10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17053




What is the state of art of Science and Technology Studies in Italy? What happened in the last five years? In this paper, the departing President of STS Italia traces the main lines of research of STS scholars in Italy, highlighting the ways in which a scientific field (previously under-represented in the Italian scenario) has gained visibility and substance. In particular, the narration concentrates on the capacity of researchers to build research networks (at both national and inter- national level) actively contributing to the inter/national debate, as well as to ques- tion and innovate ways of thinking about technology and the social itself.




application/pdf
2038-3460
17053
2
en
Attila Bruni
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Tecnoscienza – Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
research
STS, ITALIA
Text.Serial.Journal
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/
3
Editorial
2013-01-06
2023-05-28
2013-01-06
2023-07-14
3-21
TS
Attila Bruni
2012
10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17053
3
University of Trento
2038-3460
2
research
en
21
STS, ITALIA
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/article/download/17053/15941
3
                                                             Presidential Address

STS, ITALIA

Attila Bruni



      Abstract What is the state of art of Science and Technology Studies in Italy?
      What happened in the last five years? In this paper, the departing President of STS
      Italia traces the main lines of research of STS scholars in Italy, highlighting the ways
      in which a scientific field (previously under-represented in the Italian scenario) has
      gained visibility and substance. In particular, the narration concentrates on
      the capacity of researchers to build research networks (at both national and inter-
      national level) actively contributing to the inter/national debate, as well as to ques-
      tion and innovate ways of thinking about technology and the social itself.

      Keywords Science and Technology Studies; Italy; scientific community; academy;
      research.




Introduction
                                                   Our policy, and one point: we want to examine
                                                   the pulsar for the way it is in hand at all times in
                                                   the enquiry. We want to see the way it is ‘per-
                                                   formatively’ objective. We did not examine and we
                                                   want not to examine the end-point object for its
                                                   correspondence to an original plan. We want to
                                                   disregard, we want not to take seriously, how
                                                   closely or how badly the object corresponds to
                                                   some original design – particularly to some cogni-
                                                   tive expectancy or some theoretical model – that is
                                                   independent of their embodied work’s particular
                                                   occasions as of which the object’s production – the
                                                   object – consists, only and entirely.
                                                                          (Garfinkel et al. 1981, p. 137)



   During the joint EASST/4S conference of this year (Copenhagen, 17-21 Octo-
ber 2012), two particularly flattering things happened to me. First, I was invited (in
my capacity as President of STS Italia) by the Netherlands Graduate Research
School for Science, Technology & Modern Culture (WTMC) to speak briefly on

TECNOSCIENZA
Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
Volume 3(2) pp. 3-21 - ISSN 2038-3460
http://www.tecnoscienza.net                       © 2012 TECNOSCIENZA
4   BRUNI



    the occasion of the ‘lunch meeting’ organized to celebrate the twenty-fifth anniver-
    sary of its foundation and the second edition (again after twenty-five years) of The
    Social Construction of Technological Systems (Bijker et al. 1987, 2012). The editors
    were present at the lunch, as well as some of the contributors to the book and oth-
    er leading scholars and personalities in the international STS panorama. Consider-
    ing that I had just started high school in 1987, and that STS Italia did not even ex-
    ist until 2005, perhaps the reader will understand the pride and satisfaction which
    I felt on receiving the invitation.
        In less institutional and more strictly personal terms, perhaps even more satisfy-
    ing for me was the fact that one of the first people that I met at the conference
    (Cornelius Schubert) told me that two people sitting behind him on the plane had
    spent large part of the flight reminiscing enthusiastically about the EASST confer-
    ence held in Trento in 2010. Then another person (Miquel Doménech) told me
    that he had heard the same in his group of Spanish colleagues. To tell the truth, in
    both cases the comments concerned the quality of the food and the espresso cof-
    fee, but given that I had been one of the main organizers of the conference, and
    that it had absorbed my time for a year, the reader will again understand my pleas-
    ure at what I heard. And I hope that science and technology scholars in Italy will
    be pleased as well, because both episodes were the result of a collective enterprise
    whereby STS studies in Italy have changed substantially over the past few years,
    gaining visibility both nationally and internationally. How this has happened I shall
    seek to explain in the sections that follow.


    1. Signals
                                                     Disney: We’ve got a bleeding pulse here
                                                                                          (2.0)
                                                                                Cocke: He::y!
                                                                                          (4.5)
                                                                                       Wo:::w!
                                                                                          (1.2)
                                                   You don’t suppose that’s really it, do you?
                                                                                          (2.0)
                                                                                   Ca::n’t be:.
                                                   (Garfinkel et al. 1981, Appendix 3, p. 149)



        Every story has its founding myth. That of STS in Italy narrates that in 2004, in
    Paris, during a coffee break at the 4S/Easst Conference, four researchers (or may-
    be five… founding myths always contain ambiguities), noticing they were the only
    Italian scholars attending the conference, decided to set up an association and cre-
    ate the Italian Society for Social Studies of Science and Technology (STS Italia).
    The association was founded with the aim of bringing to Italy a debate as much es-
    tablished and acknowledged at the international level as it was neglected and dis-
                                                                  TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)            5



regarded in Italy. Explanation of this situation would take us too far afield, but it is
useful to bear in mind that Italian academe (and careers within it) is dominated by
‘disciplinary scientific sectors’ (settori scientifico-disciplinari - SSD). Yet STS (un-
like in other countries) have never been one such sector, and their status within
other disciplines (sociology, philosophy, history, anthropology, political science)
has always been somewhat marginal, when not being regarded with suspicion. This
is not to say that STS was neglected in Italy until the mid-2000s (Bucchi 1996,
1997, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004; Bucchi and Mazzolini 2003; Neresini 1993, 2000;
Bucchi and Neresini 2003, 2004; Gherardi and Lippi 2000; Nacci 2000; Bennato
2002; Volontè 2003a, 2003b; Guzzetti 2002a, 2002b; Mongili 1998; Pellegrino
2003, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2005d; Bruni 2004, 2005a, 2005b; Bruni and Gherardi
2001; Gherardi and Strati 2004; Grasseni 2003, 2004), but rather to say that their
circulation had been restricted to individual scholars and research niches.
    In this context, STS Italia has been an original form of aggregation able to at-
tract researchers who not only share the same areas of research interest but are also
willing to meet the challenge of changing current knowledge production and shar-
ing processes in scientific settings. The work carried out to date (through the or-
ganisation of national and international workshops and conferences, and establish-
ing dialogue with not exclusively or strictly academic institutions) has made it clear
that the breeding ground for Italian STS is the development of opportunities to
foster new perspectives and new generations of scholars, especially at a time when
the social sciences (not just in Italy) seem to be plunged in a crisis with no appar-
ent way out.
    The advent of occasions and arenas for discussion (as well as for identitarian
self-representation) has indubitably given major impetus to the formation of a
community of scholars and to the evident growth in Italy of a research sector hith-
erto almost invisible. Nevertheless, because impulses should pulsate, it is necessary
to look more closely at what has happened over the past five years in the panorama
of Italian STS studies and publications.


