In this episode, we continue our series of discussions on the sociology of science and cover a seminal article that is not uncommonly found as required reading in doctoral programs. This is Thomas Gieryn’s 1983 article “Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists,” from the American Sociological Review.
The first sentence lays out the problem, of “how to identify unique and essential characteristics of science” that separate it from non-science or other “kinds of intellectual activities.” Drawing the lines around what is or should be considered scientific activity has been difficult and contentious, in part because of various historical and social factors that Gieryn identifies. The article responds to claims that the drawing of lines had effectively failed and commentators expressed concerns that such lines might not exist. Gieryn’s argument is that the establishment of the line should be thought of as contested, the result of continuous “boundary work” that reassesses and re-establishes the line.
He begins with a discussion of the sociological theories of ideology, of which ‘science’ would constitute one in comparison to ‘religion’ or ‘engineering,’ for example. He presented two abiding literature streams representing strain theories in which an ideology serves to resolve a conflict between competing ideas, and interest theories in which an ideology provides the basis for promoting a desired worldview (e.g., political, economic, or social interests). As broad examples, strain theories would view science as better than non-science because its rationalism allows for a more useful examination of the world, while interest theories would prefer science as it is easier to utilize for economic and social gain than another ideology (such as religion). While these streams have been traditionally separate and viewed as incompatible, Gieryn drew from Geertz and others that synthesis is possible, and that ideologies are better examined through both the interactions of strains and interests and the rhetoric used by scientific and non-scientific actors to explain and operationalize the ideologies.
He uses three historical cases that demonstrate these interactions. First was the ideological battle between scientists on the one hand and clergy and engineers (as not-science) on the other. The battle lines of science versus religion and science versus mechanics were fought differently as science — the accumulation of knowledge for its own sake – vied for attention and inclusion in university programs. The second case was also in the Victorian period, when phrenologists and anatomists fought bitterly over the right to be considered valid science. Rationality would allow the anatomists to win over their subjectivist and empirically weak competitors, and provide fodder for future discussions about the line between real science and fake or pseudo-science. Finally, national security and secrecy present the third case, as a US-based science academy strove to navigate the tensions between the scientific community’s culture of openness and transparency against the security implications of disclosing privileged (i.e., classified or sensitive) information.
The paper is short (only 12 pages of content) but rich, giving much for rising scholars to think about. Present-day concerns about the rejection of science or expertise may add new wrinkles to this old debate, but Gieryn’s work provides the tools for contemporary thinkers to step back and reason about what is going on. At a basic level, one can say that this is just another round of boundary work happening.
You may also download the audio files here: Part 1 | Part 2 | Supplement
Read with us:
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, 48(6), 781-795.
Related episodes from the Talking About Organizations Podcast:
Episode 130. History and Philosophy of Science – Thomas Kuhn
Episode 115. Sociology of Science — Robert K. Merton
Episode 109. Emergence of Mental Health Professions – Abbott
Episode 92. Organizational Secrecy — Case of the Manhattan Project