This essay argues that recent reflexively oriented critiques of social studies of science, especially those of Steve Woolgar, present a problematic version of instrumental irony. Woolgar's own view is presented as instrumental and his antipathy to theorizing is opposed by arguing for the need to adopt a privileged position in order to carry out his recommended refusal of objectivist discourse.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aronowitz, S.1988. Science as power: Discourse and ideology in modern societyMinneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
2.
Blum, A., and P. McHugh.1984. Self-reflection in the arts and sciences . Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
3.
Garfinkel, H.1952. The perception of the other: A study in social order. Ph.D. dissHarvard University.
4.
—. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
5.
Garfinkel, H.M.Lynch, and E.Livingstone. 1981. The work of a discovering science construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsarPhilosophy of the Social Sciences11: 131-58.
6.
Holton, G.1981. Comments on Professor Harold Garfinkel's paper. Philosophy of the Social Sciences11: 159-61.
7.
Kersten, F.1972. The constancy hypothesis in the social sciences. In Life-world and consciousness, edited by Lester Embree. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
8.
Knorr-Cetina, K.1981. The manufacture of knowledgeOxford : Pergamon.
9.
Latour, B., and S. Woolgar.1979. Laboratory lifeLondon: Sage.
10.
Laudan, L.1981. The pseudo-science of science. Philosophy of the Social Sciences11: 173-98.
11.
Lynch, M.1982. Technical work and critical inquiry: Investigations in a scientific laboratory. Social Studies of Science12: 499-533.
12.
—. 1985a. Art and artifact in laboratory science. London: Routledge.
13.
—. 1985b. Discipline and the material form of images: An analysis of scientific visibility. Social Studies of Science15: 37-66.
14.
Mulkay, M., J. Potter, and S. Yearley1983. Why an analysis of scientific discourse is needed. In Science observed, edited by K. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay. London: Sage.
15.
Pfohl, S.1977. The "discovery" of child abuse. Social Problems24: 310-23.
16.
Restivo, S. (1988). Science as a social problem. Social Problems35: 206-25.
17.
Watson, G.1987. Make me reflexive—but not yet: Strategies for managing essential reflexivity in ethnographic discourse. Journal of Anthropological Research43: 29-41.
18.
Woolgar, S.1981a. Critique and criticism: Two readings of ethnomethodology . Social Studies of Science11: 504-14.
19.
—. 1981b. Interests and explanation in the social study of science . Social Studies of Science11: 365-94.
20.
—. 1982. Laboratory studies: A comment on the state of the art . Social Studies of Science12: 481-98.
21.
—. 1983. Irony and the social study of science. In Science observed, edited by K Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay. London: Sage.
22.
—. 1988a. Reflexivity is the ethnographer of the text In Knowledge and reflexivity, edited by S. Woolgar. London: Sage.
23.
—. 1988b. Science: The very ideaLondon: Tavistock.
24.
Woolgar, S., and M. Ashmore.1988. The next step: An introduction to the reflexive project. In Knowledge and reflexivity , edited by S. Woolgar. London: Sage .
25.
Woolgar, S., and D. Pawluch.1985. Ontological gerrymandering: The anatomy of social problems explanations. Social Problems32: 214-27.
