (2 April 1986), 9-16.
107. Presidential Commission, op. cit. note 10, Vol. I, 236; Arnold R. Thompson, interview transcript (4 April 1986), Morton Thiokol Inc., files, US National Archives, Washington, DC, 6; McIntosh, interview transcript (2 April 1986), 23-24. On calibration as a way to break the experimenters' regress, see Collins, Changing Order, op. cit. note 2, 100-06.
108. Presidential Commission, op. cit. note 10, Vol. I, 236; Arnold R. Thompson, interview transcript (4 April 1986), Morton Thiokol Inc., files, US National Archives, Washington, DC, 6; McIntosh, interview transcript (2 April 1986), 23-24. On calibration as a way to break the experimenters' regress, see Collins, Changing Order, op. cit. note 2, 100-06.
109. Presidential Commission, op. cit. note 10, Vol. I, 236; Arnold R. Thompson, interview transcript (4 April 1986), Morton Thiokol Inc., files, US National Archives, Washington, DC, 6; McIntosh, interview transcript (2 April 1986), 23-24. On calibration as a way to break the experimenters' regress, see Collins, Changing Order, op. cit. note 2, 100-06.
110. Presidential Commission, op. cit. note 10, Vol. I, 236; Arnold R. Thompson, interview transcript (4 April 1986), Morton Thiokol Inc., files, US National Archives, Washington, DC, 6; McIntosh, interview transcript (2 April 1986), 23-24. On calibration as a way to break the experimenters' regress, see Collins, Changing Order, op. cit. note 2, 100-06.
111. Roger M. Boisjoly, interview transcript (2 April 1986), Morton Thiokol Inc., files, US National Archives, Washington, DC, 8-9.
112. See also Gusterson, op. cit. note 2, for a cultural analysis that reveals the belief systems of scientists at work in a nuclear weapons laboratory.
113. James D. Smith, personal interview (Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, 6 June 1992).
114. Matrixing is common in engineering organizations. See Button & Sharrock, op. cit. note 3, 86-87, who also found that it produced disagreement.
115. Galison, op. cit. note 2 [Galison, 1997].
116. Galison draws from the anthropological literature, likening these interlanguages of physics to the language pockets discovered by anthropologists when two or more groups need to establish trade or exchange.
117. The comparison is analogical because the three characteristics of trading zones are reproduced at NASA. However, differences exist. The interlanguages Galison studied reduced both the form and content of explanations in physics, and his data were scientific explanations of specific substantive experiments and equipment in physics. He focuses more on pidgins because he examines exchanges about specific goods. In parallel, I am focusing on how interlanguages reduce both the form and (later, in the discussion of Flight Readiness Review) the content of arguments about technology. In contrast, I am concerned with how organizations enact trading zones that affect all techno-scientific discussions. Therefore, creoles are a better fit to both my data and the more general argument. See also note 25.
118. In order to do business with NASA, contractors had to submit bids for evaluation. NASA considered not only the costs of contractor estimates for the research, testing and manufacture of component parts, but also the costs of other aspects of doing business: are the government and contractor facilities and processes compatible? See Christy S. Johnsrud, 'Conflict, Complementarity, and Consequences: The Administration of Cross-Sector Organizational Linkages', paper presented to the Annual Meeting, American Anthropological Association (Phoenix, AZ, November 1988).
119. Galison is making the point that coordination of action between languages occurs in the absence of a full-blown translation from one specialist language to another. Consequently, many traditions are able to coordinate with each other without losing their separate identities and practices. See, for example, Galison's account of Julian Schwinger's development of a pidgin at the MIT Radiation Laboratory during World War II [Galison, 1997: 820-26].
120. Pidgins are worked out by scientists in order to promote exchange about a particular project between different traditions. Theoretical physicists, for example, prepare for exchange with their more experimental colleagues by a pidgin that reduces mathematical structure, suppresses exceptional cases, minimizes internal links between theoretical structures, and simplifies the explanatory structure [Galison, 1997: 835].
121. Stefan Timmermans and Marc Berg, 'Standardization in Action: Achieving Local Universality through Medical Protocols', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 27, No. 2 (April 1997), 273-305.
