Beach Haven

Bibliography
​Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. 

Review by Michael Beach
​
As the title implies, James C. Scott references several national policies in different economic and political universes that claimed to seek the betterment of the people living within a given sphere of control. Then, Scott goes on to discuss some of the failures within his example state policies. His focus is on policies that are adopted from the perspective of ‘high modernism’, or in other words, highly planned and symbolic communities as opposed to those whose growth is more organic.

Scott defines high-modernism as clean, sharp, repetitious, and completely planned. For example, one can drive around a subdivision in America and every house looks the same with every yard laid out in a way that keeps the ominous HOA off the back of the homeowner. More organic cities and neighborhoods are those that are more post-modern where each is unique, and the growth seems hodge-podge and random. Scott compares public policy and the effects of high-modernist and post-modernist with various art movements that followed similar courses.

The two main examples Scott uses are the Soviet Union collectivization, compulsory villagization in Tanzania. In each case the hoped-for outcomes were less than desired. People resisted the government efforts resulting in police-state approaches. For Scott, these examples show “how routinely planners ignore the radical contingency of the future” (Scott, 1998, p. 343). One of the fallacies he points out is how in planning there is a need for “standardizing the subjects of development” (p. 345). By assuming all the people to be roughly the same then planners can create buildings, parks, roads, market areas, etc. the same. Other things need to be standardized as well such as assumptions about weather, geologic forces, external economic effects, or other social movements that are guessed to be more or less the same in the future as they have been in the past.

Scott makes a plea for what he calls ‘metis-friendly institutions’. Those institutions that are tasked with planning should be “multifunctional, plastic, diverse, and adaptable” (p. 353). The issue he has with high-modernism is its general approach at simplifying the variables it plans for. Instead of one-size-fits-all, he is advocating for more voices in the process and a willingness to let go of efficiency in the name of sameness.

Bibliography
​Pickering, A. (1995). The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
 
Andrew Pickering takes a look at science as a practical work. While there are many philosophical arguments abounding in regards to science in theory, he examines social forces that shape and are shaped by the processes in scientific decision making.

Pickering offers some clarification around the word ‘mangle’. He realizes that this has a different meaning in different places. In America, for example, he notes that the word refers to completely messing something up from the original intention of the thing in question. In his sense mangle means, “practice, understood as the work of cultural extension” (original emphasis) (Pickering, 1995, p. 3). He equates ‘mangle’ with ‘change’. To Pickering, the practice of science is to change it from the theoretical to the real.

He uses some examples to show how process and outcomes don’t always follow original assumptions. One example includes experimentation using a bubble chamber. It includes “the extension of the mechanic field of science, specifically of the development of the bubble chamber as an instrument for experimental research in elementary-particle physics” (Pickering, 1995, p. 37). Pickering shares the history of decisions it took to get to a working model, and the modification of how ‘working’ was eventually defined. Since the chamber ultimately did not create the exact vacuum conceived, the vacuum it did achieve served to define what a bubble chamber is.

Other examples in the book include “hunting the quark,” “constructing quaternions,” and “numerically controlled machine tools.” Each comes with its own history of conception through realization with social compromises along the way. Finally, Pickering finishes with two chapters on conceptual arguments about the kinds of influences and ways to perhaps embrace or reconstruct them. In Chapter 6 for example, he puts some focus on scientific norms as espoused by Robert Merton which have been argued about since their inception. Pickering considers these norms (or any others) as ‘articulations’. 
​

Bibliography
Sclove, R. E. (1995). Democracy and Technology. New York and London: The Guilford Press.

​Reviewed by Michael Beach
 
In this work, Richard Sclove examines both various forms of democratic societies and how they approach incorporating technology, and he also looks at where these approaches tend to fail. At the end of the book, Sclove proposes his own suggestion of democratic methods that he feels would work best in a ever more international environment.

Two of the examples Richard Sclove regularly refers to are water provision in rural Spain and Amish farming communities. In the case of the Spanish towns, old systems were quickly upgraded to ‘modern’ water systems. Among the results were increase used of home laundry systems. Community spirit decreased over time as people did not gather at local streams for cleaning clothing. Likewise, gathering at well sites went away as manual retrieval in buckets we no longer necessary. The Amish farmer example, on the other hand, included community discussion on adding any technology. The goal of continued community interaction and cooperation is at the heart of each decision to add or not to add a particular technology. That is different than what many assume. Amish communities are often thought to technology-averse. Sclove argues this is untrue. He points to technologies adopted over many years by Amish communities. The key is whether the implementation would cause separation or isolation among community members.

