Dialogues between artistic research and science and technology studies: an introduction

Borgdorff, H.A.; Peters, P.; Pinch, T.

Citation
Borgdorff, H. A., Peters, P., & Pinch, T. (2020). Dialogues between artistic research and science and technology studies: an
introduction. In Dialogues between Artistic Research and Science and Technology Studies (pp. 1-15). New York: Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780429438875-1

Version: Publisher's Version

License: Licensed under Article 25fa Copyright Act/Law (Amendment Taverne)
Downloaded
https://hdl.handle.net/1887/3220730
from:

Note: To cite this publication please use the final published version (if applicable).
1 Dialogues between Artistic
Research and Science and
Technology Studies
An Introduction
Henk Borgdorff, Peter Peters, and Treuor Pinch

The past two decades have witnessed a new convergence between artistic and sci-
entific ways of knowing and making. Artists not only increasingly draw upon de-
velopments in science and technology, but artistic practices are also seen now as the
locus of research, presented to and evaluated in art worlds and academia. Scientists
are interested in how the arts can contribute to generâting new forms of knowledge,
methodologies, and engagements. In this book, we aim to explore this convergence
from the perspective of two interdisciplinary fields, artistic research and science
and technology studies (STS). Artistic research, or research in and through art and
design, has gained currency since the 1.990s in and beyond higher arts education.
Artist-scholars in this field focus on the knowledge, understanding, and experi-
ences enacted in creative processes and embodied in artistic products such as art-
works, compositions, and performances. The field of STS has been growing since
the 1960s when it was first established by scientists and engineers who were critical
of new techniques and developments emerging from science such as genetic engi-
neering, the growing environmental crisis, and the spread and impact of large-scale
technological systems such as nuclear power. It now provides a deep understanding
of how science and technology work internally, as institutions, and as a body of
practices that permeate almost all areas of modern life. In this Introduction, we
argue that a dialogue between the two fields can contribute to a reflection on their
epistemologies, methodologies, and the ways in which their research outcomes can
become public.
STS scholars have studied the arts in relation to questions about science and its
history, exploring the role of artists in creating the visual apparatus used by scientists
(Jones & Galison, 201,4) or the transport of musical notation conventions to the study
of sounds and acoustics (Bruyninckx, 2018), to give two examples. Recentl¡ work in
STS has focused on the backstage, practical, and preparatory activities constituting
works of arr or people's engagement with these works (Saaze, 2013). The interest in
artistic practices can be linked to research agendas in STS such as subjectivity and
the senses; technology and materiality; boundary work; and embodied, situated, and
enacted forms of cognition (Benschop, 2009). STS emphasizes the constitutiye role of
mâterial and social practices in the production of knowledge and technologies. This
'practice turn' is also manifest in the field of artistic research, positioned at the inter-
face of art worlds and academic research. In artistic research, creating performances
or artefacts becomes the vehicle in a methodological sense through which knowledge
and understanding can be gained. Epistemologically these artefacts and performances
embody the knowledge and understanding we gain.
2 Henþ, Borgdorff, Peter Peters, Treuor Pinch Introduction 3

The type of research that we are interested in in this book does not easily fit the emerging field.'We willthen ask how research in STS could investigate and inform the
conventiJnal frameworks and values of actors and institutions in science and tech- work done in artistic research, and how artistic research can inform and enrich STS.
nology as well as in art worlds. One might even argue that the term 'dialogues' in. Finall¡ we will argue that STS can provide a meta-perspective on the new 'knowing
the t"itle is misleading because the convergence between artistic and scientific ways of spaces' (Law,2017) evolving around the intersection of artistic research practices and
knowing has been aicompanied by controversies (Borgdorff, 2012), some of which science and technology studies.
will be áiscussed in this volume.l These focus mainly on the demarcation of scien-
tific and artistic pracrices, their institutions, and the criteria according to which their
Artistic Research as Progrâm and Practice
outcomes are to be valued. For some in the art world, artistic research undermines
the modernist dichotomy of autonomy and instrumentalism, breaking away from the Artistic research gained currency in and beyond higher education and research in the
alleged 'otherness' of art as a societal domain that has clear boundaries and that can last two decades, yet its genealogy can be traced back to the early modern period. At
be Jep"rated from science (Nowotny, 201.0, p. xx). In academia, taking art to be a least in European history, the birth of modern science did not imply a departure from
formif doing research and presenting the works of art that result from that reseårch artistry and aesthetics. The inherited unity of truth, goodness, and beaut¡ however,
as a form of knowledge is criticized as conflicting with standards of intersubjectivity, was broken when the life spheres of science, moralit¡ and art grew apart since the
detachment, and justification. eighteenth century. Institutionally and theoretically, these spheres developed into the
The debate on ârt as research addresses fundamental philosophical questions of relatively autonomous realms and institutes of epistemology and science, ethics and
epistemology and methodology and issues of artistic agency and autonomy, as well law or religion, and aesthetics and art. But since the days of Leonardo da Vinci those
institutiãnal and educational strategies. When does art practice count âs research? demarcations have also always been accompanied by a feeling of discomfort and anx-
"s
\lhat is the object of artistic research and in what ways is it different from the object iety, and every now and then attempts were made to overcome the pain of the disso-
of scientific research? How can scientific knowledge be distinguished from knowledge ciations. A history of artistic research will have to uncover in detail what moments
generated within artistic practice? Are scientific research methods radically different in the course of time attest of that desire to bridge the domains or to traverse their
irom artistic methods of research? In the debates on these questions' one encounters boundaries. In philosophical aesthetics important moments were when in eighteenth-
powerful dualisms: art and science, worlds and words, art practice and writing, em- century rationalism 'sensuous knowledge' was emancipated from its inferior position
Èodied and discursive knowledge, original artworks and their representations. As a to an equal, albeit distinctive footing (cf. Kjørup, 2006) or when in German idealism
practice, art is often taken to be a paragon of unmethodological, autonomous, and it was proclaimed that 'all art should become science and all science art; poetry and
intuitive work, while science appears as methodological, intersubjective, and articu- philosophy should be made one' (SchlegeI,1991, p. 14).
