Alexis Turner

Science in the everyday world

(academia, boundary objects, culture wars, history of science, human-human interaction, misunderstanding, specialization — )

6 Aug. 2008

Oooh, ooh! Less than 24 hours after I had a lovely if hyperbolic conversation about hating Foucault because he singlehandedly killed academia, Karen sent me a link to her latest article (Science in the Everyday World, Karen Rader and Katherine Pandora) along with a couple of blog reactions to it. And what should the whole mess turn out to be, but about my four favorite subjects! (Academic isolation & specialization, taking things for granted, boundary objects, and human-human interaction, for those keeping track.) Hot damn.

Anyway, first thing that jumps out at me and that I'm embarrassed to realize is that Karen is also very much into finding ways to reconnect academic life to public life. I had no idea. Now - in retrospect - as I look back at her courses, it becomes obvious. But I suppose I took for granted as an undergrad that the fruits of academia were supposed to have some sort of connection with the hoi polloi and so never noticed this as something that drove her reading selections. Ah, for the idealism and naivete of youth.

At any rate. Blah blah blah. The article.

The most interesting thing about the article (at least as far as I'm concerned, the article just said a bunch of stuff I agree with...that's never particularly interesting) is actually in the responses to it. And in this, I think, lies its strength - it makes many of its own points in the reaction to it!

Reaction 1

Fuck those arrogant bitches for saying that history is better than science and that scientists are arrogant bitches. Who do these two think they are, anyway?!

Actually, they said nothing of the sort, but it's fascinating that all the responses so far believe they did. What R&P actually said was that all specialists are arrogant bitches, whether scientists or historians. As a remedy to this, they propose studying and understanding reactions to one's work - both reactions from other academic disciplines as well as reactions from the general public.

But the telling bit is in the reaction. Why did everyone misread this? In setting up a hostility between science and the humanities that doesn't actually exist in the article, are the scientists doing the reading in fact speaking truth to such a hostility? Does the fact that all the reactions also reference each other while making this same mistake mean that the respondents are simply copying each other's reactions? Do closed communities perpetuate mistakes? Would opening up a closed community to outside eyes alleviate such errors? And if that were the case...would....would that mean that R&P are correct to call for outside insight?!

Indeed, I can't help but suspect that this reaction more than any other proves Rader & Pandora just might be on to something.

Reaction 1a

They were incorrect to state that science and history don't get along. I can cite many examples of cross-referencing between these two disciplines.

They didn't state that science and history don't get along, nor did they state that the two don't collaborate. They stated that the two have much to offer one another. The difference is subtle but important. See response to reaction 1.

That said, it is a bit ironic that all the examples put forth as bastions of science reaching out to the public and not being insular are all part of the same Science Blogs community. Science Blogs, in my experience, is ridiculously tightknit and chummy. And insular. Which is precisely what R&P warn against in their article. Again, I feel that the reaction proves the article might be worth listening to, even if it does not say anything especially "new" or "groundbreaking."

Reaction 2

This article does not say anything new or groundbreaking.

No, it doesn't, which is a bit disappointing, I must agree. And yet the reactions to it indicate that it has hit a nerve, and the reactions to it are informative and provide insight in their own right. Which means that it might not be a "sexy" article, but it is clearly useful and necessary.

Reaction 3

Why the fuck were they blathering on about museums?! Museums are actually a place where scientists reach out to the public.

Yes, exactly, Einstein. Studying a place where science and the public interact is a very good way to study how science and the public interact.

Actually, though, this section is very much the heart of the paper, and it actually puts forward a ton of interesting thoughtlets that could be pursued endlessly (presumably Karen doesn't want to blow her wad in this paper and is saving them for her museum book?). But many of the questions left hanging here, even though unanswered, are at the heart of the rest of the article.