Among other areas, Sclove reviews topics like the role of experts, international and local impacts of technical decisions, and how power dynamics influence and are influenced by technology. User influence on technical design choices within differing forms of democracy wraps up this examination followed by the author’s own recommendations. What Sclove calls “A New and Better Vision” (Sclove, 1995, p. 239) is laid out in an earlier chapter in the book. There are nine criteria (Sclove, 1995, p. 98) divided into five categories. Each category is elaborated on in separate chapters. The categories include: toward democratic community, toward democratic work, toward democratic politics, to help secure democratic self-governance, and finally to help perpetuate democratic social structures.

From the perspective of Richard Sclove, it is possible to have a democratic approach in selecting technology, even within societies that are less democratic. At the same time a democratic government does not imply the same principles are used to select which technologies any particular society will adopt. 
​

Bibliography
Graham, R. (1984). Spain: A Nation Comes of Age. New York: St. Martin's Press.

​Review by Michael Beach
 
For me as a reader, this book is close to my own experience. In 1982 and 1983 I lived in southern Spain serving as a missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I just a 19-year-old, pretty much oblivious to the world of politics and economics. In particular, before being called to Spain I really had even less knowledge as events outside the United States and my own experience were limited to what I saw on the news. Spain was not in the US media at the time, at least not to my memory.

Robert Graham published this book in 1984, so just after I left the country. I really was not all that aware of what was going on with in the country or its history, even when I was there. My focus was on sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, many years later I pay much more attention to the happenings in the world. I read some on the Spanish civil war and the history of Franco. I experienced the shift in government towards a more socialist philosophy after decades of fascist dictatorship. I wish now that then I had known more about it.

Graham discusses the transition of power through several tumultuous administrations. There was at least one coup attempt. The author looks at major influences in Spain in the post-Franco transitive period. He looks at the changes in wealth distribution, the influence of banks, the church, and the various factions within the military. Graham also looks at the Spanish media and its affect on public opinion. Finally, he discusses democracy as it evolved within Spain.

Many of the influences discussed by Robert Graham are echoed in other emerging democracies. Throughout the Franco period, Spain was in some ways considered a backward society within a more enlightened Europe. At the time of Graham’s writing its economy had gone through several booms and busts, but was strongly on the mend. It was among the fastest growing economies within Europe. History has shown Spain to have suffered from some of the pangs of a growing set of social benefits. During COVID most of Europe has had similar issues, but Spain, Italy and Greece were particularly in the news as countries with a growing dependency on EU funds.
​
I appreciate the insights Robert Graham shares in this book. Anyone interested in the country and how international affairs affect and are affected by Spain should consider the read.

Bibliography
Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge & London: The MIT Press.

Review by Michael Beach
​ 
Wiebe Bijker uses three specific technology examples to explore how social factors affect technical outcomes. “The stories we tell about technology reflect and can also affect our understanding of the place of technology in our lives and our society” (Bijker, 1995, p. 1). Although this quote may sound as if Bijker is arguing along a co-constructive line, yet throughout the book it’s clear that he asserts that social influence on technology is the primary force.

The bicycle chapter looks at the evolution of how they were designed and constructed. The perceptions evolved from the large bikes that were for daring young men who at times suffered the odd broken bone or two. Such perception led to the eventual production of the ‘safety bike’ that looks ever more like the bikes we typically ride today. By changing front and rear tire size, adding breaks, making seats wider, and other modifications, the community of bicycle riders expanded to include older people and women.

Bakelite is a substance that I became very familiar with while serving in the US Navy. Pretty much every placard on the ship I served on were made of it. Bakelite is an early form of plastic created and modified over time by the company formed by Leo Henricus Arthur Baekeland. Through all sorts of chemical combinations and varying heating temperature and bake timing, he was able to form a number of plastics of different flexibility and strength. The hard relatively thin version seemed to gain the biggest use of Bakelite. Eventually this form of plastic was supplanted by more modern forms that require less toxic waste to create. Newer plastic is also less expensive to make. Nonetheless, for the better part of a century many needs formerly provided by less durable materials, or those more metallic-based and subject to oxidation, were replaced by this early form of plastic.

Turning to bulbs, Bijker looks at the creation of the electric florescent light. What eventually became the long tubes we have all come to know, the approach was thought to fill the need of longer lasting bulbs that could light larger areas than the small incandescent. Industrial facilities in particular had difficulty fully lighting large factory spaces with small incandescent bulbs, and larger spotlights required more frequent replacement. This example specifically addresses not only social influence on invention, but even organized social effort to standardize the eventual technology. Bijker shares several examples of groups of users and bulb manufacturers who even held conferences in an effort to agree on gases used, electrical voltage standards, and the like.

