Bruno Latour & Steve Woolgar - Laboratory Life. The Contruction of Scientific Facts
I was most interested in what this book had to offer in terms of the analysis of problems encountered when entering a foreign environment (because this is what we will be doing with our own projects). The comparisons throughout to Latour and a ‘classical’ ethnographer placed into a foreign world (273), allowed me to consider what it means specifically to be ‘Other’ in a world of science. Early on in the book the classical anthropologist is described as interested in ‘primitive societies’ and when entering the laboratory the individuals observed become ‘tribes of scientists (17).’ Therefore, the issues an anthropologist faces in the Antarctic are somewhat similar to the issues one faces when entering a different system of thought with different discourses/ lexicons; either way it is unknown. In some ways, I saw how entering into a world of scientists created an even stronger sense of ‘Other’ for the anthropologist/sociologists. This may be because of the intermediary status of the observer (53), and how much is shared in terms of “social factors (21)”: language, culture, etc. but then how strikingly different it seems due to highly specialized concepts set up by the science world. Can we rely on a scientist’s own viewpoint of what goes on in the lab? No one audience will be satisfied with the resulting analysis of the data collected (53). It is even suggested that the “…label of ‘historian’ or ‘philosopher’ …might be more acceptable than…’sociologist’ or ‘anthropologist (20),” because a sociological discussion of science may turn into a sociological discussion of scientists (24). But if the goal is to shed light on the minutia of science and how knowledge is constructed within the lab, does it matter? The idea of ‘penetrating the mystique of science’ is shown as soon as the reader begins to understand how strange and foreign the interaction has to become: outside observation and interest forces the scientists to adopt a teaching role (18), but this creates problems because “…scientists change the content of their statements when talking to outsiders… (28)” there will always remain something Other and ‘extraordinary (168)’ about science to the outsiders: this leads to the reconstruction or re-contextualization of events. It says, “Activity in the lab. had the effect of transforming statements of one type into another…(81).” Here lies the complexity of the book and why it makes my brain hurt: multiple and alternate levels of discovery all happening within one laboratory. What is the most valid form of observation? How and why do scientists produce order from disorder (252)? Partial answers to these questions seem to be included in the ‘post script’ which outlines various contrasts in each chapter: the distinction between social and technical issues, between facts and artifacts and the argument for a priori distinctions between common sense and scientific reasoning. It is my hope that we will discuss these specific contrasts more in class.
I found this book interesting and amusing, if not somewhat dry in comparison to the previous anthropological works we’ve encountered thus far. The tone was relatively cold and removed, and far less emotional, but I liked that the observers chose relatively unknown scientists in a fairly small yet highly conventional lab. I also found their approach interesting: they dissected their subjects in immense detail, recording casual conversations, timing behaviors (eating, joking, cleaning, preparing, etc), and explaining their techniques. One of the most striking facets of the book, to me, was the importance the observers placed on truly understanding the private dynamics and fundamental aspects of scientific work. In doing so, they bridged an unspoken divide between two very distinct worlds. This divide is illustrated clearly early in the author’s description of the scientist’s reactions to outside observation: ranging from accommodation to skepticism to confusion, depending on the observers knowledge and incentive (19). In turn, they describe the strangeness of being a newcomer in an “alien” world. Rather than dumbing down seemingly complex technicalities or severely limiting scientific work in order to become more accessible to the “outsider”, this book illuminated, in finite detail, the inner-workings of lab life. Through the study of daily activities, the observers introduced a unique and intriguing approach to understanding the scientific construction of fact. And although the text is highly scientific, it is not aimed at fellow scientists; rather, it belongs to the general public. Similarly, it cannot be entirely categorized as an anthropological text, nor does it belong exclusively to the anthropological world.
“Laboratory Life” offered a rather odd subject for ethnographic observation, which made a debatably dull topic at least somewhat interesting. Whether found enjoyable or not, I felt that this work was important in the sense that it put the practice and community of science in a socially scientific perspective. To the public, science is often thought of as authoritative, obscure, and the discipline is commonly detached from the process and people involved. By deconstructing the origins of scientific fact by studying the processes and people involved we can understand the formulation of scientific “truth” on a much more rational level. The approach of treating the laboratory as a foreign tribe illustrated the potential for ethnographic studies of other modern cultures that wouldn’t commonly be thought of as subject for anthropological studies.
