Report of a workshop at the University of Amsterdam, 27-29 April 2005, organised by Brian Balmer, University College London, & Sally Wyatt, University of Amsterdam

This workshop grew, in part, from recognising a number of shared concerns that both of us felt when reading student work in Science and Technology Studies, and from talking with colleagues who shared similar experiences. Even the best student writing could provoke such uncharitable thoughts as: What is this a case study of? What does it add to our understanding of different concepts? How does it contribute to discussions of anything outside the case study? How can the student think it reasonable to use concepts from completely different normative and epistemological traditions in the same case study? There seemed to be some missing middle ground, something that would add up to more than ‘not just another case study’. Going beyond such frustrations, we began to wonder if these problems were arising because of the ways in which STS is presented in the literature and in teaching. Fixing the blame on ourselves, we asked, how, given the state of the academic field, would students know to do anything differently? In Amsterdam in April 2005, 24 academics came together for three days aiming to discuss the role of middle-range theories in Science and Technology Studies. The majority of participants were based in British or Dutch institutions, though not all of these people are British or Dutch. Eleven of the 24 participants were women (though all of the professors present were men). All were white. Younger scholars were well represented: three current PhD students; three people who have received their PhDs within the past 12 months and a further three who have received their PhDs within the past 2-3 years. Our original invitation to participants included the following paragraphs:

Within STS there are a few ‘grand theories’ such as ANT and SCOT. STS scholars have also put forward various programmatic statements, such as the Strong Programme and more recently the ‘Third Wave’ of science studies. In contrast, numerous detailed empirical studies exist which add to our understanding of particular concerns but may not, or are not intended to, generalise beyond their substantive areas of concern. Studies can often appear to trade-off abstraction and generalisation with the demands of remaining faithful to the complexity of their empirical material. While this may or may not be a necessary or desirable feature of STS, it is usually not explicitly discussed as a choice. Our aim is to make this gap, between the empirical richness of individual studies and the development of middle-range theory, the topic of focused and critical workshop discussion.

We are seeking four types of contribution in the form of a paper for circulation prior to the meeting.

• Whether or not we need ‘middle-range theory’ or other ways of bridging between focused studies and ‘grand theories’

• Contributions which use on-going empirical research to reflect upon these ‘middle-range’ issues

• Contributions which focus on the problems of operationalising ‘grand’ STS theories

• Contributions which focus on ways of developing the skills of presenting such material.

Looking back at the invitation, during and after the workshop, it included two implicit assumptions that could be interrogated further. The first, echoing Robert Merton, is that we wanted to raise the question of whether or not STS should be more engaged with producing theories of the middle range in order to avoid the mistakes Merton associated with sociology. In Social Theory and Social Structures, Merton argued for ‘theories that lie between the minor but necessary working hypotheses that evolve in abundance during day-to-day research and the all-inclusive systematic efforts to develop a unified theory that will explain all the observed uniformities of social behaviour, social organisation and social change’ (Merton, 1968: 39). According to Merton, failure to develop middle range theory prevented sociology from maturing as a science – a direction, needless to say, STS scholars would be sceptical of following. Of more contemporary relevance, for Merton the failure to develop such theories, by focusing instead on the production of descriptions or the production of theories of everything, meant that sociology was unable to engage with wider audiences for its work. For Merton, middle-range theory meant engaging with reality, albeit a limited aspect of it; producing theoretical accounts that engaged with that reality which themselves could be used to communicate with others, whether policy-makers or scholars from other disciplines; and providing ideas for future work. In the words of today, Merton was concerned with issues of accountability and engagement, and it remains an important consideration whether theories of the middle range would facilitate different sorts of engagement for STS. The second assumption is that our invitation, also following Merton, conceptualised the middle as the space between the theoretical imagination and the richly empirical textures of lived experience. One of the main areas of discussion during the workshop was precisely about how limited this second assumption was, that the middle is much more complicated. Indeed, as the assumptions in our original invitation were dissected and challenged in the workshop papers and discussions, the topic of ‘middle-range theory in STS’ proved to be a fruitful one for considering the state of STS and theorising more generally. Our formulation of the problem was not shared by everyone, with some participants suggesting that even by thinking about the middle we were in fact reinforcing the divide between the micro and the macro (Woolgar). But, the spirit was correct in suggesting that STS needs something to avert the dangers of repeating ourselves, of losing our critical – some argued anarchic and mischief-making – edge. Although the workshop group was small, there were nevertheless too many voices and perspectives aired over the three days to even suggest that we could offer a definitive statement about the middle-range. Some participants were cautious of speaking on behalf of a homogenised entity called ‘STS’, and most, if not all, recognised that a diverse range of positions on the significance of the ‘middle’ was inevitable. Our aim, in this brief report, is to provide some flavour of the discussions, organised around a series of questions that were revisited over the course of the workshop, and which we, the organisers, have identitfied as the most interesting/productive currents of debate.