Wiebe Bijker makes the argument for a ‘constructionist analysis’ (p. 280). “Such an analysis stresses the malleability of technology, the possibility for choice, the basic insight that things could have been otherwise” (author’s emphasis) (Ibid.). Bijker immediately notes that not all technological change is so malleable. Later sociologists of technology would take this assumption of social preeminence in the relationship between technology and society to a more level two-way influence. That conception of a level playing field is known as co-construction.
​

Bibliography
​Scott, J. (1990). A Matter of Record: Documentary Sources in Social Research. Cambridge: Polity Press.
 
In this work, John Scott explores all sorts of public and private records with the intent of helping researchers understand how best to extract usable information from them. This is a how-to book, but also examines social and ethical issues connected with documents.

One ethical examination comes in a series of chapters examining private documents, the intent of their creation, and in what ways a researcher should approach private documents. Some examples include wills, private journals, or letters written for consumption only by the addressee. Does the passage of time make these documents less privileged? What if any of these are pulled into the public sphere in a court dispute or if the author becomes a public figure by running for political office?

Much of the book is a sort of nuts-and-bolts approach to finding data that matter to the particular focus of the research. For example, health records might be pertinent when looking for concentrations of a particular illness. Health records are private, in particular recent information that is subject to modern HIPAA rules. Access may be limited and the specific way such data can be used through anonymizing is also controlled through various research rules.

For those who seek information that relate to sociological trends or influences, digging through public and private records is inevitable. One example of such research is in the field of family history. Many people are engaged in that research for personal reasons, but once it is published in an academic work or on publicly accessible websites, there are laws and ethical concerns that take effect. John Scott has examined the ins-and-outs in this work about academic use of records.
​

Bibliography
​Golinski, J. (2005). Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History of Science. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
 
Jan Golinski looks to shed some light on historical views of constructivism in science. Constructivists argue that scientific facts are not discovered but are created based on social factors affecting individual scientists and the greater scientific community. After essays on issues raised by constructionism and some of the general related ideas, he clarifies typical arguments concerning social identity for scientists. For example, how they view themselves, how their self-view is disciplined among members of larger scientific community, and who is even a part of that community.

Golinski continues along the line of examining the workplaces of scientists, how they are organized and funded. He refers to scientific laboratories as ‘places of production’ of knowledge. Clearly that is different than how many scientists view labs as places of discovery. He spends a whole chapter viewing ideas of Ian Hacking, a scientific philosopher whose works I’ve read a few of. Hacking devoted a great deal of study on the ideas of intervening with nature and representing the outcomes of those interventions. For example, is the atomic model of electrons spinning around a neutron a representation of what an atom actually looks like, or just a way to explain the measured phenomena? Do chemical substances in nature actually interact with each other the way they do in a lab where specific components are isolated from each other before being mixed in unnatural rations? Constructivists argue that without human intervention such behavior is not natural. They also argue that human representation (such as using mathematics) only partially describes the intervening version and not natural processes.

“The issue of narrative, with its connection to the moral meaning of historical discourse, is an important one to consider in the light of constructivist approaches to the history of science” (Golinski, 2005, p. 187). Golinski is looking at the history of constructivism in science as well as the history of the history of constructivism in science. 
​

Bibliography
​Frickel, S., & Moore, K. (Eds.). (2006). The New Political Sociology of Science: Institutions, Networks, and Power. London: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Review by Michael Beach
​
Like many academic books, this work is a compilation of chapters written by various authors who share focus points of the title topic. Each chapter is grouped with others under three main topics: the commercialization of science; science and social movements; and science and the regulatory state. The editors note how many such books come from a compilation of papers presented at a given conference, and that this book does not follow that pattern. “We invited contributors to tender individual or comparative case study analyses that explain why events and processes in science happen the way they do” (Frickel & Moore, 2006, p. vii).

Referenced case studies include an examination of how social and political ideas shape how science is approached, and which scientific questions are examined. Likewise, there are examples showing how scientific work can influence political and social thought. Case studies include agricultural, biomedical research, alternative approaches to science, scientific consensus, ethics and training, political movements on specific diseases, and the list continues.

