City as truth-spot: Laboratories and field-sites in urban studies
Thomas F. Gieryn
Social Studies of Science, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Feb., 2006), pp. 5-38
Social Studies of Science 36/1 (February 2006) 5-38 ? SSS and SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks CA, New Delhi)
ABSTRACT
How does 'place' contribute to the credibility of scientific claims? The Chicago School of urban studies (1918-32) had close ties to the city for which it was named: its social scientists lived in Chicago, were affiliated with the University of Chicago, and made Chicago the object of almost all of their empirical research. In order for this city to become a legitimate source of claims about urban form and process, Chicago is textually made to oscillate between two available authorizing spaces. As a field-site, the city of Chicago becomes a found and uncorrupted reality, the singularly ideal place to do urban research, and requiring the analyst to get up close and personal. As a laboratory, Chicago becomes a controlled environment where artificial specimens yield generalities true anywhere, requiring of the analyst distance and objectivity. The distinctive epistemic virtues of both field and laboratory are preserved as complementary sources of credibility, and Chicago becomes the right place for the job.
City as Truth-Spot:
Laboratories and Field-Sites in Urban Studies
Thomas E Gieryn
The where of science has come under increasing scholarly scrutiny. Geography and architecture are ever more frequently brought in as factors helping to explain the legitimacy of knowledge claims.1 Scientific practices have been found to happen in many settings: gentlemen's houses, pubs, churches, royal court, museums, botanical gardens, zoos, clinics, spas, Siberia, sailing ships, agricultural experiment stations, nuclear weapons complexes, corporate research parks - and, of course, laboratories and field-sites.2 These last two places have emerged over historical time as privileged truth-spots:3 lab and field are understood to lend a special credibility (Shapin, 1995) to scientific claims.
Each locus is conventionally associated with distinctive epistemic virtues. Laboratory walls enable scientists to gain exquisite control over the objects of their analysis. Wild nature gets repositioned in a technical and cultural environment that gives all power to the investigators. Research materials are selectively let inside, and then they are filtered, made manipulate, sanitized, and tamed (Knorr Cetina, 1999: 27). Labs are designed to segregate out potential contaminants - both natural and human - and in this sense they become 'placeless places', more or less free of the vicissi tudes and promiscuities of 'outside' (Kohler, 2002a: 192, 2002b: 473). Inside, the hygienic mechanization of display, observation, intervention, and inscription creates distance between the researcher and the researched, allowing for a kind of mechanical objectivity (Daston & Galison, 1992). The standardization of the design of laboratory spaces within a discipline allows scientists at diverse locations to assume that the background ambi ent conditions here are equivalent to those elsewhere, removing suspicions that experimental results might be due to some peculiar and unannounced environmental factor.4
Scientific claims located in the field gain believability and persuasive ness in a different way. Field observations allow investigators to examine reality before it has been made artifactual via laboratory interventions. The field carries with it an idea of unadulterated reality, just now come upon. Certain field-sites become unique windows on the universe, revealing only at this place something that cannot be moved or replicated in the labo ratory. In such instances, 'being there' becomes an essential part of claiming authority for an observation or discovery. In the field, an inevita ble lack of control becomes its own virtue. Scientists en plein air are more likely to be open to surprises that might interrupt research expectations in promising ways, if only because it is more difficult for the field-site to fence out human and natural intrusions. Heroic researchers sometimes face unexpected dangers in the field, and so the rare knowledge they bring back assumes the authority of being especially hard-won (Hevly, 1996). Field scientists often immerse themselves in a site for long periods of time, developing embodied ways of feeling, seeing, and understanding - that become analogs to the cold precise instruments of the lab.
However, the epistemic risks of fieldwork in science - a lack of precision and control, peculiarities of a site that make generalizations impossible, emotional attachments to 'my site' that introduce subjective biases, endless distractions and contaminations - have led some scholars to conclude that the field must in effect become a laboratory before it can serve as an authoritative space for knowledge-making. The biological field station thus becomes a mobile lab (Kohler, 2002c), the agricultural experiment station becomes a lab-field hybrid (Henke, 2000), and, to push the argument to the limit: 'For the world to become knowable, it must become a laboratory' (Latour, 1999: 43; cf. Krohn & Weyer, 1994; Bockman & Eyal, 2002; Gross, 2003). And yet, it is neither historically inevitable nor logically necessary that laboratories supplant field-sites as scientific truth-spots. In some scientific specialties, knowledge-claims gain legitimacy by preserving and drawing on simultaneously - and in a complementary way - the assumed distinctive virtues of both lab and field.
Urban studies is just such a case. The city becomes, at once, the object and venue of study - scholars in urban studies constitute the city both as the empirical referent of analysis and the physical site where investigation takes place. For this reason, urban studies becomes a propitious case for exploring the emplacement of scientific claims, and (in particular) the relationships between the place where knowledge comes from and its bid for credibility.5 The Chicago School dominated social scientific studies of the city in the USA during the early 20th century, and its scholars left behind an abundance of research monographs and manuals in research methods. I read those texts with less regard for their concrete findings and explanations about urban form or process, and with more interest in how authors constructed the city as a place where they located their investiga tions and as the entity revealed in their descriptions and theoretical explanations. An interesting rhetorical trope emerges: authors of the Chi cago School oscillate between making Chicago (the city) into a laboratory and a field-site. On some occasions, the city assumes the qualities of a lab: a restricting and controlling environment, whose placelessness enables generalizations to 'anywhere', and which demands from analysts an unfeel ing detachment. On other occasions, the same city becomes a field-site, and assumes different qualities: a pre-existing reality discovered by intrepid ethnographers who develop keen personal sensitivities to the uniquely revealing features of this particular place. As Chicago-the-city is textually shuttled back and forth between laboratory and field-site, the claims about metropolitan life by Chicago School authors take on credibility by being situated in the complementary legitimating languages of both truth-spots - lab and field.6
Today, the writings of the Chicago School seem so thoroughly 'mod ern'. Untroubled by relativism or ideological distortions of Truth, Chicago School members took for granted that the city of Chicago possessed an a priori, external and objective reality discoverable and describable by sys tematic scientific methods. Their studies surely would yield reliable and valid data capable of adjudicating among competing abstract theories of urban form and process. They borrowed without hesitation legitimating rhetorics from the natural sciences, by situating their claims in the field-site and the laboratory. Things have changed in urban studies: a loose bunch of critical postmodernists - the Los Angeles School - now approach their city skeptical of the presumed givenness and objective reality of the field, and cynical about the epistemic and political appropriateness of the laboratory as a site for social inquiry. My analysis ends with a brief epilogue on how the Los Angeles School pursues credibility by other means - in order to expose the historical particularity of the Chicago School's exploitation of lab and field.
