Constructivist Paradoxes Part 2: Latin American STS, between Centers and Peripheries

Autores
Kreimer, Pablo Rafael
Año de publicación
2022
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
There is a certain ‘failure’ in what we could call the modern development of the STS field over the past decade, i.e. a large number of studies—particularly empirical—that were deployed from the 1970s onwards. Indeed, one of their original and crucial objectives was to emphasize the local, situated, contingent character of the processes of production and negotiation of knowledge. However, these studies mostly concentrate on one part of the world, i.e. the most developed countries, precisely where modern science, commonly referred to as “Western Science,” developed. This limitation—surely intuitive or “natural”—has several consequences analyzed in this article. In summary, these limitations can be analyzed in terms of the objects of research (the various forms of knowledge) but also in terms of the theories and methods used to account for them. The aim is to discuss the construction of a double (or even triple) peripheral situation, which calls into question the old principles of symmetry and impartiality (Bloor 1976; Collins 1981): on the one hand, the peripheral character of the objects analyzed (i.e. science and scientific development outside Euro-America) and, in parallel, the peripheral situation of the communities of specialists who dedicate themselves to studying them. Connected to this, an additional question emerges: What are the theoretical frameworks and methodologies best suited to account for these objects in their respective contexts? Is it suitable to simply apply to these objects of study the same theoretical frameworks and methods commonly used to analyze hegemonic science? And last but not least, how to approach the (scientific, cultural, political) relationships between different contexts in a highly globalized world? This is the second of two parts: while in the first one I discuss the “failures” of the hegemonic paradigm in STS and its consequences in relation to nonhegemonic contexts, in this second part I focus on the problems raised by post-colonial approaches, on the “peripheral techno-science” as an object for STS scholars and, as a specific case, the development of STS research in Latin America and the dynamics of its specific agendas.
Fil: Kreimer, Pablo Rafael. Universidad Nacional de Quilmes. Departamento de Ciencias Sociales; Argentina. Universidad Maimonides. Centro de Ciencia, Tecniologia y Sociedad.; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Materia
SITUATED KNOWLEDGE
CENTERS AND PERIPHERIES
GLOBAL SCIENCE
LATIN AMERICA
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/201365

id CONICETDig_0f779cf94c7811ad06d7e4b6c6d30107
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/201365
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Constructivist Paradoxes Part 2: Latin American STS, between Centers and PeripheriesKreimer, Pablo RafaelSITUATED KNOWLEDGECENTERS AND PERIPHERIESGLOBAL SCIENCELATIN AMERICAhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/5.9https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5There is a certain ‘failure’ in what we could call the modern development of the STS field over the past decade, i.e. a large number of studies—particularly empirical—that were deployed from the 1970s onwards. Indeed, one of their original and crucial objectives was to emphasize the local, situated, contingent character of the processes of production and negotiation of knowledge. However, these studies mostly concentrate on one part of the world, i.e. the most developed countries, precisely where modern science, commonly referred to as “Western Science,” developed. This limitation—surely intuitive or “natural”—has several consequences analyzed in this article. In summary, these limitations can be analyzed in terms of the objects of research (the various forms of knowledge) but also in terms of the theories and methods used to account for them. The aim is to discuss the construction of a double (or even triple) peripheral situation, which calls into question the old principles of symmetry and impartiality (Bloor 1976; Collins 1981): on the one hand, the peripheral character of the objects analyzed (i.e. science and scientific development outside Euro-America) and, in parallel, the peripheral situation of the communities of specialists who dedicate themselves to studying them. Connected to this, an additional question emerges: What are the theoretical frameworks and methodologies best suited to account for these objects in their respective contexts? Is it suitable to simply apply to these objects of study the same theoretical frameworks and methods commonly used to analyze hegemonic science? And last but not least, how to approach the (scientific, cultural, political) relationships between different contexts in a highly globalized world? This is the second of two parts: while in the first one I discuss the “failures” of the hegemonic paradigm in STS and its consequences in relation to nonhegemonic contexts, in this second part I focus on the problems raised by post-colonial approaches, on the “peripheral techno-science” as an object for STS scholars and, as a specific case, the development of STS research in Latin America and the dynamics of its specific agendas.Fil: Kreimer, Pablo Rafael. Universidad Nacional de Quilmes. Departamento de Ciencias Sociales; Argentina. Universidad Maimonides. Centro de Ciencia, Tecniologia y Sociedad.; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaSociety for Social Studies of Science2022-12info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/201365Kreimer, Pablo Rafael; Constructivist Paradoxes Part 2: Latin American STS, between Centers and Peripheries; Society for Social Studies of Science; Engaging Science, Technology and Society; 8; 3; 12-2022; 87-1062413-80532413-8053CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/1893info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.17351/ests2022.1893info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-10T13:03:03Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/201365instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-10 13:03:03.588CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Constructivist Paradoxes Part 2: Latin American STS, between Centers and Peripheries
title Constructivist Paradoxes Part 2: Latin American STS, between Centers and Peripheries
spellingShingle Constructivist Paradoxes Part 2: Latin American STS, between Centers and Peripheries
Kreimer, Pablo Rafael
SITUATED KNOWLEDGE
CENTERS AND PERIPHERIES
GLOBAL SCIENCE
LATIN AMERICA