122. Lawrence O. Wear, personal interview (Huntsville, AL, 2 June 1992).
123. Kathryn Henderson notes that engineering is a deeply visual culture, in which 'everyday practices in constructing representations of the world are so powerful that they become interlocked in a particular way of seeing'. Visual representations function as boundary objects and conscription devices, and are thus essential to communication of ideas between engineers: Henderson, op. cit. note 3, 196-97. For a parallel in science, see Bruno Latour, 'Visualization and Cognition: Thinking With Eyes and Hands', Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present, Vol. 6 (1986), 1-40.
124. Kathryn Henderson notes that engineering is a deeply visual culture, in which 'everyday practices in constructing representations of the world are so powerful that they become interlocked in a particular way of seeing'. Visual representations function as boundary objects and conscription devices, and are thus essential to communication of ideas between engineers: Henderson, op. cit. note 3, 196-97. For a parallel in science, see Bruno Latour, 'Visualization and Cognition: Thinking With Eyes and Hands', Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present, Vol. 6 (1986), 1-40.
125. For example: each item on the shuttle was assigned a Criticality level that indicated the failure consequences if that particular item should fail. All items ranked 'Criticality I' were placed on the Critical Items List (CIL), which mandated a special review before launch because the failure consequences of a CI item were '... catastrophe: loss of mission, crew, and vehicle': 748 items on the shuttle were labeled Criticality I. Because the word 'catastrophe' was an official label affixed to each Criticality I document on the CIL and thus routinely used in memos about Criticality 1 items, it had been bureaucratically neutered: it was not useful in conveying deep engineering concerns about risk. When deeply concerned about the possibility of risk or failure of a technical item in daily engineering discussions, the SRB work group relied on the informal language they had created to circumvent the limits of the formal trading zone. They did not warn of imminent catastrophe. Instead they resorted to euphemism, warning that a particular line of action would be followed by 'a long day', or 'a hard day'.
126. Theodore Porter, Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995). Sheila Jasanoff has reported that the reliance on numbers and quantitative assessments of risk is greater in the USA than in other countries: S. Jasanoff, Risk Management and Political Culture (New York: Russell Sage, 1986), 25-32.
127. Theodore Porter, Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995). Sheila Jasanoff has reported that the reliance on numbers and quantitative assessments of risk is greater in the USA than in other countries: S. Jasanoff, Risk Management and Political Culture (New York: Russell Sage, 1986), 25-32.
128. See also Collins, 'Core-Set', op. cit. note 25, 16-17.
129. All parties agreed to abide by the findings of the outside referee, operating with yet another set of tests, calculations, equipment and internal structural divisions. Adding yet another participant in the experimenters' regress, the latter strategy could take years to produce results. The debate between NASA and Thiokol engineers about the amount of movement in the Solid Rocket Booster joints was such an issue. Sent to an outside referee for resolution, the test results were not completed and returned until seven years later - in 1986, after the Challenger accident. See Collins, Changing Order, op. cit. note 2; Presidential Commission, op. cit. note 10, Vol. 1, 140; House Committee, Hearings, op. cit. note 10, Vol. 1, 517.
130. All parties agreed to abide by the findings of the outside referee, operating with yet another set of tests, calculations, equipment and internal structural divisions. Adding yet another participant in the experimenters' regress, the latter strategy could take years to produce results. The debate between NASA and Thiokol engineers about the amount of movement in the Solid Rocket Booster joints was such an issue. Sent to an outside referee for resolution, the test results were not completed and returned until seven years later - in 1986, after the Challenger accident. See Collins, Changing Order, op. cit. note 2; Presidential Commission, op. cit. note 10, Vol. 1, 140; House Committee, Hearings, op. cit. note 10, Vol. 1, 517.
131. All parties agreed to abide by the findings of the outside referee, operating with yet another set of tests, calculations, equipment and internal structural divisions. Adding yet another participant in the experimenters' regress, the latter strategy could take years to produce results. The debate between NASA and Thiokol engineers about the amount of movement in the Solid Rocket Booster joints was such an issue. Sent to an outside referee for resolution, the test results were not completed and returned until seven years later - in 1986, after the Challenger accident. See Collins, Changing Order, op. cit. note 2; Presidential Commission, op. cit. note 10, Vol. 1, 140; House Committee, Hearings, op. cit. note 10, Vol. 1, 517.
