臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

科學知識社會學（SSK，包含強綱領和相對主義的經驗綱領）和行動者網絡理論（ANT）是科技與社會（STS）中兩個重要且有深遠影響力的理論及方法論途徑，而它們在二十世紀末發生過兩起重大的爭論，分別是1992年的〈認識論的膽小鬼〉（‘Epistemological Chicken’）和1999年的〈反Latour〉（‘Anti-Latour’），藉由考察這兩起論爭的內容從而釐清兩學派間的異同程度、關係以及論爭對於STS領域的意義，這三個問題是本論文的研究目標和主要關懷。
本研究除了透過文獻回顧展示當前爭議是如何被討論的和近讀兩次爭議中的六篇主要爭論文本外，並以「方法論空間」作為輔助概念詳盡地描繪爭議中三位核心學者David Bloor、Harry Collins和Bruno Latour等所呈現出的焦點問題、應答進退、知識資源、措辭以及爭論成員的理論意圖和學術承諾，再進行必要地延長性閱讀他們在論爭後餘波發言與發展，試圖從中拼湊出爭議產生的可能原因。更重要地，本研究提醒在方法論空間內「方法論與方法論的評判知識」是一種對於學院學者來說具有特殊風格樣貌的知識形態，而它的主要特徵是「知識行動者有能力來對其他人的知識觀點進行局部而有創意的修正、改造與批判，並有著其獨特的融貫性」。理解這點則有助於更好地掌握SSK和ANT間兩次學術爭議的實際面貌。
最後，本研究回答一開始的三個問題。本文總結SSK與ANT之間在方法論的相對特殊性上雖有清楚和表面的不同，但在較一般性的層次上也有相容的相似處，反之亦然。其次，爭議之於STS（乃至社會科學）的意義在於指出我們需要將方法論的知識以個體化的方式加以識別和析離出來，我們因此能夠在眾多理論與方法論中找到差異化的方法論知識。第三，爭議與對其的討論過程也警惕我們STS研究者必須更留意本身使用的理論與方法論究竟是對新方法的炫耀性使用（孔雀扮演遊戲）或是對真正重要的問題的充耳不聞與迴避（鴕鳥扮演遊戲）而已。它們很可能是一體兩面的事情而實則沒有太大的不同，而SSK和ANT的兩次論爭已展示了這點。

Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (includes Strong Programme and Empirical Programme of Relativism) and Actor-network Theory are two significant theories and methodological approaches in Science, Technology and Society (STS) at present. There was twice serious debates between them, called “Epistemological Chicken” (1992) and “Anti-Latour” (1999). The aim and concern of this thesis is to explore the content of this academic controversy and thereby to clarify degree of differences and relationships of two schools and those possible implications to STS.
Through showing relevant discussions and literature reviews, applying close reading to those debate texts in detail, and following up on their development by virtue of further prolonged reading, this study also takes “methodological space” as an auxiliary concept to the debates and delineates focus of problematique, discursive gesture, knowledge resources, theoretical purposes, wording and academic commitment presented by academic knowledge actors, namely David Bloor, Harry Collins and Bruno Latour. In addition to displaying current opinions from commentators and finding possible root of the conflicts, more importantly, this study reminds that those methodologies and its judgements as a knowledge style are quite special to scholars. A main characteristic of this knowledge condition is that knowledge actors have been able to modify, remake and criticize other’s ideas partly but creatively with peculiar coherence. We could understand actual outlook of the two debates better by means of this type of knowledge.
Finally, this study answers the three initial questions. Firstly, it concludes that even if there are clear and apparent differences in the sense of methodologically relative particularity, there also are compatible similarities in general and vice versa. Secondly, the debates suggest a necessity for STS (and social science) researchers need to identify and extract methodological knowledge in and by individualizing them, thus we can find the differentials among various theories and methodologies. Thirdly, the controversy and its discussions alert us that we must pay attention to whether some theories and methodologies we use are merely showing off new insights (playing as peacock); and avoiding the recognition of, or need to deal with, substantial difficulties (playing as ostrich). They might be two sides of the same coin; the SSK-ANT debates have demonstrated that already.

