How Transnational is 4S? Institutional Scaffolding and the Long Road to a Global STS

Abstract

This article examines the transnationalization of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S), analyzing its evolution from a predominantly North American and Eurocentric organization to a more globally inclusive scholarly community. Drawing on data from governance structures, conference participation, scholarly recognition, and editorial work, the study highlights key trends and challenges in 4S’s efforts to diversify its membership and perspectives. Findings reveal gradual progress, such as increased representation from Latin America, East Asia, and Oceania in conferences and governance, alongside persistent disparities in prestigious awards like the Bernal Prize, which remains dominated by Euro-American scholars. The article underscores the tension between 4S’s foundational Euro-American identity and its aspirations for epistemic diversity, particularly in light of critiques from postcolonial and feminist STS scholars. By exploring how 4S scaffolds transnationalization – through multilingual conferences, regional collaborations, and editorial policies – the study argues that these efforts are crucial for fostering a more diverse and globally engaged STS field. The analysis concludes that while 4S has made strides in broadening participation, there is still a long road ahead to enrich STS scholarship and to fully accomplish the global scope of the Society’s mission.

Keywords

STS field; Society for Social Studies of Science; 4S; transnationalization; epistemic diversity; centers-peripheries

Introduction

In 1998, Michel Callon, then President of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S), made a short discourse on the occasion of delivering the Bernal Prize to Barry Barnes, the pioneering STS scholar who explored the social foundations of scientific knowledge. Callon began with a compelling description of the role of a scientific society in delimiting and shepherding a scientific field:

A society like ours must have the constant preoccupation of asserting its existence and its unity in relation to the outside (so our work may be visible and, I hope, useful) and in relation to itself. Our field is a pluridisciplinary one and should remain so because that is its richness. But pluridisciplinarity can lead to fragmentation. To avert this ever-present danger, conferences like this are valuable. And so are the prizes because they afford an opportunity for us to assert our existence through the public recognition of one of us. (Callon 1999).

4S is completing half a century. Since its inception in 1975 as a small, mostly North American community despite its international ideal, around a new, still not clearly defined interdisciplinary area of study, the society has played an instrumental role in the configuration and institutionalization of the field of social studies of science and technology. It did so, as Callon observed, by establishing its own identity both to the outsiders and to its own practitioners. This identity was forged around a set of core theories, concepts, methodologies, and a research agenda, for which the Society’s annual conferences (starting in 1976), its journals, and handbooks were privileged spaces for discussion and dissemination. Moreover, through the recognition of outstanding scholars—the Bernal Prize was established in 1981, and the others prizes mostly during the nineties—the Society reinforced the field’s definition of excellent work and created a gravitational force around fundamental pieces of scholarship.

This STS foundational core was essentially Euro-American. Consider, for instance, the authorship of most of the chapters of the first two Handbooks published by the Society (Spiegel-Rösing and De Solla Price 1977; Jasanoff et al. 1994), or the histories of the field, as depicted, for instance in the Canadian scholar Sergio Sismondo’s chapter in the 2007 Handbook (Sismondo 2007). An obvious corollary is that STS “mainstream theory” and the evolving research agendas have been produced and curated by STS scholars from these regions, and adopted, although not in passive ways, in other regions, as several studies have already noted (Anderson 2017; Dumoulin Kervran, Kleiche-Dray, and Quet 2017; Invernizzi et al. 2022; Kreimer 2022; Rajão, Duque, and De’ 2014). This privileged status conferred to studies produced in a set of countries in Europe and North America proved enduring (Rodríguez Medina and Invernizzi 2025), in spite of STS emphasis on localities and situated knowledge, a situation that the Argentine STS scholar, Pablo Kreimer (2022) described as a “constructivist paradox.”

There have always been other STSs, more or less related to the Euro-American-centered field. The discussion on science, technology and development flourished in Latin America in the sixties and early seventies in the wave of the dependency theory, and only later, with the progressive institutionalization of the STS field since the late eighties, it became more influenced by Euro-American perspectives (Dagnino, Davyt, and Thomas 1996; Kreimer and Thomas 2004; Kreimer and Vessuri 2017; Vessuri 1987). In India, scholars have debated on the centrality of technology under the British rule (Kumar 2000) and, after independence, in the nationalistic projects and the imposition of modernity by elites (Nandy 1988). The field has grown in this country since the eighties, often pointing the mismatch between western theorizations and local conditions (Ramasubban 1991). In East Asia, there have been stimulating conversations around the constitution of the field in the region and the implications of using Western STS concepts, published in East Asian Science, Technology and Society (Chen 2012; Fu 2007; Law and Lin 2017; Morita 2017; Wu 2017).

