Advertisement

Minerva

, Volume 55, Issue 1, pp 93–116 | Cite as

The Climate of Science-Art and the Art-Science of the Climate: Meeting Points, Boundary Objects and Boundary Work

  • Simone RödderEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper reports experiences from an art-science project set up in an educational context as well as in the tradition of placing artists in labs. It documents artists’ and scientists’ imaginations of their encounter and analyses them drawing on the concepts of “boundary object” and “boundary work”. Conceptually, the paper argues to broaden the idea of boundary objects to include inhibitory boundary objects that hinder rather than facilitate communication across boundaries. This focus on failures to link social worlds brings the boundary object concept closer to Gieryn’s boundary work and allows for a co-application of the two concepts in the analysis of cross-boundary communication. Empirically, the paper provides an in-depth ethnographic description of an art-science project as a resource for future practice. In conclusion, the art-science encounter included meeting points as well as multiple levels of boundary work which engaged the artists in a different way than as illustrators of scientific representations of climate change. The closer they got to the research practice the more the public and policy construct of climate change disappeared. Rather than political activism, the approach triggered explorations of the scientific context, including affirmative as well as critical re-imaginations of research practices. Artists and scientists acted as publics for one another, as resources to draw on for reflection and self-identification. But instead of cutting back or renegotiating standards of one’s own practice, especially the artists engaged in boundary work creating space to produce a piece of art according to their own criteria of quality and relevance.

Keywords

Art-science Boundary work (Inhibitory) boundary object Climate change Artistic research 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The “visiting artist researcher” project was supported by the German-Research-Foundation (DFG)-funded Cluster of Excellence “Integrated Climate System Analysis and Prediction” at the University of Hamburg (DFG EXC 177 CliSAP). The manuscript was written while the author held a Fulbright visiting scholarship at Cornell University. Discussions with Stephen Hilgartner and Bruce Lewenstein and the hospitality of Cornell’s Department of Science and Technology Studies have been very important to the completion of this article. The author is grateful to Anke Allner for making “science meets arts” a CliSAP priority and wants to thank the project team Friedrich von Borries, Anita Engels, Nadine Frömter, Maria Görlich, Werner Krauß and Hans von Storch, and all participating scientists and artists who made themselves available for interview. She is particularly indebted to Werner Krauß for sharing his observations from a cultural anthropologist’s point of view, and for interviewing the artists, and to Maria Görlich for support with the literature review and manuscript preparation. The author would also like to thank Markus Dressel and two referees for critical and constructive comments on the manuscript.

Supplementary material

11024_2016_9312_MOESM1_ESM.docx (320 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 320 kb)

