Luchas y negociaciones para definir qué es y qué no es problemático. La socio-lógica de la traducción.

Michel Callon

doi:10.48160/18517072re23.426

Authors

Michel Callon École des Mines de Paris - Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48160/18517072re23.426

Keywords:

translation, research problems, negotiation, problematic situations, socio-logic of translation

Abstract

This article analyses the ways in which a research problem is established. Far from the division between the social and the cognitive, this works points to understand the struggles and negotiations produced at every moment in the definition of what is regarded as a legitimate object of research and what is not.
In order to show this point it was chosen as example the analysis of those problematic situations that lead to build up the fuel cell as a financiable research topic by some French institutions.
To do so, the disputes among researchers as the different technical definitions over the research object, the problems that were included and those that were excluded, were all equally considered.
In this way, the author tries to demonstrate how every research work constitutes, from the beginning, a complex play of negotiations, alliances and resistances that imply translations and partial or total re-definitions of the content of research.

References

Bourdieu, P. (1979), La distinction, París, Editions de Minuit [edición en castellano: (1998), La distinción. Criterios y base sociales del gusto, Madrid, Taurus].

Callon, M. (1978), “De problème en problème: itineraire d’un laboratoire universitaire saisi par l’aventure technologique”, CSI-Cordes.

Callon, M. (1979), “L’Etat face à l’innovation technique; le cas du vehicule electrice”, Revue Francaise de Science Politique, pp. 426-447.

Callon, M. y Latour, B.(1981), “Unscrewing the Big Leviathan: How Actors macrostructure Reality and How Sociologists Help them to do so”, en Knorr-Cetina,

K. D. y A. V. Cicourel (eds.), Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro and Macro-sociologies, Londres, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Chubin, D. y K. Studer (1977), “The Place of Knowledge in Scientific Growth”, ponencia presentada en la reunión de la American Sociological Association, septiembre.

Collins, H. M. (1975), “The Seven Sexes: A Study of the Sociology of a Phenomenon, or Replication of Experiments in Physics”, Sociology, 9, pp. 205-224.

Deleuze, G. (1969), La logique du sens, París, Editions de Minuit [edición en castellano: (2002), La lógica del sentido, Madrid, Paidós].

Dewey, J. (1929) The Quest for Certainty: A Study of the Relation of Knowledge and Action, Nueva York, Minton, Balch and Co.

Dewey, R. E. (1977), The Philosophy of John Dewey, La Haya, Martinus Nijhoff.

Edge D. O. y M. J. Mulkay (1973), “Cognitive, technical and social factors in the growth of Radio Astronomy”, Social Science Information, XII, pp. 25-60.

Gilbert, G. N. (1976), “The transformation of research findings into scientific knowledge”, Social Studies of Science, 6, pp. 281-306.

Gilpin, R. (1968), France in the Age of Scientific State, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Holton, G. (1973), Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, Kepler to Einstein, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Knorr, K. (1977), “Producing and reproducing knowledge: descriptive or constructive? Toward a model of research production”, Social Science Information, 16, pp. 669-696.

Knorr, K., R. Krohn y R. Whitley (1981), The Social Process of Scientific Investigation. Dordrecht y Boston, D. Reidel Pub. Co.

Knorr, K. D. y A. V. Cicourel (eds.) (1981), Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro and Macro-sociologies, Londres, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Krohn, R. (1978), “The Social Process of Scientific Investigation”, McGill University, mimeo.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago University of Chicago Press [edición en castellano: (1975), La estructura de las revoluciones científicas, México, FCE].

Lemaine, G. (1980), “Science normale et science hypernormale. Les stratégies de différenciation et les stratégies conservatrices dans la science”, Revue française de sociologie, XXI, (4) [en castellano: (2005), “Ciencia normal y ciencia hipernormal. Las estrategias de diferenciación y las estrategias conservadoras en la ciencia”, en REDES, 11, (22), pp. 117-151].

Latour, B. (1980) “Is it possible to (re) construct the research process? Sociology of a brain peptide”, en Knorr, K., R. Krohn y R. Whitley, The Social process of scientific investigation, Dordrecht, Boston, D. Reidel Pub. Co.

Latour, B. (1981), “Who is agnostic; what could it mean to study science?”, en Kuclick, H. y R. Jones (eds.), Sociology of Knowledge, Science and Art, vol. 3, Londres, JAI Press.

Mulkay, M. J. (1972), The Social Process of Innovation: A Study in the Sociology of Science, Londres, The Macmillan Press.

Papon, P. (1976), “Governmental support for industrial research and development in France: theory and practice”, Minerva, XIV (3), pp. 330-354.

Popper, K. R. (1959), The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Londres, Huchinson [edición en castellano: (1962), La lógica de la investigación científica, Madrid, Tecnos].

Popper, K. R. (1973), Objetive Knowledge, Oxford, Oxford University Press [edición en castellano: (1994), El conocimiento objetivo, Madrid, Tecnos].

Serres, M. (1974), Hermes III. La traduction, París, Editions de Minuit.

Serres, M. (1980), Le parasite, París, Grasset.

Whitley, R. D. (1972), “Black-boxism and the sociology of science: a discussion of the major developments in the field”, The Sociological Review Monograph, 18, pp. 61-92.