2. Pulses
                                                Disney: …(I won’t believe it) ‘till we get (a)
                                                                                 second one.
                                                                                        (0.4)
                                                Cocke: …I won’t believe it until we get the
                                                                   second one and until th–
                                                     the thing has shifted somewhere else.
                                                (Garfinkel et al. 1981, Appendix 5, p. 154)



   Personally (and at the risk of neglecting the work of a number of colleagues), I
consider Il senso degli oggetti tecnici (“The sense of technical objects” - Mattozzi
2006) to be the main impetus behind the ‘visibilization’, if not the outright institu-
6   BRUNI



    tionalization, which STS were about to undergo in Italy in following years.1 This
    book proposed the translations of a number of articles (by, among others, Latour,
    Akrich, Mol, Woolgar) that have somehow made the history of contemporary STS.
    It opened with a long Introduction in which the author (a semiotician who had just
    received his doctorate) for the first time presented to the Italian public, in copious
    detail, the concepts and keywords by then circulating in STS for around ten years.
    To be noted is that this happened in a context in which the only Italian translations
    of ‘‘contemporary STS classics’ were Science in Action (Latour 1987) and Of Bicy-
    cles, Bakelite and Bulbs (Bijker 1995), both published in Italian in 1998.
        Whenever something begins to pulsate, the pulsation repeats itself. Shortly af-
    terwards, therefore, two further publications, in handbook format (Mongili 2007;
    Parini 2007), provided Italian readers with a systematic overview of two debates
    difficult to summarize (the relationship between technology and society from an
    ‘ecological’ standpoint; the construction of scientific knowledge).
        The handbook nature of these publications was symptomatic of another ongo-
    ing process: the greater presence of STS-oriented courses on degree, master, and
    doctorate programmes; and, therefore, also the greater inclination of Italian pub-
    lishers to invest in such publications. This is further evidenced by the publication
    (in the immediately following years) of several books testifying to the contribution
    made by Italian research to topics such as technoscientific innovation (Pellegrini
    2008) and technology as a social practice (Gherardi 2008).
        Further evidence is provided by a special issue, edited by Federico Neresini
    (2008), of the Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia devoted to STS “inside and outside
    the laboratory” and, above all, by the growing number of articles testifying to the
    capacity of Italian STS to participate in the international debate, especially as re-
    gards media and the communication of science (Bucchi and Trench 2008; Bucchi
    2009; Neresini and Pellegrini 2008; Neresini et al. 2009; Castelfranchi et al. 2009;
    Bucchi and Lorenzet 2009; Balbi 2009a; Balbi and Prario, 2010); scientific
    knowledge production (Volontè 2008); the intersection between organizing, work
    practices and new technologies in medicine (Bruni 2005; Bruni and Parolin 2009;
    Perrotta 2008); ubiquitous interaction (Pellegrino 2007, 2008a, 2009a); infor-
    mation systems (De Paoli and D’Andrea 2008a; 2008b; Teli et al. 2007; Teli et al.
    2009); design (Mattozzi and Mangano 2009); and risk and responsibility in envi-
    ronmental choices (Pellizzoni 2010).
        These diverse pulsations have given unprecedented impetus to the Italian STS
    debate and to its visibility. They signal that, independently from STS Italia, social
    studies on science and technology command the attention, in Italy as well, of a



    1
      For the sake of brevity, in this and the following sections I refer only to publications by Italian
    authors resident in Italy. This excludes the large number of Italian researchers working in
    foreign countries who have contributed to the growth of the Italian STS community. I apologize
    to them, hoping that they will understand the criterion that I have adopted. Nor will I refer to
    articles published in previous issues of Tecnoscienza, because I presume that readers of the
    journal are already well acquainted with them.
                                                                     TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)          7



growing number of scholars. Moreover, as well known in physics, directly connect-
ed to pulsations is the frequency of motion.


3. Frequency of motion
                                                                      Disney: I– It’s growing!
                                                               Cocke: HH Hehh hehh hehh!
                                                                                          (0.8)
                                                                  Disney: (kh) Yeah, that’s it!
                                                                           Cocke: Hihh hihh!
                                                                   Disney: By God! We got it!
                                                                        Cocke: Naow, naow!
                                                  (Garfinkel et al. 1981, Appendix 4, p. 151)


   When, in 2010, I was elected president of STS Italia, together with the two
newly elected Vice-president (Alvise Mattozzi) and Treasurer (Assunta Viteritti) of
the association, we decided to try to map the various areas of interest within Italian
STS, asking the people (around 80) whose names were stored in the STS Italia da-
tabase to indicate their research interests in three keywords. Classification and
grouping of these keywords yielded the following scenario:


       Objects, communication and design
                                                                     Education&Learning
                                                   Epistemology
              Medicine, health and healthcare      Methodology
                                                   Theory
                                                                  Public opinion and
        Media and digital worlds                                  participation processes


       Knowledge, science                                               Bio - Nano - Neuro
       and laboratory practices
                                           STS - Italia
                                                                     Infrastructures and
               Ethics and power
                                                                      innovation processes

                             Organizational and
                                                               Culture and consumption
                             work practices

                                      “Mothers, monsters and machines”




 2010 - Principal topics of interest of STS Italia members
8   BRUNI



        I remember my surprise at finding both such a wide variety of themes and the
    overall coherence of the research scenario that emerged. I also remember thinking
    how difficult it would be to translate this scenario into something more concrete
    than a graphic representation.
        Almost three years later, I perhaps have some clues. Firstly, this scenario has
    been translated into a quantity of studies and publications that would be difficult
    to summarize here without merely constructing a summary list of citations. I shall
    therefore do no more than demonstrate the continuity in publication of both
    handbooks/anthologies (Bucchi 2010; Parini and Pellegrino 2010; Bennato 2011)
    and research volumes, particularly on the following topics: the media (Balbi 2011a;
    Neresini and Magaudda 2011); the ‘politics of proximity’ (Pellegrino 2011); digital
    cultures and consumption (Magaudda 2012a); innovation processes and the rela-
    tive controversies (Arnaldi and Lorenzet 2010; Lorenzet 2013, Minervini 2009;
    Pellegrini 2011; Magaudda 2012b; Neresini 2011; Nicolosi 2011); laboratory prac-
    tices (Viteritti 2012); the interweaving among technologies, organizational pro-
    cesses and medical practice (Bruni 2010; Parolin 2011; Turrini 2011); a national
    survey on the relationship among science, technology and public opinion (Bucchi
    and Neresini 2010; Bucchi and Pellegrini 2011; Neresini and Pellegrini 2012); and
    critical readings of the relation between neoliberal policies and technoscientific re-
    search (Pellizzoni and Ylonen 2012).
        Also dating to 2011 is the publication of a special issue of Etnografia e Ricerca
    Qualitativa (edited by Alessandro Mongili and Luca Guzzetti) on “biomedical la-
    boratories, technoscience and ethnography”, which further testifies to how STS
    have gained recognition and autonomy within the Italian social sciences and, at the
    same time, established relations and dialogue with other scientific communities.
        Then founded in 2010 was the journal that you are reading at this moment,
    whose existence is one of the most tangible results of the vivacity of the debate in
    progress and the concreteness assumed by the scenario at that time. Again in 2011
    the organization of the first STS Italia Summer School (Alghero, 27-30 June) as-
    sembled thirty PhDs and post-docs (equally divided on national and international
    bases) around the topic “Cities, Technologies and Infrastructures”.
        This year, on the occasion of the fourth STS Italia conference on “Emerging
    Technologies, Social Worlds” (Rovigo, 21-23 June 2012), 180 scholars (around half
    of them non-Italian) attended 20 parallel sessions ranging from “Politics of tech-
    noculture”, through “Working in technologically dense environments”, “Design
    Articulations and practices” and “Internet and new productive paradigms”, to
    “Bodies, technologies, practices and knowledge in biomedicine”. I stress the
    ‘mixed’ dimension (from the point of view of nationalities and tracks) because I
    consider it a distinctive feature of the construction process of the Italian STS
    community. Giving oneself an identity as a scientific community at national level,
    however, does not mean estrangement from the broader international panorama,
    nor does it mean closing oneself off within an orthodox research perspective. Ra-
    ther, it is to become a link able to connect networks and debates that otherwise
    would never have occasion to meet.
                                                                 TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)           9