誌謝并序 i
中文摘要 iii
Abstract（英文摘要） iv
目 錄 v
第一章　研究緣起：一個看似令人緊繃侷促的開始 1
第一節、爭議的緣起、背景與狀態 1
第二節、問題意識 14
第三節、研究範圍與材料 16
第四節、概念介紹與界定 18
第二章　文獻回顧：以兩學派「異同」與「關係」為中心的考察 22
第一節、初步框架和視角的建立 22
第二節、〈認識論的膽小鬼〉的相關文獻討論 35
第三節、〈反Latour〉的相關文獻討論 49
第四節、合論〈認識論的膽小鬼〉與〈反Latour〉的相關文獻 53
小結 63
第三章　爭議一：〈認識論的膽小鬼〉（‘Epistemological Chicken’） 64
引言 64
第一節、C&Y對C&L的批判：〈認識論的膽小鬼〉 65
第二節、C&L的回應：〈不要把嬰兒連同巴斯學派浴水一起倒掉！回覆C&Y〉 78
第三節、C&Y的再答覆：〈太空旅行〉 96
第四節、餘波 107
第四章　爭議二：〈反Latour〉（‘Anti-Latour’） 114
第一節、Bloor對Latour的批判：〈反Latour〉 114
第二節、Latour的回應：〈致David Bloor…並超越之：一個對David Bloor的〈反Latour〉的回覆〉 134
第三節、Bloor的再答覆：〈覆Bruno Latour〉 151
第四節、餘波 157
第五章　討論與結論 172
第一節、分章要旨與研究發現 172
第二節、研究限制、建議與展望 187
參考文獻 190
中文部分 190
英文部分 191

參考文獻

中文部分
Chalmers, Alan F.著，鲁旭东譯（2007）。《科学究竟是什么》（What is This Thing Called Science? [1999]）。北京：商务印书馆。
Diderot, Denis 狄德羅著，江天骥、陈修斋、王太庆譯（1997）。〈达朗贝的梦〉。《狄德罗哲学选集》。北京：商務印書館。頁137-194。
Latour, Bruno著，林宗德譯（2004）。〈給我一個實驗室，我將舉起全世界〉（‘Give Me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World’ [1983]）。《科技渴望社會》（吳嘉苓、傅大為、雷祥麟編）。台北：群學。頁219-263。
Latour, Bruno著，傅憲豪、周任芸、陳榮泰譯（2008）。〈關於使用行動者網絡理論從事資訊系統的研究：一個（有點）蘇格拉底式的對話〉（‘On Using ANT for Studying Information Systems: A (Somewhat) Socratic Dialogue’ [2004]）。《科技、醫療與社會》。6：201-230。
Latour, Bruno著，余曉嵐、林文源、許全義譯（2012）。《我們從未現代過》（Nous n’avons jamais été modernes: Essai d’anthropologie symétrique [1991]）。台北：群學。
Latour, Bruno著，伍啟鴻、陳榮泰譯（2016）。《巴斯德的實驗室：細菌的戰爭與和平》（Pasteur: guerre et paix des Microbes, suivi de Irréductions [1984/2001]）。台北：群學。
Latour, Bruno和Steve Woolgar著，张伯霖、刁小英譯（2004）。《实验室生活：科学事实的建构过程》（La vie de laboratoire: La production des faits scientifiques [1988]）。北京：东方出版社。
Pickering, Andrew著，柯文、伊梅譯（2006）。〈中文版序言〉。《作为实践和文化的科学》。北京：中国人民大学出版社。頁1-4。
Pickering, Andrew著，黃涵音、廖珮如、黃元鵬、謝明珊等譯（2013）。〈文化：科學研究與科技〉。《文化分析手冊（上冊）》（The SAGE Handbook of Cultual Analysis [2008]，Tony Bennett、John Frow編）。台北：韋伯。頁455-488。
Stewart, David, H. Gene Blocker, James Petrik著，但昭偉等譯（2013）。《哲學要義：智的追求》（Fundamentals of Philosophy [2010]）。台北：學富文化。
王晧昱（2008）。《政治社會學：政治學的宏觀視野》。台北：三民。
朱容萱、黃之棟（2010）。〈卸下「愛丁堡學派」這張招牌吧！：巴恩思訪談錄〉。《科技、醫療與社會》。11：341-376。
成素梅（2005）。〈科学知识社会学的宣言——与哈里．柯林斯的访谈录〉。《哲学动态》。l0：51-56。