Laboratory Life is a very interesting read; it is an anthropological observation of what many consider to be the most state-of-the-art environment available, the laboratory a place of innovation, scientific method, and reason. While this concept might initially seem preposterous it is indeed brilliant, as Jonas Salk mentions in the introduction the criticism faced in the scientific world is oftentimes an attempt to portray scientists as human, in a profoundly sociological and journalistic literary construction. These perceptions are never observed, studied, or analyzed but merely left at face value as they are; differentially Laboratory Life provides this glimpse into the illusive world of science. Scientists are in fact average human beings according to personality and biology, but they seemingly dive into this parallel world that others rarely understand or comprehend completely, leading very structured and methodical existences. This text also defies the traditional construction of ethnography as in most cases there must be a focused culture, knowledge of their beliefs, technology, and ecology, in a laboratory. Instead we are presented with a collective of highly educated individuals, in a sterile environment, with contemporary, advanced technology, and a set of facts, procedures, methods, and theories they hold to be true, such as beliefs.
Having successfully concluded my reading of "Laboratory Life", and closing the front cover with a definite sense of relief, I am left with various ideas to ponder. Most interestingly however is the idea of ethnography, which is developed in the postscript, being conducted in a culture native to the researcher but still maintaining the element of the unknown. As they explain it, one can still find oneself in a niche, within their own culture, that seems completely alien. This then provides the reassurance that as in “traditional” ethnography “the anthropologist does not know the nature of the society under study, nor where to draw the boundaries between the realms of technical, social, scientific, natural and so on (280).” This idea intrigued me, not because I ever doubted the ability to study aspects of ones own culture, but because of the idea of maintaining some degree of distance within ones field of study. It certainly seemed as though this distance was a frequent matter of concern. Although I am not completely sure as to whether this is an example of distance keeping, and how effective it actually is for research, I found especially amusing the idea that “[the anthropologist] is unwilling to rely on scientists own version of the way the laboratory operates (54).” I think the sentence that summed up perfectly what I found most interesting and enjoyable from the text was, “We retain from "ethnography" the working principle of uncertainty rather than the notion of exoticism. (280)."
I found this reading to be very insightful both as an observance of the ethnographer and the scientist.
As I began to read I couldn't help but feel that I was reading a play the way in which they introduce us to the world of the laboratory and its scientist is very much similar to the method play writers do and it is very ironic that the "observers" are interested in streaming away from implying that humans were to be taken as the primary category of actors within the laboratory(252).
Of course the play-like writing ended shortly and the authors’ world and pursuit was introduced. I find that I like where they were going with this scientific social research, it is obviously very different from the previous readings, but it gives us a sense of what we soon enough will be jumping into, because as I heard from most groups our subjects of study for our projects are mostly people and characters very close to home, so it gives us an idea of what to expect and an idea on how to potentially carry out a research project in this matter.
The idea of studying someone or something close and in a closed environment is a very unique idea and I appreciated what it offered to us a readers, because it makes the scientific world of laboratory seems so much simpler, mainly because of the lack of technical terms in the text and also because as the authors confessed it was a world mostly foreign to them, therefore it became interesting and not intimidating.
I do however think that the very omniscient form of writing is a bit too confusing because we never really know who exactly the “observer” is, I mean we obviously know both authors are involved but who are they? But perhaps that is what they were going for.
Another part of the reading that seemed ironic to me was the form in which they describe every aspect of the laboratory life; to me it felt very scientific. They themselves dissect the laboratory by having a part A and part B, they also talk of the subjects very neutrally and with a detachment which is very similar to the way scientist write, its almost as if their attempt to stay away from the “danger of going native” (29) is ironically subconsciously infiltrated in their research.
Labratory Life offers insight into the discovery and meaning of facts through exploration of the process undergone in a scientific lab, which represents an organized center of knowledge production. Through Woolgar and Latour's commentary on their process of approaching a site that is completely foreign to them, the reader learns how to methodically find and deconstruct evidence on a level that goes beyond recording observations. For example, rather than seeing the scientist's production of document which go unused as records, Woolgar and Latour value them at a deeper level interconnected as a vital level of the project which enables their work to be justified and supported.(Pg. 71)
In examination of how facts were eventually produced from a scientific lab, anthropologists are able to gain insight about what a fact actually is. In this piece, a fact is finally determined to be something that can be supported by evidence and gains common approval, thus it is gauged by our perspectives and societal values. Woolgar and Latour argue that "The determination of the correct or more appropriate interpretation of the function of a modality will depend critically on our knowledge of the context in each particular case"(Pg. 80). Furthermore, knowledge about the world is molded by researchers methods and procedures. Thus facts are ultimately established through drawing connections and gaining credibility.
