kwnoledge society.pdf

8/10/2019 kwnoledge society.pdf

1/8

Introduction to the Special Issue: Science, Knowledge and SocietyAuthor(s): Thorolfur Thorlindsson and Runar VilhjalmssonSource: Acta Sociologica, Vol. 46, No. 2, The Knowledge Society (Jun., 2003), pp. 99-105Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4194970Accessed: 18/06/2010 22:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ActaSociologica.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4194970?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltdhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltdhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4194970?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/8

ACTA OCIOLOGICA 003 m

Introduction to the Special Issue:

Science, Knowledge and Society

Thorolfur Thorlindsson and Runar VilhjalmssonUniversity of Iceland

ABSTRACTOur changing times provide numerous opportunities for interesting research into different aspect ofthe knowledge-based society. Science is becoming a powerful institution influencing people's dailylives in various ways. But it is also increasingly influenced by social, economic and political forcesshaping its direction and controlling its applications. The boundaries between private and public,nature and society, are increasingly challenged by scientific and technical advances. Technologicalproducts or tools embody knowledge and mediate it at the same time. Creating and disseminatingknowledge by means of such tools is problematic n many ways, although the tools tend to be takenfor granted as objective and neutral. The status and authority of experts in the knowledge-basedsociety is neither automatic nor self-evident. The maintenance of expert status and control requireslegitimation and validation displays to fight off public disinterest and scepticism, or legal challenge.Despite the importance of science and technology, mundane and tacit forms of knowledge are stillcrucial. The implications of recent scientific and technological developments for public welfare seemto indicate that the knowledge society and the welfare state can coexist in a mutually supportiverelationship.

KEYWORDS: xpert knowledge, knowledge society, science, tacit knowledge, welfare state

These are times of vast social change. Processesof globalization, far-reaching economic inter-connections, the transformation of informationand biotechnology, and large-scale culturalinfluences, have given rise to a society that is noteasily captured by a single sociological theory,nor identified by one sociological label. It hasbeen referred to variously as post-industrialsociety, post-modern society, information

society, knowledge society, network society andrisk society. The label 'knowledge society' isrooted in the belief that science, innovation andexpertise are the moving forces of economic andsocial development. It is backed up by inc-reasingly popular buzzwords such as 'know-ledge organizations', 'knowledge management','knowledge workers' and 'intellectual capital'.Knowledge work and knowledge managementwithin the new knowledge organizations implycontinuous knowledge production and revisionof existing knowledge, emphasizing the skills

and expertise of workers. The production ofknowledge is not limited to higher educationand academic research settings. Furthermore,the notion of the autonomy of science is underincreasing attack, as science becomes animportant part of political debate and economicpolicy. Societal forces outside academia attemptto gain control over science, shape its nature,channel its course, and control the social and

economic consequences of its findings(Nowotny et al., 2001).The concept of knowledge society rejects a

linear view of science from basic to applied.Instead, it portrays science as a complex non-linear process where social forces intervene atany stage. However, it is safe to say that theconcept is not well developed. A central sourceof ambiguity is 'knowledge' itself. Although itsimportance is stressed in every definition, thereis neither consensus nor clarity about itsmeaning. Contemporary society contains all

Acta Sociologica Copyright ? 2003 Scandinavian Sociological Association and SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA andNew Delhi: www.sagepublications.com) Vol 46(2): 99-105[0001-6993](200306)46:2; 99-105; 034821


3/8

100 ACTA SOCIOLOGICA 6(2)

sorts of knowledge. Some is developed in scien-tific settings and published in scientific journalsscrutinized by scientific peers. Some is developedby various communities of workers in their

worlds of everyday work. There is the automechanic's knowledge of car engines and brakesystems. the fisherman's knowledge of seacurrents and behaviours of different species offish, the drug dealer's knowledge of markets andmeans of buying and selling drugs, and theparent's knowledge about children and how toraise them. There is common-sense knowledge,tacit knowledge, codified knowledge, local anduniversal knowledge.

