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

Katelin E. Albert

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.’

Keywords


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

Full Text:

PDF

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.