Beach Haven

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?

Bibliography
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (2022). Saints: The Story of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Latter Days: Boldly, Nobly, and Independent: 1893-1955 (Vol. 3). (S. A. Hales, A. Hallstrom, L. O. Tait, J. Woodworth, K. T. Burnside, L. S. Edgington, . . . N. N. Waite, Eds.) Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Review by Michael Beach
​
As the title indicates, this is the third volume of church history bearing the title ‘Saints’. There have been many works of history published by and about the church. This particular set of works has focused on the lives of real people and their experiences. The personal experiences shared include prominent church leaders and ordinary church members. Given the years noted in the title, much of this history includes the period of the two world wars and the beginnings of the cold war. Church members’ lives are highlighted that were on all sides of these conflicts.

The temple in Salt Lake City is dedicated at the outset of this volume. Members of the church find themselves on opposite sides of war and political conflict. They also experience the aftermath of conflict. It is a time of rapid development of transportation and communication. Temples spring up in other countries and continents beside North America.
​
The back cover quotes Doctrine and Covenants 69:8 as the reason for approaching these sorts of historical retrospectives. It is “for the good of the church, and for the rising generations.” Reading about the challenges faced by leaders and congregates alike helps me, at least, to be able to face today’s chaos and remain firm in the faith. At least, I hope to stay so.

 

Bibliography
​Merton, R. K. (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Robert Merton is a foundational academic in sociology as it relates to science and technology. In particular he is known for defining idealized scientific norms. The book here reviewed describes and addresses his norms. It also includes a number of case studies to demonstrate the application of norms or when scientists or organizations of scientists have not displayed these sorts of idealized behaviors in the formation of scientific ‘facts’ or ‘findings’.

For Merton, scientific norms are formed through what he calls the ‘ethos of science’ (Merton, 1973, p. 268). His norms include ‘universalism’ which means truth-claims “are subjected to preestablished impersonal criteria” (Merton, 1973, p. 270). The next is called ‘communism’, which not a reference to Marxist political theories. Rather, it refers to a willingness of scientists to share their findings with other scientists so knowledge can advance for the common good. Another norm is called ‘disinterestedness’. For Merton, this is not about individual motivation, rather it is “a distinctive pattern of institutional control of a wide range of motives which characterizes the behavior of scientists” (Merton, 1973, p. 276). Merton refers to his final norm as ‘organized skepticism’. In this he is speaking about scientific self-review as an industry. This is functionally displayed in the idea of peer review of published findings.

These all sound well and good, but Merton himself refers in this book to ways that individual scientists and the scientific industry as a whole fail to live up to these norms. Others make the argument that rather than accept Mertonian norms as the standard, they are just his specific take on the topic. In fact the exceptions that Merton shares can be argues as the real norms, or at least alternatives to Merton’s normative descriptors. In this book for example, Robert Merton examines the scientific reward system. Who gets their papers published and in which industry publications is one way that incentive can cause norms to shift. Some universities or research organizations tend to be published more because of past publication. If that is so, then a researcher is more likely to get recognized by virtue of becoming a part of that organization as opposed to another. Getting credit becomes more motivation perhaps than advancing knowledge. Since Merton does a good job in my opinion at laying out these counter-norm examples, in a way he makes a case against his framework. In short, he argues for his version or norms, and notes deviations from those norms. As I said above, it could be that there are any number of ‘norms’ from organization to organization and person to person. If science as an industry accepts Mertonian norms as a standard, just with the examples he shares in this book it’s clear the norm is likely not actually the norm.

One other way to think about this would be the tension between sharing and hoarding knowledge. Many countries are slow to allow publication of facts with likely military application that might benefit a geopolitical rival. Likewise, private research organizations exist for the benefit of the corporation that funds it. Pharmaceutical companies will be slow to share information that has not already been patented. The counter norm in the first instance is about protecting a specific citizenry, in the second it’s about protecting the financial sustainability of a specific for-profit company.
​
In the study of sociological influences between the scientific community and the community at large, this work by Robert K. Merton is part of the canon that is still often referred to in journal publications

 

Bibliography
​Lindberg, D. C. (2007). The Beginnings of Western Science (2nd ed.). The University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London.

David Lindberg walks the reader through a specific historical narrative of western science. The subtitle reads, “The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D.1450”. That subtitle is a mouthful, but essentially describes the effort of the book. It does potentially mislead. For example, there is a significant look at scientific knowledge and processes that enter Europe from Muslim middle east and African nations such as those learned in Spain as a result of the ‘reconquista’.

