There is an old tradition of the history of science which is simple discourse of key ideas done by key people, and of true theories replacing false ones. A more nuanced picture was drawn by Thomas Kuhn in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions, who involved economic factors and intellectual ideas strictly outside the purview of science, and through his idea of paradigm shift argued against the view of science as being simply the accumulation of new data & new ideas, he argues for periods of revolutionary science where the map is redrawn and new questions asked. Perhaps the paramount one in the physical sciences is the paradigm shift between classical & Modern physics, where the key classical ideas of determinism , continuity, particle & wave are overthrown.
But this still remains a history of objective facts & theories, whereas social constructivists of science tries to
relate what science has typically characterized as objective facts to the processes of social construction, with the goal of showing that human subjectivity imposes itself on those facts we take to be objective, not solely the other way around.
(Interestingly, this sounds a lot like Kantians 'copernican revolution' where he wrote "hitherto it has been assumed that all our knowledge must conform to objects...[instead let us] suppose that objects must conform to our knowledge").
There is also a new field of social science called the sociology of science which
is the study of science as a social activity, especially dealing with the social conditions and effects of science, and with the social structures and processes of scientific activity
This field originated with Robert Merton who looked at the sociology of scientists, that is not the discovery & evolution of new scientific ideas, but how scientists as a social group or force operated. A British school grew in opposition to this, which looked at the sociology of ideas themselves.
This field in turn is critiqued by another emergent field Science, Technology & Society for sociological reductionism, and a human-centred universe. They
study how social, political, and cultural values affect scientific research and technological innovation, and how these, in turn, affect society, politics and culture. STS scholars are interested in a variety of problems including the relationships between scientific and technological innovations and society, and the directions and risks of science and technology
I can't resist mentioning that these new set of fields was lampooned by Alan Sokal in a notorious hoax submission to Social Text, titled The Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity. This was gleefully seized upon by critics as a demonstration of the intellectuel bankruptcy of these new fields; however in a kind of post-modernist twist the Bogdanov affair showed that the same kind of hoax could be perpertrated on the hardest of hard sciences - physics - but this time the alleged 'hoaxers' insisted on their seriousness of intent.
Finally, of course, these histories & sociological studies are Modern in that they date from the Renaissance in Italy where Galileo began to revive the ideas of Aristotelean Physics; and it is Western history in that it ignores a prehistory in the Christian & Islamic world and of course Antiquity. A 'Science without gaps' would reassert the importance of these gaps. After all, from this distance the key development that Galileo engaged in, compared to the old Aristotelian science in Antiquity, is the application of mathematics to physics, one could ask whether this key notion had any precursors in the Islamic world; and of course it is well known that the Heliocentric Universe was not a new discovery by Copernicus, but had already been discussed in Greek Antiquity.