   At this point, amid so much scientific production and such wide-ranging de-
bate, we may turn to the current interests of Italian science and technology schol-
ars.


4. Tangential velocity
                                               Cocke: I hope to God, this isn’t some sort of
                                                       artefact of the (uh) instrumentation.
                                                                                       (2.0)
                                                                            Disney: My God
                                                                                           [
                                                          McCallister: never saw it befo:re.
                                                (Garfinkel et al. 1981, Appendix 4, p. 153)



    Several topics have been addressed in recent years in the Italian debate. One of
them – perhaps most consolidated at academic level – has to do with the public
communication of science and, in general, with the relationship among innova-
tions, media, and public opinion (Bucchi and Neresini 2011b; Bucchi and Pelle-
grini 2011; Neresini and Pellegrini 2012). This is a classic topic in STS, but it is of
interest that in Italy it has been treated especially in terms of the relationship be-
tween science and citizens in technoscientific controversies (Bucchi 2010b; Bucchi
and Neresini 2011a; Lorenzet 2013), for instance addressing (particularly in recent
years) the issues of bio and nanotechnologies (Arnaldi 2009, 2010a, 2010b; Arnaldi
et al. 2009; Arnaldi and Lorenzet 2010; Bucchi and Neresini 2006; Neresini 2011;
Beltrame 2012), climate change (Bucchi et al. 2010) and organ donations (Lorenzet
and Turrini 2012).
    However, perhaps most characteristic of current Italian STS is a certain type of
interest in, and attraction to, debates that arise at the borders with other disciplines
(and which probably represent the future of STS).
    The debate which in recent years has seen STS in Italy merge with organization
studies and the sociology of medicine, for example, has given rise to various studies
on telemedicine (Gherardi and Strati 2004; Bruni et al. 2007; Piras and Zanutto
2010, 2011a, 2011b; Bruni and Parolin 2009; Parolin 2011) and the flirting be-
tween humans and machines in hospital settings (Bruni 2004, 2005b, 2008, 2011;
Lusardi 2009; Lusardi and Perrotta 2009; Lusardi 2012). The result has been the
diffusion (in Italy and abroad) of a curious expression – “technologically dense en-
vironments” (Bruni 2005a, 2005b) – which refers to the fact that, in contemporary
organizational and work settings, complex sociomaterial practices mobilize the
joint action of heterogeneous elements (both human and non-human), blurring the
distinction between technological and organizational processes. Still lacking, how-
ever, is a thorough analytical definition (when and how is it possible to affirm the
“technological density” of an environment?). Nevertheless, the expression has be-
gun to spread (a track on TDEs was present on the 2010 EASST conference pro-
10   BRUNI



     gramme, as well as the one of this year, and also those of the 2011 Colloquiuum of
     the European Group on Organization Studies and the STS Italia conferences), to
     the point that other researchers have begun to appropriate and rephrase the ex-
     pression (Rennstam 2012).
         Another boundary debate ongoing in the most recent STS, and which has at-
     tracted the attention of Italian scholars as well, concerns bio-objects (Vermeulen et
     al. 2012) and the forms of re/production of scientific knowledge. The feature
     shared by studies in this field is their focus on the practices of writing and visuali-
     zation (and therefore on textual and visual artifacts) that accompany the
     re/production of research and scientific knowledge (Grasseni 2007; Bellotti et al.
     2008; Volontè 2008; Turrini 2011a, 2012; Maestrutti 2008, 2011; Viteritti 2012 –
     see also the Scenario in this issue). They use an approach to knowledge as a situat-
     ed practice involving the body, the material world and, hence, the aesthetic dimen-
     sion (Landri 2010; Turrini 2011b; Viteritti 2011). Perhaps also because of the re-
     cent Italian law which restricts medically assisted reproduction practices, equally
     close attention has been paid to the role of the institutional and organizational di-
     mension that serves as the background to bio-objects (Perrotta 2011; Gherardi and
     Perrotta 2011). Not coincidentally, this will be the theme of the 2013 special issue
     of Tecnoscienza (Re-conceiving Life in the Labs: The Emerging Meanings of Cells in
     the Italian Reproductive Biomedicine and Beyond, edited by Manuela Perrotta).
         A further debate of close interest to Italian scholars has developed at the inter-
     section among STS, cultural studies, and design studies (Shove et al., 2007). Here
     the concern is with: a) practices of consumption and appropriation of technologies
     and their translation into social practices (Magaudda 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011a,
     2012a, 2012c; Piccioni 2010; Pellegrino 2008b, 2009b); b) reconstruction of the
     ‘biographies’ of objects (Burtscher et al. 2009; Balbi, 2009b, 2010, 2011b) and
     methodologies for the analysis of design-in-use (Mattozzi 2010, 2011; Marian and
     Mattozzi 2012; Volontè, 2010). In both cases, the attention centres on the object as
     a part, result, and generator of a broader network of practices and relations in
     which consumers/users perform a central role and reconfigure themselves as
     ‘prosumers’.
         Moreover, the attention to users and practices of re-appropriating and hacking
     technological devices and innovations is particularly widespread in the research
     sector that mixes information systems, participatory design, and discussion of
     property rights on software (De Paoli and D’Andrea 2008a; 2008b; De Paoli et al.
     2008; De Paoli et al. 2012; Teli 2012; Hakken and Teli 2012) and scientific innova-
     tions (Delfanti 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013; Delfanti and Söderberg, 2012). Whilst at-
     tention, therefore, centres on software or genome sequences (and the property
     rights connected with them), the shared feature in this case is an emphasis on the
     political dimension inherent in scientific knowledge, in technologies and, above all,
     in the dynamics that regulate the circulation and use of ideas and artifacts. Moreo-
     ver, given the specificity of the methodological problems that the study of digital
     worlds and interactions raises for the social sciences, this sector of inquiry is at pre-
     sent characterized also by explicit attention to current survey techniques and
                                                                 TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)             11



