The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Scientific Communities or Transepistemic Arenas of Research? A Critique of Quasi-Economic Models of Science
Open accessAbstract
Most contemporary studies of science operate with some notion of scientific specialty communities as the basic units within which science is socially and technically organized. This paper presents a critique of scientific communities as sociological constructs which appear to be largely irrelevant to scientific work. Furthermore, the paper criticizes the prevailing quasi-economic models of such collectives for what appears to be a naive internalism and functionalism compared with the realities of scientific everyday life as they concern scientists themselves. It is argued that the arenas of action within which scientific (laboratory) inquiry proceeds are transepistemic — that is, they in principle include scientists and non-scientists, and encompass arguments and concerns of a `technical' as well as a `non-technical' nature. The paper also argues that the transepistemic connection of research is built into scientific inquiry (and thereby into the products of research) through the decision criteria invoked in laboratory work. The paper draws upon one year of observation in a scientific laboratory in Berkeley, California, which provides the grounds and the illustrations for the theoretical arguments presented.
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
Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts
Austin, J. (1982) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/0277-9536(82)90228-3 · Cited by 2,883
The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason
Bourdieu, P. (1975) · Social Science Information · doi:10.1177/053901847501400602 · Cited by 1,483
The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class
Gouldner, A. W. (1979) · doi:10.1007/978-1-349-16083-9 · Cited by 978
Putting Facts Together: A Study of Scientific Persuasion
Law, J., & Williams, R. J. (1982) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/030631282012004003 · Cited by 151
Problem Areas and Research Networks in Science
Mulkay, M., Gilbert, N., & Woolgar, S. (1975) · Sociology · doi:10.1177/003803857500900201 · Cited by 145
Harvey, B. (1981) · Sociology of the sciences/Sociology of the sciences yearbook · doi:10.1007/978-94-009-9109-5_6 · Cited by 12
Cited by
From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis
Callon, M., Courtial, J.-P., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983) · Social Science Information · doi:10.1177/053901883022002003 · Cited by 1,951
Gauchat, G. (2012) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/0003122412438225 · Cited by 1,091
Knowledge Practices in Design: The Role of Visual Representations as `Epistemic Objects'
Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. (2009) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840608083014 · Cited by 584
Morris, S. A., & Van der Veer Martens, B. (2008) · Annual Review of Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/aris.2008.1440420113 · Cited by 280
Islands of Practice: Conflict and a Lack of ‘Community’ in Situated Learning
Macpherson, A., & Clark, B. (2009) · Management Learning · doi:10.1177/1350507609340810 · Cited by 49
Metadata
- Authors
- Knorr-Cetina, K. D.
- Venue
- Social Studies of Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1982-02
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 101-130
- ISSN
- 0036-8539 (ISSN-L)
- 0306-3127
- 1460-3659
- OpenAlex
- W2158146441
- Cited by
- 382
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 29.06
- 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: Scientific Communities or Transepistemic Arenas of Research? A Critique of Quasi-Economic Models of Science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/030631282012001005
- The paper
- Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1982). Scientific Communities or Transepistemic Arenas of Research? A Critique of Quasi-Economic Models of Science. Social Studies of Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631282012001005
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.