Chicago School: Modern Epistemics of Place
The historiographic literature on the Chicago School of urban studies is huge, though serious scholarly attention begins only in the late 1960s.7 Little has been written about the Chicago School that has not subsequently been challenged, denounced, or embellished - its membership, its sub stantive reach and even its periodization remain contentious. The 'golden years' of the School are sometimes listed as 1918-32, and there seems to be general agreement that its scholarly activities peaked during the 1920s. Albion Small provided social and intellectual leadership in the formative years, but during its heyday, two central figures ran the show - Robert E. Park and Ernest W. Burgess. Near the end, leadership passed to their student, Louis Wirth. The substantive domain of 'the' Chicago School depends upon which history or reminiscence you read. There were social psychologists also involved in sociology at Chicago during these decades - famously, George Herbert Mead, and later, Everett C. Hughes - who were less interested in urban form and process. And, although the Chicago School took its city as the object of study, it may be too restrictive to say that they were only interested in 'urban studies'. Some would describe their substantive bailiwick as fully overlapping the discipline of sociology (or, even more encompassing, social science), with the city itself becoming a vehicle for studying criminology, deviance, inequality, racial and ethnic relations, markets, family, and organizations. There is even mention in the literature of a second Chicago School, rising just after World War II - about which nothing more will be said (Fine, 1995).
Why 'school', and why 'Chicago'?8 The dynamo of researchers, teach ers, students, and staff who gathered at the University of Chicago in the 1920s to study urban sociology reflexively constituted themselves as a 'school' of social science by establishing an institutional and organizational setting that routinized the production and reproduction of scholarly texts sharing certain methodological, conceptual, and political tendencies. Chicago Sociology was a shop: senior professors provided a theoretically coherent research agenda for a seemingly endless array of empirical studies then carried out by them or their graduate students. This selective list of books produced, more often alluded to than carefully read by sociologists today, gives a hint with their colorful titles of the range of topics within the School's ken: The Hobo (Anderson, 1923); The City (Park & Burgess, 1925); The Gang (Thrasher, 1927); Family Disorganization (Mowrer, 1927); The Ghetto (Wirth, 1928); The Gold Coast and the Slum (Zorbaugh, 1929); The Jack-Roller: A Delinquent Boy's Own Story (Shaw, 1930); The Taxi-Dance Hall (Cressey, 1932); The Negro Family in Chicago (Frazier, 1932). The organizational environment that enabled all this science was remarkably rich in resources - financial and otherwise. The University of Chicago, set in motion in 1892 with a US$35 million bequest from John D. Rockefeller Sr (and additional support from the Carnegie Corporation), was determined to establish a tradition of excellence in research and teaching that would exceed the accomplishments of older elite universities in the USA. Money was available to construct a stand-alone social science building that would house the Chicago School after 1929, with offices, seminar rooms, laboratories, data-rooms, and map-rooms - the renowned 1126 East 59th Street, still in use for much the same purposes today. Additional patronage came from the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial to support the Local Community Research Committee, 'established to make social scientific findings relevant to community needs' (Kuklick, 1980: 843, n. 48). With the establishment of the University of Chicago Press and especially the American Journal of Sociology (perhaps the most prestigious journal in the discipline), Chicago sociologists had ready access to the scholarly means of production. With such infrastructural abundance, it is no surprise that the Department of Sociology at the University of Chicago quickly ascended to disciplinary preeminence.
The Chicago School of urban studies nurtured a shared intellectual identity - although it was never so consolidated that it stifled certain methodological, theoretical and even political tensions. According to Andrew Abbott (1999: 196-97), the mark of Chicago School urban sociology was its unwavering interest in the situatedness of all social processes - the contextual location of social facts in space and time. Still, the contingencies of history and location did not prevent Chicago urban sociologists from pursuing a nomothetic model through which the metabo lism of urban processes was knowable in a general and abstract sense - an example of one of those tensions. The 'model' was both ecological and evolutionist: urban social life could best be understood as embedded in geographic and material environments. Social patterns and processes - crime, delinquency, poverty, wealth, in-migrations of racial and ethnic minorities - were locatable as dots on detailed maps of Chicago showing 75 'natural areas' encompassing 300 neighborhoods. Fundamental eco logical processes - perturbation and accommodation, competition and succession - were used to describe the dynamics of urban change, as (for example) when 'transitional zones' were shifting from residential to commercial, from middle to working class, from Jewish to Negro. People changed along with the cities in which they lived: Georg Simmel's (1971 [1903]) interest in the mental life of the metropolis was sustained by the Chicago School, and its members also variously deployed Ferdinand Tonnies' (1963 [1887]) distinction between gemeinschaft and gesellschaft to describe the mosaic of small traditional villages that comprise (not without disruption, and pain) the modern big city. The social scientific analysis of all of this - from urban form and process to changing subjective attitudes and values - required an eclectic array of empirical method ologies. More tension was created among members of the Chicago School by different emphases they placed on qualitative vs quantitative research; descriptions vs explanations (hypothesis-testing); objective vs subjective accounts (from the actors' point of view). Data came from many sources, and members of the School ruminated among themselves over the advan tages of each: ethnographies; surveys; extended interviews; personal testi monies; and archives of public documents.
And it all came together in Chicago. The Chicago School was tightly connected to its home city, epistemically and politically. The School could loosely be characterized as liberal-reformist, and its fidelity with the can-do American pragmatism of the University of Chicago philosopher John Dewey led to considerable involvement with local social problems and politics. Its scholarship was often framed as ameliorist - not just an account of the slum, but an understanding that could eventually eliminate the squalor and vices that clustered there. But here too, another tension:
no matter how useful their work could be, Chicago School members may have felt that it was more important to make their claims and recommendations as scientific as possible - methodologically rigorous, conceptually coherent, empirically grounded. Their consistent efforts to distance Chicago School projects from the settlement work ('social work') of Jane Addams at Hull House may reflect their idea that doing-good can only come after getting-it-right (although sexism may be another viable inter pretation) (Deegan, 1986). Chicago School urban studies were in Chicago, of Chicago, and about Chicago.