methodologies, especially in cyber-ethnography (De Paoli and Teli 2011; Teli et al.
2007) or, more generally, in digital worlds (Arvidsson and Delfanti, 2013).
    As it has also happened at international level (Guggenheim and Söderström
2010) a lively and innovative line of inquiry has arisen at the boundaries among
STS, sociology of the territory, and urban geography. Two research lines have pro-
ceeded in parallel: one centred on the interrelations among institutions, territory,
technology and citizens (Pellizzoni 2010; Minervini 2009); the other on a view of
the city and space as networks of relations among heterogeneous elements (Sonda
et al. 2010; Coletta and Gabbi 2013; Brighenti 2009). Whilst the former redefines
the concept of sustainability (see the Symposium of issue no. 2/2012 of Sociologica
edited and introduced by Luigi Pellizzoni on “Reassessing Sustainability”), the lat-
ter revises the category of ‘city’ through a rhizomatic reading of space.
    Last but not least, also the debate that looks at gender and technology as inter-
twined practices (Haraway 1996), attracts in the interests of Italian scholars (Cozza
2009a, 2009b, 2011a, 2011b; Perrotta 2009, 2010)
      If there is a common denominator in all these boundary conversations, it is a
methodological inclination of ethnographic, participatory, historico-documentary
kind, or at any rate intended to furnish a detailed description of the logics, pro-
cesses and practices that weave technology and society together.
    The tangential velocity assumed by STS in Italy prompts the following final re-
marks.


Final remarks: tomorrow now
                                                 Disney: Now the fun begins, we’ve got to
                                                                                   get this::,
                                                                                         (0.6)
                                                     We’ve got to write out some sort of a
                                                                                 program to
                                                                                         (0.3)
                                                  to reduce this tape, (and have the whole
                                                                         lot go in), so, ( )
                                                                                             [
                                                 Cocke: (I don’t think we need) to reduce
                                                                             the damn tape.
                                               (Garfinkel et al. 1981, Appendix 5, p. 157)



   When I began writing this article some days ago, I thought that it would not
take me too much time. I had chosen the type of narration that I wanted to adopt,
and I believed that I had a sufficiently clear idea of the geography of Italian STS
and its developments over the past five years.
   Contrary to my expectations, assembling a systematic account of STS in Italy
proved to be a rather complex task, both because of the sector’s high ‘scientific
12   BRUNI



     productivity’ of recent years, and because of the heterogeneity of its topics and ap-
     proaches, which would have required much more detailed illustration than that
     provided here in an attempt to describe a debate still developing. In this regard, I
     should specify that my reconstruction is inevitably partial and has probably fa-
     voured the authors and lines of inquiry that I personally find most congenial.
           I should also emphasise that, notwithstanding the enthusiastic and celebratory
     tones that I have used (which derive from the enthusiasm of someone who has the
     impression of participating in an ongoing process), the status of STS in Italy is still
     far from being ‘stabilized’. Suffice it to cite the fact that the list of ‘class A’ scien-
     tific journals compiled by the National Agency for University and Research As-
     sessment (National Agency for the Evaluation of University and Research, AN-
     VUR) includes (for the social sciences) none of the main international journals of
     Science and Technology Studies (whereas numerous Italian journals not even in-
     cluded in the international databases receive an ‘A’ rating from the ANVUR).
     Moreover, the scenario emerging from the current process of assessing universities
     and research in Italy seems to be one of adherence to the status quo and of the fur-
     ther sectorialization of knowledge, with the consequent risk of disqualifying, if not
     stunting at birth, what is emergent and interdisciplinary. And STS in Italy still
     share both these features. This scenario is of ill omen for our scientific community,
     which by acting crosswise with respect to the rules and rituals of Italian academy
     (but, as I have tried to show, in substantially and incisively manner at the level of
     research and scientific productivity), has in recent years increasingly acquired visi-
     bility in Italy and abroad. It is indeed so for any scientific community that seeks to
     conduct research in an open, innovative and vibrant manner.
         The future of STS in Italy (and, maybe, not only in Italy) will thus continue to
     depend on the capacity of researchers to build research networks (at both national
     and international level) actively contributing to the inter/national debate, as well
     as to question and innovate ways of thinking about technology and the social itself.



        References
     Arnaldi, S. (2009) L’immaginazione ordinatrice. Anticipazioni del futuro, incertezza
       e ordine socio-tecnico, in “Sociologia”, 43 (2), pp. 152-161.
     Arnaldi, S. (2010a) L'immaginazione creatrice. Nanotecnologie e società fra presente
       e futuro, Bologna, Il Mulino.
     Arnaldi, S. (2010b) Ordering technology, excluding society: the division of labour
       and sociotechnical order in images of converging technologies, in “International
       Journal of Nanotechnology”, 7 (2/3), pp. 137-154.
     Arnaldi, S. and Lorenzet, A (eds.) (2010) Innovazioni in corso. Il dibattito sulle na-
       notecnologie fra diritto, etica e società, Bologna, il Mulino.
     Arnaldi, S., Lorenzet, A. and Russo, F. (eds.) (2009) Technoscience in Progress.
       Managing the Uncertainty of Nanotechnology, Amsterdam, IOS Press.
                                                                 TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)        13



