The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The wrong bin bag: A turn to ontology in science and technology studies?
Open accessAbstract
There is in science and technology studies a perceptible new interest in matters of ‘ontology’. Until recently, the term ‘ontology’ had been sparingly used in the field. Now it appears to have acquired a new theoretical significance and lies at the centre of many programmes of empirical investigation. The special issue to which this essay is a contribution gathers a series of enquiries into the ontological and reflects, collectively, on the value of the analytical and methodological sensibilities that underpin this new approach to the make-up of the world. To what extent and in what sense can we speak of a ‘turn to ontology’ in science and technology studies? What should we make of, and with, this renewed interest in matters of ontology? This essay offers some preliminary responses to these questions. First, we examine claims of a shift from epistemology to ontology and explore in particular the implications of the notion of ‘enactment’. This leads to a consideration of the normative implications of approaches that bring ‘ontological politics’ to centre stage. We then illustrate and pursue these questions by using an example – the case of the ‘wrong bin bag’. We conclude with a tentative assessment of the prospects for ontologically sensitive science and technology studies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning
Barad, K. (2006) · doi:10.2307/j.ctv12101zq · Cited by 10,472
The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective
(1986) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511819582 · Cited by 6,267
Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science
Hacking, I. (1983) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511814563 · Cited by 4,814
(2004) · doi:10.4324/9780203413845 · Cited by 2,963
Hacking, I. (2002) · In the Scope of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0475-5_13 · Cited by 838
Cited by
If...Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics
Bucher, T. (2018) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190493028.001.0001 · Cited by 1,223
Ontological anthropology and the deferral of critique
BESSIRE, L., & BOND, D. (2014) · American Ethnologist · doi:10.1111/amet.12083 · Cited by 542
New Materialisms: Foucault and the ‘Government of Things’
Lemke, T. (2015) · Theory, Culture & Society · doi:10.1177/0263276413519340 · Cited by 388
Algorithms, Governance, and Governmentality: On Governing Academic Writing
Introna, L. D. (2016) · Science, Technology, & Human Values · doi:10.1177/0162243915587360 · Cited by 339
Sismondo, S. (2017) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/0306312717692076 · Cited by 312
Metadata
- Authors
- Woolgar, S., & Lezaun, J.
- Venue
- Social Studies of Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-06
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 321-340
- ISSN
- 0036-8539 (ISSN-L)
- 0306-3127
- 1460-3659
- OpenAlex
- W2046215155
- Cited by
- 547
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 541.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The wrong bin bag: A turn to ontology in science and technology studies? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0306312713488820
- The paper
- Woolgar, S., & Lezaun, J. (2013). The wrong bin bag: A turn to ontology in science and technology studies? Social Studies of Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312713488820
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.