However, the dialogue between the centers and peripheries of the STS field has been marginal for a long time. Is this starting to change? As practitioners, we have seen the Society become more global and diverse over the last decade. This is not surprising, given the increased globalization of academic work, encompassing the social sciences (Frenken, Hoekman, and Hardeman 2010; Ortiz 2016). This change has also been instigated by the STS field’s self-critique of its Euro-American centrism and the calls to “provincialize Europe,” as pointed out, particularly, by postcolonial and feminist perspectives (Anderson 2002; Harding [1998] 2002, 2011; Law and Lin 2017). Undoubtedly, the growth and progressive institutionalization of STS communities in various countries and regions has also contributed to this trend. Moreover and not less important, the Society’s mission, “fostering interdisciplinary and engaged scholarship in social studies of science, technology, and medicine across the globe,” (see 4S 2025) embraces the word, and transnationalization has become a more explicit goal of 4S over the last fifteen years. It started by exploring new meeting locations outside North America and Europe, such as Tokyo (2010), Buenos Aires (2014), Sydney (2018) and Cholula (2022), and progressively encompassed other activities. What is the current extent of this process? In which manners is the Society scaffolding transnationalization? Is transnationalization opening spaces to increase the epistemic diversity of the STS field?

In the following section, we will examine four dimensions of 4S’ transnationalization that are relevant to answering these questions. The first dimension is Society governance, comprising two indicators: Presidents’ nationality (or residence when elected) and Council members’ nationality (or residence when elected). Scientific societies act through their governing bodies. Through organizing conferences, compiling reference publications, and awarding prizes, these bodies carry out functions such as “gatekeeping”^[1] and distributing academic prestige within the field (Whitley 2000). The transnationalization of governing bodies has the potential to open up the field, diversifying STS perspectives and traditions, and affecting the centers-peripheries hierarchies within it.

Secondly, we analyze 4S Conferences, considering the following indicators: venue, attendance (size and geographical diversity) and plenary speakers by nationality. Scientific conferences are spaces that play an important role in the production and circulation of knowledge, in the structuring of research agendas and the establishment of academic fields (González-Santos and Dimond 2015; Mody 2014). Transnationalization may bring to the forum more diverse empirical work and theoretical approaches developed outside the centers of the field. The selection of conferences’ keynote speakers is particularly relevant because it signals ideas and topics worthy of recognition, thereby conferring them symbolic authority (Bourdieu 2009). To assess the relationship between diversification of the attendance and positions of centrality, it is important to examine these two indicators together.

The third dimension is scholarly recognition. As Pierre Bourdieu (ibid.) and Michel Callon (1999) have emphasized, academic awards are another mechanism of attributing symbolic authority. We examine the nationality of Bernal Prize recipients. As the Society’s main prize, it assigns prestige to scholars and reinforces the centrality of certain strands of scholarship to the field. Examining the recipients will reveal whether transnationalization has created space for non-Euro-American perspectives in canonical STS work.

Finally, we consider editorial work, by looking at the nationality of scholars who have served as editors or on the editorial boards of the Society’s two journals. Regular editorial tasks, such as defining an editorial policy, recruiting editorial board members, and guiding the peer review process, are crucial to the delimitation and evolution of a scientific field. Editors must strike a delicate balance between being gatekeepers (Crane 1967) and field developers by encouraging emerging research themes (Acker, Rekola, and Wisker 2022). While we are not examining the scholarly work itself, editorial teams can offer an initial perspective on the matter.

This research is based on an analysis of publicly available documents on the 4S website, conference websites, and journal websites. Internet searches on the nationalities and academic affiliations of scholars were used to supplement the information when necessary. To facilitate data extraction, we requested lists of conference registrants from 4S staff and conference organizers. In only two cases it was necessary to retrieve the data manually from the conference programs. The four dimensions of transnationalization examined cover different time periods, depending on the availability of information and when particular activities were initiated. The governance dimension was studied throughout 4S’s entire history, from 1975 to 2024. Conference attendance was analyzed from 2007 to 2024, and plenary speakers were considered from the first conference in 1976 to the 2024 edition. Scientific recognition was examined from the establishment of the Bernal Prize in 1981 to 2024. Finally, editorial work was examined from 2015 onwards, comprising the last two editorships and corresponding editorial boards of the society’s two journals.

Governance

Figure 1. Country of origin (or residence) of the presidents of the Society for Social Studies of Science (1976–2004). Source: 4S Webpage.