late (Benschop, Peters, & Lemmens ,201'4). In the twentieth century, the emergence of the artistic research program was an-
Dismantling dualisms and showing how the distinctions they ârticulate are con- ticipated by developments in both academia and the art world. The acknowledgment
structed rath; than given belongs to the core strategies of science and technology of know-how (Ryle, 1949) and implicit or tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1'958;1"966) as
studies. Transferred tó the demarcation debates around art as research, some schol- constitutive for the way we understand and act in the world corrected the focus in
ars have followed this strategy by focusing on the sociomaterial practices that bring epistemology on propositional forms of knowing and understanding: a correction
artworks into being, rather than on their construction as a singular work that can be correlating to phenomenology, that would eventually also be taken up by contempo-
(re)presented and categorized in a more or less unproblematic way (Latour & Lowe, rary non-reductive cognitive science (Gibson, 1979; Hutchins, 1995; Ingold, 2000;
20it;Saaze,201.3). A similar genealogical approach that does not take the artwork Newen, De Bruin, & Gallagher, 2018). In the art world, the artistic research program
'itself' for granted is advocated by Howard Becker, providing insights into how these was prepared by a proliferation of art-science encounters and collaborations through-
'objects anã performances take their shape within the daily labour of artists and their out the twentieth century (cf. Sormani, Carbone, & Gisler, 2018) and by the advance
colÍaboratorr' 1Be.ker, Faulkner, & Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 2006, p. 13). Following of conceptual art since the 1950s.
this line of argument, in this book we aim to move beyond the common-knowledge An important impetus for the advance of artistic research was the reorganization of
and the self-understandings of science and the arts and instead study and analyze higher education, especially the inclusion of art schools and academies in the univer-
what artist-researchers actually do (Acord & DeNora,2008; Becker,2008). sity system of higher education and research. Starting in the English-speaking world
From a¡ STS perspective, it is interesting to explore how distinctions between aes- (UK, Canada, Australia (see UK Council for Graduate Education, L997; Strand,
thetic and epistemic outcomes and criteria are crafted by artistic researchers and the 1998), it reached the European continent in the early twenty-first century. The trans-
respective cåmmunities to which they present their work. In addition, artistic research formation from vocational training programs to university progrâms involved the
may enrich the methodological repertoire in STS. Artistic researchers in turn, will introduction of research in the curricula of art departments, paired with the require-
find much in STS that allows them to reflect in novel ways on their own practices' as ment for research output by faculty, mostly practicing artists, of those departments.2
Nowotny has argued (201,0,p. xxii). In this introductory chapter, we will set the stage The focus in artistic research is on concrete practices and things - creative pro-
for the yarious dialogues, practices, and experiments ât the nexus between artistic re- cesses in the studio, performances, compositions, artworks, installations, artistic
search and science and technology studies that are presented in this volume. To do so, tnterventions. These practices and things not only are the object of study, as in tra-
we will first focus on the practices, methods, and outcomes of artistic research as an ditional humanities or social science research into the arts, rather their agency and
 Introduction 5
4 Henþ Borgdorff, Peter Peters, Treuor Pincb
practices and things, and if we stress the importance of studio-based, practice-based
performativity is acknowledged and foregrounded. Artworks and artistic practices
methods, and if we furthermore acknowledge that cognition is embodied, embedded,
ão ,o-.thirrj i1 th. sense rh;r they contribute to our knowledge and understanding
and enacted in material prâctices, then we should not hesitate to conclude that the
of the world. This is in line with what is called the practice turn and the material
reasoning is also located in those material practices. One should at least take the
turn in rhe sciences and humanities (Schatzki, Knorr-Cetina, & Savigny,2001)' Our
agency: that is, the epistemic and methodological force of the artefacts and artistic
.ft""g.a understanding of what practices and things are has renewed the intefest in
practices into account, something that is also acknowledged in STS.
their ontology. practicãs and things speak to us - or speak back_to us (see 8a1,2002,
How ro articulate this style of reasoning? How to ârticulate the epistemic and meth-
p. 61).In an-epistemological ,.rro ,h.y embody knowledge and understanding, and
merh;dologically constitutive in producing knowledge and understanding' odological force of art? Here we want to underline the role of rich-media articulation,
in.y
"t"
ihár. inrights acúno*ledged in cuitural studies, anthropology, heritage stud- documentarion, publication, and dissemination. This is a form of articulation - of
"r. "lio
ies (Ingold, 2013),and what is called New Materialism, object oriented ontology,
or writing, one could say - in which artistic material and its documentation is interwo-
Dolphijn & Van der.Tuin, ven with text-based material. One of the tasks now is to rethink what 'discursivity'
,p"àolãtiu. realism (Barad, 2007, cl. 1013))'
Artistic researchers .rr. á diu".r" range of *ethods and tools. This methodological means, what it is to make a claim in and through art, what reasoning is' once we
have accepted that material practices and things in this field of inquiry are not only
pf"r"ilr- (Borgdorff, 2012;¡g,annu1a, Suoranta, & Vadén,2014) is widely accepted in
in. n.t¿. l.p""nding-on the research topic and the aim of the research, one might use constiruti;e in a methodological sense but that they also count as valid expressions of
t".hniques that have theii provenânce in the humanities or in the social research processes and outcomes. Questions such as these have also been taken up in
methods
"ná methods and the field of science and technology studies.
sciences or in techniogy or in a combinãtion, a triangulation of various
,ã"fr. in", being said,ãne could distinguish between three aspects that are almost al-
wâys pfesent wh"en con{ucting an artistic research project.-The first is experimentation
An STS Perspective on Artistic Research
(Scilr"uU, 201,6).The researchiakes place through and unfolds in artistic practice' in
and
iiis sometimes referred to as studio-based Science and technology studies originated in the 1960s in the critical debates on the
ìftt""gfr -"f.ing and performing. TLat is why
."r.u.".h. The o"bjective of the aitistic experiment is not so much to test something - âs societal role and impact of scientific research and technological innovations. This crit-
in a science or engineering laboratory - but to tell something' to convey content' Testing icism was informed by the debate over the role of the social in the history and philos-
but in telling no ophy of science. Proponents of internalism, typically philosophers such as Karl Popper
is all about commensurâtIon utrd standardization (Pinch, forthcoming),
A second characteristic of artistic research (OeZ¡, claimed that scientific knowledge production is relatively independent of the
**"r needs to be made to commensuration.
person or persons who perform the research' social, whereas historians such as Thomas Kuhn (1962) argued that the history and
is the involvement and engagement of the
dynamics of science cannot be described and understood without taking social factors
Artistic research is particlpJtory researchfand as such it shows kinship with ethnogra-
pfry, *t the subjåct-obiect divide or the fact-value dichotomy âre relativized
(Atkin- into account. This debate over the role of the social resonated with the distinction that
"r" Hubbard, O'Neill, & Radley, Popper made between the context of scientific discovery and the context of justification'
,oá, Com"y, DelaÁont, Láfland, & Lofland,2007; Pink,
ZO\O). A t'hird feature of artistic research is that the research findings need
a form of Ku[n, Paul Feyerabend (2010), and others showed that even the justification o{ science
to contextualize the research and is co-dependent on contingent factors sometimes from outside the realm of science.
