Sorry for the delay in posting these:
Rapporteur Notes 2/10
On the “nuts and bolts” of ethnographic research:
·
We discussed the difficulties of appearing
obtrusive in the lab – typing notes on a computer, taking notes in a notebook,
recording, etc.
·
Some ideas proposed were the only record, or to
get a super technology notebook/audio recording pen, like Savannah’s
·
We had a good discussion on reflexivity – how
does being an ethnographer in the lab change how people interact, how do we
think about our own positionality and how that impacts the questions we ask and
the answers we get, and how do all of these complications dictate what we
actually write?
“Housekeeping”
·
At least one observation or an interview in any
lab
·
Although we won’t be going through IRB, we need
to be aware of general ethical guidelines (confidentiality, permission, etc.)
·
Field notes due on Monday, February 13
·
Rough draft on fieldwork project due on February
24
o
Incorporate theoretical arguments with data
collected
o
We’ll be conducting a peer review
·
Participation for the class overall is judged in
two ways – both in class participation but also interactions on the blog
Class Discussion
Background on Authors
Bruno Latour (France): One of the most well-known and cited
scholars in STS. Background in philosophy. Conducted what he called the “first
attempt of the daily studies of the scientist in their natural habitat” at the
Salk Institute.”
Karen Knorr Cetina (Austria): PhD in Cultural Anthropology.
Focuses on knowledge production proudly – different labs but also medicine,
psychoanalysis, financial markets, etc.
Duana Fullwiley: Anthropologist of science at Stanford. Enculturated Gene: Examines local
understanding of sickle cell science and disease.
Discussion
“Epistemic cultures” by Karen Knorr-Cetina
Brief overview: Laboratory culture focuses on “improving”
natural orders. She discusses a transition in medicine in which doctors ceased
to conduct house visits and instead, the patient came to the hospital or the
clinic. Part of this has come from the standardization of medical practice. In
the clinic, the doctor has gained much more prestige. Here, the patient
discourse lost its centrality; medicine became much less intelligible.
We discussed how in modern day, the Internet has given rise
to another epistemic shift, where knowledge and expertise is more widely
dispersed. Margaret presented an example of parents of children with autism or
autism or spectrum disorder. The wealthiest parents can afford the ability to
seek out experimental therapies and multiple treatments, even though these
aren’t empirically validated.
We questioned whether the idea of the laboratory as
“colonizing” social space is truly a new or revolutionary concept? Given that lab science was a tool of empire,
did Knorr-Cetina miss an opportunity to situate laboratory practice within a
broader socio-historical context?
On reading signs:
Knorr-Cetina’s idea of psychoanalysis and particle physics are that we’re
looking at signs, rather than actual objects. We debated how “new” this was and
when, if ever, has the medical practice read anything but signs? ‘
On Mapping the Field
of STS:
Dr. Song handed out a conceptual map linking the various
fields of STS through development. The readings for this week were grounded in
the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge, where Latour looms rather large. Their
focus has been on laboratory studies and the more micro-level interactions,
thus “anthropologists” of science.
Dick noted that this is still a very Western-focused map;
that the philosophy of science as laid out here and as it is most frequently
practiced is Western philosophy of science.
On Latour:
We began with an introduction of how Latour had to
essentially market his science – that to prove his experiments work “outside of
the laboratory,” he had to convince French farmers of the utility of his
vaccines.
We discussed what role science plays in today’s popular
discourse? How are interested is the average citizen in science? What do they
make of it? We’re meant to accept science without question, but anti-vaccine
campaigns have been one disruption of that. Climate change is also an example
of disagreement over facts – the challenge of interpretation.
But are these people anti-science, or is it simply a denial
of the facts? Are they anti-science, anti-scientist, or against what the
general political tenor of what science argues for?
Latour’s key argument in Actor Network Theory is that all
objects must be connected to understand the broader social context. The content
and context are not distinct. Thus, we have to search for the linkages between
the anthrax microbe, Pasteur’s lab, the farmers on which he tested, and
ultimately, later, the re-organization of society in a way designed to control
the impact of microbes.
How did Pasteur’s Laboratory actually work? Being able to
isolate and “magnify” microbes allows the ability to take something from the
natural state and make it evident. Once visible, he can make it clear to
farmers how he will solve their problem. And this also connects back to the way
that statistics and bureaucracy allowed for the ability to define the problem
on a large scale.
Duana Fullwiley
How should science think about race, now that the idea of
the biological basis of race has been so thoroughly debunked?
Something as seemingly objective as DNA markers can be
interpreted differently based on our social understandings. We use census
categories to conduct science – are there other alternatives? The work of
biological anthropologist Jonathan Marks was brought up as being a good
starting point for thinking about genetic differences.
No comments:
Post a Comment