Bruno Latour & Steve Woolgar - Laboratory Life ... - Pedro P. Ferreira

memoranda, and various data sheets provided by participants. Formal interviews were alsocarried out with all members of the laboratory as well as with((40))certain other scientists in the field working at other laboratories. These interviewssupplemented the vast body of comments and information gleaned during informaldiscussions. The reflections of the observer, particularly on his work as a technician in thelaboratory, provided a further source of data.Preliminary analysis and writing began soon after initial participation. Partly because of theavailability of office space within the laboratory, it was possible to carry on the work ofwriting without losing opportunities of taking part in discussions between participants or ofobserving other aspects of daily life in the laboratory.No attempt was made to conceal the observational role. For example, it was made clear toparticipants that notes were being taken on all that went on in the laboratory. The observerdiscussed his preliminary drafts with participants and organised several seminar discussions inwhich visiting sociologists and philosophers of science interacted with members of thelaboratory.6In all but Chapter 3, which is historical in character (see below), names, dates, and placeshave been changed or replaced by initials so as to protect the anonymity of those involved.We also decided only to use those anecdotes and events that, in our judgment, were unlikelyto cause social or political repercussions.The Organisation of the ArgumentIt will be clear from the argument of this chapter that our very specific interest in laboratorylife concerns the way in which the daily activities of working scientists lead to theconstruction of facts. Obviously, this particular interest differs substantially from existingperspectives on laboratories. Consequently, we shall not dwell on aspects such as theadministrative organisation of laboratory work (Swatez, 1970), the influence of suchorganisation on creativity, the influence of laboratory organisation on scientists' careers(Lemaine and Matalon, 1969), nor on the nature of communication and patterns ofinformation flow (Bitz et al., 1975). 7 Rather our interests focus on two major questions: Howare the facts constructed in a laboratory, and how can a sociologist account for thisconstruction? What, if any, are the differences between the construction of facts and theconstruction of accounts?