방법 비교

	Boundary-Work Analysis	Controversy Mapping
분야	Science Technology Studies	Science Technology Studies
계열	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
기원 연도	1983	2010
창시자	Thomas F. Gieryn	Bruno Latour (Sciences Po médialab); codified by Tommaso Venturini
유형	Qualitative rhetorical and interpretive method	Qualitative descriptive method and pedagogy
원전	Gieryn, T. F. (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.	Venturini, T. (2010). Diving in magma: how to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 258-273.
별칭	Boundary-work analysis, Demarcation analysis, Credibility contest analysis	Cartography of controversies, Mapping scientific controversies, Controversy analysis
관련	4	4
요약	Boundary-work analysis studies how the line between science and non-science is drawn, defended, and contested—not by philosophers laying down timeless criteria, but by actors doing rhetorical work to secure authority, resources, and credibility. Introduced by Thomas Gieryn in 1983 and elaborated in his 1999 book Cultural Boundaries of Science, the approach treats demarcation as a practical, strategic, and historically variable accomplishment. The method examines the discourse of demarcation episodes to reveal the strategies—expansion, expulsion, and protection of autonomy—through which the cultural map of science is redrawn whenever its credibility is on the line.	Controversy mapping is a descriptive method for exploring and representing socio-technical disputes while they are still open and unsettled, before they harden into accepted facts or stable technologies. Developed as a teaching practice by Bruno Latour and codified by Tommaso Venturini at the Sciences Po médialab, it asks the analyst to dive into the heat of a debate, follow the actors and their arguments without prematurely taking sides, and render the resulting complexity legible through maps and visualisations. It treats controversy not as a pathology to be resolved but as the privileged moment in which the social and the technical are visibly being assembled.