Lukas M. Verburgt (ed.), <i>Debating Contemporary Approaches to the History of Science</i> London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2024. Pp. 376. ISBN 978-1-3503-2623-1. £75.00 (hardback).

This book discusses in depth the diverse approaches that are currently used to study the history of science and to historize science.It introduces readers to various perspectives on the history of science by covering topics and perspectives such as global history of science, environmental history, postcolonial history, gender perspectives, integrated history and philosophy of science, computational history and multispecies history.This range covers traditional approaches and emerging ones, and, in this way, the book highlights the constantly evolving nature of the field.It features chapters written by both established and rising scholars and each chapter includes a commentary to the main text and a response to the commentary, which is intended to allow room for debate within the book.This format of the book helps capture the current state of the field while also considering its future direction.However, this built-in critique raises a question: what can I add in this review that is not already addressed in these insightful exchanges within the book?Here, I wish to focus on aspects of the book that individual exchanges on a topic within the book cannot cover and provide some critical remarks.I want to emphasize the book's undeniable quality, demonstrating deep expertise in each chapter.However, this level of expertise can sometimes be challenging for readers.Many chapters introduce discourses, scholars and scholarly works in a manner that assumes that the reader is highly knowledgeable about the topicas if the reader immediately understands where the argument is heading.For instance, there were sections about Kuhn's core ideas that I found difficult to comprehend, despite my familiarity Kuhn.The same was true for the chapter on the history of knowledgethe main themes in the field were incorporated into the text, but to grasp their significance and relevance, I needed to draw heavily on my existing knowledge of the field.When the reader lacks such knowledge, the reading process becomes rather slow, and the number of discourses and scholars discussed within a chapter can be more than overwhelming; it can be frustrating.Moreover, the arguments are often so specialized that they can be challenging to follow, raising two questions.First, who is the intended audience?The paradox is that if the chapters require such deep prior knowledge, they may only be accessible to the narrow group of experts who are already intimately familiar with the subject matter.Second, how can one form an impression of the advantages and disadvantages of an approach in the history of science if a chapter about that approach focuses on scholarly details rather than on the basic tenets of the approach?This brings me to the three main points I wish to highlight.