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.