The first six 4S presidents, from 1976 to 1985, were all from the United States (by nationality or by residence at the time of their election). From then on, scholars from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and France alternated with Americans, giving the Society a more international character. The first non-Euro-American president, from Australia, was elected in 2022, marking an important step in transnationalization. The current president-elect, who will assume the position in 2025, is from Taiwan, another sign of increasing global diversity. Nevertheless, nearly two-thirds (63%) of presidents throughout 4S’s history, from 1976 to 2024, have been from the United States (see figure 1), evidencing the lasting impact of the Society’s founding location.^[2]

Table 1. Members of the Council of the Society for Social Studies of Science by country of origin (or residence) from 1976 to 2024. Source: 4S Webpage.

Figure 2a (left). Number of countries represented in 4S Council by country of origin (or residence) – by five years periods.

Figure 2b (right). Progressive reduction of 4S Council members from the United States vis-à-vis other countries – by five-year periods. Note: Council tenure last three years, but counselors are renewed in different years. We considered a period of five years to capture its changing composition. Source: 4S Webpage.

The Society’s origins in the United States, as well as the vitality and rapid institutionalization of the field in that country, have strongly influenced its governance (See table 1; figures 2a and 2b), with a progressive presence of European scholars, mainly British, in the presidency and Council. This Anglo-Saxon dominance has been evident in several field-shaping activities of the Society. The inclusion of scholars from more diverse regions is a recent phenomenon, a decade old for the council and even more recent for the presidency. This shift, though still incipient, marks the Society’s recognition of and efforts to integrate different STS traditions.

4S Annual Conferences

4S Annual Conferences have grown in attendance and geographic diversity over time. Due to data availability, we consider only a fraction of all conferences, from 2007 to 2024. One way of transnationalization has been to change the location of the conferences. After four meetings in the United States, it was held in Canada in 1980 and in Belgium in 1984, the latter starting a tradition of joint meetings with the European Association for Studies of Science and Technology, EASST (founded in 1981) every four years. The year 2010 opens a new chapter, with the conference moving to Japan, then to Argentina (2014), Australia (2018), and Mexico (2022). These meetings have been organized jointly with national or regional STS associations, such as the Latin American Association for Social Studies of Science and Technologies (ESOCITE) and the Japanese Society for Science and Technology Studies (JSSTS).

Making this transnational move evident, Tokyo’s plenary was entitled “STS in Global Contexts – What does holding a 4S annual meeting in Asia mean for STS research worldwide?” (4S 2010, 2), inviting to discuss critical issues such as universalities and cultural differences in STS concepts, the applicability and transmutability of Western-centered concepts, and how perspectives stand between two or more different cultures, bringing to the fore some key epistemic issues in a clear postcolonial tone.

In Sydney 2018, the theme was TRANSnational STS, with a statement that can be read as a Society’s program, in these terms:

The theme of the 2018 annual meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science – TRANSnational STS – encourages presentations, panels, and other events that deepen and extend the transnational character of the Society itself, while engaging issues invoked by both the TRANS prefix (across, beyond, to change thoroughly), and by the problematic and evolving status of “nations” in processes of global ordering. Leveraging the global scope of Science and Technology Studies (STS), our aim is to intensify connection between conference participants (scholars, practitioners, and students) based in different regions, stimulating conversation about ways 4S and other scholarly societies can provide critical infrastructure for next-generation, transnationally collaborative, intellectual and political engagements. (4S 2018).

Figure 3 shows the increase in conference attendance overtime. Three different patterns can be seen. First, the peaks occurring at the joint 4S-EASST meetings, which bring together the two most largest associations for science and technology studies, with a noticeable increase registered at the 2024 Amsterdam Conference, compared with previous in person meetings. Second, the substantial increase in attendance at the two consecutive meetings held during the Covid-19 pandemic, Virtual Prague in 2020 and Toronto & Worldwide in 2021, facilitated by their virtual nature. Third, some of the meetings held outside of Euro-America experienced a slight decrease in attendance.

Figure 3. Attendance to 4S Conferences (2007–2024). Source: 4S Conferences’ registration lists and programs.

The different venues of the conferences change the composition of the participants. As expected, when the meeting is moved to a new region, the participation of local and regional STS scholars increases significantly, demonstrating the growing STS community worldwide (see figure 3). For example, the number of Argentines at the 2014 conference in Buenos Aires was 100, and 54 participated in the 2024 conference in Cholula, while the country reached a maximum of 10 participants when the conference was held (in person) outside Latin America. The regional factor proved to be even more relevant than virtual access, with a maximum of 23 Argentinean participants in Toronto & Worldwide in 2021. Brazil had its maximum in person presence outside Latin America in Amsterdam 2024, with 66 participants, while 210 attended the meeting in Buenos Aires and 104 in Cholula. Again, the regional factor was more important than virtual access, with a maximum of 70 Brazilians attending Toronto & Worldwide 2021. It is important to note that this regional effect was also fostered by the co-organization of the 2014 and 2024 conferences with the regional Latin American Association for Social Studies of Science and by the multilingual policy (English, Spanish, Portuguese)^[3] adopted in these conferences, which reduced the barriers to participation.