Although the definition of 'knowledgesociety' can include all these different kinds of

knowledge, there is a strong tendency to focuson the most prestigious or credible kinds,namely scientific knowledge, produced andcertified by scientists, as well as professionalknowledge, acquired by formal credentials ofuniversity-educated professionals, such as engi-neers, psychologists, medical doctors, lawyersand similar experts. In this narrower sense,knowledge is supposed to be reliable and eventrue, practical and powerful, and give competi-tive edge in individual and economic strife, warand politics. Its relationship to science and tech-nology is meant to set it apart from other, moreordinary forms of knowledge.

Science in the knowledge society

Modern science arose as a social institution inWestern Europe in the 17th century. Sciencewas incorporated into academia in the 19thcentury when it became intertwined with otheraspects of advanced scholarship and teaching.Science, from the beginning of its insti-tutionalization, has been characterized by itsinternational way of organizing things.Research findings are published in internationaloutlets where they are evaluated, criticized andbuilt upon by peers of different nationalities.These scientific, collegial organizationalarrangements have evolved over a long time,enjoying continuous expansion and almostunmatched success.

Through most of its history, science hasbeen considered an esoteric activity, following itsown logic and rules, carried out by individualsbelonging to an elite, more or less isolated fromthe rest of society. This view of science haschanged dramatically n the past decades in two

important ways. First, demands for innovation,the prestige of science, and the view that it is thebest means to produce reliable knowledge, havecontributed to making it a powerful social insti-

tution. Today, science and its products influencepeople's daily lives to the extent that somescholars have come to view science as the maindefining characteristic of contemporarysocieties (Nowotny et al., 2001). Second, scienceis increasingly contextualized, i.e. influenced bysocial, economic and political forces that shapethe direction of scientific activity and graspcontrol over its applications. In the process,science becomes less of a demarcated subsystemof society, and more of a transgressive systemwith fluid and porous boundaries (Gibbons et

al., 1994; Nowotny et al., 2001).The discipline of sociology has long con-sidered science and technology to be importantto social structure and change. It has, however,tended to view science as a special domain, dif-ferentiated and somewhat removed from othersocial institutions and ideally free from outsidesocial influences. Initially, his view reflected theseparation of the scientific subsystem from therest of society. The classical sociologists,especially Durkheim and Weber, believed thatscience was an objective system of knowledgethat could have its own societal effects. DanielBell's (19 73) classic discussion of the coming ofpost-industrial society clearly foreshadows thewider discussion of the knowledge society. Bellemphasized the role of theoretical knowledgeand innovation for post-industrial society.According to Bell, science and technology hadreshaped industrial processes and workplaces,as well as social patterns. A number of scholarshave followed in Bell's footsteps, putting an evenstronger emphasis on the production and appli-cation of scientific knowledge as a centralfeature of social organization and economicsuccess (Nowotny et al., 2001).

Interestingly, scientific knowledge was notincluded in the early development of sociologyof knowledge, where the focus was on religion,magic, and even language. This early historicaldevelopment had several important conse-quences for the treatment of knowledge, scienceand technology within sociology. It set the stagefor a division of labour that not only allocatedthe treatment of knowledge, science andtechnology to different realms of study withinsociology, but encouraged a division between

sociologists that studied these phenomena ascharacteristics of social structure and those that


4/8

Thorlindsson nd Vilhjalmsson: ntroduction o the Special ssue 101

considered them to be subject matters in theirown right. This is not an unfamiliar develop-ment within sociology. Several authors haveargued that the differentiation of sociology into

subfields, without the necessary integration intogeneral sociology, is a serious drawback in thedevelopment of the discipline (Collins, 1986;Hage, 1994; Vilhjalmsson and Thorlindsson,2002). As knowledge and science play a crucialrole in the organization of contemporarysociety, it is appropriate o consider how the sub-fields of sociology that deal with knowledge andscience can contribute to enhanced understand-ing of the emerging social organization of aknowledge-based society. In this thematic issueof Acta Sociologica, we have asked distinguished

sociologists of knowledge and science to con-tribute to the sociology of the knowledge societyfrom the different vantage points of culture,welfare state, knowledge dissemination andexpertise.

