Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists

TLDR

Scientists construct boundaries between science and non‑science to secure intellectual authority, career opportunities, and protect research autonomy, a process described as boundary‑work that shapes their public image. The study investigates the demarcation of science from other intellectual activities as a practical problem for scientists. The authors argue that scientists select from alternative sets of empirical, theoretical, pure, or applied characteristics to justify demarcation and thereby claim authority and resources. They find that science is not a single entity; its boundaries are drawn and redrawn inflexibly, historically changing, and sometimes ambiguous.

Abstract

The demarcation of from other intellectual activities-long an analytic problem for philosophers and sociologists-is here examined as a practical problem for scientists. Construction of a boundary between and varieties of non-science is useful for scientists' pursuit of professional goals: 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 by contrasting it favorably to non-scientific intellectual or technical activities. Alternative sets of characteristics available for ideological attribution to reflect ambivalences or strains within the institution: can be made to look empirical or theoretical, pure or applied. However, selection of one or another description depends on which characteristics best achieve the demarcation in a way that justifies scientists' claims to authority or resources. Thus, science is no single thing: its boundaries are drawn and redrawn inflexible, historically changing and sometimes ambiguous ways.