As in Latin America, a similar dynamic was observed in the 2010 Tokyo Conference, with 256 Japanese participants, more than five times the maximum attendance at conferences elsewhere. Tokyo was the first 4S conference to experiment with multilingualism, with some sessions fully or partially in Japanese. The number of Australians at Sydney 2018 was 15 times higher than the attendance at any other 4S conference up to that year. Locations such as Tokyo and Sydney, and the expanding regional STS networks in Australasia, South and Southeast Asia, facilitated the participation of Taiwanese, Koreans, Chinese, Indians, New Zealanders, and Singaporeans.

With the exception of Tokyo, which maintained the average turnout at the time, the following conferences held outside North America and Europe experienced a drop in attendance. That was the case of Buenos Aires, Sydney and Cholula. Factors such as distance, travel costs, date, unknown location, and in the case of Cholula, the first conference after the pandemic, post-Covid-19 fears, travel difficulties, and the economic impacts of the pandemic, may explain this reduction. Moreover, national and regional STS communities in such locations are smaller than those in Europe or North America.

Figure 4. Number of countries represented in 4S Conferences (2007–2024). Source: 4S Conferences’ registration lists and programs.

The increasing transnational character of the conference is also evidenced by the rising diversification of participant countries, attaining the higher figures at the Amsterdam conference, in 2024, with participants from 78 countries, in spite of the predominantly European attendance. The following largest country representations were in Honolulu 2023, with 58; Barcelona 2016, with 55; and Cholula 2022 and Virtual Prague, both with 54 (see figure 4). From 2007 to 2024, scholars from 103 countries attended 4S conferences. However, 54 of these nations had fewer than ten participants during this period, indicating very limited and sometimes random participation. Table 2 shows the different ranges of countries’ participation during the examined period. Interestingly, countries in the 11–50 and 51–200 ranges concentrated their participation at the most recent conferences, which may continue to grow. Some non-Euro-American countries reached the medium range of participants, including Argentina, China, India, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Taiwan. Three others made it to the upper medium range: Australia, Brazil, and Japan. The top spot is consistently occupied by the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Canada, and Germany.

Table 2. Number of participants per country in 4S conferences by range during the period 2007–2024. Source: 4S Conferences’ registration lists and programs.

Considering the accumulated attendance by region from 2007 to 2024 (see figure 5), it is not surprising that Europe, the United States and Canada are the most represented. Europe only surpassed the United States and Canada due to the larger Amsterdam conference, where 73% of participants were European. Despite their much lower representation, attendees from East Asia, Oceania, Latin America and the Caribbean have become a relevant presence at 4S conferences. On the other hand, participants from the Middle East, North, Central, and South Asia, as well as from Africa, have had a very low presence at the Society’s annual meeting thus far. Of course, the sizes of regions and STS communities’ development are relevant factors in such participation. It is also important to note that participation rates vary between regions. For instance, some Eastern and Southern European countries have low participation rates despite the strong European presence.

Figure 5. Accumulated number of participants at 4S Conferences by region during the period 2007–2024. Source: 4S Conferences’ registration lists and programs.

Another relevant aspect to consider is the plenary speakers at the conferences, as they play a central role in reaffirming the configuration and dynamics of the field in terms of approaches and agendas. Overall, looking at the period from 2007 to 2024, the speakers reinforce the centrality of the field in Euro-America, with scholars from the United States playing a particularly prominent role. They accounted for 42% of the 189 speakers, while scholars from the United Kingdom, Canada, and the Netherlands together accounted for a further 25% of the total. As most of the meetings were held in the United States, the “locality” factor in choosing the speakers must be considered when examining these figures. Until the meeting in Tokyo in 2010, all the speakers were from these four countries. In Tokyo (2010) and Cleveland (2011), however, Japanese scholars were included in the plenary. In Buenos Aires, the multilingual plenary session was entitled “What is STS for? What are STS scholars for? Making and Doing in STS,” 26 scholars from Latin America, Europe, the United States, Japan and Taiwan were brought together. Despite the short 5-minute presentations, an interesting diversity within the field was portrayed. The transnationalization of the plenaries progressed at most subsequent conferences. Speakers from outside North America and Europe were present in Denver (2015), Boston (2017), Sydney (2018), New Orleans (2019), Prague (2020), Cholula (2022) and Amsterdam (2024). Only two recent conferences did not embrace the trend of transnationalization, albeit in different ways. Toronto & Worldwide 2021 featured only scholars from Canada and the United States, following the pre-Tokyo path. Honolulu 2023 was exceptional in that all the plenary speakers were Hawaiian, with an explicit goal of increasing the visibility of local STS scholars in a geopolitically complex territory. Figure 6 shows the nationality of the plenary speakers at the analyzed conferences, and Annex 1 provides a list of plenary themes and speakers from 2007 to 2024.