132. How engineers go about their work and make decisions about technology is influenced by a mix of technical, organizational and professional considerations that constrain choice. For perspectives on engineers and engineering as a profession that works in production organizations where goals of cost, efficiency and deadlines frequently require engineers to 'satisfice' rather than 'optimize' in decisions about the technology, see Robert Perucci, 'Engineering: Professional Servant of Power', American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 41 (1970), 492-506; Henry Petroski, To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design (New York: St Martin's Press, 1985); Robert Zussman, Mechanics of the Middle Class: Work and Politics among American Engineers (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985); Vaughan, op. cit. note 9 (entire, but esp. Chapter 6); Button & Sharrock, op. cit. note 3.
133. How engineers go about their work and make decisions about technology is influenced by a mix of technical, organizational and professional considerations that constrain choice. For perspectives on engineers and engineering as a profession that works in production organizations where goals of cost, efficiency and deadlines frequently require engineers to 'satisfice' rather than 'optimize' in decisions about the technology, see Robert Perucci, 'Engineering: Professional Servant of Power', American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 41 (1970), 492-506; Henry Petroski, To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design (New York: St Martin's Press, 1985); Robert Zussman, Mechanics of the Middle Class: Work and Politics among American Engineers (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985); Vaughan, op. cit. note 9 (entire, but esp. Chapter 6); Button & Sharrock, op. cit. note 3.
134. How engineers go about their work and make decisions about technology is influenced by a mix of technical, organizational and professional considerations that constrain choice. For perspectives on engineers and engineering as a profession that works in production organizations where goals of cost, efficiency and deadlines frequently require engineers to 'satisfice' rather than 'optimize' in decisions about the technology, see Robert Perucci, 'Engineering: Professional Servant of Power', American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 41 (1970), 492-506; Henry Petroski, To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design (New York: St Martin's Press, 1985); Robert Zussman, Mechanics of the Middle Class: Work and Politics among American Engineers (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985); Vaughan, op. cit. note 9 (entire, but esp. Chapter 6); Button & Sharrock, op. cit. note 3.
135. How engineers go about their work and make decisions about technology is influenced by a mix of technical, organizational and professional considerations that constrain choice. For perspectives on engineers and engineering as a profession that works in production organizations where goals of cost, efficiency and deadlines frequently require engineers to 'satisfice' rather than 'optimize' in decisions about the technology, see Robert Perucci, 'Engineering: Professional Servant of Power', American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 41 (1970), 492-506; Henry Petroski, To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design (New York: St Martin's Press, 1985); Robert Zussman, Mechanics of the Middle Class: Work and Politics among American Engineers (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985); Vaughan, op. cit. note 9 (entire, but esp. Chapter 6); Button & Sharrock, op. cit. note 3.
136. How engineers go about their work and make decisions about technology is influenced by a mix of technical, organizational and professional considerations that constrain choice. For perspectives on engineers and engineering as a profession that works in production organizations where goals of cost, efficiency and deadlines frequently require engineers to 'satisfice' rather than 'optimize' in decisions about the technology, see Robert Perucci, 'Engineering: Professional Servant of Power', American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 41 (1970), 492-506; Henry Petroski, To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design (New York: St Martin's Press, 1985); Robert Zussman, Mechanics of the Middle Class: Work and Politics among American Engineers (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985); Vaughan, op. cit. note 9 (entire, but esp. Chapter 6); Button & Sharrock, op. cit. note 3.
137. Each mission is preceded by 15 months of mission-specific activity, following a generic schedule: House Committee, Report, op. cit. note 10, 123-26; Presidential Commission, op. cit. note 10, Vol. 4, 178-83.
138. Each mission is preceded by 15 months of mission-specific activity, following a generic schedule: House Committee, Report, op. cit. note 10, 123-26; Presidential Commission, op. cit. note 10, Vol. 4, 178-83.
139. John Law, 'Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case of Portuguese Expansion', in Bijker, Hughes & Pinch (eds), op. cit. note 4, 111-34, at 115.
140. This internal structure and its ability to transform ambiguity into fact has some parallels in the vertically-integrated structure developed by several DNA-typing companies that established rules, standardization and regulations enabling them to control the production of DNA evidence from the laboratory to the courtroom: see Arthur Daemmrich, 'The Evidence Does Not Speak for Itself: Expert Witnesses and the Organization of DNA-Typing Companies', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 28, Nos 5-6 (October-December 1998), 741-72.
141. House Committee, Report, op. cit. note 10, 126.
142. These guidelines are reproduced in Presidential Commission, op. cit. note 10, Vol. 4, 188-90.
143. Latour's work on literary inscriptions and making phenomena visible is found in Latour & Woolgar, op. cit. note 2; Latour, op. cit. note 51; Bruno Latour, Science in Action (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987); Latour, The Pasteurization of France, trans. Alan Sheridan and John Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988).