Bio-science and the nature-societydemarcationRapid scientific and technological developmentsin recent years pose serious challenges to tra-ditional boundaries between the private and thepublic, nature and society. Current informationtechnology (IT) enables mass assembly and pro-cessing of information about individuals toserve the interests and goals of firms, organiz-ations and states. The possibilities and realitiesof encroachment by outside agents into privatelives have resulted in public debates in the Westabout the proper governmental and businessapplications of IT. Another major example ofboundary challenges involves biomedicalscience and technology. Thora MargaretaBertilsson (2003) explores some of these chal-lenges in her article in this issue. As she pointsout, the possibilities offered involve choices thatcross traditional demarcation lines betweennature and society, whether involving surrogatemotherhood, the genetic selection of offspring,sex or race change operations, or cloning. Inthese instances, and others, culture invadesnature in new areas with unforeseen conse-quences. But, as Bertilsson describes, theinvasion of culture into nature also means thatculture is increasingly occupied by nature, itsrestrictions and possibilities. This is vividlyexemplified by 'biocommunities' - individualsbound together in interest groups by a common

biological fate or some biomedical opportunities(e.g. AIDS patients, diabetics).

Bertilsson further notes that advances inbiomedical science and technology go hand inhand with increased cultural individualism andglobalization. The connection with individual-

ism is evidenced by the fact that the transgres-sion of the nature-society boundary often takesthe form of individual choice or right (e.g. a 62-year-old French woman's wish to become a sur-rogate mother to her brother's child). In suchcases, the choices individuals make are fre-quently pitted against communal or societalinterests aiming to uphold traditional demarca-tions. Scientific and technical advances are alsolinked to processes of globalization, as evidencedby individuals making 'biological' choices bymoving or travelling from a state where a pro-

cedure or treatment is banned to one where it islegal.Bertilsson's article cogently describes im-

portant unresolved social and ethical problemsassociated with the rapid scientific and techno-logical developments of recent years. Concernedabout these developments, Bertilsson calls fornothing less than a renewed, consecrateddemarcation between nature and society.Although her call is timely, it is unclear wherenew lines should be drawn or how consensuscould be reached.

Technology as medium of scientificknowledgeThe article by Thurk and Fine (2003) exploresthe production and dissemination/sharing ofnew scientific knowledge. As the authors note,there is a mutually constitutive relationshipbetween technology and knowledge. In otherwords, technology 'embodies' knowledge, butalso mediates it. Scientific statements rest on'data' generated by tools. Such tools are some-times the focus of attention and debate amongscientists, especially at the early stages when the

meaning of the data they generate is unclear. Ifthe tools are accepted and stabilized, they recedeinto the background as being irrelevant, andattention focuses on the 'facts' they produce.But the tools continue to be fundamental to thefacts. The authors furthermore point out thatthe dissemination and sharing of scientific infor-mation increasingly takes place through themedium of various technologies across time andspace, rather than through face-to-face inter-action. The use of tools to produce standardmechanical representations having taken-for-

granted meaningsfacilitates work coordination

and reduces costs in collaboration across


5/8

102 ACTA OCIOLOGICA 6(2)

organizations. But such representations are byno means without problems. Some of theseproblems have to do with interpretation andmeaning, others with professional autonomy

and control.Thurk and Fine go on to present the resultsof ethnographic studies of the use of scientifictools in two organizational settings. The firststudy considered the use of AutoCAD, acomputer-aided design program, by architectsin an architectural practice in Chicago. Thesecond study concerned the use of a newtechnological system for producing wreatherforecasts (the IFPS system) at three offices of theUS National Weather Service. The architectswere generally happy about creating their

drawings with AutoCAD, especially because itenabled them to coordinate their work withengineers in a standardized form. But AutoCADalso supports customization, allowing organiz-ational cultures to appropriate the technologyand develop in-house standards and symbols.This created tension because, while customiza-tion fostered professional and organizationalautonomy, it hampered professional and inter-organizational exchange and cooperation. Themeteorologists at the Weather Service acknow-ledged that the new forecasting system facili-tated the sharing of weather information bothinternally and externally. However, they hadconcerns about the meaning of forecasts(forecast texts were now produced by com-puters), as well as their own professionalautonomy (they no longer wrote the forecasts intheir own words).

