1
Matthewman S. Technology and social theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan 2011.
2
Sismondo S. An introduction to science and technology studies. 2nd ed. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell 2010.
3
Storey J. Cultural theory and popular culture: an introduction. 6th ed. Harlow, England: Pearson 2012.
4
Woodward I. Understanding material culture. Los Angeles: Sage Publications 2007.
5
Attias B, Gavanas A, Rietveld HC. DJ culture in the mix: power, technology, and social change in electronic dance music. New York: Bloomsbury Academic 2013.
6
Bell D. Science, technology and culture. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press 2006.
7
Berger AA. What objects mean: an introduction to material culture. Second edition. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press 2014.
8
Biagioli M. The science studies reader. New York: Routledge 1999.
9
Bijker WE, Hughes TP, Pinch TJ. The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology. Anniversary ed. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press 2012.
10
Bowler PJ, Morus IR. Making modern science: a historical survey. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press 2005.
11
Camic C, Gross N, Lamont M. Social knowledge in the making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 2011.
12
Collins HM, Pinch TJ. The Golem at large: what you should know about technology. New York: Cambridge University Press 2002.
13
David M. Science in society. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan 2005.
14
Erickson M. Science, culture and society: understanding science in the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Polity 2005.
15
Hackett EJ, Society for Social Studies of Science. The handbook of science and technology studies. 3rd ed. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press 2008.
16
Kleinman DL. Science and technology in society: from biotechnology to the Internet. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub 2005.
17
MacKenzie DA, Wajcman J. The social shaping of technology. 2nd ed. Buckingham: Open University Press 1999.
18
Pickering A. Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1992.
19
Pickstone JV. Ways of knowing: a new history of science, technology and medicine. Manchester: University of Chicago Press 2001.
20
Tilley C. Handbook of material culture. London: SAGE Publications 2006.
21
Vannini P. Material culture and technology in everyday life: ethnographic approaches. New York: Peter Lang 2009.
22
Wessels B. Understanding the Internet: a socio-cultural perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan 2010.
23
Yearley S. Making sense of science: understanding the social study of science. London: SAGE Publications 2005.
24
Epstein S. Culture and science / technology: rethinking knowledge, power, materiality, and nature. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2008;619:165–82.
25
The Palgrave handbook of social theory in health,iIllness and medicine. Palgrave MacMillan 17 AD.
26
Hitchings R. Air conditioning and the material culture of routine human encasement: the case of young people in contemporary Singapore. Journal of Material Culture. 2008;13:251–65. doi: 10.1177/1359183508095495
27
Magaudda P. The Broken Boundaries between Science and Technology Studies and Cultural Sociology: Introduction to an Interview with Trevor Pinch. Cultural Sociology. 2014;8:63–76. doi: 10.1177/1749975513484604
28
Powell RC. Geographies of science: histories, localities, practices, futures. Progress in Human Geography. 2007;31:309–29. doi: 10.1177/0309132507077081
29
Silva E. The cook, the cooker and the gendering of the kitchen. The Sociological Review. 2000;48:612–28. doi: 10.1111/1467-954X.00235
30
McVeigh B. Commodifying Affection, Authority and Gender in the Everyday Objects of Japan. Journal of Material Culture. ;1:291–312.
31
Allan S. Media, risk, and science. Buckingham: Open University Press 2002.
32
Anderson A. The Framing of Nanotechnologies in the British Newspaper Press. Science Communication. 2005;27:200–20. doi: 10.1177/1075547005281472
33
Bauer MW. Public Perceptions and Mass Media in the Biotechnology Controversy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2005;17:5–22. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edh054
34
Gregory J, Miller S. Science in public: communication, culture, and credibility. Cambridge, MA: Persius Books 2000.
