STS as Method

|ohn Law

lntroduction

How do science and technology shape the world? Or medicine and engineering? How
does the world in turn shape them? And how, if at a11, might we intervene in these
processes? These are core questions for science and technology studies, and STS authols
tackle them by asking how science (and technology) work in practice. This means that
they operate on the assumption that "technoscience" is a set of sociaI and material
plactices. Then they note that those practices work in different ways in different loca-
tions: laboratolies, firms, and hospitals, and also (since STS interests are wide) for finan-
cial traders, farms, care homes, environmentai movements, and indigenous ways of
knowing. They look at how theories, methods, and materials are used in practice in
specific social, organizational, cultural, and national contexts-and they look at the
effects of those practices. So the first lesson is this: 5TS ąttends to practices.
How did this arise? One answer is that STS started by looking at "the scientific
method." It showed that scientists don't usually folIow philosophers' Iules. Science
is powerful, but in practice the scientific method is material and messy, (The same is
true for social science method.) More than forty years have passed, but still STS looks
at messy methods, scientific and otherwise, at how they get shaped, and also at what
they actualły r7o. It argues that technoscience plactices are methods that shape and
reproduce the social world. Indeed, I want to suggest, mofe stlongly, that STS may be
understood as the study of method in practice-that method, broadly conceived, lies
at the heart of STS. This chapter therefore has a double focus. I both describe STS's
own methods and explore the methods in the practices that it studies. Necessarily I do
this from a particular "situated" point of view, that of a material-semiotics in which
materials and meanings ale woven together, Others in STS wil1 understand method
differentlv.
 |ohn Law
\

InonewayoranothelSTSalmostalwaysWorksthroughcasestudies.Theseevoke,
illustrate,disrupt,instluct,andhelpSTStocraftandrecraftitstheory(HeutsandMol
2012;Yates-DoerrandLabuski2015).Thoughthestatusofcasestudiesisasourceof
2OO7; Gad and Ribes 2014; Jensen
controversy (Beaulieu, Scharnhorst, and Wouters
2014),nonetheless,ifyouwanttounderstandSTS_andSTStheory-youneedtoread
and scallops interact in practice
it through its cases. such cases include how fishermen
(Callon1986),howengineersandmilitarychiefscreateaWarplane'howworkina
forces, how primatology reproduces
laboratory generates new theories about physical
aboriginal Australians,
patriarchy, and how environmental scientists misunderstand
they think of theory as abstract, But the
some outside the discipline find this difficult:
and the empirical get rolled together
sTs focus on practice means that theory, method,
(and sometimes objects). They are all Part of the same
Weave
with social institutions
and cannot be teased apart,
early STS rejected philosophers' sto_
In the next Section, "Shaping," I describe how
is shaped bY social interests, In
ries about scientific method and argue,ttr4{ science
that technoscience methods also
the ,,Structuring,, section I usę feminlst §TS,tb show
shape or format the social. The "Methods at the
center" section pushes this
in turn
furtherbysuggestingthateverything,socialandnatural,isshapedinpractices.The
section on "Difference" shows how this varies
in different practices and opens up the
possibiliĘofapoliticsofthings.In..KnowingSpaces,,Ibrieflyreviewhowmethods
and institutions; and the
link with subjects, objects, expressions and representations,
,,Conclusion,, Ieviews the argument of the chapter as a whole, Along the way boxes
give a flavor of particular STS case studies,

5haping

What's Wrong with Epistemology: How STS Started

or technologies reflect social inter_
Technoscience is shaped by society: scientific ideas
ests.ManyinSTSsaythis.Butwheredoestheargumentcomefrom?Iforeshadowed
ananswerintheintroduction.Fiftyyearsagomostofthosewhothoughtaboutsci.
philosophers
uses the scientific method,
ence believed that science is special because it
was that the scientific method is espe-
debated its character, but the general consensu§
generalizations which explain
cially good at collecting accurate data, generating logical
thatdata,andtestingthosegeneralizations.Philosophersgenerallysaidthatscientific
knowledge_good,ttue,oraccurateknowledge-growsifpeopleadoptthescientific
interference, they said
method (Popper 1959). In lesponse to Nazi and Soviet political
 STS as Method
33

Pre|udice distorts how scientists observe phenomena, erodes logicai leasoning/ and
undermines objectivity.
The earliest sociology of science shared this view (Merton 7957,1, but
STS came into
being by reacting against it in two quite different WayS. Some said that this
was a nice
Picture in theorY but that in practice scientific methods in a class or gendered society
Cannot escaPe social Power (SlackI972). "lhis means that scientitic knowledge
is irre-
deemablY ideological, Others argued that science is necessarily social. Scientists
are
trained to see the worid in particular disciplinary (and therefore sociai) ways.
They
work with aPProPriate experimental arrangements and theories to identify
core scien-
tific Puzzles and what will count as appropriate so]utions to those puzzles. They
also
learn whom they can trust. This "sociology of scientific knowledge,, (SSK) (Barnes
1977;
Bloor 7976; Collins 1975) drelv on the work of historian Thomas Kuhn (1970b),
It said
that science, its knowledge, its methods, and its practices are disciplinary cultures
and
that scientific knowledge is shaped in interaction between the world on the
one hancl
and the culture of science, including its methods, on the other,
Note three Points before moving on. First, in SSK it doesn't matter whether
scientific
knowledge is true or false. Since the same kinds of sociai processes ale at work
in each,
we need the same methods to explain both (David Bloor
[1976l called this the ,,prin_
ciPle of sYmmetry"). Second, scientific knowledge doesn't reflect nature. tnstead it
is a
practical tool for handling and making sense of the world, In this philosophically
prag-
matist Position either scientific tools do the job or they don't. Knowledge that works
in practice is taken to be true. That which doesn't is taken to be false, And there is no
other way of knowing truth. And then third, following Kuhn, SSK added that
theories,
methods, PercePtions, practices, and institutional arrangements are all mixed together:
that methods are not simply techniques but carry personal, skill-related, theoretical,
and other agendas (Kuhn 797Oa; Polanyi 1958; Ravetz 1973). This means that
the STS
concern with methods sPills over into much that is not obviously methodological
because methods Cannot be separated from their social context, These become
cul-
tural, Practical, materialiy based, theoretically implicated, institutionally located, and
socially shaped loutines or procedures, all raveled up with everything else.

Social Shaping
SSK oPened uP SPace for laboratory studies which ethnographically explored
the con-
struction of knowledge (Knorr Cetina 1981; Latour and Wooigar 1986; Lynch
t990;
Traweek 1988). It also, and a jittte differently, asked how science, its methods,
and its
findings are shaped. SSK answerecl this question in two closely reiated WayS, FiISt it
said,
as I have just noted, that scientists work wlth cultural tools. And second,
it said that
 sT
lohn Law
34

dt
th
Box 1.1 th
Statistics: Case Study 1
m
CorrelationiSaWayofmeasuringhowtwovariablesrelatetooneanother.Here,sanex-
,":::::T:,i:::T: (or not) is
(nominal) variable,
a
bi
ample, Vaccination (oI not) is on"e
Sa
second'Ifnoneofthosevaccinatedcatchthediseaseandallthoseunvaccinateddo,then
thetwovariablesarehighlyinverselycorrelated.Wetendtotakestatisticsforglanted. be nl
tools for handling data that can
invented. They are
But measules like correlation are ways, and o]
they may be Constructed in different
quantified, Anc1 since they are invented, e:
about them,
statisticians may get into disputes in 1905 the Plotago-
(1978) iooked at one such disPute, e]
SSK writer Donald MacKenzie
B
nists-GeorgeUdnyYuleandi(arlPearson-hadinventedtwodifferentwaysofmeasul-
ingcorrelatlon.Yule,sapproachwasstraightforwarcl.Pearson,sWasmorecomplicated:he
assumedthatvariables,.fl".."dnormaldistributions.Why?MacKenziemakestwoalgu- o
pearson,s Pearson had PreviouslY worked on
approach.
ments about how intelests shaped Ir
normaldistribution(the,.bellc.'.,,",,1sohefounditnaturaltotl-rinkaboutcorreiations
to correlation also d
to do so, But his approach
in this way. It was in hts cognitiveintelest
Ci
fittedhissocialagendas.A"bell-curvewayofthinkingaboutcorrelationmadeiteasier
t(
tothinkaboutthesupposedSuperiolityofmiddle.classoverworking-classpeople.The
and the working
were toward the top of the curve, it
middle classes (including Pearson) suggests that
lay totvard the bottom, MacKenzie
classes (in need of eugenic improvement) a
was a]so in Pearson's socidl interests,
lris complex way of calculating correlation ]r

n
t
scientificknowledgeisshapedbysocialintelests.DonaldMacKenzie6978)exploled a
correlation (see box 1,1),
this for a contlovelsy about statistical I
Statisticalplocedures(likeotherscientifictheoriesormethods)aretoolsformaking
senseoftheworld.But(thisisthenewmove)howthosetoolsareconstructeddepends
onthetasksthatWeSetthem.Yule,smethodforcalcuiatingcorrelationwasusefulin
manyWayS,butitwasnevergoingtodothekindofworkthatPearsonsoughttodo
withhistetlacholiccoefficientofcorrelation,namely,tohelptoshowwhethersome
kinds of people are superior to othels,
MacKenzie,scasestudyismuchmoresophisticatedthanthisbriefaccountSuggests.
Forinstance,hearguesthatbothprofessionalandbloadelsocialclassintelestsareat in ways
both that intelests may shape science
work. It,s also important to understand nothing
thefact that intelests are at work tells us
invisible to those invo]ved and that knowledge,
about the validity of the science
involved. knowledge that works, "good"
we disapprove (Barnes
is necessarily shaped, and sometimes by social intelests of which
I977).Andfinally,MacKenzie,sstudyisjustoneexampleofSSKatwork.Forinstance,
JonathanHarwood(1'976)Wroteonraceandintelligence,andtheSameapproachwas
 ST5 as Method
35

developed to explore technology in the soclnl cottstrrtction

of techttolog1l (scoT). why did
the penny-farthing bicycle give rł,ay to the safety bicycle?
Wiebe Biiker (1995) Showed
the PennY-farthing was linkecl to macho folms of masculinity.
Women-and many
men-cor,rldn't orweLen't supposed to ricle it. But since this
meant that the market for
bicYcles was small, it was in the intelests of nranufactulers
to cleate a bicycie that was
safer and more modest. Here gendel and commercial
interests together shaped a tech_
nologY, And (another example) Cynthia Cockburn
0999) argued that the technologies
of the precomputer plint trade expressed and reproduced
both class and gender inter_
ests: the creation of hear,y manual work was one
iust of the mechanisms wolking to
exclude Women. (For further SCoT studies, see Biiker, Htrghes,
and Pinch [1987], and
Bijker and Law [1992].)