The Lab-Field Shuttle (Figure 1) is a handy way of summarizing how the Chicago School of urban studies made its truth-spot into a field-site and a laboratory, surrounding its claims about urban form and process with the valorizing authority of each kind of place. Their back-and-forth rhetoric may be analyzed in three heuristic dimensions. First, 'Chicago' as research object and location of analysis assumes a double ontological status. As field-site, the city becomes a 'natural' thing, with an a priori given reality whose existence does not depend on curious sociologists: it is found, and observed in exactly that original and unsullied state. However, suspended only in this untamed state, Chicago is not easily controlled and thus not readily knowable through the disciplined interventions of science. But the city is vastly more manipulable when it becomes a laboratory specimen, amenable to measurement, dissection, experiment, and other contrivances: Chicago now is made, under the microscope, with a scalpel. The laboratory lays bare what might be hidden or obscured when the urban sociologist confronts the real-world distractions of Chicago taken on its own terms, which potentially might compromise the researcher's ability to get it right. But the artificiality of making a specimen out of the holistic complexity of any city - always more than the sum of its splayed-for-view parts - carries its own epistemic anxieties, relieved by shuttling back in the other direction, from lab back to field (the oscillation is without end).
Second, field scientists must somehow justify their choice of the specific place where they peek at nature (or society), and ideally the justification should be more than convenience or expediency. The research site must be analytically strategic in that it uniquely displays certain forms or processes of great interest to science - or, at least, epitomizes those patterns.9 Truth about cities will be found distinctively, efficiently, and most reliably here: Chicago is a singular setting whose historicity and particularities do indeed make it the 'right place for the job' of describing urban social life. Still, the Chicago School had more than parochial ambitions, and they were not content for their descriptions and inter pretations only to be about Chicago. To generalize their findings, this city must become anywhere - a placeless place with underlying patterns that could be found in any metropolis. Now the peculiarities of Chicago are elided, as the city is made into a specimen of generic and universal 'urbanism', describable not in local details but with laws. Chicago is homogenized in the same way that labs in biology or chemistry become architectural clones of themselves - and location ceases to matter, in both instances.
FIGURE 1 Three Shuttles
Third, field and lab position the analyst in different ways vis-a-vis the object of study, and they evoke dispositions that are distinctive to each truth-spot - but both, in their own way, legitimate the scientist's assertion of privileged access to the truth. The researcher gets immersed in the city as field-site, becoming familiar over time with its nuances through up-close and personal confrontations. There is room in the field for surprise, emotion, vulnerability, empathy - and any one of these subjective experiences can be turned into persuasive grounds for getting readers to believe what the emplaced observer reports. But subjectivity runs counter to the institutional logic of experimental science, which extols distance as a means to curtail bias, wish-fulfillment or even error. Along with the white lab coat comes a detached, objective view from nowhere. Elements of the city are manipulated in a passionless, mechanical and antiseptic way.
Conclusion
This paper points to three conclusions - perhaps better thought of as pathways for future inquiry. First, although my analysis of the Chicago School suggests that 'place' should be added to the list of modulators of scientific credibility, it would be unwise to generalize loosely and widely from the case of urban studies. After all, most texts in the natural sciences never mention explicitly the geography or architecture of the circumstances in which inquiry was conducted (even though widely shared assumptions about the fungibility of standardized labs here and anywhere are implicitly part of the assignment of credibility to experimental claims from distant places). Indeed, in many sciences, mention of the particulars of a place of inquiry becomes a delegitimating move. Cold fusion became more easily dismissed after Pons and Fleischmann began to suggest that 'ambient conditions' in their Utah lab might have produced results not replicated elsewhere. The question ahead is this: under what cultural conditions does place move from tacit background to explicit factor in quests for credibility in scientific claims-making? In urban studies, the city is both the where and the what of study - creating a discursive situation in which location, geography and situated materialities get foregrounded as ratifiers of believ ability. Surely there are other such instances in the history of science.
Second, laboratories and field-sites need not necessarily assume a zero-sum relationship as competing truth-spots. For the Chicago School, scientific claims about urban form and process become more believable as the city itself is sequentially made into a laboratory and a field-site - and as the claims assume the epistemic virtues of those two authorizing spaces. Most of my empirical examples display the textual construction of Chicago. Future studies of how laboratories and field-sites figure in the production and consumption of scientific claims might benefit from perspectives developed in technology studies. It would be unfortunate if my analysis was taken to suggest that geographic location (spots on the globe) and the architectural/material formation of cities are consequential only as dis cursive constructions, and that their existence as modulators of credibility was 'nothing but' textual. Such reductionism is neither implied nor de sired. It is unhelpful, I believe, to think of place - in the context of knowledge-making - as merely proffered interpretations and narrations, or, for that matter, as merely the assemblage of people at a certain location. What if the laboratory heuristically became a machine - in the manner of Aramis (Latour, 1996), a Portuguese sailing vessel (Law, 1987), an electric vehicle (Callon, 1987), or a missile guidance system (MacKenzie, 1990)? One would want to examine the siting and especially the spatial design of laboratories (Shoshkes, 1989: 98-123; Joyce, 2004) - or field-sites, or any other truth-spot - as early but integral steps in the long chain of events that results, way downstream, in a scientific fact.
Third, an interest in the emplacement of legitimate knowledge cannot be limited to science - which is, after all, only one institutionalized tribunal for making authoritative claims about reality. The concept of truth-spot may be stretched to fit a wide variety of circumstances where believability and persuasiveness hang in the balance. I mentioned that the city of Los Angeles was fashioned as a bully-pulpit or soap-box - terms often used metaphorically, but terms that can also refer to concrete places where claims come from. For the devout, the pulpit becomes a place from which homilies take on special authority. Political pronouncements have different consequences when uttered from the street corner - or from the floor of an official parliamentary space. In the same way, assertions of historical fact become less easily denied in the face of their materialization in monu ments, memorials, and museums; assertions of ethnic identity become more solid when implanted in a place lived-in by a group for a long period of time; assertions of the authenticity of a work of art are sometimes settled by tracing the provenance of a piece back to its place of origin. In the emplacement of its practices - and in the construction and deployment of truth-spots to attest legitimacy - science is probably not the exception, but the rule.
Notes
1. For reviews of the literature connecting place to legitimate knowledge, cf. Galison & Thompson (1999), Gieryn (2002b: 45-51), Golinski (1998: Ch. 3), Jardine (2000: 274-87), Livingstone (2003), Markus (1993), Ophir & Shapin (1991), Shapin (1998), and Smith & Agar (1998).
