Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Citizen Science and Scientific Authority: Have You Checked the Boundary Work? Cover

Citizen Science and Scientific Authority: Have You Checked the Boundary Work?

Citizen Science: Theory and Practice
Volume 7 (2022): Issue 1
By: E. Carolina Mayes  
Open Access
|Dec 2022

References

  1. 1Beamish, TD. 2001. Environmental hazard and institutional betrayal: Lay-public perceptions of risk in the San Luis Obispo County oil spill. Organization & Environment, 14(1): 5–33. DOI: 10.1177/1086026601141001
    Back to article
  2. 2Benjamin, R. 2016. Informed refusal: Toward a justice-based bioethics. Science, Technology & Human Values, 41(6): 967–990. DOI: 10.1177/0162243916656059
    Back to article
  3. 3Bowker, GC and Star, SL. 1999. Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/6352.001.0001
    Back to article
  4. 4Briggs, CL and Hallin, DC. 2007. Biocommunicability: The neoliberal subject and its contradictions in news coverage of health issues. Social Text, 25(4): 43–66. DOI: 10.1215/01642472-2007-011
    Back to article
  5. 5Brown, P. 1992. Popular epidemiology and toxic waste contamination: Lay and professional ways of knowing. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 33(3): 267–281. DOI: 10.2307/2137356
    Back to article
  6. 6Bucchi, M. 1996. When scientists turn to the public: Alternative routes in science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 5(4): 375–394. DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/5/4/005
    Back to article
  7. 7Buchanan, N. 2017. Which fish? Knowledge, articulation, and legitimization in claims about endangered and culturally significant animals. Science Technology and Human Values, 42(3): 520–42. DOI: 10.1177/0162243916682597
    Back to article
  8. 8Callard, F and Perego, E. 2021. How and why patients made long COVID. Social Science and Medicine, 268(October 2020): 113426. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113426
    Back to article
  9. 9Carlson, J. 2016. Panel: Patient-led movement is transforming medical research. Star Tribune, Accessed June 3, 2019. https://www.startribune.com/panel-patient-led-movement-is-transforming-medical-research/405118076/.
    Back to article
  10. 10Eitzel, MV, Cappadonna, JL, Santos-Lang, C, Duerr, RE, Virapongse, A, West, SE, Kyba, CCM, et al. 2017. Citizen Science Terminology Matters: Exploring Key Terms. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 2(1): 1–20. DOI: 10.5334/cstp.96
    Back to article
  11. 11Epstein, S. 1995. The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology & Human Values, 20(4): 408–437. DOI: 10.1177/016224399502000402
    Back to article
  12. 12Epstein, S. 1998. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. University of California Press.
    Back to article
  13. 13Erikainen, S. 2022. The promissory visions of DIYbio: Reimaging science from the fringe. Science as Culture, 0(0): 1–24. DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2022.2028135
    Back to article
  14. 14Erikainen, S and Stewart, E. 2020. Credibility contests: Media debates on do-it-yourself coronavirus responses and the role of citizens in health crises. Frontiers in Sociology, 5(November): 1–13. DOI: 10.3389/fsoc.2020.592666
    Back to article
  15. 15Eyal, G. 2013. For a sociology of expertise: The social origins of the autism epidemic. American Journal of Sociology, 118(4): 863–907. DOI: 10.1086/668448
    Back to article
  16. 16Gieryn, TF. 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
    Back to article
  17. 17Gieryn, TF. 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. University of Chicago Press. DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226824420.001.0001
    Back to article
  18. 18Giordano, S. 2018. New democratic sciences, ethics, and proper publics. Science Technology and Human Values, 43(3): 401–30. DOI: 10.1177/0162243917723078
    Back to article
  19. 19Guerrini, CJ, Trejo, M, Canfield, I and McGuire, AL. 2020. Core values of genomic citizen science: Results from a qualitative interview study. BioSocieties. DOI: 10.1057/s41292-020-00208-2
    Back to article
  20. 20Hallin, DC, Brandt, M and Briggs, CL. 2013. Biomedicalization and the public sphere: Newspaper coverage of health and medicine, 1960s–2000s. Social Science and Medicine, 96: 121–128. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.07.030
    Back to article
  21. 21Hallin, DC and Briggs, CL. 2015. Transcending the medical/media opposition in research on news coverage of health and medicine. Media, Culture and Society, 37(1): 85–100. DOI: 10.1177/0163443714549090
    Back to article
  22. 22Jorgensen, E. 2016. Opinion: How DIY bio-hackers are changing the conversation around genetic engineering. Washington Post, Accessed June 3, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/05/20/how-diy-bio-hackers-are-changing-the-conversation-around-genetic-engineering/.
    Back to article
  23. 23Kimura, AH and Kinchy, AJ. 2016. Citizen science: Probing the virtues and contexts of participatory research. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 2: 331–361. DOI: 10.17351/ests2016.99
    Back to article
  24. 24Kinchy, AJ and Kleinman, DL. 2003. Organizing credibility: Discursive and organizational orthodoxy on the borders of ecology and politics. Social Studies of Science, 33(6): 869–896. DOI: 10.1177/0306312703336003