References

  1. Abbott, Andrew. 1988. The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ballengée, Brandon. 2015. Ecological understanding through transdisciplinary art and participatory biology. PhD thesis. Plymouth: Plymouth University. https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/handle/10026.1/3254. Accessed 23 May 2016.
  3. Barry, Andrew, Georgina Born, and Gisa Weszkalnys. 2008. Logics of interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society 37(1): 20–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergermann, Ulrike. 2013. Occupy Wissen: Institutionalisierungsfragen zur “Forschung aller”. In Das Forschen aller, ed. Sybille Peters, 239–256. Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar
  5. Bore, Inger-Lise Kalviknes, and Grace Reid. 2014. Laughing in the face of climate change? Satire as a device for engaging audiences in public debate. Science Communication 36(4): 454–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Born, Georgina, and Andrew Barry. 2010. ART-SCIENCE: From public understanding to public experiment. Journal of Cultural Economy 3(1): 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brewer, Paul R., and Jessica McKnight. 2015. Climate as comedy: The effects of satirical television news on climate change perceptions. Science Communication 37(5): 635–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daston, Lorraine. 1998. Fear and loathing of the imagination in science. Daedalus 127(1): 73–95.Google Scholar
  9. de Cosson, Alex F., Kit Grauer, Rita L. Irwin, and Sylvia Kind. 2005. Oneiric glasshouse walking (A sculpted (s)p(l)ace) found walking: An artist-in-residence or a/r/tography in praxis. Educational Insights 9(2): 1–8.Google Scholar
  10. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. 2013. Excellence Initiative at a glance: The programme by the German federal and state governments to promote top-level research at universities. Bonn. http://www.dfg.de/download/pdf/dfg_im_profil/geschaeftsstelle/publikationen/exin_broschuere_en.pdf. Accessed 8 October 2015.
  11. Dowell, Ellen, and Emma Weitkamp. 2012. An exploration of the collaborative processes of making theatre inspired by science. Public Understanding of Science 21(7): 891–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feser, Frauke. 2015. The visiting artist researcher experiment. Journal of Science Communication 14(1): C02.Google Scholar
  13. Feyerabend, Paul. 1978. Science in a free society. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
  14. Fleck, Dirk C. 2011. Maeva! Roman. Rudolstadt and Berlin: Greifenverlag.Google Scholar
  15. Fox, Nick J. 2011. Boundary objects, social meanings and the success of new technologies. Sociology 45(1): 70–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gabrys, Jennifer, and Kathryn Yusoff. 2012. Arts, sciences and climate change: Practices and politics at the threshold. Science as Culture 21(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gerber, Beat. 2006. Science in trouble? Art brings hope. In Artists-in-labs. vol. I: processes of inquiry, ed Jill Scott, 47–49. Wien: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. 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 48(6): 781–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gieryn, Thomas F. 1995. Boundaries of science. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, eds. Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen, and Trevor Pinch, 393–443. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Goffman, Ervin. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor.Google Scholar
  21. Grundmann, Reiner. 2008. What may the sheep safely know? In Knowledge and Democracy, ed. Nico Stehr, 85–104. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Halpern, Megan K. 2012. Across the great divide: Boundaries and boundary objects in art and science. Public Understanding of Science 21(8): 922–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Halpern, Megan. K. 2014. Beyond engagement: Meaningful relationships among experts and audiences in the performing arts and sciences. PhD dissertation. Cornell: Cornell University. https://cornell.box.com/s/kvvrila0pjavklslw9x249hlwhi7p7kf. Accessed 12 June 2016.
  24. Hilgartner, Stephen. 1990. The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science 20(3): 519–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Horst, Maja. 2011. Taking our own medicine: On an experiment in science communication. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 801–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Irwin, Alan. 1995. Citizen science: A study of people, expertise, and sustainable development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Jasanoff, Sheila. 1987. Contested boundaries in policy relevant science. Social Studies of Science 17(2): 195–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kagan, Sacha. 2015. Artistic research and climate science: transdisciplinary learning and spaces of possibilities. Journal of Science Communication 14(1): C07.Google Scholar
  29. Kagan, Sacha. 2011. Art and Sustainability. Connecting Patterns for a Culture of Complexity. Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar
  30. Katz-Kimchi, Merav, and Lucy Atkinson. 2014. Popular climate science and painless consumer choices: Communicating climate change in the hot pink flamingos exhibit, Monterey Bay Aquarium, California. Science Communication 36(6): 754–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kingsolver, Barbara. 2012. Flight behavior. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  32. Krauß, Werner. 2015. Linking sediment and sentiment: on observing a sci-art project. Journal of Science Communication 14(1): C04.Google Scholar