144. Latour's work on literary inscriptions and making phenomena visible is found in Latour & Woolgar, op. cit. note 2; Latour, op. cit. note 51; Bruno Latour, Science in Action (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987); Latour, The Pasteurization of France, trans. Alan Sheridan and John Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988).
145. Latour's work on literary inscriptions and making phenomena visible is found in Latour & Woolgar, op. cit. note 2; Latour, op. cit. note 51; Bruno Latour, Science in Action (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987); Latour, The Pasteurization of France, trans. Alan Sheridan and John Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988).
146. Latour's work on literary inscriptions and making phenomena visible is found in Latour & Woolgar, op. cit. note 2; Latour, op. cit. note 51; Bruno Latour, Science in Action (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987); Latour, The Pasteurization of France, trans. Alan Sheridan and John Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988).
147. Star, 'Politics of Formal Representations', op. cit. note 3, 111. For a parallel case study, see Susan Wright, 'Molecular Biology or Molecular Politics? The Production of Scientific Consensus on the Hazards of Recombinant DNA Technology', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 16, No. 4 (November 1986), 593-620; Wright, Molecular Politics: Developing American and British Regulatory Policy for Genetic Engineering, 1972-1982 (Chicago, IL & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), esp. Chapter 5.
148. Star, 'Politics of Formal Representations', op. cit. note 3, 111. For a parallel case study, see Susan Wright, 'Molecular Biology or Molecular Politics? The Production of Scientific Consensus on the Hazards of Recombinant DNA Technology', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 16, No. 4 (November 1986), 593-620; Wright, Molecular Politics: Developing American and British Regulatory Policy for Genetic Engineering, 1972-1982 (Chicago, IL & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), esp. Chapter 5.
149. Star, 'Politics of Formal Representations', op. cit. note 3, 111. For a parallel case study, see Susan Wright, 'Molecular Biology or Molecular Politics? The Production of Scientific Consensus on the Hazards of Recombinant DNA Technology', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 16, No. 4 (November 1986), 593-620; Wright, Molecular Politics: Developing American and British Regulatory Policy for Genetic Engineering, 1972-1982 (Chicago, IL & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1994), esp. Chapter 5.
150. Collins points out that all experimental work tends to be more uniformly compelling to those who are not closely involved with it because the social nature of the process of producing reliable conclusions is only known to those who are closely involved: Collins, 'Core-Set', op. cit. note 25, 13-14.
151. House Committee, Hearings, op. cit. note 10,Vol. 1, 375.
152. Ibid., 394.
153. Any change, or deviation, from what was previously understood or done about technical components had to be reported. Also, any new problem or new manifestation of an old problem had to be reported. However, if the pre-existing engineering analysis still covered the condition, it was not discussed at upper-level reviews because risk acceptability had not changed. The latter requirement eliminated reporting of repeated anomalies if the risk rationale for accepting them remained the same, as it did in the case of the continual damage to the Solid Rocket Booster O-rings: see 'Space Shuttle Flight Readiness Reviews', NASA Program Directive, Space Shuttle Operations, Integration Division (SPO-PD 710.5A, 26 September 1983), cited in Presidential Commission, op. cit. note 10, Vol. 1, 82, and reproduced in House Committee, Report, op. cit. note 10, 380-83.
154. Any change, or deviation, from what was previously understood or done about technical components had to be reported. Also, any new problem or new manifestation of an old problem had to be reported. However, if the pre-existing engineering analysis still covered the condition, it was not discussed at upper-level reviews because risk acceptability had not changed. The latter requirement eliminated reporting of repeated anomalies if the risk rationale for accepting them remained the same, as it did in the case of the continual damage to the Solid Rocket Booster O-rings: see 'Space Shuttle Flight Readiness Reviews', NASA Program Directive, Space Shuttle Operations, Integration Division (SPO-PD 710.5A, 26 September 1983), cited in Presidential Commission, op. cit. note 10, Vol. 1, 82, and reproduced in House Committee, Report, op. cit. note 10, 380-83.
155. Lawrence B. Mulloy (telephone interview, 19 March 1993). For an example, see Lawrence B. Mulloy, 'Level I Flight Readiness Review, 51-E', Reel .098 (21 February 1985), Motion Picture and Video Library, US National Archives, Washington, DC.
