It’s been a year since I last posted here, a year in which my blogging has all been done within the Swedish-speaking universe. Time to resume blogging in English, as well.
What better piece to start with, than Alex Soojung-Kim Pang’s thoughts on the STS field? He has several interesting ideas about the field. For example, he writes: “the field needs to deal better with the fact that many of its ideas are, if not common knowledge, ones that don’t provoke the kinds of arguments that they would have two decades ago.”
This would - if it is correct - give a picture of a field that is more or less stable, mature. I am not so sure about this, but if he is right, STS people would need to invest some effort into building new constructs upon the platform that is STS today. What will such a new construct look like, what would be the 21st century equivalents to boundary objects, boundary work, ANT, SCOT, trading zones or all the other insights STS takes more or less for granted (even though all would never use these concepts)?
0 Responses to “How mature is STS?”