Complementary Social Structures in Scientific Knowledge Production
How does scientific knowledge rely on social life?
The stereotypical image of a scientist involves a lone researcher cooped up in a lab and working on projects which only he can understand. The history of science, however, shows that scientific knowledge is the cumulative result of countless collaborations and shared knowledge throughout the entire community. The social nature of science was demonstrated by the dynamics within a museum illustrated by Star and Griesemer (1989) and within a CT suite as described by Saunders (2010). However, the two articles differed regarding the underlying social mechanisms used to enable scientific knowledge production. Where Star and Griesemer suggested that scientific knowledge production relies on the ability to smoothly transition between different roles, Saunders observed that knowledge production required a more defined structure. This essay explains how these seemingly contradictory ideas complement each other by operating in different stages of knowledge production.
Star and Griesemer analyzed the interactions between various stakeholders in the Berkeley Museum of Vertebrate Zoology and proposed the concept of “boundary objects” (Star and Griesemer, 1989, p. 392) to explain how diverse groups collaborate to achieve a common goal. Boundary objects helped to mediate conflicts between the scientific goals of the museum’s researchers and the monetary goals of the trappers which supplied specimens, enabling fluid communication and mutual understanding by all parties.
A boundary object is “an object which lives in multiple social worlds and has different identities in each” (409). Manifesting after mutual acknowledgement and agreement about best practices and aims, boundary objects are a shared platform for communication between all parties involved. Extremely fluid between social contexts, boundary objects can be redefined to suit the needs of each social actor. For some, the objects could be an end in themselves while the same objects are merely means to a greater end for others. Star and Griesemer illustrated how the Californian state became a boundary object that acted as the “regional focus” for both scientific and administrative aims, defining the specific area of concern for the museum as a whole (409) and showing how any object could become a boundary object. They further developed the boundary object mechanism by identifying four different types of boundary objects (410). This included systematically categorized collections accessible by all parties for their specific needs, manufactured representations of general concepts and items which resided in the same intersections between social actors but contained different mechanisms.
Regulated processes acted as particularly significant boundary objects in the museum context, and they demonstrate the boundary object mechanism well. The museum director, Joseph Grinnell, faced the challenge of maintaining strict standards of specimen quality for the museum’s collection especially regarding preserving specimen integrity for documentation. However, the amateur collectors and trappers who sold specimens had a very different set of priorities and knowledge, such as monetary gains the pleasure gained from the thrill of the hunt (402). Identifying this disparity between interests, Grinnell had to balance between strictly enforcing his standards and respecting the collectors’ autonomy, taking into account the differences in knowledge level between both parties. Thus, he created and communicated a framework of best practices regarding specimen collection. To cope with the collectors’ lack of scientific knowledge, Grinnell purposely abstracted whatever the collectors did not need to know and deliberately left alone parts of the collectors’ jobs which did not affect specimen quality (407). The manner which these regulated practices were communicated fluidly between parties which possessed greatly differing internal goals and skillsets shows how powerful the boundary object mechanism is in facilitating effective cooperation between social actors. Thus, boundary objects were vital in aligning goals and best practices for social actors involved in scientific knowledge production.
While fluidity is vital for communication between social actors in some contexts, hierarchical structures might play a significant role in others. Saunders characterized the flow of knowledge in the CT suite as something similar to the transfer of knowledge between a master and apprentice (145). Saunders firmly established the hierarchy of roles in the CT suite. In descending seniority order, the CT suite consisted of attending radiologists, fellows, residents and medical students (147). In this context, the “masters” were the attending radiologists who mainly monitored suite activities and acted as teachers to the “apprentice” residents and fellows at community settings such as conferences and viewbox observation sessions.