Figure 6. Plenary speakers by nationality in 4S Conferences (2007–2020). Source: 4S Conferences’ programs.

4S Conferences are instrumental for the circulation of knowledge in the field and for giving visibility to emerging agendas. Conferences are growing in attendance and becoming more transnational, although they are still largely Euro-American. Half of the participating countries are newcomers, and only two regional communities have a larger presence: East Asia and Oceania, and Latin America. The plenary speakers follow the same trend, and both the diversification of speakers and the recent prevalence of a roundtable model for this event reveal an effort to stimulate a conversation among different strands of STS. But while the presence of more diverse STS traditions at the conference acts as a field-changing force, the still very strong Euro-American presence reproduces its traditional configuration.

Scholarly Recognition

The Bernal prize has been awarded by 4S since 1981, being the first and for several years the only scholarly recognition given to individuals who made outstanding contributions to the social studies of science field throughout their career.

From its inception to 2024, 49 scholars have received the prize, including some duos in recent years. The strong centrality of the field in Euro-America is once more evident examining the awardees, from which 25 were from the United States, 15 from the United Kingdom, 4 from the Netherlands, and 2 from France. Only one Israeli (Joseph Ben-David, in 1985), 1 Venezuelan (Hebe Vessuri, in 2017), and 1 Australian (Warwick Anderson, 2023) came from other regions (see figure 7 and Annex 2).

Figure 7. Recipients of the Bernal Prize by country (1981–2024). Note: The United States had 25 recipients, the United Kingdom 15, The Netherlands 4, France 2, and Australia, Israel and Venezuela 1 recipient each. Source: 4S Webpage.

Although we have not conducted a gender study regarding the former examined dimensions, it is interesting to note that only three women received the Bernal Prize in the 20 years between 1981 and 2000. This situation changed radically with the millennium, as the prize was distributed equally among all genders.

As an emblematic mechanism for the attribution of prestige and authority, the Bernal Prize has functioned primarily as a gatekeeper to the original Euro-American, and mostly Anglo-Saxon configuration of the field. In a sense, since the prize is awarded for a lifetime of scholarly contributions, it functions as a legacy of the past. However, the recent awards to scholars from other regions, though marginal in number, are a very symbolic opening of the field to issues that are very relevant research topics outside the centers. Both scholars, the Venezuelan Hebe Vessuri and the Australian Warwick Anderson, posed a central question for STS studies: how centers and peripheries mutually constitute each other in the process of doing science and technology. They also raised the question of the necessity (and legitimacy) of considering the diverse array of objects and concepts produced outside of canonical STS in order to answer this question.

Editorial work

Science, Technology and Human Values (ST&HV), the first journal of the Society, had a traditional, one-editor model from 1976 until 2022, when an editorial team took over. Consistent with previously examined indicators, the journal’s editorship has primarily been carried out by American scholars (ten of them). The position was also occupied by one scholar from The Netherlands and another from Austria. Starting in 2022, the current editorial team is comprised of five Australians. Regarding the newer 4S journal, Engaging Science, Technology and Society (ESTS), which was founded in 2015, it had one editor from the United States, followed in 2021 by an editorial team composed by scholars from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Germany/The Netherlands, India, Japan/New Zealand, Kenya, Turkey, United Kingdom, and United States. Currently, both of 4S’s journals are led by a majority of editors from outside of Euro-America, marking a clear turn towards transnationalization.

We examined the members of the current and previous editorial boards of both journals. In ST&HV (see figures 8a and 8b), we observe a progressive reduction in the number of members from the United States and some European countries, in favor of members of many diverse nationalities. While the previous editorial board of 39 people only had two members from countries outside of Euro-America (one from Brazil and one from South Africa), the current board has 19 out of 50 members from these countries.

Figure 8a (left). Members of previous editorial board of ST&HV by country.

Figure 8b (right). Members of current editorial board of ST&HV by country. Source: Journal webpage.

