1,150
Views
15
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
ARTICLES

Epistemic Objects and Embeddedness: Knowledge Construction and Narratives in Research Networks of Practice

&
Pages 139-159 | Received 15 Jun 2013, Accepted 15 Jul 2014, Published online: 19 Mar 2015

REFERENCES

  • Akrich, M. 1992. The de-scription of technical objects. In Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, ed. W. E. Bijker and J. Law, 205–24. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Barad, K. 2003. Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs 28(3): 801–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/345321
  • Behrensmeyer, A. K., S. M. Kidwell, and R. A. Gastaldo. 2000. Taphonomy and paleobiology. Paleobiology 26(4 Suppl.): 103–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1666/0094-8373(2000)26%5b103:TAP%5d2.0.CO;2
  • Braidwood, R. J., B. Howe, H. Helbaek, F. R. Matson, C. A. Reed, and H. E. J. Wright. 1960. Prehistoric investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Braidwood, R. J., J. D. Sauer, H. Helbaek, P. C. Mangelsdorf, H. C. Cutler, C. S. Coon, R. Linton, J. Steward, and L. A. Oppenheim. 1953. Symposium: Did man once live by beer alone? American Anthropologist 55(4): 515–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/aa.1953.55.4.02a00050
  • Brown, J. S. and P. Duguid. 2001. Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science 12(2): 198–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.2.198.10116
  • Bruner, J. S. 1986. Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Bruner, J. S. 1990. Acts of meaning. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Bruner, J. S. 1991. The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry 18(1): 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/448619
  • Callon, M. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In Power, action, and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? Socioogical review monograph 32, ed. J. Law, 196–233. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  • Callon, M. 1991. Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In A sociology of monsters. Essays on power technology and domination, ed. J. Law , 132–61. London, UK: Routledge.
  • Carlile, P. R. 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science 13(4): 442–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953
  • Chen, C. 2006. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57(3): 359–77. doi:10.1002/asi.20317
  • Chen, C. 2011. Turning points: The nature of creativity. New York, NY: Springer.
  • Childe, V. G. 1936. Man makes himself. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Daston, L. 2000. Introduction: The coming into being of scientific objects. In Biographies of scientific objects, ed. L. Daston, 1–14. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Desrochers, P., and C. Hoffbauer. 2009. The post war intellectual roots of the population bomb. Fairfield Osborn's ‘Our Plundered Planet’ and William Vogt's ‘Road to Survival’ in retrospect. Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development 1(3): 73–97.
  • Ehrlich, P. R. 1968. The population bomb. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
  • Engeström, Y., R. Engeström, and M. Karkkainen. 1995. Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction 5(4): 319–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(95)00021-6
  • French, D. H. 1971. An experiment in water-sieving. Anatolian Studies 21(January): 59–64. doi:10.2307/3642629.
  • Fujimura, J. H. 1992. Crafting science: Standardized packages, boundary objects, and “ translation.” In Science as practice and culture, ed. A. Pickering, 168–211. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Glaser, B. G. 1978. Advances in the methodology of grounded theory: Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
  • Glaser, B. G., and A. L. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. New York, NY: Aldine.
  • Goldman, A. 2010. Introduction. In Social epistemology, ed. A. Haddock, A. Millar and D. Pritchard, 1–28. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure. The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91(1): 481–510. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/228311
  • Heidegger, M. 1962. Being and time. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
  • Heller, A. 1988. The moral situation in modernity. Social Research 55(4): 531–50.
  • Hillman, G. 1973. Crop husbandry and food production: Modern models for the interpretation of plant remains. Anatolian Studies 23, 241–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3642543
  • Hodder, I. 2012. Entangled. An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Hole, F., K. Flannery, and J. Neely. 1969. Prehistory and human ecology of the Deh Luran Plain (University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology Memoir no. 1.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology.
  • Kallinikos, J. 2012. Form, function, and matter: Crossing the border of materiality. In Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world, ed. P. M. Leonardi, B. A. Nardi and J. Kallinikos, 68–87. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Knorr Cetina, K. D. 1999. Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Knorr Cetina, K. D. 2001. Objectual practice. In The practice turn in contemporary theory, ed. T. R. K. C. Schatzki and E. Von Savigny, 175–88. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Latour, B. 2000. On the partial existence of existing, and nonexisting objects. In Biographies of scientific objects, ed. L. Daston, 247–69. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the social. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Latour, B.. and S. Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts, 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Lave, J. 1991. Situating learning in communities of practice. In Perspectives on socially shared cognition, ed. L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, and S. D. Teasley, 63–82. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Law, J. 1992. Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice 5(4): 379–93. doi:10.1007/BF01059830.