title_short Constructivist Paradoxes Part 2: Latin American STS, between Centers and Peripheries
title_full Constructivist Paradoxes Part 2: Latin American STS, between Centers and Peripheries
title_fullStr Constructivist Paradoxes Part 2: Latin American STS, between Centers and Peripheries
title_full_unstemmed Constructivist Paradoxes Part 2: Latin American STS, between Centers and Peripheries
title_sort Constructivist Paradoxes Part 2: Latin American STS, between Centers and Peripheries
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Kreimer, Pablo Rafael
author Kreimer, Pablo Rafael
author_facet Kreimer, Pablo Rafael
author_role author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv SITUATED KNOWLEDGE
CENTERS AND PERIPHERIES
GLOBAL SCIENCE
LATIN AMERICA
topic SITUATED KNOWLEDGE
CENTERS AND PERIPHERIES
GLOBAL SCIENCE
LATIN AMERICA
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5.9
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv There is a certain ‘failure’ in what we could call the modern development of the STS field over the past decade, i.e. a large number of studies—particularly empirical—that were deployed from the 1970s onwards. Indeed, one of their original and crucial objectives was to emphasize the local, situated, contingent character of the processes of production and negotiation of knowledge. However, these studies mostly concentrate on one part of the world, i.e. the most developed countries, precisely where modern science, commonly referred to as “Western Science,” developed. This limitation—surely intuitive or “natural”—has several consequences analyzed in this article. In summary, these limitations can be analyzed in terms of the objects of research (the various forms of knowledge) but also in terms of the theories and methods used to account for them. The aim is to discuss the construction of a double (or even triple) peripheral situation, which calls into question the old principles of symmetry and impartiality (Bloor 1976; Collins 1981): on the one hand, the peripheral character of the objects analyzed (i.e. science and scientific development outside Euro-America) and, in parallel, the peripheral situation of the communities of specialists who dedicate themselves to studying them. Connected to this, an additional question emerges: What are the theoretical frameworks and methodologies best suited to account for these objects in their respective contexts? Is it suitable to simply apply to these objects of study the same theoretical frameworks and methods commonly used to analyze hegemonic science? And last but not least, how to approach the (scientific, cultural, political) relationships between different contexts in a highly globalized world? This is the second of two parts: while in the first one I discuss the “failures” of the hegemonic paradigm in STS and its consequences in relation to nonhegemonic contexts, in this second part I focus on the problems raised by post-colonial approaches, on the “peripheral techno-science” as an object for STS scholars and, as a specific case, the development of STS research in Latin America and the dynamics of its specific agendas.
Fil: Kreimer, Pablo Rafael. Universidad Nacional de Quilmes. Departamento de Ciencias Sociales; Argentina. Universidad Maimonides. Centro de Ciencia, Tecniologia y Sociedad.; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
description There is a certain ‘failure’ in what we could call the modern development of the STS field over the past decade, i.e. a large number of studies—particularly empirical—that were deployed from the 1970s onwards. Indeed, one of their original and crucial objectives was to emphasize the local, situated, contingent character of the processes of production and negotiation of knowledge. However, these studies mostly concentrate on one part of the world, i.e. the most developed countries, precisely where modern science, commonly referred to as “Western Science,” developed. This limitation—surely intuitive or “natural”—has several consequences analyzed in this article. In summary, these limitations can be analyzed in terms of the objects of research (the various forms of knowledge) but also in terms of the theories and methods used to account for them. The aim is to discuss the construction of a double (or even triple) peripheral situation, which calls into question the old principles of symmetry and impartiality (Bloor 1976; Collins 1981): on the one hand, the peripheral character of the objects analyzed (i.e. science and scientific development outside Euro-America) and, in parallel, the peripheral situation of the communities of specialists who dedicate themselves to studying them. Connected to this, an additional question emerges: What are the theoretical frameworks and methodologies best suited to account for these objects in their respective contexts? Is it suitable to simply apply to these objects of study the same theoretical frameworks and methods commonly used to analyze hegemonic science? And last but not least, how to approach the (scientific, cultural, political) relationships between different contexts in a highly globalized world? This is the second of two parts: while in the first one I discuss the “failures” of the hegemonic paradigm in STS and its consequences in relation to nonhegemonic contexts, in this second part I focus on the problems raised by post-colonial approaches, on the “peripheral techno-science” as an object for STS scholars and, as a specific case, the development of STS research in Latin America and the dynamics of its specific agendas.
publishDate 2022
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2022-12
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/201365
Kreimer, Pablo Rafael; Constructivist Paradoxes Part 2: Latin American STS, between Centers and Peripheries; Society for Social Studies of Science; Engaging Science, Technology and Society; 8; 3; 12-2022; 87-106
2413-8053
2413-8053
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/201365
identifier_str_mv Kreimer, Pablo Rafael; Constructivist Paradoxes Part 2: Latin American STS, between Centers and Peripheries; Society for Social Studies of Science; Engaging Science, Technology and Society; 8; 3; 12-2022; 87-106
2413-8053
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://estsjournal.org/index.php/ests/article/view/1893
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.17351/ests2022.1893
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Society for Social Studies of Science
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Society for Social Studies of Science
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1842980057619890176
score 12.993085