| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立陽明大學 === 科技與社會研究所 === 107 === Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (includes Strong Programme and Empirical Programme of Relativism) and Actor-network Theory are two significant theories and methodological approaches in Science, Technology and Society (STS) at present. There was twice serious debates between them, called “Epistemological Chicken” (1992) and “Anti-Latour” (1999). The aim and concern of this thesis is to explore the content of this academic controversy and thereby to clarify degree of differences and relationships of two schools and those possible implications to STS.
Through showing relevant discussions and literature reviews, applying close reading to those debate texts in detail, and following up on their development by virtue of further prolonged reading, this study also takes “methodological space” as an auxiliary concept to the debates and delineates focus of problematique, discursive gesture, knowledge resources, theoretical purposes, wording and academic commitment presented by academic knowledge actors, namely David Bloor, Harry Collins and Bruno Latour. In addition to displaying current opinions from commentators and finding possible root of the conflicts, more importantly, this study reminds that those methodologies and its judgements as a knowledge style are quite special to scholars. A main characteristic of this knowledge condition is that knowledge actors have been able to modify, remake and criticize other’s ideas partly but creatively with peculiar coherence. We could understand actual outlook of the two debates better by means of this type of knowledge.
Finally, this study answers the three initial questions. Firstly, it concludes that even if there are clear and apparent differences in the sense of methodologically relative particularity, there also are compatible similarities in general and vice versa. Secondly, the debates suggest a necessity for STS (and social science) researchers need to identify and extract methodological knowledge in and by individualizing them, thus we can find the differentials among various theories and methodologies. Thirdly, the controversy and its discussions alert us that we must pay attention to whether some theories and methodologies we use are merely showing off new insights (playing as peacock); and avoiding the recognition of, or need to deal with, substantial difficulties (playing as ostrich). They might be two sides of the same coin; the SSK-ANT debates have demonstrated that already.
|
|---|