Objectivity, Nature, and Culture

In contemPorarY STS tlre iciea that science can be separated
from the social has almost
disaPPeared, But the insight that technoscierrce and society
ale woven together also
came from feminisnr. For instance, Donna Haraway (1988)
talked of the ,,God trick,,
to describe the rnistaken ancl self-serving claim that science speaks
impartialiy, The
idea-or the ideal-of objectivity has a long and varied history, (See Daston [1999]
and tlre case studY in box 1.2 below.) Usually this impties impartiat
detachment from
1ocal PreIudices, blinkers, and idiosyncrasies. But Haraway
argued that knowledges and
nethods are irredeemably situated The stories they tell about the worid
always reflect
their' location and reproduce social agendas. Achieving
the God-like status of being
above everYthing is impossible, though the myth that this
can be achieved retains a
powerfui grip.
To saY tJljs isnot tO ob.ect to scjelzce. We ale a]l ,located. ąut does lt also tne;lrl
tl7at eveIYtłling is subjective? Haraway's response js that we can
hang on to objec_
tivitY bY making two nlethodological ancl politicat moves. First, scientists and social
scjentjst' lleed to atknorr/edge źbeu,olł.llsr,ria1 1otlzżjaz. AlldsecorlĘ tżęrneer/
ŹŻ'Ć'2,Ź Ź/7"vŹ /ć)ćż"ŹżŻ2ż'/?,'"ż/?/2ż.Żżże-s;azzt/ zżr
ta
ól/żfć/ q)oćs ,?§ n]aćrer- oź, O?,tlLdl
their own right, For Haraway, obiectivity nquliy in
is cioubly "partial,, because it
is one-sided and because it also knows that it
recognizes that it is incomplete.
to achieve objectivit,v, scientists Her argument is that
and social scientists need to
:hey write rather than hiding be ąccoutltable for what
behind the fiction that what tlley are Ieportingcolnes
,jirect and unmediated fronr nature.
sanclra Harding makes a similar argument.
calls "strong
what
'he objectivity" glows out of a self-critical examination of
the social basis
; knowing-a way of doing science
or social science that explores the position
lestions the assumptions) of those producing (and
knowledge (Harding 1993). The idea
 STS as \'l
|ohn Law
36

s tru ctu r

Box 1.2
Separating Science from Society: Case Study 2
InLondoninthe1660sinthenewlycreatedRoyalSocietyRobertBoylewaswrestling , )_ _,_

withthequestion:howcanwereliably]earnaboutnature?Theanswerwasn,tobvious.
the Cleation of the world, Boyle
For instance, the Bible was full of powerful stories about __ _}_*-
wasinterestedinairpressure.AdevoutAnglicanandaroyalist,healsowantedtodivide
factsabouttheworld(ornature)frompoliticsandGod.Hedidthisbymakingaradical i " - i,
proposal.Wecanlearnaboutnature,hesaid,ifwedothreethings.First,weneedto
appalatus, an ail pump, It Was
conduct reliable expeliments. We need an experimental
the vely idea of an experiment was
large, complex, expensive, and difflcult to run, But
anoveity.Thisisthefirstinnovation.HistoriansShapinandSchaffer(1985)callthisa
materiąItechnology.tsutmorewasneeded.TheexperimentsneededWitnesses,hutnot
evelyonecouldcometoLondontoseethoseexperimentsforthemselves.Theyneededto -i-]n|5
a literary technology, in which expeTimen-
be told about them. This led to the cleation of
and matter-of-fact way, sticking to the facts, and
tal accounts were wlitten in a modest
excludingopinionsandspeculations.Thiswasthesecondbisinnovation.ButthereWasa
To answer this question, Boyle
third question: who could be trusted as a reliable witness?
reliable Witnesses were independent,
drew from the English legal system. In a Coult of law
Servantscouldnotbetrustedbecausetheywerenotindependentoftheirmasters.Nei-
thercouldwomen:theywerebeholdentohusbands,fathers,orbrothels.Andthisisthe
sociąl technology,
third innovation: the cleation of what shapin and schaffer
call a

Thisisthefoundationofcontemporarytechnoscience.Natureisseparatedfromthe
that separate them from opinions
social. It is imagined that facts can be described in ways
specialists can decide about those facts, This is
and social contexts. And only disinterested
,,God tlick" came from (Shapin 1984; Shapin and Schaffer
where what Haraway calls the
1 985).

isthatknowledge-makersarepaltofwhattheystudyandthattheilmethodsshould
feflect this.
from? steven shapin
But where did the idea of objectivity as impartiality come
andSimonSchaffer(1985)Su8gestthatthisWaScleatedinverypalticulalSocialcil-
(see the case Study in box 1,2),
cumstances in London in the 1660s and the ].6705
from "the social" and
At this historicalty impoltant moment "natule" was separated
institutionalized, Natural science
''the political" and this separation WaS successfully
came into being in Europe_and later across the world.
A passive nature that might
be known and masteled was divided from people who
wele active_and male, At the
same time/ objectivity was sepalated from subjectivity
and opinion and impaltiality
from partiality.

l-l'
 ST5 as Method
37

5tructu ring

--1arawaY (1997) raises questions about parts of Shapin and Schaffer,s account, but
:nost, including HarawaY, accept its overall significance, This
is the moment when the
Jod trick was embedded in science, and the methods of the latter appeared
to step
_-,utside the social. But the stories about Boyle, Pearson, and class, gendeą
and tech-
.:o1ogy in the print trade hint at something more. They
suggest that technoscience
-: i-lot simply shaped by the social but helps in turn to shape it. Indeed
many in STS
':que that knowledges and methods are often shaped in ways that are gendered, racist,
,-:ss-based, and/or imPerialist and aiso that they help to reproduce
such inequalities.
-,-lt hor,v?

Feminist cultural studies of science

::e thlrd case study (see box 1.3) shows how one version of primatology carried and
:---':oduced a whole range of social concerns (and horrors),
including sadism, mascu_
,"t self-birthing, Patriarchy, anxieties about chitd-rearing, and assumptions
about
_. :1.tional nuciear families.
-t rt-as shaPed bY
concerns that could not be separated from those of educated, mid-
- --:1ass, mid-twentieth-century America, But, at the same time, it helped to give shape
-lose Concerns and reProduce them. Social concerns fed into technoscience prac_
-: dDd technoscience fed these back into social agendas. These were,,Structuring,,
:':tiCes-methods-that give sirnultaneous form to science experiments, structures
- -r:nlS of knowing and social Structules. Removed from concerns
about nuclear fami-
: hild-rearing, and gender roles, it is vely
-
' difficuit to make sense of the Wisconsin
: ,_
:]lnents at all.
:';i łrow to study that Structuring? Haraway draws on feminist cultural
studies.
'
: ie\- telm here is nąnątive. Narratives are embedded in texts, materials, and
meth_
l ]lld in turn draw on tropes. Tropes are figures of speech or metaphors,
Think, for
] ::].e, of Phrases like "society is an organism" or the notion of ',scientific
discovery,,
- .]'ntlast these with "society is a machine," or "scientific invention,,,They do dif-
,:.--,: kiildS of work, Such tropes shape our narratives and
carry clouds of connota-
,-, ihis is not
a complaint: tropes make up the weave of language and culture,
They
- ,l nlake us what We are. But they also carry poiitical and social agendas. And this
::cn the insight of feminist STS: that formatting work is done in storylines
and
:::]'ticesinwhichtheseareembedded.So,forinstance,technosciencestoriesmay
, -:' ize sex-gender differences, Anthropologist Emiiy Martin talks about
metaphors
-.'ded bodies in pregnancy (Martin 1998) and immune system discourse (Martin
 John Law