Overall, I think Laboratory life is valuable in its discussion of beneficial ways to understand what field work results say about individual's perspectives and procedures. Just as scientists do in a lab, anthropologists are trying to draw connections from disorder or mystery in order to produce order and spread knowledge.
This was definitely the most difficult reading we’ve done so far this semester, but I thought it was also one of the most interesting. Part of what makes it difficult is that Latour and Woolgar seem to practice an extremely form-oriented approach to reflexivity. When Rabinow, for example, considered his position as an observer in relation to his subjects, he did so fairly explicitly; the meaning and content of his writing made clear what he was thinking. In contrast, Latour and Woolgar, while they do occasionally make statements directly referencing the conditions of their own status as observers, seem to achieve reflexivity primarily through an intricate—and at times extremely clever—play with the form in which their argument unfolds. One of the best examples of this is the section, at the end of chapter two, in which they lay out the process by which scientists in the lab attempt to transform statements into facts.
The section begins with a question—What makes the production of papers worth the effort put into it?—which the observer is lead to by the fact, established earlier in the chapter, that the production of papers is the “main objective” of the lab’s activity. Having come to this question on the basis of his increasing understanding of the activities surrounding the papers, the observer decides he must now turn to their contents. He quickly realizes, however, that the contents themselves make little sense to him. So, he attempts to apply a classificatory scheme to the papers based on factors that seem comparatively self-evident: the audience to which the papers are addressed and the number of times each one is cited in subsequent papers. Having done this, he arrives at a new question: Why is it that some types of papers, particularly those addressed only to other specialists in the field, receive more citations than others? Like the previous one, this question arises directly out of facts he has just previously established.
Like before, the observer begins to make sense of this question by applying a classificatory scheme. Thanks to the earlier, now-established scheme, the actual contents of the papers now seem more intelligible to him. Using his new found recognition of the importance of the intended audience of a paper, and his earlier-established recognition that, paradoxically, “the various operations of writing and reading which sustain an argument are seen by participants to be largely irrelevant of ‘facts,’ which emerge solely by virtue of these operations,” he applies a scheme to statements made within the papers, based on the intended readership of the publication in which they appear and the extent to which their contingency goes unrecognized and they are thus taken-for-granted facts. Having ordered the contents of papers in this way, the observer can now speculate as to how scientists use these varying types of statements in order to influence the acceptance of a potential fact.
Scientists, the observer determines, transform contingent statements (e.g., a physiological effect of a newly discovered substance) into facts by applying to them other, already-accepted statements, explicitly (often only recently established and therefore worthy of mention and further research in the form of the current statement; e.g., the existence of the substance being studied) or implicitly (and thereby more strongly established; e.g., the basic chemistry principles underlying the design of a testing apparatus).
As they describe this, it dawns on the reader that this is the same process by which Latour and Woolgar have been advancing their argument over the course of the whole preceding chapter. Like the scientists they observe, they have arrived at this point by formulating speculative statements or questions on the basis of what they already believe themselves to know, and then applying to this speculation the rhetorical force of the accepted truths from which it arose.
At the very end of the chapter, Latour and Woolgar reflect on what they have done, acknowledging that, as with the scientists’ papers, once they have reified (and at the same time obscured) this fact-making process in the form of a text, its ultimate success is out of their control. The existence of their facts—no longer really theirs, but belonging more than anything to the text—is now contingent on “the possibility of future qualification.”
In general, I found this book to be a difficult read because of the way it was written, how repetitive it was and how confusing it seemed to be. On the other hand, what I did retain from the book was interesting to me. First of all, the notion of anthropology taking place within a laboratory was an interesting concept. I didn’t think of this on my own initially but it was mentioned that the notion of analyzing science rather than scientists was a concern. In this case, it was science as a realm of observation that needed to be taken into account rather than the scientists themselves. As I read the book, the only fine line I concluded to be valid was that the observer would only have to focus on what the scientists do similarly when faced with a problem or are conducting an experiment. In other words, how the scientific method is applied to a variable of experimentation. Another point in which I found interesting was the notion of what makes a fact a fact. There was a part in the book which mentioned that the observer saw that there was literature in the laboratory, some of which that was outside of the realm of science. This lead me to the conclusion that scientists consider things to be facts once they have been proven and generally accepted by society and then put into literature for all to read. Personally, I wish that I could have kept up with the book’s intensity a bit more because I would have liked to have gotten more out of it. I think that if this book was written from a first person perspective or in a more story telling fashion, I would have gotten more out of the book. On the contrary, the whole idea of the anthropology of science was quite intriguing and is a very interesting area of study to dissect and learn from.