Arvidsson, A. and Delfanti, A. (2013) Introduzione ai media digitali, Bologna, Il
   Mulino (in press).
Balbi, G. (2009a) Studying the Social History of Telecommunications. Between An-
   glophone and Continental Traditions, in “Media History", 15 (1), pp. 85-101.
Balbi, G. (2009b) I «parassiti» contano. La telefonia italiana e i primi abbonati
   (1880-1915), in "Studi Culturali", 6 (1), pp. 43-59.
Balbi, G. (2010) Radio before Radio: Araldo Telefonico and the Invention of Italian
   Broadcasting, in "Technology and Culture", 51 (4), pp. 786-808.
Balbi, G. (2011a) Le origini del telefono in Italia. Politica, economia, tecnologia, so-
   cietà, Milano, Bruno Mondadori.
Balbi, G. (2011b) The Origins of the Telephone in Italy, 1877-1915: Politics, Eco-
   nomics, Technology and Society, in "International Journal of Communication",
   5, pp. 1058-1081.
Balbi, G. and Prario, B. (2010) The History of Fininvest/Mediaset’s Media Strategy:
   30 Years of Politics, the Market, Technology and Italian Society, in "Media, Cul-
   ture and Society", 32 (3), pp. 391-409.
Bellotti, E., Beltrame, L. and Volontè, P. (2008) Il campo sociale della fisica particel-
   lare in Italia. Uno studio sociologico. Bolzano, Bozen-Bolzano University Press.
Beltrame, L. (2012) Embedding Society in Cells: Science, Ethics and Politics in the
   Italian Public Debate on Stem Cell Research in R.G. Mazzolini and H.J. Rhein-
   berger (eds.), Differing Routes to Stem Cell Research: Germany and Italy, Bolo-
   gna; Berlin, Il Mulino; Duncker & Humbolt, pp. 191-223.
Bennato, D. (2002) Le metafore del computer, Roma, Meltemi.
Bennato, D. (2011) Sociologia dei media digitali. Roma, Bari, Laterza.
Bijker, W.E. (1995) Of Bycicles, Bakelites and Bulbs. Toward a Theory of Sociotech-
   nical Change, Cambridge, The MIT Press.
Bijker, W.E., Hughes, T.P. and Pinch, T. (eds.) (1987, 2012) The SociaL Construc-
   tion Of Technological Systems. New Directions in the Sociology and History of
   Technology, Cambridge, The MIT Press.
Brighenti, A. (ed.) (2011), The Wall and the City / Il muro e la città / Le mur et la
   ville, Trento, Professionaldreamers.
Bruni, A. (2004) Tecnologie, oggetti e pratiche di lavoro quotidiane: il caso della car-
   tella clinica informatizzata, in S. Gherardi and A. Strati (eds.), La telemedicina:
   tra tecnologia e organizzazione, Carocci, Roma, pp. 51-75.
Bruni, A. (2005a) La socialità degli oggetti e la materialità dell’organizzare: umani e
   non-umani nei contesti lavorativi, in “Studi Organizzativi”, 1, pp. 113-129.
Bruni, A. (2005b), Shadowing Software and Clinical Records: On the Ethnography
   of Non-humans and Heterogeneous Contexts, in “Organization”, 12 (3), pp. 357-
   378.
Bruni, A. (2008) La medicina come ingegneria dell'eterogeneo e pratica socio-
   materiale, in “Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia”, XLIX (3), pp. 451-476.
Bruni, A. (2010) La sicurezza organizzativa. Una etnografia in sala operatoria, Ca-
   rocci, Roma.
Bruni, A. (2011) Lavorare in sala operatoria, flirtare con la materialità del mondo, in
   “Etnografia e Ricerca Qualitativa”, 1, pp. 83-98.
14   BRUNI



     Bruni, A. and Gherardi, S. (2001) Omega’s Story: The Heterogeneous Engineering
        of a Gendered Professional Self in S. Whitehead and M. Dent (eds.), Knowledge,
        Identity and the New Professional, London, Routledge, pp. 174-198.
     Bruni, A. and Parolin, L.L. (2009) Technological Objects Through Discourse: A
        Case Study from the Field of Telemedicine, in F. Ramallo, A. Lorenzo, X.P. Ro-
        driguez-yez and P. Cap (eds.), New Approaches to Discourse and Business Com-
        munication, London, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 231-251.
     Bruni, A., Gherardi, S. and Parolin, L.L. (2007) Knowing in a System of Fragment-
        ed Knowledge, in “Mind, Culture and Activity”, 14 (1-2), pp. 83-102.
     Bucchi, M. (1996) When Scientists Turn to the Public: Alternative Routes in Science
        Communication, in “Public Understanding of Science”, 5 (4), pp. 375-394.
     Bucchi, M. (1997) The Public Science of Louis Pasteur: The Experiment on Anthrax
        Vaccine in the Popular Press of the Time, in “History and Philosophy of the Life
        Sciences”, 19 (2), pp. 181-209.
     Bucchi, M. (1998) Science and the Media: Alternative Routes in Scientific Commu-
        nication, London, New York, Routledge.
     Bucchi, M (2002) Scienza e società. Un'introduzione alla sociologia della scienza, Bo-
        logna, Il Mulino.
     Bucchi, M. (2004) Can Genetics Help us Rethink Communication? Public Commu-
        nication of Science as a 'Double Helix', in “New Genetics and Society”, 23 (3),
        pp. 269-283.
     Bucchi, M. (2009) Beyond Technocracy. Citizens, Politics, Technoscience, New
        York, Springer.
     Bucchi, M. (2010a) Scienza e Società. Introduzione alla sociologia della scienza
        (Nuova edizione), Cortina, Milano.
     Bucchi, M. (2010b) Scientisti e antiscientisti. Perché scienza e società non si capisco-
        no, Bologna, il Mulino.
     Bucchi, M. (2012) Visible Scientists, Media Coverage and National Identity: Nobel
        Laureates in the Italian Daily Press, in B. Schiele, M. Claessens and S. Shi (eds.),
        Science Communication in the World: Practices, Theories and Trends, New York,
        Springer, pp. 259-268.
     Bucchi, M. and Bauer, M.W. (eds.) (2007), Journalism, Science and Society: Science
        Communication Between News and Public Relations, London, New York,
        Routledge.
     Bucchi, M. and Lorenzet, A. (2009) Before and After Science: Science and Technolo-
        gy in Pop Music 1970-1990, in D. Cheng, M. Claessens, N.R.J. Gascoigne, J.
        Metcalfe, B. Schiele and S. Shi (eds.), Communicating Science in Social Contexts.
        New Models, New Practices, Berlin, Springer, pp. 139-150.
     Bucchi, M. and Mazzolini, R.G. (2003) Big Science, Little News: Science in the Ital-
        ian Daily Press 1946-1997, in “Public Understanding of Science”, 12, pp. 7-24.
     Bucchi, M. and Neresini, F. (2004) Why Are People Hostile to Biotechnologies?, in
        “Science”, 304.
     Bucchi, M. and Neresini, F. (2008) Science and Public Participation in E.J. Hackett,
        O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch and J. Wajcman (eds.), New Handbook of Science
        and Technology Studies, Cambridge, MIT Press, pp. 449-473.
                                                               TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)        15