Box 1.3
Primatology: Case
Study 3
Primatology is the stuc
of the Sreat apes, But
think ofJane Goodall_ h( should theY be studied?
,.Tr,ists live *",. l* Sometimes-
observe natulal ,"nurrr,
others place'',rn il;;",lrfi::iH"1]'il:.Tm*:::;
both to observe b.hu";::
imPortant variab]es.
th€ story ," n". ,."i or]';:: ł?r::::ol o."", n.rr*ay (r989) tells
In the 1950s and the
i960s HarrY Harlow's pri
velsity of Wisconsin_Ma Research Laboratory
a mastel communicatorLdison
was
";
;;;;;.mate at the Uni-

an d q u e s ti on s th
"
a t refl ec::
o o ,"
"-i,HillT
"oiu-l i:' ffj:,:"j ";::l, :'1': :,:,
Post-Wo1l! war,,;;;;;;
the nuclear family of
il:i:.l:li:J.'
;,ń;;
The o1:1:1:,i*'"ties

1".* ::,. " .,":f§:ffi ]::ł"# this holding

ń ;; or, *",, z
".u
:l.Tf :*:,::T;H"T:#*:..
il;1TTHT'Jj;.TT;1,1"""",rr.,i,,g,u",ffi
;;: ;'., * :H;ilff ;ll::,:n #ilil
:fi li ;*trffi mi gh t ch i 1

:,"1"1i;
;Ę, ffilil: ;§'#..rT il;ff ;,,To.: "''
u th a n wi th th o s e cl o s e rel a tive s
rnese were well planned and ran exPeriment after
1;1t managed_ur,o"u'o" experi-
surlogate mother often sadistic.
saclistic.
j
expe.iment. an,. rłl". ń^.:.__ _ l
exper.iment. .l-his One example is the

L
I to be secure. .;#;;flli:;i: ;j".';;il:l:T:"
",,. ^_i)]^]tlQ .", *"i,"i"",i,-.,.,
vaguelY simian shape,
needed
mother? A wire shape
with somethin- il; a surlogate
,;; *n" was the minimum
E secure a version or
_u*.,_,uiio;;;:::::"i,j::'
nai love? Harlor,v and
his
needed to
to psychosis (there 1
young simians
was u
ffi
l#l
think of
",
.n.,-l",-"ń,ffiT:;1il##*5i:iF:,T"T;
ffi 1uuT".""..;;;;;ui*..*,.n a caticature *ori,"'i:;T #."#,,,
turned out, survived oru rlo.n"l.rrri,
:ace and a feeding
Fr latter.
with the teat. lntants, it
|---]

t..'
1994). Cultura] ana]yst.Jackie
Stacey (]g97)explores
the role of the monstrous
i
cer' The insight that
power generur., ,r,".,."r'ii;i::
lhas also ::::i:
in can-
(RYan-Flood anct been exPlored in feminist
cilt'zoto;, while Lorraine writing

i1.1i[T,JJi;:;:T:Tfi ;:;.,T:iT:.i"l,::",];:,].§::ff i:,;.,"TTff :":,"#

that interfere with answel is to Create
,n"."l"l, "j]"lr^_ lu.u*uu'S
cyborg (Haraway ,r;;;'iji::ff so, for instance,
il*.l"".", :iT,"ff:
r-created destructive
machine_human enha ".:T,T#j
ement, this is a set m
ies, including the
alstii
of partial .""""J;"r'r;lT;i:lffi'iT1:

;ill":ilniiffi ;:*T.lfj.T,,Jffi t#=#t****,".*m

 jr5 as Method

39
]erformativity
, rechnoscience pI
u|" shaPed by
,.-.e lr,orld. Thi, but also shape the
-"u::t]:': socia].
,:philosophr,;;;HiT::Ir;::T#:r,ye,,,perf o.ń;;;;]i.?_| j_l,ffi
. :llTi ;:"fi:T" [Au tin l gl słli.;ff
ffi ',".r;ii
s

rstood as a perform"".";";'r;; :H
I do ",,
"
.ilil; :]
"

:.al.have real errects' idea that

ffJ#aturgical
: 1elĄ,focus for
sTs: ,lTl:,o"i;"';;:;1;;il;:
|on;',ffi:',':T
17' 'n", o"-o,-u",",
r olS oouble
exPlore how methorls ' move suggests
fhink, for instan( ,r, ,;;;;.'
staged'
about the
]:iucture people o"|,o,^uo'u
,ili#T;;"ilffur."'''
aclmit that they ,oa'
::':::j:::.l##;ŁT5*;:n;:Ę:i,,,.,,T:
"
men or Women,
understand
questions, are
-, ordinal ,.ura'"'and
(which su'gests are wiiting
-:ke a "knowl"o*"
ro.,,l]_.l,.*i:'" ,*;;*#"'JrT,'."'
that theY are buying.into
None of ,nr, i*§"" somethin§
_:cler of things.
,n" ,. "'', works is it given
.:ln,t. (what or,,u,,,,.1l'|1 u".uu," ;."J::::T:"'Jffi:Tr in th3

,.n:.l,.*::iffi
#J:#J:#ł#§:.".i,,:"#fr
exist unti]
:*,::l::#łi;j
the twentieth century,
when

Box 't.4
Surveys: Case
Studv 4
No doubt social
research
l alked this are socially shap,
o""rl"" ,I"'hods
ooorn o."o,"-,"","j,i:""o,
-,.;:il;,ili,Ti}."ff ',|il^!ł'ror",.
i::::.
tra tifi ed r,
..r'rĆr;"::.':'::"] in th e di ffe; tn 2007
s
"*ed
łere a s ke d
phff eJ i#]:^*xl
j;:
;'Jfi i:iil::'[:; r,.T #
ab o u

" " :.,

?: ;;:;;:; ;'i" *, nd how by;;,;ffi
;; ;.:;:j:;:;:;::Xl"T;HĘ
t th ei
i n l ervi ewed
o n

:i, :i:i, ]łj]

a
welfa re wa s \een
.,, :,";;;;:;]:il:'u
oy E,r.p""" 'u'u'u concluded that farm anima]
to 10 how important ^,|::*n ..rrri"
,i,]T-' ,nu, ,n" *.liu;;i"'""
"Please tell me
on a scaie from
wa\ one of thc lo:
questio,_,r' :ond.the
lfarmed animali
l
dilferences. For
inslance _
mean r..;;;;, i5 protected."
There were significant
Thi5
mole than people ' trusted
'' countly
from ,,iii:o'"1,i"";;;il#',
ur..o.. i"i
the state to look
after animals
welfare into account -rls "
*n.o_":n..,
i
::: :*,,,
o,, o,,n,
"
*;fi T:i", :,"J ;;Tffiffi i ::łri',n',::,,:,'ffi;ifr
ruiew
:

ff.T:illffi liillf.,Ili. ":,,...o,. i.

il lte
cts A st,bj e t

;lnffifi,i;ryff ;X;;:::*H::;ff [:*T'

acountly;","#il:,f ".;j,,t'Jo,"*
 9T5
|ohn Law
40
Mel
peoplelearnedthatitisacceptableforstrangerstoaskthemquestions.Butifsurveys
performpeopleintheirmethodsofdatacollection,theyalsostagethemintheirfind- 55K
ings.Forinstance,intheEurobalometerpeopleareformattedassetsofattitudesthat scie
areseekinginformationtodecidewhethertobuyanimal.sourcedproducts.Andcol- 19l
,:lT*"ls: collections of
ł

These become collections

lectivities are being done too. and geographical space,
Thc
social atoms in a homogeneous conceptual
isomorphic §eE
TosaythisisnotnecessarĘtocriticize.ttrereisnoGodtrickandallmethods rela
narrateandformattheworld(WatertonandWlmne1999).Thismeansthatgeneral abc
complaintsabouttheperformativiĘofmethodsmissthepoint.Anycriticismneedsto F{ui
performativity,
fo.u, on particular forms of n€r
So,forinstance,EuroscepticscorrectĘarguethattheEurobarometefstagesthe ŁĘ
EuropeanUnionasacollectiviĘ,andsociologistsarerighttoSaythatpeopledon,t Perhaps we 'he
stable attitudes shaping t
o* irr"y behave (Shove 2010),
necessarily have har
simplyneedtosaythattheEurobarometeriSflawed.Butthereisalessobviousand
in shops the survey is
i.A
argument, This ties validĘ to location, So
people buy is limited, But in
more interesting STS B15l
which attitudes shape what
probably wrong: the "ńrrt to for instance, in the Euro-
(taken to be) right. Pragmatically,
other places ttre suró iS A€l
peanCommissionthefigureof,.theconsumer-łVith-attitude,,issuccessfullystaged.it
performative, The conclu_
1L

becomes real because it is

epistemologically and politically :ro
as Bruno Latour (1988)
showed
sion? STS tells us truths are practice-embedded, uut 1ó

whenheexploredwhyPasteurWasSosuccessful,italsotellsusthattruthsarelocation- 5o
dependent.IfFrenchfarmsWeretobe,,Pasteurised,,theyneededtobereformattedas
decision makers, then
are to be treated as attitude-carrying
laboratories. And if people
receptiveadministrativeandpoliticalaudiencessimilarlyneedtobecreated.
Afinalpoint.TheEurobarometerSaysthat..Hungarians,,believethis,whereas,.Ital-
as well aS national citi-
that it is staging the nation-state
ians,,believe that. This tells us The survey makes
ZenS, But how? Note that
national terms ar,e uJed unproblematically,
noargumentforthenation-state,butdoesthismeanthatitsperformativeeffectsof
nationalityareweak?Iwanttosuggest,onthecontrarythatformattingiSoftenmost
powerfulwhenitisalmostincidental.Nationatryisbeingdonestronglyprecisely
becauseitisbuiltunproblematicallyintothesurvey,sframe,sinceitissimplytaken
forgranted.Mysuggestionisthatmetho|s,socialscientificandotherwise,powerfully
by assuming them, Surely Har_
,,collateral reaiities" (Law 2011a)
enact such incioerr,tlt and
STS's tasks to l,:1n, away
the self-evident to understand
away is right. is one 9f
}t
question how methods sftucture
thę,yo{d, ,,
j-5 as Method

