Hartig Christine
Zentrum für Methodenlehre Universität Flensburg, Flensburg.
Medizinhist J. 2011;46(3-4):238-82.
This article analyzes the highly problematic institutionalization of pharmacy as an independent discipline at universities. Focussing on contemporary documents, collected from 'gateways' of reputational allocation such as appointment procedures, the nominations of examination boards, and the granting of certificates, it can be shown that institutionalization was not identical with reputational allocation, distributed by the scientific community. This means that the cycle of credibility developed by Latour and Woolgar could not be completed. Furthermore the pharmaceutical sub disciplines are assessed differently by the scientific community. The main reason can be seen in specific mechanism of reputational allocation within those scientific fields from which pharmacy adopted its methods and instruments. For this end the article uses the comparative analysis of scientific fields from Richard Whitley.
本文分析了药学在大学中作为一门独立学科的高度成问题的制度化情况。以从声誉分配的“通道”收集的当代文献为重点，这些“通道”诸如任命程序、考试委员会的提名以及证书的授予等，可以表明制度化与科学界进行的声誉分配并不相同。这意味着拉图尔和伍尔加所提出的可信度循环无法完成。此外，科学界对药学的各个子学科的评估也有所不同。主要原因可以从药学所采用其方法和仪器的那些科学领域内声誉分配的特定机制中看出。为此，本文采用了理查德·惠特利对科学领域的比较分析方法。
