Ethnography of Science In Situ or Trans Situ: Some “Trivial” Lessons from Classical Lab Studies for the Anthropology of Science

Abstract

This article examines the contested legacy of classical laboratory studies in contemporary science and technology studies (STS). While laboratory ethnographies are recognized as foundational to STS, recent scholars question whether they convincingly demonstrate the (social) construction of scientific facts. This skepticism stems from reductionist readings that treat classical laboratory studies as a relatively homogeneous sub-field. This article recovers the internal diversity of first-wave laboratory ethnographies to demonstrate their continued relevance for studying contemporary science. Through analysis of controversies among seminal authors (B. Latour, K. Knorr-Cetina, M. Lynch, and S. Traweek), the article focuses on ostensibly “trivial” disputes over the pragmatics of lab ethnographies. It also examines why the first wave of laboratory research generated few successors and why its key authors did not replicate their own studies. The central contribution is a more differentiated understanding of the anthropology of science, particularly regarding the distinction between in situ and trans situ ethnographies.