'.!ethods at the Center

::. allthor Harry Collins (1975) long ago showed that knowledge and methods and
.ltific authority may all be negotiated together. In a different idiom Thomas Hughes
::3r made a related algument about system building. Hughes argued that when
]1a5 Edison created the New York public electricity system he generated a hetero-
_: ': f u5 web of social, legal, poiitical, economic, geographical, scientific, and technical
--:.__]ns. Everything was raveled up together. But what is the best way of thinking
,' _-: such intelconnectedness? STS has tackled this question in various ways. For
- :.:ls, system builders were specially gifted at fitting together heterogeneous compo-
: :: One of the successor proiects to SSK and SCO! co-constnłctiotl ot co-production,
: -_ , IiS how the social and the scientific ale constlucted together, for instance, in
: ]_Ifi] of regulatory frameworks (Jasanoff 2004; Shackley and Wynne 1995). As we
- l : si€il, feminist material semiotics uses narrative analysis to understand the forms
- , : ,. 'Dv heterogeneous relations. Differently again, actor-network theory (ANT) has
_ :..k]ed intelconnectedness in ways that put methods at the center.

- ::: r-Network Theory

., -l:etrvork theory is radically relational. So Michel Callon (see box 1.5) (drawing
,- : ]\t-stluctura]ism [Deleuze and Guattari 1988; Serres l974] and innovation stud_
-,,1ion 1980l) created a conceptual too1 kit for talking about heterogeneous rela-
: _] a method for mapping how every obiect or actor iS shaped in its relations.

"_li,ps: Case Study 5

-:l \Iichel Calion published what may be the most cited article in STS. This was on
,,:,lops, the fishermen, and the scientists of Saint Brieuc Bay. The story is about the
: .f the scallop population, the attempts by three scientists to undelstand that
: . and efforts to create zones protected from fishing where scallops might breed and
:, The Stofy traces the successful attempts by the scientists to cleate col1ectors for
.- ,atr-ae, It detaiis the negotiations between the scientists and the fishermen to cre-
:,-ńshing zones, and it concludes With the dramatic moment when the agleement
l : __ ]\ffl and the fishermen scraped the protected areas clean of sca1lops. However, the
.,, ,l the notoriety of Callon's article has little to do with the scallops themselves.
..- i: arises because he tleats the fishermen, the scientists, and the scallops in the
:: ]1-1s, -,ł// are actors. A// are strategists and tacticians. A// seek to enroll othels in

: : -::emes, At Callon's hands, there is no difference in principle between scallops,

: ] .1 and scientists.
 |ohn Law
42

Herenothinghasagivenform.Thedifferencesbetweenscallopsandfishermen
relations. so scallops and people
grow in the web of relations and don,t preexist those
mightbedifferentelsewhere,anditiSimportanttoexplorespecificitieswithoutpre-
judgingtheirformorshape(hecallsthistheprincipleof,,generalizedsymmetry,,)'This
isradicalinexplanatolyterms:itleplesentsasubstantlalshiftfromSSK..ForCallon,the
and nature, humans and nonhumans,
social doesn,t shape or explain anything. society
people and technologies-essential divisions have
simply disappeared (Law and Mol
1995). So the macrosocial doesn,t explain anything
either-like everYthing else the
,,macro,,and the ,,miclo,, are relationally generated (Callon and LatOur 1981),

Ordering Methods
STS remain attached to maclo_micro dis_
These conclusions are contloversial. Many in
study relations, networks, and webs of
tinctions. But if we fo1low its logic, we need to
practice.WeneedtolookathowwebsassemblethemselvestostageeffectsSuchas
actorsandobjects,andbinariessuchasnatuleandculture,humanandnonhuman,or
indeedmacloandmiclo.Butthisisaprofoundmethodologicalshift,becausewithit
STSmovesfromexplanations(likesocialinterests)Whichliebehindeventstoattend
is seen as an explession of
insteadto methods for assembling. whatever is going on
ANT and its related proiects can be seen
stlategies or tactics. Indeed the case studies of
asalistofmethodsforassembling,stabilizing,orundoin8realities.Thesemethods
includedelegationintodurablematerials(Latour1987),thecreationofcirculating
immutablemobiles(Law1986)orfluidandmutableobjects(deLaetandMol2000;
Yates-Doerr2014),inscriptiondevices(Latour1998),andthepreformattingofdistant
(Callon 1986) and mul_
locations (Latour 1988). They also include the logic of tactics
robust human and non_
tiple ,,modes of ordering," which together Secule temporarily
Thóvenot 2001),
human arlangements (Latour 2013; Law 1,994, ZOO2;
ItiSeasytoseewhythecriticssaythatactol-networktheoryisaMachiavellian
descriptionofruthlesslysuccessfulpoliticaltactics.SometimesitiSguiltyasaccused,
butnot,Ithink,always,foritisnotnecessarilycynicaltoexpiorehowpowerisdone'
onthecontraly,ifwewanttoundopower,itmayhelpifweunderstanditsmethods.
between AN! feminist material semiotics, and Michel
Foucault's
Here the similarities
(t979)historyofthepresentaleinstluctive.Despitedifferences,allattendtomate-
effects including asymme-
rial and linguistic heterogeneities, and how these generate
tries and dualisms. Al1 insist that these are not
given in the order of things (Foucault's
phrase)andmightbeotherwise.Andallarguethatpattelnsrecur:thattheworldisn,t
adifferentplaceeverymorning.Perhaps(eartyANTexcepted)theyarealsosaying
rate, they are all assuming that
that there are sustained pattelns of inequality. At any
STS as Method 43

a methodological microphysics of power is systematically at work that is both produc-

tive and excludes alternatives, (Think of Haraway on primates and Foucault on judicial
toltule [Foucault 1979l.) And crucially, none wotks on the assumption that Strategies
are inevitab]y explicit or cynical. The argument, then, is that ANT is not necessarily
\,1achiavellian. An analysis of the methods of power and their productivity-a history
of the present-may, instead, be used to make a political difference,

Difference

5o in a material semiotic way of thinking everything is radically relational, Essential dif-

:erences disappear. Everything is endowed with a "variable geometry," and it becomes
:rucial to explore the tactics and strategies-the methods-embedded in practices. No
.ssumptions are made about what will be found. But there is a knock-on effect. Since
'--,lactices may vary, So too may the entities that they are folmatting. This means that
:he Same" object may be one thing in one place and another somewhere else, In STS
::is is cal]ed the problem of difference.

\tu ltiplicity
'.:;I i2002) explores multiplicity for Iower-limb atherosclerosis. She shows (see box 1.6)
:_,t the practices that perform this condition are different in different places.
|hen she makes the claim that I just mentioned: that the objects being enacted in
se relations are being differently shaped too. Her counterintuitive conclusion takes
_

-) :_] the problem of difference. She says that in practice there isn't a single atherosc]e_
:_s: there are four. But the practices that format atherosclerosis aren't independent of

= :nother. This means that atherosclerosis is a complex patteln of intersections, an

_ .-t that is more than one but less than many. The different atherosclerosis may Iine
:,_lntradict, include one another/ never meet up-ol combine some mix of these.
. : :Jaraway's cyborg/ atherosclerosis isn't a unity but a set of partial connections
j]::.fa}, 1988;
Strathern 1991). We live in a worid of ontological multipliciry.
l.osophers use the term ontology to taik of what there is in the world, or what
':: .-, t-]ut thele is made of. Most Western philosophers assume that the stuff of reality
, stant, that we share the same reality-world, and that we disagree about reality
: :__>c 1\-€ have different perspectives on it. But lecent STS is pushing back against
,: the way I have just suggested, it is saying that ontologies are relational effects
, ]._)e in plactices (Barad ZOO7;Law ZOO2) and that since practicesvary, so too do
- - . T]-tis softens realities-it means that they ale not given (Abrahamsson et al.

