Sociology
for "Scientific" Eyes
Culture: Bibliography
A.
World Views, ontology
Cairncross,
F. 2001. Death of Distance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School.
Cybersociology.com.
www.cybersociology.com
Cybersociology
is a non-profit multi-disciplinary webzine dedicated to the critical
discussion of the internet, cyberspace, cyberculture, and life online.
Authors include students, professors, published writers, and experts
within their fields.
Fausto-Sterling,
A. 1993. “The five sexes: why male and female are not enough.”
The
Sciences. March/April: 20-25.
Fausto-Sterling
presents the argument that the Western notion of two sexes does not
encompass those who are truly intersexual: the true hermaphrodite, the
male pseudohermadphrodite, and the female pseudohermadphrodite.
Griswold,
W. 1994. Technology, community, and global culture. Cultures and Societies
in
a Changing World: 138-153.
Using
territorial and relational perspectives of community in a global culture,
Griswold examines the complex connections among technology, community,
and globalization.
Kuhn,
Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago
Press.
Kumar,
Alok & R. Brown. 1999. “Teaching Science from a World-Cultural
View Point.”
Science as Culture 8(3): 357-74.
Discusses
world-wide sources of Western science.
MacKenzie,
Donald and Judy Wajcman (eds). 1999. The Social Shaping of Technology,
2nd
edition. Open University Press.
Great
collection of essays on how technology is shaped by society and social
issues, and applications to military technology, technology in the home,
and the economy.
Sztompka,
Piotr. (ed) 1997. On social structure and science. U of Chicago
Press.
Collection
of R.K. Merton’s works.
Postman,
Neil.1993. Technopoly : The Surrender of Culture to Technology.
Vintage Books.
Sappol,
M. 2003. The anatomical mission to Burma. Science, 302 (5643):
232-233.
Online
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/302/5643/232.
Sappol
charts the changes in the perception of the self that resulted from
the anatomical evangelism of a small few.
Sardar,
Ziauddin. 2001. “Waiting for rain”. New Scientist December
15:50-51.
Discusses
effect of fundamentalism on Islamic science.
Allot, R.
1994. The pythagorean perspective: The arts and sociobiology. Journal
of Social
and Evolutionary
Systems, 17(1): 71-90. Online
http://www.percepp.demon.co.uk/pythagor.htm
Allot posits
questions regarding cultural development -- the production of music,
literature, visual artifacts, mathematical thought – as a Darwinian
process.
Gamwell,
L. 2003. Beyond the visible—microscopy, nature, and art. Science,
299
(5603):
49-50. Online http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/299/5603/49.
Culture,
Science: Gamwell discusses how the advent of the microscope inspired
the inclusion of microorganisms in Art Nouveau designs.
Liebes,T.
and E. Katz.1990. The Export of Meaning:Cross-Cultural Readings of
Dallas.OxfordUniversity
Press.
Lessig, L.
2004. Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock
down
culture
and control creativity. NY: Penguin Press.
B.
Norms
Amitay,
Einat. 2001.”Trends, Fashions, Patterns, Norms, Conventions…and
Hypertext
Too”.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
52(1): 36-43.
Describes
the theoretical approach behind the InCommonSense system used for writing
Hypertext.
Babbie,
E. 1996. “We Am a Virtual Community.” American Sociologist
Spring:65-71.
Bainbridge,
W. S. 2003. Privacy and property on the net: Research questions. Science,
302
(5651): 1686-87. Online http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/302/5651/1686
Recognizing
that the values of privacy and property are based upon societal norms,
Bainbridge poses “Net” related personal vulnerability and
intellectual property issues that social and information scientists
need to explore.
Burnett,
Gary & L. Bonnici, 2003. “Beyond the FAQ: Explicit and implicit
norms in Usenet
newsgroups,” Library & Information Science Research
25:333-351.
Kelly,Gregory
&C.Chen,1998. “The Sound of Music: Experiment,discourse, and
writing of
science as sociocultural practices”. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Diego, April.
Miller,
D.W. 1999. Sociology, not engineering, may explain our vulnerability to
technology
disaster. Chronicle of Higher Education. Online http://chronicle.com.
In
studying meltdowns, plane crashes, and chemical leaks, scholars blame
high-risk cultures, unpredictability, and even 'safety' measures.
Shorett,
P., P. Rabinow & P.R. Billings, 2003. ”The changing norms of
the life sciences”
Nature
Biotechnology 21, 123 - 125 (2003).
C.
Values
Conrad,
P. 1986. The social meaning of AIDS. Social Policy, Summer: 51-56.
The
author examines the social and cultural meanings and interpretations
that cultures use to develop social attitudes, images, and social reactions
to AIDS.
Eckdahl,
Todd. And Edward Malone. 2001. “Technology and Society: Redeining
Human
Life,
Characterizing Life in the Age of Modern Technology.” Journal
of College Science Teaching. XXX (4):262-6.
Kline,
Ronald. 2001/2002. “Using History & Sociology to Teach Engineering
Ethics.” IEEE
Technology and Society Magazine Winter,
pp. 13-20.
Magill,
G. ed. 2004. Genetics and ethics: an interdisciplinary study. Saint Louis:
Saint
Louis University Press.
Essays
included examine the ethical, legal, and social implications of genetics,
as well as the effects on the law, business, reproduction, and health
care.
Morse,
J., Young, D. E., & Swartz, L. 1991. Cree Indian healing practices
and western
health
care: a comparative analysis. Social Science and Medicine,
32.
This
article reveals the differences between the healing practices of the
Cree to those of Western culture.
Science
Magazine. Essays on Science and Society. Online
http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/150essay.shl
In
monthly Essays on Science and Society, Science features the views of
individuals from inside or outside the scientific community as they
explore the interface between science and the wider society.
Smith,
Mick. 2001. “The Face of Nature: Environmental Ethics and the Boundaries
of
Contemporary
Social Theory.” Current Sociology 49 (1): 49-65.
|