In an interesting way, Thurk and Finedemonstrate how scientific tools affect the formof knowledge that is being transmitted, theamount of knowledge organizationally 'memo-rized', and the degree to which knowledge isshared. In so doing, they underscore that com-

munication of knowledge within and acrossorganizations by means of tools is problematiceven though the tools are frequently taken forgranted.

The expert-lay-person relationshipThe article by Maranta, Guggenheim. Gisler andPohl (2003) focuses on important aspects of therelationship between experts and lay persons.They note that in a knowledge society, expertsare (increasingly) called upon to provideexpertise by gathering scientifically soundinformation, making recommendations basedon the information, and providing guidance in a

world entangled with technologies. As theauthors note, there exists an 'epistemic divide'between experts and lay persons. This divide andasymmetry contributes to the authority of

experts. But experts are faced with a dilemma:while preserving the asymmetry, they have toconnect with the public, by formulating theiradvice so that lay persons can apprehend anduse it. In lieu of direct face-to-face exchange, theexperts construct conceptions of imagined laypersons that in turn influence the ways in whichsocially robust knowledge is presented for appli-cation. Maranta et al. note that there are twokinds of imagined lay persons - those addressedby experts to produce loyalty, and those ofwhom loyalty is presupposed. The first kind is

addressed in science centres using 'informationobjects' to provide one-way information fromexpert to lay person concerning how scientistsdo research and what they have found. Thesecond kind of imagined lay person is addressedin social settings where individuals areapproached as aggregates, and the experts use'classifying objects' to frame a structuredenvironment for the lay person. As Maranta etal. note, expertise can be successful or it can failin its bridge-building. It succeeds when it elicitscuriosity and gains loyalty. It fails when laypersons 'exit', 'voices' are raised, or legal powersare mustered against the expertise.

Of course, Maranta et al.'s account is notthe only story on the expert-lay-person relation-ship, as it focuses primarily on the expert. Never-theless, it shows how expertise is staged andexpert status maintained through interest andloyalty of (imagined) lay persons.

The welfare state and the knowledge-basedeconomyAn interesting avenue of research concerns theimplications of an increasingly global, know-ledge-based economy for the welfare state. Doesnational competitiveness of industries andservices require the dismantling of the Scandi-navian-style welfare state model, or can such amodel survive? In his article in this issue, MatsBenner (2003) presents an analysis of Scandi-navian responses to the recent economic chal-lenges. He points out that a Scandinavian modelis founded on open, largely raw materials-basedeconomies. with highly coordinated labourmarkets and economies, and universal access totax-financed social services and insurance.

InFinland, following an economic crisis inthe 1990s, a new strategy was implemented


6/8


based on three pillars: a political consensus toupgrade scientific and technological capabilities;a commitment from labour market parties towage restraint through centralized bargaining;

and the maintenance of a relatively generoussocial insurance system to absorb the conse-quences of the economic crisis. In Benner's esti-mation, the Finnish welfare system became lessgenerous, but it did not radically retrench.

In contrast to Finland, Norway hasfollowed a traditional industrial growthparadigm with strongholds in shipbuilding,transport/shipping and, most important, oil.Wage negotiations are now conducted at theindustry level, and wage increases kept at levelssimilar to Norway's trading partners. To further

stabilize the future economic base, politicalemphasis has shifted towards developingbroader technological and scientific capabilitiesand reinforcing the Norwegian innovationsystem. However, the country still remains an'innovation laggard' with small hi-tech sectors,and limited investment in research and develop-ment, particularly from the corporate side. Dueto industrial (especially oil industry) stability,Norway has managed to keep the welfare modelintact, and even strengthen it in certain areas.

Sweden has the most highly innovative andknowledge-intensive economy of the Scandi-navian countries, with a strong emphasis onmiddle-high technology sectors. The countryhas many knowledge-intensive multinationalfirms and a highly productive research system,although it does not have a coherent science andtechnology policy. Following an economic crisisin the early 1990s, a semi-centralized wage bar-gaining system was introduced, and policiesenacted to reduce unemployment throughtraining programmes, reduce social insurance,and cut social and health service expenditures.Despite reduced welfare commitments, Bennerargues that Sweden has retained the fundamen-tals of the welfare state in terms of tax-financedsocial insurance and services, alongsidegrowing middle- and high-technology sectorsand R D nvestments.