156. Lawrence B. Mulloy (telephone interview, 19 March 1993). For an example, see Lawrence B. Mulloy, 'Level I Flight Readiness Review, 51-E', Reel .098 (21 February 1985), Motion Picture and Video Library, US National Archives, Washington, DC.
157. Martin Landau and Russell Stout, Jr, 'To Manage Is Not to Control: Or, the Folly of Type II Errors', Public Administration Review, Vol. 39 (1979), 148-56, at 153.
158. Gerald R. Salancik, 'Commitment and the Control of Organizational Behavior and Belief', in Barry M. Staw and Salancik (eds), New Directions in Organzational Behavior (Malabar, FL: Krieger, 1977), 26-42, at 34-35; Henry Mintzberg, Duru Raisinghani and Andre Théorêt, 'The Structure of Unstructured Decision Processes', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21 (1976), 246-75.
159. Gerald R. Salancik, 'Commitment and the Control of Organizational Behavior and Belief', in Barry M. Staw and Salancik (eds), New Directions in Organzational Behavior (Malabar, FL: Krieger, 1977), 26-42, at 34-35; Henry Mintzberg, Duru Raisinghani and Andre Théorêt, 'The Structure of Unstructured Decision Processes', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21 (1976), 246-75.
160. David Matza, Becoming Deviant (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1969), 9.
161. Arthur L. Stinchcombe, 'Work Institutions and the Sociology of Everyday Life', in Kai Erikson and Steven Peter Vallas (eds), The Nature of Work (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990), 99-188, at 103.
162. Salancik, op. cit. note 70, 6; Jerry Ross and Barry M. Staw, 'EXPO '86: An Escalation Prototype', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 31 (1986), 274-97, at 276; Vaughan, Uncoupling, op. cit. note 20, Chapter 8.
163. Salancik, op. cit. note 70, 6; Jerry Ross and Barry M. Staw, 'EXPO '86: An Escalation Prototype', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 31 (1986), 274-97, at 276; Vaughan, Uncoupling, op. cit. note 20, Chapter 8.
164. Salancik, op. cit. note 70, 6; Jerry Ross and Barry M. Staw, 'EXPO '86: An Escalation Prototype', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 31 (1986), 274-97, at 276; Vaughan, Uncoupling, op. cit. note 20, Chapter 8.
165. Salancik, op. cit. note 70, 23.
166. Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality (New York: Doubleday, 1966), 19-43.
167. MacKenzie, Inventing Accuracy, op. cit. note 13, 418.
168. Ibid., 370-71; Harry Collins, 'The Core Set and the Public Experiment', unpublished typescript, as cited by MacKenzie, ibid., 371. See also H.M. Collins, 'Public Experiments and Displays of Virtuosity: The Core-Set Revisited', Social Studies of Science, Vol 18, No. 4 (November 1988), 725-48.
169. Ibid., 370-71; Harry Collins, 'The Core Set and the Public Experiment', unpublished typescript, as cited by MacKenzie, ibid., 371. See also H.M. Collins, 'Public Experiments and Displays of Virtuosity: The Core-Set Revisited', Social Studies of Science, Vol 18, No. 4 (November 1988), 725-48.
170. Ibid., 370-71; Harry Collins, 'The Core Set and the Public Experiment', unpublished typescript, as cited by MacKenzie, ibid., 371. See also H.M. Collins, 'Public Experiments and Displays of Virtuosity: The Core-Set Revisited', Social Studies of Science, Vol 18, No. 4 (November 1988), 725-48.
171. Ibid., 370-71; Harry Collins, 'The Core Set and the Public Experiment', unpublished typescript, as cited by MacKenzie, ibid., 371. See also H.M. Collins, 'Public Experiments and Displays of Virtuosity: The Core-Set Revisited', Social Studies of Science, Vol 18, No. 4 (November 1988), 725-48.
172. Timmermans & Berg, op. cit. note 49.
173. Knorr Cetina (1999), op. cit. note 2, 1.
174. For examples, see note 3; see also Constant, op. cit. note 4; Knorr Cetina (1999), op. cit. note 2; Gusterson, op. cit. note 2.
175. For examples, see note 3; see also Constant, op. cit. note 4; Knorr Cetina (1999), op. cit. note 2; Gusterson, op. cit. note 2.