    Back to article
  25. 25King, RS. 2012. When breakthroughs begin at home. The New York Times, Accessed June 3, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/science/for-bio-hackers-lab-work-often-begins-at-home.html.
    Back to article
  26. 26Liebenberg, L, Ao, A, Lombard, M, Shermer, M, Xhukwe, U, Biesele, M, Xao, D, et al. 2021. Tracking science: An alternative for those excluded by citizen science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 6(1): 1–16. DOI: 10.5334/cstp.284
    Back to article
  27. 27Lueck, JA and Callaghan, T. 2022. Inside the “black box” of COVID-19 vaccination beliefs: Revealing the relative importance of public confidence and news consumption habits. Social Science and Medicine, 298(April): 1–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114874
    Back to article
  28. 28Mahr, D and Dickel, S. 2019. Citizen science beyond invited participation: nineteenth century amateur naturalists, epistemic autonomy, and big data approaches avant la lettre. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 41(4): 1–19. DOI: 10.1007/s40656-019-0280-z
    Back to article
  29. 29Mayes, EC. Forthcoming. “Citizen science in news media: Boundary mediation of public participation in health expertise.” Science, Technology & Human Values.
    Back to article
  30. 30McGowan, ML, Choudhury, S, Juengst, ET, Lambrix, M, Settersten, RA and Fishman, JR. 2017. ‘Let’s pull these technologies out of the ivory tower’: The politics, ethos, and ironies of participant-driven genomic research. BioSocieties, 12(4): 494–519. DOI: 10.1057/s41292-017-0043-6
    Back to article
  31. 31Ottinger, G. 2010. Buckets of resistance: Standards and the effectiveness of citizen science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(2): 244–70. DOI: 10.1177/0162243909337121
    Back to article
  32. 32Ottinger, G. 2017. Reconstructing or reproducing?: Scientific authority and models of change in two traditions of citizen science. In: Tyfield, D, Lave, R, Randalls, S and Thorpe, C (eds), The Routledge Handbook of the Political Economy of Science. London: Routledge. Pp. 351–364. DOI: 10.4324/9781315685397
    Back to article
  33. 33Ottinger, G. 2022. Misunderstanding citizen science: Hermeneutic ignorance in U.S. environmental regulation. Science as Culture, 1–26. DOI: 10.1080/09505431.2022.2035710
    Back to article
  34. 34Pereira, MDM. 2019. Boundary-work that does not work: Social inequalities and the non-performativity of scientific boundary-work. Science Technology and Human Values, 44 (2): 338–65. DOI: 10.1177/0162243918795043
    Back to article
  35. 35Pollan, M. 2013. Some of my best friends are bacteria. The New York Times. Accessed June 3, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/magazine/say-hello-to-the-100-trillion-bacteria-that-make-up-your-microbiome.html.
    Back to article
  36. 36Rabeharisoa, V, Moreira, T and Akrich, M. 2014. Evidence-based activism: patients’ organisations, users’ and activist’s groups in knowledge. BioSocieties, 9(2): 111–28. DOI: 10.1057/biosoc.2014.2
    Back to article
  37. 37Rasmussen, LM, Guerrini, CJ, Kuiken, T, Nebeker, C, Pearlman, A, Ware, SB, Wexler, A and Zettler, PJ. 2020. Realizing present and future promise of DIY biology and medicine through a trust architecture. The Hastings Center Report, 50(6): 10–14. DOI: 10.1002/hast.1194
    Back to article
  38. 38Roth, PH and Gadebusch-Bondio, M. 2022. The contested meaning of ‘long COVID’ – Patients, doctors, and the politics of subjective evidence. Social Science and Medicine, 292(June 2021): 114619. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114619
    Back to article
  39. 39Roy, S. 2017. The hand-in-hand spread of mistrust and misinformation in Flint. American Scientist, 105(1): 22–26. DOI: 10.1511/2017.124.22
    Back to article
  40. 40Roy, S and Edwards, M. 2019. Citizen science during the Flint, Michigan federal water emergency: Ethical dilemmas and lessons learned. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 4(1): 1–28. DOI: 10.5334/cstp.154
    Back to article
  41. 41Shapin, S and Schaffer, S. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton University Press. DOI: 10.1515/9781400838493
    Back to article
  42. 42Strasser, BJ, Baudry, J, Mahr, D, Sanchez, G and Tancoigne, E. 2019. “Citizen science”? Rethinking science and public participation. Science & Technology Studies, 32(2): 52–76. DOI: 10.23987/sts.60425
    Back to article
  43. 43Timmermans, S. 2020. The engaged patient: The relevance of patient–physician communication for twenty-first-century health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 61(3): 259–73. DOI: 10.1177/0022146520943514
    Back to article
  44. 44Trejo, M, Canfield, I, Robinson, JO and Guerrini, CJ. 2020. How biomedical citizen scientists define what they do: It’s all in the name. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 12(1): 63–70. DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2020.1825139
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.519 | Journal eISSN: 2057-4991
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: May 14, 2022
Accepted on: Aug 22, 2022
Published on: Dec 15, 2022
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
citizen science,
boundary work,
expertise,
inclusion,
epistemology

© 2022 E. Carolina Mayes, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 7 (2022): Issue 1Next article