I feel that the basis of, or even the catalyzing thought of, Laboratory Life is Latour’s interest in seeking out the anthropology of knowledge. Latour calls it, “…the first attempt at a detailed study of the daily activities of scientists in their natural habitat” (274). To do this he had to, “become part of a laboratory, to follow closely the intimate processes of scientific work, while at the same time to remain an ‘inside’ outside observer, a kid of anthropological probe to study a scientific ‘culture’ – to follow in every detail what the scientists do and how and what they think” (12). When I read this I thought of the merits of the participant-observer methodology. It would seem to me that this is most applicable in writing “read-worthy” contemporary anthropology. Studies don’t necessarily need literary dressing, but I do think they need to be evocative – and no better way then the aforementioned method. It can obviously be dense and monotonous at times, as the subject kind’ve dictates – however, his ability to frame the individual and collective subjects in a social constructivist manner adds a separate dynamic. Tyler mentioned the socially scientific perspective, and I think we’re remarking on the same great stroke: framing “hard sciences” through the social scope. The success lies in the fact that they deviated from what one would consider normal study material for a Nobel Prize winning lab. There was no mention of the project that won prestige, nor mention of methods of the project, nor the biology. The lab itself was culmination of machine, man, animals, reports, equipment, etc. and was analyzed as a system of production – the attention focused away from any product. I think what LL teaches more than anything is the importance of approach. Would my project on Improv be better if I participated? Would my project be more successful if I looked at the circuit as a whole instead of a single venue? Should I focus on a specific Improv group? What Latour and Woolgar imbibed for me was style in social research. I hope to infuse the same self-consciousness abashed with literary journalism.
Bruno Latour & Steve Woolgar - Laboratory Life. The Contruction of Scientific Facts
ReplyDeleteI was most interested in what this book had to offer in terms of the analysis of problems encountered when entering a foreign environment (because this is what we will be doing with our own projects). The comparisons throughout to Latour and a ‘classical’ ethnographer placed into a foreign world (273), allowed me to consider what it means specifically to be ‘Other’ in a world of science. Early on in the book the classical anthropologist is described as interested in ‘primitive societies’ and when entering the laboratory the individuals observed become ‘tribes of scientists (17).’ Therefore, the issues an anthropologist faces in the Antarctic are somewhat similar to the issues one faces when entering a different system of thought with different discourses/ lexicons; either way it is unknown. In some ways, I saw how entering into a world of scientists created an even stronger sense of ‘Other’ for the anthropologist/sociologists. This may be because of the intermediary status of the observer (53), and how much is shared in terms of “social factors (21)”: language, culture, etc. but then how strikingly different it seems due to highly specialized concepts set up by the science world. Can we rely on a scientist’s own viewpoint of what goes on in the lab? No one audience will be satisfied with the resulting analysis of the data collected (53). It is even suggested that the “…label of ‘historian’ or ‘philosopher’ …might be more acceptable than…’sociologist’ or ‘anthropologist (20),” because a sociological discussion of science may turn into a sociological discussion of scientists (24). But if the goal is to shed light on the minutia of science and how knowledge is constructed within the lab, does it matter?
The idea of ‘penetrating the mystique of science’ is shown as soon as the reader begins to understand how strange and foreign the interaction has to become: outside observation and interest forces the scientists to adopt a teaching role (18), but this creates problems because “…scientists change the content of their statements when talking to outsiders… (28)” there will always remain something Other and ‘extraordinary (168)’ about science to the outsiders: this leads to the reconstruction or re-contextualization of events. It says, “Activity in the lab. had the effect of transforming statements of one type into another…(81).” Here lies the complexity of the book and why it makes my brain hurt: multiple and alternate levels of discovery all happening within one laboratory. What is the most valid form of observation? How and why do scientists produce order from disorder (252)?
Partial answers to these questions seem to be included in the ‘post script’ which outlines various contrasts in each chapter: the distinction between social and technical issues, between facts and artifacts and the argument for a priori distinctions between common sense and scientific reasoning. It is my hope that we will discuss these specific contrasts more in class.