2. The literature on diverse sites of scientific practice is approaching immensity. Here are some recent highlights (not including specific pieces from the edited volumes cited in note 1). On the gentleman's house: Shapin (1988); on pubs: Secord (1994); on churches: Heilbron (1999); on royal courts: Biagioli (1993); on museums: Findlen (1994), MacDonald (1998); on botanical (and other) gardens: Drayton (2000), Guerrini (2003), Mukerji (1997); on zoos: Burkhardt (2000), Hanson (2002), Rothfels (2002), Murray (2004); on clinics: Derksen (2000); on spas: Weisz (2001); on Siberian science-cities: Josephson (1997); on sailing ships: Goodwin (1995), Sorrenson (1996); on agricultural experiment stations: Henke (2000); on nuclear weapons complexes: Gusterson (1998), Masco (1999); on corporate research parks: Knowles & Leslie (2001), Wakeman (2003); on laboratories: Latour (1983), Hannaway (1986),Traweek (1988: Ch. 1), Cunningham & Williams (1992), Shackelford (1993), Galison (1997: 816ff.), Richmond (1997),Todes (2002), Silbey & Ewick (2003); on field-sites: Mitman (1996), McCook (1996), Outram (1996), Helford (1999), Rees (2001), Roth & Bowen (2001), Kohler (2002c), Waterton (2002), Lachmund (2003, 2004), Bonneuil (2004).
3. A 'truth-spot' (Gieryn, 2002a) is a delimited geographical location that lends credibility to claims. Truth-spots are 'places' in that they are not just a point in the universe, but also and irreducibly: (1) the material stuff agglomerated there, both natural and human-built; and (2) cultural interpretations and narrations (more or less explicit) that give meaning to the spot.
4. On the standardization of laboratory design, cf. Gieryn (1999: 430, 2002a: 125, 2002b: 55).
5. Other scholars have explored the relationships between science and cities. 'The city has been more than simply a location where science occurred. It has been a sociospatial setting affecting the production of knowledge in various ways: how scientists chose their research topics and framed them conceptually; how they organized their research practices; and how they articulated and stabilized certain beliefs as valid scientific claims' (Dierig et al., 2003: 2; cf. Forgan & Gooday, 1996; Aubin, 2003; Lafuente & Saraiva, 2004). For example, the city plays a role in the ratification of scientific claims by serving as a geographic magnet for trusted assessors - as was the case for Paris and clinical medicine in the years after the Revolution: 'European thinkers, scientists and physicians ... sought the approval of the Paris scientific world as the ultimate arbiter of their work' (Weiner & Sauter, 2003: 24).
6. Urban studies is not the only science to make cities into field-sites and laboratories. The city of Old Canton became a field-site for late 18th-century British naturalists, who gathered specimens from its entrepots (Fan, 2003). The standardization and collation of statistics (for example, geological, medical) used by 19th-century cartographers 'would be enough to qualify Paris as an admirable laboratory for the scientist and the administrator' (Picon, 2003).
7. Perhaps the most comprehensive and authoritative solo-authored history of the Chicago School is Bulmer (1984). More hagiographical is Faris (1967). Weighing in at more than one million words written by about 40 contributors and spread over four volumes, Plummer (1997) wins the elephantine prize. A review of Chicago School historiography, along with perhaps the best discussion of its intellectual legacy, is found in Abbott (1999). Kurtz (1984) offers a reliable gloss on Chicago School ideas and methods, along with an exhaustive bibliography of its written works. A useful analysis of its ethnographic field methods (especially for the early days) is provided by Hallett & Fine (2000). On the uneasy relationship between University of Chicago social scientists and the settlement movement of Jane Addams at Hull House, see Deegan (1986). Ethnic studies is given special treatment in Persons (1987). The transplantation of Chicago School sociology to McGill University and Canada is considered in Shore (1987). Kuklick (1980) provides an exceptionally good analysis of how evolutionist assumptions of Chicago School sociologists were used by bureaucrats to buttress urban planning policy. Pols (2003) discusses the connection between Chicago School sociology and psychiatry. Several works focus on specific figures: on Small, Dibble (1975); on Park, Lindner (1996) and Raushenbush (1979); on Wirth, Salerno (1987).
8. On 'schools' of thought in science, cf. Geison (1981), Servos (1993). On the features of Chicago - as city - that made it a propitious location for a school of urban studies, cf. Gieryn (2005), Hunter (1980).
9. Among field biologists, sites constructed as 'nature's experiments' - as John Muir described the Yellowstone basin - are choice 'places where observation and comparison reveal how nature works' (Kohler, 2002c: 213).
10. Burgess goes on to make an even more explicit identity between the city and the natural ecosystem: "The processes of competition, invasion, succession, and segregation described in elaborate detail for plant and animal communities seem to be strikingly similar to the operation of these same processes in the human community' (1925b: 145). On ecological metaphors in Chicago School texts, cf. Gaziano (1996).
11. Elsewhere, Park connects Chicago School studies to two pillars of field-based anthropology:
The same patient methods of observation which anthropologists like Boas and Lowie have expended on the study of the life and manners of the North American Indian might be even more fruitfully employed in the investigation of the customs, beliefs, social practices, and general conceptions of life prevalent in Little Italy on the lower North Side in Chicago, or in recording the more sophisticated folkways of the inhabitants of Greenwich Village and the neighborhood of Washington Square, New York. (1925: 3)
Other explicit mentions of'field' studies include: Burgess (1925a: 62); Burgess (in Frazier, 1932: ix); Palmer (1928: 60, 219); Young (1931: 521).
12. Other mentions of the city as laboratory include: Breckinridge & White (1929: 194); Burgess (1929a: 47, 60-61, 63, 66); Burgess in Palmer (1928: vii, xvii); Palmer (1928: 176-77); Park (1925: 22, 45-46); Smith (1929: 221). Livingstone (2003: 35-37) describes Patrick Geddes' 'sociological laboratory' in 1892 Edinburgh.
13. Park says the same thing in his Foreword to Wirth's The Ghetto:
The ghetto, as it is here conceived, owes its existence, not to legal enactment, but to the fact that it meets a need and performs a social function. The ghetto is, in short, one of the so-called 'natural areas' of the city ... What have been called the 'natural areas of the city' are simply those regions whose locations, character, and functions have been determined by the same forces which have determined the character and functions of the city as a whole.
The ghetto is one of those natural areas. (In Wirth, 1928: lxvi-lxvii)
14. These measurement strategies are similar to the 'quadrat' techniques developed by biological ecologists (Kohler, 2002c: 100ff.;Tobey, 1981: Ch. 3).
15. Palmer adds that whatever 'laws and generalizations' might eventually emerge from social research, they 'must be verified by discoveries of what really occurs in group life' (1928: 35).
16. In their influential textbook Introduction to the Science of Sociology, Park and Burgess amplify their views about the greater precision enabled by experiment:
Sociology seems now, however, in a way to become, in some fashion or other, an experimental science. It will become so as soon as it can state existing problems in such a way that the results in one case will demonstrate what can and should be done in another. Experiments are going on in every field of social life, in industry, in politics, and in religion. In all these fields men are guided by some implicit or explicit theory of the situation, but this theory is not often stated in the form of a hypothesis and subjected to a test of the negative instances. We have, if it is permitted to make a distinction between them, investigation rather than research. (1921: 45)
17. Practices among life scientists that reduce the visual complexity of found reality via selective geometric simplifications are discussed in Lynch (1988) and, among geologists, in Rudwick (1976).