In particular, Lindberg makes s good case about assumptions and misconceptions about science, particularly medical science, in medieval Europe. Many think that time was clouded to thought as it is sometimes called ‘the dark ages’. In fact, there was medical advancement in the period both within the medical community, and through gleanings from the world of Islam. Lindberg makes it clear some advances were tampered in part by Catholic church authorities, but just as often what knowledge growth does occur is because church officials encourage exploration. In fact, many middle-age scholars were also clergy as they had time, access to libraries and resources, and instruction to read and interpret the information. Much of the experimentation of the time was instigated by this same clergy.
​
If past is prolog, Lindberg’s efforts to help the reader understand scientific support and obstacles could help today. He shows not only when religious dogma may have been at odds with so called advancement, but also where scientific dogma may have been more detrimental to itself. In fact, he shows how in many cases the church was more supportive of a relationship with science than practitioners were when it came to a relationship with the church. Just as we all need to be open to the ideas of science, so too scientific practitioners need to understand when their theories seem supported by evidence, such ideas are not automatically true. When scientific ideas become themselves dogmatic the risk is a ceasing of inquiry and knowledge growth.

 

Bibliography
​Fromm, E. (1966). Marx's Concept of Man. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co.

It’s clear in this work that Erich Fromm is a Marx apologist, or maybe better said advocate. There is a portion of the work that deals with Fromm’s biography who forwent his Jewish roots for an atheistic position in the Marxist tradition. The main body of this book is a translation of some of Marx’s economic and philosophic manuscripts. These were translated by T.B. Bottomore of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Fromm comments on those works and offers separately statements about Marx that were published by family and colleagues who knew him.

Perhaps the point Fromm puts the most effort into within his arguments is how one cannot judge Marx’s ideas by the applications that resulted in government systems such as in Russia, China, or Cuba. What makes that position difficult for this reviewer is that as one reads the actual words of Marx, these particular examples certainly line up philosophically. The actual economic policies each has adopted vary some, but not so much as Fromm tries to express. He tries to show how the Soviets for example distory Marxian theory. Though he makes some reasoned arguments, he really does not directly show examples where such philosophies differ so much as individual policy application when the practical use of Marxist theories prove unworkable in real life. Such positions seem less to support Marx’s specific views as they stand for evidence to counter his views. Fromm’s focus tends to be about Marx’s humanist views and his arguments against religion, even any sort of religious belief. His support for secularism goes beyond secular government and reaches into secularism within the lives of individuals.

The other argument Erich Fromm tends to point to is about western ignorance of the basic tenants of Marxist views. Indeed, most Americans I would think do not have a deep understanding of the Marxist political and philosophical sophistry. Even someone like me with only a cursory study could not claim the sort of insights a Marxist scholar might. On the other hand, most do have some idea of the overarching differences between a Communist and capitalist system, even if the variations of socialism and communism might be lost on many of us.
​
If one has an academic curiosity to understand some Marxist philosophical arguments there are some insights her, but take it with a grain of salt. It’s clear Fromm has a specific position so his reasonings are guided by that position.

 

Bibliography
​Rowe, P. (2022). Vacuuming in the Nude and Other Ways to get Attention. Forefront Books.

Review by Michael Beach

The title to this book is misleading, on purpose. Peggy Rowe is mother to Mike Rowe. He’s a TV host, narrator and podcaster among other things. You might know him for shows like Dirty Jobs or Deadliest Catch. I listen to his podcast The Way I Heard It regularly. That’s where I’ve come to know about his mother Peggy and her books. She is a regular on the podcast and is hilarious.

Peggy Rowe is the author in question here, not Mike. She has been writing her entire life with some success, but mostly in local papers or specialty publications like articles in horse magazines. The point of this book was to look at her writing journey and eventual book publication. Her first published book didn’t happen until into her retirement years. This work is about the frustration, rejection, and eventual success in getting to publication. She has published three books. This one is her third. All three have been on the New York Times best sellers list. If the others are as good as Vacuuming, I’m tempted to read them. It’s full of humorous stories about her love-hate relationship with writing, family anecdotes, and perspective on growing older. Rowe includes some of her earlier short stories within the chapters, most of which are snippets of real-life experiences.
​
She gives a realistic perspective on people following their dreams. In her case it’s about writing. That idealism gets tampered in a few places as well. Success requires talent and persistence, and not just desire. She shows talent to be sure, but also notes mistakes made along the way. 

 

Bibliography
Dowling, D. O. (2016). Surviving the Essex: The Afterlife of America's Most Storied Shipwreck. Lebanon NH: University Press of New England.

​Review by Michael Beach

The version of Surviving the Essex I happen to have is an uncorrected proof. I have access to some books in this condition due to where I work. The actual shipwreck of the Essex was inspiration to at least two works of literature. The ship was a whaler out of Nantucket and was sunk after colliding with, or being rammed by, a large sperm whale. The accounts of survivors varies so it’s not all that clear exactly what happened. As you no doubt guessed, the work Moby Dick by Herman Melville was a take on the real-life story. The other work examined here by David Dowling was by Edgar Allan Poe titled The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym. I read both of those works many years ago, so I found the connections Dowling makes to them informative. While Melville wrote in the man-versus-nature vain, Poe’s version focused on the dark themes of death and cannibalism.

