Difference between revisions of "Lynch1985b"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Michael Lynch; |Title=Discipline and the material form of images: an analysis of scientific visibility |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnomethodology;...")
 
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{BibEntry
 
{{BibEntry
 
|BibType=ARTICLE
 
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Michael Lynch;  
+
|Author(s)=Michael Lynch;
 
|Title=Discipline and the material form of images: an analysis of scientific visibility
 
|Title=Discipline and the material form of images: an analysis of scientific visibility
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnomethodology; Science & Technology Studies; Visual;  
+
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethnomethodology; Science & Technology Studies; Visual;
 
|Key=Lynch1985b
 
|Key=Lynch1985b
 
|Year=1985
 
|Year=1985
 
|Journal=Social Studies of Science
 
|Journal=Social Studies of Science
 
|Volume=15
 
|Volume=15
|Pages=37-66
+
|Number=1
 +
|Pages=37–66
 +
|URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/030631285015001002
 +
|DOI=10.1177/030631285015001002
 +
|Abstract=This paper is about how natural objects are made visible and analyzable in scientific research. It is argued that the objects scientists actually work upon are highly artificial, in that their visibility depends upon complex instruments and careful preparatory procedures. Instruments and laboratory procedures do more than provide a window to the world; they lay the groundwork for specific analytic operations which utilize literary resources to represent phenomena graphically. Two specific cases from biology are discussed. The first is from a popular field manual, and is used to introduce themes for analyzing a more complex case, a neuroscience project using electron microscopy of brain tissue. The discussion of both cases concerns how specimens are modified into `docile objects' for purposes of investigation. These modifications are summarized under the headings of `marking', `constituting graphic space', and `normalizing observations'. Finally, it is claimed that these practices make up an `externalized retina' for scientific perception — a `retina' that depends upon disciplined conduct within the laboratory setting.
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 23:42, 20 October 2019

Lynch1985b
BibType ARTICLE
Key Lynch1985b
Author(s) Michael Lynch
Title Discipline and the material form of images: an analysis of scientific visibility
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Ethnomethodology, Science & Technology Studies, Visual
Publisher
Year 1985
Language
City
Month
Journal Social Studies of Science
Volume 15
Number 1
Pages 37–66
URL Link
DOI 10.1177/030631285015001002
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

This paper is about how natural objects are made visible and analyzable in scientific research. It is argued that the objects scientists actually work upon are highly artificial, in that their visibility depends upon complex instruments and careful preparatory procedures. Instruments and laboratory procedures do more than provide a window to the world; they lay the groundwork for specific analytic operations which utilize literary resources to represent phenomena graphically. Two specific cases from biology are discussed. The first is from a popular field manual, and is used to introduce themes for analyzing a more complex case, a neuroscience project using electron microscopy of brain tissue. The discussion of both cases concerns how specimens are modified into `docile objects' for purposes of investigation. These modifications are summarized under the headings of `marking', `constituting graphic space', and `normalizing observations'. Finally, it is claimed that these practices make up an `externalized retina' for scientific perception — a `retina' that depends upon disciplined conduct within the laboratory setting.

Notes