Sociologists Of Science Cautiously Optimistic On Jobs

OBSTACLE COURSE: Former 4S president Sal Restivo fears downsizing more than science wars. Science and technology studies (STS), and their attempts to explain science by social constructs such as language and culture, have given sociologists of science new opportunities for teaching and research. However, STS is viewed by many natural scientists as a dangerous attack on rationality and truth, and not worthy of academic legitimacy. The "science wars" that have arisen between STS's critics and defenders have left science sociologists concerned about the future of the field. Traditional sociology of science was pioneered by Robert K. Merton, now a University Professor, emeritus, at Columbia University, in the 1930s. It examines the structure of scientific institutions and organizations and the demographic issues of science, such as the makeup of the scientific community. Researchers in more recently established STS programs take those studies further; they apply history, sociology, philosophy, and politics to the natural, or physical, sciences to determine what scientists know and how they know it. Many sociologists say that STS is supplanting traditional sociology departments as the primary source of jobs for science sociologists. However, they fear that the debate over whether STS is a legitimate field could have dire consequences, such as the eventual elimination of such programs. FIZZ: Tom Gieryn cites science sociology’s "intellectual effervescence." Despite the worries over STS's survival, most science sociologists believe the future holds potential. "This field has just begun to grow. It's going to grow dramatically in the years ahead," predicts Tom Gieryn, an associate professor of sociology at Indiana University, Bloomington. "No one can deny the intellectual effervescence in sociology of science. It's just been extraordinary." Gieryn, who is serving for a year as the Ralph and Doris Hansmann Member at the Institute for Advanced Study's School of Social Science in Princeton, N.J., estimates that there are only "a couple of hundred of us practicing full-time in the country-maybe more." "Sociology of science has never been a large specialty," comments Steven Shapin, a professor of history and sociology of science at the University of California, San Diego, who is on a year-long fellowship at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford, Calif. Regarding STS, he continues: "That, too, though it's gotten an awful lot of attention lately, is also a small specialty. Anyone attempting to develop hard evidence about employment prospects is just speculating." Recent years have seen the debate over the legitimacy of STS intensify as researchers in the physical sciences fight back against perceived attacks on "hard" science. "Many physical scientists who meet me and many of my colleagues are under the impression we are out to persecute them or undermine their work or downgrade rationality, which is nonsense," declares Sal Restivo, a professor of sociology and science studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) in Troy, N.Y. Among the early counterattacks in the science wars was a book by Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt entitled Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrel With Science (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994). Its attempt to call attention to the perceived anti-science movement helped thrust the science wars into high gear. Then, further inflaming an already furious discussion, New York University physicist Alan Sokal last year submitted a nonsensical parody of postmodernism to the journal Social Text, which published it as a legitimate essay (A. Sokal, Social Text, 46-47:217-52, 1996). Among Sokal's satirical jabs was that the real world does not exist. His revelation of the hoax (A. Sokal, Lingua Franca, 6[4]:62-4, 1996) touched off a storm of reactions, ranging from glee to condemnation, across the science community. Natural scientists felt justified in saying that social constructionists often do not know what they're talking about, while STS defenders and others accused Sokal of making his point via underhanded means that contributed little to the public debate. Many researchers engaged in science studies counter that they are not anti-science, but that their critiques are meant simply to gain a better understanding of science and scientists. Princeton University anthropology professor Emily Martin once explained, "Part of the worldview of an anthropologist is that the real world exists, but I can only know about it through my own language, my own culture, so I can never get at it except through these veils, these lenses, these gauzy filters" (F. Hoke, The Scientist, July 10, 1995, page 1). Gieryn reports that as a result of the natural scientists' counterattack, last October's annual Society for Social Studies of Science (4S) meeting in Germany featured "lots of hand-wringing and worrying, kind of a 'sky is falling' thing." Some of Gieryn's colleagues wondered whether the Sokal matter and Gross and Levitt's work would usher in mass efforts to eliminate STS programs and discredit sociology of science. However, Gieryn observes: "No one at that meeting could provide hard evidence