Linking the subcultures of physics: Virtual empiricism and the bonding role of trust

Social Studies of Science

Volumn 44, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 736-757

  Reyes Galindo, Luis ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

disunity; enculturation; interactional expertise; physics; trust

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EMPIRICISM; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; KNOWLEDGE; PHYSICS; SOCIOLOGY; TRUST;

EMPIRICISM; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; KNOWLEDGE; PHYSICS; SOCIOLOGY; TRUST;

EID: 84908550677     PISSN: 03063127     EISSN: 14603659     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0306312714539058     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Bourdieu P.The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason.Social Science Information. 1975;14 (6): 19-47
2. Carusi A.Scientific visualisations and aesthetic grounds for trust.Ethics and Information Technology. 2008;10 (4): 243-254
3. Clarke AE,Star SLThe Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Hackett EJAmsterdamska OLynch MWajcman J, ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2008:113-137.
4. Collins H,Ribeiro R.The bread-making machine: Tacit knowledge and two types of action.Organization Studies. 2007;28 (9): 1417-1433
5. Collins HMSocial Researching: Politics, Problems, Practice. Bell CRoberts H, ed. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul; 1984:54-69.
6. Collins HMChanging Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; 1992:
7. Collins HM.Tacit knowledge, trust and the Q of sapphire.Social Studies of Science. 2001;31 (1): 71-85
8. Collins HMGravity’s Shadow: The Search for Gravitational Waves. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; 2004:
9. Collins HMTacit and Explicit Knowledge. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; 2010:
10. Collins HMGravity’s Ghost: Scientific Discovery in the Twenty-first Century. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; 2011a:
11. Collins HM.Language and practice.Social Studies of Science. 2011b;41 (2): 271-300
12. Collins HM.Rejecting knowledge claims inside and outside science.Social Studies of Science. 2014;44 (3): 1-14
13. Collins HM,Evans R.The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of expertise and experience.Social Studies of Science. 2002;32 (2): 235-296
14. Collins HM,Evans RRethinking Expertise. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; 2007:
15. Collins HM,Sanders G.They give you the keys and say ‘drive it!’ Managers, referred expertise, and other expertises.Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. 2007;38 (4): 621-641
16. Duhem PEssays in the History and Philosophy of Science. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company; 1996:
17. Dupré JThe Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1995:
18. Dyson F.A meeting with Enrico Fermi.Nature. 2004;427:297
19. Feyerabend PAgainst Method. 1975 Against Method, 3rd edn.London: Verso.London: Verso; 1975:
20. Galison PThe Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power. Galison PStump DJ, ed. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press; 1996a:118-157.
21. Galison PThe Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power. Galison PStump DJ, ed. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press; 1996b:1-36.
22. Galison PImage and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; 1997:
23. Galison PTrading Zones and Interactional Expertise: Creating New Kinds of Collaboration. Gorman ME, ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2010:25-52.
24. The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power. Galison PStump DJ, ed. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press; 1996:
25. Giddens AThe Consequences of Modernity. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press; 1990:
26. Giddens AModernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press; 1991:
27. Gooding D.How do scientists reach agreement about novel observations?.Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. 1986;17 (2): 205-230
28. Hardin RTrust and Trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2002:
29. Hardin RTrust. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2006:
30. Haycock DBHow Well Do Facts Travel? The Dissemination of Reliable Knowledge. Howlet PMorgan MS, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011:403-428.
31. Hedgecoe AM.Trust and regulatory organizations: The role of local knowledge and facework in research ethics review.Social Studies of Science. 2012;42 (5): 662-683
32. Irwin A.The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance.Social Studies of Science. 2006;36 (2): 299-320
