Boundary-work is part of science studies. In boundary-work, boundaries, demarcations, or other divisions between fields of knowledge are created, advocated, attacked, or reinforced. Such delineations often have high stakes for the participants,[1] and carry the implication that such boundaries are flexible and socially constructed.[citation needed]
The original use of the term "boundary-work" for these sorts of issues has been attributed to Thomas F. Gieryn,[2] a sociologist, who initially used it to discuss the problem of demarcation, the philosophical difficulty of coming up with a rigorous delineation between what is "science" and what is "non-science".[3]
Gieryn defined boundary-work as the "attribution of selected characteristics to [an] 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 [outside that boundary]."[1] Gieryn suggests that Philosophers and sociologists of science, such as Karl Popper and Robert K. Merton, long struggled to come up with a criterion which would distinguish science as unique from other knowledge-generating activities, but never were able to come up with one that was stable, transhistorical, or worked reliably.[1]
Gieryn's 1983 paper on boundary-work and demarcation emphasized that the very discussions of demarcation between science and non-science were "ideological"; that there were strong stakes for scientists to erect such boundaries both in arguing for their own objectivity and the need for autonomy.[1]
Gieryn looked specifically at instances of boundary-work in 19th-century Britain, in which scientists attempted to characterize the relationship between religion and science as one of sharp distinction,[4] and also looked at instances in which scientists attempted to argue that science and politics and/or ideology were inherently separate as well. Many other works[which?] by sociologists and historians have since looked at boundary-work in many other situations, usually focusing on the rhetoric of scientists (or their opponents) and their interpersonal and intersocial interactions.[2]
Studies in boundary-work have also focused on how individual scientific disciplines are created.[5] Following the work of Pierre Bourdieu on the "scientific field", many have looked at ways in which certain "objects" are able to bridge the erected boundaries because they satisfy the needs of multiple social groups (boundary objects).
An example of such boundary-work can be found in the study of science and literature. One instance of these studies is Aldous Huxley's book Literature and Science (see also Jennings 1970[6] and Garvin & Heath 1983[7]).
Boundary-work in market categories: An assemblage of devices and practices show demarcations and overlaps in-between boundaries of multiple board sports.
Another application of boundary-work is in the field of management and business studies, particularly in the study of the overlaps and demarcations between market categories.[8] A market categorization problem occurs when two or more products or services are perceived to be similar enough as to become substitutes for each other in satisfying market demand.[9] In this case, the notion of boundary work can be used to study market boundaries. Researchers have used the notion of boundary-work to study demarcations among partially-overlapping consumer practices, such as boardsport variations (e.g, surfing, windsurfing, kiteboarding and standup paddleboarding), which started as close variations of each other but that, over time, diverged into distinct markets characterized by their own norms, market actors, rules, and gear.[10]
Another example of boundary-work occurred when individual scientists and scientific institutions published statements responding to the allegations of scientific fraud during the "Climategate" episode.[11]
In 1999 Gieryn (1999a, p.5) stated that the “boundary” concept he introduced in his 1983 paper had been suggested by a presentation by Steve Woolgar to a meeting of the Society for the Social Studies of Science in November 1981. He attributed the mature development of his ideas to the influences of (in order of publication) Geertz (1973), Serres, (1982), Geertz (1983), Gilbert and Mulkay (1984), Shapin and Schaffer (1985), Yearley (1988), Holmquest (1990), Reichert (1992), Abbot (1995), Silber (1995), McOmber (1996), Taylor (1996), Kerr, Cunningham-Burley, and Amos (1997), and Wolfe (1997).
See, in particular, Gieryn, T.F., "John Tyndall's Double Boundary-Work: Science, Religion, and Mechanics in Victorian England", pp.37-64 in Gieryn, T.F., Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line, University of Chicago Press, (Chicago), 1999.
See, for example, Yeates (2013), esp. pp.93-101, and 309-349; (2018a), pp.6-9, 24-29, and 43-44; (2018b), pp.80-81, and 90-91; (2018c), pp.145-147, and 152-154; and (2018d), pp.190-191, 196-197, and 200, for an account of the extended boundary-work performed by James Braid in relation to the creation of the domain of hypnotism.
Fournier, V. (2000). "Boundary Work and the (Un)making of the Professions". In Malin, N. (ed.). Professionalism, Boundaries and the Workplace. London: Routledge. pp.67–86.
Fournier, V. (2002). "Amateurism, Quackery and Professional Conduct: The Constitution of 'Proper' Aromatherapy Practice". In Dent, M.; Whitehead, S. (eds.). Managing Professional Identities: Knowledge, Performativity and the "New" Professional. London: Routledge. pp.116–137.
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
Gieryn, Thomas 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. doi:10.2307/2095325. JSTOR2095325.
Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gilbert, G. N.; Mulkay, M. J. (1984). Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holmquest, A. (August 1990). "The Rhetorical Strategy of Boundary-Work". Argumentation. 4 (3): 235–258. doi:10.1007/BF00173966. S2CID143552014.
McOmber, J. B. (November 1996). "Silencing the Patient: Freud, Sexual Abuse, and The Etiology of Hysteria". Quarterly Journal of Speech. 82 (4): 343–363. doi:10.1080/00335639609384162.
Nielsen, A. K.; Štrbánová, S. (2008). "Creating Networks in Chemistry — Some Lessons Learned". In Nielsen, A. K.; Štrbánová, S. (eds.). Creating Networks in Chemistry: The Founding and Early History of Chemical Societies in Europe. Royal Society of Chemistry Special Publication. Vol.313. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry Publishing. pp.328–348. doi:10.1039/9781847558244-00328.
Ramírez-i-Ollé, Meritxell (2015). "Rhetorical Strategies for Scientific Authority: a Boundary-Work Analysis of 'Climategate'". Science as Culture. 24 (4): 384–411. doi:10.1080/09505431.2015.1041902. S2CID145061901.
Serres, M. (1982). Harari, J. V.; Bell, D. F. (eds.). Hermes: Literature, Science, Philosophy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Shapin, S.; Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life. Princeton University Press.
Silber, I. F. (Summer 1995). "Space, Fields, Boundaries: The Rise of Spatial Metaphors in Contemporary Sociological Theory". Social Research. 62 (2): 323–355.
Taylor, B. (September 1995). "Amateurs, Professionals and the Knowledge of Archaeology". The British Journal of Sociology. 46 (3): 499–508. doi:10.2307/591853. JSTOR591853.
Taylor, C. A. (1996). Defining Science: A Rhetoric of Demarcation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Wolfe, A. (1997). "Public and Private in Theory and Practice: Some Implications of an Uncertain Boundary". In Weintraub, J. A.; Kumar, K. (eds.). Public and Private in Thought and Practice: Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy. University of Chicago Press. pp.182–203.
Yearley, S. (April–July 1988). "The Dictates of Method and Policy: Interpretational Structures in the Representation of Scientific Work". Human Studies. 11 (2–3): 341–359. doi:10.1007/BF00177309. S2CID143996333.