What or where is the middle range? Our discussions ranged between thinking of the middle range as an adjective, as in middle-range theory, as a noun or place and as a verb or process. When middle-range is used as an adjective, it is closest to Merton’s conception, the moving between theory and data (Morris & Balmer; Geels). When middle range is used as a noun or as a place it becomes liminal: the place between theories, between audiences, between levels. Discussion touched on whether this middle range place is an (empty) space/gap between case studies and theory, or the grey area where the two already meet and mix but which is not properly interrogated? Can we think of the middle as a location of shared concerns? (Rappert) Alternatively, when ‘to middle range’ is used as a verb (Brown), it becomes a process or performance, middling but not muddling. Then middle ranging is a way of making connections across time, discipline, community and place. All three of these ways of thinking about the middle range do have some sense of movement, and it is that capacity for moving, travelling or resonating that seemed, to many at the workshop, most important.

What do we want [theories in] STS to do?
For logical positivists, theories are the most concise summaries of as many empirical facts as possible. Workshop participants articulated a number of very different ideas about theories and their utility (Rip). Theories can be explanations or interpretations; they are sets of related concepts; they can be used ‘to shoot holes in essentialisms’. In STS, some of the things we call theories, such as SCOT and ANT may, some argued, actually be better understood as methodologies or ontologies. Theories can be communication devices, namely abstractions or generalisations which can help us to convey our ideas to policy makers (and other non-academic groups), to students, between different academic communities, or between STS scholars studying different objects. In turn, this latter version of theory opened up questions about how to theorise audiences within and beyond STS.

Does opening up the middle open up new questions, new methods? Again, discussion ranged widely around this topic over the course of the workshop. Are (ethnographic) case studies the only way to do STS research? Is there not a danger that case studies in STS carry a hidden commitment to realism? (Brown) What is the basis for the constant moral pressure to relate “micro” level work to the “bigger picture”? Is there, on the other hand, sometimes a zealousness associated with doing micro-level, case study work? If so, is this because the micro is seen as more ‘real’, more ‘authentic’? Does standardisation of methods lead to less interesting theorising? Are methods within STS already too standardised (in the form of case studies) or would middle ranging itself lead to standardisation? (Zeiss & Hope) Within STS we are very good at opening up the methods of others but perhaps less good at doing it for ourselves. Some of the papers in the workshop directly countered this tendency by exploring the links between ‘middle-range’ and method (Geels), thinking through practices such as: multi-sited ethnography (Hine); memory work (Berg); distinguishing for methodological purposes between action (to be analysed) and scenery (to be black-boxed) (Collins); ‘exnovating’ data (Mesman); and the analysis of temporality (Beaulieu, Scharnhorst & Wouters).

