Many of the recent advances in the history of science have come from local microstudies, but with the unintended by‐product of a typically “postmodern” fragmentation of knowledge. The question for us post‐postmodernists is how to write a broader “general” history of science—a history for all of us specialists—without losing the advantages of case study. One way, this essay suggests, is to structure case studies around the activities or issues that are common to knowledge production generally: for example, issues of common (...) practices, role and identity, credibility and trust, fairness in participation and reward, and translocal circulation. Such studies would be particular and local yet transcend the singularities of period, place, and discipline. They would facilitate productive contest over the general meaning of science in its diversely varied forms. (shrink)

Existing scholarship on the debates over expertise in mid‐nineteenth‐century Britain has demonstrated the importance of popular writings on the sciences to definitions of scientific authority. Yet while men of science might position themselves in opposition to the stereotype of the merely popular writer, the self‐identity of the popular writer remained ambiguous. This essay examines the careers of William Charles Linnaeus Martin and Thomas Milner and places them in the context of others who made their living by writing works on the (...) sciences for the general reader. Martin wrote on zoology and Milner moved between astronomy, geology, and geography. The essay unravels the close but ambivalent relationship between the professions of authorship and of science and highlights writing as another aspect of scientific practice. Both writers were moderately financially successful, but Martin’s sense of failure and Milner’s satisfaction reflect their contrasting images of their professional identity. (shrink)