View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Loughborough University Institutional Repository

H. Jöns, D. N. Livingstone, & P. Meusburger, “Interdisciplinary Geographies of Science,” 1

Introduction to Geographies of Science, ed. D. Antal, 25June09/HJ05July09/DA18AugJuly09Final

Please cite this paper as follows:

Jöns, H, Livingstone, DN, Meusburger, P (2010) Interdisciplinary geographies of science.
In Meusburger, P, Livingstone, DN, Jöns, H (ed) Geographies of Science, Springer,
pp.ix-xvii, ISBN: 9789048186105. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-8611-2.

Interdisciplinary Geographies of Science

Heike Jöns, David N. Livingstone, and Peter Meusburger

More than two decades into the “geographical” turn within science studies

(Shapin, 1998, pp. 5–6), geographies of science are a vibrant interdisciplinary field of

research. Based on exciting work by geographers, historians, sociologists, and

anthropologists of science, the ideas that science has a geography and that scientific

knowledge bears the marks of particular locations have themselves become accepted

facts, at least within this community of scholars. Indeed, it can be argued that the

meaning of scientific knowledge “takes shape in response to spatial forces at every scale

of analysis—from the macropolitical geography of national regions to the microsocial

geography of local cultures” (Livingstone, 2003, p. 4).

Instead of marveling at the apparent universality and “placelessness” of scientific

knowledge, scholars interested in the geographies of science have focused on the specific

circumstances of scientific practices and on the ways in which the travels of scientists,

resources, and ideas shape the production and circulation of scientific knowledge. They

also examine how and why the interpretation of certain knowledge claims may change in

different times and places. The variety of research topics and approaches addressed

within geographies of science is documented in a number of reviews that emphasize the

H. Jöns, D. N. Livingstone, & P. Meusburger, “Interdisciplinary Geographies of Science,” 2
Introduction to Geographies of Science, ed. D. Antal, 25June09/HJ05July09/DA18AugJuly09Final

long-standing mutual enrichment of research carried out in geography and other fields

that contribute to interdisciplinary science studies (Finnegan, 2008; Livingstone, 1995;

2003; Meusburger, 2008; Naylor, 2005; Powell, 2007; Shapin, 1995, 1998; Withers,

2002).

A defining moment in this reciprocal relationship is captured by Livingstone’s

(1995) outline of a “historical geography of science” that explores the contributions

Michel Foucault, Clifford Geertz, Anthony Giddens, Donna Haraway, Bruno Latour,

Edward Said, and others have made to the conceptualization of a distinctively

geographical interest in scientific knowledge and practice. Shapin (1998) responded that

“[s]tudents of science owe much to geographers and it is flattering to learn that

Livingstone thinks that historians of geography might possibly learn something from us.

If so, it is mainly through showing some of the possibilities inherent in geographical

work” (p. 6). This conversation between geography and science studies has continued to

flourish ever since. It has not only produced a series of commentaries on the value of

social constructivism and actor-network thought for the geographies of science (e.g.,

Barnes, 1998, 2001; Bravo, 1999; Demeritt, 1996, 2006; Harris, 1998; Jöns, 2006) and

for human geography more generally (e.g., Bingham & Thrift, 2000; Murdoch, 1997) but

has also inspired substantial monographs (e.g., Ash & Cohendet, 2003; Driver, 2001;

Livingstone, 2002; 2003; Whatmore, 2002; Withers, 2001), comprehensive anthologies

(e.g., Simões, Carneiro, & Diogo, 2003; Smith & Agar, 1998), and a number of special

journal issues (e.g., Anderson, Kearnes, & Doubleday, 2007; Castree & Nash, 2006;

Naylor, 2005; Philo & Pickstone, 2009; Roe & Greenhough, 2006). Among the most

recent outcomes are the seminar series and online reader entitled Locating Technoscience

(UCL, 2008) and the “Knowledge and Space” symposia and book series, of which the

present collection of essays is the third volume.

H. Jöns, D. N. Livingstone, & P. Meusburger, “Interdisciplinary Geographies of Science,” 3
Introduction to Geographies of Science, ed. D. Antal, 25June09/HJ05July09/DA18AugJuly09Final

Aiming to further advance interdisciplinary geographies of science through

conversations between scholars working in different academic fields, this volume

explores the benefits of a geographical perspective on scientific knowledge and practice

from the perspective of geographers, sociologists, historians, anthropologists, and

scholars of architecture. A comparison of their contributions both discloses how different

disciplinary settings exert their influence on framing research designs in distinct ways and

indicates a common concern for the spatial relations of scientific knowledge and practice.

