The sociology of scientific knowledge is a relatively new addition to sociology, emerging only several decades ago, in the late 1970s, and focuses on the theories and methods of science. It is seen as a notable achievement in the fields of sociology and the sociology of science. In its infancy, SSK was primarily a British academic enterprise. Nowadays, it is studied and practiced throughout the world, with strong influences in Germany, Scandinavia, Israel, the Netherlands, France, Australia and North America. David Hess tells us that in science, a black box is any device for which the input and output are specified but the internal mechanisms are not. “The study of these contents is sometimes described as 'opening a black box'” (Whitley 1972). SSK advocates have criticized the institutional sociology of science for leaving a black box of contents unopened and examining only the exogenous and institutional aspects of science and technology. Traditionally, studying the content of science from a sociological perspective has been very controversial. Hess tells us that one way to characterize this study of the content of science and technology is with constructivism. He briefly summarizes the term and designates it as any approach that attempts to trace the incidences that shape the content of science and technology. However, Hess also notes that “one can analyze the social factors that influence the content of scientific knowledge or technological design and yet also conclude that the constraints of observations or effectiveness (the real world) play an equal or greater shaping role in what ultimately becomes consensus." To further understand this idea, we can consider the term “social constructivism”. In simple terms, these are studies that...... middle of paper...... , symmetry and impartiality. Collins argues that by studying scientific controversies it is possible to determine how scientific knowledge is created, disseminated and validated are three main components of EPOR: Interpretative flexibility in which the results of scientific experiments can be interpreted in different ways. Closure mechanisms in which scientific debates are not closed strictly on the basis of evidence, as this evidence is contested, but rather microsociological factors close debates. And the third component implies that microsociological factors can, in principle, be linked to macrosociological factors. Works CitedCollins, HM 1981 Introduction: Stages in the Empirical Program of Relativism, Social Studies of Science pp. 3-10 Sismondo, S. 2004 An Introduction to Science and Technology StudiesHess, D. 1997 Science Studies: An Advanced Introduction