analysis or interpretation. Here, 'theory' might help
cultural, The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK) and especially the 'Strong Programme'
,o ,ho* how it relates ro orher i"r."r.h and ho- it is embedded in academic'
of the Edinburgh School in the 1970s and 1980s pushed the place of social explana-
,o.iul, or political spheres and discourses. Artistic research thus appropriates a wide va-
,l.rf ..r""r.h -"ìhod, and techniques from other research fields, and it is distinctive tion further by seeking to explain how both false and true knowledge claims are
"f socially shaped. In the same period, scholars from the Bath School and its 'Empirical
in tLe combination of experimentation, pârticipation, and interpretâtion.
in Programme of Relativism' (EPOR) focused more closely on the concrete, material
To demarcate artistic i"..ur.h from óther types of research it is generally agreed
material artefacts to ephemeral per- work scientists engage in through ethnographic studies, studies of scientific contro-
the field that artworks, varying from concrete'
versies, and of science-in-the-making (Bloor, 1,976; Collíns, 1985). Those studies
formances or artist interventions, should be part of the outcome of the investigation'
reached beyond or behind the formal reports and protocols of science and focused
The material outcome of the research, ho*ãuer, is not the research itself' Even the
on the often implicit, tacit knowledge and know-how and the embodied skills that
documentation of the research outcome' varying from audio or video registrations of
'artist-books,' does not suffice as feed into the research processes and marked the outcomes. A landmark study was the
f ãrlot-"".es to exhibition catalogues and so-called ethnographic research that Bruno Latour and Steve \Voolgar conducted in a scientific
än account of rhe research. Additiónal work has to be done to articulate and commu-
laboratory in the late L970s,where they followed the everyday work of scientists con-
nicate the research, to show that it involves 'a process of investigation leading to new
structing scientific facts (Latour 8c 'S7oolgar,1'979).
insights, effectively shared' (Research Excellence Framework, 2011, p. 48).
In the early 1980s, rhe symmetry principle of the sociology of scientific knowledge -
Iã the debate on artisric ,Ës""r.h, many have taken the position that this additional
explaining both false and true knowledge claims from social factors - was introduced
work is to be seen as the reflective, discuisive, or written part of the research or of the in research on why some technological innovations were successful and others not.
submission of a PhD thesis. Hence, there is a sharp distinction between the artwork Drawing on the history of the bicycle, Pinch and Bijker (1984) showed that as an
and the reflection on it.3 But that position misses the point of the intertwinement of artefact the bicycle was interpreted in different ways by different social groups until
theory and practice in artistic ,esearch. If we acknowledge the agency of material
6 Henþ Borgdorff, Peter Peters, Treuor Pinch
Introduction 7

one interpretation of the bicycle stabilized. Their Social Construction of

Technology Artistic Research, STS, and Their Knowing Spaces i

(SCOT) irogru- aims ro orrd.rrturrd which cultural, economic, social, and political After our concise and admittedly sketchy overviews of the two fields that this book in-
i".tor, .ã-dãtermine the course of technological developments' Subsequent research- tends to bring into dialogue, we want to elaborate on the question why and how such
on the social shaping of technology has focuied on issues such as the non-linearity
of 'SØe
a dialogue can be fruit{ul for both fields. will map some of the common ground
technological innovãtions, the role of users and non-users in these innovation trajec-
to be found at the level of knowledge production, research methods, and outcomes.
rories, urid th. ways new technologies are shaped by path-dependency and obduracies We will then argue that the intersections of artistic research practices and science and
'l7ajcman
(MacKenzie & ,1'999; Oudshoorn & Pinch, 2003)' technology studies can be thought of as new 'knowing spaces' (Law,2017).
In the 1990s, the schoiarly debate in STS focused partly on the criticism that too To create works of art or performances, artists have always reworked and adapted
social factors, as if the internal logic
-o.h .tplu.ratáry force *u, giu.n to human and existing art, mobilized contexts and sources relevant to their art-making, and devel-
ay"ä*i., of ,ci"n." .u.r b. understood by looking at the -intended and unin- oped new skills and technologies. The field of artistic research, however, has made
""a
t..rd"á actions and interpfetations of people alone. Proponents of actor-network the- this work more explicit as a form of research that entails knowledge claims. Artistic
,ry CÑl argued for a 'principle of getteralized symmetry': to understand scientific, researchers not only present their art as works or practices that are acknowledged and
,".hiologí."lior other pia.ticãs, we should depart from a priori dualisms between evaluated in art worlds, they also stage the research that their art-making requires
the social anj th" -ut.rial or between culture and nature (Latour, 2005). Instead,
we
peo-
and implies in ways that allow academic communities or other relevant communities
relational account of practices as heterogeneous assemblages of
should develop a to assess its epistemic value. They thus expand the ways in which their artworks
pl" u"d their ideas and skills, social institutions and organizations, as well as things and artistic prâctices can exist and be made relevant. An encounter between artistic
,o.h technical objects, maierialities, and apparatuses' Instead of being presented as research and STS involves asking what kind of knowledge artistic research produces
",
explanation, the soáial iiself is seen to be constituted, staged, or assembled through and how its knowledge claims relate to traditional scientific ways of knowing. As
thå interplay between human and non-humân actors. This implies an 'ontological Salter, Burri, and Dumit (2017) have argued , art and design as knowledge prâctices
multiplicityi reality is not one thing, nor is it given, but it is constructed' staged, and highlight the role of improvisation, creativit¡ and invention. These practices put em-
p..f*-.d conting.nt on how homan and non-human actofs interact (Mol' 2002)'
' Fro- theund early day"s of ethnographic laboratory studies' following the actors has
bodied knowledge center stage, as well as material engagement and forms of sensory
perception. \X/ith STS, they share a keen interest in performance and performativit¡
been a key reseárch ,rrur"gy i" SfS. As an empirical enterprise, it seeks to unravel as well as in the agency situated in material artefacts. Finall¡ artistic research as
the dynaÁics of science and technology-in-the-making, by studying practices._An- knowledge prâctice is characterizedby an interventionist approach that stages differ-
other characteristic of STS methodologies is a focus on case studies' ranging from ent forms of engagement and critique. All of this resonates with work in STS on situ-
bicycles to automâted subway trains, bridges, contraceptiYes, air pumpsr. and bush ated knowledges and situated action where knowing, doing, and making as cognitive
prråpr.a Stabilization of these artefacts and innovations in networks and practices and perceptual, embodied and sensory, as well âs materially mediated activities are
iunrro, be explained only from their intrinsic properties or qualities but should take intimately related (Suchman, 2007).
