Chapter 2: Authority and Expertise in New Sites of Knowledge Production
This chapter examines how the creation of knowledge, as a form of cultural production and consumption, has been reshaped by new media practices. Much has been written recently about how user-generated content enters and reshapes circulatory matrices of media and power, and about how new media practices redefine the role of cultural producers (Jenkins 2006; Bruns 2008). For example, platforms like Flickr have been hailed as sites of new literacies and creativities, while blogs have been implicated in debates about how new dynamics around information and news production are reshaping the public sphere as a pillar of democracy. Much attention has been awarded to fields such as journalism, the creative industries and politics, but the ways in which new media practices are mediated through and inflected by the often highly institutionalized contexts of scientific research is left unaddressed. Investigating this becomes particularly important in an era in which lay-experts become increasingly visible and in which researchers are expected to develop relations beyond the university walls.
Scientists, scholars, and professional researchers have always been producers and creators, but the relations to other actors and to activities beyond institutional boundaries are increasingly important. This chapter considers what happens when the work of knowledge production is pursued in infrastructural settings that reach out beyond institutions (or that bypass them more or less entirely), that take on new media forms (Hayles 2002; van Dijck 2007; Hine 2008) such as networked databases, and that engage new actors.
Given the traditional importance of institutions in the production of knowledge, what are the relations between these wider mediated networks as new sites of knowledge production and traditional, institutional sites? To answer this question, we present three ethnographic case studies. In each case, the relation between institutions and infrastructure take on different configurations, and reveal important features of how new actors come to be involved in knowledge production. These cases are the use of the digital catalogue linked to the website of the Tropenmuseum in Amsterdam, the efforts of the city of Maastricht to develop new ways of engaging with its historical heritage, and the use of Flickr for the study of street art. Our analysis of new sites of knowledge production will enable us to address how new mediated sites of knowledge production relate to other contemporary spheres of cultural production and to other historical moments.
Reference list -
Arzberger, Peter, Peter Schroeder, Anne Beaulieu, Geof Bowker, Kathleen Casey, Leif Laaksonen, David Moorman, Paul Uhlir, and Paul Wouters. 2004. “Science and government: An international framework to promote access to data.” Science 303 (5665): 1777-1778.
Beaulieu, Anne. 2001. “Voxels in the brain: Neuroscience, informatics and changing notions of objectivity.” Social Studies of Science 31 (5): 635-680.
___. 2002. “Images are not the (only) Truth: Brain mapping, visual knowledge, and iconoclasm.” Science , Technology & Human Values, 27(1): 53-86.
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): 285-98.
Bowker, Geoffrey C. 2000. “Biodiversity datadiversity.” Social Studies of Science 30 (5): 643-683.
Bowker, Geoffrey C., Karen Baker, Florence Millerand and David Ribes. (in press, 2010). “Towards information infrastructure studies: Ways of knowing in a networked environment.” In International handbook of internet research, ed. Jeremy Hunsinger, Lisbeth Klastrup and Matthew Allen, 97-117. Berlin: Springer.
Brown, Nik, and Mike Michael. 2003. “A sociology of expectations: Retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 15 (1): 3-18.
Bruns, Axel. 2008. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Burgess, Jean. 2009. “Remediating vernacular creativity: Photography and cultural citizenship in the Flickr photosharing network.” In Spaces of vernacular creativity: Rethinking the cultural economy, ed. Tim Edensor, Deborah Leslie, Steve Millington, and Norma Rantisi, 116-126. London: Routledge.
Callon, M. and A. Rip. 1992. “Humains, non-humains: Morale d’une coexistence.” In La Terre outragée. Les Experts sont formels!, ed. Jacques Theys and Bernard Kalaora, 140–56. Paris: Ed. Autrement.
Castells, M. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Collins, Harry M. and Robert Evans. 2002. “The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience.” Social Studies of Science 32: 235-296.
David, Paul A. 1985. “Clio and the economics of QWERTY.” American Economic Review 75 (2): 332-337.
Derksen, Maarten. 1997. “Are we not experimenting then? The rhetorical demarcation of psychology and common sense.” Theory & Psychology 7 (4): 435-456.
Derksen, Maarten and Anne Beaulieu (in press 2011). “Social technology.” In The handbook of philosophy of social science, ed. Ian Jarvie and Jesús Zamora-Bonilla, London: Sage.
Doing, Park. 2004. “’Lab hands’ and the ‘Scarlet O’: Epistemic politics and (scientific) labor.” Social Studies of Science 34 (3): 299-323.
Epstein, Steven. 1996. Impure Science. Aids, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.
Edwards, Paul. N, Geoffrey Bowker, Steven J, Jackson, and Robin Williams. 2009. “Introduction: An agenda for infrastructure studies.” Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10 (5): article 6.
Friedland, Roger, and Robert R. Alford. 1991. “Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions.” In The new institutionalism inoOrganizational analysis, ed. Walter W. Powell and Paul DiMaggio, 232-266. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fuller, Matthew. 2003. Behind the Blip: Essays on the Culture of Software. Brooklyn, USA: Autonomedia.
Gieryn, Thomas. 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.
___. 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hand, Martin. 2008. Making Digital Cultures: Access, Interactivity and Authenticity. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Hayles, N. Katherine. 2002. “Material metaphors, technotexts, and media-specific analysis.” In Writing machines: Mediaworks pamphlets, ed. N. Katherine Hayles and Anne Burdick, 18-33. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Hine, Christine. 2006. “Databases as scientific instruments and their role in the ordering of scientific work.” Social Studies of Science 36 (2): 269-298.
