Doctoral Dissertation Research: Camaraderie, Conflict, and the Construction of Knowledge at International Scientific Congresses, 1878-1914

科学中的“国际主义”经常被断言，但很少被定义或彻底检查。它可以被不同地理解为科学实践中的合作、中立或平等，也许更经常地被理解为科学应该如何运作的虚幻理想。本论文的研究项目旨在通过研究一个特定的活动场所：国际科学大会来解决科学国际主义的一些问题，模糊性和可能性。研究者将检视三个系列的动物学、地质学与犯罪人类学会议的发展，试图了解（1）与会者所感知的国际主义的本质，以及其在认识论基础与理据、成员、程序、意识形态与实践目标、专业关注、组织结构、仪式与象征等方面所揭示的国际主义本质;（2）威胁到并经常破坏大会的国际主义努力和有效性的斗争（包括社会和科学方面的斗争）;（3）国际大会形式对知识建构和科学学科巩固的影响和共识的作用。通过超越国际科学博爱和客观性的表面主张，她的比较分析试图了解一组特定的国际项目是如何概念化和组织的，它们是如何有效的，为什么，以及科学家如何在国际主义和更本地化的关注之间进行谈判。研究包括四种类型的来源：1）大会本身出版的会议记录和文件，2）大会与会者和观察员撰写的当代期刊文献，3）政府机构和重要国家机构的记录和信件，以及4）个人日记和信件。这些文件反映了不同的观点、关切和直接参与的程度，有助于更复杂地介绍大会及其与会者与大会的关系和对大会的投资。该项目反映并增加了科学史（以及一般历史）的最近转变，从严格的国家或一对一的比较研究，转向更多的国际和跨国网站的探索，如合作研究项目和新的超国家社区的发展。

"Internationalism" in science is often asserted but rarely defined or examined thoroughly. It is can be understood variously as cooperation, neutrality, or equality within scientific practice, perhaps more often as a phantom ideal of how science ought to function. This dissertation research project intends to address some of the questions, ambiguities, and possibilities of scientific internationalism by examining a specific site of activity: the international scientific congress. The researcher will examine the development of three series of such congresses in zoology, geology, and criminal anthropology in an attempt to understand (1) the nature of their internationalism as perceived by participants and as revealed in epistemological foundations and justifications, membership, procedure, ideological and practical goals, professional concerns, organizational structure, rituals, and symbols; (2) the struggles (both social and scientific) which threatened to and often did undermine the congresses' internationalist efforts and effectiveness; and (3) the effect of the international congress format on and the role of consensus in the construction of knowledge and the consolidation of scientific disciplines. By looking beyond superficial claims of international scientific fraternity and objectivity, her comparative analysis attempts to understand how a specific set of international projects were conceptualized and organized, how effective they were and why, and how scientists negotiated between internationalist and more localized concerns. The research incorporates four types of sources: 1) proceedings and documents published by the congresses themselves, 2) contemporary periodical literature written by congress participants and observers, 3) records and correspondence of government bodies and important national institutions, and 4) personal diaries and correspondence. By reflecting different perspectives, concerns, and degrees of direct involvement, these documents help present a more complex picture of the congresses and their participants' relations to them and investment in them. This project reflects and adds to recent shifts within the history of science (as well as within history in general) away from strictly national or one-to-one comparative studies, toward explorations of more international and transnational sites, such as collaborative research projects and the development of new supranational communities.