Bucchi, M. and Neresini, F. (2010) Annuario Scienza e Società, Bologna, Il Mulino.
Bucchi, M. and Neresini, F. (2011a) Which Indicators for the New Public Engage-
  ment Activities? A Study of European Research Institutions, in "Public Under-
  standing of Science”, 20 (1), pp. 64-79.
Bucchi, M. and Neresini, F. (2011b) Monitoring Science in the Public Sphere: The
  Case of Italy, in N. Allum, M. Bauer and R. Shukla (eds.), The Culture of Sci-
  ence, New York, Routledge, pp. 449-462.
Bucchi, M. and Pellegrini, G. (eds.) (2011) Annuario Scienza e Società, Bologna, Il
  Mulino.
Bucchi, M. and Trench, B. (eds.) (2008) Handbook of Public Communication of
  Science and Technology, London, Routledge.
Bucchi, M., Beltrame, L. and Mattè, B. (2010) Climate Change as a Rhetorical Re-
  source and Masterframe: An Analysis of the Newspaper “Il Corriere della Sera”, in
  K. Shimizu (ed.), The Public Understanding of Science and Technology for Envi-
  ronmental Sustainability, Hiroshima, Hiroshima University Press, pp. 46-59.
Burtscher, A., Lupo, D., Mattozzi, A. and Volontè, P. (eds.) (2009) Biografie di og-
  getti / Storie di cose, Milano, Bruno Mondadori.
Castelfranchi, Y., Delfanti, A. and Pitrelli, N. (2009) What Dr. Venter Did on his
  Holidays». Exploration, Hacking, Entrepreneurship in the Narratives of the Sor-
  cerer II Expedition, in “New Genetics and Society”, 28 (4), pp. 415-430.
Coletta, C. and Gabbi, F. (2013) Lo spazio del suono: sinestesie organizzative nelle
  politiche urbane sul rumore, in “Studi Culturali” (in press).
Cozza, M. (2009a) Gender and Technology: Mind the Gap!, in A. Hallin and T.
  Karrbom Gustavsson (eds.), Organizational Communication and Sustainable
  Development: ICTs for Mobility, Hershey, IGI Publishing-Information Science
  Reference, pp. 256-274.
Cozza, M. (2009b) Identità, figurazioni, artefatti. Dal fare genere all’orizzonte cy-
  borg, in B. Poggio (ed.), Ai confini del genere. Prospettive emergenti di riflessione
  e ricerca, Trento, Edizioni31, pp. 135-153.
Cozza, M. (2011a) Bridging Gender Gaps. Networking in Computer Science, in
  “Gender, Technology and Development”, 15 (2), pp. 319-337.
Cozza, M. (2011b) Contesti di genere della tecnoscienza, in A. Bonaccorsi and M.
  Bucchi (eds.), Trasformare conoscenza, trasferire tecnologia. Dizionario critico
  delle scienze sociali sulla trasformazione produttiva della conoscenza, Venezia,
  Marsilio, pp. 83-85.
De Paoli, S. and D’Andrea, V. (2008) How Artefacts Rule Web Based Communi-
  ties: Practices of Free Software Development, in “International Journal of Web
  Based Communities”, 4 (2), pp. 199–219.
De Paoli, S. and Teli, M. (eds.) (2011) New Groups and New Methods? The Eth-
  nography and Qualitative Research of Online Groups, Etnografia e Ricerca Qual-
  itativa (Special Issue), 4 (2).
De Paoli, S., D’Andrea, V. and Teli, M. (2012) Why Free Software Is Not the Anto-
  nym of Commercial Software: Two Case Studies from Corporate and Volunteer
  Based Projects, in “Journal of Peer Production”, 1 (1).
16   BRUNI



     De Paoli, S., Teli, M. and D’Andrea, V. (2008) Free and Open Source Licenses in
       Community Life: Two Empirical Cases, in “FirstMonday”, 13 (10).
     Delfanti, A. (ed.) (2010) Peer-to-peer and User-led Science, in “Journal of Science
       Communication”, 9 (1).
     Delfanti, A. (2011) Hacking Genomes. The Ethic of Open and Rebel Biology, in “In-
       ternational Review of Information Ethics”, 15.
     Delfanti, A. (2012) Tweaking Genes in your Garage: Biohacking between Activism
       and Entrepreneurship, in W. Sützl and T. Hug (eds.), Activist Media and Biopol-
       itics. Critical Media Interventions in the Age of Biopower, Innsbruck, Innsbruck
       University Press.
     Delfanti, A. (2013) Biohackers. The Politics of Open Science, Pluto Books.
     Delfanti, A. and Söderberg, J. (eds.) (2012) Bio/hardware Hacking, special issue of
       “Journal of Peer Production”, 2.
     Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M., and Livingston, E. (1981) The Work of a Discovering
       Science Construed with Materials from the Optically Discovered Pulsar, in “Phi-
       losophy of the Social Sciences”, 11, pp. 131–58.
     Gherardi, S. (ed.) (2008) Apprendimento tecnologico e tecnologie di apprendimento,
       Bologna, Il Mulino.
     Gherardi, S. and Lippi, A. (eds.) (2001) Tradurre le riforme in pratica, Milano, Cor-
       tina.
     Gherardi, S. and Perrotta, M. (2011) Egg Dates Sperm: A Tale of a Practice Change
       and its Stabilization, in “Organization”, 18 (5), pp. 595-561.
     Gherardi, S. and Strati, A. (eds.) (2004), La telemedicina. Tra tecnologia e organiz-
       zazione, Roma, Carocci.
     Grasseni, C. (2003) Lo sguardo della mano. Pratiche della località e antropologia del-
       la visione in una comunità montana lombarda, Bergamo, Bergamo University
       Press.
     Grasseni, C. (2004) Skilled Vision. An Apprenticeship in Breeding Aesthetics, in
       “Social Anthropology”, 12 (1), pp. 41–55.
     Grasseni, C. (ed.) (2007) Skilled Visions. Between Apprenticeship and Standards,
       New York and Oxford, Berghahn Books.
     Guggenheim, M. and Söderström, O. (eds.) (2010) Re-Shaping the City. How Mo-
       bility Shapes Architecture and Urban Form, London, Routledge.
     Guzzetti, L. (2002a) La frode scientifica. Normatività e devianza nella scienza, Na-
       poli, Liguori.
     Guzzetti, L. (2002b) L’etnografia del laboratorio scientifico, in A. Dal Lago and R.
       De Biasi (eds.), Un certo sguardo. Introduzione all'etnografia sociale, Roma, Bari,
       Laterza, pp. 57-80.
     Guzzetti, L. and Mongili, A. (eds.) (2011) Laboratori bio-medici, tecnoscienza e et-
       nografia, Special issue of “Etnografia e Ricerca Qualitativa” 4 (1).
     Hakken, D. and Teli, M. (2011) The Empirical Case for Taking a Technosocial Ap-
       proach to Computing, in P. Kalantzis-Cope and K. Gherab-Martin (eds.),
       Emerging Digital Spaces in Contemporary Society. Properties of Technology,
       London, Palgrave-MacMillan, pp. 255-269.
                                                               TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)        17