that this had happened." Current 4S president Karin Knorr Cetina, a professor of sociology at the University of Bielefeld in Germany, believes the science wars are a result of an increasing application of "science and expertise . . . to all areas of social life." She and others say such application leads to "knowledge societies." As those societies proliferate, "science becomes subject to the same scrutiny and research which it has brought to bear on the rest of the world." According to Knorr Cetina, this scrutiny inevitably breeds disagreements such as those seen in the science wars, "whose spirit I very much regret." But she contends that if the knowledge-society theory is true, "understanding science and expertise will be even more important in the future than it was in the past," and "there should be more, not fewer, job opportunities." Whatever effects the science wars may have had on the field, they have had little impact on the National Science Foundation's Science and Technology Studies Program, according to its director, Edward J. Hackett. In an E-mailed interview with The Scientist, Hackett, who also is a professor in RPI's STS department, explains that NSF "has supported research in the history, philosophy, and social studies of science and technology for more than 20 years, and properly so." The agency spent about $3 million on STS research in fiscal year 1996, plus $2 million on research into societal dimensions of engineering, science, and technology. SIMILAR CHALLENGES: New science sociologists face the same job problems as all recent Ph.D.'s, says Cornell's Bruce Lewenstein. Until about 10 to 20 years ago, most sociology of science positions were found in sociology departments. Since then, the more interdisciplinary STS has gained a foothold in academia. As a result, according to Bruce V. Lewenstein, an associate professor of communication and science and technology studies at Cornell University, "institutionally, sociology of science is often mixed up with other things." When it comes to employment in sociology, many science sociologists call STS both a blessing and a curse. As Shapin points out, the positive aspect "is contained in the maxim that there's no such thing as bad publicity. A lot of people are aware there is such a thing [as STS]. A lot are even troubling to find out what people in the field have written." In addition, Gieryn notes that science sociologists find jobs in STS programs. On the down side, Shapin is concerned that many people are hearing only the critics' side of the story. He says he knows of some universities at which faculty members have called for the elimination of STS on the grounds that such work has no empirical basis and should not be tolerated or supported by academia. Despite the concern about job prospects, interest in STS appears to be on the rise. Restivo, the 4S president in 1994 and 1995, observes that membership in the group has risen from about 400 to 500 during the 1980s to its current total of more than 800. In addition, publishers' series in the field "seem to be doing very well," he notes. Restivo disagrees that the science wars will prove worrisome to sociology of science. More troubling, he believes, is the current downsizing trend in higher education. Gieryn concurs, saying that STS is particularly vulnerable because it is so new in academia. "I don't think the science wars, in the long run, are going to play out in a negative way," Restivo contends. "In the short term, it may have an effect, but long-term I don't think it's going to have an impact because, to be crude, the scientists are wrong. They don't understand the sociology, and they don't understand the social nature of the world in a profound way." With more understanding, according to many sociologists of science, natural scientists would be more accepting. "The field is diverse, and no one can speak for every tendency in the field," Shapin states. "Virology has its lunatics, so I'm sure there are lunatics in our field. But I would welcome serious attention to what it is we do, and as people learn about it, they would find it interesting." BRUSH-OFF: Jennifer Croissant regrets there’s only "very partial knowledge" about the field. Jennifer L. Croissant, an assistant professor in the Culture, Science, Technology, and Society (CSTS) program at the University of Arizona, feels that while more information "would definitely help, . . . there is a point where you spend more time explaining what it is you do than doing it. There is a trade-off there." VARIED SKILLS: A more general training offers greater opportunities, according to Harriet Zuckerman. Some observers argue that for the field to survive, greater attention must be paid to traditional broad-based sociological training than to specializing in science. "It's a question of the range of opportunities," says Harriet Zuckerman, vice president of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation in New York and a professor, emerita, of sociology at Columbia University. "The number of STS programs is more numerous than a decade ago but still not large. The number of jobs that are available, I would guess, is substantially smaller than the number of jobs in standard disciplinary departments." Zuckerman contends that graduate students with