  33. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1969. The new reality in art and science: Comment. Comparative Studies in Society and History 11(4): 403–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Luhmann, Niklas. 1971. Öffentliche Meinung. In Politische Planung. Aufsätze zur Soziologie von Politik und Verwaltung, ed. Niklas Luhmann, 9–34. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  35. Malina, Roger. 2010. Welcoming uncertainty: The strong case for coupling the arts to science and technology. In Artists-in-labs. vol. I: processes of inquiry, ed. Jill Scott, 15–23. Wien: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. McEwan, Ian. 2010. Solar. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
  37. Meban, Margaret. 2002. The postmodern artist in the school: Implications for arts partnership programs. International Journal of Education and the Arts. http://www.ijea.org/v3n1/.
  38. Meier, Frank, and Uwe Schimank. 2010. Organisationsforschung. In Handbuch Wissenschaftspolitik, eds. Dagmar Simon, Andreas Knie, and Stefan Hornbostel, 106–117. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Merton, Robert K. 1942. Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1(1/2): 115–126.Google Scholar
  40. Merton, Robert K. 1957. Patterns of influence: Local and cosmopolitan influentials. Social Theory and Social Structure 2: 387–420.Google Scholar
  41. Meyer, John W., and Brian Rowan. 1978. The structure of educational organizations. In Environments and organizations, ed. Marshall W. Meyer, 78–109. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  42. O’Neill, Saffron, and Sophie Nicholson-Cole. 2009. “Fear won’t do it!” Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication 30(3): 355–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. O’Riordan, Kate. 2010. The genome incorporated: Constructing biodigital identity. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  44. Randerson, Janine, Jennifer Salmond, and Chris Manford. 2015. Weather as medium: Art and meteorological science. Leonardo 48(1): 16–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reichwald, Laura. 2015. To be up in the air — on being a visiting artist researcher in theoretical meteorology. Journal of Science Communication 14(1): C03.Google Scholar
  46. Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. 2012. Experiment, Forschung, Kunst. Presentation at Jahreskonferenz der Dramaturgischen Gesellschaft, Oldenburg, 26–29 April 2012. http://www.dramaturgische-gesellschaft.de/assets/Uploads/ContentElements/Attachments/Hans-Joerg-Rheinberger-Experiment-Forschung-Kunst.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2016.
  47. Rödder, Simone. 2009. Wahrhaft sichtbar. Humangenomforscher in der Öffentlichkeit. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rödder, Simone. 2015. Climate sciences meet visual arts. Journal of Science Communication 14(1): C01.Google Scholar
  49. Rundle, Simon D., Deborah Robinson, David Strang, and Matthias Wienroth. 2014. ATRIA: A sound installation exploring the interface between art, science and technology by remapping cardiovascular development. Leonardo 47(5): 443–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schellnhuber, Hans-Joachim, Wolfgang P. Cramer, Nebojsa Nakicenovic, Tom Wigley, and Gary Yohe. 2006. Avoiding dangerous climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Scott, Jill. 2006a. Artists-in-labs. vol. I: processes of inquiry. Wien: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Scott, Jill. 2006b. Suggested discourses for more art_sci collaborations. In Artists-in-labs. vol. I: processes of inquiry, ed. Jill Scott, 24–35. Wien: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Snow, Charles P. 1959. The two cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Star, Susan L., and James R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science 19(3): 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stichweh, Rudolf. 1987. Die Autopoiesis der Wissenschaft. In Theorie als Passion. Niklas Luhmann zum 60. Geburtstag, eds. Dirk Baecker, Jürgen Markowitz, Rudolf Stichweh, Hartmann Tyrell, and Helmut Willke, 447–481. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  56. von Borries, Friedrich. 2015. Artistic research: Why and wherefore? Journal of Science Communication 14(01): C06.Google Scholar
  57. von Storch, Hans. 2015. Visiting artist researchers as therapists for climate scientists. Journal of Science Communication 14(1): C05.Google Scholar
  58. Webster, Stephen. 2006. Art, science and the public. In Engaging science. Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action, ed. Jon Turney, 74–79. London: Wellcome Trust.Google Scholar
  59. Wehling, Peter. 2012. From invited to uninvited participation (and back?): Rethinking civil society engagement in technology assessment and development. Poiesis & Praxis: International Journal of Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment 9(1–2): 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wienroth, Matthias, and Pippa Goldschmidt. 2015. Facilitating creativity in art-science: A methodological experiment. Leonardo. doi: 10.1162/LEON_a_01058.Google Scholar
  61. Wynne, Brian. 1992. Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science 1(3): 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wynne, Brian. 2007. Public participation in science and technology. Performing and obscuring a political–conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 1(1): 99–110.Google Scholar
  63. Yusoff, Kathryn, and Jennifer Gabrys. 2011. Climate change and the imagination. WIRE’s Climate Change 2(4): 516–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social Sciences, Institute of SociologyUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations