O conceito de posição social na sociologia do conhecimento
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-20702014000200003Resumo
Os sociólogos do conhecimento tentam explicar as crenças dos agentes epistêmicos por meio da posição social destes no interior de uma hierarquia de relações de poder. O artigo propõe um modo alternativo de conceber a posição social dos agentes epistêmicos. Inspirado nas noções durkheimianas de integração social e de densidade social, o autor define a posição social de um agente com base na densidade de suas relações no interior de redes sociais. Para a sociologia do conhecimento científico em particular, são abordadas as relações sociais no interior de redes profissionais de cientistas. Em seguida, verifica-se a aplicabilidade desse conceito de posição social à sociologia do conhecimento em geral.
Downloads
Referências
Ben-David, Joseph & Aran, Lydia. (1991), “Socialization and Career patterns as determinants of productivity of medical researchers”. In: Freudenthal, Gad (org.). Scientific growth: essays on the social organization and ethos of science. Berkeley, University of California Press.
Crane, Diana. (1972), Invisible colleges: diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Durkheim, Émile. (1895), Les règles de la méthode sociologique. Paris, Alcan.
______. (1897), Le suicide: étude de sociologie. Paris, Alcan.
______. ([1893] 1902), De la division du travail social: étude sur l’organisation des sociétés supérieures. Paris, Alcan.
Gaines, Laura J. (1998), “The roots of a woman”. In: Pattatucci, Angela M. (org.). Women in science. Thousand Oaks, ca, Sage.
Hacking, Ian. (1999), The social construction of what? Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
Harding, Sandra. (1986), The science question in feminism. Ithaca, ny, Cornell University Press.
______. (2007), “Feminist standpoints”. In: Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy (org.).
Handbook of feminist research. Thousand Oaks, ca, Sage.
Hartsock, Nancy. (1997), “Standpoint theories for the next century”. In: Kenney, Sally J. & Kinsella, Helen (orgs.). Politics and feminist standpoint theories. Nova York, Haworth Press.
Heckman, Susan. (1997), “Truth and method: feminist standpoint theory revisited”. Signs, 22 (2): 341-365.
Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy (org.). (2007), Handbook of feminist research. Thousand Oaks, ca, Sage.
Jenkins, Philip. (1994), Using murder: the social construction of serial homicide. Nova Brunswick, nj, Transaction Publishers.
Lennon, Kathleen. (2003), “Naturalising and interpretive turns in epistemology”. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 11: 245-259.
______. (2004), “Feminist epistemology”. In: Niiniluoto, Ilkka; Sintonen, Matti & Wolenski, Jan (orgs.). Handbook of epistemology. Dordrecht, Kluwer.
Longino, Helen. (2002), The fate of knowledge. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Mackenzie, Donald. (1981), Statistics in Britain, 1865-1930: the social construction of scientific knowledge. Edimburgo, Edinburgh University Press.
______. (1990), Inventing accuracy: an historical sociology of nuclear missile guidance. Cambridge, mit Press.
Mannheim, Karl. (1936), Ideology and utopia. Londres, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
______. (1952), “The problem of a sociology of knowledge”. In: ______. Essays on the sociology of knowledge. Nova York, Oxford University Press.
Marx, Karl. (1859), “Preface to A contribution to the critique of political economy”. Disponível em www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm, consultado em 23/7/2014 (em alemão, disponível em www.mlwerke.de/me/me13/me13_007.htm, consultado em 23/7/2014).
Pattatucci, Angela M. (org.). (1998), Women in science. Thousand Oaks, ca, Sage.
Pinnick, Cassandra. (1994), “Feminist epistemology: implication for philosophy of science”. Philosophy of Science, 61: 646-657.
Rollin, Kristina. (2002), “Gender and trust in science”. Hypatia, 17: 95-118.
Scott, Joan W. (1991), “The evidence of experience”. Critical Inquiry, 17: 773-797.
Solomon, Miriam & Alan Richardson. (2005), “A critical context for longino’s critical contextual empiricism”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 36: 211-22.
Sonnert, Gerhard & Holton, Gerald. (1995), Gender differences in science careers: the project access study. New Brunswick, nj, Rutgers University Press.
Watson, James D. (1969), The double helix. Nova York, Atheneum.
Wray, K. Brad. (2002), “The epistemic significance of collaborative research”. Philosophy of Science, 69: 150-68.
______. (2007), “Evaluating scientists: examining the effects of sexism and nepotism”. In: Kincaid, Harold; Dupré, John & Wylie, Alison (orgs.). Value-free science? Ideals and illusions. Nova York, Oxford University Press.
Wylie, Alison. (2003), “Why standpoint matters”. In: Figueroa, Robert & Harding, Sandra (orgs.). Science and other cultures: issues in philosophies of science and technology. Nova York, Routledge.
______. (2007), “The feminism question in science: what does it mean to ‘do social science as a feminist?’” In: Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy (org.). Handbook of feminist research. Thousand Oaks, ca, Sage.
Zollman, Kevin J. S. (2007), “The communication structure of epistemic communities”. Philosophy of Science, 74: 574-87.
Zuckerman, Harriett (1977), Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. Nova York, Free Press.
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2015 Tempo Social
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
