Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Studies of
Science.
http://www.jstor.org
Bruno Latour
Social Studies of Science (SAGE, London, Newbury Parkand New Delhi), Vol. 22
(1992), 91-95
work we have all been doing in the last two decades. This search
for'quali-quantitative' tools that could reconcile the detailed case
studies of scientific practice with the more traditional goals of history,
sociology, science policy and economics is the basis of my agreement
with Carlson and Gorman, and is at the heart of the so-called 'actor-
network' theory.3Our own Note is only a small step in this direction,
and I accept most of their reservations about the tricky character of
data treatment, limiting here my Reply to the substantive issues.
One of the many reasons why, after having disputed quantitative
work, it is now possible to develop 'quali-quantitative' tools, has to
do with new computer software. It is now possible to keep data in
several intermediary stages without having to choose, as was the case
in the recent past, between reducing them to meaningless numbers or
getting bogged down in endless details. The excellent method
developed by Carlson and Gorman has this interesting property of
allowing the scholar to circulate between data at different levels of
aggregation, and to zoom in for details or to zoom out for outlines. In
this sense, I agree with their criticism of our paper. It should indeed be
possible not to lose too many data while creating the map of the
territory. In addition, as they rightly say, it is now easy to keep visual
as well as literary documents in the same loosely connected data-
banks, thanks to the many 'hypermedia' which are being developed.
Still, for those of us trained in the careful interpretation of archives,
interviews, settings and accounts, and who have spent so much time
avoiding the reduction of sociology and economics, any map will
appear to be a pale representation of the case study. This is why we
insisted, maybe too much, on the necessary difference between maps
and territories.
This being said, there is a clear difference of emphasis between their
specification and ours. We clearly stated that our goal was not to
compete with the 'thick narrative' that may be obtained after years of
study of one specific case. As the authors say, we simply wish to
provide the 'contours of an innovation episode' (86) in order to allow
a quick and easy comparison with other cases. I must confess that,
having studied for two years the automated subway Aramis, I am
able to write a book about it but still unable to draw its STG! Their
goal is different, since they wish to develop a research tool that could
give access to the 'mental processes' of the innovators.
And this is where I start to disagree with their criticisms. The main
advantage of a mapping process is to force the cartographers to go to
the limit of their premisses. When we claim that the number of actants
We would begin by trying to map the mental processes of the Berlin Homeowner
Association, tracing their various efforts to keep apartment buildings secure and
their decision to either design or purchase the special lock ... We would do the
same for Manfred, detailing both his goals and the steps he took to modify the key
and lock. (87)
* NOTES
1. Bruno Latour, Philippe Mauguin and Genevieve Teil, 'A Note on Socio-
Technical Graphs', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 22, No. 1 (February 1992), 33-57.
2. Culminating in W. Bernard Carlson and Michael E. Gorman, 'Socio-Technical
Graphs and Cognitive Maps: A Response to Latour, Mauguin and Teil', Social Studies
of Science, Vol. 22, No. 1 (February 1992), 81-91. (Page numbers of quotations from
this Response are given in the text.)
3. See M. Callon, J. Law and A. Rip (eds), Mapping the Dynamics of Science and
Technology (London: Macmillan, 1986).
Ronald N. Giere
Social Studies of Science (SAGE, London, Newbury Parkand New Delhi), Vol. 22
(1992), 95-107