There are boundaries between countries and there are also less tangible boundaries between sets of ideas. One special boundary is between science and non-science. This can also be called a difference or distinction or demarcation. It is an important boundary because science has a considerable level of status and credibility, whereas something considered unscientific has far less status and credibility.
It might seem obvious that some fields are scientific and others are not. For example, astronomy is a science whereas astrology is not. But, it may be asked, how does one area of activity become classified as science and another classified as non-science? It might seem that the classifications are obvious or natural, but actually there is something else going on: efforts to encourage or enforce a particular set of categories. These efforts are called “boundary-work.” They are statements and actions that help create and maintain boundaries, or occasionally to challenge or change them.
Consider UFOs — Unidentified Flying Objects — which, in the popular mind, are often assumed to be flying saucers or other vehicles or visits from extra-terrestrial beings. Although some scientists have taken UFOs seriously, most have dismissed UFO sightings as simply being human objects (such as high altitude balloons), unusual atmospheric phenomena, or hoaxes. UFOs, as possibly signifying extra-terrestrial beings or something else different from known phenomena, are treated as outside science, as non-science or pseudoscience. To exclude UFOs from mainstream science, several techniques are used: journal editors reject submissions that take UFOs seriously; scientific conference organisers exclude sessions about UFOs; grant bodies do not fund UFO research; and scientists either ignore UFO research or refer to it in a dismissive fashion. Of these techniques, the most obvious are the ways that UFO studies are denigrated; the other techniques are ones of exclusion.
At the same time that UFO research was excised from the scientific mainstream, some scientists promoted the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence or SETI, for example by broadcasting messages to outer space signifying human intelligence. These scientists take seriously the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence, but distance themselves from UFO research. They think that highly intelligent life probably exists in the universe outside Earth, but that almost certainly such life is far away, not visiting Earth now.
In the case of UFO research and SETI, boundary-work is a delicate matter. UFO research needs to be categorised as non-scientific while SETI is categorised as scientific [on boundary-work around astronomy, see Graham Howard, Legitimating Astronomy, PhD thesis, University of Wollongong, 2004, http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/333/].
The concept of boundary-work in science was developed by Thomas Gieryn, who mainly looked at rhetorical techniques used by scientists to distinguish their activities from those portrayed as non-science [Thomas Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999)]. A key idea here is that the boundary between science and non-science is not natural: it is not inherent in the activities themselves, but is socially constructed. SETI and UFO research do not have pre-ordained identities: they have to be labelled as either science or non-science. Other researchers have applied the idea of boundary-work to various topics and fields. The study of boundary-work can be illuminating because it takes something — a boundary, a distinction, a set of categories — that seems natural and shows that actually it results from the efforts of various people.
Boundary-work can help explain what happens in the vaccination debate. First consider the scientific domain, specifically the publication of articles in scientific journals. There are various journals that publish research about vaccination. A prominent one is Vaccine, filled with articles about all sorts of technical topics […]. Most of the articles published in Vaccine assume vaccination is a good thing, but some are critical of certain aspects of vaccination. For example, Gary Goldman developed an unorthodox view about chickenpox vaccination, seeing it as contributing to an increase in shingles, with adverse health impacts. Although his employer tried to suppress his work and publications, Vaccine published some of his articles […]. However, the occasional openness of Vaccine and other scientific journals to critical articles about vaccination is unusual, especially in the Australian context.
[…]
In many public scientific controversies, one side has the overwhelming advantage in terms of endorsement by technical experts. This is the situation in debates over nuclear power, pesticides, fluoridation and genetic modification, among others. In such debates, the role of dissident experts — scientists, doctors, dentists — is crucial. When technical experts are unanimous in their viewpoint, then anyone who disagrees can be dismissed as uninformed. However, when even just a few experts question the dominant view, the situation is changed from unanimity to a debate. This greatly empowers citizen campaigners, who can point to the dissident experts in their support.
For this reason, dissident experts are often the targets of efforts to discredit them or hinder their research […]. For example, scientists, doctors and dentists who have done research or spoken out against fluoridation have been censored, defamed and deregistered.
– Vaccination Panic in Australia (2018), pp. 285-90