  • Law, J. 2004. After method: Mess in social science research. Oxford, UK: Routledge.
  • Leonardi, P. 2012. Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: What do these terms mean? In Materiality and organizing, ed. P. M. Leonardi, B. A. Nardi, and J. Kallinikos, 25–48. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Lincoln, Y. S, and E. G. Guba. 2000. Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In Handbook of qualitative research, ed. N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 2nd ed., 163–88. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • MacKenzie, D. A. and J. Wajcman. 1999. Introductory essay. In The social shaping of technology, 2nd ed., ed. D. A. Mackenzie, and J. Wajcman, 3–27. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
  • Manovich, L. 1999. Database as symbolic form. Convergence 5(2): 80–99.
  • Marinova, E., V. Linseele, and M. Kühn. 2013. Bioarchaeological research on animal dung: Possibilities and limitations. Environmental Archaeology 18(1): 1–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/1461410313Z.00000000023
  • Miettinen, R. and J. Virkkunen. 2005. Epistemic objects, artefacts and organizational change. Organization 12(3): 437–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1350508405051279
  • Miller, N. F. 1984. The use of dung as fuel: An ethnographic example and an archaeological application. Paléorient 10(2): 71–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/paleo.1984.941
  • Miller, N. F. 1997. The analysis of archaeological plant remains. In Research frontiers in anthropology. Volume 2: Archaeology, ed. C. R. Ember, M. Ember, and P. N. Peregrine, 1–16. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Miller, N. F. and T. L. Smart. 1984. Intentional burning of dung as fuel: A mechanism for the incorporation of charred seeds into the archaeological record. Journal of Ethnobiology 4: 15–28.
  • Minnis, P. E. 1981. Seeds in archaeological sites: Sources and some interpretive problems. American Antiquity 46: 143–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/279993
  • Moore, S. F. 1987. Explaining the present: Theoretical dilemmas in processual ethnography. American Ethnologist 14(1): 727–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/ae.1987.14.4.02a00080
  • Nardi, B. 2007. Placeless organizations: Collaborating for transformation. Mind, Culture, and Activity 14(1–2): 5–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749030701307663
  • Orlikowski, W. J. and J. Yates. 1994. Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations. Administrative Sciences Quarterly 33(3): 541–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393771
  • Pearsall, D. M. 1989. Paleoethnobotany: A handbook of procedures. New York, NY: Academic Press.
  • Polanyi, K. 1971. The great transformation. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
  • Rapport, N. 2000. The narrative as fieldwork technique. In Constructing the field: Ethnographic fieldwork in the contemporary world, ed. V. Amit, 71–95. Florence, KY: Routledge.
  • Renfrew, C., and P. G. Bahn, ed. 2005. Archaeology: The key concepts. Routledge key guides. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Rheinberger, H. J. 1997. Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Rheinberger, H. J. 2000. Cytoplasmic particles: The trajectory of a scientific object. In Biographies of scientific objects, ed. L. Daston, 270–94. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Small, H. 1973. Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 24(4): 265–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406
  • Star, S. L. 1995. The politics of formal representations: Wizards, gurus and organizational complexity. In Ecologies of knowledge: Work and politics in science and technology, ed. S. L. Star, 88–118. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  • Star, S. L. and J. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology, ‘Translations,’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science 19: 387–420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001
  • Struever, S. 1968. Flotation techniques for the recovery of small-scale archaeological remains. American Antiquity 33(3): 353–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/278703
  • Watson, P. J. 2006. Robert John Braidwood [19072003]: A biographical memoir. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
  • Watson, P. J. 2009. Archaeology and anthropology: A personal overview of the past half-century. Annual Review of Anthropology 38(1): 1–15.
  • Waugh, D. 2004. Unpacking evidence: Material culture/objects. Center for History and New Media. https://chnm.gmu.edu/worldhistorysources/unpacking/objectsmain.html (accessed November 20, 2014).
  • Weber, M. 1968. Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. New York, NY: Bedminster Press.
  • Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice—Learning meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Werner, O., and G. M. Schoepfle. 1987. Systematic fieldwork. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
  • White, H. 1973. Interpretation in history. New Literary History 4(2): 281–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/468478

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.