Finally, Denmark's conomy has been charac-terized by a large number of small- and medium-sized enterprises, that are largely rawmaterials-based nd export oriented. These enter-prises are integrated into various industrialnetworks. According to Benner, the Danisheconomy has developed rom depression o a 'flour-

ishing model' thanks to a non-accommodatingfinancial policy, semi-centralized wage bargain-

ing system, an activist labour market policy, anetwork-oriented ndustrial policy, and a scienceand technology policy to create scientific concen-tration and knowledge flows in the economy.

Again, a tax-based welfare model of social insur-ance and services has been preserved.

In short, Benner concludes that the Scan-dinavian employment and welfare model,characterized by tax-financed social services,generous social insurance, organized labourmarkets, and commitment to employment, hassurvived the challenges posed by scientific andtechnological developments and globalizationtrends. Thus, in a period marked by stagnantgrowth in Europe, the Scandinavian countrieshave managed to adapt to the demands of a new

economy. 'Social democratic corporatism' hassucceeded in an increasingly global, knowledge-based economy, because it has implementedwage restraint programmes, delivered socialstability in volatile markets, and provided theeconomy with collective goods. Benner's argu-ments and conclusions thus rather forcefullyrefute the notion that in order to survive in a'global economy', welfare states need toabandon prior commitments to full employ-ment, social insurance, and universal healthand social services.

By reviewing the literature, evaluating thearguments, and presenting new data, the fourarticles published in this issue of Acta Sociologicademonstrate how understanding of the natureand implications of the knowledge society canbe advanced in different directions. But there isobviously more to be said about the knowledgesociety. A review of the sociological literatureindicates that several important issues are stillinsufficiently tackled. One concerns stratifi-cation. Where do knowledge producers andknowledge users come from, what are theirinterests, and how do they appropriate know-ledge to further their cause, position andresources? How do the specialized knowledgehaves and have-nots fare in an increasinglyknowledge-based society, and how do know-ledge-systems produce and reproduce inequali-ties between social strata? Research alreadyshows that contemporary educational systemsreproduce socioeconomic inequalities, in largepart through credential barriers (Collins,1979). Furthermore, scientific and expertknowledge is differentially received and utilized,depending on people's income and education

(Link et al., 199 8). Another issue pertains to theoveremphasis on scientific knowledge at the


7/8

104 ACTA SOCIOLOGICA 6(2)

expense of other continually (and perhapsincreasingly) important forms of knowledge.The concept of 'knowledge society' should notlimit the production and application of know-

ledge to formal science. Innovations occur indifferent areas, organizations and places. Asdemands for cutting costs and developing newproducts and services grow, economic stakesincrease for experts and lay workers alike. Agrowing body of sociological research attemptsto highlight the creative and innovative skill-based aspects of work. Thus Harper's (1987)portrait of Willie, the all-around craftsman,Fine's (1992) analysis of culinary work, andThorlindsson's (1994) analysis of the skipper,all emphasize the role which skill and work-manship play in the creative work process. It canbe argued that the production and application ofwork-based knowledge has always been amoving force in the economy. One of the ques-tions that need to be asked is whether recenteconomic developments de-emphasize this typeof knowledge-work in favour of professionalwork based on formal training in science, engi-neering and computer technology. One of theleading theorists to promote the concept of theknowledge society argues against such a con-clusion (Stehr, 1994). He reminds us thatformally trained scientists, engineers andcomputer specialists comprise only a smallfraction of the total labour force in contem-porary society, and that limiting the contri-bution of education to professionals andscientific experts is simply too narrow a view.Finally, on a related note, there is need forserious analysis of stabilities as well as change incontemporary Western society. Much of theliterature on the knowledge society - and post-modernity more generally - is undermined by anovelty bias. What is new is tirelessly sought,found and, all too often, stretched to the point of

overemphasis and exaggeration. Here, noticeshould be tak-en of the fact that the industrialand service sectors of the modern era are stillthe backbone of most Western economies.Furthermore, the 'globalization stories' oftentold by economic and post-modern sociologistsare challenged by the fact that world trade onlyaccounts for 17 per cent of world economicactivity, that Western European trade consti-tutes the lion's share of global foreign trade, andthat increase in foreign trade in recent yearsmostly concerns Europeanization, i.e. Western