33. Kennefick D.Star crushing: Theoretical practice and the theoreticians’ regress.Social Studies of Science. 2000;30 (1): 5-40
34. Kennefick DTraveling at the Speed of Thought: Einstein and the Quest for Gravitational Waves. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2007:
35. Knorr Cetina KEpistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1999:
36. Lahsen M.Seductive simulations? Uncertainty distribution around climate models.Social Studies of Science. 2005;35 (6): 895-922
37. Latour BKnowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present. Kuklick HLong E, ed. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; 1986:1-40.
38. Latour BScience in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1987:
39. Latour B,Woolgar SLaboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1979 [1986]:
40. Lewis J,Atkinson P.The surveillance of cellular scientists’ practice.BioSocieties. 2011;6 (4): 381-400
41. Luhmann NTrust and Power: Two Works by Niklas Luhmann. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 1979:
42. McDonell G.Scientific and everyday knowledge: Trust and the politics of environmental initiatives.Social Studies of Science. 1997;27 (6): 819-863
43. MacKenzie DInventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 1990:
44. MacKenzie DMechanizing Proof: Computing, Risk, and Trust. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2001:
45. Mayer RC,Davis JH,Schoorman FD.An integrative model of organizational trust.Academy of Management Review. 1995;20 (3): 709-734
46. Medawar PBInduction and Intuition in Scientific Thought. London: Methuen; 1969:
47. Merz M,Knorr Cetina K.Deconstruction in a ‘thinking’ science: Theoretical physicists at work.Social Studies of Science. 1997;27 (1): 73-111
48. Monteiro M,Keating E.Managing misunderstandings: The role of language in interdisciplinary scientific collaboration.Science Communication. 2009;31 (1): 6-28
49. Morgan MSHow Well Do Facts Travel? The Dissemination of Reliable Knowledge. Howlet PMorgan MS, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001:3-39.
50. Constraints on controversy: The case of the magnetic monopole.Social Studies of Science. 1981;11 (1): 63-93
51. Pickering A.Against putting the phenomena first: The discovery of the weak neutral current.Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. 1984;15 (2): 85-117
52. Pickering AConstructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; 1999:
53. Pinch TJConfronting Nature: The Sociology of Solar-Neutrino Detection. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company; 1986:
54. Porter TMTrust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1996:
55. Reyes-GalindoL (2011) The sociology of theoretical physics. PhD Thesis, Cardiff University, Cardiff.
56. Robson K.Accounting numbers as ‘inscription’: Action at a distance and the development of accounting.Accounting, Organizations and Society. 1992;17 (7): 685-708
57. Schütz AThe Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press; 1932 [1967]:
58. Shapin SA Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; 1994:
59. Shapin S.Cordelia’s love: Credibility and the social studies of science.Perspectives on Science. 1995;3 (3): 255-275
60. Shapin S,Schaffer S,Hobbes TLeviathan and the Air-Pump. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1985:48204.
61. Shrager JTrading Zones and Interactional Expertise: Creating New Kinds of Collaboration. Gorman ME, ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2010:107-124.
62. Shrum W,Chompalov I,Genuth J.Trust, conflict and performance in scientific collaborations.Social Studies of Science. 2001;31 (5): 681-730
63. Shrum W,Genuth J,Chompalov IStructures of Scientific Collaboration. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2007:
64. Star SL.Scientific work and uncertainty.Social Studies of Science. 1985;15 (3): 391-427
65. Star SL,Griesemer JR.Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.Social Studies of Science. 1989;19 (3): 387-420
66. Stephens N,Atkinson P,Glasner P.Documenting the doable and doing the documented: Bridging strategies at the UK Stem Cell Bank.Social Studies of Science. 2011;41 (6): 791-813
67. Sztompka PTrust: A Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1999:
68. Uslaner EMThe Moral Foundations of Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002:
69. Wilson G,Herndl CG.Boundary objects as rhetorical exigence: Knowledge mapping and interdisciplinary cooperation at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.Journal of Business and Technical Communication. 2007;21 (2): 129-154
70. Zee AFearful Symmetry: The Search for Beauty in Modern Physics. New York: Macmillan; 1986: