Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T16:28:54.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 4 - The Third Wave of Science Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2019

By
Harry Collins  and
Robert Evans
Edited by
Todd L. Pittinsky
Todd L. Pittinsky
Affiliation:
Stony Brook University, State University of New York
Get access

Summary

The start of the “Third Wave of science studies” dates to a paper we wrote that was published in April 2002 by the journal Social Studies of Science (Collins & Evans, 2002). The paper challenged the idea, then dominant in science and technology studies (STS), that the problems associated with the role of science in policy making could be solved by reducing the influence of scientific experts and giving more rights in these matters to ordinary citizens. The Third Wave paper (hereafter 3Wave) set out a normative theory of expertise that remains consistent with the sociology of scientific knowledge but which can be used to argue against both an excessive reliance on science and an unrestrained suspicion of expertise. The trick is to turn attention from how truth is made to who is an expert and concentrate on making the “best” decisions rather than the “right” decisions. It can take half a century or more to know what was the right decision, but one can decide on the best decision by taking advice from the best experts and experts can be identified in the short term.

Type
Chapter
Information
Science, Technology, and Society
New Perspectives and Directions
 , pp. 79 - 108
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antonsen, M., & Nilsen, R. E. (2016). Strife of Brian: Science and reflexive reason as a public project. An interview with Brian Wynne. Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 1(1), 31–40. doi:10.5324/njsts.v1i1.2124Google Scholar
Bloor, D. (1973). Wittgenstein and Mannheim on the sociology of mathematics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A, 4, 173–191. doi:10.1016/0039-3681(73)90003-4Google Scholar
Bloor, D. (1991). Knowledge and social imagery (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boyce, T. (2007). Health, risk and news: The MMR vaccine and the media: Media and Culture (Vol. 9). New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2011). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy (G. Burchell, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, H. M. (1974). The TEA set: Tacit knowledge and scientific networks. Science Studies, 4, 165–185. doi:10.1177/030631277400400203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. M. (1975). The seven sexes: A study in the sociology of a phenomenon, or the replication of experiments in physics. Sociology, 9, 205–224. doi:10.1177/003803857500900202Google Scholar
Collins, H. M. (1990). Artificial experts: Social knowledge and intelligent machines. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, H. M. (1996). Embedded or embodied? A review of Hubert Dreyfus’ What computers still can’t do. Artificial Intelligence, 80, 99–117. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(96)00083-6Google Scholar
Collins, H. M. (2004). Interational expertise as a third kind of knowledge. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 3, 125–143. doi:10.1023/B:PHEN.0000040824.89221.1aGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. M. (2008). Actors and analysts’ categories in the social analysis of science. In Meusburger, P., Welker, M., & Wunder, E. (Eds.), Clashes of knowledge (pp. 101–110). Berlin, Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-5555-3_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. M. (2011). Language and practice. Social Studies of Science, 41, 271–300. doi:10.1177/0306312711399665Google Scholar
Collins, H. M. (2013). Three dimensions of expertise. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 12, 253–273. doi:10.1007/s11097-011-9203-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. M. (2014). Are we all scientific experts now? Malden, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
Collins, H. M. (2016). An imitation game concerning gravitational wave physics. arXiv:1607.07373v1. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.07373Google Scholar
Collins, H. (2017). Interactional expertise and embodiment. In Sandberg, J., Rouleau, L., Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (Eds.), Skilful performance: Enacting expertise, competence, and capabilities in organizations (Perspectives on Process Organization Studies (P-PROS) No. 7, pp. 125–146). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, H. M. (2018a). Are experts right or are they members of expert groups? Social Epistemology [Online first]. doi:10.1080/02691728.2018.1546346Google Scholar
Collins, H. M. (2018b). Artifictional intelligence. Medford, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32, 235–296. doi:10.1177/0306312702032002003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2003). King Canute meets the beach boys: Responses to the third wave. Social Studies of Science, 33, 435–452. doi:10.1177/03063127030333007Google Scholar
Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2014a). Actor and analyst: A response to Coopmans and Burton. Social Studies of Science, 44, 786–792. doi:10.1177/0306312714546242Google Scholar
Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2014b). Quantifying the tacit: The imitation game and social fluency. Sociology, 48, 3–19. doi:10.1177/0038038512455734Google Scholar
Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2015a). Expertise revisited, Part I – Interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 54, 113–123. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.07.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2015b). Probes, surveys, and the ontology of the social. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11, 328–341. doi:10.1177/1558689815619825Google Scholar
Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2017). Why democracies need science. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Collins, H. M., Evans, R., Ribeiro, R., & Hall, M. (2006). Experiments with interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 37, 656–674. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2006.09.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. M., Evans, R., & Weinel, M. (2016). Expertise revisited, Part II: Contributory expertise. Studies in HIstory and Philosophy of Science Part A, 56, 103–110. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.07.003Google Scholar
Collins, H. M., Evans, R., Weinel, M., Lyttleton-Smith, J., Bartlett, A, & Hall, M. (2015). The imitation game and the nature of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 21. doi:10.1177/1558689815619824Google Scholar
Collins, H. M., & Sanders, G. (2007). They give you the keys and say “drive it!” Managers, referred expertise and other expertises. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 38, 621–641. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2007.09.002Google Scholar
