Ankeny Rachel A, Leonelli Sabina
School of Humanities, Napier 4th Floor, University of Adelaide, Adelaide 5005 SA, Australia.
Department of Sociology, Philosophy and Anthropology & Exeter Centre for the Study of the Life Sciences (Egenis), University of Exeter, Byrne House, St Germans Road, EX4 4PJ Exeter, UK.
Stud Hist Philos Sci. 2016 Dec;60:18-28. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2016.08.003. Epub 2016 Sep 9.
We propose a framework to describe, analyze, and explain the conditions under which scientific communities organize themselves to do research, particularly within large-scale, multidisciplinary projects. The framework centers on the notion of a research repertoire, which encompasses well-aligned assemblages of the skills, behaviors, and material, social, and epistemic components that a group may use to practice certain kinds of science, and whose enactment affects the methods and results of research. This account provides an alternative to the idea of Kuhnian paradigms for understanding scientific change in the following ways: (1) it does not frame change as primarily generated and shaped by theoretical developments, but rather takes account of administrative, material, technological, and institutional innovations that contribute to change and explicitly questions whether and how such innovations accompany, underpin, and/or undercut theoretical shifts; (2) it thus allows for tracking of the organization, continuity, and coherence in research practices which Kuhn characterized as 'normal science' without relying on the occurrence of paradigmatic shifts and revolutions to be able to identify relevant components; and (3) it requires particular attention be paid to the performative aspects of science, whose study Kuhn pioneered but which he did not extensively conceptualize. We provide a detailed characterization of repertoires and discuss their relationship with communities, disciplines, and other forms of collaborative activities within science, building on an analysis of historical episodes and contemporary developments in the life sciences, as well as cases drawn from social and historical studies of physics, psychology, and medicine.
我们提出了一个框架,用于描述、分析和解释科学共同体组织自身进行研究的条件,特别是在大规模多学科项目中。该框架以研究技能库的概念为核心,它涵盖了一个群体在从事特定类型科学研究时可能使用的技能、行为以及物质、社会和认知成分的协调组合,并且其实施会影响研究的方法和结果。这种描述为理解科学变革提供了一种替代库恩范式的思路,具体如下:(1)它并非将变革主要视为由理论发展所产生和塑造,而是考虑到促成变革的行政、物质、技术和制度创新,并明确质疑这些创新是否以及如何伴随、支撑和/或削弱理论转变;(2)因此,它能够追踪库恩所描述的“常规科学”中研究实践的组织、连续性和连贯性,而无需依赖范式转变和革命的发生来识别相关组成部分;(3)它要求特别关注科学的实践方面,这是库恩率先研究但未广泛进行概念化的内容。我们在对生命科学中的历史事件和当代发展进行分析的基础上,以及借鉴物理学、心理学和医学的社会与历史研究案例,详细阐述了技能库,并讨论了它们与科学共同体、学科以及科学内部其他合作活动形式之间的关系。