Figure 9a (left). Members of previous editorial board of ESTS by country.

Figure 9b (right). Members of current editorial board of ESTS by country. Source: Journal webpage.

The same process of recent transnationalization occurred for ESTS. While 70% of the previous editorial board’s 42 members were American, only three were from outside Euro-America. In contrast, 21 of the 31 members of the current editorial board are scholars from outside Euro-America, most of whom are from developing countries (see figures 9a and 9b).

Both journals have recently experienced a rapid transnationalization of their editorial teams and boards. Their policies also encompass broadening the scope of science and technology studies (STS) scholarship. STHV welcomes scholarship that “. . .extends the purview of STS into new areas [. . .] that crosses cultural borders, addresses global challenges, or explores emerging fields of science or technology” (see: Science, Technology, & Human Values 2025). ESTS embraces transnationalization as a core editorial policy, seeking to “. . .actively collaborate with authors and reviewers from different geographical regions and intellectual traditions. . .” and publish scholarship on “. . .issues that are experienced and dealt with in different ways in different localities, and to compare across borders [. . .] to enrich the dialogue between established and emerging intellectual currents in STS. . .” As part of this endeavor, ESTS publishes in multiple Englishes. Although qualitative studies of the publications of both journals would be needed to assess whether these changes are having an effective impact on the scholarship being produced, we can assert that these transnationalized editorial teams and editorial boards are actively working as field developers, encouraging the inclusion of new issues and perspectives in the core journals of the Society.

Closing Remarks

The Society for Social Studies of Science has always seen itself as an international society. Since it was funded in the United States, this internationalization had to be constructed (see footnote 2). In the years that followed, a large number of Europeans joined the Society, transforming it into a Euro-American one. Reasons such as the rapid institutionalization of the field in both regions, accompanied by numerous research and teaching programs, favorable financial conditions for mobility, and lower language barriers explain this phenomenon. As some of the scholars quoted at the beginning of this text have noted, these material conditions are deeply intertwined with the hierarchical dynamics of centers and peripheries. These dynamics play out in the field of STS as they do in any other field, contributing to establish Euro-American STS as the canonical form of STS.

With the increasing globalization of academic activities, the internationalization of 4S has progressed. All four dimensions examined above indicate some advance in this direction. However, the pace of progress varies in each area.

In terms of governance, the presidency has remained closely tied to the United States throughout the society’s history, with some European involvement. The recent opening to Oceania and the Far East represents a significant turning point. As for the Council, it has become increasingly diverse over the past, representing various national STS communities, including several from the Global South.

As a relevant venue for scholarly exchange and agenda-setting, the Annual Meeting has steadily expanded and diversified its participation over the past two decades, reflecting the global vitality of the field. The conference has established itself as an instrument of transnationalization, enabling the Society to engage with national and regional STS organizations and communities in new locations. While the participation of scholars from East Asia and Latin America has increased significantly, participation from other regions remains low. This diversification began in Tokyo in 2010 and has gained momentum in recent conferences. Tokyo was also a turning point in the representation of diverse STS perspectives in conference plenaries. The persistent role of scholars from the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and The Netherlands in setting the themes of interest and theoretical frameworks in this privileged space is still strong but has evolved to include non-Euro-American speakers in almost all subsequent conferences.

Transnationalization is much less evident in the recognition of outstanding scholars in the field. The Society’s main prize still reinforces the centrality of Euro-American theories and approaches. A certain inertia and the fact that STS contributions in languages other than English remain largely unknown outside their countries or regions of origin likely contribute to this.

Finally, the editorial work of the two 4S journals showed a clear inflection point in transnationalization, albeit very recent and probably as a result of the progress of transnationalization in other spheres. Given the role of editors and editorial boards as field developers, it is expected that both journals will expand the range of scholarship they publish. As shown in another study (Invernizzi et al. 2022), this scope was previously quite limited to North America and Western Europe.

The Society for Social Studies of Science is scaffolding, in many ways, its transnationalization. This, in turn, is a necessary step in increasing the epistemic diversity of the field. Epistemic transnationalization is important to assert the Society’s existence in relation to the outside, and in relation to itself, to paraphrase Callon, quoted at the beginning of this text. In the face of crucial global problems, a transnational STS field, enriched by diverse perspectives, will be able to provide more robust analyses and useful policy advice to the outside world. In relation to itself, a transnational society will promote epistemic justice by acknowledging STS theoretical and empirical contributions from different regions, by paying attention to diverse research agendas, and, not least importantly, by reconstructing the field’s history as a global, multi-sited one. As with any process of change within a field, this one is not without tensions, but the time seems ripe to address them.

