**1. Introduction**

304 Sociological Landscape – Theories, Realities and Trends

Logstein, B. (2010). Trender i norsk landbruk 2010. Frekevensrapport. Trondheim: Norsk

Loureiro, M.L. and A. M. Jervell (2005). Analyzing Farms Participation Decisions in Agrotourism Activities in Norway. *Tourism Economics* 11/3:453-469. Mann, S. A. (1990). A*grarian Capitalism in Theory and Practice.* London: University of North

Mann, S. A. and J. M. Dickinson (1978). Obstacles to the Development of Capitalist

Marx, K. [1867]. Capital. e.g. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/

Meert, H., G. Van Huylenbroeck, T. Vernimmen, M. Bourgeois and E. van Hecke (2005).

Munton R. and T. Marsden (1991). Dualism or Diversity in Family Farming? Pattern of

Newby, H. (1983). European Social Theory and the Agrarian Question: Towards a Sociology

Newby, H. (1978). The Rural Sociology of Advanced Capitalist Societies. Pp: 3-30 in H. Newby (ed.) *International Perspectives in Rural Sociology*. Chichester: Wiley. Olsson, G. A., and K. Rønningen (1999). *Environmental values in Norwegian agricultural* 

Redclift, M. (1986). Survival Strategies in Rural Europe: Continuity and Change. *Sociologia* 

Share , P., H. Campbell and G. Lawrence (1991) The Vertical and Horizontal Restructuring

Vik, J. (2008). Trender i norsk landbruk 2008. Frekevensrapport. Trondheim: Norsk senter

Vik, J. and J. H. Rye (2006). Trender i norsk landbruk 2006. Frekevensrapport. Trondheim:

Weber, M. [1904] (1958). *The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism*. New York: Scribner's

Weber, M. [1892] (1947). *Die Verhältnisse der Landarbeiter im ostelbischen Deutschland. (From* 

*Max Weber: Essays in Sociology*, (trans. and ed.) by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills).

of Rural Regions: Australia and New Zealand. In Alston, M. (ed.). *Family farming. Australia and New Zealand.* Keypapers Number 2. Wagga Wagga: Centre for Rural

Rye, J. F. and O. Storstad (2004) *Trender i norsk landbruk 2004. Frekvensrapport.* R. 4/04. Rye, J. F. and O. Storstad (2002) *Trender i norsk landbruk 2002. Frekvensrapport.* R. 8/02.

http://www.ssb.no/emner/10/04/10/stjord/ (Retrived Sept 25. 2011)

Occupancy Change in British Agriculture. *Geoforum* 22/1:105-117.

Newby, H. (1980). Rural Sociology – a Trend Report. *Current Sociology* 28/1:1-141.

*Landscapes.* R-10/99. Trondheim: Centre for Rural Research.

Farm Household Survival Strategies and Diversification on Marginal Farms. *Journal* 

of Agriculture. Pp: 109-123 in G. E. Summers (Ed.) *Technology and Social Change in* 

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1899/devel/index.htm

Agriculture. *Journal of Peasant Studies* 5, 4:466-481.

*Rural Areas.* Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

(02.02.2007)

Carolina Press.

(04.02.2007)

senter for bygdeforskning.

*of Rural Studies* 21:81-97.

*Ruralis* XXVI (3/4):218-227.

Social Research.

for bygdeforskning.

Press

Trondheim: Centre for rural research.

Norsk senter for bygdeforskning.

Statistics Norway (2011) Strukturen i jordbruket. Endelege tal, 2010

The social studies in science and technology assume the perspective that knowledge and technology are built and legitimized in a certain context. A context that encompasses machines, texts, scientists, laboratories, imagination, power, interest. Considering any human construct, science and technology also embrace several social elements, and without a thorough observation in the practice itself, some might say that these elements would disappear from its composition. Science and technology would appear as necessary, functional, detached from the worldly concerns. The traditional epistemology and technology's philosophy guided us the belief that the real knowledge and its working technologies would not be related with these listed elements.

However, Thomas Kuhn (1995) in his study foresaw the sunset of these perspectives. As it is a common sense, the dynamics of conflicts and consensus in the scientific communities define the luck from different paradigms on the definition concerning the model of science. This definition presented the development of restrict groups, inserted in determined places from situated scientific practice, even though, it was considered the generalized symbolic dimension. Based on this, David Bloor (1991) assume that knowledge is what the community considers as knowledge. A community in which the cognitive content, values and practices are constructs grounded on the context.

Harry Collins (1992) characterizes this context based on the local general expectations of how the world functions. These expectations appear, for example, by the moment in which the scientist has to decide the way he/she should decide for an interpretation among several allowed by the experimental data. In other words, the practical problem of the interpretative flexibility caused by the data, the context of the practice argues with the generalized expectations around the given knowledge endorsed. The price of the defection of a group is the loss of referrals and political support.

