Pierre Bourdieu
Throughout Pierre Bourdieu’s writing in Science of Science and Reflexivity he relates his ideas to a number of works by previous scholars. His major criticism of most is their focus on the microcosm as model for global themes. He argues that individuals and institutions within a field are shaped by the context of the field and the interaction between fields. He does nod to some of the other authors as well when their work relates to the idea of fields, though perhaps using different language then Bourdieu does.
Scientific capital for Bourdieu is symbolic capital such as scientific authority. Such capital leads to power within a given scientific field. Symbolic capital comes through both cognitive and communicative relations, generally within the field. It results from recognition by competitors who are referred to as agents. As competing agents attempt to discredit (like Karl Popper speaks to) and fail to, or find more evidence to support competing ideas, they in turn reference the work adding capital. Such capital only comes within the framework created within a field by the agents in that field who hold scientific authority (power).
Like Robert Merton and Margaret Rossiter, he supports the idea that the more power/capital one has, the more one tends to gain. His perspective differs slightly in that having power (scientific authority) gives the scientist more control over economic, social and cultural resources allowing them to shape the rules of success within a given field. This also differs from Marx who links power purely to physical or economic capital. Similar to Rossiter’s ‘Matilda’ when some scientists find themselves with less capital they are more inclined to appeal to outside sources of capital, meaning from another field (political, economic, etc.). Bourdieu refers to this as Zhandovism.
Like Bruno Latour, Bourdieu sees advancement (personal and of scientific knowledge) as a function of struggle. He sees the pattern of hybridization concepts expressed by Ben-David linked to the shifts in borders between fields. As rules or positioning changes within a field, the border between fields shifts as well. Players in the field (scientists) may ultimately shift fields if they see opportunity for more power in a related field rather than stay in their own. This effect also results from Zhandovism mentioned earlier.
As the younger scientists look to advance in their field Bourdieu discusses two strategies each may choose to adopt. They may opt a succession strategy of gaining scientific capital by following the rules created by those in power within the field. They might be subversive by seeking to break the structure and create a new hierarchy. In either case it is the struggle itself (constantly challenging the existing hierarchy) that advances the individual, and also scientific knowledge.
Bourdieu refers to structure within the field as creating a space of possibilities. By this he means there are differing ways to do science. The structure within the field which creates the space will be different from field to field, and is influenced by both individuals and institutions. Tension denotes difference within the field, and pressure is difference between fields. This is not unlike Latour’s concepts of competition over cooperation. Science, Technology and Society (STS) scholars, according to Bourdieu, should be less interested in the science of scientists, and more interested in the science of scientific knowledge. Noting this approach he argues that statics and dynamics are inseparable.
Scientific capital for Bourdieu is symbolic capital such as scientific authority. Such capital leads to power within a given scientific field. Symbolic capital comes through both cognitive and communicative relations, generally within the field. It results from recognition by competitors who are referred to as agents. As competing agents attempt to discredit (like Karl Popper speaks to) and fail to, or find more evidence to support competing ideas, they in turn reference the work adding capital. Such capital only comes within the framework created within a field by the agents in that field who hold scientific authority (power).
Like Robert Merton and Margaret Rossiter, he supports the idea that the more power/capital one has, the more one tends to gain. His perspective differs slightly in that having power (scientific authority) gives the scientist more control over economic, social and cultural resources allowing them to shape the rules of success within a given field. This also differs from Marx who links power purely to physical or economic capital. Similar to Rossiter’s ‘Matilda’ when some scientists find themselves with less capital they are more inclined to appeal to outside sources of capital, meaning from another field (political, economic, etc.). Bourdieu refers to this as Zhandovism.
Like Bruno Latour, Bourdieu sees advancement (personal and of scientific knowledge) as a function of struggle. He sees the pattern of hybridization concepts expressed by Ben-David linked to the shifts in borders between fields. As rules or positioning changes within a field, the border between fields shifts as well. Players in the field (scientists) may ultimately shift fields if they see opportunity for more power in a related field rather than stay in their own. This effect also results from Zhandovism mentioned earlier.
As the younger scientists look to advance in their field Bourdieu discusses two strategies each may choose to adopt. They may opt a succession strategy of gaining scientific capital by following the rules created by those in power within the field. They might be subversive by seeking to break the structure and create a new hierarchy. In either case it is the struggle itself (constantly challenging the existing hierarchy) that advances the individual, and also scientific knowledge.
Bourdieu refers to structure within the field as creating a space of possibilities. By this he means there are differing ways to do science. The structure within the field which creates the space will be different from field to field, and is influenced by both individuals and institutions. Tension denotes difference within the field, and pressure is difference between fields. This is not unlike Latour’s concepts of competition over cooperation. Science, Technology and Society (STS) scholars, according to Bourdieu, should be less interested in the science of scientists, and more interested in the science of scientific knowledge. Noting this approach he argues that statics and dynamics are inseparable.
RSS Feed