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
- Institución
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
- OAI Identificador
- oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/201365
Ver los metadatos del registro completo
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 |