18. But, in the remainder of this extract, Wirth immediately rides the shuttle in the 'lab' direction (toward 'anywhere') by emphasizing the typical features common among types of cities, a point that he makes often: 'A scientific study of the city presupposes, however, that a study of a number of cities will reveal certain classes or types, the members of which have certain common characteristics which mark them off from other types' (1925: 175). That Wirth goes to both ends of the lab-field shuttle within the same text invites the conjecture that, for at least one member of the School, there is no contradiction involved in pursuing credibility from both directions at once. This situation also begins to suggest that characterizations of Chicago as either lab or field do not neatly align with specific authors or specific texts (or, indeed, with any other pattern that I could see): lab and field mingle within texts, and among different texts written by the same author. The situation may thus be a little different than the discursive segregation of 'contingent' and 'empiricist' repertoires in scientists' talk and texts analyzed by Gilbert & Mulkay (1984) - perhaps because lab and field complement each other in the pursuit of credibility, while contingent and empiricist seem more obviously contradictory.
19. Park writes much the same thing in his Preface to Anderson's The Hobo:
It is assumed that the study here made of the 'Hobohemia' of Chicago ... will at least be comparable with the natural areas and the problematic aspects of other US cities. It is, in fact, the purpose of these studies to emphasize not so much the particular and local as the generic and universal aspects of the city and its life, and so make these studies not merely a contribution to our information but to our permanent scientific knowledge of the city as a communal type. (In Anderson, 1923: vii-viii)
20. Wirth makes the Chicago ghetto into a specimen: 'If we knew the full story of the ghetto we would have a laboratory specimen for the sociologist that embodies all the concepts and the processes of his professional vocabulary' (1928: 287).
21. Using a now-archaic distinction between 'force' and 'factor', Burgess tries to separate local causes that are immediately visible in a concrete case from abstract causes having effects in any comparable situation:
A factor is thought of as a concrete cause for an individual event; a force is conceived to be an abstract cause for events in general so far as they are similar ... But as soon as the attention shifts from this one gang and this particular settlement to settlements in general and to gangs in general the transition is made from a factor to a force. A gang is a factor to a given settlement; the gang is a force from the standpoint of all settlements. (1925b: 143)
22. Zorbaugh took Palmer's instructions to heart: 'One has but to walk the streets of the Near North Side to sense the cultural isolation beneath these contrasts' (1929: 12). The contemporary significance of 'walking the streets' as a means to create the city as a meaningfully symbolic space was noted by de Certeau (2002). Mendelsohn (2003) traces the penchant of Alexandre Yersin (a 19th-century French microbiologist) for walking the streets of 'medieval' Paris as part of his scientific work back to the fldnerie tradition, to the plein air tradition among painters, and to novels by Zola and others that depict the city before its Haussmannization.
23. Pauline V. Young was trained at Chicago and her book was published in the University of Chicago Press series, although she did her fieldwork among the Molokan community of Los Angeles.
24. The relationship between Shaw and Stanley, a jack-roller, could hardly be described as disinterested (for either party). Stanley says: 'He [Shaw] was very happy that I had come, and said that he would get a job and a new home for me' and 'he already had a new set of clothes for me, which I put on immediately' (Shaw, 1930:168). When reporting on field observations or other case study materials, the Chicago School researchers seem little worried that they might become too close to their subjects - with risks for the authenticity and sincerity of collected data. But this is exactly what the laboratory end of the shuttle - objectivity from detachment - is designed to obviate.
25. Key works from the Los Angeles School include: Cenzatti (1993), Davis (1990, 1998), Scott & Soja (1996), Dear (2000, 2002b), and Soja (2002). The LA School has begun to attract critical attention: Garber (1999), Miller (2000), Abbott (2002), Gottdeiner (2002), Molotch (2002), Monahan (2002) and Sampson (2002). Especially relevant for the study of Los Angeles as a truth-spot are Beauregard (2003) and Ethington & Meeker (2002).
References
Abbott, Andrew (1999) Department and Discipline: Chicago Sociology at One Hundred ( Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press ).
Abbott, Andrew (2002) ‘Los Angeles and the Chicago School: A Comment on Michael Dear’ , City and Community 1: 33-38 .
Aubin, David (2003) ‘The Fading Star of the Paris Observatory in the Nineteenth Century: Astronomers’ Urban Culture of Circulation and Observation’ , Osiris, 2nd ser., 18: 79-100 .
Beauregard, Robert A. (2003) ‘City of Superlatives’ , City and Community 2: 183-199 .
Boas, Franz (1930) ‘Some Problems of Methodology in the Social Sciences’, in Leonard D. White (ed.), The New Social Science ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ): 84-98.
Bockman, Johanna & Gil Eyal (2002) ‘Eastern Europe as a Laboratory for Economic Knowledge: The Transnational Roots of Neoliberalism’ , American Journal of Sociology 108: 310-352 .
Bonneuil, Christophe (2004) ‘Beyond Risk: The Construction of GM-Crop Field Tests as a Social Problem in France’ , Conference paper, 4S/EASST, Paris, August.
Breckinridge, S.P. & L.D. White (1929) ‘Urban Growth and Problems of Social Control’, in T.V. Smith & Leonard D. White (eds), Chicago: An Experiment in Social Science Research ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ): 194-219.
Bulmer, Martin (1984) The Chicago School of Sociology: Institutionalization, Diversity and the Rise of Sociological Research ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ).
Burgess, Ernest W. (1925a) ‘The Growth of the City: An Introduction to a Research Project’, in Robert E. Park & Ernest W. Burgess (eds), The City ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ): 47-62.
Burgess, Ernest W. (1925b) ‘Can Neighborhood Work Have a Scientific Basis?’, in Robert E. Park & Ernest W. Burgess (eds), The City ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ): 142-155.
Burgess, Ernest W. (1929a) ‘Basic Social Data’, in T.V. Smith & Leonard D. White (eds), Chicago: An Experiment in Social Science Research ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ): 47-66.
Burgess, Ernest W. (1929b) ‘Urban Areas’, in T.V. Smith & Leonard D. White (eds), Chicago: An Experiment in Social Science Research ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ): 113-138.
Burkhardt, Richard W., Jr. (2000) ‘Ethology, Natural History, the Life Sciences, and the Problem of Place’ , Journal of the History of Biology 32: 489-508 .
Callon, Michel (1987) ‘Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis’, in Wiebe Bijker , Thomas P. Hughes & Trevor Pinch (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems ( Cambridge, MA: MIT Press ): 83-103.
