9.3 Social constructivism and the sociology of scientific knowledge
6 min read•july 30, 2024
Social constructivism challenges the idea of science as purely objective. It argues that scientific knowledge is shaped by social processes, cultural contexts, and power dynamics within scientific communities.
This perspective has implications for how we understand objectivity and reliability in science. It calls for greater reflexivity among scientists and highlights the importance of diverse perspectives in enhancing scientific knowledge.
Social constructivism of science
Central tenets of social constructivism
Top images from around the web for Central tenets of social constructivism
Why Social TRIANGLES? – ICA Social Research Center View original
Is this image relevant?
The Eight Cultural Forces - The lens & the lever — The Learner's Way View original
Is this image relevant?
Our Social Process Model – ICA Social Research Center View original
Is this image relevant?
Why Social TRIANGLES? – ICA Social Research Center View original
Is this image relevant?
The Eight Cultural Forces - The lens & the lever — The Learner's Way View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Central tenets of social constructivism
Why Social TRIANGLES? – ICA Social Research Center View original
Is this image relevant?
The Eight Cultural Forces - The lens & the lever — The Learner's Way View original
Is this image relevant?
Our Social Process Model – ICA Social Research Center View original
Is this image relevant?
Why Social TRIANGLES? – ICA Social Research Center View original
Is this image relevant?
The Eight Cultural Forces - The lens & the lever — The Learner's Way View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
- Social constructivism holds that scientific knowledge is a product of social processes and interactions rather than an objective reflection of reality
- Scientific facts, theories, and methods are seen as socially constructed and contingent upon the historical, cultural, and social contexts in which they emerge (Kuhnian paradigms, Latour's )
- The social constructivist perspective emphasizes the role of human agency, negotiation, and consensus-building in shaping scientific knowledge
- Social constructivists argue that scientific knowledge is not discovered but rather constructed through the collective efforts of scientists working within specific social and institutional frameworks (research labs, scientific societies)
- The acceptance and legitimacy of scientific ideas are influenced by social factors such as power relations, cultural norms, and prevailing worldviews
Implications for objectivity and reliability
- Social constructivism challenges the notion of scientific knowledge as purely objective and value-neutral, highlighting the role of social and cultural factors in shaping scientific understanding
- The social constructivist perspective raises questions about the universality and stability of scientific knowledge, suggesting that it is always situated within specific social and historical contexts
- Critics of social constructivism argue that it can lead to relativism and undermine the epistemic authority of science, while proponents maintain that it provides a more nuanced and realistic understanding of scientific practice (science wars, Sokal affair)
- Social constructivism calls for greater reflexivity and self-awareness among scientists, acknowledging their own social positioning and biases and how these may influence their research
- The social constructivist approach highlights the importance of diverse perspectives and the inclusion of marginalized voices in scientific discourse, as a means of enhancing the objectivity and reliability of scientific knowledge (feminist epistemology, postcolonial science studies)
Social factors in science
Broader social and cultural contexts
- Scientific research is embedded within broader social and cultural contexts that influence the questions asked, methods used, and interpretations of results
- Cultural values, beliefs, and ideologies can shape the direction and focus of scientific inquiry, as well as the reception and acceptance of scientific findings (Darwinism and religious beliefs, Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union)
- Funding priorities, institutional structures, and political agendas can impact the allocation of resources and support for certain areas of scientific research (military funding, climate change research)
- The social identities and backgrounds of scientists, such as their gender, race, and class, can influence their research interests, approaches, and interpretations (underrepresentation of women and minorities in STEM fields)
- The media, public opinion, and popular discourse can shape the public understanding and acceptance of scientific ideas, sometimes leading to the oversimplification or misrepresentation of complex scientific concepts (vaccine hesitancy, GMO controversies)
Impact on scientific practice
- Social factors can influence the choice of research questions, the design of experiments, and the interpretation of data (pharmaceutical industry funding and drug research)
- The social and cultural context can shape the ethical considerations and moral boundaries of scientific research (human subject experimentation, animal testing)
- The availability of resources, such as funding, equipment, and personnel, can constrain or enable certain lines of scientific inquiry (big science projects like CERN, NASA)
- Social norms and expectations within scientific communities can influence the communication and dissemination of research findings (publish or perish culture, open access movement)
- The social and cultural factors surrounding science can impact the public trust and credibility of scientific institutions and experts (climate change denial, COVID-19 misinformation)
Power and consensus in science
