The field may, then, also be understood as building a bridge for dialog in various senses:
first, between scholars and academics from other fields in the social sciences tackling specific Latin American social questions without paying particular attention to the development of science and technology (S&T), or to its causes and consequences, histories, and future challenges. Second, it also bridges the gaps between other actors, as well as practicing scientists and engineers, who have increasingly been recognizing the value of SSST to help them understand their own practices and think about their consequences. This bridge extends further to the various authorities – “decision-makers” or “policy-makers,” as they are often termed – who have, in recent years, been approaching and interacting with those working on a (typically critical) analytical approach to scientific and technological development. Last, though no less important, there are the reflections on how S&T’s affects our societies and how to actively intervene in decisions that could be taken more collectively and participatively. (19-20)
Kreimer and Vessuri propose to solve the issue of "internal" versus "external" histories of the STS field by repurposing the concept of "reflexivity," familiar to the social sciences, for an analysis of how the field of STS has been shaped (19). This is in contrast to using reflexivity to identify in what contexts knowledge is produced.