Science & Technology Studies 2021-05-15T11:21:56+03:00 Salla Sariola Open Journal Systems <div class="region region-content-intro"> <div id="block-block-6" class="block block-block"> <div class="content"> <p>Science &amp; Technology Studies is an international peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the advancement of scholarly studies of science and technology as socio-material phenomena, including their historical and contemporary production and their associated forms of knowledge, expertise, social organization and controversy. This includes interest in developing Science and Technology Studies' own knowledge production techniques, methodology and interventions. The journal welcomes high quality contributions to that are based on substantial theoretical or empirical engagement with the multidisciplinary field of science and technology studies, including contributions from anthropology, sociology, history, philosophy, political science, educational science and communication studies.</p> <p>Science &amp; Technology Studies is the official journal of the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST) and the Finnish Association for Science and Technology Studies.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </div> Editorial - What Does Openness Conceal? 2021-05-15T11:20:33+03:00 Salla Sariola <p>.</p> 2021-04-19T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Salla Sariola The Pragmatic Turn in Clinical Research 2021-05-15T11:19:10+03:00 Olga Zvonareva <p><span lang="EN-GB">How does knowledge obtained in clinical trials apply to the actual treatment of patients? This question has recently acquired a new significance amidst complaints about the limited ability of trial results to improve clinical practice. Pragmatic clinical trials have been advocated to address this problem. In this </span><span lang="EN-US">article</span><span lang="EN-GB">, I trace the emergence of the pragmatic turn in clinical research, starting from the first mention of ‘pragmatic trial’ in 1967, and analyse the changes to how pragmatism has been conceived. I </span><span lang="EN-US">argue that contemporary version of pragmatism risks missing the mark by focusing exclusively on establishing similarity between the trial and the clinic for the purpose of greater generalizability. This focus eclipses the move for carefully aligning medical experimentation with conditions, needs and concerns in the clinic aimed at greater usefulness.&nbsp; </span></p> 2021-05-15T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Olga Zvonareva User Representations as a Design Resource 2021-05-15T11:20:06+03:00 Kaisa Savolainen Sampsa Hyysalo <p>The study of how the understanding of usages and users is achieved and turned into the characteristics of products comprises ‘the sociology of user representation’ in Science and Technology Studies. Whilst the early research on the topic was foremost a critique of designers’ imposition of theirimagination and preferences on prospective users, research has since discovered a richer research landscape in accomplishing the difficult task of anticipating the future contexts and identities of users. Our paper continues this line of work by examining a situation where first-hand access to users is blocked from human-centred design-oriented designers. Constructing an array of complementary user representations helps them to bridge the previously accumulated knowledge on users in their trade to the envisioned technology. The complementarities in the handful of key user segment representations and what is represented in their explicated form allowed the design team to make reasoned and accountable design decisions.</p> 2021-05-15T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Kaisa Savolainen, Sampsa Hyysalo Mapping Case Studies of Public Engagement and Participation in Science and Technology 2021-05-15T11:19:38+03:00 Paulo Maia de Loureiro Hugo Horta João M. Santos <p>In recent years, increasing criticism has been levelled against case study based research on public engagement and participation in science and technology (PEST). Most critics argue that such case studies are highly contextual and fail to provide global, holistic and systemic views of public engagement phenomena. In this study, we mapped the case study literature on PEST by identifying a robust sample of articles, and analysed it looking for emerging patterns that could provide empirical evidence for new frameworks of public engagement design and analysis. Results show that the case study based literature on PEST continues to grow, although concentrated in a few countries and knowledge domains. The trends that emerged from the sample reveal high centralisation and planning and suggest that deficit science communication models are still common. We argue that future frameworks may focus on decentralising hierarchical power and dependency relationships between agents.</p> 2021-05-15T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) 2020 Paulo Maia de Loureiro, Hugo Horta, João M. Santos The Democratisation Myth 2021-05-15T11:21:56+03:00 Marcel Knöchelmann <p><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 519.147px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.894352);">Open access (OA) in the Global North is considered to solve an accessibility problem in scholarly </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 542.48px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.948153);">communication. But this accessibility is restricted to the consumption of knowledge. Epistemic </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 565.814px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.94528);">injustices inhering in the scholarly communication of a global production of knowledge remain </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 589.147px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.92012);">unchanged. This underscores that the commercial or big deal OA dominating Europe and North </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 612.48px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.960749);">America have little revolutionary potential to democratise knowledge. Academia in the Global North, </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 635.814px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.953099);">driven by politics of progressive neoliberalism, can even reinforce its hegemonic power by solidifying </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 659.147px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.980213);">and legitimating contemporary hierarchies of scholarly communication through OA. In a critique of </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 682.48px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.899029);">the notion of a democratisation of knowledge, I showcase manifestations of OA as either allowing </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 705.814px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.902843);">consumption of existing discourse or as active participation of discourse in the making. The latter </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 729.147px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.927019);">comes closer to being the basis for a democratisation of knowledge. I discuss this as I issue a threefold </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 752.48px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.962785);">conceptualisation of epistemic injustices comprising of testimonial injustice, hermeneutical injustice, </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 775.814px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.938945);">and epistemic objectification. As these injustices prevail, the notion of a democratisation of knowledge </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 799.147px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.973461);">through OA is but another form of technological determinism that neglects the intricacies of culture </span><span style="left: 165.354px; top: 822.48px; font-size: 16.6667px; font-family: sans-serif; transform: scaleX(0.953646);">and hegemony</span>.</p> 2021-02-19T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Marcel Knöchelmann Godin Benoît (2020) The Idea of Technological Innovation: A Brief Alternative History. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. 208 pages. ISBN: 978 1 83910 401 5. 2021-05-15T11:21:28+03:00 Auke Pols <p>N/A</p> 2021-03-29T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Auke Pols Benjamin Ruha (2019) Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Medford: Polity Press. 172 pages. eISBN: 9781509526437 2021-05-15T11:21:00+03:00 Jackson Longworth <p>Book reivew of Ruha Benajmin's Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code.</p> 2021-03-29T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Jackson Longworth