Claiming Universal Epistemic Authority – Relational Boundary Work and the Academic Institutionalization of Data Science

Bianca Prietl; Stefanie Raible

doi:10.2478/sjs-2023-0024

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

Claiming Universal Epistemic Authority – Relational Boundary Work and the Academic Institutionalization of Data Science

Swiss Journal of Sociology

Volume 49 (2023): Issue 3 (November 2023)

By: Bianca Prietl and Stefanie Raible

Open Access

|Oct 2023

Abstract

This article studies the rise of academic data science in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. By focusing on the boundary work that accompanies this development, we try to understand current transformations in knowledge production within digital academia and beyond. Drawing on qualitative interviews with data science scholars, we identify five lines of demarcation in claiming universal epistemic authority. This boundary work is characterized by multiple tensions and varies depending upon context and counterpart, making it inherently relational.

References

Abbott, Andrew.1988. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Abbott, Andrew. 1995a. Boundaries of Social Work or Social Work of Boundaries? Social Service Review 69(4): 545–562.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Abbott, Andrew. 1995b. Things of Boundaries. Social Research 62(4): 857–882.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Andrews, Leighton, Bile Benbouzid, Jeremy Brice, Lee A. Bygrave, David Demortain, Alex Griffiths, Martin Lodge, Andrea Mennicken, and Karen Yeung. 2017. Algorithmic Regulation. LSE Discussion Paper 85. London School of Economics and Political Science.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bartlett, Andrew, Jamie Lewis, Luis Reyes-Galindo, and Neil Stephens. 2018. The Locus of Legitimate Interpretation in Big Data Sciences: Lessons for Computational Social Science from -omic Biology and High-Energy Physics. Big Data & Society 5(1): 1–15.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Beaulieu, Anne, and Sabina Leonelli. 2022. Data and Society. A Critical Introduction. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Beer, David. 2019. The Data Gaze: Capitalism, Power and Perception. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Beer, David. 2022. The Tensions of Algorithmic Thinking. Automation, Intelligence and the Politics of Knowing. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bonde Thylstrup, Nanna, Mikkel Flyverbom, and Rasmus Helles. 2019. Datafied Knowledge Production: Introduction to the special theme. Big Data & Society 6(2): 1–5.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Borup, Mads, Nik Brown, Kornelia Konrad, and Harro van Lente. 2006. The Sociology of Expectations in Science and Technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18(3–4): 285–298.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dorschel, Robert. 2021. Discovering Needs for Digital Capitalism. The Hybrid Profession of Data Science. Big Data & Society 8(2): 1–13.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dorschel, Robert, and Philipp Brandt. 2021. Professionalisierung mittels Ambiguität: Die diskursive Konstruktion von Data Scientists in Wirtschaft und Wissenschaft. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 50(3–4): 193–210.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
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.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gieryn, Thomas F. 1994. Boundaries of Science. Pp. 393–443 in Handbook of Science, Technology and Society, edited by Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald Markle, James Peterson, and Trevor Pinch. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gieryn, Thomas F. 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Houben, Daniel. 2022. Die verborgenen Mechanismen der Governance. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Houben, Daniel, and Bianca Prietl (eds.). 2018. Datengesellschaft. Einsichten in die Datafizierung des Sozialen. Bielefeld: transcript