Cenzatti, Marco (1993) Los Angeles and the L.A. School: Postmodernism and Urban Studies ( Los Angeles, CA: Forum for Architecture and Urban Design ).
Cressey, Paul G. (1932) The Taxi-Dance Hall ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ).
Cresswell, Tim (1996) In Place/Out of Place: Geography, Ideology and Transgression ( Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota Press ).
Cunningham, Andrew & Perry Williams (eds) (1992) The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine ( Cambridge:Cambridge University Press ).
Daston, Lorraine J. & Peter Galison (1992) ‘The Image of Objectivity’ , Representations 40: 81-128 .
Davis, Mike (1990) City of Quartz ( New York: Verso ).
Davis, Mike (1998) Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster ( New York: Random House ).
De Certeau, Michel (2002) The Practice of Everyday Life ( Berkeley, CA: University of California Press ).
Dear, Michael (2002a) ‘Los Angeles and the Chicago School: Invitation to a Debate’ , City and Community 1: 5-32 .
Dear, Michael (ed.) (2002b) From Chicago to L.A.: Making Sense of Urban Theory ( Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE Publications ).
Deegan, Mary Jo (1986) Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892-1918 ( New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction ).
Derksen, Maarten (2000) ‘Clinical Psychology and the Psychological Clinic’ , History and Philosophy of Psychology 2: 1-17 .
Dierig, Sven , Jens Lachmund & Andrew Mendelsohn (2003) ‘Introduction: Toward an Urban History of Science’ , Osiris, 2nd ser., 18: 1-20 .
Drayton, Richard (2000) Nature’s Government: Science, Imperial Britain and the ‘Improvement’ of the World ( New Haven, CT: Yale University Press ).
Ethington, Philip J. & Martin Meeker (2002) ‘Saber y Conocer: The Metropolis of Urban Inquiry’, in Michael Dear (ed.), From Chicago to L.A.: Making Sense of Urban Theory ( Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications): 405-420.
Fan, Fa-Ti (2003) ‘Science in a Chinese Entrepôt: British Naturalists and their Chinese Associates in Old Canton’ , Osiris, 2nd ser., 18: 60-78 .
Findlen, Paula (1994) Possessing Nature: Museums, Collecting, and Scientific Culture in Early Modern Italy ( Berkeley, CA: University of California Press ).
Fine, Gary Alan (1995) A Second Chicago School? The Development of a Postwar American Sociology (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ).
Forgan, Sophie & Graeme Gooday (1996) ‘Constructing South Kensington: The Buildings and Politics of T.H. Huxley’s Working Environments’ , British Journal for the History of Science 29: 435-468 .
Frazier, E. Franklin (1932) The Negro Family in America ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ).
Galison, Peter & Emily Thompson (eds) (1999) The Architecture of Science ( Cambridge, MA: MIT Press ).
Garber, J. (1999) ‘Reporting from the Scene of the Accident: Mike Davis and the American City’ , Studies in Political Economy 60: 90-120 .
Gaziano, Emanuel (1996) ‘Ecological Metaphors as Boundary Work’ , American Journal of Sociology 101:874-907 .
Geison, Gerald L. (1981) ‘Scientific Change, Emerging Specialties, and Research Schools’ , History of Science 19: 20-40 .
Gieryn, Thomas F. (1999) ‘Two Faces on Science: Building Identities for Molecular Biology and Biotechnology’, in Peter Galison & Emily Thompson (eds), The Architecture of Science ( Cambridge, MA:MIT Press ): 423-455.
Gieryn, Thomas F. (2002a) ‘Three Truth-Spots’ , Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 38: 113-132 .
Gieryn, Thomas F. (2002b) ‘What Buildings Do’ , Theory and Society 31: 35-74 .
Gieryn, Thomas F. (2005) ‘Instrumentalities of Place in Science and Art’, in Helmar Schramm , Ludger Schwarte & Jan Lazardzig (eds), Instrumente in Kunst und Wissenschaft: Zur Architektonik kultureller Grenzen im 17. Jahrhundert ( Berlin: Walter de Gruyter ) (In the Press).
Gilbert, G. Nigel & Michael Mulkay (1984) Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ).
Golinski, Jan (1998) Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History of Science ( Cambridge:Cambridge University Press ).
Goodwin, Charles (1995) ‘Seeing in Depth’ , Social Studies of Science 25: 237-274 .
Gosnell, Harold F. (1927) Getting Out the Vote: An Experiment in the Stimulations of Voting ( Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press ).
Gosnell, Harold F. (1929) ‘The Technique of Measurement’, in T.V. Smith & Leonard D. White (eds), Chicago: An Experiment in Social Science Research ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ): 90-112.
Gottdeiner, M. (2002) ‘Urban Analysis as Merchandizing: The “LA School” and the Understanding of Metropolitan Development’, in J. Eade & C. Mele (eds), Understanding the City ( Oxford: Blackwell ): 159-180.
Gross, Matthias (2003) Inventing Nature: Ecological Restoration by Public Experiments ( Lanham, MD:Lexington Books ).
Guerrini, Anita (2003) ‘Duverney’s Skeletons’ , Isis 94: 577-603 .
Gusterson, Hugh (1998) Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War ( Berkeley, CA:University of California Press ).
Hallett, Tim & Gary Alan Fine (2000) ‘Ethnography 1900: Learning from the Field Research of an Old Century’ , Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 29: 593-617 .
Hannaway, Owen (1986) ‘Laboratory Design and the Aim of Science’ , Isis 77: 585-610 .
Hanson, Elizabeth (2002) Animal Attractions: Nature on Display in American Zoos ( Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press ).
Heilbron, J.L. (1999) The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories ( Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press ).
Helford, Reid (1999) ‘Rediscovering the Presettlement Landscape: Making the Oak Savanna “Real”’ , Science, Technology, & Human Values 24: 55-79 .
Henke, Christopher R. (2000) ‘Making a Place for Science: The Field Trial’ , Social Studies of Science 30:483-511 .
Hevly, Bruce (1996) ‘The Heroic Science of Glacier Motion’ , Osiris, 2nd ser., 11: 66-86 .
Hunt, Darnell M. (2002) ‘Representing “Los Angeles”: Media, Space, and Place’, in Michael Dear (ed.), From Chicago to L.A.: Making Sense of Urban Theory ( Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications ): 321-342.
Hunter, Albert (1980) ‘Why Chicago? The Rise of the Chicago School of Urban Social Science’ , American Behavioral Scientist 24: 215-227 .
Jardine, Nicholas (2000) The Scenes of Inquiry ( Oxford: Oxford University Press ).
Jeter, Helen R. (1929) ‘Analyzing the Growth of the City’, in T.V. Smith & Leonard D. White (eds), Chicago: An Experiment in Social Science Research ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ): 67-77.
Josephson, Paul R. (1997) New Atlantis Revisited: Akademgorodok, the Siberian City of Science (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press ).
Joyce, Nancy E. (2004) Building Stata: The Design and Construction of Frank O. Gehry’s Stata Center at MIT ( Cambridge, MA: MIT Press ).
Knorr Cetina, Karin (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge ( Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press ).
Knowles, Scott G. & Stuart W. Leslie (2001) ‘“Industrial Versailles”: Eero Saarinen’s Corporate Campuses for GM, IBM and AT&T’ , Isis 92: 1-33 .
Kohler, Robert E. (2002a) ‘Place and Practice in Field Biology’ , History of Science 40: 189-210
Kohler, Robert E. (2002b) ‘Labscapes: Naturalizing the Laboratory’ , History of Science 40: 473-501 .
Kohler, Robert E. (2002c) Landscapes and Labscapes: Exploring the Lab-Field Border in Biology ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ).
Krohn, Wolfgang & Johannes Weyer (1994) ‘Society as a Laboratory: The Social Risks of Experimental Research’ , Science and Public Policy 21: 173-183 .
Kuklick, Henrika (1980) ‘Chicago Sociology and Urban Planning Policy: Sociological Theory as Occupational Ideology’ , Theory and Society 9: 821-845 .
Lachmund, Jens (2003) ‘Exploring the City of Rubble: Botanical Fieldwork in Bombed Sites in Germany after World War II’ , Osiris, 2nd ser., 18: 234-254 .
Lachmund, Jens (2004) ‘Knowing the Urban Wasteland: Ecological Expertise as Local Process’, in Sheila Jasanoff & Marybeth Long Martello (eds), Earthly Politics: Local and Global in Environmental Governance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press ): 241-261.
Lafuente, Antonio & Tiago Saraiva (2004) ‘The Urban Scale of Science and the Enlargement of Madrid (1851-1936)’ , Social Studies of Science 34: 531-569 .
Latour, Bruno (1983) ‘Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World’, in Karin D. Knorr-Cetina & Michael Mulkay (eds), Science Observed ( London: SAGE Publications ): 141-170.
Latour, Bruno (1999) Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies ( Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press ).
Law, John (1987) ‘Technology and Heterogeneous Engineering: The Case of Portuguese Expansion’, in Wiebe Bijker , Thomas P. Hughes & Trevor Pinch (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems ( Cambridge, MA: MIT Press ): 111-134.
Lindner, Rolf (1996) The Reportage of Urban Culture: Robert Park and the Chicago School ( Cambridge:Cambridge University Press ).
Livingstone, David (2003) Putting Science in Its Place: Geographies of Scientific Knowledge ( Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press ).
Lynch, Michael (1988) ‘The Externalized Retina: Selection and Mathematization in the Visual Documentation of Objects in the Life Sciences’ , Human Studies 11: 201-234 .
MacDonald, Sharon (ed.) (1998) The Politics of Display: Museums, Science, Culture ( London: Routledge ).
McCook, Stuart (1996) ‘“It May Be Truth, But It Is Not Evidence”: Paul du Chaillu and the Legitimation of Evidence in the Field Sciences’ , Osiris, 2nd ser., 11: 177-197 .
McKenzie, R.D. (1925) ‘The Ecological Approach to the Study of the Human Community’, in Robert E. Park & Ernest W. Burgess (eds), The City ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ): 63-79.
Masco, Joseph (1999) ‘States of Insecurity: Plutonium and Post-Cold War Anxiety in New Mexico, 1992-96’, in Jutta Weldes (ed.), Cultures of Insecurity ( Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press ): 203-231.
Mendelsohn, J. Andrew (2003) ‘The Microscopist of Modern Life’ , Osiris, 2nd ser., 18: 150-170 .
Mitman, Gregg (1996) ‘When Nature Is the Zoo: Vision and Power in the Art and Science of Natural History’, Osiris, 2nd ser., 11: 117-143 .
Molotch, Harvey (2002) ‘School’s Out: A Response to Michael Dear’ , City and Community 1: 39-43 .
Monahan, Torin (2002) ‘Los Angelas Studies: The Emergence of a Speciality Field’ , City and Society 14:155-184 .
Mukerji, Chandra (1997) Territorial Ambitions and the Gardens of Versailles ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ).
Murray, Narisara (2004) Lives of the Zoo: Charismatic Animals in the Social Worlds of the Zoological Gardens of London, 1850-1897, PhD dissertation, Indiana University.
Ophir, Adi & Steven Shapin (1991) ‘The Place of Knowledge: A Methodological Survey’ , Science in Context 4: 3-21 .
Outram, Dorinda (1996) ‘New Spaces in Natural History’, in N. Jardine , J.A. Secord & E.C. Spary (eds), Cultures of Natural History ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ): 249-265.
Palmer, Vivien M. (1928) Field Studies in Sociology: A Student’s Manual ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ).
Park, Robert E. (1925) ‘The City: Suggestions for the Investigation of Human Behavior in the Urban Environment’, in Robert E. Park & Ernest W. Burgess (eds), The City ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ): 1-46.
Park, Robert E. (1929) ‘The City as Social Laboratory’, in T.V. Smith & Leonard D. White (eds), Chicago: An Experiment in Social Science Research ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ): 1-19.
Park, Robert E. & Ernest W. Burgess (1921) Introduction to the Science of Sociology ( Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press ).
Park, Robert E. & Ernest W. Burgess (eds) (1925) The City ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ).
Persons, Stow (1987) Ethnic Studies at Chicago 1905-45 ( Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press ).
Picon, Antoine (2003) ‘Nineteenth-Century Cartography and the Urban Ideal in Paris’ , Osiris, 2nd ser., 18:135-149 .
Pols, Hans (2003) ‘Anomie in the Metropolis: The City in American Sociology and Psychiatry’ , Osiris, 2nd ser., 18: 194-211 .
Raushenbush, Winifred (1979) Robert E. Park: Biography of a Sociologist ( Durham, NC: Duke University Press ).
Rees, Amanda (2001) ‘Practising Infanticide, Observing Narrative: Controversial Texts in a Field Science’ , Social Studies of Science 31: 507-531 .
Rice, Stuart A. (1931) ‘Hypotheses and Verifications in Clifford R. Shaw’s Studies of Juvenile Delinquency’, in Stuart A. Rice (ed.), Method in Social Science: A Case Book ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ):549-565.
Richmond, Marsha L. (1997) ‘“A Lab of One’s Own”: The Balfour Biological Laboratory for Women at Cambridge University, 1884-1914’ , Isis 88: 422-455 .