After the Essex sank, the surviving crew split into two groups. There was disagreement which direction they should take their boats to find rescue. Captain George Pollard led one group, and his first made, Owen Chase, the other. Both suffered and cannibalism was involved. The first mate blamed the captain for leaving the ship during the whale hunt. He had joined one of the harpooning boats and left the mate in charge. Others blamed the poor ship handling of the mate during the whale encounter. The captain’s version was never published. The mate published a version that put himself in a heroic light. Decades later another crew member published an account as well.

There are many books published about the events of the wreck and its immediate aftermath. This book by Dowling is not one of those. Instead he turns his attention to sociological issues. For example, there is a question about the process one boat went through to select the victim on which the others would feed. The decision was to draw straws for both the victim and who would have to do the killing. There is disputation that in Pollard’s boat, he was the shooter and the victim was his nephew. Dowling explores the numerous conflicting accounts of survivors and especially Chase’s version. He also shows some parallels in Pollard’s second ship which also sank after striking a shoal. He explores how Pollard continued to live in Nantucket and became a solid community member despite the two ship-losses. He wraps up the work examining the anthropomorphism resulting from many authors ascribing human motives to the whale involved. Not unlike ‘Bruce’ in the movie Jaws, most depict a vindictive whale bent on revenge.

​The human-element for me was in the shaping of the story by survivors to cast themselves in the best light, the selling of the story in the form of profit making books, and imposing of human motives on the whale. Case eventually also captained a number of whaling ships later, but ultimately failed in economic endeavors. Pollard became a respected citizen of Nantucket. 

Bibliography
Abbott, A. (1988). The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Review by Michael Beach

In the vernacular of sociology, this book focuses on ‘boundary work’. Andrew Abbott looks at some of the more obvious points explored by others like how career paths become defined or known as a profession. He also looks at how professional groups form, compete, specialize and divide. Sociologically speaking, when a boundary is defined, however unclear, the result is division, insiders and outsiders. Abbott creates a framework to try to bring clarity around these issues.

After a literature review on professions, Abbott examines the base concept of professionalization. He describes what is and is not considered professional work, or better stated, what circumstances might be considered in defining it. He describes areas of professionalism such as claims of jurisdiction, implications of exclusionary efforts by those within a profession, and some of the sources of ‘disturbances’ that cause competition between and within groups of study disciplines. After discussing power dynamics (not necessarily in a Marxist concept of power) he speaks to larger social influences on professional organizations such as licensure, post-graduate credentialing, and national or international associations with specific codes of conduct.

The book finishes with several case studies around information science (librarians, computer scientists, etc.), lawyers, and various parts of the medical field. For example, he speaks to nursing professions in relation to medical doctors. In this particular example he notes how one profession is assumed to be somehow subsumed by the other. There is a form of hierarchy among medical professionals, even among branches of medicine itself.

Abbott notes that his system of professions is the process of “linking professions with tasks” (Abbott, 1988, p. 315). The system evolves as groups form around similar tasks, create some standards, then codify the profession. Evolution continues as specializations emerge within the group, competition begins over jurisdiction, and new professional boundaries result. 


 

Bibliography
​Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order. London & New York: Routledge.
 
This work is a compilation of academic papers that relate to the titular topic. The theory of co-production is essentially that science and technology evolve as influenced by sociological forces, and society also evolved in part based on technological and scientific change. Facts of science, and artifacts of technology bring change to society, and are changed by society as it changes. Co-production does not assume science and technology as the sole influencers or influenced. Several of the chapter authors do make the case describing the relationship in either stronger or weaker terms, essentially putting science and technology at various level of sociological priority as compared with other societal influencers.

As editor, Sheila Jasanoff describes co-production as a framework. She notes how many of the chapters examine specific examples, and “in working out co-productionist ideas through detailed empirical studies, they also demonstrate the framework’s practical uses and limits” (Jasanoff, 2004, p. 6). She also describes co-production as an idiom. Shaping the associated language simultaneously shapes the perspective. Narrowing of language might make things clearer, but the risk lies in also narrowing the perspective and leaving out what might not be addressed by the framework. This is true in any similar effort. Don’t get me wrong when I say this. I put a good deal of stock in the ideas of co-production as compared to say earlier notions of determinism, or constructivism.

One risk here is how one determines a specific ‘society’. For example, those who both use and design the latest video games can be a somewhat narrow demographic. A specific portion of the larger society may indeed both influence and get influenced by the specific technology, but how much of a role do non-users play (pun intended). One can argue tangential technology change that gets implemented in other less narrow projects. Yet, are not those other projects just another application targeting a different narrow portion of society?
​
Jasanoff concedes at the end of the book that, “this approach is more consistent with projects of interpretation than intervention” (Jasanoff, 2004, p. 280). “Such studies,” she continues, “are better suited to explaining how things came to be ordered in particular ways than at forecasting future impacts of specific choices and decisions.”