Saunders emphasized how this strict hierarchical structure manifested itself in the form of certain “rituals” within the CT suite (157). For example, during viewbox sessions, one could always identify each radiologist’s role by their distance from the viewbox. The attending, who had the most experience, would usually position themselves further away from the viewbox to let the students examine the films in the viewbox in greater detail. The special social arrangement of the CT suite was demonstrated in the clearly delineated responsibilities for each role. Junior roles were usually responsible for repetitive tasks such as “hanging films” at the viewbox while the attending was not required to do such menial tasks (153). This responsibility transferred practical knowledge to the apprentices by virtue of repetitive practice and muscle memory. Students were also required to memorize biological knowledge and master the art of inquiry. To achieve this, the attending led his students in unravelling the mystery of unusual cases by providing guidance and constructive feedback while purposely withholding information to encourage thoughtful analysis (158). Regardless of the pedagogical method, the fact remains that Saunders observed a relatively consistent top-down style of pedagogy between the hierarchical levels of the CT suite’s social structure. In this hierarchy, it is difficult for the flow of knowledge to reverse, as the experience of the senior roles far eclipses that of the juniors.
It must be acknowledged that knowledge can flow from juniors from seniors especially when new technology is involved, as youths are more likely to adapt to technological disruptions more quickly compared to seniors who have to unlearn old methods and relearn new procedures. Saunders partially addresses this in his description of the diminished role of the mechanical viewbox he observed and its effects on the CT suite’s social structure (161). However, the amount of knowledge from these cases pales in comparison to the wealth of knowledge and skills transferred from attending radiologists to junior radiologists in day-to-day procedures. Therefore, Saunders proposed that knowledge production in the CT suite for the purposes of ascertaining a diagnosis relied heavily on the social structure and its influence on every radiologist’s role in producing and analyzing observations.
Although the ideas of fluidity and rigid hierarchies seem contradictory, I contend that these positions do not clash because they address very different stages of scientific knowledge production. This occurs in three phases: Collection, analysis and communication. The collection phase primarily involves data acquisition and categorization. The analysis phase generates insights when collected data is processed and examined to reveal previously unseen patterns. The communication phase rigorously peer-reviews and refines discoveries into artefacts we commonly associate with scientific knowledge, such as research papers. In order to generate new insights, junior scientists must be taught to build upon previously established knowledge and analytical processes which are then applied to newly collected data, repeating the cycle of peer-review and refinement and establishing new knowledge. Existing knowledge will also re-enter the cycle of knowledge production when paradigm shifts in thinking challenge existing assumptions.
Referring to this knowledge production process, the museum context belongs in the collection phase due to its emphasis on specimen quality and systematic categorization of data, while the CT suite context suits the communication phase due to its heavy focus on pedagogy. The characteristics of each phase also illustrate the effectiveness of each mechanism. The fluidity of boundary objects is a valuable asset when dealing with non-scientific parties which are engaged most often in the collection phase. In contrast, the strict pedagogical hierarchy of the CT suite is efficient as scientific knowledge is generally communicated within scientific communities which generally share a pre-existing set of common knowledge and skills. For instance, even new radiologists would already possess medical training from their years as a medical student. Within scientific communities, the role of boundary objects as a mediator between worlds is less necessary because scientists already have similar goals and base skillsets. Both the museum and CT suite contexts contain elements of the analysis phase but the differing goals of the two contexts mean that their main activities are largely centered on contrasting phases of the scientific knowledge production process. Hence, the differing social mechanisms do not conflict with each other as they work independently of each other towards the same goal of scientific knowledge production.
In conclusion, it can be seen that the boundary object mechanism proposed by Star and Griesemer and the strict pedagogical hierarchy proposed by Saunders do not contradict each other as they address the needs of differing stages in scientific knowledge production. Conversely, it can be said that they complement each other by enabling the cycle of knowledge production to progress smoothly from the collection to the communication phases by effectively addressing the differences between the priorities and skills of the scientific world and non-scientific worlds, as well as the experience gap between junior and senior scientists.
Bibliography
Saunders, B. (2010). CT Suite: Visual Apprenticeship in the Age of the Mechanical Viewbox. In Grasseni C. (Ed.), Skilled Visions: Between Apprenticeship and Standards (pp. 145–165). Berghahn Books.
Star, S., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.
