Dear and Jasanoff on Daston on the Current Situation February 27, 2011
Posted by Will Thomas in Uncategorized.Tags: Lorraine Daston, Peter Dear, Sheila Jasanoff
11 comments
The December Isis has been published, which includes a response from Sheila Jasanoff and Peter Dear to Lorraine Daston’s 2009 Critical Inquiry article, “Science Studies and the History of Science” (paywall), entitled “Dismantling Boundaries in Science and Technology Studies” (paywall). I posted my own two-part reaction to Daston’s piece in September 2009: “Daston on the Current Situation” and “Foucault, Ginzburg, Latour, and the Gallery” (a title that is great search-engine fodder, by the way; it is now the most visited post on this blog written by me).
I don’t really have any major new reflections here, but I will offer a couple of observations, as well as some recapitulations of points I’ve already made. (more…)
Blog Notes February 26, 2011
Posted by Will Thomas in Uncategorized.4 comments
First off, sorry for no posting the last couple of weeks. Travel and work-related things have kept me well occupied. New posts are in the works.
Second, for those who follow this blog’s occasional posts on the chymistry historiography, have a look at The Economist’s write-up of Lawrence Principe’s presentation at the AAAS meeting. Also, a cbsnews.com Tech Talk post about the Economist write-up links to EWP for more information on current professional thought on the issue. The spotlight, it blinds me! (I got 60-70 hits off of it, which for EWP constitutes a flood.)
On this note, I’ve started to worry a little bit about the fact that there are certain topics where you can just put up a reasonably well-informed post about something, and suddenly you become an authority. This issue comes up with my old Schaffer Oeuvre series — which may one day return — wherein by virtue of simply talking about his work at all, people know me as the guy whose comments pop up when you search for information about his writings. I’ve received enough nice comments from people about that series that I guess I’ve gotten things right enough that I’m not too worried about it, but I do wish people who are actually well-versed in 18th and 19th-century studies would displace by some means my hobby-like interest in the subject.
Finally, speaking of nice things being said, we had Paul Lucier in to speak with us a couple of days ago. I don’t receive a lot of feedback on how this blog is actually read and talked about, and by whom, so it was gratifying to hear from him that my post on his terrific Isis article on men of science vs. professionals in 19th-century America succeeded in generating some extra interest in that work.
My concern is that there are people out there not speaking up who have good ideas about deleterious side-effects to blogging activity. Long story short, I think it’s time the profession as a whole started thinking quite seriously about how blogs ought to be used to talk about scholarship in a serious, responsible, and public, but short-form way.
Some Thoughts on the Study of Historical State Expertise February 13, 2011
Posted by Will Thomas in Technocracy in the UK.1 comment so far
Although I identify as a historian of science, my current project to survey expertise in the British state makes no real effort to distinguish between scientific and non-scientific forms of expertise. In a subsequent post I intend to elaborate on my beliefs that such distinctions have not mattered much to historical actors either. For now, however, since I don’t want to extend my survey to basically anyone with specialized skill, which would include, say, clerks, I’ve needed a working definition: anyone a) whose input affects the design of a policy, or b) who must apply a policy in concrete situations.
To my comfort, I soon found this bifurcated view of expertise casually expressed in conversations within the British civil service. One inquiry into the worth of a research branch of the Agricultural Land Service of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries asked for comments on its work’s bearing on either the “formulation” or the “administration” of policy. I’ll be on the lookout to see whether this pairing is a term of art, or simply an off-the-cuff way of distinguishing obvious functional divides in bureaucratic work.
From the wartime "Growmore Leaflet" No. 62, "Beating the Wireworm"
Another issue is the overlapping of expertise and representation. In British agriculture, the importance of location was well appreciated, and knowledge of local conditions was considered a form of expertise to be consulted as a matter of course in the formulation and administration of agricultural policies. Bodies such as the Agricultural Improvement Council (AIC) sought out membership that represented the full diversity of farming conditions in the English and Welsh countryside (Scotland and Northern Ireland even had their own separate advisory bodies). Likewise, it went without saying that the powerful National Farmers’ Union was always to have at least one representative on the council. The National Union of Agricultural Workers also had a representative throughout the AIC’s existence. Later a land agent was included as well.
The Agricultural Improvement Council for England and Wales, 1941-1962 February 6, 2011
Posted by Will Thomas in Technocracy in the UK.Tags: C. Bryner Jones, Christopher Soames, Edward Salisbury, Frank Engledow, Frank Rayns, George Stapledon, Gordon Cox, James Scott Watson, James Turner, John Fryer, Keith Mather, Thomas Dalling, Thomas Wallace, W. W. C. Topley, William Slater
4 comments
From time to time, as part of my survey of expertise in the British state project, I will post here some raw research results until the time arises when I can create a more permanent home for them. Recently I have been looking at the Agricultural Improvement Council (AIC) for England and Wales. This post contains a complete list of AIC members, and some background information, which I have assembled from archival files and do not believe to be readily accessible elsewhere.
Will Thomas
Christopher Donohue
