ScholarGate
Assistent
Process / pipelineSociology of scientific knowledge

Boundary-Work Analysis

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.

Openen in MethodMindBinnenkortToepassen, vergelijken, advies krijgen
Tools & bronnen
Dia's downloaden
Leren & verkennen
VideoBinnenkort

Lees de volledige methode

Alleen voor leden

Log in met een gratis account om dit onderdeel te lezen.

Inloggen

Methodenkaart

De omgeving van verwante methoden — selecteer een knooppunt om te verkennen.

Bronnen

  1. 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. DOI: 10.2307/2095325
  2. Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. University of Chicago Press. ISBN: 9780226292625

Deze pagina citeren

ScholarGate. (2026, June 22). Boundary-Work Analysis (Demarcation of Science). ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/nl/science-technology-studies/boundary-work-analysis

Welke methode?

Plaats deze methode naast haar naaste verwanten en lees ze naast elkaar — de bibliotheek legt de boeken op tafel; de keuze is aan u.

Naast elkaar vergelijken

Geciteerd door

ScholarGateBoundary-Work Analysis (Boundary-Work Analysis (Demarcation of Science)). Geraadpleegd op 2026-06-24 via https://scholargate.app/nl/science-technology-studies/boundary-work-analysis · Gegevensset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026