- : : also means that we mi8ht imasine bettel alternative realities. A "politics of

 44
John Law

Box 1.6
Disease: Case Study 6
what is athelosclelosis? Annemarie
Mol explored this in an ethnographic
limb atherosclerosis in a Dutch tovm study of lower-
(Mol żoozs. sn"visited Gps' surgeries
to patients worrying about leg and listened
pain when they walked. In the hospital
nicians taking radiographs which showed she watched tech_
the circulatoly system in the form
of curves and lines. she visited the of a tracery
ultrasound department and watched
looking for Doppler differences reflecting the specialists
changes in the speed of blood flows.
she watched surgeons opening And then
up blood vessels and scraping out
plaque. white, puttylike, arterial

Four practices, each about lowerłimb

atherosc]erosis, but what ls this condition?
standard stoTy says that long-term The
changes in the blood lead to the
plaque, which ]imits the blood buildup of arteria]
now wnicrr in turn l

causes pain. In practice Mol found

that sometimer;ff§:,n:ffi'r"rr,.rrTJJ'
together nicely, but sometimes they
didn't. If this happened, then the differences
hammered out at a case conference. were
Mol notes that this worked because
sumed that there is an obiect out everyone as-
there, and the ,p".iuti.t, rrui"Jiri"iJ.rt
it, Howeveł her own alsument i.irn..,rrr", o,'
is quite different and very far from
of this standard storY. She says
the common sense
that different practices enact dffirent
ątheroscleroses. .Ihese
and their atherosc]eroses relate to
one another in theory but not necessarily
;j§::: in

things," an ontological politics (Mol

1999) or a cosmopolitics (Stengers
2005) becomes
Possible because different normativities and realities
are being woven together in
Mol calls "ontonorms" (Mol 2012).So what
a feminist cyborg may be better
militarist, or the atherosclerosis of physiotherapy than one that is
might have advantages over the one
performed in surgery.
Two further points. First, a caution. performing
objects is tough, even in this rela-
tiona] world. It is difficult and
costly (think of Mol,s hospital departments).
just dream up new realities. We can,t
(Latour and Woolgar 1986;
Law Z07la).Second, we need
to ask where we might find difference,
we can debate, but the intuition
pins Mol's intervention is that we that under-
will always discover it if we go looking
that doing so is an analytical and for it, and
normative choice. But this impiies
rider: we need to be wary of stories a methodological
about consistency and coherence.
be better to cultivate a sensibiliĘ Instead it might
for mess (Law 20o4).Though,
of course, there is also
an alt in distinguishing between
mess that is politically and methodologically
tant and that which is not. There impor-
are no rules here, but simply
noting that the world
5TS as Method 45

:s noncoherent is not a discoverv. we also need to know what kind of a difference we

are hoping to make.

Method and Difference

_r-i this version contempolary STS asks questions that ale simultaneously about realities

and politics or normativities. Recognizing its own performativity, it understands that

.t makes a difference. But what kind of difference does it make? The answer is that it
_r-pically tIies to find ways of living together well. It does this in many ways, but here
fre two.
In a world in crisis economically, sociaily, and environmentally, it is clear that we
urgently need to find better ways of living together. STS tells us ihat technoscience
_n its present form is part of the problem, Separated from the political, it is destruc-
:ir-e because it takes reality to be fixed. So how to think about this? One answer draws
,,ln democratic political theory and practice. Democracy is about living together well
.n a common world. Perhaps the old ways of reconciling difference democratically-
:arliaments and their analogues-have failed because they leproduce the nature-
culture divide, fix nature and exclude it from politics, The task, then, is to invent new
rTethods for softening realities, reworking sociaI collectivities, and melding these pro-
iluctively and democratically together. Many have wrestled with this, but none mole
sr-stematically than Bruno Latour. He has talked of non-modern constitutions, of par-
.laments of things, of matters of conceln, of new forms of political ecology, of the
,mpoltance of due plocess/ and of the need for diplomacy to hold together different
conditions of felicity or modes of existence (Latour 1,993, ZOO4a,2013). Throughout,
his urgent task has been to imagine ways of generating common responses to common
rroblems in a common world. Less ambitious but related concerns inform work on
publics (Marres 2OO7) and the work of Michel Callon, Pierre Lascoumes, and Yannick
Barthe (2OO9), who experiment with hybrid forums which mix experts, nonexperts,
]nd politicians. The object is to melt the categories of nature that were previously hard-
and fixed in professional silos. As a part of this they undertake experiments "in
=ned
:he wild" to secure collective learning and recompose a better common world. Again
lhe interference is procedural and methodological.
How can we go on togethel well in difference? This question-adapted from Helen
l,-ellan (2013)-takes us to the second strategy. Though similar to the first, it is more
l-nodest because it makes no assumption about common frameworks. If democracy
ll,ants to reconcile difference overaIl, then the second stlategy is not about democracy.
\eithel does it tly to generalize. Rather it is about detecting and handling difference
:l-eil, case by case (Law et aI.2014'1. So Mol (2010) algues that the atherosclerosis of
 46
John Law

Box'1.7
Eutrophication: Case Study 7
In Western ways of thinking "nature''
is divided from ''culture.'' Nature is
taken to have
Particular attributes, Science seeks to reveal these. ln contlast,
culture is known to be vari_
ó]e: different groups of people believe different
things. But what to make of the sTs idea
that science is cu]tural too? Situated?
Potentially revisable? Ho\^/ to think about
table probiems that ale both natura] and intrac_
sociai?
Between 2oo7 and 2010 Claire Watelton
and Judith Tsouva]is (2015) brought
farmers, residents, social scientists, environmenta] togethel
scientists, and administrato's to dis_
cuss the pelsistence of blue-green algal
bloom in Loweswater in the English Lake
Everyone was clear that something needed District.
to be done. The issue was what? waterton
Tsouvalis looked for ways of opening and
up scientific and socia] uncertainties. How
scientific findings produced? Might these were the
be discussed and questioned? was it possible
situate them alongside other kinds of to
framings, economic, social, or recreational?
scientific f,ndings be softened (Latour couid
2004b) from stabilized ,,matters of fact,,
to situated
"matters of concern"? The answeą it turned out,
Was yes, at least within limits.
was it possible to appleciate that there are
iimits to all forms of knowing, those of
technoscience included? was the group
capable of working with the idea that
nonhuman relations are complex, that there human-
were no deflnitive solutions, and that
humiliĘ in the face of complexiĘ might be what
was needed? Again the answels to these
questions were yes. There were many
frustlations too, but a more relationally
lectivity, one that attended to the impoltance fluid coi-
of context and process, was provisionally
tinkered into being.

physiotherapy may be better for some

patients than that of surgery. Michel
Vololona Rabeharisoa (2004) explore callon and
the intersection of different forms of
and humanity and the role of silence for morality
the case of a patient with muscular dystro-
PhY, Waterton and Tsouvalis (2015) (see box 1.7) work
locally on the environmental
Problem of algal bloom to soften scientific and social
categolies. And Ingunn Moser,s
(2008) work on dementia care
Su8gests that Marta Meo care methods
enact patient
competences that don't fit textbook
medical science. Like Mol, she is chippins
the dominance of biomedical realities away at
and treatment rógimes by talking up processes
of care (see also Pols |2006] and Singleton
[2010]). Importantly, none of these authors
offer general prescriptions.

Postcoloniality
similar power-asymmetrical encountels
across difference are common in North_south
re]ations where alternative Southern
realities about land, gods, animals, people,
bodies,
 5TS as Method

47
,łd social ordering are typically
turned fiom realities
into mis
Ę:lf §i,?;T,":$x.T.,,,,,.ł"j::,,,::".:;J;TTT jT#iT:"::ffi:
:isource (de la Caden a it
is a mineral-rich
:łine gold (Kopenawa
Z07o). The forest
o..r";;;;;;;:;'r*':
on shamans: it is a
and A]bert ,ora l'*]'"i;|llo place to
:lalnutritjon; thi,
trIe neuromur.u,r,_']u,ralricatlon
(;"# ffi,:i|'j]§ j;;: ""' reduce children,s
meridians: they
:toes (cruickrr,u,.i.';||::[::Ifiil:', Giaciers o""* ,"i'have
'*'le offense: theY are ice
Zhan 2074),n all ls not experie-
:he other
these encounters
,*o"" o","* ,,";;j:;:J::"JIi:l*
,r",' ,rijl?i,:i:"#fi:,",;".1..,,,,:,
The issue then be< "..
-rg this refusaj u.r,"''
o,, *.lt tog"."^:.T:#:J"'::i§§:techniques ro. u,roo]
:omes from ,r",",,1jo,r' noted, this phrase
.nd aborigin",o".or;T*li3i.ffi,,who charts n"* ii.
o]'er legal s'stem
respond to one u,rorn,rr'ru''rn
.and an area/ or ,,
,?ll#:"::::.n"r. acloss difference, Is
:ut Australia" ,";T:'IffTHH:,creation? The solution-'r
such techniq.,", io.
iiving well with dlffereńich
recogniz. ;;;fi;T 'i:il §':.':
do not alwaYs work
:rafled case by case. perhaps
a task ro. "' and they need to
be
:hart differen."r, u.,r.uurJ;""::"r, srs here with postcolonialism-is
jifference i],r_ ,*..Or:g to
ways of *";;
1nlaser ;#;:'.1T ,ffi#ffio^:: :1'
ZO] 4; Turnbul| ",
well together in
20OO; Verran 20O2l.
Knowing Spaces

:r5 suggests that mel

.ul moJ., ., ,'.,,m*l3i[ffi;:,fiiliJechniques, Theories, methods,
the empiri_
rle staged together. audiences, authorities, and realities_all
.""i}',r"::::",:*'
Ó,n., candidates are iostling to join
:ronaj structu."r, ,nr, irr,'l"ouding
.u.,"n'r organiza_
5tructures, technica] and publishing
""oto"rmii,§::HŁi:;T';rT'""ic,
Ihe argument (as ii (Feit 2015;Jasanorrana
infra_
*" xim'zors).
";;;;ffi;:,':".wise
rle material]r.o-o,.l]"#:LTilpies above) is that u""*"*
and its methods
li subjects, oui".rr,
.rp."r;;;;.""'§:;:: "'PIaCtiCe that imply o"",.",".
".."i,

ił::;t*";nfft :,ffi ::,,;#r:;;n::r;;':,'*fr *Tfi

jT,#::Jt'fi '"H:i1::t*,iT*i:§*[i:fi :.ffi fi ::J:ffi*;
ilT:iff *,T,:Tffi :i::1t**r;il.i:'"#,J;:iT:::;::H:;:[:::
 |ohn Law
4a