European firms trading with each other withinthe European Union (EU) Fligstein and Merand,

2002). Furthermore, at the individual level, theaverage John and Mary in any Western countrystill derive their identity of self and outlook onlife first from their family and close kin, then

from other network ties and work, then theirlocal community, but much less from larger andmore remote entities, such as a nation state, or,more drastically, a whole region (e.g. EU), or theentire world. For the subsection of businessmen,bureaucrats, or academics, who travel fre-quently between states or continents, and regu-larly expose themselves to the internationalmedia, self-definitions and outlooks may bemore globalized. Yet, individuals leaving thecultural setting they are accustomed to, can inimportant ways 'remain' within this setting,

despite geographicdistances, precisely because

of technological developments. In addition tomaking phone calls to their relatives and friends,they can send and receive emails with text,pictures and video clips, but they can alsoinstantly read the local or national papers oftheir community or country over the internet,and listen to the local/national radio and TV viaan internet media player or a personal satellitedisc. Not everyone of course would have theinterest, means, or resourcefulness to do so. Thechallenge facing the serious analyst of the'knowledge society' is to consider both stabilityand change in a balanced account of how andwhy some societal and cultural aspects arechanging, while others remain much the same.

ReferencesBell, D. (1973) The Coming of Post-industrial Society. New York:

Basic Books.Benner, M. (2003) 'The Scandinavian Challenge: The Future of

Advanced Welfare States in the Knowledge Economy', ActaSociologica 46(2): 132-49.

Bertilsson, T. M. (2003) 'The Social as Trans-genic: On Bio-power and its Implications for the Social', Acta Sociologica

46(2): 118-31.Collins, R. ( 19 79) The Credential Society: An Historical Sociology of

Education and Stratification. New York: Academic Press.Collins, R. (1986) 'Is 1980s Sociology in the Doldrums?',

American Journal of Sociology 91: 13 36-5 5.Fine, G. A. (1992) 'The Culture of Production: Aesthetic Choices

and Constraints in Culinary Work', American Journal of Soci-ology 97: 1268-94.

Fligstein, N. and Merand, F. (2002) 'Globalization or Euro-peanization? Evidence on the European Economy Since1980', Acta Sociologica 45(1): 7-22.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott,P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: T1eDynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies.London: Sage.

Hage, J. (1994) 'Sociological Theory: Complex, Fragmented, andPoliticized', in J. Hage (ed.) Formal Thleory in Sociology:


8/8


Opportunity r Pitfall?, p. 52-65. New York: State Universityof New York Press.

Harper, D. (1987) Working nowledge: kill and Community n aSmall Shop. Chicago: University f Chicago Press.

Link, B., Northridge, M. E., Phelan, J. C. and Ganz, M. L. (1998)

'Social Epidemiology nd the Fundamental Cause Concept:On the Structuring of Effective Cancer Screens by Socio-economic Status', The Milbank Quarterly 6: 375-402.

Maranta, A., Guggenheim, M., Gisler, P. and Pohl, C. (2003) 'TheReality of Experts and the Imagined Lay Person', Acta Socio-logica 46(2): 150-65.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001) Re-thinking

Science: Knowledge nd the Public n an Age of Uncertainty.Cambridge: olity Press.

Stehr, N. (1994) The Knowledge ociety. London: Sage.Thurk, J. and Fine, G. A. (2003) 'The Problem of Tools: Tech-

nology and the Sharing of Knowledge', Acta Sociologica 6(2):

107-1 7.Thorlindsson, T. (1994) 'Skipper Science: A Note on the Epis-

temology of Practice and the Nature of Expertise', The Socio-logical Quarterly 5: 329-45.

Vilhjalmsson, R. and Thorlindsson, T. (2002) 'Central ssues inSociology: Globalization, Stratification, and Gender andDeviance', Acta Sociologica 5(1): 3-6.

Thorolfur Thorlindsson is Professor f Sociology n the Faculty of Social Sciences,University of Iceland.

Runar Vilhjalmsson is Professor f Sociology n the Faculty of Nursing, University of

Iceland.

Documents

kwnoledge society.pdf