Blog Post - Literature Review #4

 Visual:

Citation:

Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American sociological review, 781-795.

Summary:

The paper describes the construction of a boundary between science and varieties of non-science is useful for scientists' pursuit of professional goals, that the acquisition of intellectual authority and career opportunities; denial of these resources to "pseudoscientists"; and protection of the autonomy of scientific research from political interference. "Boundary-work" describes an ideological style found in scientists' attempts to create a public image for science by contrasting it favorably to non-scientific intellectual or technical activities.

Authors:

Thomas F. Gieryn is Rudy Professor of Sociology at Indiana University. He is also the Vice Provost of Faculty and Academic Affairs. In his research, he focuses on philosophy and sociology of science from a cultural, social, historical, and humanistic perspective. He is known for developing the concept of "boundary-work," that is, instances in which boundaries, demarcations, or other divisions between fields of knowledge are created, advocated, attacked, or reinforced. He has served on many councils and boards, including the Advisory Board of the exhibition on "Science in American Life" by the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History.

Key terms:

Boundary work - an ideological style found in scientists' attempts to create a public image for science by contrasting it favorably to non-scientific intellectual or technical activities.

Authority: the debates of who represents the real science and the non-science. 

Three Quotes:

"The focus is on boundary-work of scientists: their attribution of selected characteristics to the institution of science (i.e., to its practitioners, methods, stock of knowledge, values and work organization) for purposes of constructing a social boundary that distinguishes some intellectual activities as "non-science" (782).

"Scientists acquire knowledge through systematic experimentation with nature; be- cause mechanicians and engineers rely on mere observation, trial-and-error, and common sense, they cannot explain their practical successes or failures" (786).

"Scientific knowledge is empirical when contrasted with the metaphysical knowledge of religion, but theoretical when contrasted with the common-sense, hands-on observations of mechanicians; science is justified by its practical utility when compared to the merely poetic contributions of religion, but science is justified by its nobler uses as a means of "pure" culture and discipline when compared to engineering" (787).

Value:

This article helps me further to understand the boundary-work between scientists who used different approaches and systematic experimentation to analyze their own subjects. Under social pressure, there became a comparison between science and religion (something people truly believed... not necessarily like a religion like Christian).