Yet within social studies of science, the move toward an internalist sociology of scientific knowledge raised further issues, which dominate the discussion in the field today. These are the issues of reflexivity and of the redefinition of sociology itself.

The concept “reflexivity” developed by new studies of knowledge sees scientific (and technological) reality and “facts” first and foremost as the outcome of a process of construction. “Truth” is seen as a consequence rather than a cause of this process. But if natural scientists' results are not unproblematic representations of natural reality, what about social scientists' representations? It is easy to see that the constructionist thesis applies equally to the “findings” of sociologists of science themselves. This awareness has led to a self-reflexive discussion of the “methodological horror” of reflexivity (e.g., Woolgar 1988), and to its further exploration through the study of the methods through which social scientists learn about science (e.g., Mulkay et al. 1983). To a certain degree, the exploration of reflexivity has promoted a problem of shift in science studies: it has mingled the original problems on the research agenda of the field (e.g., the problem of understanding the practice of natural science) with methodological and epistemological questions, and has thereby contributed to a further alienation between sociology of science as it once existed and its current developments. But the point I want to draw attention to is the weakening of social analysis that follows from the discussion on reflexivity. Traditional, Mertonian sociology applied the belief in the edge of objectivity of science to itself. It remained secure enough in its knowledge of the positivist foundation of science to carry the Mertonian research programme through until today. The new sociology of scientific knowledge, on the other hand – since it cannot shirk the duty of confronting reflexivity – more easily lends itself to discussions that lead away from, or continually redefine, a coherent research agenda. If the turn away from the Mertonian programme has contributed to opening up the definition of science and nature for sociology, reflexivity has contributed to opening up the definition of sociology itself.