李正風、黃瑞祺、黃之棟等（2010）。〈「強」不強有關係：布洛爾訪談錄〉。《科技、醫療與社會》。10：237-264。
洪廣冀（2016）。〈科技研究中的地理轉向及其在地理學中的迴響〉。《地理學報》。83：23-69。
洪鐮德（1999）。〈意識形態批判與知識社會學〉。《21世紀社會學》。台北：揚智。頁303-362。
陳瑞麟（2001）。〈社會建構中的「實在」〉。《國立政治大學哲學學報》。7：97-125。（另見：http://www.scu.edu.tw/philos/index/teacher/chen/doc3.pdf，本文引用為此版本pdf之頁碼）
陳瑞麟（2003）。〈規範的或演化的？──「科學哲學自然論」的兩張面孔〉。《科學與世界之間：科學哲學論文集》。台北：學富文化。頁29-54。
陳瑞麟（2005）。〈科學的戰爭與和平──「科學如何運作」的建構論與實在論之爭〉。《歐美研究》。35(1)：141-223。
陳瑞麟（2016）。〈書評《看見不潔之物：工業社會中知識權威的文化實作》〉。《台灣社會研究季刊》。104：193-200。
傅大為（2010）。〈一個務實又微笑的STS：評《科學與技術研究導論》兼論如何使用它〉。《科技、醫療與社會》。11：321-338。
傅大為（2013）。〈定位與多重越界：回首重看STS與科哲〉。《科技、醫療與社會》。16：49-102。
傅大為（2014）。〈孔恩 vs. STS的興起：《科學革命的結構》五十年的驀然回首〉。《科技、醫療與社會》。18：29-98。
楊弘任（2011）。〈何謂在地性？：從地方知識與在地範疇出發〉。《思與言》。49（4）：5-29。
趙萬里（2002）。《科學的社會建構：科學知識社會學的理論與實踐》。宜蘭：佛光人文社會學院。
劉文旋（2012）。〈科學知識社會學：在哲學與社會學之間〉。《科技與社會：社會建構論、科學社會學和知識社會學的視角》（黃之棟、黃瑞祺、李正風編）。台北：群學。頁33-63。

英文部分
Abercrombie, Nicholas, Stephen Hill and Bryan S. Turner (2006). ‘hermeneutics’. The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology. London: Penguin Books. Pp.181-182.
Barron, Colin (ed.) (2003). ‘A Strong Distinction between Humans and Non-Humans is no Longer Required for Research Purposes: A Debate Between Bruno Latour and Steve Fuller’. History of the Human Sciences. 16(2): 77-99.
Berger, Peter L. (1963). Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective. New York: Anchor Books.（中譯可見：Berger, Peter L.，黃樹仁、劉雅靈譯（1982）。《社會學導引：人文取向的透視》。台北：巨流。）
Bijker, Wiebe and Trevor Pinch (2012). ‘Preface to the Anniversary Edition’. In The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (Anniversary Edition), edited by Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas Parke Hughes and Trevor Pinch. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Pp. xi- xxxiv.
Bloor, David (1991[1976]). Knowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bloor, David (1996). ‘Idealism and the Sociology of Knowledge’. Social Studies of Science. 26(4): 839-856.
Bloor, David (1997). ‘Remember the Strong Program?’. Science, Technology, & Human Values. 22(3): 373-85.