I found this book interesting and amusing, if not somewhat dry in comparison to the previous anthropological works we’ve encountered thus far. The tone was relatively cold and removed, and far less emotional, but I liked that the observers chose relatively unknown scientists in a fairly small yet highly conventional lab. I also found their approach interesting: they dissected their subjects in immense detail, recording casual conversations, timing behaviors (eating, joking, cleaning, preparing, etc), and explaining their techniques.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most striking facets of the book, to me, was the importance the observers placed on truly understanding the private dynamics and fundamental aspects of scientific work. In doing so, they bridged an unspoken divide between two very distinct worlds. This divide is illustrated clearly early in the author’s description of the scientist’s reactions to outside observation: ranging from accommodation to skepticism to confusion, depending on the observers knowledge and incentive (19). In turn, they describe the strangeness of being a newcomer in an “alien” world. Rather than dumbing down seemingly complex technicalities or severely limiting scientific work in order to become more accessible to the “outsider”, this book illuminated, in finite detail, the inner-workings of lab life. Through the study of daily activities, the observers introduced a unique and intriguing approach to understanding the scientific construction of fact. And although the text is highly scientific, it is not aimed at fellow scientists; rather, it belongs to the general public. Similarly, it cannot be entirely categorized as an anthropological text, nor does it belong exclusively to the anthropological world.
“Laboratory Life” offered a rather odd subject for ethnographic observation, which made a debatably dull topic at least somewhat interesting. Whether found enjoyable or not, I felt that this work was important in the sense that it put the practice and community of science in a socially scientific perspective. To the public, science is often thought of as authoritative, obscure, and the discipline is commonly detached from the process and people involved. By deconstructing the origins of scientific fact by studying the processes and people involved we can understand the formulation of scientific “truth” on a much more rational level. The approach of treating the laboratory as a foreign tribe illustrated the potential for ethnographic studies of other modern cultures that wouldn’t commonly be thought of as subject for anthropological studies.
ReplyDeleteLaboratory Life is a very interesting read; it is an anthropological observation of what many consider to be the most state-of-the-art environment available, the laboratory a place of innovation, scientific method, and reason. While this concept might initially seem preposterous it is indeed brilliant, as Jonas Salk mentions in the introduction the criticism faced in the scientific world is oftentimes an attempt to portray scientists as human, in a profoundly sociological and journalistic literary construction. These perceptions are never observed, studied, or analyzed but merely left at face value as they are; differentially Laboratory Life provides this glimpse into the illusive world of science. Scientists are in fact average human beings according to personality and biology, but they seemingly dive into this parallel world that others rarely understand or comprehend completely, leading very structured and methodical existences. This text also defies the traditional construction of ethnography as in most cases there must be a focused culture, knowledge of their beliefs, technology, and ecology, in a laboratory. Instead we are presented with a collective of highly educated individuals, in a sterile environment, with contemporary, advanced technology, and a set of facts, procedures, methods, and theories they hold to be true, such as beliefs.
ReplyDeleteHaving successfully concluded my reading of "Laboratory Life", and closing the front cover with a definite sense of relief, I am left with various ideas to ponder. Most interestingly however is the idea of ethnography, which is developed in the postscript, being conducted in a culture native to the researcher but still maintaining the element of the unknown. As they explain it, one can still find oneself in a niche, within their own culture, that seems completely alien. This then provides the reassurance that as in “traditional” ethnography “the anthropologist does not know the nature of the society under study, nor where to draw the boundaries between the realms of technical, social, scientific, natural and so on (280).”
ReplyDeleteThis idea intrigued me, not because I ever doubted the ability to study aspects of ones own culture, but because of the idea of maintaining some degree of distance within ones field of study. It certainly seemed as though this distance was a frequent matter of concern. Although I am not completely sure as to whether this is an example of distance keeping, and how effective it actually is for research, I found especially amusing the idea that “[the anthropologist] is unwilling to rely on scientists own version of the way the laboratory operates (54).”
I think the sentence that summed up perfectly what I found most interesting and enjoyable from the text was, “We retain from "ethnography" the working principle of uncertainty rather than the notion of exoticism. (280)."
I found this reading to be very insightful both as an observance of the ethnographer and the scientist.
