Star and Griesemer are, in part, looking to answer the question of how the epistemic culture of early 19th century zoology was founded. They argue that this was founded in part by the development of standardized methods of collecting and preserving specimens along with precise data on the ecological context of the collection site. But they also needed help from those with diverse passions and skill sets. The amateur scientists were given forms to fill out about the ecological context to ensure consistency and thorough detail. They were also instructed on how to evaluate the quality of a specimen they might acquire from local trappers and farmers. The local trappers had the right equipment, skills, and intimate knowledge of the landscape, the locations, and the behaviors of desired animals. But they were also not used to caring about the way animals were killed, packaged, and transported to preserve their biological and ecological integrity. Thus they needed to be disciplined by the amateurs.
In their example, Star and Griesemer identified 5 social worlds: those of the university administration of the UC system, professional scientists, social elites (sponsors), amateur scientists or “collectors,” and then local farmers and trappers. These groups had either a shared interest in preserving the local fauna of California (scientists, elites, and amateurs), or were interested in personal gain from making exchanges with others who held that interest (farmers, trappers, the university administrators). The authors describe these groups has inhabiting different “social worlds,” which correspond both with different ways of knowing and different ways of evaluating worth. These diverse worlds shaped the process of data production as the scientists had to come up with a means of disciplining the data practices of others in order to produce the sort of data and forms of exchange that would satisfy these varied values.
Grinnell, the scientist, was interested in theories of evolution and wanted to advance the idea that the environment was the primary evolutionary force that shaped the development of species. Alexander, the local, wealthy sponsor, was interested in preserving a record of California wildlife that was quickly being lost to the development of new urban centers. The local amateurs also felt the need to create this record, but they had the additional desire to be a part of a scientific project and sought out a means of establishing themselves as worthy scientific contributors. The local farmers and trappers were seeking profit by helping to provide specimens to the former groups in exchange for money or other valuables. The University of California was interested in the museum as a way of adding legitimacy and prestige to their young university system.
More conceptually, the authors refuse to reduce collaboration to concensus: “Consensus is not necessary for cooperation nor for the successful conduct of work” (Star and Griesemer 1989, 388). Instead they argue that before scientific problems can be approached and resolved, the diverse actors that “come from different social worlds” must first “establish a mutual modus operandi” (Star and Griesemer 1989, 388). The distinction between consensus and a mutual modus operandi, is that in the latter case, these standardized methods do not need to be understood or valued in the same way.
Topically, the authors are investigating historical collaborations built by and between California scientists, local elites, amateur naturalists, University of California administrators, and local farmers and trappers, with the end goal being a natural history research museum with a repository of accurate and preservable data on the local fauna and their habitats.
More conceptually, the authors refuse to reduce collaboration to concensus: “Consensus is not necessary for cooperation nor for the successful conduct of work” (Star and Griesemer 1989, 388). Instead they argue that before scientific problems can be approached and resolved, the diverse actors that “come from different social worlds” must first “establish a mutual modus operandi” (Star and Griesemer 1989, 388). The distinction between consensus and a mutual modus operandi, is that in the latter case, these standardized methods do not need to be understood or valued in the same way.