NowthinkaboutthepowerandtheobduracyoftheseknowingSpaces.Inanygiven
It may be challenging to Pub-
in some ways than in others.
location it is easier ro *r,ro*
lishinmajoracademicjournals,butatleast'theappropriateliterary^conventions,plo.
cedures,competences,topics,andtheoreticalframeworksatereasonablyclear.Together
theyenactacademicx,,o*l,,gspaceswithinwhichitiscomparativelyeasytoopelate,
andtheysubstantiallydefinewhatispossibleinanacademiccareer.Butifweshift
beyondtheseconventions,knowingbecomesprogressivelymoredifficultforanaca.
demic.Thewrongtopic?Acasestudythatisnotofinteresttoanintelnational(aU.S.?)
audience?Thewronglanguage?Astrangetheory?Inappropriatemethods?Excessive
commitmenttoactivism?-tt,.,,*'o,'gkind,,ofactivism?Wlitingthatdoesn,tlooklike
astandardjournaiarticle?Thisisgettingrisky.Sohereisthequestion.Isitpossibleto
*ir;:":r#iil:fr1 knowin* Spaces are indeed
is yes: hybrid ol,unconventional
(Latour and Weibel
worked through exhibitions
possible. Some have successfully with other media
(Cole 2002), o, po"'ry in combination
2006), or by writing poetly 2010), or in simulations
orsemi_po|ular texts (Raffles
(Watts, Ehn, and Srr.t _ur_, Zol4), interactions
2073), reciprocal human-animal
(Guggenheim, Kr5ftner, and Krótl 2011; Neuen-
2008; Wynn e 1996), artwolks(Jones
(Despret 2013), activism (Haraway
schwander2008),art-scienceintelsections(GabrysandYusoff2011;Krźftneretal.
Others have done so
palticipative methods (Waterton and Wynne 1999),
2010), or in
indance(Cvejic2010;MyersZolZi)orbyconsultingwiththespiritualrealm(Smith
ZolŻ)-awayofknowingimpoltantinsomepostcolonialcontexts.Sucheffortsrep-
But creating different
efforts ,o witłr rryuriJknowing spaces,
resent brave ""i.ri_.rt
knowingspacesisslow,hazardous,andoftenionelyanduncertain.And,topickupa
character of STS
section, the unwitting "Northetn"
theme touched on in the previous
knowingSpaCeSSetSstarklimitstoalternative,.Southefn,,formsofSTS,So,forinstance,
ina,,Chinese,,-inflectedSTS,theoriesandmethodsmightlookquitedifferent(Linand
Law ZO1,4).

conclusion

InthischaptelIhavearguedthatmethodsareshapedbythesocial;thattheyalso
shape,stage,andStlucturethesocial;thattheyareperformativeandheterogeneously
enactobjects,wotlds,andrealities;thattheyaresituated,productive,essentiallypoliti.
cal,andnolmative;andthattheymightbeotherwise.ThenIhavearguedthatwith
attended to the tactics
schemes, STS has increasinglY
the decline of larger explanatoly
andstrategiesofpractice,tomethods,andtohowtheseStagetheworld.Ihavealso
 _-j as Method
49

--:'-\ted that since plactices valy between locations, they generate

different realities
- --, ]Imativities; that the relations
between these are uncertain; and that much
STS is
::ltlr- struggling in one Way oI another to genelate
rnethods that recognize/ prop-
- .,::end to, or stage better ways of handling difference.
.1. stoly I have to]d has been both about
the methods in the processes that we
--,
--' and those that make up oul own STS practices. As is obvious, the
two ale inter_
'd, \\ihat in the world arises in the interference between
We detect
our own prac_
:: ;Dd those of the world. And this is why this
chapter should be understood as its
-,
:,tuated intervention, Evenhandedness is not
possibie, and the God trick is out.
:--ng from a Space between actol-network theory,
feminist material_Semiotics, and
' ,--'ionialism, I have staged relationaiity, specificity,
difference, binary breakdowns,
:o]rtics or normativities in ways which others
--
might not. I have reinterpreted
: ': :ial Categories and realities as relational effects
and searched for multiplicity rather
: -, -3US?1 explanations. As a part of this,
I have adopted an expansive or genelous
-::Standing of method and sought noncoherences aS a mattel of both taste and
poli_
, ),,1r, obiect has been to susgest, both implicitly and explicitly, that
it is the urgent
'-' : STS first to attend to difference and second to craft specific but multiple ways of
- on t'vell together in difference. There are no single solutions. What it means
to
, : tr-ell to8ethel in difference is necessarily contested, Though we
neecl to remind
"]-,\,es that the world is not open and that not everything is possible,
this does not
::.. that we cannot tfy, iust a little, to open up and
enact alternative and better pos-
- :-es. The hope is that in this way we can
avoid giving comfort
- .s that it is political, and resist the ciaim that reality is destiny. to a politics that
so perhaps in the
- :he enemy is hubris. Things never have to be the way they are. such is the point
,._s
STS of method.

: :., n owledgments

,: i5 to Wiebe Bijkeą Ivan da Costa Marques,

Ulrike Felt, Bernd Króftneą Judith
,, \Iarianne Lien, Maureen McNeil, Annemarie
Mol, Wen-y.uan Lin, Lucy Such-
'- Heather Swanson, Claire Waterton, Vicky Singleton,
and the Hąttdbookreferees.

]:'irences

-j. -.Insson/ Sebastian,

Filippo Bertoni, Annemarie Mol, and Rebeca Ibańez
-: tt'ith Omega-3: Nelv Martin, 2015.
Materialism and Enduring Concerns." Ettyironmcnt
ant1 platlttiłtg D:
,ltld Space 33 (1): 4*19.
 |ohn Law

Austin, John L. 7962. Hr,lw to Do Things with Words. Edited by James o. Urmston and Marina
Sbisd. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barad, Karen. 2o07. Meeting the [Jniverse Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter
and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Barnes, Baty. 1,977 . Il,lterests anc| the Growth of Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Beaulieu, Anne, Andrea Scharnhorst, and Paul Wouters. 2007. "Not Another Case StudY: A
Middle_Range Interrogation of Ethnographic Case Studies in the Exploration of E-science." Scl-
ence, Technology, & Humąn Values 32 (6): 672-92.

Bijker, Wiebe E. 1995, of Bicycles, Bąkelite, and Bulbs: Towąrd a Theory of Sociotechnical Change.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bijker, Wiebe E,, Thomas p, Hughes, and Trevor J. Pinch, eds. 1987. The Social Construction of
Technical Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.

Bijker, Wiebe E., and John Law. 1992. Shaping Technology, Building SocieĘ: Studies in Sociotechnical
Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Blaser, Mario. 2009. "The Threat of the Yrmo: The Political ontology of a Sustainable Hunting
Program." American Anthropologist 111 (1): 10-20.

B1oor, David. 1,976. Knowledge ąnd Social Imagery. London: Routledge and Ke8an Paul,

Bonelli, Cristóbal. 2012. "ontological Disorders: Nightmares, Psychotropic Drugs and Evil Spirits
in Southern Chile." Anthropological Theory 7ż (Ą: aO7-26.

Callon, Michel. 1980. "The State and Technical Innovation: A Case Study of the Electric Vehicle
in France." Research Policy 9:358-76.

_, 1986. ,,Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the
Fishermen of Saint Brieuc Bay." 7n Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, edited
byJohn Law, 196-233. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Callon, Michel, Pierre Lascoumes, and Yannick Barthe. 2OO9. Acting in ąn Uncertain World: An
Essay on Technical Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Callon, Michel, and Bruno Latoul 1981. "Unscrewing the Big Leviathan: How Actors Maclostluc-
ture Reality and How Sociologists Help Them to Do So. " In Adyąnces in Social Theory and Methodol-
ogy: Toward an Integration of Micro- and Macro-Sociologies, edited by Karin Knorr Cetina and Aaron
V. Cicourel, 277-303. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Callon, Michel, and Vololona Rabeharisoa. 2004. "Gino's Lesson on Humanity." Econrlmy and
SocieĘ 33: 1-27.

Cockburn, Cynthia. 1999. "The Material of Male Power." IlThe Social ShaPing of TechnologY,
edited by Donald MacKenzie and Judy Waicman, 177_98. Buckingham, PA: Open UniversiĘ
Press.
 5T5 as Method
51

i,!ijłrł}3;ł"r:;;::xł:T:żfi,irl§:";considering the canoe,,, Intemational

|oumal of

;#;,Ę'#lijffi,ii§l,ffi;;T.o;Jlł: sociology of a phenomenon/

or the Repli_

}:ackshanĘ ]ulie, 2o72, "Are G]aciers

'Good to Think With,? Recognising
Indigenous Environ_
=ratal Knowledge.'' Anthropological Forum 22 (3): 239-50.
-T eiic' Boiana ' 2o7o, "Xavier Le Roy: The
Dissenting Choreograph of one Frenchman Less.,, In
-,wtemporąry French Theatre and Performaną
-!E-99' Basingstoke:
edited by clare Fńbńil"o Catl Lavery, 2077,
Macmillan, n rpr//ror*r-ruvierleroy.com/page.php?id=4b530eff07
- _Boc4cdd55
8
l"]9'1'
8 52t}4f24fuO}4Obae&lg=ę11.

