Citizen Science and Scientific Authority: Have You Checked the Boundary Work?

Abstract

This article uses the sociological concept of boundary work to evaluate how epistemic authority is performed in citizen science initiatives. Drawing on two case studies of boundary work in practice, first in the ecosystem of science journalism before and during the pandemic, and second through the Virginia Tech team's analysis of their experience in Flint, Michigan, I demonstrate how the legitimacy of citizen science is powerfully shaped by the perspectives of professional or credentialed experts. I argue that demarcations of credibility are an omnipresent but often unacknowledged force in citizen science, and that the meaning of credibility is often dictated by the norms and standards of dominant or mainstream scientific cultures. Recognizing performances of boundary work can reveal how epistemic exclusion is enacted in citizen science, as well as how contradictions or crises of credibility become exacerbated when the social relations of expert authority shift. In conjunction with other recent proposals to expand the terminology and institutional recognition of citizen science, I suggest that scholars and practitioners of citizen science could benefit from reflexive analysis of epistemic exclusion.