Framed in the Public Sphere: Tools for the Conceptual History of “Applied Science” — A Review Paper

Abstract

INTRODUCTIONSince mid-nineteenth century people have talked and written about applied Whether in calls for a new kind of education, counter-claims for pure or advertising achievements of industry, use of expression has been a process through which many people have interpreted their worlds, and indeed nature of modernity. Together with such counterparts as rule of law and progress, applied has functioned as what has been called a key word, key or ideograph.' The political historian Geoffrey K. Roberts once expressed frustration of political scientists with such terms which served as both the vocabulary of political and as language of political rhetoric. The aims of first are served by precision, of second by obfuscation and generality.2 Yet, despite such ambiguity in their meaning, use of such terms as applied science, has persisted, and so has challenge of understanding their appeal, uses and connotation. Ironically, perhaps, significance of applied is confirmed by frequency of assertion of what it is not: particularly technology.3This paper is methodological. Not in itself an exploration of history of term applied science, which will be topic of a separate article; it is intended to facilitate professional historians', and ultimately also public's, engagement with thinking about science. This is a part of cultural baggage of many people outside academe and yet is often treated as an uninterpretable thing. The importance of studying such concepts was urged by Otto Mayr almost forty years ago when he suggested that relationship perceived between science and technology in past was an important historical problem. Although such studies have been warmly applauded, this is, in practice, a genre hitherto addressed but rarely.4 We still do not have many obvious precedents for a study of such a nineteenth and twentieth-century category as applied Few would argue for changelessness of concept over a period of centuries, yet nature of change has not been explored.5Questions about construction of science are concerned not only with elite philosophy, but with conventions widely accepted through press, media and politics, as well as academe. Historians have conducted important work on construction of science in public sphere, through for instance important category of commemorative event, such as Watt, Faraday and Lavoisier anniversaries.6 As significant to our understanding of co-construction, in broader community of science studies, have been analyses of political and social movements whether associated with nuclear power or biotechnology which have been effective in forcing their points of view on to a political agenda.7 We cannot understand 1950s concepts of potential for nuclear energy simply by looking at anticipations of scientists and engineers. Students of public understanding of science today and even policy makers are comfortable in their rejection of a top down model of issues, and centrality of public engagement.8In this paper, I examine implications of concepts of science actively being developed in public sphere, rather than being served up there cold in dilute form. The means by which concepts of applied were shared and shaped in Britain in late nineteenth century will be used as an illustration to provide a sense of historical reality to what otherwise might seem abstract theory. The term was typical of a wider genre of phrases used about science: it had acquired a rich variety of associations; it was heavily-freighted in different ways in a variety of contexts. It was characteristically discussed, and functioned, in such media of public sphere as newspapers, after-dinner discussions and public lectures.From seminal contribution of Cooter and Pumphrey to Isis 2009 focus issue on popularisation, case for taking seriously discussions in public sphere has been forcefully made and widely accepted by historians. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.