into accountiocal circu-stances and contingencies. STS case studies often share the A central insight in STS is that research methods do not only observe and represent
core argument that things could have been otherwise. This motto reflects the criti- materials, issues, and events but in fact act upon and intervene in these materiâls,
cal origins of the field, aîguing against technological determinism and its agenda of issues, and events. Research not only analyzes, documents, and informs, but also
demociatizing science a.rã t".htrðlogy by making their development more inclusive performs realities and ontologies and reforms and transforms them through the act of
and reflexive. Showing how science ãnd technology are socially shaped in-their mak- researching (Law, 2004). Changing conceptions of what constitutes the empirical also
ing and use enabled SiS researcher ro locate and rethink normativities and politics as led to an intensification of interest in research methods âs ways of making knowledge
thãy emerge in practices. Recentl¡ this study of politics_in action has been expanded in social and cultural research (Lury & Wakeford, 2012). STS and artistic research
to ih" normativity of artistic practices to understand how aesthetic judgments are share the project of enlarging their methodological repertoires, as well as the reflec-
made (cf. Peters, this volume). tion on the politics of what Law and Ruppert have called 'the material heterogeneities
How could STS research inform and inspire the work done in artistic research? of knowing' (2016, p. 20).Ethnography is an example of how social sciences and
To begin with, drawing on its science reseâfch' STS can help to analyze how artistic artistic prâctice can share a research method, that through its use in these two differ-
,.r"".".h .rt"biirh", ltsãlf as an emerging field and how knowledge claims are made ent contexts can acquire new sensitivities (Foster, 1996). Artists created situations in
in this field. Furthermore, its focus on the study of pfâctices as sociomaterial assem- which the familiar and the foreign vacillate. Precisely the mechanisms that determine
blages fits well with the interest in practices in artistic research, as well as the
mate-
what we take for granted and what we experience as strânge thus become the medium
,ãfüi.t, embodied skills, and ,"rrroiy knowledge that play an important role in these
of the artist as erhnographer. It is through their public staging of everyday reality
practices. In addition, the sensitivity for how methods shape the realities that they aim in experimental situations that audiences can look at themselves as anthropologists
io ,"r.ur.h resonates with the performative force of studio-based methods in artistic (Schneider & lØright, 2006).
research. And finally, STS shows an interest in how the epistemic and methodological The need for hybrid forms of publication and dissemination that do justice to the
force of ãtt can be articulated and made public through rich-media documentation, non-verbal, non-propositional nature of research outcomes is felt both in artistic
publication, and dissemination.
 Introduction 9
8 Henþ Borgdorff, Peter Peters, Treuor Pinch
Dialogues
research and STS. Extended and intermedial publications not only reflect
th9
!V
of the publics that are addressed. For
-""-pf","i,À" ,"r."r.h and its methods butinalso
Lriãìiy
the debate on the institutionalization of
Artworks and artistic practices are meaningful in the art world, whereas they also
one of the more vexing topics embody or enact knowledge and insights that function as commodities in academia.
artistic research in academia are the ctiteria for an artistic research PhD' In univer- In his chapter, Henk Borgdorff approaches this problem of demarcation without re-
sities that allow artistic researchers to defend their research, as a rule a
written text producing conceptual dichotomies by focusing on what happens when artworks and
next to ân artistic product is requested. This requirement shows how the dichotomies artistic practices 'travel'from the art world to academia, from the realm of the aes-
between aft andacademia contìnue to exist in practice. Reflection on dissemination thetic to the realm of the epistemic. What kinds of translâtions, transformations, or
,trut"gi", and formats to make research public is shared with the field of STS' Here' transpositions happen here? Borgdorff answers this question by discussing the pro-
than
scholars seek ways to communicate theif iesearch results also to wider audiences cess of establishing the online Research Catalogue that functions as a platform for the
can be reached tLrough written scientific work as a contribution to the democratiza' archiving, documentation, management, publication, and dissemination of artistic
tion of science and teãhnology (Marres, Guggenheim, 8¿'SØilkie, 2018). research.
John Law has argued thaT"knowittg "ttd itt methods
are materially complex and The theme of translation is also addressed in the chapter by Esa Kirkkopelto. He
p."rforrrrutiue webs o=f practi.e that imply particular ârrays of subjects, objects, expres- argues that the relation between STS and artistic research invites a rethinking of pro-
,ior6 o, fepresentati;s, imaginaries, metaphysical assumptions, normativities, and cedures of translation. One of the basic operations in science that depends on trans-
institutions'' (Law,2017,p.4i). He thinks of these heterogeneous arrays as 'knowing lation is measurement. In scientific research this implies that the things under study,
,p*"r' that can úuu" po*., and obduracy (Law, 2011) Giving the example oÍ aca- which are not necessarily human, are made to speak to us, humans and researchers,
the abil-
demic knowing ,pu."r, Law explains how access to these spaces depends on so that we cân understand them. From the artistic research perspective, however, al-
to conform to its conventions, procedures, competences' topics,
ity and willininess though things and materials speak to us we cannot necessarily understand their talk,
theoretical frame*orks, and criteria. He also gives recent examples of unconventional
let alone translate it into discursive language. Kirkkopelto poses the questions of how,
or hybrid knowing spaces that worked through exhibitions' writing poetry' simu- according to STS, objects are constituted in science, how they are constituted in the
lations, reciprocal"hu.nan-animal interactions, art-science interactions, or activism arts, and how these processes and their results are similar or different.
and participarory merhods (Law, 2017, p.48). In his use of the concept of knowing \lhereas the two previous chapters seem to take the ideal-typical character of art
;;;.;r, u.,á by acknowledgìttg ,hur .r."ti.rg different knowinäspaces can be slow, and academia as a starting point to reflect on their interrelations, Ruth Benschop puts
h"r"rioor, uncertain "trd lorjy (ibid.), Law applies a typical STS line of argumenta-, this dichotomy aside. Her interest is not so much in defining and defending what ar-
,1"" ," p.atti.", of knowing, their methods, ai well as the reception and workings of tistic research may be, as it is in what artistic researchers do and what the good words
rheir ourcomes. What is leained from other case studies in STS is valid here as well:
are to speak about what they do. Her approach is to conduct a thought experiment
on the craft of artistic research. This thought experiment consists in deliberately mis-
That methods are shaped by the social; that they also shape, stage' and structure reading or misplacing two examples, both on the brink of art and ethnography, 'as if'
the social; that they u-r" p"ifor-ative and heterogeneously enact objects, worlds, they were artistic research. She reads the work of the ethnographer Stefan Hirschauer
and realities; that ihey ale situated, productive, essentially political, and norma- like an artist, whereas she understands the interventions of the artist Pilvi Takala as
tive; and that they might be otherwise' (Law,2017' p' 48) an anthropologist or sociologist. Together, both examples suggest non-reductive ways
in which we can grasp both the strictness of emerging methods as well as the space for
Dialogues, Practices, ExPeriments that which escapes such methods, in academic as well as in artistic work.
How artistic research produces knowledge is the topic of a discourse that has ac-
The chapters in this book all relate to and reflect on the hybrid knowing spaces at
companied the field from its beginnings. Drawing on theories from STS and philos-
the inteÅections between arristic research and STS. In our ordering of the chapters,
oph¡ Nora Vaage takes bioart practices as a starting point for a meta-reflection on
*. t "u. placed them under three different headings: 'Dialogues,' 'Practices,' and 'Ex- the concept of knowledge itself. In recent years, an increasing number of artists are
all discuss general issues and
f"rl*"n*.' The chapters in the first part of the book They thus con- engaging with the biotechnosciences, entering the laboratories to create afi in uiuo.Irt
io"rtion, around ttie encounter between artistic research and STS.The second part what sense of the word can we speak about artistic lab practices as producing knowl-
tribute to the meta-reflexive debate that accompanies this dialogue'
edge? \ü/hereas a common definition of knowledge in epistemology is justified true
of the book focuses on concrete examples of practices of artistic reseârch' and how
give belief, this definition reduces the role of art to science communication. Vaage argues
these practices can be analyzed using STS concepts and methods.5 The chapters
artistic research- that a more suitable concept to apply to the meaning-making of art may be wisdom.
detailåd accounts of these practices, ánswering the question of what
recounting Considering artistic research as a practice that aims for wisdom might help create a
ers actually do, either by fãllowing their work as academic scholars or by
is labelled 'Ex- space for such research that is connected to and complements other academic prac-
their own practices as årtist-researche.. The third part of the -book tices, without having to aim for the same forms of knowledge outcomes.
the central affinities
f"ri*"rrtt'. fhe chapters in this section revolve around one of situations that enable In her chapter, Hannah Rogers argues that science-and-technology-engaged artists
L",*."r. scientific arid artistic research: setting up experimental are practicing STS by material means. They share STS's concerns: who gets to set the
the emergence of knowledge and understanding'
10 Henk Borgdorff, Peter Peters, Treuor Pinch Introduction 11,

agenda of science and participate in jts workings, and how does science create and planetary scale such as climate change, Desiree Förster claims in her chapter. Given
ã"int"in its knowledg*orpoå and related po-"i structures? To see these artists, who the fact that the environmental crisis is so extensive and neither temporally nor spa-
is a form of tially understandable to an individual, scholars have called for â new environmental
ur" .rrgug.d with sciåce and tech.rology, ás outside the STS community
t..httology studies (ASTS) is beginning- to aesthetic. Such a re-situating of human agency into its natural environment combines
fo.rrr¿är"--aking. Art and science unã
also considers that several fields in their shared ways of re-thinking subjectivity by emphasizing the role
;õ";[ t;t". of lhi, work and its consequences for STS. Rogers
p"üi."f"t group of contemporary ârtists' known as bioartists, in order to examine non-human powers and processes play on various levels of life and sense-making.
who are Using concepts from phenomenolog¡ New Materialism,"and actor-network theory,
ãfr. ,p".in." poåibiliri", for' ou.riup, between STS scholarship and artists
te.h.rolojy. Works
..rgug"d witË science 'Western like those at SymbioticA, a wet research Förster explores how new aesthetic practices at the intersection of art and design
"nd Auîtralia (U\øA), should be considered STS by other develop forms of incorporating non-human agencies into the lived and sensual expe-
lab at the University of
engage some of the same issues that science studies en- rience or expand the human body towards its animated, vital environment.