Haraway, D. (1996) Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan©_Meets_
   OncoMouse™. Feminism and Technoscience, New York and London,
   Routledge.
Landri, P. (2007) The Pragmatics of Passion. A Sociology of Attachment to Mathe-
   matics, in “Organization”, 14 (3), pp. 413-435.
Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers
   Through Society, Milton Keynes, Open University Press.
Lorenzet A. and Turrini M. (2012) Salute, cittadinanza e percezione del rischio: i ca-
   si della donazione di sangue e degli xenotrapianti, in F. Neresini and G. Pellegri-
   ni (eds.), Annuario Scienza e Società, Bologna, Il Mulino.
Lusardi, R. (2009) Abitare la terapia intensiva, tra pratiche, corpi e tecnologie, in
   “Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia”, 50 (1), pp. 75-100.
Lusardi, R. (2012), Corpi, tecnologie e pratiche di cura. Uno studio etnografico in te-
   rapia intensiva, Milano, Franco Angeli.
Lusardi, R. and Perrotta, M. (2009) Da Alfa a Omega: la riconfigurazione del corpo
   nelle organizzazioni sanitarie, in “Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia”, 50 (4), pp.
   609-633.
Maestrutti, M. (2008) Rendere visibile l’invisibile. Il ruolo della visione e
   dell’immagine nella costruzione di una storia delle nanoTecnologie, in “Rassegna
   Italiana di Sociologia”, 49 (3), pp. 427-450.
Maestrutti, M. (2011) Imaginaires des nanotechnologies. Mythes et fictions de l'in-
   finiment petit, Paris, Vuibert.
Magaudda, P. (2006) Mp3, vinili e impianti hi-fi. Tecnologie, pratiche e utenti della
   cultura Sonora, in “Studi Culturali”, 3 (2), pp. 367-395.
Magaudda, P. (2008) Pratiche sociali e tecnologie quotidiane. Gli aspetti simbolici,
   cognitivi e pragmatici nell’appropriazione della musica digitale, in “Rassegna Ita-
   liana di Sociologia”, 49 (4), pp. 579-606.
Magaudda, P. (2010) L’iPad e il «mosaico» in divenire dell’industria culturale digita-
   le, in “Studi Culturali”, 7 (2), pp. 279-290.
Magaudda, P. (2011a) When Materiality ‘Bites back’. Digital Music Consumption
   Practices in the Age of Dematerialization, in “Journal of Consumer Culture”, 11
   (1), pp. 15-36.
Magaudda, P. (2011b) Actor Network Theory; Communication Studies; Social Shap-
   ing of Technology, in D. Southerton (ed.), Encyclopedia of Consumer Culture,
   London, Sage.
Magaudda, P. (2012a) Oggetti da ascoltare. HiFi, iPod e consumo delle tecnologie
   musicali, Bologna, Il Mulino.
Magaudda, P. (2012b) Innovazione Pop. Nanotecnologie, scienziati e invenzioni nel-
   la popular culture, Bologna, Il Mulino.
Magaudda, P. (2012c) What Happens to Materiality in Digital Virtual Consump-
   tion?, in J. Denegri-Knott and M. Molesworth (eds.). Digital Virtual Consump-
   tion, London, Routledge.
Mangano, D. and Mattozzi, A. (2009) Talking about Design with Bruno Latour. An
   Interview”, in E/C, http://www.ec-aiss.it/includes/tng/pub/tNG_ down-
18   BRUNI



        load4.php?KT_download1=ac37c9aec5b81e5c5b1108480ca6cd9a                     (accessed
        25/11/2012).
     Marian, S. and Mattozzi, A. (2012) Responsibility through Design, Design through
        Semiotics. The case of the Italian Electric Smart Meter: An Attempt to Remediate
        its Non-Responsibility, in M. Leeberg and L. Wul (eds.), Design Responsibility:
        Potentials and Pitfalls, Kolding, Kolding School of Design Press, 2012, pp. 120-
        136.
     Mattozzi, A. (ed.)(2006) Il senso degli oggetti tecnici, Roma, Meltemi.
     Mattozzi, A. (2010) The Semiotic Analysis of Objects: A Model, in S. Vihma (ed.),
        Design Semiotics in Use, Helsinki, Aalto University Press.
     Mattozzi, A. and Parolin L.L. (2013) Sensible Translations. Sensible Dimension and
        Knowledge within the Italian Furniture Production Sector, in “Scandinavian
        Journal of Management” (in press).
     Minervini, D. (2009) Politica e rifiuti. Connessioni socio-tecniche nella governance
        dell'ambiente, Napoli, Liguori.
     Mongili, A. (1998) La chute de l’U.R.S.S. et la recherche scientifique, Paris, L'Har-
        mattan.
     Mongili, A. (2008) Tecnologia e società, Roma, Carocci.
     Nacci, M. (2000) Pensare la tecnica. Un secolo di incomprensioni, Roma - Bari, La-
        terza.
     Neresini, F. (1993), La costruzione sociale della conoscenza scientifica, Padova, Im-
        primitur.
     Neresini, F. (2000) Scienza/Pratica scientifica, in A. Melucci (ed.) Parole chiave, Ca-
        rocci, Roma.
     Neresini, F. (ed.) (2008) Dentro e fuori dal laboratorio. Trasformazioni della tecno-
        scienza e analisi sociologica, in “Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia”, 49 (3).
     Neresini, F. (2011) Il nano-mondo che verrà. Verso la società nanotecnologica, Bolo-
        gna, Il Mulino.
     Neresini, F. and Magaudda, P. (eds.) (2011) La scienza sullo schermo. Le rap-
        presentazioni della tecnoscienza nella televisione italiana, Bologna, Il Mulino.
     Neresini, F. and Pellegrini, G. (2008) Evaluating Public Communication of Science
        and Technology, in M. Bucchi and B. Trench (eds.), Handbook of Public Com-
        munication of Science and Technology, London, Routledge, pp. 239-253.
     Neresini, F. and Pellegrini, G. (eds.) (2012) Annuario Scienza e Società, Bologna, Il
        Mulino.
     Neresini, F., Dimopoulos, K., Kallfass, M. and Peters, H.P. (2009) Exploring a
        Black Box. Cross-national Study of Visits Effects on Visitors to Large Physics Re-
        search Centers in Europe, in “Science Communication”, 30 (4), pp. 506-533.
     Nicolosi, G. (ed.) (2011), Robot. La macchina, il corpo, la società, Firenze, Catania,
        ed.it.
     Parini, E.G. (2007) Sapere scientifico e modernità, Roma, Carocci.
     Parini, E.G. and Pellegrino, G. (eds.) S come scienza, T come tecnica e riflessione
        sociologica. Un'antologia a partire dai classici: Comte, Marx, Mumford, Merton,
        Latour, Bourdieu, Napoli, Liguori.
                                                                TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)        19



