科學哲學、科學社會學與科學史研究者一度堅稱科學知識必定是普世性的、 是貫穿古今且放諸四海皆準的。然而，自1970 年代以來於科學史與科學知識社 會學中蓬勃發展的「在地取向」挑戰這樣的說法，進而以一系列精巧的經驗研究 證明科學知識不僅可為社會學與人類學分析的對象，更有其地理學。本文旨在介 紹這波持續近半世紀、影響橫跨地理學、人類學、社會學與科學技術研究的「地 理轉向」。首先，我將回顧1970 年代以降科學史與科學知識社會學的發展，說明 科學知識之地方性如何成為研究者關心的重點。進而，我將討論同時期之地理學 者如何回應這波來自學科外對科學之普世性與進步性的挑戰。第三部分將回顧主 導此地理轉向的兩類理論取向：1. 由社會學者Steven Shapin 與地理學者David N. Livingstone 倡導之將「科學置於其地」；2. 挑戰社會與自然之二元論的行動者網 絡理論。結論將總結此地理轉向係如何再形塑研究者對科學知識的定義，並簡述 全球論者、後殖民主義者與後結構主義者對此轉向的批評。以此為基礎，我將提 出數點值得臺灣地理學者深入探討的主題。

Researchers in philosophy of science, sociology of science, and history of science formerly believed that scientific knowledge must be universal, ahistorical and independent from any geographical context. The “localist” approach that has thrived in the history of science and science and technology studies (STS) challenges this view of science, thus producing a series of sophisticated studies to show that scientific knowledge not only belongs to a legitimate subject worthy of sociological and anthropological scrutiny, but also has its own geography. This article aims at introducing this “geographical turn” that has lasted for the past 40 years, and has become influential across geography, anthropology, sociology and STS. First, this study traces the development of the history of science and sociology of scientific knowledge from the 1970s onward, revealing how locality of scientific knowledge became an important research issue. The responses of geographers to the challenges posed by historians and sociologists regarding the universality and progressiveness of scientific knowledge are then discussed. The third part is devoted to reviewing two theoretical approaches that have led the geographical turn: 1. the approach advocated by the sociologist Steven Shapin and geographer David N. Livingstone, with an emphasis on “putting science in its place”, and 2. the act-network theory (ANT) that challenges the nature/culture dualism. The conclusion summarizes the contributions of the geographical turn to reshape our understanding of scientific knowledge. The criticisms made by postcolonialists, poststructuralists, and globalists on this turn in the history of science and STS are then outlined, and applied to derive themes that merit further geographical inquiries.