History of Science

[deconstructing]

I apologize if this isn't the right place for my question. I'm just unsure where to get more info about history of science and technology. Is it considered part of History departments in the US, or is is more interdisciplinary, or leaning towards science departments?

Here's the thing: my main field is anthropology (and archeology), but the nature of my research (and general interest in science, as well as several university courses in mathematics and astronomy) is often leaning towards sociology and anthropology of science (science in culture, the perception of science in society, science and heritage... that sorts of things). I know it's not really what most history of science programs are about, but all of my published papers were along these themes and I am interested in these issues. So I thought I might check history of science programs.

I've found some good ones, but I'd like to hear other people's opinions. How are these programs treated in the US? (I'm an international student). Are they seen as humanities/social sciences or more like interdisciplinary/natural science front?

Where is a good place to ask?

[New England Nat]

It sounds to me like you should look at STS departments (Science and Technology Studies) which are interdisciplinary departments with history, anthropology and sociology of science. The one i know the most about is at Cornell, but you can look under that name at other places. The University of Pennsylvania has a History and Sociology of Science department which would also fit what you are describing.

Traditionally the history of science in the US was allied with the philosophy of science, but in the last thirty years or so it has been moving more and more towards general history. In some places this means that there have been "divorces" and "marriages" where entire departments have shifted alignment. History of Medicine complicates this picture even more... but given your interests i'm just talking history of science.

Off the top of my head the better history of science departments are Harvard, Princeton, UPenn, Yale, Hopkins, Wisconsin. I would suggest you look into the fields professional organizations the HSS -- the History of Science Society. They publish Isis, the leading journal of the field in the US.

As you are doing research, make sure you check out what the faculty actually does. You wont want to end up somewhere full of historians of physics who don't have anyone who could deal with your work.

[deconstructing]

Thanks for the fast reply!

I'll sure check out the the History of Science Society.

I've found some programs I might be interested in (especially those more along the lines of "history and sociology" of science than "history and philosophy"). I'm just so new in this whole thing. But since my Master's research and thesis deals with science (in a different way, but still) AND considering all of my papers were along the same line AND considering I am hopelessly "in-between" when it comes to natural sciences and humanities, history of science might seem like a goof fit.

What are (potential) job perspectives, though? I've heard people in interdisciplinary fields are having a harder time than those who are more specialized in one particular field. I'm not necessarily looking for a job in the US, but I'd like to know what's going on.

[New England Nat]

You are right to worry about interdisciplinary fields, which is why in STS departments they will tell you to make sure you have an identifyable professional identity as either a historian, an anthropologist or a sociologist. Honestly the entire field is shifting more and more towards history because while the history job market isn't great it's much much bigger than the HPS or STS markets. So as much as you want to do interdiscinary work I would find a way to do that in the context of a clearly identifyable program.

All the historians of science I know also apply for jobs in history in the geographic and temporal regions of their study. So in theory when I finish I could technically be hired as a historian of science... or as a 20th century Americanist... or as a couple other brands of historian.

[deconstructing]

I see. Thanks for the info. I was unsure, because people are often all about "nooooooooo, get away from pure humanities if you can!!!!" so I thought, perhaps focusing on science would be a better move. On the other hand, I've heard so much about "staying away from interdisciplinary fields" so I don't know what to do.

The thing is, I am NOT a historian. I am an archaeologist switching to anthropology. I'd taken some history courses but it's just not enough (plus, it was ancient history). Due to various circumstances, I don't have much, if any field experience in archaeology, but I've done some anthropological research so I'm generally stronger there. But no history.

Sometimes, I think finding the exact filed that's the closest to my interests is the best, but on the other hand, I don't want to go for something completely obscure with zero job prospects.

So your advice would be to find a good match within anthropology, rather than pursuing history of science?

Oh, but that Pennsylvania's history and sociology of science program sounds so good...

[New England Nat]

Yeah, just based on what you have been saying I'd look at Penn and Cornell. I don't know the STS departments outside of cornell. I would also look at what is known as SSK - Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. It's a particular methodology in the study of science that sounds like it's closer to what you are thinking about. But in the US the sciences themselves don't study their own disciplines. Though I did once read a really interesting anthropology of anthropologists...

[deconstructing]

I would also look at what is known as SSK - Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. It's a particular methodology in the study of science that sounds like it's closer to what you are thinking about.

Yes, it does seem like my thing. Will have to search more about it.

Generally speaking, though: you believe it's better to stick to a clear field (for example, anthropology) than to go this way, especially since it's a) interdisciplinary and b ) I'm not a historian? (Obviously, you can't decide for me, but you know more about how the things go in the US).

Edited September 22, 2012 by deconstructing

[New England Nat]

I would actually suggest you go this way because my experiance is that anthropology is going to be less open to this kind of subject matter. What I am saying is that you should maintain a clear professional identity, you can do that by making sure you have anthropologists or sociologists on your committee, by presenting material at anthropology conferences. From what you are saying I think this is absolutely the way you should go.

You should just pick an identity and make sure you don't come out an interdisciplinary wish wash.

I think a good book for you to read is Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists by Sharon Traweek

[Riotbeard]

Might also be worth looking at MIT's history of science and tech department. Depending on what type of science you do, you may want to look at Stanford's history department also.

[New England Nat]

I knew I'd forgotten something last night!