-."rrr, that is, these works their ideas into physical and Recently, musical practices and their technologies have become a research subject
g"g* U"iá. ,o ,,o, by publishirip"p.r, but by vesting
tactical objects. in STS as well as in the related field of sound studies. In his chapter, Peter Peters en-
rers the pipe-organ builder's workshop to study ethnographically how materialities,
such as metal, wood, and leather, and skills, such as metal casting and pipe voicing,
Prøctices are made to matter artistically. Organs are considered as aesthetic and technological
pigott explores how sensibilities and approaches from science and technology mirrors of their time, which makes the practices of knowing, making, and perform-
Jon
,todi"J."r, h.lp to understand and identify the practice of kinetic sound art' He ing that revolve around them a strategic research site to explore interrelations of the
ão", ,o by devioping the idea of the 'material system' identified in the work of epistemic and the aesthetic. Peters followed the building of a new Baroque organ in
STS

scholars Bruno Latour and John Law and relating it to the object-
and material-based the Orgelpark, a venue in Amsterdam that aims to give the pipe organ a new role in
technological systems of kinetic sound art. Follðwing the lineage of technologically musical life. Through his ethnographical observations, he describes how acquiring
engaged ãrt pructi." offers opportunities for an STS of the arts. A first-hand case historical knowledge of organ-building practices and relearning eighteenth-century
titled Electromagnetic Inter' artisanal skills enabled the organ builders to create a technical space in which to ar-
,ií¿i "l an o'riginal kinetic rã""d piece by the author of
,ogirion,(2011-2014) allows furtlier reflection on the artistic construction tech- ticulate intellectual, tactile, sensory, or aesthetic reâsons for the normative claim that
,roÏogy as well as a consideration of how the making of a technological
artwork and a pipe sounds good.
thought of as a single 'method
,fr. .îpi"t"tion of related STS influenced ideas can be
(Law,2004, p. 13).Pigott arg'es that kinetic sound art often aims to
Exþeriments
"rr"*Ëlug"'
evoke an alternative ui.* of t..útolãgy as a contingent and evolving system' For these
sound artists there is also a tension between communicating this contingent nature Screens are everywhere. Claude Draude addresses this pervasiveness of computer
oi,"lh""r"gy and producing technological artworks that will reliably 'perform' and screens by following a phenomenological conception of screens as mattering only
work in thJiall.ry o, .orr.l"r, hall. This allows for a reflection on the assemblage as screens-in-the-world. She discusses characteristics of the computer screen, inter-
nature of melhods for simultaneously making connections, insights and
artworks. weaving basic principles of computing and cultural impact. This discussion and the
pro- phenomenological conception of screens provide the basis for experimenting with
lofrurrrru Schindler examines in hei chapt.i t*o
collaborative artistic research
jeås in Germany and Switzerland through ethnographic field research. Interested in screenness through art-based research. The focus here is not on the artistic product
digital or object as such but on thinking, reflecting, and perceiving through art-based exper-
the epistemic poiential of boundary objeãts, she focuses on a newly developed
musical instrument and a comput.i- und biofeedback-controlled space' The research- imental set-ups, with a special interest in embodiment and site-specific situatedness.
science, mu- The quality of the art-based approach, Draude argues, lies in its power to produce an
ers in the projects stemmed from various disciplines such as computer
arts' The observed researchers experimental field of non-standard ways of knowledge production in a technological
;.bcy, proi,r., design, media studies, and media which served field. Reviewing her art-based experiments leads Draude to shift the focus for future
drploiád ãn artistic -"oiking mode to_ creâte multifunctional objects,
investigative instrurients for their research endeavor and as presentation of research from the metaphors derived from optics towards the notion of the screen as a
Uott,
",
ãr"i..jrot,r. Evãn though artistically designed, these objects were neither intended nor membrane. Thus, the screen's own agency as semi-permeable threshold, as well as its
were a first interconnectivity to specific sites, bodies, and contexts can be addressed.
considered to b. urt*ãrks. Rather, theyiemained works-in-progfess and
results' Seeing Katherina Vones examines the way in which the ancient practice of alchemy and
;* i; the search for an adequate presentation format for the research
their and the figure of the alchemist could be used to offer researchers and practitioners, oper-
ih.'se ob¡ects as boundary ob;..rt allows Schindler to show how design
and research interests ating at the boundaries between creative and scientific practice, a model for engaging
irrn.tiorrutlry reflect the rlseaichers' individual backgrounds
with the concepr of cross-disciplinary knowledge generation. Alchemical practice has
and how thËy structure and re-otganizethe ongoing research-process'
'What been connected to craft practitioners, and in particular goldsmiths and jewelers, from
does lived experien." ,n.ãn in times of environmental crisis? The first-person
the early modern period onwards. It experienced a resurgence during the New Jew-
p.rrpã.r*. of the llved body, which in phenomenology is foundational to sensual ellery movement in the 1970s, where the altered perception of material preciousness
i.r.ip,ør, and knowledge creation, ,."rn, to be unable to grasp processes on the
 Introduction 1'3
12 Henk, Borgd'orff, Peter Peters, Treuor Pinch
to the conceptual paradigms frau<L Others see art âs the realm where autonomy and resistance towards standards and
in jewelry prompted some craft practitioners to return restrictions prevail. It is our assumption that such an opposition is not helpful when one
recently, Vones finds, the term
of alchemy in order to defrne their practice. More wants to unàerstand the rationale and internal dynamics of the artistic research program.
,alchemical .ruft' huri"* äescribe practices and'practitioners who work 2
- Academic drift is nor a new phenomenon in higher education. The history of universities
"rJ,r
with novel marerials ;ã;;;f.,,., th"t hau" t."n sourced
from the laboratories of .ho*. a frequent adaptation to changing circúmstances and the inclusion of more and
collaborative projects supported by an more areas or ways of investigatiot , riurtì.tg with the advance of experimental science it-
researchers, ofr.., trr-ogñ l*.rait.iplinary ,.tf 1., th. seventeånth century', over the breakdown of natural history and philosophy into
modern day alchemical laborato-
institutional fru-"*o.k."Vtaterials lilraries act as the sciences and the rise of aïd the controversies around social science in the nineteenth
materials-scientists, and academic
,*r;t;i"r*ested artistic practitioners, makers, ,,ou.l materiality. Thus a tradition of
..r*.y, up until the inclusion of technology and design programs and the unrestrained
researchers gather to experience and discu,, e*pa.riion-of academia into all kinds of areas in the twentieth century.
but well-documented meetings that 3 O;. can find such a distinction, for instance, in the regulations for the new ârtistic doctor-
spaces for experimentatiån such as those secretive
Europe is revived at ate in Sweden, Norway, and Austria.
took place between like-minded alchemists in sixteenth-century 4 The examplei of these canonical'object lessons'are taken from Bijker (19f5),-Latour
are encouraged'
a time when such interdisciplinary collaborations (1992), $(/in.rer (1999),Shapin and Schaffer (1985), and De Laet and Mol (2000). The list
the brain's electrical activitv have moved
over the past deciJs;tï;;;;;å"t"nts.of of examples could easily be expanded.
domains, including practices of 5 F;; ; .";parison of ariistic piactices and STS practices in the world of sound, see Pinch,
beyond rhe neurosci.rrtín. laboratory into other
mindfulness ,rrining -tãiiutio", hacker spaces' consumer research' the game 20'i.6.