Bloor, David (1999a). ‘Anti-Latour’. Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A. 30(1): 81-112.（中譯可另見：Bloor, David著，张敦敏譯（2008）。〈反拉图尔论〉。《世界哲学》。3：70-89。）
Bloor, David (1999b). ‘Reply to Bruno Latour’. Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A. 30(1): 131-136.（中譯可另見：Bloor, David著，张敦敏譯（2008）。〈答复B．拉图尔〉。《世界哲学》。4：82-85。）
Bloor, David (2000). ‘Critical Notice’. Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 30(4): 597-608.
Bloor, David (2001). ‘Wittgenstein and the priority of practice’. In The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, edited By Karin Knorr-Cetina, Theodore R. Schatzki and Eike von Savigny. London: Routledge. Pp.103-114.
Bloor, David (2004). ‘Sociology of Scientific Knowledge’. In Handbook of Epistemology, edited by Ilkka Niiniluoto, Matti Sintonen and Jan Wolenski. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Pp.919-962.
Bloor, David (2011a[2009]). ‘Relativism and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge’. In A Companion to Relativism, edited by Steven D. Hales. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Pp. 433-455.
Bloor, David (2011b). ‘Pessimism, Positivism, and Relativism: Aerodynamic Knowledge in Context’. The Enigma of the Aerofoil: Rival Theories in Aerodynamics, 1909-1930. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pp.399-446.
Briatte, François (2007). ‘Interview with David Bloor’. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01511329/file/InterviewDB_FBriatte2007.pdf (Retrieved Date: July 4, 2018).（此文法文版原文載於：Briatte, François, Marc Lenormand trans. (2007). ‘Entretien avec David Bloor’. Tracés: Revue de Sciences Humaines. 12: 215-228. 另可見於網頁版：http://journals.openedition.org/traces/227）。
Brummett, Barry (2010). Techniques of Close Reading. London: SAGE Publications.
Chen, Ruey-Lin (2011). ‘The STS Challenge to Philosophy of Science in Taiwan’. East Asian Science, Technology and Society. 5(1): 27–48.
Cole, Stephen (1996). ‘Voodoo Sociology: Recent Developments in the Sociology of Science’. In The Flight from Science and Reason, edited by Paul R. Gross, Norman Levitt, and Martin W. Lewis. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences, pp. 274-87.
Collin, Finn (2011). Science Studies as Naturalized Philosophy. Dordrecht: Springer.
Collins, Harry (1981). ‘What is TRASP?: The Radical Programme as a Methodological Imperative’. Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 11(2): 215-224.
Collins, Harry (1985/1992). Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. London: SAGE Publications.（中譯可另見：Collins, Harry M.，成素梅、张帆譯（2007）。《改变秩序：科学实践中的复制与归纳》。上海：上海科技教育出版社。）
Collins, Harry (2012a). ‘Performances and arguments’. Metascience. 21(2): 409-418.
Collins, Harry (2012b). ‘Comment on Kuhn’. Social Studies of Science. 42(3): 420-423.
Collins, Harry and Steven Yearley (1992a). ‘Epistemological Chicken’. In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by Andrew Pickering. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pp.301-326.（中譯可另見：Collins, Harry and Steven Yearley著，柯文、伊梅譯（2006）。〈认识论的鸡〉。《作为实践和文化的科学》。北京：中国人民大学出版社。頁307-333。）
Collins, Harry and Steven Yearley (1992b). ‘Journey into Space’. In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by Andrew Pickering. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pp.369-389. （中譯可另見：Collins, Harry and Steven Yearley著，柯文、伊梅譯（2006）。〈驶进太空〉。《作为实践和文化的科学》。北京：中国人民大学出版社。頁379-400。）
de Vries, Gerard (1995), ‘Should We Send Collins and Latour to Dayton, Ohio?’. EASST Review. 14(4): 3-10. (https://www.diigo.com/item/image/5o89/k31j?size=o，檢索日期：2019/3/18，本文引用為此網頁版本故無頁碼)
Fuller, Steve (1996), ‘Talking Metaphysical Turkey about Epistemological Chicken, and the Poop on Pidgins’. In The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power, edited by Peter Galison and David J. Stump. Stanford University Press. Pp. 170-186.