The book presents a balance of historical and contemporary case studies, with most of the

essays centering on European practices. However, some of the chapters provide global

perspectives, whereas others deal with African practices and American indigenous

knowledges. Keeping in mind that one of the most significant insights into the spatiality

of knowledge production is the partiality of all knowledge claims (Haraway, 1988), we

note that the following peer-reviewed essays inevitably provide very specific perspectives

on the geographies of science. These chapters add to a growing body of work yet also

raise important questions for future research.

This volume stresses four main topics, each of which is represented in a

corresponding section. The first, “Comparative Approaches to Scientific Knowledge,”

gives two fairly general accounts—one by historical geographer David N. Livingstone

(Chapter 1) and the other by sociologist Nico Stehr (Chapter 2). Aiming to further

develop the agenda of geographical science studies, Livingstone delineates the overall

context for this set of essays. He begins by reviewing ways in which space has become a

central organizing principle for examining the production, circulation, and consumption

of scientific knowledge, stating that scientific sites and spaces, the movement and

transformation of knowledge, and scientific regions ranging from the provincial to the

continental have been significant foci of research. Livingstone then discusses how
H. Jöns, D. N. Livingstone, & P. Meusburger, “Interdisciplinary Geographies of Science,” 4
Introduction to Geographies of Science, ed. D. Antal, 25June09/HJ05July09/DA18AugJuly09Final

geographies of science have challenged long-standing polarities such as the natural and

the social, the local and the global, and the scientific and the political. He also outlines the

benefits of bringing materialities of science to center stage, pointing out that scientific

knowledge resides in bodies, buildings, and other physical objects. Lastly, Livingstone

elaborates on four spatial themes for future research: the agency of landscape, political

ecology, print culture, and speech space.

Stehr approaches the spatiality of knowledge from a slightly different angle by

discussing the idea of “global worlds of knowledge.” Interestingly, however, he arrives at

a conclusion not altogether different from Livingstone’s notion of geographically diverse

landscapes of knowledge. Stehr distinguishes between the horizontal integration of

knowledge (meaning the proliferation of sites of knowledge production and consumption)

and the vertical integration of knowledge (meaning the relationship between expert

knowledge and everyday knowledge across social worlds). On this basis he reasons that

globalizing worlds of knowledge may partially exist as “normative speculations, by

decree, as a thought experiment, or as a business plan” but that the challenges and

constraints are far too large for anything like a comprehensive global world of knowledge

to emerge.

This book’s second section, “Mobilities and Centers,” is written by geographers.

It draws attention to the circulatory spaces of science by examining how transient and

more permanent moves of scientists and scholars between different sites of academic

knowledge production have contributed to the formation of scientific centers. Studying

the career paths of eminent scientists in Europe, Peter J. Taylor, Michael Hoyler, and

David M. Evans (Chapter 3) identify the shifting geographies of European knowledge

centers and their networks from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. Interpreting

scientific practice as a core-producing process in Wallerstein’s (2004) modern world-

H. Jöns, D. N. Livingstone, & P. Meusburger, “Interdisciplinary Geographies of Science,” 5
Introduction to Geographies of Science, ed. D. Antal, 25June09/HJ05July09/DA18AugJuly09Final

system, the authors assert that studying the work places and career moves of scientists

yields information about the two types of social space identified by Castells (1996):

spaces of places and spaces of flows. The resulting geohistorical patterns of European

knowledge nodes and networks provide a unique macroperspective on the “rise of

modern science” that simultaneously offers an argument about why so many European

scientific centers did not become major cities.

Peter Meusburger and Thomas Schuch (Chapter 4), too, use data on the career

mobility of scientists and scholars, tracking the rise of Heidelberg University to the ranks

of internationally renowned research universities in the late nineteenth and early twentieth

centuries. They illustrate how that trajectory is mirrored in the changing social

background of Heidelberg’s professors; the age at which they reached different career

stages; and the growing diversity of the places in which they were born, received their

doctoral and postdoctoral degrees, and became professors. The authors hold that

Heidelberg University’s favorable working environment in the nineteenth century—due

to effective reorganization and financial support by the state, broad university autonomy,

freedom of thought, and an accommodating political climate—permitted increasingly

selective recruitment policies targeting renowned professors at the peak of their careers.

