Pickering, A. Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. pp. 403-404\404\404.
 借用拉图尔的用语,但皮克林的转向跟拉图尔有所不同,在转向中皮克林仍然坚持他原来的利益模式中的主体思想,拉图尔则主张放弃。见:Latour, B. On More Turn after the Social Turn. In The Social Dimensions of Science,ed. Ernan McMullin, pp.272-294. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Prees, 1992.
 Giere, R, N. History and Philosophy of Science: Intimate Relationship or Marriage of Convenience? British Journal for Philosophy of Science, 1973(24): 282-297.
 Laudan, L. Thoughts on HPS: 20 Years Later, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 1989(20):9-13.
  Pickering, A. The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. 1995.p.214\p216.
  Golinski, J. Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998.p.5\p.187.
 Christie, J. Aurora, Nemesis, and Clio. British Journal for the History of Science. 1993(26): 397.
Abstract: The article analyses contemporary America sociologist Andrew Pickering's work of social study on the history of High-Energy physics during 1960's-1970's. It points out that he want to set up a new kind of 'historical account', which independence of 'scientists'account'. He want to transcend the traditional logical empiricist viewpoint of history of science, get rid of the plight of the 'interest mode' of Edinburgh school. Through his posthumanism, he adopt the multiformity and heterogeneity viewpoint of the historical development of science in the laboratory. This new idea is useful in communication between scientific culture and humanistic culture and in integrating history of science, philosophy of science, and sociology of science.