Geertz, Clifford (2000). ‘The Strange Estrangement: Charles Taylor and the Natural Sciences’. Available Light: Anthropological Reflections on Philosophical Topics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Pp.143-159.（中譯可另見：Geertz, Clifford，甘会斌译（2013）。〈奇怪的疏离：查尔斯．泰勒与自然科学〉。《烛幽之光：哲学问题的人类学省思》。上海：上海人民出版社。頁133-147。）
Gingras, Yves (2007). ‘“Please, Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood”: The Role of Argumentation in a Sociology of Academic Misunderstandings’. Social Epistemology. 21(4): 369-389.
Golinski, Jan (2005[1998]). Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History of Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Gordon, Scott (1991). The History and Philosophy of Social Science. London: Routledge.
Haddow, Gill and Barry Barnes (2018). ‘STS and the Importance of Being a Collective: Gill Haddow Talks with Barry Barnes’. Engaging Science,Technology, and Society. 4: 267-283.
Harbers, Hans and Koenis, Sjaak (1996). ‘The Political Eggs of the Chicken Debate’. EASST Review. 15(1): 9-15. (http://etnografianovirtual.blogspot.tw/2009/11/political-eggs-of-chicken-debate.html，檢索日期：2019/3/18，本文引用為此網頁版本故無頁碼)
Heilbron, Johan (1990). ‘Auguste Comte and Modern Epistemology’. Sociological Theory. 8(2): 153-162.
Hess, David J. (1997a). Science Studies: An Advanced Introduction. New York: New York University Press.
Hess, David J. (1997b). ‘Appendix: The New Science Studies’. Can Bacteria Cause Cancer?: Alternative Medicine Confronts Big Science. New York: New York University Press. Pp.174-187.
James, William (1911). ‘A Word More About Truth’. The Meaning of Truth. New York: Longman Green and Co. Pp.136-161.（https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/James/James_1911/James_1911_06.html，本文引用為此網頁版本故無頁碼。中譯可另見James, William著，劉宏信譯（2005）。《真理的意義》。台北：立緒文化。）
Kain, Patricia (1998). ‘How to Do a Close Reading’. https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/pages/how-do-close-reading (Retrieved Date: July 4, 2019).
Kant, Immanuel, Norman Kemp Smith trans. (1929). Immanuel kant's Critique of Pure Reason. London: Macmillan and Co., Limited.
Kattirtzi, Michael (2018). ‘“Talking STS”: Different Things to Different People?’. Engaging Science,Technology, and Society. 4: 402-407.
Kattirtzi, Michael and Andrew Stirling (2018). ‘Challenging Power, Constructing Boundaries, and Confronting Anxieties: Michael Kattirtzi Talks with Andrew Stirling’. Engaging Science,Technology, and Society. 4: 386-407.
Kuhn, Thomas (1996[1962]). ‘The Invisibility of Revolutions’. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Pp.136-143.
Latour, Bruno (1984). ‘The powers of association’. The Sociological Review. 32(1): 264-280.
Latour, Bruno (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.（中譯可另見：Latour, Bruno著，刘文旋、郑开譯（2005）。《科学在行动：怎样在社会中跟随科学家和工程师》。北京：东方出版社。）
Latour, Bruno (1988a). The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Latour, Bruno (1988b). ‘A Relativistic Account of Einstein’s Relativity’. Social Studies of Science. 18(1): 3-44.
Latour, Bruno (1990[1991]). ‘Technology is society made durable’. The Sociological Review. 38(1): 103-131.
Latour, Bruno (1996). ‘On actor-network theory: A few clarifications’. Soziale Welt. 47: 369-381.
Latour, Bruno (1999a). ‘For David Bloor… and Beyond: A Reply to David Bloor’s ‘Anti-Latour’’. Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A. 30(1): 113-129.（中譯可另見：Latour, Bruno著，张敦敏譯（2008）。〈答复D．布鲁尔的《反拉图尔论》〉。《世界哲学》。4：71-81。）
Latour, Bruno (1999b). ‘On Recalling ANT’. The Sociological Review. 47(1): 15-25.