]aston' Lorraine, 7999, "objectivity

and the Escape from Perspective.,,
_i=łder, edited by
Mario Biagioli, ln The Science Studies
770-23.New York: Routledge,
& la Cadena, Marisol, 2010. "Indigenous Cosmopo]itics
in the Andes: Conceptual Reflections

ie laet, Marianne, and Annemarie

Mot. 2000. ''] Bush PumP: Mechanics of
Techrrology." Sociąl Studies of a Fluid
Science ,o ,rr, ,rr_łł.Zimbabwe
Deleuze, Gilles, and Fólix uuąll.ll. ryóó.,{
,rrl\ Guattari. 79BB. A Tl
lnousand Pląteaus: Capitalism
iładon:Ath]one. and Schizophrenia.

Despret' Vinciane, 2013, "Responding

Bodies & Partial Affinities in
}|leory, Culfure & Society 30 (7-B): Human_Animal Worlds.,,
51-76.
FtiĘ Ę.rvęY A, 2oo4,'James Bay
Crees' Life projects and politics:
eers and Enduring Relarr^1":lr|r:" Histories of place, Animal part_
In In the Way' of Development,
Feit' and Glenn McRae, 92-1t0, edited,bu ru.ro Blaser, Harvey
London: zea soots, alsoavailable A.
sites/default/fi les/pub]ication
l files/ 7 J P.pą1, ^rniip,,ilrr*-.mtnforum.org/
Felt' Ulrike, 2015, "KeePing Technologies
Out: sociotechnical Imaginaries
,łustria's Technopolitical ldentiĘ." and the Formation of
ln-Dreamscapes of ModemiĘ:
Sołotechnicat Imaginaries and
editedbY SheilaJasanorr ani the
sang-Hyun Kim, 103-25. chicago;
?#,:*!"łr"J::wer, universiĘ of
Foucault' Michel, 1979, Discipline
and Punish: The Birth of the
Prison.Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Gabrys' Jennifer, and Kathrln
Yusoff. 2011. "Arts, Sciences
Politics at the Threshold.'' Science and Climate Change: practices
as Culfure n ęij;'r_rn. and

Gad, Christopher, and David

Ribes, 2074, ''The C
Technology siudies." science, in Science and
Technology, & Humąnł:;::':;'r;;.1r'§ł-oo""l
Goffman, Erving. 1977, The Presentątiol1
of SeIf in Everyday Life. Hatmondsworth:
Penguin,
 52
John Law

Guggenheim, Michael, Bernd Krźiftner, and

Judith Króll. 2013. ,.,I Don,t Know Whether I Need a
Further Level of Disaster': Shifting Media of
Sociology in the Sandbo x.,, Distinktion: Scąndinąyian
|oumal of Social Theory 74 (3): 284-304.

Haraway, Donna J, 1985, "Manifesto for Cyborgs:

Science, Technology and Socialist Feminism
the 19BOs.'' SociąlistReview (B0): 65-103. in

19B8' "Situated Knowiedges: The Science

Question in Feminism and the privilege of partial
-'
Perspective.'' Feminist Studies 14 (3): 575-99,

1989, Primate Visions: Geruler, Race and Nature

in the World of Modern Science. London: Rout_
-'
ledge and Chapman Hall.

7997, Modest [email protected]@_Meets.oncoMouselM:

Feminism
-'
Technoscience. New York: Routledge.
and.

2008, When Species Meet. Minneapolis: UniversiĘ

of Minnesota Press.
-,
Harding, Sandra. 1993. "Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology:
What Is 'Strong obiectiviĘ'?''
In Feminist Epistemologies, edited by Linda A]coff
and E]izabeth Potter, 352-84, New York: Rout_
ledge, Accessed at httP://www,msu.edu/-pennockS/courses
/4}4o/o2omaterials/hardin8-standpoint
-strong-obi ectiviĘ,pdf
Harwood, Jonathan, 1,976. "The Race-Intelligence
Contloversy: A Sociological Approach I_
Professiona] Factors.'' Social Studies ofScience (3--4):369-94.
6
Heuts, Frank, and Annemarie Mol, 2012.
"What Is a Good Tomato? A Case of Valuing in Prac_
tice." Valuątion Studies I (2): 125-46.

Hughes, Thomas P, 1983. Networks of Power:

Electrification in Westem SocieĘ, 1880-1930.
more: Johns Hopkins Balti_
UniversiĘ Press.

Igo, Sarah E. 2006. "A Gotd Mine and

Tool for Democracy: George Gallup, Elmo Roper,
Business of Scientific Polling." and the
|oumal for the History of the Behaviorat Sciences a2
Q): 709- 34.
Jasanoff, Sheila, ed, 2oo4, States of Knowledge: The
Co-procluction of Science and the Sociąl
London: Routledge. order.

JasanofĘ Sheila, and Sang-Hyun Kim, eds. 2075. Dreamscapes

of ModemiĘ: Sociotechnical Imaginar_
ies ąnd the Fabricątion of Power.
Chicago: UniversiĘ of Chicago Press,

Jensen' CasPer Bruun, 2o74, "Continuous Variations:

The Conceptual and the !,mpirical in
Science, Technology, & Humąn Vąlues STS,,,
39 (2): 792-273.
Jones, Kristin M. 2o1'. "Signs of Life." Fńeze 722,
alsoavai]able at http://włrrł.frieze.com/artic]e/
signs-life.

Knorr Cetina, Karin D, I98L The Manufacture

of Knowleclge: An Essay on the Constructivist and
Contextual Nąture of Science. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.

+ -=G
 STS as Method
53

Kopenawa, Davi, and Bruce Albert. 2073. The FaILiłlg

Sky: Words of a Yanomąmi Shąmąn. Cam_
bridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press.
Króftner, Bernd, Judith KrÓll, Gerhard Ramsebner, Leo
Peschta, and lsabel Warner. 2olo.,A
Pillow Squirrel and lts Habitat: Patients, a Syndrome, and
Their Dwelling(s).,, In New Technrllogies
and Emerging Spaces of Care, edited by Michael
Schi]]meier and Miquel Domenech, 169_95. Burl_
in8ton: Ashgate.

Kuhn, Thomas S, 1970a. "Reflections on My Critics ."

In Criticism atttl the Growth of Knowlerlge,
edited by Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, 231-78.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univelsity Press.
1970b, The Structure of Scietttific Revolutiotts. Chicago:
Univelsity of Chicago press.
-,
KuriYama, Shigehisa. 1999. Ttrc ExPressiveness of the l]orly ąnd the
Divergettce of Greek and Chinese
Medicitte. New York: Zone Books.

Latour, Bruno , l9B7, Science in Action: How ttl Follow scienti.§b^ ancl Engitrcers through Society. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.

198B. The Pasteurizątiotl of France. Cambriclge, MA: Harvard

Universitv Press.
-. 1993.
We Have Neyer Been Modern. Brighton: Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
-, 1998,
"Circulating Ret-erence: Sanrpling the Soil in the Amazon Forest.,,
lt-l, pandora,s Hope:
-,
Essays on the Reality of Sciettce Stutlies, edited by Bruno
Latour, 24-79. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

2Oo1a, Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into

Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvar<l
-,
University Press.

2004b, "WhY Has Critique Run Out of Steam? From Matters

of Fact to Matters of Concern.,,
-,
Critical Inquiry 30: 225-48,

An InEńry into Modes of Existence: An Anthropology of the Moclerns.

Cambridge, MA: Har_
-,2073,
vard University Press.

Latour, Bruno, and Peter Weibel, eds. 2006. Making Things Public:
Atmospheres of Detnocracy. Karl-
sruhe: ZKM, Centre for Art and Media; Cambririge, MA: MIT
Press.

Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1986. Ląborątory Life: The Constnłction
of Scietttilic Facts. hnd
ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Law,.|ohn, 1986, "On the Methods of Long Distance Control:

Vessels, Navigation and the portu_
guese Route to India." In Power, Action aru] Belief: A New
Sociology clf Kltowledge? Sociological
Review Monograph 32, edited byJohn Law,234-63. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
_. 1994, Organizing ModcrniĘ. Oxfotd: Blackwell.

2OO2, Aircra/t Stories; Decentering the Objert lll Tąllłosrlezrz,. Durhalą NC). Du}e l/nlrerilr
-,
12r€J§-

2004, A/Żer Metllrlń M.ss ńt Sociąl

Scietlce Research. Lonclon:noutledge.
-,
 l 54
John Law

_.2009, "Seeing Like a Survey.'' Culfutral Sociology 3 (Z,):239-56.

2OI7a, "Col]ateral Realities." In The Politics of Knowletlge, edited by Fernando Dominguez

-.
Rubio and Patrick Baert, 156*78. London: Routleclge.

"The ExPlanatory Burden: An Essay on Hugh Raftles' Insectopedia.'' Cultural Anthro-

-.2OI7b.
pology 26 (3): 485*510.
I
. 2015. "What's Wrong with a One-World World." Distinktion:
|otunal of Sclcial Theory 16 (7 :
F 126_39,
}
t-
F. Law,John, Geir Afdal, Kristin Asdal, Wen-yuan Lin, Ingunn Moser, and Vicky Singleton. 2074.
$.
"Modes of Syncretism: Notes on Non-coherence.'' Ctlrnmon Knowledge 20 (1): 172-92.
t Law, John, and Annemarie Mol. 1995. "Notes on Matelialitv and Sociality. '' The Sociological
l Review 43:271-94.
J
Lin, Wen-Yuan, andJohn Law.2Ot4. "A Correlative STS? Lessons from a Chinese Medica] prac-
tice." Sociąl Sttlclies ofScience 44 (6):801,-24.

