Reviewed by:

• The Lab Book: Situated Practices in Media Studies by Darren Wershler, Lori Emerson, and Jussi Parikka
• Barbara Hof (bio)

How do we recognize a laboratory as a laboratory? Where are laboratories located, and how do they stand out from their surroundings? Which disciplines are particularly characterized by laboratory work? Are there any helpful criteria for defining laboratories, and who actually sets these criteria: institutions, individuals, corporations, or other stakeholders? The three authors of The Lab Book argue that precisely such questions of definition and distinction arise today because "classical" scientific laboratories—or what entered the cultural imagination as the workplaces of Louis Pasteur or Marie Curie, their apparatuses, test tubes, chemicals, and invisible technicians—are still ascribed a predominant role in defining "the" laboratory as opposed to other assemblages of equipment, people, and practices. Based on this assumption, but more importantly, based on the observation that in recent years the number of so-called laboratories has expanded to include experimental music spaces, the beauty industry, haute cuisine, cocktail bars, agriculture, media studies, sociology, and the digital humanities, The Lab Book suggests that laboratories have become increasingly "hybrid" (p. 8). Laboratories are now tropes in performative acts and descriptors in public discourse or, as the authors put it, laboratories result from "situated practice" (p. 9).

By broadening the concept of the laboratory beyond previous notions and suggesting that laboratories can no longer be assigned to individual disciplines (hence, they are hybrid), The Lab Book makes an important contribution to the field of laboratory studies. The Lab Book relies almost exclusively on the most familiar names (e.g., Bruno Latour, Karin Knorr-Cetina, Ian Hacking, Steven Shapin, and Simon Schaffer), but this only underscores that laboratory studies have evolved little in the past three decades. Indeed, given the popularity of the term "laboratory" today, a reexamination seems necessary. In doing so, The Lab Book does not chronicle a historical development but rather tests analytical categories of a "checklist" (p. 11). This goal of developing a new heuristic makes the results an engaging study book.

Six categories provide the framework for the body chapters, presented in support of the "extended lab model" (p. 11). First, laboratories are either a space or, [End Page 188] more broadly, a definition of spatial relationships. Second, laboratories are defined by the devices, tools, and media they house, or by a configuration of different apparatuses working together. (A particle accelerator, I suggest as an example, is not only a tunnel in which particles are brought to high energies; accelerators need targets to separate particles, as well as detectors to measure and then study the results.) Third, laboratories are part of a larger infrastructure (including PR agencies, communication networks, and material suppliers, I would add). Fourth, laboratories are the product of social actors and their power relations. Fifth, laboratories derive from and are challenged by imaginaries, myths, and representations. Sixth, laboratories are the product of techniques and practices (which means that a laboratory use may change over time). The case studies in the body chapters are organized according to these categories, which bring existing categories neatly together. These categories, the authors argue, draw on the vocabulary of several disciplines: science and technology studies, cultural studies, history, philosophy, design studies, architecture, and media archaeology, which the three authors have in common and is the focus of several chapters.

Chapter 1 addresses spaces, using the Thomas Edison Menlo Park facility as a historical example of hybrid laboratories. Edison's industrial complexes allowed collaboration and blurred the boundaries between tinkering, play, and "real work," which illustrates life in modern machine shops. Menlo Park can thus be seen as foreshadowing today's start-up culture that became popular in the United States. A second prominent example is the MIT Media Lab, which the authors describe well as a place of unseparated workspace with glass doors to convey openness and flexibility and encourage interaction. Chapter 2 argues that laboratories are generally recognized for the objects they house. The chapter highlights material qualities and cultures by offering interesting insights into the media archaeology...

审核人：

• 实验书：媒体研究中的情境实践，作者：Darren Wershler、Lori Emerson 和 Jussi Parikka
• 芭芭拉霍夫（生物）

我们如何将实验室识别为实验室？实验室位于何处，它们如何从周围环境中脱颖而出？哪些学科特别以实验室工作为特征？是否有任何有用的标准来定义实验室，实际上是谁制定了这些标准：机构、个人、公司或其他利益相关者？The Lab Book的三位作者争辩说，这种定义和区别的问题在今天之所以出现，是因为“经典”科学实验室——或者进入文化想象的路易斯·巴斯德或玛丽·居里的工作场所、他们的仪器、试管、化学品和隐形技术人员——仍然被归为相对于设备、人员和实践的其他组合，定义“the”实验室的主要作用。基于这个假设，但更重要的是，基于近年来所谓实验室的数量已经扩大到包括实验音乐空间、美容行业、高级烹饪、鸡尾酒吧、农业、媒体研究、社会学和数字人文，The Lab Book表明实验室变得越来越“混合”（第 8 页）。实验室现在是表演行为中的比喻和公共话语中的描述符，或者正如作者所说，实验室是“情境实践”的结果（第 9 页）。

通过将实验室的概念扩展到以前的概念之外，并建议实验室不能再分配给个别学科（因此，它们是混合的），《实验室手册》对实验室研究领域做出了重要贡献。The Lab Book几乎完全依赖最熟悉的名字（例如，Bruno Latour、Karin Knorr-Cetina、Ian Hacking、Steven Shapin 和 Simon Schaffer），但这只能强调实验室研究在过去 30 年中进展甚微。事实上，鉴于“实验室”一词在今天的流行，似乎有必要重新审视一下。在这样做时，The Lab Book不记录历史发展，而是测试“清单”的分析类别（第 11 页）。开发新启发式的目标使结果成为一本引人入胜的学习书。

六个类别为正文章节提供框架，以支持“扩展实验室模型”（第 11 页）。首先，实验室要么是一个空间，要么，[188页结束]更广泛地说，空间关系的定义。其次，实验室是由它们所拥有的设备、工具和媒体定义的，或者是由协同工作的不同设备的配置定义的。（我举个例子，粒子加速器不仅是将粒子带入高能的隧道；加速器需要目标来分离粒子，还需要探测器来测量和研究结果。）第三，实验室是一部分更大的基础设施（包括公关机构、通信网络和材料供应商，我会补充）。第四，实验室是社会行为者及其权力关系的产物。第五，实验室源于想象、神话和表征，并受到它们的挑战。第六，实验室是技术和实践的产物（这意味着实验室的用途可能会随着时间而改变）。正文章节中的案例研究是根据这些类别组织的，将现有类别整齐地组合在一起。作者认为，这些类别借鉴了几个学科的词汇：科学技术研究、文化研究、历史、哲学、设计研究、建筑和媒体考古学，这三位作者有共同之处，并且是几章的重点.

第 1 章讨论空间，使用托马斯爱迪生门洛帕克设施作为混合实验室的历史例子。爱迪生的工业园区允许协作并模糊了修补、娱乐和“实际工作”之间的界限，这说明了现代机械车间的生活。门洛帕克因此可以被视为今天在美国流行的创业文化的预示。第二个突出的例子是麻省理工学院媒体实验室，作者将其描述为一个带有玻璃门的独立工作空间，以传达开放性和灵活性并鼓励互动。第 2 章论证了实验室通常因其存放的物品而得到认可。本章通过提供对媒体考古学的有趣见解来强调物质品质和文化......