What have our subjects made of us?

"Whatever our subjects make of us and how they make use of us is continuously negotiated with what we make of them and how we make use of them" From Sharon Traweek's essay appeared in Choreographing History, 1995.

What have my research subjects made of me so far? Let's see. I got a passing acquaintance with barely anyone in the lab except the lab director and the only (Korean) woman researcher in the group at the last meeting. I learned the news during the meeting that this woman was leaving the next day to Germany for a post-doc position. I caught her after the meeting and obtained some basic information. Her hometown, her current position and where she is heading to, in less than 5 minutes– perfectly understandable, as she is leaving this place the very next morning, which leaves her plenty of packing to do. As I asked her for her contact number, she said she's mainly focusing on theoretical physics and her affiliation with this team is just peripheral. Interestingly, her engagement with the core research activity of this team is what she thought of my primary concern. She assumed that my role in this lab is tangential to my engagement with this team doing certain kinds of science that does not fit squarely with her professional profiles. Another reading of her response is that she just wanted to get ride of me as soon as possible. I wouldn't know anyway.

It seems that what the subjects make of the ethnographers are socially enacted and materially reinforced. Socially, the dynamics of my non-participation in the boardroom and the seat I picked actively (re-) construct my role in the research process. Whether I chose to "hide in the back" (quote from the lab director) or took the exit seat near the entrance in case of exigency say something about my strategized role; whether I was the first one or the last one arriving at the meeting also tell something about my public persona. My sense is that many, if not all team members are constantly bewildered about my role and the proper etiquette in interacting with me. Due to the previous uneasy experience as the last one to walk through the door, I deliberately came 10 min. early, didn't quite expect I would be the first one walking into that door this time. A senior researcher came in after 5 picoseconds. He smiled at me and asked me politely what kind of work I did as a "political scientist". I don't think the underlying motive is so much about getting acquaintance with me than performing a social ritual. This is confirmed as he swiftly turned his attention away from me soon after a bunch of team members let themselves into the room. I can see how awkward this senior researcher felt in conversing with me as compared to his fellow team-mates. My use of "jargons" in clarifying my research interests both confound him (such as ethnographic account, participant-observation, even anthropology) and bored him in less than 1 picosecond. He found solace as he mentioned the efficacy of the latest computer imaging technology in simulating the molecular conductance of base pairs, something both he and his partners are comfortable and knowledgeable to talk about. My point is that it is not a problem between the dichotomy of subject/object and male/female. It is a co-constructed role play of inter-subjectivity, which bracketed with Traweek's quote.

The inter-subjectivity is also negotiated materially. Everyone knows the sequential procedure of getting access to the BioD-I (paper work, safety test, iris fingerprinting) boils down to a badge, with your photo ID and the name of your sponsor printed nicely on the laminated plastic case. The inscription on the badge is part of the process of constructing what we are and who we are. It does not reveal a lot of information, but enough to distinguish visitors (with a nondescript visitor badge) from non-visitors; employees working under the same sponsor from those working for other sponsors. My presence slightly broke the norm as I am not employed by the BioD-I. I am just an ordinary ASU citizen claiming regular access to this gargantuan building. I don't quite have a "sponsor" inside this PanOpticon. A core informant, yes; maybe a future collaborator; but definitely not a sponsor. I don't think I am the first one who violated this inscription of "sponsorship", yet the material inscription of "sponsorship" forms an important part of the negotiation process of inter-subjectivity with the research subjects. For now the badge publicly announced my research affinity and sponsorship in the BioD-I, unless I hide the badge intentionally which makes me look even more suspicious as everyone wears the badge in front of the chest with a prideful look.

I wonder how long the process of bewilderment and negotiation will last. Do not take my point otherwise: I do not want it to end. I hope that same researcher will be puzzled by some other features of me in a different way the next time he talks to me; I hope the lab director will interpret my engagement in his lab from sources other than my choice of seat; and I hope the Korean woman researcher will characterize our relationship from more diverse grounds if she ever comes back to ASU.

What does it mean to be a "political scientist" in a physics lab?

I paid my maiden visit to the field site early this week. It was a gang of 17 physicists and chemists working on using nano-pore techniques in advancing DNA sequencing, of which only 2 are female (including me). Many interesting but kind of stale thematic issues came up during the meeting: gender dynamics, the ecology of meetings, the management and resolution of scientific controversy.

Yeah, interesting stuff......or is it? Let's face it: anyone who is acquainted with the general literature in this area are familiar with these themes. It's the unexpected encounters in the field that are truly intriguing. But the idiosyncrasy hardly fits into the core story line. Sometimes they are just offhand remarks which bear little significance for the broad discussion, sometimes one exception can overturn the meta assumption on which the narratives and analysis are built. I have yet to organize the findings into meaningful thematic categories (it's time to go back to "writing ethnographic fieldnotes" by Emerson, Fretz and Shaw that I read in undergraduate year). I'll share some of the serendipitous encounters here.

Upon my intrusion into the boardroom, the director introduced me to the group. He introduced me as a "political scientist working in the Center for Nanoscience" at ASU and that I am doing well in his class blah blah blah. I didn't correct him because I don't want to give a bad first impression. A woman observer correcting the honorary director in a crowd of males? This can't be good. But I can't drop the remark, nor do I want to make too much out of it. He probably associated my disciplinary background with that of Dave Guston (who is a self-identified political scientist), whom he knows quite well. Or this could be a conscious attempt to ease my entrance to the group. My hunch is that the label "political scientists" entails a more masculine and prestigious schema in the cognition of the working scientists than other labels in social sciences. This is absurd.....or is it?

In "Laboratory Life", Latour and Woolgar elaborated on the perception of intra-dsiciplinary ranks and its psychological effects on outside observers: (1979: 20)

"It is perhaps tempting for an outside observer to present his interests in terms of established categories of scholarly investigation, rather than in a way which might exacerbate participants' curiosity or sense of suspicion. For example, the label of "historian" or "philosopher" might be more readily acceptable than either "sociologist" or "anthropologist". The term "anthropologist" is readily associated with the study of "primitive" or "prescientific" belief systems. The term "sociologist" gives rise to a plethora of different interpretations, but essentially it can be seen by the working scientist to concern a range of phenomena, all of which impinge in some way on matters of social and political intrigue. Not surprising, therefore, the application of the term "sociology" to a study of scientific activity will be regarded by many scientists as dealing primarily with all these "nonscientific" aspects of science." (1979: 20)

Simply put, we, the humanists or social scientists (HSS) have preconceptions of how others, the natural scientists (NS) think of us and judge our motivations in their turf according to our disciplinary backgrounds. Therefore, it is not uncommon for the outsiders to manipulate the labels in order to smoothen the tension. But in my case, it is not the outsider who made the negotiation. It is the bigman of the insiders who made this move, not me. If it is indeed a strategic act, what does it tell us about the status and brand of "political scientist" vis-a-vis other social scientists? Is "political scientist" a more acceptble term to NS than "sociologists" or "anthropologists" because of the shared semiotic term "scientist"? More importantly, what is the implication for socio-technical integration? If NS are more readily to accept certain groups of HSS but not others, it may imply that trans-disciplinary integration is more probable between certain branches in HSS and NS due to the shared geneology oretymology.

An effective way to confirm my speculation is to wait and see if the label "poitical scientist" comes up again during my visist. If the director repeatedly addressed me as a "political scientist", something meaningful could be invoked. Now let's call it a day and hope I am not making a mountain out of a molehill.