Power dynamics in scientific communities
- Scientific communities are characterized by hierarchies, power relations, and social networks that can influence the direction and outcomes of scientific debates
- Established scientists, institutions, and paradigms often hold significant power and influence within scientific fields, shaping the research agenda and determining what counts as legitimate knowledge (Nobel laureates, prestigious universities)
- Social networks and collaborations among scientists can facilitate the exchange of ideas, resources, and support, but can also lead to the exclusion or marginalization of dissenting voices (invisible colleges, old boys' networks)
- The peer review process, while intended to ensure the quality and rigor of scientific research, can be influenced by social dynamics and power relations within scientific communities (publication bias, reviewer bias)
- The formation of scientific consensus is not solely based on empirical evidence but also involves social processes of negotiation, persuasion, and the alignment of interests among scientists
Consensus-building processes
- Scientific consensus emerges through a complex interplay of empirical evidence, theoretical arguments, and social interactions within scientific communities
- The process of reaching consensus often involves the resolution of disagreements and controversies through debate, replication of studies, and the accumulation of supporting evidence (plate tectonics, heliocentrism)
- The establishment of scientific consensus can be influenced by factors such as the persuasiveness of key advocates, the endorsement of influential institutions, and the alignment with prevailing theoretical frameworks (Einstein's theory of relativity, the acceptance of quantum mechanics)
- The stability and durability of scientific consensus can vary, with some ideas remaining widely accepted for long periods while others are overturned by new evidence or theoretical developments (Newtonian mechanics, phlogiston theory)
- The social constructivist perspective highlights the role of social factors in shaping scientific consensus, while also acknowledging the importance of empirical evidence and rational argumentation in the scientific process
Objectivity vs social constructivism
Challenges to scientific objectivity
- Social constructivism problematizes the notion of scientific objectivity by highlighting the ways in which social and cultural factors shape scientific knowledge and practice
- The theory-ladenness of observation suggests that scientific observations are always influenced by pre-existing theoretical frameworks and assumptions (Hanson's "Patterns of Discovery")
- The underdetermination of theory by evidence implies that multiple theories can be consistent with the same empirical data, challenging the idea of a single objective truth (Duhem-Quine thesis)
- The value-ladenness of science acknowledges that scientific research is guided by social, ethical, and political values, rather than being a purely value-neutral enterprise (Longino's "Science as Social Knowledge")
- The social constructivist critique of objectivity calls for a more nuanced understanding of scientific knowledge as situated, partial, and contingent, rather than universal and absolute
Reconciling objectivity and social constructivism
- While social constructivism challenges traditional notions of scientific objectivity, it need not lead to a complete rejection of objectivity as an ideal or aspiration
- A moderate social constructivist position acknowledges the role of social factors in shaping science while still maintaining a commitment to empirical evidence, rational inquiry, and intersubjective agreement (Hacking's "The Social Construction of What?")
- The concept of "strong objectivity" (Harding) suggests that the inclusion of diverse perspectives and the explicit acknowledgment of social and cultural influences can actually enhance the objectivity of scientific knowledge
- The pursuit of objectivity in science can be understood as a social process of critical discourse, collective scrutiny, and the cultivation of epistemic virtues such as transparency, honesty, and openness to criticism (Merton's norms of science)
- A social constructivist approach to science calls for a more reflexive and self-aware form of objectivity that recognizes the inherent limitations and biases of scientific knowledge while still striving for reliable and robust understanding of the natural world
Key Terms to Review (18)
Actor-network theory: Actor-network theory (ANT) is a theoretical framework that explores how both human and non-human entities interact within networks to shape social phenomena. It emphasizes that relationships among these actors—such as individuals, technologies, institutions, and other objects—are crucial in understanding how scientific knowledge and technologies are constructed, maintained, and transformed.
Bruno Latour: Bruno Latour is a prominent French sociologist and philosopher known for his work in science and technology studies (STS), particularly focusing on the social construction of scientific knowledge. He challenges traditional notions of science as an objective endeavor, arguing instead that scientific facts are shaped by social processes and interactions among various actors, including scientists, institutions, and technologies.
Case study method: The case study method is a research approach that involves an in-depth investigation of a single individual, group, event, or situation to gain a detailed understanding of complex phenomena. This method allows researchers to explore real-life contexts, capturing nuances and subtleties that broader quantitative methods might overlook. It is particularly valuable in examining how social constructs and knowledge are formed and negotiated within specific environments.
