Send message to Author

Short abstract:

This talk builds on an empirical operationlization of the uptake and proposition of STS concepts in publications to discuss the integration of research from a semi-peripheral STS community (Japan) in the international discourse (mainstream journals).

Long abstract:

In STS and other social science fields discussions have been taking place that criticize the asymmetrical relation of theory developed in centers and case studies done in the peripheries. Concepts are circulated one-way out from a center of academic power and applied in contexts outside of their development. This talk addresses this asymmetry and proposes its empirical operationalization to the relationship of Japanese- and English-language STS as a concrete example.

I ask three empirical questions: First, which concepts are used in Japanese STS publications, where do those come from and for which cases are they used? Second, are new conceptual contributions proposed in these publications? And third, how are those contributions used in the English-speaking STS journal discourse? These questions are answered through a document analysis of two Japanese STS journals and two edited volumes with Japanese STS cases studies and a citation context analysis of relevant publications identified in the Web of Science. My results show that 1) the majority of the investigated Japanese STS cases studies works with cases from Japan and that they frequently employ Western concepts. 2) These publications often either implicitly or explicitly offer new conceptual tools. 3) Less than a sixth of these offers are put to use by the international STS community.

I will propose explanations for this asymmetry, discuss possible ways to address it and connect those results to other relevant questions in the field.

Send message to Author

Short abstract:

A true transnationalization of STS should go beyond increasing the visibility of research from the Global South in dominant academic spheres but also incorporate theoretical frameworks, methodologies, and research agendas originating from the South to critically analyze contexts in the North.

Long abstract:

Scholars from peripheral countries working in Europe or North America frequently find themselves compelled to investigate topics related to their countries or regions of origin. As a Brazilian enrolled in a U.S. STS graduate program, I have sensed, in many occasions, the expectation that I focus my research on Latin America. This trend arises from a paucity of knowledge or awareness within central academic circles about these non-Western contexts but also because of an implicit professional incentive to explore subjects perceived as "novel" or "exotic" by mainstream academia. Consequently, this dynamic not only reinforces certain geographical and cultural biases in research topics but also potentially pigeonholes scholars into specific areas of study based on their nationality rather than their broader academic interests or expertise.

In this presentation, I engage with Invernizzi et al., (2022), Kreimer (2019), and others to explore the feasibility of developing STS scholarship that examines contexts in the “center” from the perspective of (semi)peripheral communities and scholars. I argue that a true transnationalization of STS should go beyond increasing the visibility of research from the Global South in dominant academic spheres. It should also actively incorporate and leverage theoretical frameworks, methodologies, and research agendas originating from the South to critically analyze contexts in the North. Acknowledging the difficulties of this approach, this presentation examines the various challenges involved and explores potential strategies for a true transnational STS.

Send message to Author

Short abstract:

4S is undergoing increasing internationalization, in its governance structure and the Annual Conference attendance. This communication examines this transnationalization process and its potential and challenges for the integration of diverse global STS strands.

Long abstract:

The Society for Social Studies of Science is about to complete half a century, with 49 conferences organized, counting the current one. Starting as a small and mostly North American meeting, the event has grown in attendance and geographical diversity. The site of the conference moved first to Europe (every four years since 1984) and later Tokio (2010), Buenos Aires (2014), Sydney (2018), and Cholula (2022). The Governance of the Society also became more international, with Council members coming from diverse regions and the first non-Euro-American president appointed in 2022. This process evidences the vitality of the STS field and organizations around the world and, also, a policy for transnationalization promoted by the Society. In previous work (Invernizzi et al., 2022) we have demonstrated that peripheral STS has a low visibility in core STS journals. Are conferences and scientific societies a first step or a more open space to promote the acknowledgment and dialogue between the diverse, worldwide STS strands? How far has 4S transnationalization has gone? This communication is an unpretentious account of 4S’ transnationalization process view from a series of indicators regarding the Society governance (Past Presidents’ country of affiliation; Council members’ country of affiliation) and its conferences (conference venues, themes, chairs, plenary speakers, and (from a sample of conferences) the country affiliation of the participants). Although the data shows a relevant trend towards transnationalization and STS diversity, at the same time makes evident certain barriers to a more significant integration of STS scholars outside canonical STS centers.

Send message to Author

Short abstract:

This paper suggests incorporating a global sociology perspective into STS to conceptualize “global technoscientific fields” that materially and discursively operate through globally connected and historically situated relations.

Long abstract:

Global sociology, particularly the "connected sociologies" approach (Bhambra 2014), which is rooted in postcolonial and decolonial thinking, provides a framework for understanding interconnected, spatially expansive, historically situated global social relations (Go and Lawson 2017). Scholars engaging with this approach draw upon Bourdieu's field theory and methods to conceptualize "global fields" despite Bourdieu's limited exploration of global phenomena. While Bourdieu briefly touches upon the concept of "the scientific field," technology traditionally falls outside the purview of this subfield in global sociology (Go and Krause 2016, 8).

This theoretical presentation explores the implications of conceptualizing "global technoscientific fields" and proposes an agenda for a global sociology of technoscience. This agenda expands on globally connected technoscientific histories, addresses the ideological and epistemological implications of coloniality, and examines the materially and discursively co-constitutive relationship between global politics and technoscience.

By doing that, my aim is twofold: first, to confront the dominant trend in mainstream STS that obscures the historical situatedness of hegemonic knowledge producers, who occupy positions of power within global hierarchies of knowledge production while pretending to be with no "geopolitical determinations" (Spivak 1988, 271). Second, to challenge the tendency to consider locality only relevant in cases from (semi)peripheries or "elsewhere" to serve them as complementary examples, coloring and spicing up the implied Euro-American universalities that assume "East and West as separate and pre-established foundations" instead of acknowledging "the connections and circulations that have made one world, unquestionably unequal and uneven, but kinetically joined" (Abraham 2023, 18).