IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v15y2010i2p133-146.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Caring for Weak Ties - the Natural History Museum as a Place of Encounter between Amateur and Professional Science

Author

Listed:
  • Morgan Meyer

Abstract

This article is concerned with a community of practitioners that does not hold together well: amateur scientists. It examines the interrelationships between amateurs and professionals in a museum of natural history and focuses, in particular, upon two ‘community-making devices’ through which they meet: an annual conference and a journal. I consider these devices as a place of encounter, or ‘boundary encounter’, between amateurs and professionals. These encounters provide for a combination of several practices – practices of naming, assuring linguistic heterogeneity and thematic flexibility, exchanging knowledge and symbolic gifts – that enables the museum to keep the heterogeneous group of the amateurs somehow together. Since the connections between amateurs and professionals are not permanent, nor strong, but rather partial and fragile, they have therefore to be nurtured and cultivated with care. In fact, the museum and its professionals cannot continue to control – to use technical and ‘cold’ devices to discipline subjects – but have to care by fostering a ‘warm’ world of people. As I will show then, beyond their role as a place that brings together an epistemic collective, the encounters described in this paper also function as devices that nurture weak ties.

Suggested Citation

  • Morgan Meyer, 2010. "Caring for Weak Ties - the Natural History Museum as a Place of Encounter between Amateur and Professional Science," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 15(2), pages 133-146, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:15:y:2010:i:2:p:133-146
    DOI: 10.5153/sro.2149
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.5153/sro.2149
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5153/sro.2149?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blaise Cronin, 2001. "Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 52(7), pages 558-569.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sally Eden & Christopher Bear, 2012. "The Good, the Bad, and the Hands-on: Constructs of Public Participation, Anglers, and Lay Management of Water Environments," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 44(5), pages 1200-1218, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    2. Olle Persson & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2014. "Discouraging honorific authorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1417-1419, February.
    3. Jo Royle & Louisa Coles & Dorothy Williams & Paul Evans, 2007. "Publishing in international journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 71(1), pages 59-86, April.
    4. Franceschini, Fiorenzo & Maisano, Domenico, 2011. "Structured evaluation of the scientific output of academic research groups by recent h-based indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 64-74.
    5. Chung-Souk Han, 2011. "On the demographical changes of U.S. research doctorate awardees and corresponding trends in research fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(3), pages 845-865, December.
    6. Perianes-Rodriguez, Antonio & Waltman, Ludo & van Eck, Nees Jan, 2016. "Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1178-1195.
    7. Arsev U. Aydinoglu & Suzie Allard & Chad Mitchell, 2016. "Measuring diversity in disciplinary collaboration in research teams: An ecological perspective," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 18-36.
    8. Fiorenzo Franceschini & Domenico Maisano & Luca Mastrogiacomo, 2014. "The citer-success-index: a citer-based indicator to select a subset of elite papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 963-983, November.
    9. Julia Heuritsch, 2023. "The Evaluation Gap in Astronomy—Explained through a Rational Choice Framework," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-26, June.
    10. Guillaume Cabanac, 2012. "Shaping the landscape of research in information systems from the perspective of editorial boards: A scientometric study of 77 leading journals," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(5), pages 977-996, May.
    11. Nils T. Hagen, 2010. "Deconstructing doctoral dissertations: how many papers does it take to make a PhD?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 567-579, November.
    12. Lucy Amez, 2012. "Citation measures at the micro level: Influence of publication age, field, and uncitedness," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(7), pages 1459-1465, July.
    13. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    14. Dorte Henriksen, 2016. "The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 455-476, May.
    15. Yongjun Zhu & Lihong Quan & Pei‐Ying Chen & Meen Chul Kim & Chao Che, 2023. "Predicting coauthorship using bibliographic network embedding," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(4), pages 388-401, April.
    16. Moustafa, Khaled, 2018. "Aberration of the citation," arabixiv.org gn8zb, Center for Open Science.
    17. Ruiz-Castillo, Javier & Costas, Rodrigo, 2014. "The skewness of scientific productivity," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 917-934.
    18. Ajiferuke, Isola & Lu, Kun & Wolfram, Dietmar, 2011. "Who are the research disciples of an author? Examining publication recitation and oeuvre citation exhaustivity," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 292-302.
    19. Xuan Zhen Liu & Hui Fang, 2014. "The impact of publications from mainland China on the trends in alphabetical authorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 865-879, June.
    20. Alberto Baccini & Eugenio Petrovich, 2022. "Normative versus strategic accounts of acknowledgment data: The case of the top-five journals of economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 603-635, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:15:y:2010:i:2:p:133-146. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.