35
Peters HP. The interaction of journalists and scientific experts: co-operation and conflict between two professional cultures. Media, Culture & Society. 1995;17:31–48. doi: 10.1177/016344395017001003
36
Peters HP, Brossard D, de Cheveigne S, et al. Science-Media Interface: It’s Time to Reconsider. Science Communication. 2008;30:266–76. doi: 10.1177/1075547008324809
37
Riesch H, Spiegelhalter DJ. Careless pork costs lives: Risk stories from science to press release to media. Health, Risk & Society. 2011;13:47–64.
38
Stocking SH, Holstein LW. Manufacturing doubt: journalists’ roles and the construction of ignorance in a scientific controversy. Public Understanding of Science. 2008;18:23–42. doi: 10.1177/0963662507079373
39
Mapping the Field: Specialist science news journalism in the UK national media. http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/jomec/research/researchgroups/riskscienceandhealth/fundedprojects/mappingscience.html
40
BALSAMO A. Forms of Technological Embodiment: Reading the Body in Contemporary Culture. Body & Society. 1995;1:215–37. doi: 10.1177/1357034X95001003013
41
Mutton cut up as lamb: Mothers, daughters and cosmetic surgery. Continuum (Mount Lawley, WA). 2004;18:525–39.
42
Cosmetic surgery and the televisual makeover: A Foucauldian feminist reading. Feminist media studies. 2007;7:17–32.
43
Regula Valérie Burri. Doing Distinctions: Boundary Work and Symbolic Capital in Radiology. Social Studies of Science. 2008;38:35–62.
44
Jones G. Beauty imagined: a history of the global beauty industry. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010.
45
Latour B. How to Talk About the Body? the Normative Dimension of Science Studies. Body & Society. 2004;10:205–29. doi: 10.1177/1357034X04042943
46
Bolter JD. Turing’s man: western culture in the computer age. London: Penguin 1993.
47
Agar J. Constant touch: a global history of the mobile phone. Revised and updated edition. London: Icon 2013.
48
Garcia-Montes JM. Changes in the self resulting from the use of mobile phones. Media, Culture & Society. 2006;28:67–82. doi: 10.1177/0163443706059287
49
Hjorth L, Burgess J, Richardson I. Studying mobile media: cultural technologies, mobile communication, and the iPhone. New York, NY: Routledge 2012.
50
Latour B. Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press 1987.
51
Latour B. Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005.
52
Leyshon M, DiGiovanna S, Holcomb B. Mobile Technologies and Youthful Exploration: Stimulus or Inhibitor? Urban Studies. 2013;50:587–605. doi: 10.1177/0042098012468897
53
Licoppe C. What Does Answering the Phone Mean? A Sociology of the Phone Ring and Musical Ringtones. Cultural Sociology. 2011;5:367–84. doi: 10.1177/1749975510378193
54
Actor-network theory, technology and medical sociology: An illustrative analysis of the metered dose inhaler. Sociology of health & illness. 1 AD;18:198–219.
55
Thompson L, Cupples J. Seen and not heard? Text messaging and digital sociality. Social & Cultural Geography. 2008;9:95–108. doi: 10.1080/14649360701789634
56
Wainwright SP. Epiphanies of embodiment: injury, identity and the balletic body. Qualitative Research. 2004;4:311–37. doi: 10.1177/1468794104047232
57
Wajcman J, Bittman M, Brown JE. Families without Borders: Mobile Phones, Connectedness and Work-Home Divisions. Sociology. 2008;42:635–52. doi: 10.1177/0038038508091620
58
Devine-Wright P. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy. 2005;8:125–39. doi: 10.1002/we.124
59
Kasperson RE, Renn O, Slovic P, et al. The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework. Risk Analysis. 1988;8:177–87. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x
60
Lupton D. Risk. 2nd ed. London: Routledge 2013.
61
Lupton D, Tulloch J. ‘Life would be pretty dull without risk’: Voluntary risk-taking and its pleasures. Health, Risk & Society. 2002;4:113–24. doi: 10.1080/13698570220137015
62
Renn O. Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and new challenges. Journal of Risk Research. 1998;1:49–71. doi: 10.1080/136698798377321
63
Essentials of Risk Theory (SpringerBriefs in Philosophy). Springer; 2013 edition 2 AD.
