TY - JOUR
T1 - Citizen science in news media
T2 - Boundary mediation of public participation in health expertise
AU - Mayes, E. Carolina
N1 - Funding Information:
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the 2018–2019 UC San Diego Chancellor’s Interdisciplinary Collaboratory Award.
PY - 2023/1/9
Y1 - 2023/1/9
N2 - In this article, I examine how scientific boundary work describes or represents citizen science as credible forms of expertise. Citizen science is an ambiguous concept, and I leverage that ambiguity to examine citizen science as a proxy for nonprofessional or noninstitutional scientific practices more generally. I argue that media representations of citizen science perform boundary work through different articulations of institutional “buy-in” to the legitimacy or credibility of citizen science. Using a discourse analysis of mainstream news media, I trace three framings of citizen science’s relationship to institutional networks, which I describe as subservient to, corrective to, and exceeding the norms of institutional expertise. I find that the perspectives of professional, credentialed scientists dominate public discourse concerning citizen science and perform different adjudications of how citizen science contributes to networks of expertise. By focusing on citizen science concerning human health and medicine, I additionally show how mainstream framings of citizen science engage with overlapping media representations of personal health responsibility and patient empowerment. I suggest that representations of citizen science as a form of “missing expertise” can conflict with portrayals of citizen science as “going too far” in the pursuit of treatments or interventions.
AB - In this article, I examine how scientific boundary work describes or represents citizen science as credible forms of expertise. Citizen science is an ambiguous concept, and I leverage that ambiguity to examine citizen science as a proxy for nonprofessional or noninstitutional scientific practices more generally. I argue that media representations of citizen science perform boundary work through different articulations of institutional “buy-in” to the legitimacy or credibility of citizen science. Using a discourse analysis of mainstream news media, I trace three framings of citizen science’s relationship to institutional networks, which I describe as subservient to, corrective to, and exceeding the norms of institutional expertise. I find that the perspectives of professional, credentialed scientists dominate public discourse concerning citizen science and perform different adjudications of how citizen science contributes to networks of expertise. By focusing on citizen science concerning human health and medicine, I additionally show how mainstream framings of citizen science engage with overlapping media representations of personal health responsibility and patient empowerment. I suggest that representations of citizen science as a form of “missing expertise” can conflict with portrayals of citizen science as “going too far” in the pursuit of treatments or interventions.
KW - biomedicine
KW - boundary work
KW - citizen science
KW - expertise
KW - public participation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85146528716&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://journals.sagepub.com/home/STH
U2 - 10.1177/01622439221112458
DO - 10.1177/01622439221112458
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85146528716
SN - 0162-2439
JO - Science Technology and Human Values
JF - Science Technology and Human Values
ER -