",'ã eYents. Flora Lysen investigates
industry, and also a vaúety of art-meets-science
these art-science works pifUr experiments: that is, as conûgurations of unfinished
", with an ârt-science installa- References
knowledge, developed witir particii".rt, ", they engage
as entangled experiments, can
;ì;;. SË;rgues tiÌat such årt-science installations, ooilines.of rãsearch into the social
Acord, S. K., & DeNora, T. (2008). Culture and the Arts: From Art ìlorlds to Arts-in-Action.
help to reimagine,n".*firi.tl and concepto"l Annals of the American Academy of Political ønd Social Science, 619(7),223-237.
reflections.are also always paired Atkinson, É., Coff.y,4., Delamont, S., Lofland, J'' & Lofland, L' (Eds') (2007)' Handbook' of
brain but that such intra-discipli.tur¡ orrtoiogical
with other logics, ilffi;;ti urro-"d-.ritiãal role of art vis-à-vis science, as well Eth n o grap h y.
"tZ"O:OZi.
Thousand Oaks : Sage Publications.
tri-"lating an-innovatìon-oriented neuro-techno- Bal, M. Trauelling Concepts in the Humanities: A Rougb Guide. Toronto: University
as the positir"
"f "rJ;;;;?"¡"ffy
scientifrc society. r-yr"n .t"i*s that art-sciencã
collaborations' most notably those in o{ Toronto Press.
critically elucidates or examines Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the IJniuerse Halft.uay: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of
the field of bioart, ;il; ;;1" the form of art that Matter and Meaning' Durham, NC: Duke University Press'
however, art-science collaborations afe
scientific practices. In this line of reasoning, Becker, H. s. (2008). Art Wr¡rlds. Berkeley: university of california Press.
yet they rarely constitute genuine
intermediati.rg b"t*".r, the fields of art andlcience, Becker, H. S., Faulkner, R. R., & Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (Eds') (2006). Art From Start t<t
*rti"i. ."r"".ãh in the sense of a real hybridization of domains' breach- F¡niih: Jazz, Painting, Writing, and Otber Innprouisdtioøs. Chicago: University of Chicago
In his chapt.., pfriiipp."ð"r-r"l goLs_ back to the ethno-methodological Press.
in the 1960s for a methodological
ing experim.rr* ,ir"iÉå-td C^rnnË.t developed Benschop, R. (2009). STS on Art and the Art of STS: An Introduction. I{risis: lowrnal for
strategy. Sormani explores the interplay be- C ont emþ orary P h ilo sophy, 20 09 (1), t- 5.
reflection o., ."-.rr".r-"rri u, u research
video analyrir. Mót. specificall¡.his chapter revisits
a
tween performanc.-"., Benschop, R., Peters, P., ð{ Lemmens, B. (20L4). Artistic Researching: Expositions as Matters
""¿ institutional cñtique qwa
of Concern. In M. Schwab & H. Borgdorlf (Eds.), The Exposition of Artistic Reseørch:
pafticular position in performance.art - Andrea Fraser's
video analysis, a recent devel- Publishing Art in Academia (pp, 34-51). Leiden: Leiden university Press.
filmed inrervention - lå ãi"tog,re with practice-based
alongside mainstream. STS. Sormani exam- Bijker, W. l. Ígss). of Bicyclil, Baþelites, and Bulbs: Toøards a Theory of Sociotechnical
opmenr in erhno-merh;drlr# pracriceã Change, Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press.
fro- a develãpingcorpus of video recordings, all of
ines rhree media
which announce
"";;;;.;;;;*
or other of 'machineint;lligence,'relating to video
gaming' Bloor, D. (1976). Knoøledge and Social Imøgery. London: Routledge'
"";i;;; Borgdorff, H. (201,2). Thi Conflict of the Facuhies: Pers¡tectiues on Artistic Researcb and
respectively. In his contribution to
neuromorphi...-;;r"i"g,ãrrd -u.ll"e1earning, Academia. Leiden: Leiden University Press.
insights from the presented
a ,sociology of d"-tnrtiátions' Sormani drawsLgeiher Bruyninckx, (2018). Listening in the Field: Recording and the Science ttf Birdsong.
J.
ã,t, Fraser's institutional critique'
;";Gi;;ift" "i.f.îlïi.tr".,it" of performar,."current STS more broadly'
Cambriclge, MA: MIT Press.
analysis, if not contem porary art and Collins, ff. N¿. (tSSS). Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice.
""Jirl¿.. London: Sage.
De Laet, M., & Mol, A. (2000). The Zimbabwe Bush Pump: Mechanics of a Fluid Technology'
Notes Social Stwdies of S cience, 3 0(2), 225 -263.
its legitimacy as a proper acâ- Dolphijn, R., & Van der Tuin, L (2013). Neø Materialism: Interuieus and Cartc:grøphies'
1 The central controversy around artistic.research involves the pTevailing standards of sci-
demic field of t'u.rriËríiJn;rh;; ;,;h.ìh., iì.ã"iãrr"s to Ann Arbor: Open Humanities Press.
;;;;ilå;I.;y, iepticability, reliabilitv, ..por:i:-T:.1:1"::l: Feyerabend, P. (t010). Against Method 11'9751,4th ed. New York: Verso Books'
enrific researcr.l *i,n?.äirä that a caricature rs mâde
in a \ivay Foster, H. (1996). The Return <tf the Real: The Auant-Garde øt the End of the Century.
ln that conrroversy r"rã. p..pf. tend to tãke sid.s such
picture, where everything
,.d,-r..ã to 'scientistici
of the oppone"t. S.i.iäålí."iãii.¿ u.td a Cambridge, MA:
as pseudo-science or MIT Press.
that falls outside thä;;; ]f;h; åLt.rL"a experiment is dismissed
14 Henk Borgdorff, Peter Peters, Treuor Pinch Introduction 15

Gibson,I. J. $979). Tbe Ecological Approach to visual Perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Pink, S., Hubbard, P., O'Neili, M., & Radley, A. (2010). S7alking across Disciplines: From
Mifflin. Ethnography to Arts Practice. Visual Studies, 25(1),1,-7.