———. 2008. Systematics as Cyberscience: Computers, Change, and Continuity in Science. Cambridge, USA: The MIT Press.
Jackson, Steven J., Paul N. Edwards, Geoffrey C. Bowker, and Cory P. Knobel. 2007. “Understanding infrastructure: History, heuristics, and cyberinfrastructure policy.” First Monday 12 (6) (June). Available at http://18.104.22.168/www/issues/issue12_6/jackson/.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press.
———. 2004. “Ordering knowledge, ordering society.” In States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order, ed. Sheila Jasanoff, 13-45. London and New York: Routledge.
Jenkins, Henry. 2006. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press.
Kothari, Uma. 2005. “Authority and expertise: The professionalisation of international development and the ordering of dissent.” Antipode 37 (3): 425-46.
Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press.
Krasner, Stephen D. 1988. “Sovereignty: An institutional perspective.” Comparative Political Studies 21 (1): 66-94.
LAgroup (2003) Eindrapport: De Culturele Biografie van Maastricht. Amsterdam: LAGroup.
Lange, P. G. (2007). “Publicly private and privately public: Social networking on YouTube.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13 (1) (article 18). Available at http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/lange.html.
Lynch, Michael. 2007. “Expertise, skepticism and cynicism.” Spontaneous Generations 1 (1): 17-23.
Petersen, Søren Møren. 2009. Common Banality: the Affective Character of Photo Sharing, Everyday Life and Produsage Cultures. PhD. IT University of Copenhagen.
Pinch, Trevor. 2008. “Technology and institutions: Living in a material world.” Theory and Society 37 (5): 461-83.
de Rijcke, Sarah. 2008a. “Light tries the expert eye. The introduction of photography in nineteenth century macroscopic neuroanatomy.” Journal of the History of the Neurosciences 17: 349-366.
___. 2008b. “Drawing into abstraction: Practices of observation and visualization in the work of Santiago Ramón y Cajal.” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 33 (4): 287-311.
___. 2010. Regarding the Brain: Practices of Objectivity in Cerebral Imaging, Seventeenth Century – Present. PhD. University of Groningen.
Rip, Arie. 2003. “Constructing expertise: In a third wave of science studies?” Social Studies of Science 33 (3): 419-34.
Rooijakkers, Gerard.1999. Het leven van alledag benoemen: Cultureel erfgoed tussen ondernemerschap en nieuwe technologie. Boekmancahier 41(Erfgoed en nieuwe media): 275-89.
Rose, Nikolas.1993. “Government, authority and expertise in advanced liberalism.” Economy and Society 22(3): 283-99.
Rubinstein, Daniel, and Katrina Sluis. 2008. “A life more photographic: Mapping the networked image.” Photographies 1 (1): 9-28.
Scott, Richard W. 2008. “Approaching adulthood: The maturing of institutional theory.” Theory and Society 37 (5): 427-42.
Sekula, Allan. 1985. “The body and the archive.” October 39: 2-64.
Shapin, Steve. 1995. A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shapin, Steven, and Simon Schaffer. 1985. Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Skågeby, Jörgen. 2008. “Semi-public end-user content contributions: A case-study of concerns and intentions in online photo-sharing.” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 66 (4): 287-300.
Sparke, Matthew. 2000. “’Chunnel visions’: Unpacking the anticipatory geographies of an anglo-european borderland.” Journal of Borderlands Studies 15 (1): 187-219.
van Dijck, Jose. 2008. “Digital photography: Communication, identify, memory.” Visual Communication 7 (1): 57-76.
van House, Nancy. 2002a. “Trust in knowledge work: CaliFlora and biodiversity data sharing.” Proceedings of the 2nd ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries, Portland Oregon, USA: 231-239.
———. 2002b. “Digital libraries and the practice of trust: Networked environmental information.” Social Epistemology 16 (1): 99-114.
van House, Nancy et al. 2004. “From ‘what?’ to ‘why?’: The social uses of personal photos.” CSCW04, Chicago, Illinois, 6-10 November.
VKS. 2008. “Messy shapes of knowledge: STS explores informatization, new media and academic work.” In The handbook of science and technology studies, Third Edition, ed. Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Mike Lynch, and Judy Wajcman, 319-352. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Waterton, Claire (2010). “Experimenting with the archive: STS-ers as analysts and co-constructors of databases and other archival forms.” Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35 (5): 645-676.
Waterton, Claire and Rebecca Ellis. 2004. “Environmental citizenship in the making: The participation of volunteer naturalists in UK biological recording.” Science and Public Policy 31 (2): 95-105.
Weber, Max.1968. Economy and Society. New York: Bedminster Press.
Wouters, Paul, and Anne Beaulieu. 2006. “Imagining e-science beyond computation.” In New infrastructures for knowledge production: Understanding e-science, ed. Christine Hine, 48-70. Herschey, NJ, USA: Idea Group.
Wouters, Paul, and Peter Schroeder, ed. 2003. The Public Domain of Digital Research Data. Amsterdam: NIWI-KNAW.
Wyatt, Sally. 2008. “Technological Determinism is Dead: Long Live Technological Determinism.” In The handbook of science and technology studies, third edition, ed. Edward J Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and Judy Wacjman, 165-180. Cambridge, USA: Sage Publications.
Wynne, Brian. 1992. “Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science.” Public Understanding of Science 1 (3) (July): 281-304.