Science & Technology Studies
https://sciencetechnologystudies.journal.fi/
<div class="region region-content-intro"> <div id="block-block-6" class="block block-block"> <div class="content"> <p>Science & 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 & 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> </p> <p> </p> </div> </div> </div>European Association for the Study of Science and Technology and Finnish Society for Science and Technology Studieen-USScience & Technology Studies2243-4690<p><strong>Terms & Conditions</strong></p> <p>This Science & Technology Studies website ("Site") is owned and operated by <em>The Finnish Society for Science and Technology Studies</em> (“Society”). <em>The Finnish Society for Science and Technology Studies</em> and its publication <em>Science & Technology Studies</em> are non-profit organizations.</p> <p>By accessing or using the Site, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions below ("Terms and Conditions"). These Terms and Conditions incorporate by reference and include the Site's Privacy Policy and any guidelines, rules or disclaimers that may be posted and updated on specific web pages or on notices that are sent to you. If you do not agree with these Terms and Conditions, please do not use this Site.</p> <p>The Society reserves the right to change, modify, add or remove portions of these Terms and Conditions at its discretion at any time and without prior notice. Please check this page periodically for any modifications. Your continued use of this Site following the posting of any changes will mean that you have accepted the changes.</p> <p><strong>Copyrights and Limitations on Use</strong></p> <p>Content on this website is protected by Creative Commons license <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CC BY 4.0</a>. The copyright of articles remains with the authors but the license permits other users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the published articles. Using and sharing the content is permitted as long as original materials are appropriately credited. Metadata (e.g. the article title) is an exeption - this is licensed under <a href="https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/">CC0</a> that permits the distribution of the article information - not content - in archives and databases. </p> <p>The Site may contain robot exclusion headers, and by using the Site you agree that you will not use any robots, spiders, crawlers or other automated downloading programs or devices to access, search, index, monitor or copy any Content. The harvesting of postal or email addresses from the Site for purposes of sending unsolicited or unauthorized commercial material, is prohibited. </p> <p>You may not use the services on the Site to publish or distribute any information (including software or other content) that is illegal; violates or infringes upon the rights of any other person; is abusive, hateful, profane, pornographic, threatening or vulgar; contains errors, viruses or other harmful components; or is otherwise actionable by law. Science & Technology Studies may at any time exercise editorial control over the content of any information or material that is submitted or distributed through its facilities and/or services.</p> <p>You may not, without the approval of Science & Technology Studies, use the Site to publish or distribute any advertising, promotional material, or solicitation to other users of the Site to use any goods or services. For example (but without limitation), you may not use the Site to conduct any business, to solicit the performance of any activity that is prohibited by law, or to solicit other users to become subscribers of other information services. Similarly, you may not use the Site to download and redistribute public information or shareware for personal gain or use the facilities and/or services to distribute multiple copies of public domain information or shareware.</p> <p><strong>Trademarks</strong></p> <p>All trademarks appearing on this Site are the property of their respective owners.</p> <p><strong>Links to Other Sites</strong></p> <p>The Site may contain hyperlinks to other sites or resources that are provided solely for your convenience. Science & Technology Studies is not responsible for the availability of external sites or resources linked to the Site, and does not endorse and is not responsible or liable for any content, advertising, products or other materials on or available from such sites or resources. Transactions that occur between you and any third party are strictly between you and the third party and are not the responsibility of Science & Technology Studies. Due to the fact that Science & Technology Studies is not responsible for the availability or accuracy of these outside resources or their contents, you should review the terms and conditions and privacy policies of these linked sites, as their policies may differ from ours.</p> <p>Last revised: 3 Aug 2020</p>Conceptualising Doing Things
https://sciencetechnologystudies.journal.fi/article/view/121502