Consequently, Heidelberg’s full professors were often highly mobile individuals who had

worked in a variety of cultural environments, a situation that reveals how the openness to

drawing faculty from geographically diverse places nurtured the formation of an

important scientific center.

Heike Jöns (Chapter 5) examines a more transient circulation of academics by

looking at the ways in which a growing emphasis on academic travel for purposes of

research, visiting appointments, lecturing, conferences, and consulting contributed to

transforming Cambridge University into a modern research university. She

H. Jöns, D. N. Livingstone, & P. Meusburger, “Interdisciplinary Geographies of Science,” 6
Introduction to Geographies of Science, ed. D. Antal, 25June09/HJ05July09/DA18AugJuly09Final

conceptualizes circular academic mobility as a twofold mobilization process in Latourian

“centers of calculation,” namely, the home institutions and the host institutions. This

perspective sheds light on how, from the 1890s onward, the temporary recruitment of

Cambridge expertise in the United States—mainly through visiting appointments and

lecture tours—gradually turned American universities into new global scientific centers

and fostered the development of an Anglo-American academic hegemony in the twentieth

century.

The third section of this volume, “Designing Knowledge Spaces,” discusses four

attempts to create distinct spaces for knowledge production and consumption. Historian

Dominik Collet (Chapter 6) examines the endeavor by the fellows of London’s Royal

Society to establish their own museum for research and the display of specimens in the

second half of the seventeenth century. Interrogating Lux and Cook’s (1998) hypothesis

that weak, but flexible, “open networks” were crucial for scientific progress in early

modern times, he shows why the fellows’ truly global network of correspondence

supplied a number of objects regarded as “exotic curiosities” but produced scientifically

rather unsatisfying results. The author contends that unreliable, uncooperative colonial

contacts and the disparate information of poor quality that often reached London via

routes different from those traveled by the material objects themselves made it impossible

to gather the contextual information required for serious scientific research. Without such

an intact Latourian “circulating reference” between the museum’s specimens and their

places of origin, the Royal Society’s widespread open networks failed to spur scientific

progress and thus restricted the collection’s function to the preservation and presentation

of curiosities.

Albena Yaneva (Chapter 7), a sociologist and ethnographer working in the field of

architectural studies, draws attention to contemporary buildings conceived for scientific

H. Jöns, D. N. Livingstone, & P. Meusburger, “Interdisciplinary Geographies of Science,” 7
Introduction to Geographies of Science, ed. D. Antal, 25June09/HJ05July09/DA18AugJuly09Final

practice. She critically examines recent efforts to design attractive atria intended to

facilitate social interaction and generate creative encounters beyond confined laboratory

spaces. Starting with a discussion of design principles for recent laboratory spaces, she

maintains that the emphasis on the atrium is a response to the challenge of enhancing the

potential for collaborative research and networking between human and nonhuman actors

across disciplinary boundaries. Her examples explain how the atrium became an

“important interactive space”; a “social core” with multiple bridging functions; a

transdisciplinary “mixing chamber” of researchers, objects, and ideas; even “a complex

knot of a quasi-urban network” in city-shaped buildings that correspond to the complex

research tasks at hand. Although not all of the innovative designs have been popular with

scientists, the realities arising from the discussed projects for improving academic

working environments starkly contrast those of most such work places, which are too

often characterized by the much less socially conducive campus architecture of the 1960s

and 1970s.

The contribution by sociologists Wesley Shrum, Ricardo B. Duque, and Marcus

Antonius Ynalvez (Chapter 8) suggests, however, that some scholars and scientists may

find architecture’s inspirational qualities less important than what they consider to be

basic, functioning e-mail and Internet infrastructure at the university. This impression is

conveyed by the authors’ hitherto unsuccessful attempt to facilitate Internet connectivity

in a Ghanaian research institute. The story of this project, which turned attention to what

the authors called the “outer space of science,” was presented in Heidelberg in the form

of a video ethnography ensuing from two years of work. For this collection of essays,

Shrum and his colleagues retold the basic story line and critically reflected upon the ways

in which the original video ethnography was received by the audience in Heidelberg.

Originally, the authors had obtained U.S. National Science Foundation funds to examine
H. Jöns, D. N. Livingstone, & P. Meusburger, “Interdisciplinary Geographies of Science,” 8
Introduction to Geographies of Science, ed. D. Antal, 25June09/HJ05July09/DA18AugJuly09Final

the use of the Internet and its effects on social networks of scientists in Africa and India.