Most importantly...What is the purpose of science interacting with the public? Seriously. Ask yourself this question. What is the purpose? What does science gain by interacting with the public? Do they get future scientists? An informed populace? Better public policy? A warm fuzzy feeling? Are they simply doing their part as decent human beings? Will they get useful and informative feedback? New scientific knowledge? Understanding the goal is crucial in designing the best mode of interaction, and it certainly shouldn't be a stretch to think analyzing a place and time period where these questions have already been grappled with would be useful.

Reaction 4

OMFG, they didn't talk about my field's existing body of knowledge in this matter.

That's because they are not part of your field. The whole point of the article was that all fields have something to add to one another. Their example, because it is their field, is that historians of science have something to add to science. That does not preclude the reverse scenario, nor does it preclude some other field having something useful to bring to some other table.

Reaction 5

Rader and Pandora do not propose adding anything to scientific knowledge.

No, they didn't. It's too bad they didn't have the balls to, either, because it wouldn't be much of a stretch to have done so, and it's the one thing that would have most improved the article. R&P would posit doing their part as decent human beings and getting useful feedback as the reason for bridging the gap between science and the public. Personally, I would add new scientific knowledge to that. Recognizing where people understand - and, more importantly, misunderstand - science holds the key to identifying holes in scientific knowledge. You don't learn the most interesting things by repeating the same things over and over. You learn new things by finding anomalies. Errors. The unexpected. Seeing where the reaction doesn't match what you expected it to be.

Truthfully, I think the article didn't go far enough. The main point is that alternative sources of information are useful because they can bridge the divide between science and the populace, but as far as I'm concerned it should have also said that alternative sources of information can rectify blindspots with a discipline. Perhaps this was implicit. Perhaps not. But I wish they would have had the balls to have said it outright. Yes, I absolutely agree with the article that as human beings and functioning members of society, academics owe it to their fellow citizen to engage with them and show them a level of respect - if not as peer specialists, as peer human beings. But I also believe that this lack of respect blinds academics to errors in their own thinking. They begin to take certain facts for granted, when it would only take a listen to different quarters to realize the error. Diversity is not vital merely because it is the right thing to do (which, granted, is damn important). But it also has important practical implications in that it can help overcome shortcomings within a field. IMHO, any academic that does not look outside the field for sources of inspiration should be considered both negligent and incompetent as a practitioner.

Reaction 6

(My reaction)The article does not actually bridge the gap between science and the public.

Ironically, the article proposes to bridge a gap, but fails to speak to either scientists or the public in their own language. Technically speaking, the article's propositions are sound (which I hope perhaps I've shown a bit above). But it doesn't quite manage to sell itself. Since it seems to be trying to sell itself to the scientist at this point, I think that Reaction 5 is the most damning. They aren't proposing to add anything new to science. Which, to the scientist, apparently, is all that matters?

The response to reaction 5 was telling because it indicates where scientists' priorities lie. At least one reaction actually belittled R&P for being so provincial as to give a shit about being decent citizens. "Fuck that silly nonsense," the respondent might as well have said. "Scientists just want something that'll matter in a lab."

Indeed. Perhaps that was the most telling response of all. Fuck the public, those stupid twats. And fuck you, you useless historian. You have not increased my specialized knowledge of science, and so you have just wasted the 30 minutes of my time that it took to read your article. (To be fair, this is not literally what he said. I am putting a lot of subtext here. He also appears to be a historian putting himself on shaky ground by speaking for scientists, instead of actually being a scientist? Nonetheless, based on the response, scientists either do have this attitude or other people believe they do...and there's something interesting to be gleaned from either scenario.)

In the end, the article was technically right on all counts. But it failed at least partially in its stated goal because it either forgot its audience or misjudged their reaction badly. Apparently, talking about science is not enough for the historian to do. They must also sell it back to the scientist. At this point, learning from the reactions might be the most useful thing R&P could do.

Update:
Katherine Pandora and Karen Rader have posted their own response to this and the other responses I mentioned. Their response can be found on Pandora's blog.