Abstract
Scientific facts are an essential element of modern life. Yet, despite an abundance of illuminating work in science and technology studies (STS), we lack a rigorous sociological framework for explaining how scientific facts emerge, gain traction, and then change over time. This article fills that gap. Drawing on Fleck ([1935] 1981), Haydu (1998), and a wealth of STS scholarship, I develop a comparative-historical approach called “reiterated fact-making” that analyzes scientific facts according to (1) the prevailing conditions of possibility; (2) the networks of expertise, social mobilization, and power built up around them; and (3) the epistemic and material path dependencies that accrue over the course of their careers. To demonstrate the utility of this framework, I draw on a mixed-methods study and explain the uneven histories of three genetic variants (XYY, Fragile X, and the 22q11.2 microdeletion) that have been used to delineate and diagnose new medical conditions associated with neurodevelopmental differences for the past several decades—taking on very different scientific, clinical, and social meanings as facts in the process. Reiterated fact-making helps us combine comparative-historical sociology and STS to explain how scientific facts can combine deep continuity and radical transformation as they are enrolled in shifting fields of research and practice.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