Acknowledgements

Both authors contributed to gather, systematize and analyze the information, while Noela Invernizzi led the writing of the article.

Noela Invernizzi wants to acknowledge CNPq Productivity Grant #307560/2022-8.

Author Biographies

Noela Invernizzi is full professor, of the Education School and Public Policy Program, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.

Sofía Foladori-Invernizzi, is a Research Associate at the Faculty of Agricultural, Food and Forest Sciences, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Zollikofen, Switzerland.

References

Acker, Sandra, Mika Rekola, and Gina Wisker. 2022. “Editing a Higher Education Journal: Gatekeeping or Development?” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 59(1): 104–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.2004909.

Anderson, Warwick. 2002. “Introduction: Postcolonial Technoscience.” Social Studies of Science 32(5/6): 643–58.

⸻. 2017. “Postcolonial Specters of STS.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society 11(2): 229–33.
https://doi.org/10.1215/18752160-3828937.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 2009. “The Social Conditions of the International Circulation of Ideas.” In Bourdieu: A Critical Reader, edited by Richard Shusterman, 220–28. Critical Readers. Oxford: Blackwell.

Callon, Michel. 1999. “1998 J. D. Bernal Prize Citation.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 24(3): 373–75.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399902400303.

Chen, Ruey-Lin. 2012. “Discovering Distinctive East Asian STS: An Introduction.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 6(4): 441–43.
https://doi.org/10.1215/18752160-1904753.

Crane, Diana. 1967. “The Gatekeepers of Science: Some Factors Affecting the Selection of Articles for Scientific Journals.” The American Sociologist 2(4): 195–201.

Dagnino, Renato, Amilcar Davyt, and Hernán Thomas. 1996. “El pensamiento en ciencia, tecnología y sociedad en Latinoamérica: Una interpretación política de su trayectoria” [Latin American thought on science, technology and society: A political interpretation of its trajectory]. Redes 7(6): 13–51.

Dumoulin Kervran, David, Mina Kleiche-Dray, and Mathieu Quet. 2017. “Going South. How STS Could Think Science in and with the South?” Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances [Journal of the anthropology of knowledge] 11(3).
https://doi.org/10.3917/rac.036.0423.

Frenken, Koen, Jarno Hoekman, and Sjoerd Hardeman. 2010. “The Globalization of Research Collaboration.” In World Social Science Report: Knowledge Divides, edited by UNESCO, 144–8. Paris.

Fu, Daiwie. 2007. “How Far Can East Asian STS Go?: A Position Paper.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 1(1): 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12280-007-9000-y.

González-Santos, Sandra P., and Rebecca Dimond. 2015. “Medical and Scientific Conferences as Sites of Sociological Interest: A Review of the Field.” Sociology Compass 9(3): 235–45.
https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12250.

Harding, Sandra G. [1998] 2002. Is Science Multicultural? Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies. (Race, Gender, and Science). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

⸻, ed. 2011. “Introduction—Beyond Postcolonial Theory: Two Undertheorized Perspectives on Science and Technology.” In The Postcolonial Science and Technology Studies Reader, 1–30. Durham: Duke University Press.

Invernizzi, Noela, Amílcar Davyt, Pablo Kreimer, and Leandro Rodriguez Medina. 2022. “STS Between Centers and Peripheries: How Transnational Are Leading STS Journals?” Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 8(3): 31–62.
https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2022.1005.

Invernizzi, Noela, and Sofía Foladori-Invernizzi. 2025. Data for “How Transnational Is 4S?”: Annex 1 and 2. Tabular Data. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society. STS Infrastructures (Platform for Experimental Collaborative Ethnography). December 28, 2025, last modified December 29, 2025, accessed December 29, 2025.
https://n2t.net/ark:/81416/p41306.

Jasanoff, Sheila, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen, and Trevor Pinch, eds. 1994. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Revised Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kreimer, Pablo. 2022. “Constructivist Paradoxes Part 1: Critical Thoughts about Provincializing, Globalizing, and Localizing STS from a Non-Hegemonic Perspective.” Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 8(2): 159–75.
https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2022.1109.

Kreimer, Pablo, and Hernán Thomas. 2004. “Un Poco de Reflexividad o ¿de Dónde Venimos? Estudios Sociales de La Ciencia y La Tecnología En América Latina.” [A Little Reflexivity or Where do we Come From? Social Studies of Science and Technology in Latin America] In Producción y Uso Social de Conocimientos. Estudios de Sociología de La Ciencia y La Tecnología En América Latina [Production and Social Use of Knowledge. Studies in the Sociology of Science and Technology in Latin America], edited by Pablo Kreimer and Hernán Thomas. Quilmes: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.