Coopmans, C., & Button, G. (2014). Eyeballing expertise. Social Studies of Science, 44, 758–785. doi:10.1177/0306312714531472Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H. L. (1979). What computers can’t do. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the eyes of the computer. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, S. E. (2004). The five-stage model of adult skill acquisition. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 4, 177–181. doi:1177/0270467604264992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrant, D. (2011). Models of democracy in social studies of science. Social Studies of Science, 41, 691–714. doi:10.1177/0306312711414759Google Scholar
Epstein, S. (1996). Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Evans, R. (2008). The sociology of expertise: The distribution of social fluency. Sociology Compass, 1, 281–298. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00062.xGoogle Scholar
Evans, R. (2011). Collective epistemology: The intersection of group membership and expertise. In Schmid, H. B., Sirtes, D., & Weber, M. (Eds.), Collective epistemology (pp. 177–201). Frankfurt, Germany: Ontos.Google Scholar
Evans, R., & Collins, H. M. (2010). Interactional expertise and the imitation game. In Gorman, M. E. (Ed.), Trading zones and interactional expertise: Creating new kinds of collaboration (pp. 53–70). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, R., Collins, H. M., Hall, M., O’Mahoney, H., & Weinel, M. (2019). Bonfire Night and Burns Night: Using the Imitation Game to research English and Scottish identities. In Caudill, D., Gorman, M. E., & Conley, S. N. (Eds.), The third wave in the sociology of science: Selected studies in expertise and experience. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Evans, R., Collins, H. M., Weinel, M., Lyttleton‐Smith, J., O’Mahoney, H., & Leonard‐Clarke, W. (2018). Groups and individuals: Conformity and diversity in the performance of gendered identities. British Journal of Sociology [Online first]. doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12507Google Scholar
Evans, R., & Crocker, H. (2013). The imitation game as a method for exploring knowledge(s) of chronic illness. Methodological Innovations Online, 8(1), 34–52. doi:1010.4256/mio.2013.003Google Scholar
Evans, R., & Gorman, M. (2007). Trading zones and interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A, 38, 657–666. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2007.09.003Google Scholar
Evans, R., & Plows, A. (2007). Listening without prejudice? Re-discovering the value of the disinterested citizen. Social Studies of Science, 37, 827–853. doi:10.1177/0306312707076602Google Scholar
Fischer, F. (2009). Democracy and expertise: Reorienting policy inquiry. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fisher, E., O’Rourke, M., Evans, R., Kennedy, E. B., Gorman, M. E., & Seager, T. P. (2015). Mapping the integrative field: Taking stock of socio-technical collaborations. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1, 39–61. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.1001671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortun, K. (2001). Advocacy after Bhopal: Environmentalism, disaster, new global orders. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25, 739–755. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-LGoogle Scholar
Galison, P. L. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of metaphysics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Giles, J. (2006). Sociologist fools physics judges. Nature, 442(7098), 8. doi:10.1038/442008aGoogle Scholar
Goddiksen, M. (2014). Clarifying interactional and contributory expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 47, 111–117. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2014.06.001Google Scholar
Gorman, M. E. (2002). Levels of expertise and trading zones: A framework for multidisciplinary collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 32, 933–938.Google Scholar
Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science: A study of people, expertise, and sustainable development: Environment and society. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2013). Fields and fallows: A political history of STS. In Barry, A. & Born, G. (Eds.), Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the natural and social sciences (pp. 99–118). London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (Vol. 14, 2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Laurent-Ledru, V., Thomson, A., & Monsonego, J. (2011). Civil society: A critical new advocate for vaccination in Europe. Vaccine, 29, 624–628. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2010.11.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nattrass, N. (2012). The AIDS conspiracy: Science fights back. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in a age of uncertainty. Cambridge, England: Polity.Google Scholar
Plaisance, K. S., & Kennedy, E. G. (2014). A pluralistic approach to interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A, 47, 60–68. doi:10.1016/j.shpsaGoogle Scholar
Reyes-Galindo, L. I., & Ribeiro Duarte, T. (2015). Bringing tacit knowledge back to contributory and interactional expertise: A reply to Goddiksen. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 49, 99–102. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2014.10.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rip, A., Misa, T. J., & Schot, J. (Eds.) (1995). Managing technology in society. London, England: Pinter.Google Scholar
Sheldon, T. (2009). Dutch public health experts refute claims that human papillomavirus vaccination has health risks. BMJ, 338, b1109–b1109. doi:10.1136/bmj.b1109Google Scholar
Summerson Carr, E. (2010). Enactments of expertise. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39, 17–32. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.104948Google Scholar
Wehrens, R. (2014). The potential of the imitation game methods in exploring healthcare professionals’ understanding of the lived experiences and practial challenges of chronically ill patients. Health Care Analysis, 23, 253–271. doi:10.1007/s10728-014-0273-8Google Scholar
Weinel, M. (2007). Primary source knowledge and technical decision-making: Mbeki and the AZT debate. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 38, 748–760. doi:10.106/j.shpsa.2007.09.010Google Scholar
Weinel, M. (2010). Technological decision-making under scientific uncertainty: Preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV in South Africa (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cardiff University. Retrieved from http://orca.cf.ac.uk/55502/Google Scholar
Winch, P. (1958). The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy: Studies in philosophical psychology. London, England: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M Anscombe, Trans.). Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 281–304. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/1/3/004Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×