176. For examples, see note 3; see also Constant, op. cit. note 4; Knorr Cetina (1999), op. cit. note 2; Gusterson, op. cit. note 2.
177. See Knorr, Latour, and Callon & Vignolle, all op. cit. note 4.
178. Knorr-Cetina (1981), op. cit. note 2, 43.
179. Macro-level contingencies outside the NASA/contractor system also were influential on work-group decisions, but had to be excluded because of paper length restrictions: among them, economic conditions, global competition, international and national political contingencies, and networks of relations between NASA, Congress, and the White House: see Vaughan (1996), op. cit. note 9, Chapters 1, 2, 6, 9 & 10.
180. See Langdon Winner, 'Do Artifacts Have Politics?', Daedalus, Vol. 109, No. 1 (Winter 1980), 121-36. For details on the effect of the political environment on internal structures and processes at NASA in this case study, see Vaughan (1996), op. cit. note 9.
181. See Langdon Winner, 'Do Artifacts Have Politics?', Daedalus, Vol. 109, No. 1 (Winter 1980), 121-36. For details on the effect of the political environment on internal structures and processes at NASA in this case study, see Vaughan (1996), op. cit. note 9.
182. Pinch & Bijker, op. cit. note 7.
183. These three have been identified as stages in the explanatory aims of the Empirical Programme of Relativism: see H.M. Collins, 'Stages in the Empirical Programme of Relativism', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 11, No. 1 (February 1981), 3-10; Pinch & Bijker, op. cit. note 7. For greater detail on connections with the socio-cultural milieu than I was able to present in this paper, see Vaughan (1996), op. cit. note 9.
184. These three have been identified as stages in the explanatory aims of the Empirical Programme of Relativism: see H.M. Collins, 'Stages in the Empirical Programme of Relativism', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 11, No. 1 (February 1981), 3-10; Pinch & Bijker, op. cit. note 7. For greater detail on connections with the socio-cultural milieu than I was able to present in this paper, see Vaughan (1996), op. cit. note 9.
185. These three have been identified as stages in the explanatory aims of the Empirical Programme of Relativism: see H.M. Collins, 'Stages in the Empirical Programme of Relativism', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 11, No. 1 (February 1981), 3-10; Pinch & Bijker, op. cit. note 7. For greater detail on connections with the socio-cultural milieu than I was able to present in this paper, see Vaughan (1996), op. cit. note 9.
186. See, for example, Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); Peter M. Hall, 'Interactionism and the Study of Social Organization', Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 28 (1987), 1-22; Dorothy Smith, The Everyday World as Problematic (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1987); Suchman, op. cit. note 3; Donna Haraway, 'Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism as a Site of Discourse on the Privilege of Partial Perspective', Feminist Studies, Vol. 14 (1988), 575-99; Patricia Hill Collins, Black Feminist Thought (London: Harper Collins, 1990); Mustafa Emirbayer and Jeff Goodwin, 'Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 99 (1994), 1411-54.
187. See, for example, Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); Peter M. Hall, 'Interactionism and the Study of Social Organization', Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 28 (1987), 1-22; Dorothy Smith, The Everyday World as Problematic (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1987); Suchman, op. cit. note 3; Donna Haraway, 'Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism as a Site of Discourse on the Privilege of Partial Perspective', Feminist Studies, Vol. 14 (1988), 575-99; Patricia Hill Collins, Black Feminist Thought (London: Harper Collins, 1990); Mustafa Emirbayer and Jeff Goodwin, 'Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 99 (1994), 1411-54.
188. See, for example, Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); Peter M. Hall, 'Interactionism and the Study of Social Organization', Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 28 (1987), 1-22; Dorothy Smith, The Everyday World as Problematic (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1987); Suchman, op. cit. note 3; Donna Haraway, 'Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism as a Site of Discourse on the Privilege of Partial Perspective', Feminist Studies, Vol. 14 (1988), 575-99; Patricia Hill Collins, Black Feminist Thought (London: Harper Collins, 1990); Mustafa Emirbayer and Jeff Goodwin, 'Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 99 (1994), 1411-54.
189. See, for example, Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); Peter M. Hall, 'Interactionism and the Study of Social Organization', Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 28 (1987), 1-22; Dorothy Smith, The Everyday World as Problematic (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1987); Suchman, op. cit. note 3; Donna Haraway, 'Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism as a Site of Discourse on the Privilege of Partial Perspective', Feminist Studies, Vol. 14 (1988), 575-99; Patricia Hill Collins, Black Feminist Thought (London: Harper Collins, 1990); Mustafa Emirbayer and Jeff Goodwin, 'Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 99 (1994), 1411-54.
