Search results

The dynamic processes of knowledge production in archaeology and elsewhere in the humanities and social sciences are increasingly viewed within the context of negotiation, cooperation and exchange, as the collaborative effort of groups, clusters and communities of scholars. Shifting focus from the individual scholar to the wider social contexts of her work, this volume investigates the importance of informal networks and conversation in the creation of knowledge about the past, and takes a closer look at the dynamic interaction and exchange that takes place between individuals, groups and clusters of scholars in the wider social settings of scientific work. Various aspects of and mechanisms at work behind the interaction and exchange that takes place between the individual scholar and her community, and the creative processes that such encounters trigger, are critically examined in eleven chapters which draw on a wide spectrum of examples from Europe and North America: from early modern antiquarians to archaeological societies and practitioners at work during the formative years of the modern archaeological disciplines and more recent examples from the twentieth century. The individual chapters engage with theoretical approaches to scientific creativity, knowledge production and interaction such as sociology and geographies of science, and actor-network theory (ANT) in their examination of individual–collective interplay. The book caters to readers both from within and outside the archaeological disciplines; primarily intended for researchers, teachers and students in archaeology, anthropology, classics and the history of science, it will also be of interest to the general reader.

Open Access (free)
Clusters of knowledge
Julia Roberts and Kathleen Sheppard

processualism, post-processualism, personhood theory, historiography, and the philosophy and sociology of science, all of which help historians analyse the formation of these fields in new and innovative ways. Many of these works inspect the acquisition of artefact collections and how those collections shaped knowledge of particular cultures or the practice of other sciences (Shepherd, 2002, 2003; Moser, 2006; Alberti, 2009; Challis, 2013; Stevenson, 2019). In fact, the angles from which to view the history of the discipline of archaeology have become so numerous ROBERTS

in Communities and knowledge production in archaeology
Elana Wilson Rowe

, Bernstein’s (2001:  487) observation that scientific knowledge may be necessary, requested and supplied in processes ‘shaped by politics rather than by science’ probably gives more analytical purchase in most science–​policy interactions. Secondly, the idea of a science–​policy interface also draws the line between science and politics much more distinctly than the division as it exists in practice, as many studies in the history and sociology of science have shown (see, for example, Barnes et al., 1996; Demeritt, 2001; Collins and Pinch, 1998; Latour, 1987; Shapin and

in Arctic governance
Re-thinking Ludwik Fleck’s concept of the thought-collective according to the case of Serbian archaeology
Monika Milosavljević

needed about the fraying of relationships within the archaeological community during this period, but it is in such a context that the flow of knowledge transfer is determined alongside the disciplinary continuum. If such problems are examined with a view to identifying Mannheim’s generations in the sociology of science, it is useful to note that the term ‘generation’ does not refer to a specific social group. Mannheim compares the term ‘generation’ to ‘class’; he states that the force binding the members of a generation is the same as that binding a class – shared

in Communities and knowledge production in archaeology
Open Access (free)
Redefining security in the Middle East
Tami Amanda Jacoby and Brent E. Sasley

sector invite serious distortions of understanding’. By broadening and deepening its agenda, critical security opens a vast and more inclusive terrain for the reposing of questions, long considered resolved in the field, about what it means to be ‘secure’ in the Middle East. To deepen the field, critical security borrows substantially from the sociology of science debates in such diverse

in Redefining security in the Middle East
Martin D. Moore

, ‘Why general practitioners use computers and hospitals do not – part 1: incentives’, BMJ , 325:7372 (2002), 1086–9; T. Benson, ‘Why general practitioners use computers and hospitals do not – part 2: scalability’, BMJ , 325:7372 (2002), 1090–3. The divergence in computerisation between general practice and hospitals has perhaps been the most striking inequality. 40 T. Pinch and W. E. Bijker, ‘The social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the sociology of science and sociology of technology might benefit each other’, in Bijker

in Managing diabetes, managing medicine
Open Access (free)
Johan Östling

a historically evolved phenomenon, it harbours a wealth of reflections and experiences, of sobering correctives and intoxicating dreams. 71  There are, of course, other similar systems of norms, such as Robert K. Merton’s CUDOS principles (an acronym that has come to stand for ‘Communalism, Universalism, Disinterestedness, Originality, and Scepticism’), although this has to do with science and scholarship rather than with the university as such. See Robert K. Merton, ‘The Normative Structure of Science’, in The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical

in Humboldt and the modern German university