Why would we want a middle-range sensibility? A fourth theme that was discussed from the outset was the very desirability of anything in the middle. After all, why would we want, if not a middle-range theory, at least a middle-range sensibility? Would it facilitate legitimation within the academy, would it enable inter- and trans-disciplinarity? Would it allow STS concepts to travel? Or, as posed by some participants, would having a middle help STS to be at the centre of sociology (or other STS ‘parent’ disciplines) (Yearley), of adjunct disciplines (such as political science or policy studies), or of policy-making itself (Hagendijk; Farrands)? Alternatively, does an STS sensibility open up the ‘middle’ for other disciplines, such as urban studies (Coutard & Guy)? So, some participants wanted ideas that can travel and resonate between disciplines, between research and policy/politics, between STS colleagues working on different topics, or with students. If not middle-range theories, some wanted ‘tellable’ stories (Simakova). But this resonance and tellability is not a transcendental or essential quality, again it is about people themselves being connected in a moment of resonance. Returning to the idea of the middle range as a noun, middle range is frequently regarded as a possible bridge between micro the macro, but – as the workshop discussion soon established – the metaphor of a bridge presupposes you know what the fixed points are and its linearity can be restrictive. A different metaphor would be that of a lens, that allows simultaneous focusing or rapid refocusing on different perspectives. This gets closer to the notion of mobility, to enable movement between different audiences, and the middle itself becomes a metaphor for the need to engage, to travel. Equally it recognises scale itself as constructed and contested. But it also introduces another notion of middle range as noun, but now as a resource for our own research as well as contributing to the development of a resource for others. Finally, and perhaps not co-incidentally, a theme raised on the final day was that ‘ranging’ implied a longing for home. A longing, it was suggested, that maybe within STS we also have because of our fears of being uprooted from disciplinary anchors, and, for some of us, of feeling institutionally precarious. Possibly endemic within STS, such fears, one participant suggested, manifest as ‘reificaphobia’ (© Halffman) – the fear and also the challenge that anything within the discipline should settle or solidify for too long.

Summary of programme Further to the people indicated as authors below (names in brackets indicate absent co-author), Willem Halffman, Helen Kennedy, Sabina Leonelli, Paul Wouters and Sally Wyatt were present as discussants, each providing up to ten minutes of commentary on individual papers. In total, seventeen papers were discussed during the workshop. In addition, Steve Rayner gave an open lecture entitled, The Excluded Middle? Reflections on micro-, meso- and macro- in the social science of global change, attended by approximately 45 people.

Steve Yearley, Reflection & explanation in science studies: Finding where the middle range lies.

Ragna Zeiss (& Tom Hope), On standardising STS, un-standardising theories & deconstructing STS standards.

Brian Rappert, On the mid-range: An exercise in disposing (or minding the gaps).

Frank Geels, Theories of the middle range in STS: Achievements & steps to be taken.

Norma Morris & Brian Balmer, A woman walks into a laboratory and is asked to take part in an experiment. Now theorise that.

Jessica Mesman, Exnovating styles of ordering & their embedded normativity.

Olivier Coutard (& Simon Guy), STS & the city: Contingency & hope vs. universalised pessimism in studies of the contemporary urban condition.

Arie Rip, Haven’t we got all the theory we need?

Steve Woolgar, The ethics of scale – Oh please, not middle range theories again!

Anne Beaulieu, Andrea Scharnhorst & Paul Wouters, Not another case study? Ethnography, formalisation & the scope of science.

Elena Simakova, ‘Softly, softly’ tagging the world: The accomplishment of RFID as a tellable story.

Christine Hine, Multi-sited ethnography as middle range methodology for STS.

Rob Hagendijk, Theorising public engagement with science & technology.

Alice Farrands, Bioethics & policy for stem cell research: Do we need a mid-range theory?

Anne-Jorunn Berg, Hard categories & hard work: Racialisation & feminist memory work.

Nik Brown, Home on the mid-range: Some notes on theory in STS.

Harry Collins, The Green-ink letters: Methodological relativism & the choice about how much of the world to treat as relative & how much as real.

Financial support for the workshop was received from the following: Science in Society Programme of the ESRC www.sci-soc-net/SciSoc; Amsterdam School of Communications Research, ASCoR, UvA www.fmg.uva.nl/ascor; European Association for the Study of Science and Technology, EASST, www.easst.net; Department of Science and Technology Studies, UCL, www.ucl.ac.uk/sts