Beach Haven

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
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.”

Bibliography
​Martin, John Levi. 2017. Thinking Through Methods: A Social Science Primer. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago.
 
Review by Michael Beach

As the name implies, this is a methodology work. Specifically, John Levi Martin explores how social science is conducted from a practical ‘how to’ sense. In the empirical sciences one might reduce variables and examine outcomes. In sociology the study subjects are human beings in a given social setting. The variables are countless. One cannot isolate the subject, people, from their natural environment. If one does attempt to remove the subject from normal life by say bringing them to a formal location like a university, the information would likely be less true.

Sociology then is a combination of examining and interviewing people, then looking for patterns. Martin spends a considerable amount of space looking at question formulation and interview arrangement to get as close to truth as possible as it relates to whatever one is attempting to learn something about through research. He notes the ethics of studying people, and procedures to ensure both the subjects are protected while still getting useful information. Martin also approaches how to glean information from all sorts of documents, from official publications such as laws, to personal official information such as tax returns, to private personal information such as journals. He then walks the reader through ways of coding information within observations, interviews, and documents to see patterns that relate to the research topic at hand.

The book is clearly aimed at research specialists in the field of Sociology. Despite all the help, Martin admits that there is a tension between decided what to research originally, and how that aim changes as one gathers information. The researcher has to find ways to be careful to not approach a study with preconceived ends in mind, and at the same time not to allow data to take them too far away from a focused finding. 
​

Bibliography
Howe, Joshua P. 2014. Behind the Curve: Science and the Politics of Global Warming. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press.
 
Review by Michael Beach
​
There are two curves that give reference to the title of this book. The first was developed by Charles David Keeling in 1958. This was his projection linking increased carbon dioxide levels measured in the atmosphere with increased temperatures globally. As the book notes, much of the science of what today is called climate change is connected in one way or another with that original dataset and its resulting graphical curve. Politically, being behind the curve in this sense relates to actions taken or deferred by various national and international organizations.

The other curve Joshua Howe is more focused on, is about the assumptions that are made within the scientific community. Essentially, many scientists find data such as that developed by Keeling, then share that data assuming it will speak for itself and everyone will recognize the need to act. This thinking is linear in that science ‘discovers’, society ‘accepts’ and technology ‘enables’ some sort of course correction. Instead what the science community finds is that unless the political discussion happens throughout, or even if it does, the data will seldom ‘speak for itself’. In fact, much of the data has been called into question by all sorts of communities, professional and societal. The fact that scientists must form consensus on issues such as global climate change brings pause to the non-scientific. To some, consensus means not all scientists, and it also means not proven. To those connected with science, consensus has always been a part of how facts are established.

In fact, Howe points out how this relationship within the science industry, and between science and the community at large, is a long held tension that has always existed. He argues that science as a community should accept a need for contextual social influence and communication to help ‘sell’ findings. Limiting findings to just the ‘facts’ of research data is not likely to get the sort of outcomes science advocates hope for. The controversies created by the case of the Keeling curve and climate change is a good example of how science and society as a whole need to find ways to co-produce information from the facts of data. Howe notes that in some ways the science community has come to learn this lesson, yet stumbles still happen. One need only look at recent controversies over COVID-19, shutdowns, masks, and vaccines to see how the tension still exists. 
​

Bibliography
Fujii, Lee Ann. 2018. Interviewing in Social Science Research: A Relational Approach. New York, London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
 
Review by Michael Beach
​
In the discipline of social science, the ability to conduct effective interviews of research subjects is a must. If any sort of validity can be given to research findings then some form of objective data extracted through interviews is one tool. Another is using data from interviews to help drive the direction of research. This book is a how-to from selecting research candidates, building relationships, and strategic approaches in the actual interviews, to how to interpret data.

In particular, the section of ferreting out data patterns I found particularly helpful. There are all sorts of ways to preset questions, but unless one is using a set survey tool, topics will present themselves that were not imagined ahead of time by either party in an interview. Applying an ethical approach to coding the unanticipated information is perhaps more important than information one is specifically seeking. Many a research project has changed course mid-stream as these kind of sociological interviews get conducted by researchers.

​At the end of the book there are four sample research approaches that were a part of real research projects. They are diverse. One is about a Rwandan prisoner, another is on a multi-generation resident of Maryland thought of as an ‘old timer’. The third example interview is of a clergyman in Northern Ireland who had lived through the sectarian violence with Britain. Finally, the attitudes of a sex worker attempting rehab in California wraps up the book, and the examples.

Bibliography
​Heilbron, J. L. (1996). The Dilemmas of an Upright Man: Max Planck and the Fortunes of German Science. Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press.
 
Max Planck was a contemporary of Albert Einstein. They knew each other and worked on projects together in their respective roles in the physics community in Germany before WWI and in the interwar years. Plank provided some theoretical ideas that helped Einstein work out his special and general theories of relativity. Unlike Einstein, and many other of their colleagues, Planck was not Jewish. As Hitler’s Nazi party came into power, Germany’s scientists had to decide. Would they continue in Germany and serve ‘from the inside’, making the best they could of it? Would they stay and risk whatever the Nazis decided about their fate? Would they leave Germany and continue to pursue their scientific careers elsewhere? How vocal should they become, supportive of the new regime, publicly opposed it, or stay relatively quiet about political issues. Einstein left for America and became very vocal about his opposition to Hitler’s government. Plank decided to stay in Germany and continue his scientific leadership role.

