Writing and Critical Thinking: The Social Life of Science

Introduction

Introduction

How is science social? This module investigates how science, as a fundamentally human endeavor, is shaped by the social contexts in which it is practiced and understood. Through a series of case studies drawn from the broad interdisciplinary field of Science and Technology Studies, we will explore how communities of thinkers produce, circulate, and draw on scientific knowledge. Students will gain an appreciation of the social conditions necessary for scientific research and learn to recognize how scientific ideas transform once they are publicly circulated into new social contexts.

The first half of the module examines how scientific knowledge is made through a combination of social and technical practices. Who – and what – compose a contemporary scientific community and how do different communities collaborate in order to resolve research questions? Is consensus necessary for teamwork? How do these communities operate in Singapore? We will investigate how scientists engage in a range of social activities like training, fundraising, translation, and peer-review in order to coordinate and carry out research. The second unit of the module explores how scientific ideas transform as they move beyond academic and research contexts into broader social worlds. How and why do some facts become politicised? What are some of the common ways that people misrecognize the social life underlying science? And how can we prevent misunderstandings around scientific practices and projects by becoming better communicators?

This module is well-suited for humanities and sciences students who would like to hone their writing and critical thinking skills through exposure to social studies of science.

Learning Objectives:

As a WCT module, the primary goal of the class is to learn rhetorical skills and conventions in academic writing. By the end of this course, students will be able to:

Analyse, compare, and evaluate arguments in diverse academic texts
Construct a well-defined research problem and explain its significance to readers
Develop clearly articulated, evidence-based arguments
Constructively engage with the module’s themes using pertinent sources and citations
Provide constructive feedback on peers’ writing and demonstrate the ability to revise one’s own writing following peer and instructor feedback

Assessment

Assessment

Attendance and participation (15%): As a seminar-style module, active participation in class discussions is essential and attendance is mandatory. Students are expected to come to class prepared to discuss and critically analyse the readings for the assigned meeting day. In the event of an illness or an emergency, please confer with the instructor by email prior to the missed class. More than two absences will significantly impact your grade.

Writing Assignments (75%):

Forum Posts (15%)
Once a week, students are required to develop a short paragraph (<150 words) which reflects on the assigned text(s) and poses a question about the text(s) before class. The purpose of this exercise is to analyse and evaluate the authors’ arguments and prepare for student-driven class discussion. As such, forum posts should not summarise the reading, but rather consider the purpose of the text, the execution and coherence of the argument, the forms of evidence the authors’ draw upon, and/or the manner in which the reading(s) might be put into dialogue with previous authors, etc. Posts must be uploaded onto LumiNUS no later than 5pm the day before class (e.g. Monday/Wednesday). Students are expected to read each other’s forum posts.
Paper 1 - Expository Essay, 1500 words max. (20%)
Research Proposal (10%)
Paper 2 - Research Essay, 3000 words max. (30%)

Final Presentation (10%): In the final week, each student will give a short, effective presentation based on the topic of their final research paper.

Readings

(Please note that this is a tentative schedule of readings. The final syllabus will be uploaded onto LumiNUS.)

Recommended module writing textbooks:

Booth, Wayne C. et al. The Craft of Research, 4^th ed., Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2016.

Graff, Gerald, Cathy Birkenstein, and Cyndee Maxwell. They Say, I Say: The moves that matter in academic writing. New York: Norton, 2014.

Unit One: Science as Social Life

Ravetz, J., “Morals and Manners in Modern Science.” Nature 457 (2009): 662–663. [Book review of Stephen Shapin’s The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation” (2008)].

Weber, Max. “Science as a Vocation.” From Max Weber. Translated and edited by H. H. Gerth and C.Wright Mills, 129-156. New York: Free Press, 1946. [Read p. 129-146, 149-152]

Knorr-Cetina, Karin. “What is a laboratory?” In Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge, 26-45. Harvard University Press, 1999.

Star, Susan Leigh, and James R. Griesemer. "Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39." Social Studies of Science 19, no. 3 (1989): 387-420.

Saunders, Barry. “Visual Apprenticeship in the Age of the Mechanical Viewbox.” In Skilled Visions: Between Apprenticeship and Standards, 145-165. Edited by Christina Grasseni. New York: Berghahn Books, 2009.

Desrosières, Alain. "How Real Are Statistics? Four Possible Attitudes." Social Research (2001): 339 355.

Winner, Langdon. "Do Artifacts Have Politics?" Daedalus (1980): 121-136.

Daston, Lorraine and Peter Galison. “Epistemologies of the Eye.” In Objectivity, 17-53. New York: Zone Books, 2007. [Skim p. 17-26. Read to a) find the purpose of the text and b) understand the descriptions of Figures 1.1-1.3. READ: p.27-42; 51-53.]

Fischer, Michael M. J. “Biopolis: Asian Science in the Global Circuitry.” Science, Technology, & Society 18, no. 3 (2013): 379-404.

Unit Two: Science in Social Life

Petryna, Adriana. “Technical Error: Measures of Life and Risk.” Life Exposed: Biological Citizens After Chernobyl, 34-62. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013.

Craig, Sienna, Barbara Gerke, and Jan M. A. ven der Valk. “Asian Medicines, Covid-19, and the Politics of Science: An Unpublished Letter to the Editor of Nature.” Advocacy Letters. Somatosphere: Science, Medicine, and Anthropology. August 14, 2020.

Dodds, Klaus, Vanesa Castan Broto, Klaus Detterbeck, Martin Jones, Virginie Mamadouh, Maano Ramutsindela, Monica Varsanyi, David Wachsmuth, and Chih Yuan Woon. "The COVID-19 Pandemic: Territorial, Political and Governance Dimensions of the Crisis." Territory, Politics, and Governance 8, no. 3 (2020): 289-298.

Douglas, Karen M., Joseph E. Uscinski, Robbie M. Sutton, Aleksandra Cichocka, Turkay Nefes, Chee Siang Ang, and Farzin Deravi. "Understanding Conspiracy Theories." Political Psychology 40 (2019): 3-35.

Hansson, Sven Ove. "Dealing with Climate Science Denialism: Experiences from confrontations with other forms of pseudoscience." Climate Policy 18, no. 9 (2018): 1094-1102.

Sagan, Carl. “Science and Hope.” In The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, 27-42. London: Headline, 1996.