Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 9
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Kinzel, Katherina 2015. Narrative and evidence. How can case studies from the history of science support claims in the philosophy of science?. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, Vol. 49, p. 48.


    Elwick, James 2012. Layered history: Styles of reasoning as stratified conditions of possibility. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, Vol. 43, Issue. 4, p. 619.


    Wilson, Adrian 2012. What is a text?. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, Vol. 43, Issue. 2, p. 341.


    Kusch, Martin 2010. Hacking’s historical epistemology: a critique of styles of reasoning. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, Vol. 41, Issue. 2, p. 158.


    Levine, George 2003. [Chambers], Darwin, or Historical Structures: Secord's ‘Sensation’. Journal of Victorian Culture, Vol. 8, Issue. 1, p. 126.


    Smith, Crosbie 2003. The Politics of Progress. Journal of Victorian Culture, Vol. 8, Issue. 1, p. 119.


    Rochberg, Francesca 2002. A consideration of Babylonian astronomy within the historiography of science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, Vol. 33, Issue. 4, p. 661.


    Smith, Roger 1998. The big picture: Writing psychology into the history of the human sciences. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 34, Issue. 1, p. 1.


    Fara, Patricia 1997. Scientific heritage. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, Vol. 28, Issue. 1, p. 187.


    ×
  • The British Journal for the History of Science, Volume 26, Issue 4
  • December 1993, pp. 391-405

Aurora, Nemesis and Clio

  • J. R. R. Christie (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007087400031435
  • Published online: 01 January 2009
Abstract

This essay offers some preliminary and general considerations of big picture historiography of science, attempting an introductory specification of the topic by means of narratological analysis. It takes no strong, substantive position either pro or contra big pictures themselves, preferring an approach which is more diagnostic and heuristic in nature. After considering what may be meant by a term such as ‘big picture’ and its cognates, it interrogates the kind of desire which could lie behind the wish expressed by the conference title ‘Getting the Big Picture’: namely, that a big picture may be worth getting. It proceeds by way of a limited enquiry into what seems to be felt as a relative absence of big picture works in contemporary historiography, criticizing one very general historicocultural thesis which accounts for such an absence, advancing instead evolving features of the professional history of science community over the last thirty years as reasons for this relative absence. Concludingly, it turns the issues raised thus far on their head, in some measure at least. In trying for a more precise specification of the contemporary historiographical formation, we will discover eventually a situation not so much of relative absence of big pictures, rather one where there exists both frame and title for the picture, together with some distinguished painters' names; but where the canvas is only minimally marked, a partial and shadowy sketch, stylistically disjoined. Although this sounds paradoxical, a concrete paradox is not intended. The existence of frame and title enclosing mainly empty canvas indicates only the limitations of the pictorial metaphor for describing complex and developing sets of historiographical practice. What is instanced concludingly is less a theoretical paradox than an intelligible sequence and form of development which issues in a potential problem of practice.

Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

C. Hakfoort , ‘The missing syntheses in the historiography of science’, History of Science (1991), 29, 207–16.

Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (ed. C. Nelson and L. Grossberg ), London, 1988.

P. Galison , ‘History, philosophy and the central metaphor’, Science in Context (1988), 2, 197212

G. Gutting , Michel Foucault's Archaeology of Scientific Reason, Cambridge, 1989, ch. 1.

M. Rudwick , The Great Devonian Controversy: The Shaping of Scientific Knowledge among Gentlemanly Specialists, Chicago, 1985.

A. Ophir and S. Shapin , ‘The place of knowledge: a methodological survey’, Science in Context (1991), 4, 1516.

B. Barnes , The Nature of Power, Oxford, 1988

S. Aronowitz , Science as Power: Discourse and Ideology in Modern Society, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1988

S. Turner , ‘Depoliticizing power’, Social Studies of Science (1989), 19, 533–60.

H. W. Paul , From Knowledge to Power: The Rise of the Science Empire in France, 1860–1939, Cambridge, 1985

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The British Journal for the History of Science
  • ISSN: 0007-0874
  • EISSN: 1474-001X
  • URL: /core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×