For Planck, his decision, he said afterwards, was not to support Hitler, but to try to preserve German science and scientist from within. He encouraged Jewish scientists to remain in Germany as WWII approached. He also worked to shield them from policies that would put their positions and their lives at risk. Eventually he failed at both. In fact, he was even pressured to be openly supportive of Hitler’s government. On one occasion he attended a public meeting about the German scientific industry. It’s not clear how much pressure was placed on him, but he attended dressed in Nazi regalia and joined the crowd at the end in the Nazi salute, visibly mouthing a “Heil Hitler” as the meeting closed.
​
German science, at least in the field of quantum mechanics, we often at the forefront of advancement. During WWII, theoretical lost to practical weapons creation. Most of the best minds left Germany so the field suffered even more from a sort of ‘brain drain’. Heilbron concludes, “Planck remained in office largely from a sense of duty owed not to individuals, certainly not to the state, but to the institutions of German science he served” (Heilbron, 1996, p. 207). Others noted by Heilbron thought of Planck more as a coward, or worse, a sympathizer. Perhaps his motivation is impossible to know for sure, even by Planck himself, yet his actions are unavoidable. In attempting to maintain status quo while everything was changing around him, his own standing and Germany’s as well were permanently damaged in the 1930s and 1940s. Nations that benefited by the emigration of German scientists are still world scientific leaders, especially in quantum mechanics.

Bibliography
​Cronon, W. (1991). Nature's Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. New York & London: W.W. Norton & Company.
 
In this work, William Cronon examines various boundary topics between human environments and ‘nature’. In reality, what today many people think of as natural spaces are really a human-made environments that differ from other human-made environments. For Cronon, Chicago and its markets, driven by the farms of the Midwest and transportation networks formed between them, are simply parts of a larger socio-economic system. “Although this book takes Chicago and the Great West as its immediate focus, its broader ambition is to explore century-old economic and ecological transformations that have continued to affect all of North America and the rest of the world besides” (Cronon, 1991, p. xvi).

The initial incentive to ‘tame’ the land through displacement of indigenous flora, fauna, and people in favor of European style farming was for local economic value. As Chicago began to transform first it’s ports, then the rivers through canal creation, and finally overland transport through a network of railroads, its leaders also increased a financial hold over farmers and competing cities through a number of cooperatives. The Chicago Board of Trade helped solidify definitions of grain quality types and associated monetary values. Similar pricing and quality controls expanded to beef and pork. By becoming the de facto ‘middle man’ between farmers and large markets along the east coast of the US, many of Chicago’s business leaders, and seedier elements as well, grew very wealthy. Tactics such as downgrading quality ratings when paying farmers, then mixing grains to claim higher quality when selling to large markets were common place.

​William Cronon’s work is a story of boundary definition. Wilderness and farm, rural and urban, buyer and seller, controller and controlled, these are the sort of boundaries explored in the book. In each case, human invention (technical or sociological) define the metamorphosis from what one might call ‘nature’ to what today is more about ‘human nature’. Cronon calls the former ‘first nature’ and the human created version ‘second nature’. 

BibliographyHughes, T. P. (1983). Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880-1930. Baltimore & London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
 
Electrical power and ‘modern’ society are often linked in many ways. Areas of the world not using electricity may be seen as ‘backward’. Even in the U.S. these days there is much debate about movement from fossil fuels to sustainable electricity for more parts of technology. Many Americans would be lost if they had to go 24 hours without access to their electrically powered cell phones and computers. There are plenty who might argue the opposite, that ever-changing technology, at least communications technology, tends to isolate us more than bring us together. Where electricity prevails, time has less meaning. Any activity can be lighted at any time of the day. Sleep patterns also tend to be altered in societies with electrification. For example, despite changing daylight hours throughout the year people will likely keep the same work schedule. Students may be accustomed to all-night cramming sessions the night before a big test. Many people fall asleep to the musings of late-night comics. Before electrification, circadian rhythms tended to be primarily timed with the rising and setting of the sun.

In this work, Thomas Hughes shares historical events as electrical power was harnessed from the early days of Edison and Tesla. He pays attention to expansion of electrical technology within the United State, particularly in Chicago and California. He further reviews electrification in London and Berlin. Hughes also comments on how electricity and society affected each other in these four cities. Students of technology and society will recognize these topics. Technology transfer refers to the spread of ideas and invention beyond national borders. He looks at critical problems in advancing technology, sometimes referred to as reverse salients. Hughes examines social conflict and its affect on electrification. This includes personal rivalries among inventors, as well as companies attempting to grow within each of the cities examined. Technological momentum and the effects of World War I (both advancing and inhibiting electrical growth) offer an interesting take. Many scientists and technologists continued to share information despite the war, though others were prohibited. Berlin, for example, was somewhat isolated from others during the war, but war needs caused the German government to channel funds into electrical power for manufacturing of weapons and munitions. Unlike World War II, there was little air bombardment beyond the front lines, so industry by and large remained intact.

Thomas Hughes does not discuss electrification in eastern or southern societies. Perhaps this is a function of scale. One can only put so much into a book. Perhaps it is because he feels these particular cities are similar enough to point to socio-technical trends that perhaps would be different in other societies. Even among the focus histories he has included, there are significant differences as noted in his work. For example, each of the histories show different political and economic contexts. As a result, electrical power generation and transmission grew in very different ways. Standardization was difficult in some locations and centrally managed in others. By looking at the growth of a single technology, Hughes is able to expose the co-production (even co-dependence) of these societies and electricity.
​