Roth, Wolff-Michael & G. Michael Bowen (2001) ‘“Creative Solutions” and Fibbing Results: Enculturation in Field Ecology’ , Social Studies of Science 31: 533-556 .
Rothfels, Nigel (2002) Savages and Beasts: The Birth of the Modern Zoo ( Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press ).
Rudwick, Martin J.S. (1976) ‘The Emergence of a Visual Language for Geological Science, 1760-1840’ , History of Science 14: 149-195 .
Ruml, Beardsley (1930) ‘Recent Trends in Social Science’, in Leonard D. White (ed.), The New Social Science ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ): 90-111.
Sampson, Robert J. (2002) ‘Studying Modern Chicago’ , City and Community 1: 45-48 .
Sampson, Robert J. , Jeffrey D. Morenoff & Thomas Gannon-Rowley (2002) ‘Assessing Neighborhood Effects: Social Processes and New Directions in Research’ , Annual Review of Sociology 28: 443-479 .
Scott, Allen J. (1996) ‘High-Technology Industrial Development in the San Fernando Valley and Ventura County: Observations on Economic Growth and the Evolution of Urban Form’, in Allen J. Scott & Edward W. Soja (eds), The City: Los Angeles and Urban Theory at the End of the Twentieth Century ( Berkeley, CA:University of California Press ): 276-310.
Scott, Allen J. & Edward W. Soja (eds) (1996) The City: Los Angeles and Urban Theory at the End of the Twentieth Century ( Berkeley, CA: University of California Press ).
Secord, Anne (1994) ‘Science in the Pub: Artisan Botanists in Early Nineteenth Century Lancashire’ , History of Science 25: 269-315 .
Servos, John (1993) ‘Research Schools and their History’ , Osiris, 2nd ser., 8: 2-15 .
Shackelford, Joel (1993) ‘Tycho Brahe, Laboratory Design and the Aim of Science’ , Isis 84: 211-230 .
Shapin, Steven (1988) ‘The House of Experiment in Seventeenth-Century England’ , Isis 79: 373-404 .
Shapin, Steven (1995) ‘Cordelia’s Love: Credibility and the Social Studies of Science’ , Perspectives on Science 3: 255-275 .
Shapin, Steven (1998) ‘Placing the View from Nowhere: Historical and Sociological Problems in the Location of Science’ , Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, n.s., 23: 5-12 .
Shaw, Clifford R. (1930) The Jack-Roller: A Delinquent Boy’s Own Story ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ).
Shaw, Clifford R. (1931) The Natural History of a Delinquent Career ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ).
Shore, Marlene (1987) The Science of Social Redemption: McGill, the Chicago School, and the Origins of Social Research in Canada ( Toronto: University of Toronto Press ).
Silbey, Susan S. & Patricia Ewick (2003) ‘The Architecture of Authority: The Place of Law in the Space of Science’, in Austin Sarat , Lawrence Douglas & Martha Umphrey (eds), The Place of Law ( Ann Arbor, MI:University of Michigan Press ): 75-108.
Simmel, Georg (1971 [1903]) ‘The Metropolis and Mental Life’, in G. Simmel, On Individuality and Social Forms ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ): 324-339.
Simmel, Georg (1971 [1908]) ‘The Stranger’, in G. Simmel, On Individuality and Social Forms ( Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press ): 143-149.
Smith, Crosbie & Jon Agar (eds) (1998) Making Space for Science: Territorial Themes in the Shaping of Knowledge ( London: Macmillan ).
Smith, T.V. (1929) ‘Social Science Research and the Community’, in T.V. Smith & Leonard D. White (eds), Chicago: An Experiment in Social Science Research ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ): 220-247.
Smith, T.V. & Leonard D. White (eds) (1929) Chicago: An Experiment in Social Science Research (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ).
Soja, Edward W. (1989) Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory (New York: Verso ).
Soja, Edward W. (1996a) ‘Los Angeles, 1965-1992: From Crisis-Generated Restructuring to Restructuring-Generated Crisis’, in Allen J. Scott & Edward W. Soja (eds), The City: Los Angeles and Urban Theory at the End of the Twentieth Century ( Berkeley, CA: University of California Press ): 426-462.
Soja, Edward W. (1996b) Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places (Oxford: Blackwell ).
Sorrenson, Richard (1996) ‘The Ship as a Scientific Instrument in the Eighteenth Century’ , Osiris, 2nd ser., 11: 221-236 .
Tobey, Ronald C. (1981) Saving the Prairies: The Life Cycle of the Founding School of American Plant Ecology, 1895-1955 ( Berkeley, CA: University of California Press ).
Todes, Daniel P. (2002) Pavlov’s Physiology Factory: Experiment, Interpretation, Laboratory Enterprise (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press ).
Traweek, Sharon (1988) Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists ( Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press ).
Wakeman, Rosemary (2003) ‘Dreaming the New Atlantis: Science and the Planning of Technopolis, 1955-1985’ , Osiris, 2nd ser., 18: 255-270 .
Walton, John (1993) ‘Urban Sociology: The Contribution and Limits of Political Ecology’ , Annual Review of Sociology 19: 301-321 .
Waterton, Claire (2002) ‘From Field to Fantasy: Classifying Nature, Constructing Europe’ , Social Studies of Science 32: 177-204 .
Weiner, Dora & Michael Sauter (2003) ‘The City of Paris and the Rise of Clinical Medicine’ , Osiris, 2nd ser., 18: 23-42 .
Weinstein, Richard S. (1996) ‘The First American City’, in Allen J. Scott & Edward W. Soja (eds), The City: Los Angeles and Urban Theory at the End of the Twentieth Century ( Berkeley, CA: University of California Press ): 22-46.
Weisz, George (2001) ‘Spas, Mineral Waters, and Hydrological Science in Twentieth-Century France’ , Isis 92: 451-483 .
White, Leonard D. (1929a) ‘The Local Community Research Committee and the Social Science Research Building’, in T.V. Smith & Leonard D. White (eds), Chicago: An Experiment in Social Science Research (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ): 20-32.
White, Leonard D. (1929b) ‘Co-operation with Civic and Social Agencies’, in T.V. Smith & Leonard D. White (eds), Chicago: An Experiment in Social Science Research ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ): 33-46.
Wirth, Louis (1925) ‘A Bibliography of the Urban Community’, in Robert E. Park & Ernest W. Burgess (eds), The City ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ): 161-228.
Wirth, Louis (1928) The Ghetto ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ).
Young, Kimball (1931) ‘Frederic M. Thrasher’s Study of Gangs’, in Stuart A. Rice (ed.), Method in Social Science: A Case Book ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ): 511-527.
Zorbaugh, Harvey W. (1929) The Gold Coast and the Slum ( Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press ).
Full Text
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق