Sections of the argument:
LABORATORIES ARE DISTINCT FROM EXPERIMENTS AND ORGANIZATIONS:
Knorr Cetina reiterates the major 'change' that lab studies bring by differentiating with two preceding areas of study that claim proximity in method and concern. Experiments being the first, Cetina's analysis shows that framing knowledge through it lens is limiting as it draws focus to scientific method and standees, gearing in questions of robustness and history. This takes away from the aspects of knowledge actually created. Lab studies succeed in this regard by shifting focus to conditions rather than standards (while encompassing them). This allows for the tracing of various influences upon knowledge creation which extended outside of the scientific realm, such as political, economic, cultural, etc. As for organization studies, Knorr Cetina argues that a mere organizational analysis is incapable of incorporating the intricate technical and theoretical process within the lab.
. THE LABORATORY AS A THEORETICAL NOTION: THE RECONFIGURATION OF OBJECTS AND SUBJECTS:
In this section, Korr Cetina analysis show's how is a site of ontological reconfiguration. This beginnings at the level of the material objects incorporated relative to the field studied. Knorr Cetina calls the reconfigured material object it's purified version as it is often decoupled from extraneous natural states and processes. Similarly, the 'social order' a term that incorporates the actors within the lab and their social relations amidst themselves and the material processes, is configured in a way to best suite outcomes rather than adhering to authoritative hierarchy and norms. This 'upgrade' as she terms it redefines the occupational understanding of a scientist. Rather than a social designation of authority and role, they are now reconfigured to fit or function as the method they are best trained/experienced, to whatever capacity the lab sees fit.
CONSTRUCTIONISM AND LABORATORY STUDIES:
Knorr Cetina here talks about the constructivist approach it prominence within and upon the field of sociology. She then relates the discussed notions to the filed of lab studies. Steaming from two strains of thought that mark constructivisum, that seeing reality as constructed by cognitional processes (from learning patterns of mind to language practices)or by human labor, lab studies contributes in three ways. First as a sight that bolsters the notions of the perspective itself. This bolstering is complex, dependent on the material field of investigation. The second way is in being illustrating how empirical analysis is dependent on social infrastructural factors. Third, lab studies exemplify the dynamic work and processes that lead to the production and distribution of knowledge. Finally, lab studies reveal the relation that exists between localized bodies of research knowledge that is often seen to be general or universal.
HOW ARE FACTS CONSTRUCTED:
This section is perhaps the most in-depth, delving into the product or rather currency of the lab ie. 'facts' and it relates to the processes of constructionism. Divided into seven subsections, the processes of knowledge creation, consumption and communication are analyzed with the backdrop of scientific robustness that is built into varying objects and stages that make up scientific institutions. The tools, literature, standards of conduct and communication are all shown to be operating as heterogeneous processes.