Kreimer, Pablo, and Hebe Vessuri. 2017. “Latin American Science, Technology, and Society: A Historical and Reflexive Approach.” Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society 1 (1): 17–37.
https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2017.1368622.

Kumar, Deepak. 2000. “Science and Society in Colonial India: Exploring an Agenda.” Social Scientist 28 (5–6): 24–46.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3518179.

Law, John, and Wen-yuan Lin. 2017. “Provincializing STS: Postcoloniality, Symmetry, and Method.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society 11(2): 211–27.
https://doi.org/10.1215/18752160-3823859.

Mody, Cyrus C. M. 2014. “Conferences and the Emergence of Nanoscience.” In The Social Life of Nanotechnology, edited by Barbara Herr Harthorn and John W Mohr. New York: Routledge.

Morita, Atsuro. 2017. “Encounters, Trajectories, and the Ethnographic Moment: Why ‘Asia as Method’ Still Matters.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 11(2): 239–50.
https://doi.org/10.1215/18752160-3825820.

Nandy, Ashis, ed. 1988. Science, Hegemony, and Violence: A Requiem for Modernity. Delhi: Oxford University Press and United Nations University.

Ortiz, Renato. 2016. “Internationalization of the Social Sciences: A Reflection.” Sociologies in Dialogue 2(1): 31–45.
https://doi.org/10.20336/sid.v2i1.21.

Rajão, Raoni, Ricardo B. Duque, and Rahul De’. 2014. “Introduction: Voices from within and Outside the South—Defying STS Epistemologies, Boundaries, and Theories.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 39(6): 767–72.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243914542161.

Ramasubban, Radhika. 1991. “Science, Technology and Society’s Studies in India: An Introduction.” Sociological Bulletin 40(1–2): 69–75.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038022919910104.

Rodríguez Medina, Leandro, and Noela Invernizzi. 2025. “From Grand and Middle-Range Theories to Theorizing in STS: Introducing a Latin American Journey.” In Latin American Breakthroughs in STS Theory (Transnationalizing Theory in Science and Technology Studies), edited by Noela Invernizzi and Leandro Rodríguez Medina, 1–39. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.

Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2025. “Submission Guidelines.” Accessed December 29, 2025.
https://journals.sagepub.com/author-instructions/STH.

Society for Social Studies of Science (4S). 2010. 4S Annual Meeting program, Toyko, Japan.
https://www.4sonline.org/docs/print_program0903.pdf.

Society for Social Studies of Science (4S). 2018. 4S Annual Meeting program, Toyko, Japan.
https://4sonline.org/4s_sydney_2018.php.

Society for the Social Studies of Science (4S). 2025. Homepage. Accessed December 29, 2025.
https://4sonline.org/.

Sismondo, Sergio. 2007. “Science and Techonology Studies and an Engaged Program.” In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and Judith Wajcman. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Spiegel-Rösing, Ina, and Derek J. De Solla Price, eds. 1977. Science, Technology, and Society: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective. London: Sage Publications.

Vessuri, Hebe. 1987. “The Social Study of Science in Latin America.” Social Studies of Science 17(3): 519–554.

Whitley, Richard. 2000. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wu, Chia-Ling. 2017. “Body-Head Separation, or a Multihanded/Multiheaded Guanyin: Note on the Birth of the ‘Provincializing STS’ Forum.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 11(2): 209–10.
https://doi.org/10.1215/18752160-3833196.

Notes

1. Gatekeeping here refers to the (conscious or unconscious) actions that establish what counts as social studies of science, that is, delimiting the borders of the field. Societies do so when they organize conferences, compile reference publications, and award prizes. The expression is widely used in scientific fields analysis (as in Bourdieu, Whitley and others), and the role of governing bodies is much broader still. ↑

2. It is worth noting that only the Treasurer, for fiduciary reasons, needs to be based in the United States. ↑

3. Presenters in multilingual conferences were encouraged to provide translation into English or another language in their slide presentations or in separate texts. In Cholula, the hybrid nature of the conference allowed for automatic translation on the screens. ↑

Copyright, Citation, Contact

Copyright © 2025. (Noela Invernizzi, and Sofía Foladori-Invernizzi). This work is licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). Available at estsjournal.org.

To cite this article: Invernizzi, Noela, and Sofía Foladori-Invernizzi. 2025. “How Transnational is 4S? Institutional Scaffolding and the Long Road to a Global STS.” Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 11(3): 29–46.
https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2025.3177.

To email contact Noela Invernizzi: noela@ufpr.br.