Ph.D.'s in sociology who are also interested in other specialties, such as stratification or the sociology of law, and can teach methodology and introductory sociology, for example, are apt to have more job opportunities because "their skills are more varied." Gieryn concurs: "If sociology of science is going to thrive, and if we're going to get jobs for these people, we have to look at sociology departments." However, Hackett believes sociology as a discipline could benefit by incorporating the ideas and perspectives of STS in teaching and research and through greater representation of STS-oriented scholars among sociology faculty. "Whatever difficulties there may be realizing this hope have more to do with secular changes in higher education . . . than the characteristics of sociology of science," he asserts. "If higher education as a whole were more robust these days, I expect the sociology of science would benefit disproportionately from the growth opportunity." He adds that he is "certain" such an improvement in education's health will occur. The Next Generation Recent entrants in the field express hope and worry about science sociology's future, particularly in the wake of the science wars. Kelly Moore, an assistant professor of sociology at Barnard College in New York, feels that "sociology of science is experiencing a bit of a revival lately." Moore spent the last two years of her Ph.D. program seeking a job, and in 1993-the same year she earned her doctorate in sociology from the University of Arizona-she landed her current position. She believes that the secret of her success has been to link science to more mainstream, traditional sociology. Moore is now writing a book about political protests in the United States during the 1960s and their effects on American science. "I'm trying to join science with other parts of society," she says. "Somebody's job opportunities in sociology of science are probably better [if] they can link their interest in science to some other major field in sociology." However, Moore fears that science sociologists who take what some would call the wrong side in the science wars could find themselves frozen out of jobs. "It's guilt by association," she argues. "Anybody who's critical of science or says the emperor has no clothes might have trouble getting a job in places where the physical and natural sciences are particularly strong." Croissant agrees. "There's a whole lot of very partial knowledge about what it is [that] sociology of science does," she declares. "Regardless of what your work is, you get tarred with the same brush." Croissant spent three years finding her job, sending out 100 applications. She believes that interdisciplinary STS programs such as the one in which she teaches generally help science sociologists, offering them "different, unique jobs." But Croissant worries that the potentially controversial nature of her research, feminist sociology of science, will some day cost her her job. "I fully expect to be one of the casualties of the science wars. Some of the work I do would push some buttons. . . . In that doing anything feminist is problematic for some people, and coupled with the prospect that doing anything poking around into scientists' and engineers' worlds upsets others, the combination of the two is bound to upset, just in title alone." As an example, Croissant cites her troubles in making administrators aware of the inherent research value in building bridges between women's studies and science and engineering. In spite of the concerns, there is considerable hope among observers that the field will grow, leading to increased job opportunities. Gieryn, for example, believes that science sociology's intellectual growth "is translating to more and more sociologists who have not been trained in the field saying, 'This is something we've got to know about.'" He adds: "Once they know what they do, I think there will be a lot more opportunities for our new Ph.D.'s." Lewenstein also points to the field's "intellectual vibrancy" and acknowledges that while there are still relatively few institutional STS positions available, postdoctoral and governmental slots offer alternatives. New graduates, he explains, are "going through all the hoops that all recent Ph.D.'s have to go through. There are not huge numbers of positions in those fields, but I don't know of anyone good in the field who has had to completely drop out." The invitation to greater scrutiny is a common theme among science sociologists. They reason that once people understand what the field is all about, they will be much more accepting of it, fostering even greater growth. "I'm actually slightly optimistic," Shapin offers. "As people take a look at what we do, being a very small field, the net effect might be good. Needless to say, I don't think the natural scientists have anything to fear whatsoever from what we do. The more natural scientists that take a look at what we do, the better it is." Contact 4S at the Department of Sociology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, La. 70803; (504) 388-1645. Fax: (504) 388-5102. World Wide Web: http://www.lsu.edu/guests/ssss/public_html.

Sociologists Of Science Cautiously Optimistic On Jobs

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of