Boundary-work that Does Not Work: Social Inequalities and the Non-performativity of Scientific Boundary-work

Pereira, Maria do Mar

doi:10.1177/0162243918795043

Cited by 24 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 50 publications

(72 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our article stresses the importance of taking gender into account in the processes of boundary-work. A similar insight has recently been highlighted by Pereira (2019) within the field of STS. As Forstorp (2005) argues, the skepticism movement maintains the authority of science through the idea of standardized, objective, monolithic, and universal knowledge and through the production of such dichotomies as knowledge and belief, science and humbug.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

“…Our analysis contributes in particular to the understanding of rhetorical aspects of boundary-work. Boundary-work takes place in meetings, research sites, classrooms, publications, conferences, media, courts, and more (Pereira 2019) and is by no means restricted to uses of language. Since our data consist of Skeptikko magazine, we especially focus on a certain kind of boundary-work where the boundaries are drawn textually.…”

Section: Gendered Boundary-workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this article, we explore gendered boundary-work within the skepticism movement in Finland. In this way, we contribute to an important but neglected field within science and technology studies (STS) by providing new insights into gendered inequalities related to science (Pereira 2019; M’charek, Schramm, and Skinner 2014; Pollock and Subramaniam 2016; Rajão, Duque, and De 2014). As a worldwide social movement, skepticism aims to promote science and critical thinking and to strengthen the status of scientific knowledge in general.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We ask: how does this kind of defense of science actually happen, and how are the boundaries between science and nonscience drawn in ways that are gendered? We participate in the discussion started by Pereira (2019) on the importance of studying the interconnections between boundary-work and gender. The skepticism movement has rarely been studied within STS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Gendered Boundary-work within the Finnish Skepticism Movement

Vuolanto

Kolehmainen

2020

Science, Technology, & Human Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As a worldwide social movement, skepticism aims to promote science and critical thinking. However, by analyzing texts published in the magazine of the Finnish skepticism movement between 1988 and 2017, we find that the movement carries out its mission in a way that maintains and produces gendered hierarchies. We identify six forms of gendered boundary-work in the data: (1) science as masculine, (2) questioning women, (3) complementary and alternative medicine as feminine, (4) debating the status of gender studies, (5) gender within the skepticism movement, and (6) supporting equality. Gender is an important aspect of the boundary-work undertaken by the movement to establish boundaries between science and nonscience. The forms of gendered boundary-work contribute to the idea of “true” science as a masculine and male-dominated domain, excluding women from both science and the skepticism movement. Even when the exclusions are subtle, hidden, or humorous, they nevertheless produce gendered inequalities by excluding women, belittling women’s knowledge production, or granting women-only dismissive recognition. Indeed, our analysis indicates that there is a need to look deeply into science-based social movements: exclusive structural tactics are part and parcel of such movements’ mundane activities, as our examples from Skepsis ry’s popular magazine demonstrate.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Gendered Boundary-workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Gendered Boundary-work within the Finnish Skepticism Movement

Vuolanto

Kolehmainen

2020

Science, Technology, & Human Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While establishing their authority as experts, these counter-experts must navigate dynamics of epistemic oppression from dominant groups (Dotson, 2014) in ways that are gendered (Arancibia and Motta, 2019;Kimura, 2019), class-based (Arancibia and Motta, 2019; Egert and Allen, 2019; Morrell, 2019), nationality-based (Egert and Allen, 2019), and racialized (Morrell, 2019). Pereira (2019) finds that scholars' positionality with respect to gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, age, and sexuality affects their ability to successfully set boundaries, and that structural barriers often result in 'the non-performativity' of their boundary-work (Pereira, 2019). Counter-experts are likely to encounter similar barriers, on the basis of their positionality, in their ability to set or cross boundaries.…”

Section: About the Papersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guest Editorial: Conceptualizing Justice and Counter-Expertise

Williams

Moore

2019

Science as Culture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systemic injustices exclude counter-experts from telling their stories and influencing the collective imagination. Four papers and some discussant essays illustrate the ways in which counter-experts cross boundaries to contest knowledge claims, legal institutions, and forms of data in order to resist various forms of injustice. Literature on counter-expertise, socio-technical imaginaries, and epistemic injustice highlights how marginalized groups are prevented from participating in the process of collective imagining. A definition of counter-expertise and a new typology of counter-expertise demonstrate how marginalized groups navigate boundaries to pursue epistemic justice. The four papers in the special issue exemplify the ways in which counter-experts navigate identity politics. To combat epistemic injustice within our field, STS scholars can be more inclusive with teaching, mentoring, reviewing and other forms of scholarly gatekeeping.

show abstract