1. “Multilevel Game”―STS in Edinburgh
Name: Li Jian
Internship location: The Institute for the Studies of Science, Technology and Innovation(ISSTI), University of Edinburgh
Supervisor: Dr. Shen Xiaobai( Edinburgh University), Professor Wiebe Bijker( Maastricht University)
Boundary
Professor David Bloor was
trained in philosophy and
mathematics. His academic
focus include the Kuhn/Popper
debate, the cognitive functions
of metaphor, SSK, and
Wittgenstein's philosophy.
Dr. Shen Xiaobai is working on
the intellectual regimes in China.
In general, her research is on the
social analysis of technology,
their markets, and the
embedding broader context.
Professor Francesca Bray(B) is
interested in Material Culture,
China and East Asia, Gender
regimes, Agriculture and the
politics of food, Technology and
society.
Dr. Jane Calvert(C) works in the
area of Science and Technology
Studies with a focus on the life
sciences, particularly synthetic
biology.
Professor Robin Williams(W),
as the director of ISSTI,
promotes the development,
conduct, and dissemination of
interdisciplinary research. His
research focuses on the social
shaping of technology
Professor Joyce Tait(T) is
working on risk assessment and
regulation, policy analysis,
strategic and operational
decision making in companies
and public bodies.
Interdisciplinary
Intervention
Reflection
Fig 1. STS in Edinburgh and China, and its future
Reflection vs. Intervention: STS research is a “multi-
level game” that requires one to maintain his “own
purposes and intellectual outcomes as well as the
sponsor’s concerns”. It is the conceptual work and
analytical movements rather than intervention practice
that extend STS’ influence into other domains.
Pros and Cons of Intervention: An instrumental
relationship with industry and government can
degenerate knowledge and cause researchers’ sight
loss of their own intellectual goals in achieving research
excellence. But its emphasis of policy and practical
applications brings a considerable amount of research
funds into STS which provides an access to “contribute
to debates about the benign use of science and
technology”
Interdisciplinary program: The very motivation of
doing interdisciplinary program is to gain different
strength and critical mass.
Pros and Cons of Interdisciplinary program : “Every
now and then, the forces which put people going to
different directions exceed the forces which pull people
together and get collaboration together”. Besides, one
has to compromise his or her analytical position when
working with people from different background,
especially for policy consultancy. What’s more, one can
risk losing his or her own epistemology and the ability
to judge the quality of different knowledge claims if he
or she starts borrowing from all over the places.
Reflection vs. Intervention: STS is overly focused
on negativity of innovation and industry. The
classical SSK research is declining, but the legacy is
still there. Some STS scholars have adopted a “dual
publication strategy” that emphasizes the
importance of publication in both academic and
application-orient journals.
Reasons for Intervention: There is increasing
pressure on university academics to demonstrate
the impact of their research which is generally
seen in terms of influencing policy makers. The
conventional academic environment only
recognizes reflexivity of academic research, and it
is much easier for fundamental science than social
science in academic system to get strong
recognition.
Interdisciplinary vs. boundary: STS has become a
discipline, and is no longer interdisciplinary. It is
under the pressure to improve its academic
credibility. It’s becoming more and more restricted
in the methods one can use and the kinds of issues
one should discuss
Pros and Cons of Interdisciplinary program : One
can understand better the interaction that takes
place in different areas of science. STS scholars
sometimes do not have sufficient knowledge to
judge the quality of certain scientific research and
thus fail to give a critical reflection on some
arguments.
Reflection vs. Intervention: There is no future
for STS.
Notice: We met Professor David Bloor in the
Christmas Party of ISSTI in December. We asked
him the question about the future of STS, and
he replied by using “no future” and a hand
gesture showing declining trend( we didn’t
have more time for further talk as he had to
leave soon). We later confirmed with Professor
Robin Williams. According to him, David Bloor
thinks that SSK is the core of STS research, and
SSK in Edinburgh is declining while innovation
study represented by social shaping of
technology (STI) is rising.
(Ⅰ)(Ⅳ)
(Ⅱ)(Ⅲ)
Biotechnology
and GM Crops
Public
Scientist
Policy
makers
NGO
Media
Farmers
Fig 2. Interviews about GM crops and biotechnology
Summary: None of W, T, B and C is
against GM crops and biotechnology, but
the manipulation of technology by
certain forces. The core issue is how to
achieve robust knowledge among various
actors by locating GM crops and
biotechnology in specific social context.
