This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Smith, L. D. Articles by Archibald, A. B. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Scientific Graphs and the Hierarchy of the Sciences:

A Latourian Survey of Inscription Practices

Department of Psychology, University of Maine, 5742 Clarence Cook Little Hall, Orono, Maine 04469-5742, USA; Fax: +1 207 581 6128. Idsmith{at}maine.edu

Lisa A. Best

Department of Psychology, University of Maine, 5742 Clarence Cook Little Hall, Orono, Maine 04469-5742, USA; Fax: +1 207 581 6128. Lisab51{at}maine.edu

D. Alan Stubbs

Department of Psychology, University of Maine, 5742 Clarence Cook Little Hall, Orono, Maine 04469-5742, USA; Fax: +1 207 581 6128. Alan.Stubbs{at}umit.maine.edu

John Johnston

Department of Psychology, University of Maine, 5742 Clarence Cook Little Hall, Orono, Maine 04469-5742, USA; Fax: +1 207 581 6128. pokey{at}pivot.net

Andrea Bastiani Archibald

Center for Children and Families, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027, USA; fax: +1 212 678 3676; amb74{at}columbia.edu

Studies comparing the cognitive status of the sciences have long sought to identify the distinguishing features of `hard' and `soft' science. Attempts by philosophers of science to ground such distinctions in abstract principles and by sociologists of science to detect relevant differences (for example, in consensus levels) have met with limited success. However, recent investigations of scientists' concrete practices of data representation provide new leads on this problem. In particular, Bruno Latour has argued that graphs are essential to science due to their ability to render phenomena into compact, transportable and persuasive form. Applying Latour's notion of `graphism' to the hierarchy of sciences, we found that the use of graphs across seven scientific disciplines correlated almost perfectly with their hardness, and that the same pattern held up across ten specialty fields in psychology.

Key Words: data representation • fractional graph area • graphism • hard science • Latour • soft science

Social Studies of Science, Vol. 30, No. 1, 73-94 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/030631200030001003


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. Saad The collective amnesia of marketing scholars regarding consumers' biological and evolutionary roots Marketing Theory, December 1, 2008; 8(4): 425 - 448. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. Chilidis New Knowledge Versus Consensus -- a Critical Note On Their Relationship Based On the Debate Concerning the Use of Barrel-Vaults in Macedonian Tombs European Journal of Archaeology, April 1, 2008; 11(1): 75 - 103. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. J. Arsenault, L. D. Smith, and E. A. Beauchamp Visual Inscriptions in the Scientific Hierarchy: Mapping the "Treasures of Science" Science Communication, March 1, 2006; 27(3): 376 - 428. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Hartley, E. Sotto, and C. Fox Clarity Across the Disciplines: An Analysis of Texts in the Sciences, Social Sciences, and Arts and Humanities Science Communication, December 1, 2004; 26(2): 188 - 210. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. Rowley-Jolivet Different Visions, Different Visuals: a Social Semiotic Analysis of Field-Specific Visual Composition in Scientific Conference Presentations Visual Communication, June 1, 2004; 3(2): 145 - 175. [Abstract] [PDF]