Bruno Latour (2000) argues that the context of the scientific practice subscribes itself in the laboratories, or, better saying, in the calculus centers, from where the knowledge is purified from its extra-scientific elements and it is shown in the format of articles and books.

Climate Change and Shifting Technoscientific Agendas 307

system of science and technology, better saying, it promotes the stability of the legitimate value that circulates through this system, and it happens to be validated as guiding

The society, as a social system, has a central zone which invades the entire "ecological domain in which the society exists", as Shils (1992) affirms. The legitimate order of symbols, values and beliefs that controls the society is located in its center. In the case of science and technology international system, it is established a legitimate order through the construction of legitimate research agendas, ensured experimental practice, allowed imagery of the

Considering the international system of science and technology formed by trans-scientific fields (KNORR-CETINA, 2005), that is, social areas of scientific and technical production that whether expand itself or restrict itself based on the locale and global circumstance that is faced. One of the circumstances refers to the legitimacy of the practice that governs the field: the greater the proximity concerning the central practices, the greater the expansion. It is due to the legitimacy agreement, which says that the legitimate is legitimate because it finds support in its practices, publications, conferences and etc. In a general level, the definition of the main scientific system can be noticed as a battle which mobilizes the

It brings into the game resources relations, for example, when it is occupied a scientific position, when money is distributed among the group of scientists or researchers, when it is elected a speaker to a scientific conference or even when the result is produced by a scientist incorporated into another's investigations (KNORR-CETINA, 2005, p.206). It is needless to say that these resources are highly concentrated in the center. Thus, these relations are unequal, producing hierarchies that are mobilized, in a basic level, as power relations. The center concentrates resources, thus concentrates power of definition and expansion of the scientific practice that are not built. It is the main role of the periphery whether the acknowledgement of these scientific practices or its negation, the last, therefore, would bring the consequence that the science and technology distance themselves from the major values and it tends to be considered of a restrict and exotic interest, acquiring low

To observe the international system of science and technology is the same as to face limiting conditions of scientific practice. We will refer here to the conditions less cited in literature when mentioning the differences between center and periphery in the scientific system. It is not related to the quantitative differences present in the international rankings from articles and patents, though. It is related to the previous conditions of the scientific producing, not the product itself, although the last is a direct consequence of the former. It is related, to be clearer, to the set of elements available to the scientists by the moment of the subject choice.

1. Local problems. Limited interest and even more aggravating is the fact of having few

It would be guided to the periphery because of the mentioned topics:

works to relate its consequences to the main interests in science;

principles concerning the good and bad technical-scientific practice.

world, sanctioned paradigms.

relation of resources.

capacity of definition and circulation.

**3. The peripheral condition** 

By its turn, the calculus centers are not devoid, purified by its context, from its agreements behind the walls, from its Tribe's idol. Laboratories also present the hierarchical marks from the scientific community. As Nunes; Gonçalves (2001:28) discuss:

Some laboratories have the capacity to use or reproduce knowledge from determined central region of the system, within the calculus centers. Other would reproduce knowledge, that, besides being new or innovative, it would be declared as local or regional interest.

This is the core of the matter concerning the differentiation center/periphery in the international system of science and technology (ISST)1. There is an established hierarchy based upon the references of scientific excellence, issues and patents, that has dynamical stability, and that, concerning the knowledge building, operates in the distinction of the valid knowledge (concerning circulation strength) and non-valid (concerning circulation weakness). As Latour (2000: 371-2) affirms:

In another words, we do not need to oppose the local Chinese knowledge to the universal European knowledge, but just two local knowledge (…) Who includes and who is included, who locates and who is located are not things that constitute cognitive differences or even cultural, but it result from a constant battle.

Referring to this constant battle, it is possible to mention the "Matthews effect", Merton (1968) discusses the system of reward in scientific life: the scientists who has more is likely to earn more, the ones who has less, is likely to earn less. The scientific system tends to "oligopoly" in which concerns the scientific credit in the calculus centers. Mentioning Merton (1968: 57) "The social structure of science provides the context for this inquiry into a complex psychosocial process that affects both the reward system and the communication system of science".

The gathering tendency of the scientific credit from the calculus centers influences the ones who pass through there, giving them differentiate conditions and it is reflected in the scientific product, namely, research, publication, patent, in a game where no one loses: the calculus center wins, besides the quality of its formation, the scientists win besides their competence.

The judgments about the scientific capacity of a student or even a researcher are always contaminated, throughout his/her career, by the position that he/she occupies within the instituted hierarchy (the Great Schools, in France, or the universities, for example, in the United States) (BOURDIEU, 1983:124).