ReplyDeleteAs I began to read I couldn't help but feel that I was reading a play the way in which they introduce us to the world of the laboratory and its scientist is very much similar to the method play writers do and it is very ironic that the "observers" are interested in streaming away from implying that humans were to be taken as the primary category of actors within the laboratory(252).
Of course the play-like writing ended shortly and the authors’ world and pursuit was introduced. I find that I like where they were going with this scientific social research, it is obviously very different from the previous readings, but it gives us a sense of what we soon enough will be jumping into, because as I heard from most groups our subjects of study for our projects are mostly people and characters very close to home, so it gives us an idea of what to expect and an idea on how to potentially carry out a research project in this matter.
The idea of studying someone or something close and in a closed environment is a very unique idea and I appreciated what it offered to us a readers, because it makes the scientific world of laboratory seems so much simpler, mainly because of the lack of technical terms in the text and also because as the authors confessed it was a world mostly foreign to them, therefore it became interesting and not intimidating.
I do however think that the very omniscient form of writing is a bit too confusing because we never really know who exactly the “observer” is, I mean we obviously know both authors are involved but who are they? But perhaps that is what they were going for.
Another part of the reading that seemed ironic to me was the form in which they describe every aspect of the laboratory life; to me it felt very scientific. They themselves dissect the laboratory by having a part A and part B, they also talk of the subjects very neutrally and with a detachment which is very similar to the way scientist write, its almost as if their attempt to stay away from the “danger of going native” (29) is ironically subconsciously infiltrated in their research.
Labratory Life offers insight into the discovery and meaning of facts through exploration of the process undergone in a scientific lab, which represents an organized center of knowledge production. Through Woolgar and Latour's commentary on their process of approaching a site that is completely foreign to them, the reader learns how to methodically find and deconstruct evidence on a level that goes beyond recording observations. For example, rather than seeing the scientist's production of document which go unused as records, Woolgar and Latour value them at a deeper level interconnected as a vital level of the project which enables their work to be justified and supported.(Pg. 71)
ReplyDeleteIn examination of how facts were eventually produced from a scientific lab, anthropologists are able to gain insight about what a fact actually is. In this piece, a fact is finally determined to be something that can be supported by evidence and gains common approval, thus it is gauged by our perspectives and societal values. Woolgar and Latour argue that "The determination of the correct or more appropriate interpretation of the function of a modality will depend critically on our knowledge of the context in each particular case"(Pg. 80). Furthermore, knowledge about the world is molded by researchers methods and procedures. Thus facts are ultimately established through drawing connections and gaining credibility.
Overall, I think Laboratory life is valuable in its discussion of beneficial ways to understand what field work results say about individual's perspectives and procedures. Just as scientists do in a lab, anthropologists are trying to draw connections from disorder or mystery in order to produce order and spread knowledge.
This was definitely the most difficult reading we’ve done so far this semester, but I thought it was also one of the most interesting. Part of what makes it difficult is that Latour and Woolgar seem to practice an extremely form-oriented approach to reflexivity. When Rabinow, for example, considered his position as an observer in relation to his subjects, he did so fairly explicitly; the meaning and content of his writing made clear what he was thinking. In contrast, Latour and Woolgar, while they do occasionally make statements directly referencing the conditions of their own status as observers, seem to achieve reflexivity primarily through an intricate—and at times extremely clever—play with the form in which their argument unfolds. One of the best examples of this is the section, at the end of chapter two, in which they lay out the process by which scientists in the lab attempt to transform statements into facts.
ReplyDeleteThe section begins with a question—What makes the production of papers worth the effort put into it?—which the observer is lead to by the fact, established earlier in the chapter, that the production of papers is the “main objective” of the lab’s activity. Having come to this question on the basis of his increasing understanding of the activities surrounding the papers, the observer decides he must now turn to their contents. He quickly realizes, however, that the contents themselves make little sense to him. So, he attempts to apply a classificatory scheme to the papers based on factors that seem comparatively self-evident: the audience to which the papers are addressed and the number of times each one is cited in subsequent papers. Having done this, he arrives at a new question: Why is it that some types of papers, particularly those addressed only to other specialists in the field, receive more citations than others? Like the previous one, this question arises directly out of facts he has just previously established.
