Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T03:58:08.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Customers and Costs: A Story from Public Sector Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

John Law  and
Madeleine Akrich
John Law
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Social AnthropologyKeele University
Madeleine Akrich
Affiliation:
Centre de Sociologie de I'InnovationEcole Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Paris
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this we explore some of the ways in which a state scientific laboratory (Daresbury SERC) reacted to the rtetoric and forces of the marketpace in the 1980s. We describe laboratory attempts to create what we call “good customers” while converting itself into a “good seller” by developing a particulat set of costing practicting that were closely related to the implementation of a management accounting system. Finally, we consider how Daresbury response to “market forces” influenced scintific and organzational practice, and arsponse that the social technologies of governmentality performed by accountancy — but also by scientific and bureaucratic practice are complex, discursively heterogeneou, and used in context-sensitive ways. This means, or so we suggest, that it is difficult to mount general argunents about “science” and “the market,” and that the use of such large-scale institions impedes impedes analysis.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , Autumn 1994 , pp. 539 - 561
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahonen, P., ed. 1993. Tracing the Semiotic Boundaries of Politics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Alpers, S. 1989. The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Bacharach, S., and Gagliardi, P., eds. Forthcoming. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 14. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, B. 1988. The Nature of Power. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Becker, H. S. 1970a. “Notes on the Concept of Commitment”.In Becker 1970b, 261–73.Google Scholar
Becker, H. S. 1970b. Sociological Work: Method and Substance. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1975. “The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Solcial Conditions of the Progress of Reason.”. Social Science Iformation 14 6:19–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1986. Distinction: A Solcial Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bromwich, M. and Hopwood, A. G., eds. 1986. Research and Current Issues in Management Accounting. London; Pitman.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. 1986. “Organization/Disorganization.” Social Science Information25. 2:299–335.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. 1992. “Formal Organization as Representation; Remote Control, Displacement and Abbreviation.”. In Reed and Hughes 1992 25 (2) 254–72.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. 1993. “Technologies of Representation”. In Ahonen. 1993, 279–312.Google Scholar
Cooper, D.and Hopper, T., eds. 1990. Crirical Accounts. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. and Law, J., forthcoming. “Organization: Distal and Proximal Views.”. In Bacharach and Gagliardi, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H. L., and Rabiow, P. (with an afterword by Michel Foucault). 1982. Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Brighton:Harvester.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, E. L. 1979. The printing Press as an Aggent of Change:Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elias, N. 1978. The History of Manners. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1979. Discipling and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Penguin. Harmonds worth:.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1982. “The Subject and Power.” In Dreyfus and Rabinow 1982, 208–26.Google Scholar
Garcia, M.-F. 1986. “La Construction sociale d'un marche parfait: la marche au cadran de Fontaines en Sologne.” Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales 65:2–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goody, J. 1977. The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hagstrom, W. O. 1965. The Scientufic Community. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Harper, R. R. 1988. “Not any Old Neumbers: An Examination of Practical Reasoning in an Accountancy Environment”. Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics 2:297–306.Google Scholar
Harvey, D. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Inquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hermsen, J. J.and van Lenning, A., eds. 1991. Sharing the Difference: Feminist Debates in Holland. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hines, R. D. 1988. “Financial Accounting: In Communicating Reality, we Construct Reality”. Accounting, Organizations and Society 13:251–61.Google Scholar
Hopwood, A. G. 1986. “Management Accounting and Organizational Action: an Introduction”. In Bromwich and Hopwood 1986, 9–30.Google Scholar
Hopwood, A. G. 1987. “The Archaeology of Accounting Systems. ” Accouniting, Organizations and Society 12:207–234.Google Scholar
Johnson, H. T., and Kaplan, R. S.. 1987. Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The Structure of Scinetific Revolutios. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. 1988. The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge, Mass.:Harard.Google Scholar
Lator, B. 1990. “Drawing Things Together”. In Lynch and Woolgar 1990. 19–68.Google Scholar
Latour, B., and Woolgar, S.. 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts Princeton N.J.:Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Law, J. 1991a. “Power, Discretion and Strategy” In Law 1991b, 165–91.Google Scholar
Law, J., ed. 1991b. A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. Sociological Reivew Monograph 38. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Law, J., 1992. “Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity”. Systems Practice 5:373–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, J., 1994. Organizing Modernity. Oxford:Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lynch, M., and Woolgar, S., eds. 1990. Respresentation in Scientific Practice. Cambridge Mass.:MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miller, P. 1991. “Accounting Inovation beyond the Enterprise: Problematizating Investement Decisions and Programming Economic Growth in the U.K. In the 1960s”. Accounting, Organizations and Society 16:733–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, P. 1992. “Accounting and Objectivity: The Invention of Calculating Selves and Calculable Spaces“. Annals of Scholarship 9:61–86.Google Scholar
Miller, P., and O'Leary, T.. 1990. “Making Accountancy Practical”. Accounting, Organizations and Society 15:179–98.Google Scholar
Miller, P., andRose, N.. 1990. “Goverining Economic Lofe”. Economy and Society 19:1–31.Google Scholar
Mol, A. 1991. “Wombs, Pigmentation and Pyramids: Should Anti-Racists and Feminists Try to Confine [Biology] to Its Proper Place?” In Hermsen and van Lenning 1991, 149–63.Google Scholar
Mol, A., and Law, J.. In Press. “Regions, Networks and Fulids: Anaemia and Social Topology”. Social Studies of Science 24:641–71.Google Scholar
Munro, R. J. B., 1993. “Just When You Thought It Was Safe to Enter the Water: Accountability, Language Games and Multiple Control Technologies”. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies 3:249–71.Google Scholar
Munroaa, R. J. B. and Hatherly, D. J.. 1993. “Accountability and the New Commercial Agenda”. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 4:369–95.Google Scholar
ong, W. 1982. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, M. 1991. “Auditing and Environmental Expertise: Between Protest and Professionalisation”. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal. 3:30–42.Google Scholar
Power, M. 1994. The Audit Explosion. London: Demos.Google Scholar
Reed, M., and Hughes, M., eds. 1992. Rethinking Organization. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Roberts, J., and Scapens, R.. 1990. “Accounting as Discipline”. In Cooper and Hopper 1990, 107–25.Google Scholar
Star, S. L., and Grisesemer, J.. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, ”Translations“ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39.” Social Studies of Science 19:387–420.Google Scholar
Titmuss, R. M. 1973. The Gift Relationaship: From Human Blood to Social Ploicy. Penguin Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
Traweek, S. 1988. Beamitimes and Lofetimes: The World of High Energy Physics. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard.CrossRefGoogle Scholar