<p>What happens when academics, who “conceptualise research questions”, and community groups, which aim to be “doing things”, collaborate? Building on STS research about collaboration, we focus on the collaborative experiences of three teams of academics and community groups to address environmental justice. Our research reveals a tension between the way two sets of actors understand the purpose and mode of science within environmental justice collaborations. We explain this tension by exploring the motivations of the academics and community group managers and by how team members arrived at a shared understanding of collaboration itself. Our findings reveal that the purpose and mode of science within the collaborations that unfolded can best be understood not as conceptualizing research questions or doing things, but rather as “conceptualizing doing things.” Recognizing this merged understanding of science could be beneficial in enhancing and accelerating the work of community group-academic collaborations labouring together to address environmental justice challenges.</p>Edwin SchmittMadison MaciasDarshan Karwat
Copyright (c) 2024 Edwin Schmitt, Madison Macias, Darshan Karwat
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
2025-02-152025-02-1538122410.23987/sts.121502Standardising Patient Engagement in Drug Development
https://sciencetechnologystudies.journal.fi/article/view/121487
<p>Initiatives to increase patient engagement in drug development have recently been accompanied by growing calls for standardisation due to considerable uncertainties about how to best perform patient engagement and use it in drug marketing applications. We focus on materials developed by the Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD), a multi-stakeholder group founded in 2015, to investigate what these materials seek to standardize on patient engagement in drug development and what visions of patient engagement are being constructed by them. We take a material-semiotic approach, whereby the materials analysed are seen as influential actors, which can work upon and transform issues of concern. The findings indicate that these materials seek to standardise a new beginning for the drug development trajectory, which they (re)locate to the patients’ needs and preferences, and long-term relationships between researchers and patients developed through specific methods. A new type of patient is thus envisioned, while researchers and patient organisations are ascribed more complex roles.</p>Claudia EgherOlga Zvonareva
Copyright (c) 2024 Claudia Egher, Dr. Olga Zvonareva
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
2025-02-152025-02-15381254510.23987/sts.121487Pragmatic Progress and the Improvement of Medical Knowledge for Global Health
https://sciencetechnologystudies.journal.fi/article/view/113830
<p>The paper presents an epistemological argument on the crisis in medical knowledge today, first identifying a fundamental problem of the crisis, i.e., the <em>epistemic gap</em>, and then introducing the concept of <em>pragmatic progress</em> as a tool for understanding what is needed for pharmaceutical research to solve pressing epistemic and public health problems. This (new) analysis can contribute to identifying at least one mechanism needed to close the epistemic gap in current medical knowledge, which in turn could serve as a criterion for filtering current and future proposals. In order to do this, first, I show that the drug market has led to a significant <em>epistemic gap</em> between the knowledge needed to address pressing public health issues and the knowledge produced following the demands of the global market. Second, using the notion of pragmatic progress, I suggest a reading of the crisis in medical knowledge, which emphasizes the problems that clinical research is set to solve. Then I present two alternative ways to restructure medical research to fulfill this aim, illustrating how each can be implemented through real-world examples. The last section addresses a possible objection to the argument and exemplifies how the criterion can be used to filter undesirable proposals. </p>Manuela Fernández Pinto
Copyright (c) 2024 Manuela Fernández Pinto
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
2025-02-152025-02-15381466010.23987/sts.113830Evolutionary Psychology and the Naturalization of Gender Inequalities
https://sciencetechnologystudies.journal.fi/article/view/120625
<p>This article explores the uses of evolutionary psychology in a corpus of 29 articles published by the online magazine <em>Quillette</em>. We show that while they openly rely on a rationalist, descriptive stance, <em>Quillette </em>contributors actively promote a range of normative views on science and the social world, including gender inequalities, with the stated goal to question the so-called “left-wing” and “blank slate” orthodoxies. In so doing, this magazine participates to the development and diffusion of a conservative meritocratic frame that strongly resembles the self-legitimizing discourses put forth by socially dominant groups, only in a naturalized form.</p>Julien LarregueSylvain Lavau
Copyright (c) 2024 Julien Larregue, Sylvain Lavau
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
2025-02-152025-02-15381617410.23987/sts.120625Calvert Jane (2024) A Place of Science and Technology Studies: Observation, Intervention and Collaboration
https://sciencetechnologystudies.journal.fi/article/view/152099
Conor Douglas
Copyright (c) 2025 Conor Douglas
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
2025-02-152025-02-15381757610.23987/sts.152099Matzner Tobias (2023) Algorithms: Technology, Culture, Politics
https://sciencetechnologystudies.journal.fi/article/view/152289
Lukas Griessl
Copyright (c) 2025 Lukas Griessl
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
2025-02-152025-02-15381777910.23987/sts.152289