But the sites of interest in Ghana lacked Internet connectivity, so the funds were

rededicated in order to provide for this basic condition of the primary research interest.

The study shows that new information and communication technologies,

depending on the quality of the services, seem to be of ambiguous value for some

academics working in Ghana. It also reveals that external funding from the U.S. team was

identified by other Ghanaians—quite independently of the American project members—

as a means for making money rather than for making progress toward Internet

connectivity. The failure of the project frustrated the authors but also gave rise to a

wonderful academic friendship with a Ghanaian lecturer in sociology. This outcome

highlights two points: (a) the contingency of transnational academic exchange and (b) the

fact that the spaces of science often taken for granted by academics are in fact very

fragile, difficult to achieve and sustain, and geographically very concentrated.

In this section’s final paper, which is based on ethnographic fieldwork in Rabat

and Hanover, ethnographer Alexa Färber (Chapter 9) also discusses relationships between

the global South and the global North. However, she explores the design of space for

knowledge consumption by analyzing the ways in which a team of former politicians,

diplomats, civil servants, government advisors, architects, and academics (including two

geographers) constructed Morocco’s representation at EXPO 2000 in Hanover. The

author elaborates the reasons why the committee members responsible for the country’s

“representational work” did not address the realities of modern Morocco with

technological media but instead undertook to anticipate the visitors’ expectations as

potential tourists and therefore concentrated on displaying cultural heritage through

“artisans, folklore, and artifacts.” Färber argues that drawing on the oriental and world-

fair aesthetic archives in order to live up to “Western fantasy” not only rendered the “new
H. Jöns, D. N. Livingstone, & P. Meusburger, “Interdisciplinary Geographies of Science,” 9
Introduction to Geographies of Science, ed. D. Antal, 25June09/HJ05July09/DA18AugJuly09Final

smartness” of Morocco’s knowledge society invisible but reproduced knowledge divides

between a smart global North and an ignorant global South. Her article therefore

demonstrates that the public influenced the production of geographical knowledge so

much that it shaped the reasoning of the academic experts involved in designing

Morocco’s self-presentation on an international stage.

In a series of articles written by geographers, this book’s final section, “Science

and the Public,” further explores important interactions between these two realms. Using

newspaper reports and other written sources dating from the period 1845 to 1939, Charles

W. J. Withers (Chapter 10) provides a historical perspective on how the public received

the peripatetic annual scientific meetings of the British Association for the Advancement

of Science. He illustrates how the attendance at and reaction to presentations varied

considerably, depending on complex issues such as the differences between the BAAS’s

different thematic sections, “popular” and “scientific” presentations, more and less

prolific speakers, those using lantern slides and those who did not visually support their

stories, the local audiences’ perceptions of the Association’s objectives, and gender. The

author holds that the interaction with the public at the BAAS meetings was often more

akin to “participating in a civic social gathering” than to a genuine interest in the content

of science. But he also asserts that it would be misleading to speak of a homogenous

public, for the documented variations in attendance, reception, and understanding tend to

bear out the concept of a historically and geographically contingent relationship between

heterogeneous sciences and multiple publics.

Alexander Vasudevan (Chapter 11) takes the reader to Weimar Germany, where

he explores the relationship between modernist art experiments and the experimental life

sciences, particularly “psychiatric science.” The first of his two case studies shows how

Berlin Dada used the stylistic device of montage to transport the issue of war neurosis
H. Jöns, D. N. Livingstone, & P. Meusburger, “Interdisciplinary Geographies of Science,” 10
Introduction to Geographies of Science, ed. D. Antal, 25June09/HJ05July09/DA18AugJuly09Final

“from the trenches and clinics to the sites and venues of postwar metropolitan culture”

and to address the physical and mental consequences of “the shock of urban industrial

modernity.” The second case study investigates the ways in which psychotechnics widely

employed to raise workplace efficiency were used in Brechtian epic theater to transform

the audience from test subjects in everyday life into informed experts in the theater.

Although Brecht’s 1931 production of Mann ist Mann was rather critically received by

the audiences, experimental psychiatry “furnished Berlin Dada and Brechtian epic theater

with a new repertoire of performance styles and representational techniques,” creating an

“alternative experimental program” that contested mainstream German psychiatry. His

article thus suggests that both performative art and political theater offer “a critical

perspective on the extension of the experimental into nonscientific zones.”

Sally Eden’s essay (Chapter 12) looks at contemporary interactions between

science and the public by exploring the ways in which NGOs engage with science when

advancing their agendas for environmental reform. Adopting Gieryn’s concept of

“boundary work” (Gieryn, 1983), she maintains that NGOs complicate the simplistic

dichotomy between scientific experts and “a supposedly lay public” in many ways, such

as by recruiting more and more researchers with postgraduate degrees and by enrolling

scientists who support their moral agenda. Some NGOs go beyond bridging work by

deliberately creating hybrid spaces of “heterogeneous knowledge practices” for their

purposes, as when they draw on an international panel of scientific experts and

environmental practitioners. Eden suggests that these hybridizations are not only

variously successful but also highly specific in time and space. A British example relates

to the Forest Stewardship Council’s national standards governing the acceptable use and

types of pesticides, the revision of which every five years is based on the latest research

findings. The boundaries of these hybrid lay–expert knowledge spaces appear to be much
H. Jöns, D. N. Livingstone, & P. Meusburger, “Interdisciplinary Geographies of Science,” 11
Introduction to Geographies of Science, ed. D. Antal, 25June09/HJ05July09/DA18AugJuly09Final

more dynamic, fuzzy, and blurred than those of the modernist dichotomies between

science and politics that they undermine. One can thus regard the former kind of

boundaries as more flexible than the latter kind for both challenging and building

alliances with science in environmental policy debates.

The final essay of this book, written by Ryan Holifield (Chapter 13), begins by

calling attention to the contested nature of such hybrid knowledge spaces. Specifically, he

points out that the practices of risk assessment as conducted by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) have been severely criticized by both regulated industries (for

being overly protective) and environmental activists (for not being protective enough). He

focuses on regulatory science as opposed to academic science in his discussion of how

the debates about localizing the procedures of human health risk assessment in Indian

Country in the United States have developed since the 1980s. Drawing on Latour’s

concept of collectives of humans and nonhumans, which corresponds well to tribal, or

nonmodern, traditional worldviews of integrated human communities and nonhuman

environments, Holifield explains why tribal traditional lifeways escape the EPA’s

standard risk assessment procedures attuned to typical suburban populations. In other

words, they require attention to the voices of locally distinctive publics as “nations

within.” He argues that regulatory science must engage with multiple publics as well as

human and nonhuman collectives in order to secure credibility and legitimacy.

In conclusion, the pluralization and multiplicity of science and the public,

scientific centers and designs, as well as concepts and approaches run as a central theme

through the main sections of this book, highlighting the spatial and temporal complexity

and contingency of past, present, and future interdisciplinary geographies of science. Our

abiding thanks go to the Klaus Tschira Foundation for generously funding the symposia

and book series on Knowledge and Space and for thereby making this productive
H. Jöns, D. N. Livingstone, & P. Meusburger, “Interdisciplinary Geographies of Science,” 12
Introduction to Geographies of Science, ed. D. Antal, 25June09/HJ05July09/DA18AugJuly09Final

interdisciplinary encounter possible. We are also grateful to Edgar Wunder, Christiane

Marxhausen, and their team in Heidelberg for organizing the symposia and assisting with

the production of this book and to David Antal for his thoughtful contributions as the

technical editor of this book series.

H. Jöns, D. N. Livingstone, & P. Meusburger, “Interdisciplinary Geographies of Science,” 13
Introduction to Geographies of Science, ed. D. Antal, 25June09/HJ05July09/DA18AugJuly09Final

References

Anderson, B., Kearnes, M., & Doubleday, R. (2007). Geographies of nano-technoscience.

Area, 39, 139–142.

Ash, A., & Cohendet, P. (2003). Architectures of knowledge: Firms, capabilities and

communities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Barnes T. J. (1998). A history of regression: Actors, networks, machines, and numbers.

Environment and Planning A, 30, 203–223.

Barnes T. J. (2001). ‘In the beginning was economic geography’: A science studies

approach to disciplinary history. Progress in Human Geography, 25, 455–478.

Bingham, N. & Thrift, N. (2000). Some new instructions for travellers: The geography of

Bruno Latour and Michel Serres. In M. Crang & N. Thrift (Eds.), Thinking space

(pp. 281–301). London: Routledge.

Bravo, M. T. (1999). Ethnographic navigation and the geographical gift. In D. N.

Livingstone & C. W. J. Withers (Eds.), Geography and enlightenment (pp. 199–

235). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Castells, M. (1996). The information age: Vol. 1. The rise of the network society. Oxford,

England: Blackwell.