Parolin, L.L. (2011) Tecnologia e sapere pratico nella società della conoscenza, Mila-
   no, Franco Angeli.
Pellegrini, G. (2011) Technoscientific Innovation. Responsibility and New Models of
   Democracy in Science and Society Relationship, Soveria Mannelli, Rubettino.
Pellegrino, G. (2003) Representations and uses of the Intranet: a comparative case
   study, in “Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society”, 23 (4), pp. 281-296.
Pellegrino, G. (2005a) Il cantiere e la bussola. Le reti Intranet fra innovazione e rou-
   tine, Soveria Mannelli, Rubbettino.
Pellegrino, G. (2005b) Misunderstandings around the artifact: a KMS failure story,
   in “International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction”, 1 (3), pp. 15-
   28.
Pellegrino, G. (2005c) Thickening the frame: Cross-theoretical accounts of contexts
   inside and around technology, in “Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society”,
   25 (1), pp. 63-72.
Pellegrino, G. (2005d) La sfida dell’ipermediatizzazione. Tecnologie per il Know-
   ledge Management tra rappresentazioni e non-uso, in “Studi Organizzativi”, 1,
   pp. 131-155.
Pellegrino G. (2007) Discourses on Mobility and Technology Mediation. The Tex-
   ture of Ubiquitous Interaction, in “PsychNology”, 5 (1), pp. 59-81.
Pellegrino, G. (2008a) Convergence and Saturation: Ecologies of Artefacts in Mobile
   and Ubiquitous Interaction, in K. Nyiri (ed.), Integration and Ubiquity. Towards
   a Philosophy of Telecommunications Convergence, Vienna, Passagen Verlag, pp.
   75-82.
Pellegrino, G. (2008b) I confini in movimento della mobilità mediata. Continuità e
   discontinuità nella comunicazione mobile, in “Studi Culturali”, 2, pp. 311-332.
Pellegrino, G. (2009a) Learning from Emotions towards ICTs: Boundary Crossing
   and Barriers in Technology Appropriation, in J. Vincent and L. Fortunati (eds.),
   Electronic Emotion, Berlin, Peter Lang, pp. 207-230.
Pellegrino, G. (2009b) The Electronic Body between Fragmentation and Concentra-
   tion. Tracing Symptoms for an Ethics of Multiplicity, in K. Nyiri (ed.), Engage-
   ment and Exposure, Wien, Passagen Verlag, pp. 169-177.
Pellegrino G. (ed.) (2011) The Politics of Proximity. Mobility and Immobility in
   Practice, Aldershot, Ashgate.
Pellizzoni, L. (2010) Risk and Responsibility in a Manufactured World, in “Science
   and Engineering Ethics”, 16 (3), pp. 463-478.
Pellizzoni, L. (2012) Reassessing Sustainability. An Introduction, in “Sociologica” 2.
Pellizzoni, L. and Ylönen, M. (2012) Neoliberalism and Technoscience. Critical As-
   sessments. London, Ashgate.
Perrotta, M. (2008) The organizational construction of the body in the assisted re-
   productive technologies, in F. Molfino and F. Zucco (eds.), Women in Biotech-
   nology, Berlin, Springer, pp. 171-181.
Perrotta, M. (2009) Genere e biotecnologie: evoluzioni nel dibattito sulla riprodu-
   zione assistita, in B. Poggio (ed.), Ai confini del genere. Prospettive emergenti di
   riflessione e ricerca, Trento, Edizioni31, p. 75-96.
20   BRUNI



     Perrotta, M. (2010) Developments in the Debate on Assisted Reproduction: A Gen-
        der Perspective, in B. Glantz and K. Edquist (ed.), Male and Female Infertility:
        Genetic Causes, Hormonal Treatments and Health Effects, New York, Nova Sci-
        ence Publishers, pp. 234-256.
     Perrotta, M. (2011) Il pre-embrione (non) è uno di noi: breve storia di una innova-
        zione inter-organizzativa tra istituzioni, comunità professionali e tecnologie, in
        “Sociologia del Lavoro”, 122, pp. 194-206.
     Piccioni, T. (2010) Gli oggetti tecnologici, i giovani e il privato negoziato del camera
        phone, in M. Drusian and C. Riva (eds.), Bricoleur high-tech. I giovani e le nuove
        forme della comunicazione, Milano, Guerini.
     Piras, E.M. and Zanutto, A. (2010) Prescriptions, X-rays and Grocery Lists. Design-
        ing a Personal Health Record to Support (The Invisible Work Of) Health Infor-
        mation Management in the Household, in “Computer Supported Cooperative
        Work”, 19 (6), pp. 585-613.
     Piras, E.M. and Zanutto, A. (2011a) Emotions and Personal Health Information
        Management: some Implications for Design, in A. Moen (ed.), User Centred
        Networked Health Care, Oulu, IOS Press, pp. 63-67.
     Piras, E.M. and Zanutto, A. (2011b) Al ‘gran ballo’ delle ICT in ambito sanitario:
        la presentazione del sistema PHR, in “Sociologia del lavoro”, 122, pp. 235-246.
     Rennstam, J. (2012) Object-Control: A Study of Technologically Dense Knowledge
        Work, in “Organization Studies”, 33 (8), pp. 1071-1090.
     Shove, E., Watson, M., Martin, H. and Ingram J. (2007) The Design of Everyday
        Life, Oxford, New York, Berg.
     Sonda, G., Coletta, C. and Gabbi, F. (2010) Urban Plots, Organizing Cities, Lon-
        don, Ashgate.
     Teli, M. (2012) Peer Production and Societal Transformation: A Practice-Based Per-
        spective, in “Journal of Peer Production”, 1 (1).
     Teli, M. Pisanu, F. and Hakken, D. (2007) The Internet as a Library-of-People: For
        a Cyberethnography of Online Groups, in “Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /
        Forum: Qualitative Social Research”, 8 (3).
     Turrini, M. (2011a) Biotecnologie, salute e lavoro clinico, in Id. (ed.), Biocapitale.
        Vita e corpi nell’era del controllo biologico, Verona, Ombre Corte, pp. 7-38.
     Turrini, M. (2011) “Se vedo solo il bianco e il nero non vedo le sfumature”. Stili vi-
        suali e incertezza nei laboratori clinici di citogenetica, in “Etnografia e Ricerca
        Qualitativa”, 4 (1), pp. 39-60
     Turrini, M. (2012) Continuous Grey Scales versus Sharp Contrasts: Styles of Repre-
        sentation in Italian Clinical Cytogenetics Laboratories, in “Human Studies”, 35
        (1), pp. 1-25.
     Vermeulen, N., Tamminen, S. and Webster, A. (eds.) (2012) Bio-objects: Life in the
        21st Century, London, Ashgate.
     Viteritti, A. (2011) Corpi sapienti in laboratorio. Apprendere la tecnoscienza in prati-
        ca tra disciplinamento e formatività, in “Etnografia e Ricerca Qualitativa”, 4 (1),
        pp. 61-82.
     Viteritti, A. (2012) Scienza in formazione. Corpi, materialità e scrittura in laborato-
        rio, Milano, Guerini & Associati.
                                                               TECNOSCIENZA – 3(2)        21



Volontè, P. (2003a) La fabbrica dei significati solidi. Indagine sulla cultura della
  scienza, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
Volontè, P. (2003b) Culture della scienza, culture della sociologia. Alcune riflessioni
  sulla riflessività, in “Studi di Sociologia” XLI, pp. 411-434.
Volontè, P. (2006) The Social Context of Scientific Knowledge Production and the
  Problem of Demarcation, in “Pragmatics and Cognition”, XIV, pp. 527-568.
Volontè, P. (2008) La scrittura dei fisici, in “Studi di Sociologia”, XLVI, pp. 95-
  102.
Volontè, P. (2010), Designing Communicating Objects, in S. Vihma (ed.), Design
  Semiotics in Use, Aalto University School of Art and Design, Helsinki, pp. 113-
  128.




   Attila Bruni University of Trento
   Dipartimento di Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale
   Via Verdi 26, 38122 – Trento (Italy)
   Email: attila.bruni@soc.unitn.it
