Erasing the Social from Social Science: The Intellectual Costs of Boundary-Work and the Canadian Institute of Health Research

Authors

  • Katelin E. Albert University of Toronto

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29173/cjs21329

Keywords:

Interdisciplinary, Boundary-Work, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Funding, Institutional Ethnography

Abstract

In 2009, Canadian social science research funding underwent a transition. Social science health-research was shifted from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) to the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR), an agency previously dominated by natural and medical science. This paper examines the role of health-research funding structures in legitimizing and/or delimiting what counts as ‘good’ social science health research. Engaging Gieryn’s (1983) notion of ‘boundary-work’ and interviews with qualitative social science graduate students, it investigates how applicants developed proposals for CIHR. Findings show that despite claiming to be interdisciplinary, the practical mechanisms through which CIHR funding is distributed reinforce rigid boundaries of what counts as legitimate health research. These boundaries are reinforced by applicants who felt pressure to prioritize what they perceived was what funders wanted (accommodating natural-science research culture), resulting in erased, elided, and disguised social science theories and methods common for ‘good social science.’

Author Biography

Katelin E. Albert, University of Toronto

Department of Sociology Doctoral Student

References

Abbott, Andrew. 2001. Chaos of Disciplines. University of Chicago Press.

Albert, Mathieu, Suzanne Laberge, Brian D. Hodges, Glenn Regehr, and Lorelei Lingard. 2008. Biomedical scientists' perception of the social sciences in health research. Social science & medicine, 66(12): 2520-2531.

Albert, Mathieu, Suzanne Laberge, and Brian D. Hodges. 2009. Boundary-work in the health research field: biomedical and clinician scientists’ perceptions of social science research. Minerva, 47(2): 171-194.

Apostel, Leo, Guy Berger, Briggs, and Guy Michaud (Eds.). 1972. Interdisciplinarity: Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities. Paris: OECD.

Bachrach, Christine A., and Ronald P. Abeles. 2004. Social science and health research: growth at the National Institutes of Health. Journal Information, 94(1).

Bernier, Nicole F. 2005. Integrating political science into health sciences. In Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The Social Sciences and Humanities in Health Research, 124-125. Ottawa: CIHR.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 2004 [2001]. Science of Science and Reflexivity (trans: Nice R.). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Braithwaite, John. 2005. For public social science. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(3): 345-353.

Brint, Steven. 2005. Creating the future: ‘New directions’ in American research universities. Minerva, 43(1): 23-50.

Carroll, William. K. (Ed.). 2004. Critical Strategies for Social Research. Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Carrier, Martin. 2010. Research under pressure: Methodological features of commercialized science. In: The Commodification of Academic Research: Science and the Modern University, ed. Hans Redder, 159-186. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

CIHR. (2010). CIHR three-year implementation plan and progress report 2010-13: Health research roadmap. Creating innovative research for better health and health care. ISBN 978-1-100-16606-3.

CIHR-IRSC. (2013a). Our Mandate. Accessed November 2, 2013 from http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/7263.html

CIHR-IRSC. (2013b). Peer Review Committee Membership List. Accessed November 2, 2013 from http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/39399.html

Collins, Patricia, H. 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Psychology Press.

Coulter, Kimberly. 2008. The NSF’s ‘cool’ project: a charrette assesses interdisciplinary graduate education, with surprising results. Global Higher Ed, Assessed Nov 4, 2013. http://globalhighered.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/the-nsf’s-cool-project-a-charrette-assesses-interdisciplinary-graduate-education-with-surprising-results/

De Villiers, Jessica. 2005. Integrating the techniques of linguistic discourse into health sciences. The social sciences and humanities in health research, ed. Canadian Institutes of Health Research: 122-123.

Etzkowitz, Henry. 1998. The norms of entrepreneurial science:

cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research policy, 27(8): 823-833.

Frodeman, Robert, Julie T. Klein, and Carl Mitcham. (Eds.). (2010). The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Geiger, Robert L. 2004. To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American Research Universities, 1900-1940. Transaction Books.

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: 781-795.

Hacking, Ian. 2004. The complacent disciplinarian. Interdisciplines. http://www.interdisciplines.org/interdisciplinarity/ papers/7.

Heintz, Christophe, and Gloria Origgi. 2004. Rethinking interdisciplinarity: Emergent issues. Interdisciplines. http://www.interdisciplines.org/interdisciplinarity/ papers/11.

Jacobs, Jerry. 2009. Interdisciplinary hype. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 56(14): B4-B5.

Jacobs, Jerry. A. 2014. In Defense of Disciplines: Interdisciplinarity and Specialization in the Research University. University of Chicago Press.

Jacobs, Jerry. A., and Scott Frickel. 2009. Interdisciplinarity: A critical assessment. Annual Review of Sociology: 35, 43-65.

Cetina, Karin K. 1991. Epistemic cultures: Forms of reason in science. History of Political Economy, 23(1): 105-122.

