Lynch1985b
| 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 | |
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