64
Riesch H, Oltra C, Lis A, et al. Internet-based public debate of CCS: Lessons from online focus groups in Poland and Spain. Energy Policy. 2013;56:693–702. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.01.029
65
Stirling A. Risk, precaution and science: towards a more constructive policy debate. Talking point on the precautionary principle. EMBO reports. 2007;8:309–15. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7400953
66
WYNNE B. Uncertainty and environmental learning 1, 2Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Global Environmental Change. 1992;2:111–27. doi: 10.1016/0959-3780(92)90017-2
67
Bourdieu P. Photography: a middle-brow art. Cambridge: Polity 1990.
68
Attwood F, Campbell V, Hunter IQ, et al., editors. Controversial images: media representations on the edge. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire [England]: Palgrave Macmillan 2013.
69
Clarke G. The photograph. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1997.
70
Hand M. Ubiquitous photography. Cambridge: Polity 2011.
71
Hallman BC, Benbow SMP. Family leisure, family photography and zoos: exploring the emotional geographies of families. Social & Cultural Geography. 2007;8:871–88. doi: 10.1080/14649360701712636
72
Larsen J, Sandbye M, editors. Digital snaps: the new face of photography. London: I.B. Tauris 2014.
73
McQuire S. Photography’s afterlife: Documentary images and the operational archive. Journal of Material Culture. 2013;18:223–41. doi: 10.1177/1359183513489930
74
Schwarz O. Negotiating Romance in Front of the Lens. Visual Communication. 2010;9:151–69. doi: 10.1177/1470357210369982
75
van Dijck J. Digital photography: communication, identity, memory. Visual Communication. 2008;7:57–76. doi: 10.1177/1470357207084865
76
Van House NA. Personal photography, digital technologies and the uses of the visual. Visual Studies. 2011;26:125–34. doi: 10.1080/1472586X.2011.571888
77
Vivienne S, Burgess J. The remediation of the personal photograph and the politics of self-representation in digital storytelling. Journal of Material Culture. 2013;18:279–98. doi: 10.1177/1359183513492080
78
Bell AR. Science as ‘Horrible’: Irreverent Deference in Science Communication. Science as Culture. 2011;20:491–512. doi: 10.1080/09505431.2011.605921
79
Miller S. Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science. 2001;10:115–20. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/308
80
Michael Mulkay and G. Nigel Gilbert. Joking Apart: Some Recommendations concerning the Analysis of Scientific Culture. Social Studies of Science. 1982;12:585–613.
81
Pinto B, Marcal D, Vaz SG. Communicating through humour: A project of stand-up comedy about science. Public Understanding of Science. 2015;24:776–93. doi: 10.1177/0963662513511175
82
Riesch H. Why did the proton cross the road? Humour and science communication. Public Understanding of Science. 2015;24:768–75. doi: 10.1177/0963662514546299
83
Allan S. Media, risk, and science. Buckingham: Open University Press 2002.
84
Locke S. Fantastically reasonable: ambivalence in the representation of science and        technology in super-hero comics. Public Understanding of Science. 2005;14:25–46. doi: 10.1177/0963662505048197
85
Turney J. Frankenstein’s footsteps: science, genetics and popular culture. New Haven, [Conn.]: Yale University Press 1998.
86
Weingart P, Muhl C, Pansegrau P. Of Power Maniacs and Unethical Geniuses: Science and Scientists in Fiction Film. Public Understanding of Science. 2003;12:279–87. doi: 10.1177/0963662503123006
87
VOLUME 10, ISSUE 1 (2012) | Institute for Critical Animal Studies (ICAS). http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/volume-10-issue-1-2012/
88
Vialles N. A place that is no place. Animal to edible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1994:15–28.