Cetina, Karin K. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences make Knowledge. Harvard University Press.

Laudel, Grit. 2006. The art of getting funded: how scientists adapt to their funding conditions. Science and Public Policy, 33(7): 489-504.

Marlor, Chantelle. 2010. Bureaucracy, democracy and exclusion: Why indigenous knowledge holders have a hard time being taken seriously. Qualitative Sociology, 33(4): 513-531.

Morris, Norma. 2000. Science policy in action: Policy and the researcher. Minerva, 38(4): 425-451.

Morris, Norma. 2003. Academic researchers as ‘agents’ of science policy. Science and Public Policy, 30(5): 359-370.

Morse, Janice. M. 2006. It is time to revise the Cochrane criteria. Qualitative health research, 16(3): 315-317.

NIH–National Institutes of Health. (2007). NIH roadmap for medical research. http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/.

Raphael, Dennis. 2011. Mainstream media and the social determinants of health in Canada: is it time to call it a day?. Health promotion international, 26(2): 220-229.

Seddon, Toby. 2013. Regulating Health: Transcending Disciplinary Boundaries. Health Care Analysis, 21(1): 43-53.

Slaughter, Sheila. 2004. Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education. JHU Press.

Smith, Dorothy E. 1990. The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Smith, Dorothy E. 2005. Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People. Rowman Altamira.

Smith, George W., Eric Mykhalovskiy, and Douglas Weatherbee. 2006. A research proposal. Institutional ethnography as practice, 165-180.

Solovey, Mark. 2004. Riding natural scientists' coattails onto the endless frontier: The SSRC and the quest for scientific legitimacy. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 40(4): 393-422.

Subramaniam, Mangala, Robert Perrucci, and David Whitlock. 2012. Intellectual Closure: A Theoretical Framework Linking Knowledge, Power, and the Corporate University. Critical Sociology.

Swedberg, Richard. 2012. Theorizing in sociology and social science: turning to the context of discovery. Theory and society, 41(1): 1-40.

Trocco, Frank. 2002. On the fringes of credibility: The boundary question between science and non-science. Skeptic, 9(2): 32-39.

Downloads

Published

2014-07-08

Issue

Vol. 39 No. 3 (2014)

Section

Note on Society/Réflexion sur la société

License

1. The CJS will perform the usual functions of copy-editing on the article. The Author(s) will be given an opportunity to read and correct proofs, but if they fail to return them by the date set on the proofs, production and publication may proceed without the Author(s)'s approval of proofs.

2. The CJS will publish this article pursuant to this contract at its cost. CJS has the exclusive right to determine how the article will appear in the journal and elsewhere.

3. The Author(s) warrant that permission to publish the article has not been previously assigned elsewhere. The Author(s) further warrant that the contribution is original to them, except for any copyrighted material of others incorporated in it, and that the Author(s) will advise us of any material, either text or illustration, the rights for which are controlled by others. Where necessary, the Author(s) will obtain, before publication and at their expense, permission in writing from the owner of the copyright in that material for publication by us. Copies of any such permission must be submitted to CJS for our files.

4. The Author(s) further warrant that the article contains no defamatory or otherwise unlawful matter and that it makes no improper invasion of the privacy or personal rights of anyone. The Author(s) undertake that all statements in it purporting to be facts are true; and that they will advise us of any statements that might be construed as defamatory or otherwise unlawful. We may require substantive revision of the manuscript to avoid including material that may infringe rights or be defamatory or otherwise unlawful. 5. In the unlikely event of any claim, action, or proceeding based on an alleged violation of any of these warranties, we shall have the right to defend the same through counsel of our own choosing. The Author(s) agree to pay all resulting costs and damages, except that this indemnity shall not apply to any changes in the manuscript by us that were not approved by the Author(s) in advance of publication, or to any material that the Authors had warned us in advance of publication might be construed as defamatory or otherwise unlawful.

6. In order to protect both Author(s) and CJS from unauthorized use of the article, the Author(s) agree to refer to us any subsequent requests to publish it or a substantial portion thereof. If we choose to grant any such request, we will normally exact a standard fee for reprinting, the amount of this fee to be fixed by us from time to time; this fee will be divided equally with Author(s). We will accede to any request by the Author(s) to use part or all of their article in a article published under either Author(s)’s exclusive authorship or editorship, provided that acknowledgment of its first appearance is made in a manner approved by CJS, and in such cases no fee for reprinting shall be payable to us.

7. Subject to the above conditions, and in consideration of CJS undertaking to subsidize costs of publication of the article, the Author(s) assign to CJS the exclusive world rights to the article in its present, or substantially its present, form, and the parties hereto agree upon the foregoing terms for themselves and their respective executors, administrators, assigns, or successors. The Author(s) herby waive any claim for royalties and reprint fees arising from the use of their article. CJS hereby obtains the right to use the article in any future publication, including, but not limited to, publication in electronic media, issued under its auspices and to authorize others, including reproduction rights organizations such as CanCopy, to do the same.