Critical accountability: Dilemmas for interventionist studies of e-science

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 583-599

  Wouters, Paul ^a,b   Beaulieu, Anne ^a,b  

^a Virtual Knowledge Studio for the Humanities and Social Sciences   (Netherlands)

^b Virtual Knowledge Studio for the Humanities   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; VIRTUAL REALITY;

'CURRENT; ART AND SCIENCE; E-SCIENCE INFRASTRUCTURES; E-SCIENCES; E-SOCIAL SCIENCE; HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCE; IS TECHNOLOGIES; NETHERLANDS; SCIENCE TOOLS; VIRTUAL KNOWLEDGE;

E-SCIENCE;

EID: 33847266389     PISSN: 10836101     EISSN: 10836101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00339.x     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Ashmore, M. (1989). The Reflexive Thesis; Wrighting Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
2. Atkins, D., Droegemeier, K., Feldman, S., Garcia-Molina, H., Klein, M., & Messerschmidt, D. (2003). Revolutionizing Science and Engineering Through Cyberinfrastructure: Report of the National Science Foundation Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure. Washington DC: National Science Foundation.
3. Barnes, B., Bloor, D., & Henry, J. (1996). Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis. London: Athlone.
4. Beaulieu, A. (2005). Les enjeux de la cartographie du cerveau pour les sciences cognitives: Réduction, traduction ou transformation? Numéro spécial, alternatives en sciences cognitives: Enjeux et débats. Revue d'Intelligence Artificielle, 19(1-2), 31-43.
5. Becher, T. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Inquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. Buckingham: SHRE & Open University Press.
6. Berman, F., Fox, G., & Hey, T. (2003). The grid: Past, present, future. In F. Berman, G. Fox, & T. Hey (Eds.), Grid Computing. Making the Global Infrastructure a Reality (pp. 9-50). Somerset, NJ: John Wiley.
7. Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. (1989). The Social Construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
8. Birkin, M., Chen, H., Clarke, M., Dew, P., Keen, J., Rees, P., & Xu, J. (2005, June). MOSES; Modelling and simulation for e-social science. Paper presented at the First International Conference of e-Social Science, Manchester, UK. Retrieved November 11, 2006 from http://www.ncess.ac.uk/events/ conference/2005/papers/papers/ncess2005_paper_Birkin1.pdf
9. Birkin, M., & McFarland, O. (2005, June). HYDRA: A prototype grid-enabled spatial decision support system. Paper presented at the First International Conference of e-Social Science, Manchester, UK. Retrieved November 11, 2006 from http://www.ncess.ac.uk/events/conference/2005/papers/papers/ ncess2005_paper_Birkin.pdf
10. Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
11. Blume, S. (1974). Towards a Political Sociology of Science. New York: Free Press.
12. Blume, S., & Catshoek, G. (2001). Articulating the Patient Perspective: Strategic Options for Research. Amsterdam: Patientenpraktijk.
13. Boonstra, O., Breure, L, & Doom, P. (2004). Past, Present and Future of Historical Information Science. Amsterdam: Netherlands Institute for Scientific Information.
14. Brown, N. (2003). Hope against hype: Accountability in biopasts, presents and futures. Science Studies, 16(2), 3-21.
15. Brown, N., & Michael, M. (2003). A sociology of expectations: Retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(1), 3-18.
16. Collins, H. M. (1985). The possibilities of science policy. Social Studies of Science, 15, 55-48.
17. Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235-296.
18. Coopmans, C., Neyland, D., Simakova, E., & Woolgar, S. (2005, June). Does STS mean business too? A provocation piece for a one-day workshop at Said Business School. Paper presented at the Saïd Business School, University of Oxford.
19. Coopmans, C., Neyland, D., & Woolgar, S. (2004, June). Does STS mean business? Some issues and questions; provocation piece for the workshop "Does STS mean business?" Paper presented at the Saíd Business School, University of Oxford.
20. Crouchley, R., van Ark, T., Pritchard, J., Kewley, J., Allan, R., Haynes, M., Morris, L. (2005, June). Putting social science applications on the Grid. Paper presented at the First International Conference of e-Social Science, Manchester, UK. Retrieved November 11, 2006 from http://www.ncess.ac. uk/events/conference/2005/papers/papers/ncess2005_paper_Crouchley.pdf
21. Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: Verso.
22. Fraser, M., & Biegel, G. (2005, June). Distributing data sessions: Supporting remote collaboration with video data. Paper presented at the First International Conference of e-Social Science, Manchester, UK. Retrieved November 11, 2006 from http://www.ncess.ac.uk/events/conference/2005/papers/ papers/ncess2005_paper_Fraser.pdf
23. Fry, J. (2006). Coordination and control of research practices across scientific fields: Implications for a differentiated e-science. In C. Hine (Ed.), New Infrastructure for Knowledge Production: Understanding E-Science (pp. 167-188). London: IDEA Group.
24. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
25. Grudin, J. (1994). Computer-supported cooperative work: History and focus. Computer, 26(5), 19-26.
26. Hackett, E., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., & Wajcman, J. (Eds.). (2007). New Handbook of Science, Technology, and Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Hey, T. (2006). Foreword. In C. Hine (Ed.), New Infrastructures for Knowledge Production (pp. vi-vii). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