Castree, N., & Nash, C. (2006). Editorial: Posthumanist geographies. Social and Cultural

Geography, 7, 501–504.

Demeritt, D. (1996). Social theory and the reconstruction of science and geography.

Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 21, 483–503.

Demeritt, D. (2006). Science studies, climate change and the prospects for constructivist

critique. Economy and Society, 35, 453–479.

Driver, F. (2001). Geography militant: Cultures of exploration and empire. Oxford,

England: Blackwell.
H. Jöns, D. N. Livingstone, & P. Meusburger, “Interdisciplinary Geographies of Science,” 14
Introduction to Geographies of Science, ed. D. Antal, 25June09/HJ05July09/DA18AugJuly09Final

Finnegan, D. (2008). The spatial turn: Geographical approaches in the history of science.

Journal of the History of Biology, 41, 369–388.

Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science:

Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological

Review, 48, 781–795.

Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the

privilege of partial perspective. In M. Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader

(pp. 172–188). New York: Routledge.

Harris, S. J. (1998). Long-distance corporations, big sciences, and the geography of

knowledge. Configurations, 6, 269–304.

Jöns, H. (2006). Dynamic hybrids and the geographies of technoscience: Discussing

conceptual resources beyond the human/non-human binary. Social and Cultural

Geography, 7, 559–580.

Livingstone, D. N. (1995). The spaces of knowledge: Contributions towards a historical

geography of science. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 13, 5–34.

Livingstone, D. N. (2002). Science, space and hermeneutics (Hettner Lectures Vol. 5).

Heidelberg: Department of Geography.

Livingstone, D. N. (2003). Putting science in its place: Geographies of scientific

knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lux, D., & Cook, H. (1998). Closed circles or open networks? Communicating at a

distance during the scientific revolution. History of Science, 36, 179–211.

Meusburger, P. (2008). The nexus of knowledge and space. In P. Meusburger (Series Ed.)

& P. Meusburger, M. Welker, & E. Wunder (Eds.), Knowledge and space: Vol. 1.

Clashes of knowledge: Orthodoxies and heterodoxies in science and religion

(pp. 35–90). Dordrecht: Springer.

H. Jöns, D. N. Livingstone, & P. Meusburger, “Interdisciplinary Geographies of Science,” 15
Introduction to Geographies of Science, ed. D. Antal, 25June09/HJ05July09/DA18AugJuly09Final

Murdoch, J. (1997). Towards a geography of heterogeneous associations. Progress in

Human Geography, 21, 321–337.

Naylor, S. (2005). Introduction: Historical geographies of science: Places, contexts,

cartographies. British Journal for the History of Science, 38, 1–12.

Philo, C., & Pickstone, J. (2009). Unpromising configurations: Towards local historical

geographies of psychiatry. Health and Place, 15, 649–656.

Powell, R. C. (2007). Geographies of science: Histories, localities, practices, futures.

Progress in Human Geography, 31, 309–329.

Roe, E. J., & Greenhough, B. (2006). Editorial: Towards a geography of bodily

technologies. Environment and Planning A, 38, 416–422.

Shapin, S. (1995). Here and everywhere: Sociology of scientific knowledge. Annual

Review of Sociology, 21, 289–321.

Shapin, S. (1998). Placing the view from nowhere: Historical and sociological problems

in the location of science. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,

New Series, 23, 5–12.

Simões, A., Carneiro, A., & Diogo, M. P. (2003). Travels of learning: A geography of

science in Europe. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Smith, C., & Agar, J. (Eds.). (1998). Making space for science: Territorial themes in the

shaping of knowledge. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

UCL (University College London). (Ed.). (2008). Locating Technoscience On-line

Reader. Retrieved May 29, 2009, from UK Internet:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/locating-technoscience Version 1.0

Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-systems analysis: An introduction. Durham, NC: Duke

University Press.

Whatmore, S. (2002). Hybrid geographies: Natures cultures spaces. London: Sage.

H. Jöns, D. N. Livingstone, & P. Meusburger, “Interdisciplinary Geographies of Science,” 16
Introduction to Geographies of Science, ed. D. Antal, 25June09/HJ05July09/DA18AugJuly09Final

Withers, C. W. J. (2001). Geography, science and national identity: Scotland since 1520.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Withers, C. W. J. (2002). The geography of scientific knowledge. In N. A. Rupke (Ed.),

Göttingen and the development of the natural sciences (pp. 9–18). Göttingen:

Wallstein.