The ’creation’ or ‘discovery’ of scientific ‘facts’ is fraught with myriad decisions made by individuals and groups of people. Despite the assumed objectivity of the scientific approach, in reality the larger human world in which all scientists live plays an important role in what gets examined and how reliable the findings might be. Facts tend to be established through consensus, but consensus does not guarantee information is completely factual. The tensions among funding, policy, process, and priority are real as evidenced in the ideas and case studies offered in this book. What makes the ideas presented is simply that this is a later version of an earlier work by sociologist Stuart Blume. The earlier version from 1974 is titled Toward a Political Sociology of Science. As quoted by Frickel and Moore, the intent of that book was to offer an analysis “founded upon the assumption that the social institution of modern science is essentially political” (Frickel & Moore, 2006, p. 3). The motivation to update the ideas of the Blume book is that “the interconnections among the institutions he examined in deriving that claim have since undergone extensive transformation” (Frickel & Moore, 2006, p. 4).

Bibliography
Galison, P., & Hevly, B. (Eds.). (1992). Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
 
Review by Michael Beach
​
Like many of the books I read for my post-graduate studies, this is a compilation of papers. In this case, the chapters relate to scientific research projects that are considered big enough in scope to meet the editors’ speculative attempt at a definition of big. As one might suspect, the introduction is by one of the editors, Peter Galison, and contains the thought around how to draw the boundary between big and not big. Galison also spends time discussing why the topic matters. Like in most things, one’s perspective on what ‘big’ means depends a great deal on where one is. For example, Galison notes, “Seen from the inside – from scientists’ perspective – big science entails a change in the very nature of a life in science” (Galison & Hevly, 1992, p. 1). Is it the size of the team working on a given project? Is it the size of the budget? Is it a function of the hoped-for outcomes? Are big science projects only those funded by the government? Are they those that will do the most ‘good’? You can see the nature of the discussion covered in this book.

The questions above are tackled by a number of authors through the depiction of historical events in the scientific research community. There are five chapters about the growth of particle physics. Four more chapters discuss the tension between researcher priorities and those of funders such as governments and large corporations. The last four authors examine the relationship between research and national security. These are followed by an afterword by the other editor, Bruce Hevly.

When science is big enough to capture public attention because of the potential impact, some of the tensions mentioned above also grow. In the afterword, Hevly admits a clear definition of big science “remains an elusive term” (Galison & Hevly, 1992, p. 355). He further calls the term “conveniently murky” (Ibid.) in that something can be termed ‘big’ or ‘not big’ based on what’s to one’s advantage. For example, when seeking funding for grants perhaps big means having an important mission for humanity. When appealing to a private funder, maybe economic value has more appeal to be big. Yet, if one is looking for less attention perhaps the moniker is more troublesome. For example, if a work gains less attention by others then perhaps patents can be more easily obtained through reduced competition. Maybe the scientists involved can garner notability through being the first to publish on a given topic that others are not thinking about because it wasn’t big enough to get their attention. Whatever one calls ‘big’ in science, there are certainly many scientific efforts that have created impact on civilization in part or in whole. In the end the question remains. How big is big?
​

Bibliography
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press.

Review by Michael Beach
​
This book speaks to a long-standing problem in both science and technology. When is a thing a thing, and not something else? Despite belief in clear categories, there is often ambiguity and continuum when it comes to pretty much anything we choose to measure. Even in something as ‘obvious’ as on or off. For example, in any electrical system (computers included) there is a voltage increase or decrease just after a switch is thrown. As immediate as the process may seem in human time, we have instruments that can measure the charging and discharging that goes on. What about when the power has a ‘brown out’. Is it on or off?

This dilemma is where the authors go in this book. They emphasize the effect that human choice has on establishing categories, and in deciding when something is in one category or another. In the world of the sociology of science, this idea is sometimes dubbed ‘boundary work’. Scientists are influenced by the professional and general societies they find themselves in. Different scientific organizations may approach the same ‘problem’ in different ways creating competing categories. For example, there a lots of different ways scientific disciplines name or describe anything from substances, to flora and fauna, to human traits. Pick pretty much any like-grouped things and you have created your own version of a category. The issue in terms of science is the addition of an authority that comes along with the supposed objectivity of scientists.
​
Bowker and Star share examples as wide ranging as tuberculosis, apartheid, and nursing work. They conclude with a chapter on why classifications matter. “Classifications are powerful technologies. Embedded in working infrastructures they become relatively invisible without losing any of that power” (Bowker & Star, 1999, p. 320). Decided by convention over time, categories, by definition, create a form of hierarchy. Such hierarchy might be among humans in an organization (who’s a doctor and who’s a nurse?), or among which form of category will be accepted within a given society as ‘higher’ or ‘lower’. For example, in evolutionary science specimens are often dubbed higher or lower forms of life based on the complexity of their cellular make up or their DNA structure. Bowker and Star point out that things are generally on some sort of continuum or other, and drawing lines within the continuum is arbitrary and tends to mislead. One classic example is the box on a form describing race. Which does a multi-racial person check when describing themselves?