28. Hey, T., & Trefethen, A. E. (2002). The UK e-science core program and the grid. Future Generation Computer Systems, 18(8), 1017-1031.
29. Hine, C. (2000). Virtual Ethnography. London: Sage.
30. Hine, C. (2006a). Computerization movements and scientific disciplines: The reflexive potential of new technologies. In C. Hine (Ed.), New Infrastructure for Knowledge Production: Understanding E-Science (pp. 26-47). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
31. Hine, C. (Ed.). (2006b). New Infrastructures for Knowledge Production. Understanding E-Science. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
32. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33. Jasanoff, S. (1994). Procedural choices in regulatory science. Risk: Health, Safety, and Environment, 4, 143.
34. Jasanoff, S. (Ed.) (1995). Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. London: Sage.
35. Kling, R., & McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1306-1320.
36. KNAW (2004, April). Call for program leader: Developing e-science in the social sciences and humanities. KNAW, Amsterdam. Retrieved December 20, 2006 from http://www.let.uu.nl/LOT/News&Events/Newsletters/2004/2004-04-29. html#item2
37. Knorr-Cetina, K. D. M., M. (Ed.). (1983). Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. London: Sage Publications.
38. Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39. Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch, & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in Scientific Practice (pp. 19-68). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
41. Martin, B. (1988). Analyzing the fluoridation controversy: Resources and structures. Social Studies of Science, 18(2), 331-363.
42. Merton, R. K. (1973). The normative structure of science. In N. W. Storer (Ed.), The Sociology of Science (pp. 267-278). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43. Olson, G., Finholt, T., & Teasley, S. (2000). Behavioral aspects of collaboratories. In S. Koslow, & M. Huerta (Eds.), Electronic Collaboration in Science (pp. 1-14). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44. Pels, D. (2003). Unhastening Science: Autonomy and Reflexivity in the Social Theory of Knowledge: London: Routledge.
45. RAWB (1978). De bevordering van wetenschapsonderzoek. The Hague: Archive of the Science Policy Advisory Council (RAWB), Archive number RW 1049.
46. RAWB (1980). Advies van de commissie wetenschapsdynamica aan de RAWB. The Hague: Archive of the Science Policy Advisory Council (RAWB), Archive number RW 1294.
47. Rip, A. (2002a). Reflections on the transformation of science. Metascience, 11(3), 317-323.
48. Rip, A. (2002b). Regional innovation systems and the advent of strategic science. Journal of Technology Transfer, 27, 123-131.
49. Schäfer, W. (Ed.). (1983). Finalization in Science: The Social Orientation of Scientific Progress. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel.
50. Schumann, N., Meier, W., Heise, S., & Schmiede, R. (2005, June). Networking social science resources on the Web: SozioNet. Paper presented at the First International Conference of e-Social Science, Manchester, UK. Retrieved November 11, 2006 from http://www.ncess.ac.uk/events/conference/2005/ papers/papers/ncess2005_paper_Schumann.pdf
51. Shinn, T. (2002). The triple helix and new production of knowledge: Prepackaged thinking on science and technology. Social Studies of Science, 32(4), 599-614.
52. Suchman, L. (2000). Anthropology as "brand:" Reflections on corporate anthropology. Retrieved November 11, 2006 from http://www.comp. lancaster.ac.uk/sociology/soc058ls.html
53. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
54. Sutherland, I. (1968). A head-mounted three dimensional display. In Proceedings FJCC (pp. 757-764). Washington, DC: Thompson Books.
55. Vann, K., & Bowker, G. (2006). Interest in production: On the configuration of technology-bearing labours for epistemic-IT. In C. Hine (Ed.), New Infrastructures for Knowledge Production: Understanding E-Science (pp. 71-98). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
56. Weingart, P. (1997). From "finalization" to "mode 2:" Old wine in new bottles? Social Science Information, 36, 591-613.
57. Whitley, R. (2000). The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58. Woolgar, S. (1988). Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Sage.
59. Woolgar, S. (2002). Virtual Society? Technology, Cyberbole, Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
60. Woolgar, S., & Ashmore, M. (1988). Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Sage.
61. Wouters, P. (1999). The Citation Culture. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Department of Science Dynamics, Faculty of Chemistry, University of Amsterdam. Retrieved December 20, 2006 from http://garfield.library.upenn. edu/wouters/wouters.pdf
62. Wouters, P. (2004). The Virtual Knowledge Studio for the Humanities and Social Sciences @ The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. Program proposal, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Amsterdam. Retrieved December 20, 2006 from http://www.virtualknowledgestudio.nl/program/
63. Wouters, P., & Beaulieu, A. (2006). Imagining e-science beyond computation. In C. Hine (Ed.), New Infrastructures for Knowledge Production: Understanding E-Science (pp. 46-70). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
64. Wyatt, S., Thomas, G., & Terranova, T. (2002). They came, they surfed, they went back to the beach: Conceptualizing use and non-use of the Internet. In S. Woolgar (Ed.), Virtual Society? Technology, Cyberbole, Reality (pp. 23-40). Oxford: Oxford University Press.