Hannula, M., Suoranta, J., & Vadén,T. (2014). Artistic Research: Methodology. Bern: Petef Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge: Totuørds a Post-Critical Phibsophy. London:
Lang. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the.V/ild. Cambridge' MA: MIT press' Poianyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge ancl Kegan Paul.
Ingold, f. (ZOOO). Tbe Ferception of tbe Enuironment: Essays on Liuelihood, Dwelling and Popper, K. (1963). C<>njectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge'
Såll1. New York: Routledge. London: Routledge.
Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, Archøeology, Art and Architecture. London and Research Excellence Framework. (2014). Assessment Framework and Guidance on Submis-
New York: Routledge. sions. Retrieved from https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.ukl20lT0302l'14208lhttqll
Jones, c. 4., 8c GalisJn ,P. (201,4). Picturing science, Producing Art. Lonáon and New York: www.ref ac.u kI pubs| 201"1' - 02.
.

Routledge. Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kjørup, s. (zooø). Anotber Way of I(nowing. Bergen: Bergen National Academy of Saaze,Y. van. (2013). Installation Art and the Museum: Presentation and Conseruation of
the Arts. Changing Artworl<s. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1.962). The Structure of Scientific Reuolutic¡ns. Chicago: University of Chicago Salter, C., Burri, R. V., & Dumit, I. Q017). Art, Design, and Performance. In U. Felt'
Press. R. Fouché, C. A. Miller, & L. Smith-Doerr (Eds.), Tbe Handboolz of Science and Technol-
Latour, B. (1992). Aramis, ou I'amour tecbniques. Paris: Éditions la Découverte.
d.es ogy Studies,4th ed. (pp. 139-168). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Larour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Sc¡cial: An Intr<¡duction to Actor-Netlltork'-Theory. Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K., & Savigny, E. y. (2001). The Practice Turn in Cctntemþo-
Oxford: Oxford University Press. røry Tbeory. New York: Routledge.
Latour, 8., Lowe, A. (20i1). The Migration of the Aura, or How to Explore the origìnal
& Schlegel, F. (L991). Critical Fragments, trans. Peter Firchow. Minnesota: University of Min-
Through lts Facsimiles. In T. Bartscherer 8a R. Coover (Eds), Switching Codes: Tbinking nesota Press.
Tbrou"gh Digital Technology in tbe Hwmønities and the Arts (pp.275-297)' Chicago: Uni- Schneider, 4., & Wright, C. (2006). Contemqordry Art and Anthropolctgy. Oxford: Berg.
versity of Chicago Press. Schwab, M. (Ed.) (2016). Exþerin4ental Systems: Future Knowledge in Artistic Research.Leu-
Latour,'8., & \íoãlgar, S. (1,979). Laboratory Life: Tbe Social Cc¡nstruction of the Scientific ven: Leuven University Press.
Føcts. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leuiathan ønd the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Exper-
Law, J. Q004). After tvteihodt Mess in social science Research. London: Routledge. imental Life. Prtnceton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
La*',j. e011). The Expianatory Burden: An Essay on Hugh Raffles' Insectopedia. Cuburøl Sormani, Ph., Carbone, G. & Priska, G. (2018). Practicing Art/Science: Experiments in a
Anth rop ology 26(3)' 485-510' Em er ging F i el d. London: Routledge.
Law, J. èOç1. STS as Method. In U. Felt, R. Fouché, C. A. Miller, & L. M. Smith-Doerr Srrand, D. (1998). Research in the Creative Arts. Canberra: Department of Employment, Edu-
(pp. 31-57). Cambridge, MA: cation, Training and Youth Affairs - Evaluations and Investigations. Program Report 98/6.
ti¿t.1, røu Hand.booþ of Science and Technology Studies
MIT Press. Retrieved from http://pandora.nla.gov.aulpanl24685120020426-000Olwww.detya.gov.aul
Law, J., Ec Ruppert, E. (Eds.) (201,6). Modes of l{nowing: Resources from tbe Baroqwe. archive/highered/eippubs/e ip9 8 - 6 I eip9 I - 6.pdf .
Manchester: Mattering Press' Suchman, L. A. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfiguratir¡ns. Plans and Situated Actions,
Lury, C., & llakeford, Ñ. (ZOf Z). Inuentiue Methods: The Happening of tbe Social. London: 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Routledge. UK Council for Graduate Education. (1.997). Practice-Based Doctorates in the Creative and
MacKenzie, D., & v/ajcm an, J. $999). Tbe Social Shaping of Technology,2nd ed. Bucking- Performing Arts and Design. Retrieved {rom http://www.ukcge.ac.uk/media/download.
ham: Open University Press. aspx?Mediald=1289.
'Winner,
Marres, ñ., Gogg.nheim, M., & Wilkie, A. (2018). Inuenting the Social. Manchester: L. (1,999). Do Artifacts Have Politics? In D. MacKenzie &J. lüajcman (Eds.), Túe
Mattering Press. Social Shøping of Technology,Znd ed. (pp. 28-40). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Mol, A. (2002). The Body Multiple' Durham, NC: Duke University Press'
Newen, 4., De Bruin, L., & Gallagher, s. (201s). Tbe oxford Handbgoþ of 4E cognition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Noworny, H. (2010). Foreword. In M. Biggs & H. Karlsson (Eds.), The Routledge companion
to Reseørch in the Arts (pp' xvii-xxvi). London: Routledge'
OudsÈoorn, N. E. .1., ð¿ Pi;¿h, T. (Eds.) (2003). How (Jsers Matter. The Co-construction of
IJsers and Technology' Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
pinch, T. J. e01.6). 'Bií.g on Sectór Two!'The Sounds o{ Bent and Broken Citcuits. Sound
Studies, 2(1),36-51..
Pinch, T. J. (iorthcoming). Coda: Testing and llhy it Matters. In A. Hiu, M. Mills, and V. Tk-
aczyk (Eds.), Testing Hearing: Music, Science, Industry. Oxford: Oxford University Press'
linch, T. J., & ni;k.., \ø. E. (1984). The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How
the Socliogy of S.i.n.. and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. Social
Studies of S cience, 14(3), 399 -441.