Latour, Bruno (1999c). Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Latour, Bruno (2000[1997]). ‘Is There Science after the Cold War?’. In The Sokal Hoax: The Sham That Shook the Academy, edited by The Editors of Lingua Franca. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press. Pp. 124-126.
Latour, Bruno (2003). ‘The Promises of Constructivism’. In Chasing Technoscience: Matrix for Materiality, edited by Don Ihde and Evan Selinger. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Pp. 27-45.
Latour, Bruno (2004). Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Latour, Bruno (2005). ‘Fourth Source of Uncertainty: Matters of Fact vs. Matters of Concern’. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp.87-120.
Latour, Bruno and Michel Callon (1992). ‘Don’t Throw the Baby Out with the Bath School! A Reply to Collins and Yearley’. In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by Andrew Pickering. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pp.343-368.（中譯可另見：Latour, Bruno和Michel Callon著，柯文、伊梅譯（2006）。〈不要借巴斯之水泼掉婴儿：答复柯林斯与耶尔莱〉。《作为实践和文化的科学》。北京：中国人民大学出版社。頁351-377。）
Latour, Bruno and Steve Woolgar (1979). Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Califonia: SAGE Publication.
McKenna, Robin, Anne-Kathrin Koch and Natalie Ashton (2017). ‘Interview with David Bloor’. https://emergenceofrelativism.weebly.com/blog/interview-with-david-bloor (Retrieved Date: July 4, 2018).
Pels, Dick (1996). ‘The Politics of Symmetry’. Social Studies of Science. 26(2): 277-304.
Phillips, Derek L. (1974). ‘Epistemology and the Sociology of Knowledge: The Contributions of Mannheim, Mills, and Merton’. Theory and Society. 1(1): 59-88.
Pickering, Andrew (1992). ‘From Science as Knowledge to Science as Practice’. In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by Andrew Pickering. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Pp. 1-26.
Pinch, Trevor. (2007). ‘The Sociology of Science and Technology’. In 21st Century Sociology: A Reference Handbook, edited by Clifton D. Bryant and Dennis L. Peck. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Pp. II-266-II-275. (doi: 10.4135/9781412939645.n88)
Pleasants, Nigel (1997). ‘The Post-Positivist Dispute in Social Studies of Science and its Bearing on Social Theory’. Theory, Culture & Society. 14(3): 143-156.
Restivo, Sal (2011). ‘Bruno Latour’. In The Wiley‐Blackwell Companion to Major Social Theorists, edited by George Ritzer and Jeffrey Stepnisky. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Pp. 520-540.
Restivo, Sal and Jennifer Croissant (2008). ‘Social Constructionism in Science and Technology Studies’. In Handbook of Constructionist Reaserch, edited by James A. Holstein and Jaber F. Gubrium. New York: The Guilford Press. Pp.213-229.
Rosenberg, Alexander (2008). Philosophy of Social Science. Boulder: Westview Press.
Roth, Paul A. (1994). ‘What does the sociology of scientific knowledge explain?: or, when Epistemological Chickens come home to roost’. History of the Human Sciences. 7(1): 95-108.
Roth, Paul A. (1996). ‘Will the Real Scientists Please Stand Up? Dead Ends and Live Issues in the Explanation of Scientific Knowledge’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. 27(1): 43-68.
Seguin, Eve (2000). ‘Bloor, Latour, and the field’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. 31(3): 503-508.
Shapin, Steven (1995). ‘Here and Everywhere: Sociology of Scientific Knowledge’. Annual Review of Sociology. 21: 289-321.
Woolgar, Steve (1992). ‘Some Remarks about Positionism: A Reply to Collins and Yearley’. In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by Andrew Pickering. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pp.327-342.
Yearley, Steven (2002). ‘Book Review: Pandora’s Hope: On the Reality of Science Studies, by Bruno Latour. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.xi+324pp.ISBN:0674653351.’ Science, Technology & Human Values. 27(1): 165-167.
Yearley, Steven (2005). ‘The wrong end of nature’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. 36(4): 827-834.
Zammito, John H. (2004). A Nice Derangement of Epistemes: Post-Positivism in the Study of Science from Quine to Latour. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.