# Science of Science and Reflexivity

Science of Science and Reflexivity is a book of Sociology of science written by Pierre Bourdieu, published in 2004 by The University of Chicago Press. It appeared in French in 2001 as Science de la science et réflexivite, Editions Raisons d' Agir.

## Synopsis

Translated into English shortly after the death of his author and based on the final course given at the College de France, this work defends science's and sociology's capacity to produce objective, transhistorical truths although, or better because, it is based on determined socio-historical and cultural conditions. Science's "historical production of transhistorical truths" is due, according to the author, to the fact that in their pursuits scientists agree that their production is vetted by their most direct and prepared antagonists and competitors. To make this case, Bourdieu mobilizes his concepts of "field", "habitus", "disposition", and "symbolic capital". The work is organized in three parts, where the first is an overview of the field of science studies, the second illustrates Bourdieu's own theory, and the third one, announced as a discussion on the need for reflexivity in sociology of science, also includes an autobiographic account of Bourdieu's own trajectory.

## Content

The first section of the book entitled "The state of the question" is an account of the sociology of science studies, discussing Robert Merton, Thomas Kuhn and more recent scholars David Bloor, Barry Barnes, Harry Collins, Steven Shapin, Karin Knorr-Cetina, focusing with a rather severe critique on the work of Bruno Latour. The critique of the constructivist work of Latour, of his laboratory studies and actor network theory, is considered by most readers as dogmatic, not fully justified, or based on a misreading of the theses of Latour. According to sociologist Charles Camic, in this first section of his book Bourdieu appears to believe that important work had already been done by Bourdieu himself, which "the new sociologists of science noisily discover and unveil".$^{:107}$
Bourdieu believes that science in general, and sociology in particular, are subject to a double threat, one external from socioeconomic and political incursions against the autonomy of science, and one internal from sociological deconstruction that denies science's capacity to achieve objective knowledge and transhistorical truths. In his view the second challenge may provide ammunition to the first.
In a second section entitled "A world apart" Bourdieu presents a summary of his own science of science framework based on the concepts of habits, practices, field, and symbolic capital. Field is intended – as in physics – as a space ruled by the relative forces of the actors that occupy it, with incumbents endowed with larger symbolic capital that exert stronger action to preserve or modify the field itself. In turn symbolic capital includes scientific capital proper (personal or of the researcher's affiliation) and administrative/temporal capital, linked e.g. to power in the allocation of resources. "Disposition" can be exemplified as:
   'a refusal of the heroic and revolutionary';$^{:107}$ a recalcitrance toward the education system;$^{:111}$ and audacity, elegance, and ease.$^{:44}$
while "habitus" are principles of production of practices differentiated according to variables of sex, social origin, and disciplinary customs and dispositions.$^{:42}$
A key passage of this second part is Bourdeu's vision of the Archimedean point of view achieved by science (italics from Bourdieu):
   The fact that producers tend to have as their clients only their most rigorous and vigorous competitors, the most competent and the most critical, those therefore most inclined and most able to give their critique full force, is for me the Archimedean point on which one can stand to give a scientific account of scientific reason, to rescue scientific reason from relativistic reduction and explain how science can constantly progress towards more rationality without having to appeal to some kind of founding miracle.$^{:54}$
What is that makes research "A world apart"? Bourdieu lists five element that distinguish science from other human endeavors. These are a faith in rationality, a belief or pretension in the disinterestedness of science that he calls a scientific illusio, instruments and epistemological tools that are used in science, mathematics, and the experimental method.$^{:50–66}$ Yet this could be at the same time, for a commentator, just Bourdieu's 'own brand of socioanalysis'.
In the third section entitled "Why the social sciences must take themselves as their object" Bourdieu analyzes what social sciences need to do to become scientific. The comparison with natural sciences shows that part of their success descend from them having conquered a relative autonomy from the rest of society. Social inquiry is more entangled with societal interests and pressures.$^{:87}$ In the words of Bourdieu:
   One may wonder why the social sciences have so much difficulty in winning recognition of their autonomy, why it is so hard to gain acceptance for a discovery outside the field and even within it. The social sciences, and especially sociology, have an object too important (it interests everyone, starting with the powerful), too controversial, for it to be left to their discretion, [...] for them to be granted the same degree of autonomy as is given to the other sciences.$^{:87}$
Social investigators can overcome these challenges by becoming especially reflexive and inquisitive of their own presuppositions and bias in the pursuit of their investigations.
Part 3 also contains a self-analysis from the author, who shows in this way how he is willing to apply the reflexivity recipe to himself, offering to the reader an analysis of how his own habitus and dispositions have evolved over the course of his carrier.
For Theodore Schatzki Bourdieu's theory for a sociohistorical enterprise leading to transhistorical truths, couched into his habitus-practice-field framework, is very close to the Habermasian idea that scientific disputes are settled by “the force of the better argument.”$^{:82}$ For sociologist David R. Inglis Bourdieu's framework is also close to Karl Popper’s notion of constant ‘conjectures and refutations’ - be it that for Bourdieu neither Habermas nor Popper detail the specific social nature of the arrangements leading to this outcome.
An effective summary of the thesis of Bourdieu in this work work is offered by Inglis:
   In sum, then, the scientific field’s antagonistic relations, far from undercutting the pursuit of truth, are in fact the preconditions for such a pursuit, but only so long as the field itself is autonomous of external forces which would otherwise pervert its dialogical operations.