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kitchin, Rob. 2014. Big Data, New Epistemologies and Paradigm Shifts. Big Data & Society 1(1): 1–12.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kitchin, Rob. 2022. The Data Revolution. A Critical Analysis of Big Data, Open Data & Infrastructure. 2^nd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jarke, Juliane, Bianca Prietl, Simon Egbert, Yana Boeva, Hendrik Heuer, and Maike Arnold (eds.). forthcoming. Algorithmic Regimes. Methods, Interactions, Politics. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lamont, Michèle, and Virág Molnár. 2002. The Study of Boundaries Across the Social Sciences. In: Annual Review of Sociology 28: 167–195.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lowrie, Ian. 2017. Algorithmic Rationality: Epistemology and Efficiency in the Data Sciences. Big Data & Society 4(1): 1–13.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Paulitz, Tanja. 2012. “Hegemoniale Männlichkeit” als narrative Distinktionspraxis im Wissenschaftsspiel. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie 37(1): 45–64.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Paulitz, Tanja, and Bianca Prietl. 2013. Spielarten von Männlichkeit in den «Weltbildern» technikwissenschaftlicher Fachgebiete. Informatik-Spektrum: Archive of Applied Mechanics 36: 300–308.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Paulitz, Tanja, Susanne Kink, and Bianca Prietl 2015. Fachliche Distinktion und Geschlechterunterscheidung in Technik- und Naturwissenschaften. Grundlagen- und anwendungsorientierte Wissenskulturen im Vergleich. Pp. 207–225 in Akademische Wissenskulturen und soziale Praxis. Geschlechterforschung zu natur-, technik- und geisteswissenschaftlichen Fächern, edited by Tanja Paulitz, Barbara Hey, Susanne Kink, and Bianca Prietl. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Prietl, Bianca. 2019a. Die Versprechen von Big Data im Spiegel feministischer Rationalitätskritik. GENDER 3: 11–25.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Prietl, Bianca. 2019b. Changierende Subjektpositionen und implizite Vergeschlechtlichungen. Zur diskursiven (Re-)Produktion hierarchischer Geschlechterverhältnisse am Beispiel der Ingenieurarbeit im Bereich erneuerbarer Energien. Soziale Welt 70(1): 93–118.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Prietl, Bianca. 2021. Warum Ethikstandards nicht alles sind. Zu den herrschaftskonservierenden Effekten aktueller Digitalisierungskritik. Behemoth, Special Issue Future(s) of Critique: 19–30.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Prietl, Bianca, and Armin Ziegler. 2016. Machtvolle Grenzen als konstitutive Momente des Sozialen. Grenzziehungen als Analysekonzept für eine Soziologiegeschichte. Pp. 1–16 in Handbuch Geschichte der deutschsprachigen Soziologie. Band 2: Forschungsdesign, Theorien und Methoden, edited by Stephan Moebius and Andrea Ploder. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Prietl, Bianca, and Stefanie Raible. Forthcoming. The Politics of Data Science. Institutionalising Algorithmic Regimes of Knowledge Production. In Algorithmic Regimes: Methods, Interactions, Politics, edited by Juliane Jarke, Bianca Prietl, Simon Egbert, Hendrik Heuer, and Maike Arnold. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Raible, Stefanie. 2022. Organisationen als Treiber und Getriebene von Digitalisierung – Zur Dualität von Digitalisierungsnarrativen. Arbeits- und Industriesoziologische Studien 15(2): 62-75.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Raible, Stefanie, Werner, René, and Laube, Stefan. 2023. Begegnungen im Digitalen. Qualitative Sozialforschung als intersituative und polymediale Praxis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 24(2): Art. 11.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ribes, David. 2019. STS, Meet Data Science, Once Again. Science, Technology, & Human Values 44(3): 514–539.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ribes, David, Andrew S. Hoffman, Steven C. Slota, and Geoffrey C. Bowker, 2019. The Logic of Domains. Social Studies of Science 49(3): 281–309.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Saner, Philippe. 2019. Envisioning Higher Education: How Imaging the Future Shapes the Implementation of a New Field in Higher Education. Swiss Journal of Sociology 45: 359–381.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Saner, Philippe. 2022. Datenwissenschaften und Gesellschaft. Zur Genese eines transversalen Wissensfeldes. Bielefeld: transcript.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Slota, Steven C., Andrew S. Hoffman, David Ribes, and Geoffrey C. Bowker. 2020. Prospecting (in) the Data Sciences. Big Data & Society 7(1): 1–12.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. 1996. Grounded Theory: Grundlagen Qualitativer Sozialforschung. Weinheim: Beltz.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Turkle, Sherry. 1986. Computational Reticence: Why Women Fear the Intimate Machine. Pp. 41–61 in Technology and Women’s Voices, edited by Cheris Kramarae. New York: Pergamon Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article