Contextualism: Contextualism is the philosophical view that knowledge and truth are dependent on the context in which they are found, emphasizing the significance of social and historical circumstances in shaping understanding. This perspective asserts that scientific knowledge is not merely an objective representation of reality, but is influenced by the cultural, political, and social factors present at the time of its development.
Epistemic Relativism: Epistemic relativism is the view that knowledge and truth are not absolute but are relative to different frameworks or cultures. This concept challenges the idea of a universal standard for evaluating knowledge claims, suggesting that what is considered true or justified can vary based on social contexts and perspectives, particularly in science and its sociological implications.
Ethnography of science: Ethnography of science refers to the qualitative study of scientific practices and communities through observational and participatory methods. This approach focuses on understanding how scientific knowledge is produced, shared, and utilized within specific social contexts, highlighting the role of cultural and social factors in shaping scientific endeavors. By examining scientists' everyday practices, beliefs, and interactions, the ethnography of science reveals the complexities and nuances of how science operates as a social institution.
Incommensurability: Incommensurability refers to the idea that certain theories or frameworks are so fundamentally different from one another that they cannot be directly compared or measured using a common standard. This concept highlights the challenges in evaluating competing scientific theories, especially during periods of significant scientific change where paradigms shift and old frameworks lose relevance.
Ontological Relativism: Ontological relativism is the philosophical position that asserts the existence of multiple, equally valid perspectives or frameworks through which reality can be understood. It emphasizes that our understanding of the world is shaped by social, cultural, and historical contexts, suggesting that different communities may construct divergent realities without one being more 'real' than another.
Public Understanding of Science: Public understanding of science refers to how well the general population comprehends scientific concepts, processes, and the implications of scientific findings. This understanding is essential for informed decision-making and engagement in societal issues that involve science, such as health, technology, and environmental challenges. It is closely related to the ways scientific knowledge is produced, communicated, and perceived within a social context.
Research Programs: Research programs are structured frameworks that guide scientific inquiry and research activities, often emphasizing specific theories, methodologies, and problem areas. They provide a coherent set of ideas that scientists use to make sense of their work and findings, while also allowing for the evolution of theories as new data emerges and paradigms shift.
Scientific controversy: A scientific controversy refers to a disagreement among scientists about a particular scientific claim, theory, or methodology that often results in debates and differing interpretations. These controversies can highlight the complexity of scientific inquiry and the influence of social, political, and economic factors in shaping scientific knowledge, particularly within the framework of social constructivism and the sociology of scientific knowledge.
Scientific literacy: Scientific literacy refers to the ability to understand, interpret, and evaluate scientific information and concepts. It empowers individuals to engage with scientific issues that affect their lives, making informed decisions in a world increasingly influenced by science and technology.
Scientific Realism vs. Constructivism: Scientific realism is the view that scientific theories describe the world as it truly is, asserting that unobservable entities posited by these theories exist independently of our perception. In contrast, constructivism argues that scientific knowledge is socially constructed, emphasizing the role of social processes and cultural contexts in shaping our understanding of reality. The interplay between these perspectives highlights a tension in how knowledge is produced and validated within the scientific community.
Social construction of reality: The social construction of reality is the theory that our understanding and perception of reality are shaped by social processes, interactions, and cultural contexts rather than being purely objective truths. This concept emphasizes that knowledge is created through human activity and is influenced by the social environment, including language, norms, and shared beliefs.
Social Epistemology: Social epistemology is the study of the social dimensions of knowledge, focusing on how social processes, institutions, and interactions influence what we know and how we come to know it. This branch of epistemology examines the collective aspects of knowledge production, distribution, and validation, emphasizing the role of communities in shaping our understanding of truth and belief systems.
Sociology of translation: The sociology of translation examines how knowledge, ideas, and practices are transformed and reshaped as they move across different social contexts and cultures. This field focuses on the processes and actors involved in translation, highlighting the role of social dynamics in shaping scientific knowledge and the ways that it is communicated and understood.
Strong programme: The strong programme is a sociological approach to understanding scientific knowledge that emphasizes the social processes and context in which scientific beliefs are constructed. It argues that all beliefs, including scientific ones, should be analyzed using the same sociological principles, focusing on how they are shaped by social factors rather than solely on their truth or falsity.
Thomas Kuhn: Thomas Kuhn was an influential philosopher of science known for his concept of 'paradigm shifts,' which describe fundamental changes in scientific thought and practice. His work highlights the importance of historical context in science, illustrating how scientific progress does not occur linearly but through revolutions that redefine the frameworks within which scientists operate.