190. See, for example, Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); Peter M. Hall, 'Interactionism and the Study of Social Organization', Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 28 (1987), 1-22; Dorothy Smith, The Everyday World as Problematic (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1987); Suchman, op. cit. note 3; Donna Haraway, 'Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism as a Site of Discourse on the Privilege of Partial Perspective', Feminist Studies, Vol. 14 (1988), 575-99; Patricia Hill Collins, Black Feminist Thought (London: Harper Collins, 1990); Mustafa Emirbayer and Jeff Goodwin, 'Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 99 (1994), 1411-54.
191. See, for example, Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); Peter M. Hall, 'Interactionism and the Study of Social Organization', Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 28 (1987), 1-22; Dorothy Smith, The Everyday World as Problematic (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1987); Suchman, op. cit. note 3; Donna Haraway, 'Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism as a Site of Discourse on the Privilege of Partial Perspective', Feminist Studies, Vol. 14 (1988), 575-99; Patricia Hill Collins, Black Feminist Thought (London: Harper Collins, 1990); Mustafa Emirbayer and Jeff Goodwin, 'Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 99 (1994), 1411-54.
192. See, for example, Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); Peter M. Hall, 'Interactionism and the Study of Social Organization', Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 28 (1987), 1-22; Dorothy Smith, The Everyday World as Problematic (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1987); Suchman, op. cit. note 3; Donna Haraway, 'Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism as a Site of Discourse on the Privilege of Partial Perspective', Feminist Studies, Vol. 14 (1988), 575-99; Patricia Hill Collins, Black Feminist Thought (London: Harper Collins, 1990); Mustafa Emirbayer and Jeff Goodwin, 'Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 99 (1994), 1411-54.
193. Vaughan, 'Theory Elaboration', op. cit. note 25.
194. See Dorothy E. Smith, 'The Social Construction of Documentary Reality', Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 44 (1974), 1-13; Smith, 'Textually Mediated Social Organization', International Social Science Journal, Vol. 36 (1984), 59-75; Smith, The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1990); Marie Campbell and Ann Manicom (eds), Knowledge, Experience and Ruling Relations: Studies in the Social Organization of Knowledge (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995). For a complementary position, see Law, Organizing Modernity, op. cit. note 4.
195. See Dorothy E. Smith, 'The Social Construction of Documentary Reality', Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 44 (1974), 1-13; Smith, 'Textually Mediated Social Organization', International Social Science Journal, Vol. 36 (1984), 59-75; Smith, The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1990); Marie Campbell and Ann Manicom (eds), Knowledge, Experience and Ruling Relations: Studies in the Social Organization of Knowledge (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995). For a complementary position, see Law, Organizing Modernity, op. cit. note 4.
196. See Dorothy E. Smith, 'The Social Construction of Documentary Reality', Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 44 (1974), 1-13; Smith, 'Textually Mediated Social Organization', International Social Science Journal, Vol. 36 (1984), 59-75; Smith, The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1990); Marie Campbell and Ann Manicom (eds), Knowledge, Experience and Ruling Relations: Studies in the Social Organization of Knowledge (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995). For a complementary position, see Law, Organizing Modernity, op. cit. note 4.
197. See Dorothy E. Smith, 'The Social Construction of Documentary Reality', Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 44 (1974), 1-13; Smith, 'Textually Mediated Social Organization', International Social Science Journal, Vol. 36 (1984), 59-75; Smith, The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1990); Marie Campbell and Ann Manicom (eds), Knowledge, Experience and Ruling Relations: Studies in the Social Organization of Knowledge (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995). For a complementary position, see Law, Organizing Modernity, op. cit. note 4.
198. See Dorothy E. Smith, 'The Social Construction of Documentary Reality', Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 44 (1974), 1-13; Smith, 'Textually Mediated Social Organization', International Social Science Journal, Vol. 36 (1984), 59-75; Smith, The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1990); Marie Campbell and Ann Manicom (eds), Knowledge, Experience and Ruling Relations: Studies in the Social Organization of Knowledge (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995). For a complementary position, see Law, Organizing Modernity, op. cit. note 4.
199. M. Campbell and A. Manicom, 'Introduction', in Campbell & Manicom (eds), op. cit. note 89, 3-17, at 9.