The cognitive and the social structure of STS

Citation
P. Van Den Besselaar, The cognitive and the social structure of STS, SCIENTOMETR, 51(2), 2001, pp. 441-460
Citations number
9
Language
INGLESE
art.tipo
Article
Categorie Soggetti
Library & Information Science
Journal title
SCIENTOMETRICS
ISSN journal
0138-9130 → ACNP
Volume
51
Issue
2
Year of publication
2001
Pages
441 - 460
Database
ISI
SICI code
0138-9130(200106)51:2<441:TCATSS>2.0.ZU;2-#
Abstract
The differentiation of scientific fields into sub-fields can be studied on the level of the 'scientific content' of the sub-field, that is on the leve l of the products, as well as on the level of the 'social structures' of th e sub-field, that is on the lever of the producers of the content. By compa ring the behavior of the constructs with the behavior of the constructors, we are able to demonstrate the analytical distinction between a cognitive a nd a social approach in an empirical way. This will be illustrated using the case of integration and differentiation in Science and Technology Studies (STS), Elsewhere, using relations between documents, I showed how STS is characterized by strong differentiation ten dencies. In this paper I address the question to what extent this different iation is also reflected in the social structure of the STS field. Can STS scholars and STS research groups be classified in terms of the sub-fields? Or do researchers and institutes carry an integrative role in the STS field ? Are the relations between the sub-fields of STS maintained by individual researchers or research institutes, and to what extent? The analysis in thi s paper reveals that this is generally not the case. Although we are able t o distinguish analytically between the cognitive and social dimension of th e development of the research field, we find similar patterns of differenti ation an the social level too. At the same time, this differentiation diffe rs in some respects from the cognitive differentiation pattern. Consequently, the social and the cognitive dimensions of the STS field are not independent as no serious STS scholar would argue - but also not identi cal, as radical constructivists claim, but are strongly interacting Further analysis may reveal the leading dynamics, that is answering the question w hether the 'social' follows the 'cognitive', the other way around, or wheth er the dynamics has the pattern of 'co-evolution'.