Like before, the observer begins to make sense of this question by applying a classificatory scheme. Thanks to the earlier, now-established scheme, the actual contents of the papers now seem more intelligible to him. Using his new found recognition of the importance of the intended audience of a paper, and his earlier-established recognition that, paradoxically, “the various operations of writing and reading which sustain an argument are seen by participants to be largely irrelevant of ‘facts,’ which emerge solely by virtue of these operations,” he applies a scheme to statements made within the papers, based on the intended readership of the publication in which they appear and the extent to which their contingency goes unrecognized and they are thus taken-for-granted facts. Having ordered the contents of papers in this way, the observer can now speculate as to how scientists use these varying types of statements in order to influence the acceptance of a potential fact.
(continued, next comment...)
Scientists, the observer determines, transform contingent statements (e.g., a physiological effect of a newly discovered substance) into facts by applying to them other, already-accepted statements, explicitly (often only recently established and therefore worthy of mention and further research in the form of the current statement; e.g., the existence of the substance being studied) or implicitly (and thereby more strongly established; e.g., the basic chemistry principles underlying the design of a testing apparatus).
ReplyDeleteAs they describe this, it dawns on the reader that this is the same process by which Latour and Woolgar have been advancing their argument over the course of the whole preceding chapter. Like the scientists they observe, they have arrived at this point by formulating speculative statements or questions on the basis of what they already believe themselves to know, and then applying to this speculation the rhetorical force of the accepted truths from which it arose.
At the very end of the chapter, Latour and Woolgar reflect on what they have done, acknowledging that, as with the scientists’ papers, once they have reified (and at the same time obscured) this fact-making process in the form of a text, its ultimate success is out of their control. The existence of their facts—no longer really theirs, but belonging more than anything to the text—is now contingent on “the possibility of future qualification.”
Danny said:
ReplyDeleteIn general, I found this book to be a difficult read because of the way it was written, how repetitive it was and how confusing it seemed to be. On the other hand, what I did retain from the book was interesting to me. First of all, the notion of anthropology taking place within a laboratory was an interesting concept. I didn’t think of this on my own initially but it was mentioned that the notion of analyzing science rather than scientists was a concern. In this case, it was science as a realm of observation that needed to be taken into account rather than the scientists themselves. As I read the book, the only fine line I concluded to be valid was that the observer would only have to focus on what the scientists do similarly when faced with a problem or are conducting an experiment. In other words, how the scientific method is applied to a variable of experimentation.
Another point in which I found interesting was the notion of what makes a fact a fact. There was a part in the book which mentioned that the observer saw that there was literature in the laboratory, some of which that was outside of the realm of science. This lead me to the conclusion that scientists consider things to be facts once they have been proven and generally accepted by society and then put into literature for all to read.
Personally, I wish that I could have kept up with the book’s intensity a bit more because I would have liked to have gotten more out of it. I think that if this book was written from a first person perspective or in a more story telling fashion, I would have gotten more out of the book. On the contrary, the whole idea of the anthropology of science was quite intriguing and is a very interesting area of study to dissect and learn from.
Laboratory Life
ReplyDeleteI feel that the basis of, or even the catalyzing thought of, Laboratory Life is Latour’s interest in seeking out the anthropology of knowledge. Latour calls it, “…the first attempt at a detailed study of the daily activities of scientists in their natural habitat” (274). To do this he had to, “become part of a laboratory, to follow closely the intimate processes of scientific work, while at the same time to remain an ‘inside’ outside observer, a kid of anthropological probe to study a scientific ‘culture’ – to follow in every detail what the scientists do and how and what they think” (12).
When I read this I thought of the merits of the participant-observer methodology. It would seem to me that this is most applicable in writing “read-worthy” contemporary anthropology. Studies don’t necessarily need literary dressing, but I do think they need to be evocative – and no better way then the aforementioned method. It can obviously be dense and monotonous at times, as the subject kind’ve dictates – however, his ability to frame the individual and collective subjects in a social constructivist manner adds a separate dynamic. Tyler mentioned the socially scientific perspective, and I think we’re remarking on the same great stroke: framing “hard sciences” through the social scope.
The success lies in the fact that they deviated from what one would consider normal study material for a Nobel Prize winning lab. There was no mention of the project that won prestige, nor mention of methods of the project, nor the biology. The lab itself was culmination of machine, man, animals, reports, equipment, etc. and was analyzed as a system of production – the attention focused away from any product.
I think what LL teaches more than anything is the importance of approach. Would my project on Improv be better if I participated? Would my project be more successful if I looked at the circuit as a whole instead of a single venue? Should I focus on a specific Improv group? What Latour and Woolgar imbibed for me was style in social research. I hope to infuse the same self-consciousness abashed with literary journalism.