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'.