My research unites three strands of sociological inquiry: the political and organizational sociological analysis of scientific practices, the politics of knowledge in environmental sciences, and the relational social theory. It is only recently that scholars began to combine STS and environmental sociology. Theory-based qualitative research of that kind are making significant contributions to the field and beyond. I orient my research to this important pathway.
My works have been presented in the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA), the Midwest STS conference, and the Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S). My written works are published/under review in academic journals, such as Social Studies of Science, Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, Environmental Sociology, and Agriculture and Human Values.
Although sociologists have explored how political and economic factors influence the formation of ignorance in science and technology, we know little about how scientists comply with external controls by abandoning their prior research and leaving scientific innovations incomplete. Most research on ignorance by science and technology studies (STS) scholars has relied on structural and historical analyses, lacking in situ studies in scientific laboratories. Drawing on ethnographic research, this article examines the habitus of ignorance as a mechanism of the social production of ignorance at the Advanced Bioenergy Center (ABC, a pseudonym), one of the largest bioenergy research organizations funded by the Department of Energy (DOE). “Habitus of ignorance” denotes scientists’ set of dispositions that establish the practical sense which enable them to ignore particular scientific content. Leaders of the organization habitually legitimate the abandonment of unfinished projects, while ordinary laboratory scientists internalize the normalized view that the scientific field is inherently opportunistic and unfunded research should be left undone. The mechanism of social control of scientific knowledge consists of this cycle of legitimation and ease of ignorance by actors at distinctive positions within the organization. As the mechanism is habitually self-governed by the rules of the game of current scientific institutions, the result is an indirect, although deeply subjugating, unseen, and consolidating, form of political and economic domination of scientific knowledge during this neoliberal era of the knowledge economy.
(2020 George W. Smith Paper Award (SSSP Institutional Ethnigraphy division, Winner); 2019 Hacker-Mullins Paper Award (ASA Section of Science, Knowledge, and Technology, Honorable mention); 2019 Brent K. Marshall Paper Award (SSSP Environment and Technology Division, Honorable mention))
Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of habitus has been less utilized in Science and Technology Studies (STS) despite its potential usefulness. In this essay, I articulate the concept of scientific habitus as a theoretically concrete and empirically useful way to think about scientific practices. I argue that conceptualizing the scientific habitus offers three theoretical contributions which illuminate micro-practices of scientists as well as meso- and macro-level dynamics of the scientific field. First, the concept enables us to think of scientists’ worldviews and bodily techniques as an object of STS analysis. While the majority of STS scholars have focused on the construction of knowledge, scientific habitus allows us to study the construction of the scientists’ body and mind. Secondly, scientific habitus is a useful tool that links individual practices with institutional contexts; it highlights how the micro practices of individuals at scientific laboratories reflect and reproduce macro social structural power dynamics. Third, scientific habitus reveals the mechanism of stratification within the scientific field. It helps unpack scientists’ practical decisions surrounding research topics, ideas, and data. In consequence, scientific habitus explains why and how certain scientific projects are preferred or undone. In summary, scientific habitus has the potential to contribute a more encompassing explanation of the relationship between the structure of society and the internal logic of the scientific field.
3. I Don't Care Who Rules in the White House: Scientific Habitus, Boundary Work, and Everyday Politics of Knowledge in the Lab Bench
How do scientists find their place in the social world? How do the institutional contexts of scientists’ work environment, training processes, and peer-group interactions reflect scientists’ understanding of scientific practices, rules of the game of the scientific field, and themselves as scientists? Studies on the politics of knowledge have demonstrated that various social forces are enmeshed with the production of “legitimate” scientific knowledge, and boundary works in the scientific field—the field-wide efforts to distinguish science and non-science—are achieved through conflicts, negotiations, and stabilization. However, scholars have not yet developed an adequate explanation as to how scientists make sense of their own practice of boundary work in relation to their everyday laboratory life. Drawing on ethnographic research at a molecular biology laboratory, this article argues that the scientific habitus governs a scientists’ practical strategies for understanding the social world. With this acquired scientific habitus, scientists manage their scientific work as doable, make sense of their work in relation to perceived rules of the scientific field, distinguish the world to which they belong and the world of uncontrollability, and voluntarily find their symbolic place in society—the place they feel comfortable and confident. Therefore, they remain silent and indifferent under the already established political economic order that deeply structures the scientific field. Their self-confidence as scientists goes hand-in-hand with their self-negation in the political field. This study suggests that the construction and exercise of the scientific habitus reveal the everyday politics of knowledge.
(Presented at the 2019 Annual Meeting for the American Sociological Association, Section on Science, Knowledge, and Technology)
4. Sustainability Transition in Agri-Food Systems: Insights from South Korea's Universal Free Eco-Friendly School Lunch Program
Public school-lunch programs have garnered significant attention from activists and policymakers for their potential to promote public health, sustainable diets, and food sovereignty. The recent institutionalization of South Korea’s Universal Free, Eco-Friendly (UFEF) school lunch program offers an example of an ongoing sustainability transition that prioritizes both social justice and ecological goals. It sheds light on how food movement activists can develop the political and material infrastructure to radically redesign state-sponsored school lunch programs by examining the historical evolution of Korea’s school lunch program and analyzing the implementation of the UFEF school lunch policy in Seoul from 2011-2018. The article highlights key historical moments in which civil society activism related to risk, responsibility, and food sovereignty provoked major policy reforms. Since the 1990s, Korean consumers have increasingly pursued individual acts of precautionary consumption in order to minimize the risks associated with food sourced from highly industrialized and globalized supply chains. With the rollout of the UFEF, the Korean government is assuming responsibility for managing these risks on behalf of children and families—effectively turning what was once viewed as a private responsibility into a public responsibility—and developing what we refer to as “precautionary infrastructure.” New supply chains, certification standards, and sourcing policies minimize the environmental health risks of school lunch by delivering organic and pesticide-free ingredients to on-site kitchens that serve free lunches to all children. Critical questions remain, however, about whether future iterations of the UFEF school lunch policy will attend to the needs of small-scale farmers and low-wage kitchen workers as this sustainability transition continues to unfold.
(Co-authored with Jennifer E. Gaddis; R&R at Agriculture and Human Values)