LYrrch, Michael. 1990. "The Externalized Retina: Selection and Mathematization in the Visual
Documentation of obiects in the Life Sciences," In Represetltątjon in Scientific Practice, edited by
Michae1 Lynch and Steve Woolgar, 153-86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

MacKenzie, Donald. 1978. "Statisticaj Theorv and Social Interests: A Case Study.,, Social Studies
of
Science B (1): 35-83.

Marques, Ivan da Costa. 2014. "Ontological Politics anc1 Latin American Local Knowledges.,,
In
BeYond ImPortetl Magic: Essays on Science, Technology,
anrl SocieĘ in Latitl America, edited by Eden
Medina, Ivan da Costa Malques, and Christina Holmes, 85-107. Cambridge, MA: MlT Press.

Marres, Noortie. 2007 . "The Issues Deserve More Credit: Pragmatist Contributions to
the Studv of
Public Involvement in Controversy." Social Studies of Science 37 (5): 759-80.

Martin, Emily. 1994, Flexible Bodles. Boston: Beacon Press.

1998. "The retus as Intruder: Mother's Boclies anc1 Meclical Metaphols.'' In Cyborg
Babies:
-.
FrtlmTechno-Sex to TeChł1O-Tofs, edited by Robbie Davis-Floyd andJoseph Dunrit, 125_42. New
York: Routledge.

Merton, Robert K. 1957. "Science an<i Democratic Social Structure." In Social Tlrcoru
anrJ Social
Stnrcture, edited by Robert K.
Merton, 550-61. New York: Free Press.
Mol, Annemarie. 1999. "Ontological Politics: A Word and Some
Questions.,, In Act()r Network
Theory and Afteł edited byJohn Law andJohn Hassard, 74-89. oxford: Blackwell.

2OO2, The BodY MultiPle: Ontology in Medicąl Prąctice. Durham, NC: Duke University press.
-. 2010. "Actor-Network
Theory: Sensitive Terms and Enduring Tensions.,, Kólner Zeitschńft fi)r
-.
Soziolclgie und Sozialpsychcllogie 50 (1): 253-69.

-
 5TS as Method

55

_. 2012. ''Mind }'our P]ate] The

)-9-96. Ontonorms of Dutch
Dietins.,, Sociąl Sturlies
of Science 43 (3):
).foser,ingunn. 200
:-cs of Nature., Disease Matter: Enacting,
Interfering and Doing
Poli_
],Iyers, Natasha.
"rrł;-łZ|',i-rl]i::'n'".'s
20
,if'ectiveE,,,,,r9"-li.,:rT:J:"T.iti;"jl,':::ed Animations, Body Experiments,
BodY & SocieĘ 1B
and the
:,euenschwano"., (1): 151-B9
o,".""'
livane' ;;:":.::_:'search,"
2008, Contingett.
=JullployubA. Accessed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

_ :lanl,i, Michael. 19I

58' Personal Knowledge:
.:d Kegan paul. Towartls ą Post-Criticąl philosclphy.London:
Routledge
_-1s, Jeannette. 2006.
--,}lnology, - r,;;;;;:;::;ii;:;eTashing: Good care in Long-Term
t)sychiatry.,, science,
pper, Karl R, 1959,
The Logic of Scientific
Discovery,London:
Hutchinson.
..it-les, Hugh, 2070.
Insectopedla. New
York: Pantheon Books.
. .,ve12, 1ę1o." R. 7973. Scienti/ic Knowledge
ancl ItsSociąl Problems.
.. an-Flood, Róisin, and Harmonclsworth: Penguin.
Rosalind Gill, eds. 201O. SecrecY
: -Iections.
and Silence in the Reseąrch process:
Abingdon: Routledge. Feminist
]]:1 age, Mike. 2O7O. Idet and Social Change in
l.ford Univer.i Britąitt since 1910:
u n."rJ"'"' The politics of Method.Oxford:

-:ies, Michel. 1974.

:
La Tracluction, Hennes
III. Par Les ńditions de
: ackley, Simon, and Minuit,
urrr^^r-*,^^',_".::::':l)aris;
, Emergent ,.,"".;;"1ili J#; ]i;,':::::,:',".:^te Change: The Mutual
construction of
anclPublic Poliq,22 (!:218-30,
: :pin, steven. ,nun. ,,rr,-l
)':^^:',_^":''"*
and Circumstance: Robert
, , lfScience rł, +sr_szo|-p Boyle's Literary Technology. ,,
Sociąl Stuc]_
::.:pin, Steven, and
Sirr Schaffer, 7985,
p.i.r.",,'o' Levial
:', :.rimetttal Lit'b.
ln, NJ: princeto., u,ri,r..ri{li.::rn Air PumP: Hobbes, Boyle and
,
"' the
lve, Elizabeth.2010.
''I
. ,,,,,,,,r,urt on,t ;;;-:r;łiri'r#!§"'ate Change Policy and
Theories of Social Change.,,
1il€ton,,Vicky. 2o7O. "Good
Farming: Control
_..itesąnrlFatllr.s,edite<lt"^"."_",.,l";::i".'orCare?''InCąreinPrąctice:
_ or
-:,nscript. -YAnnemarie Mol,Ingunn
Moser, andJea:^:;";;';:;,:'::':::':';,:i#i:,

,:ł, Jonathan. 1972.

''Class Struggie among
the Molecu]es
eclited oy rrevo"r",";;;;;;:,;Tfi .'' In Counter Cout
.-,:::,:,o,"-, ::::;:,::;,';::ńl,:::,::::;
 56
John Law

Smith, Linda Tuhiwai, 2072. Decolonizing Methoc1ologies:

Research and Indigenous peoples.2nded.
New York: Zed Books.

Stacey, Jackie. 1997, Teratologies: A Cultural Study ofCancer.

London: Routledge.
Stengers, Isabeile, 2005. "The Cosmopo]itical Proposal."
In Making Things Pttblic: Atmospheres of
Democracy, edited by Bruno Latour and Peter Weibet,
994_1003. Karlsruhe: ZKM, Centre for Art
and Media; Cambridge, MA: MiT Press.

strathern, Marilyn. 7991. Partial Connections. Savage, MD:

Rowman and Littlefield.
TallBear, Kim, 2014, "Standing with and Speaking as Faith:
A Feminist-Indigenous Apploach to
Inquiry [Research note].'' |ournal ofResearch Prąctice 10 (2):
Alticle N7.
Thóvenot, Laulent. 200i. "Which Road to Follow? The
Moral Complexity of an .Equipped'
HumanitY," In ComPlexities: SociąI Studies of Knowledge practices,
edited by]ohn Law and Annema_
rie Mol, 53-87. Durham, NC: Duke UniversiĘ Press.

Traweek, Sharon, 1988. Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The

Worltl of Hi;ah Energy Physics. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard UniversiĘ Press.

Turnbull, David, 2000. Masons, Tricksters and Cartographers:

Comparative StucJies in the Sociology of
Scientiflc and Indigenous Knowletlge. Amsterdam: Harwood
Academic Publishers.
Verran, Helen, 1998, "Re-Imagining Land Ownership
in Australi a." postcoloniąl Shdies I (2):
237_54,

"A Postcolonial Moment in Science Studies: Alternative Firing

Regimes of Environmen_
-,2oo2,
tal Scientists and Aborigina] Landowners. " SociąI Studies
tlf Science 32: 729-62,
2073, "Engagements between Disparate Knowledge
Traditions: Toward Doing Difference
-,
Generatively and in Good Faith." In Contestecl Ecologies:
Dialogttes in the South on Nahłre att1
Knowledge, edited by Lesley Green, 141-.6I. Cape
Town: HSRC Press,
Waterton, C]aire, and Brian Wynne. 7999. "Can Focus
Groups Access Community Views?,, In
Developing Focus Group Research: Politics, Theory
anrl Pracflce, edited by Rosaline ,Barbour and
Kitzin8el/ Jenny
127-43, London: Sage.

Waterton, Claire, and Judith Tsouvalis. 2015. "On the

Political Nature of Cyanobacteria: Intra-
active collective politics in Loweswater, the English
Lake District.'' Enyironment ancl Planning D:
SocieĘ and Space 33 (3): 477*93,

Watts, Laura, Pelle Ehn, and Lucy Suchman. 2014. Prologu

e.ln Making Futures: Mąrgintll Notes on
Innovation, Design, and DemocrąCyI edited by Pelle
Ehn, Elisabet M. Nilsson, and Richard Topgaard,
ix-xxxix. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wynne, Brian, 1996. "May the Sheep Safely Graze? A

Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge
Divide," In RlsŁ Environment and Modemity: Towards
a New Ecology, edited by Scott Lash, Broni_
slaw Szerszynski, and Brian Wynne, 44-83. London:
Sage.
STS as Method 57

,:es-Doerr, Emily.2074. "The World in a Box? Food Security, Edibte Insects, and 'one World,
e Health' Collaboration," Social Science & Medicine 729 7O6-72.

,:es-Doerr, Emily, and Chlistine Labuski. 2015. "The bookCASE: Introduction." In Somatosphere:
:.ltce, Technology and Medicine. Accessed at http://somatosphere.net/2015/06/the-bookcase
a_:IoduCtion.

- -:n, Mei. 2O14. "The Empirical as Conceptual: Transdisciplinary Engagements with an'Experi-
.:.,_a1 Medicine'." Science, Technology, & Human Vąlues 39 (2): 236-.63.