Critics: NGO’s anti-GM position has a much stronger power over public
mind than innovation actors because NGO is perceived as neutral actor
without special interest. But in fact, many NGOs have financial relation
with political parties. NGO’s position in GM debate is heavily framed by
some researchers who move from NGO into academia.
NGOs are not always opposed to new technologies. But under certain
circumstances, they may become locked in if they have a community of
public opinion which is receptive to their messages of environmental
hazard.
Critics: It’s undemocratic to
impose ideologically motivated
groups’ views of GM crops on
the rest people. The public voice
has something to contribute,
but should not be treated equal
to the voices of experts.
Critics: Media fail to judge the
quality of the evidence put
forward by NGO, and adopt a
conservative way of balancing
the arguments by NGOs, Public
and scientists.
Critics: Scientists are losing authority
in policy making, and they probably
would feel unconfident about
intervening in social controversies.
Technical specialists should be
encouraged to contribute to policy
debate more effectively. Demarcation
should be made between public
institutions and commercial institutions
in GMOs.
Critics: As a consequence of the
emergence of biotechnology and
rise of global capitalism, traditional
agriculture skills developed by
farmers are losing gradually in the
waves of industrialization and
globalization. It is idealistic to
assume that GM crops is compatible
with traditional agriculture skills
STS in China: Technology studies as a domain is and should be constituted differently on the basis of “available strengths of
different disciplines within that country”, and it emerges as an international movement rather than within an independent
context. The Chinese context doesn’t mean STS in China should emerge as a Chinese own STS, but as part of global STS because
that will be “analytically incorrect” and “politically counter-productive”.
Situation in China: In terms of analytical tradition, technology studies in China favor quantitative rather than qualitative
research, and there is a weak tradition of walking into labs to explore knowledge production. There is not a strong base of
social development and tradition of critical social science. From the perspective of public understanding of science and
technology, China’s modernization experience has entailed neglect of its ambivalent sides and mixed outcomes. STS education
also plays an indispensable role in bringing it into certain area because ideas don’t just come through the “vehicle of text”, but
also move through “training people and body knowledge”.
Critics: A flexible regulation
model is needed in dealing
with different technologies
Role of STS: Both SSK and the growing technology
studies in Edinburgh are concerning about
democratic problem at the heart of STS. ISSTI has
become a “trading zone” where people bring in
their perspectives and take some knowledge out of
it. And it is good at combining these different
“components” together.
My arguments: I think STS should and could
develop into a “public sphere” where different
social actors can communicate, negotiate and
cooperate with each other. And STS scholars can
play the role of “public intellectuals”, who have the
credibility from policy makers, public and other
social actors to do the work of negotiation and
knowledge transfer in controversies.
ISSTI is established in
2000 to bring together
groups of academics and
individual researchers
across the University of
Edinburgh who are
involved in research,
teaching and knowledge
transfer on social and
policy aspects of science,
technology and
innovation.
Network
Coordinated by the
Science, Technology and
Innovation Studies group
in the School of Social and
Political, ISSTI also
involves colleagues from
other specialist centers
including the Innovation
group in the Business
School, the Japanese
European Technology
Studies Institute in
Economics, the Centre for
Intellectual Property and
Technology Law in Law,
Edinburgh College of Art,
the Social Informatics
Cluster in the School of
Informatics, groups in the
Schools of Engineering
and Geosciences, and the
Centre for Population
Health Sciences.
Approach
ISSTI’s approach is
characterized by
interdisciplinary research
within the social sciences
and cooperation with
scientists, engineers,
managers, and medical
specialists. ISSTI is
committed to bringing its
expertise and research
findings to a wide range
of audiences. Much of its
work is explicitly geared
to policy and practice and
involves cooperation with
innovators, decision-
makers and other
stakeholders.
Research idea generated from interviews:
1 co-production of rice knowledge (mainly seed selection and pesticide use) between
famers and local-based agricultural researchers in China.
2 power relations within science labs in universities and companies in China and its
consequence on knowledge production. (Inspired by Hofstede’s theory of Five Culture
Dimensions and Latour’s lab research)
Student name: Li Jian
Program: CAST 2012-2014
Email: j.jian@student.maastrichtuniversity.nl