Problems of representation of science in a museum, or About the destiny of the concept “boundary object”
DOI: 10.23951/2312-7899-2024-4-119-142
The question this article discusses relates to the existence of concepts that would be both philosophical and scientific. The answer to it is fundamental to the justification of the conceptual language of the philosophy of science, as well as contemporary Science and Technology Studies (STS). The article assumes the possibility of the existence of such concepts and aims to explicate their destiny. In the introduction, the authors describe characteristics of such concepts. Firstly, concepts should represent the state of affairs and solve a problem; that is, the state of affairs must be viewed as problematic. Secondly, they must not only represent the problem but also be included in its solution and interact with the state of affairs. Thirdly, the representation of the problem as the content of such a concept should allow for the expansion on additional areas and assume revising, transformation, supplementation with new meanings. In the main part, the authors consider the concept “boundary object” as such a hybrid concept. The formation of this concept is associated with the STS project, and the content is the problem of visual representation of science in the museum. The explication of the destiny of this concept includes, firstly, defining its place in the problem field of STS with an emphasis on the intertwining of its philosophical and scientific nature, and, secondly, turning to a new problematic field for applying the concept – the Dmitri Mendeleev Museum and Archives at St Petersburg University. On this basis, the authors reveal the characteristics of the philosophical and scientific destiny of this concept considering the problems of public communication of science and history of science with its presentism and antiquarianism approaches. In the conclusion, the authors emphasize the prospects of the boundary object concept. The authors dedicate the publication to the 300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg University and the 190th anniversary of Dmitri Mendeleev.
Keywords: representation of science, boundary object, philosophical concept, scientific concept, science museum, public communication of science, history of science
References:
Baum, E. A. (2022). Traditions and innovations in teaching the history of chemistry at Moscow University. Achievements of recent years: Students’ research work with artifacts from the Polytechnic Museum. Istoriya i pedagogika estestvoznaniya, 1, 5–13. (In Russian).
Bazhanov, V. A. (2022). On the analysis of reflection in science in Russian philosophy and in the strong STS program. Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki, 59(4), 31–37. (In Russian).
Burlykina, M. I. (2016). Museology in universities of prerevolutionary Russia. Voprosy istorii estestvoznaniya i tekhniki, 37(1), 136–155. (In Russian).
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2009). What is philosophy? Akademicheskiy proekt. (In Russian).
Dmitriev, I. S. (2012). D. I. Mendeleev Museum and Archives (On the 100th anniversary of its foundation). Voprosy istorii estestvoznaniya i tekhniki, 2, 161–169. (In Russian).
Dmitriev, I. S. (2024). Lovushka dlya geniya [Trap for a genius]. St Petersburg University.
Dmitriev, I. S., & Tapakova-Boyarskaya, E. V. (2023). “The nest of the famous naturalist”: The history of the creation of the D. I. Mendeleev Museum and Archives. Voprosy istorii estestvoznaniya i tekhniki, 44(4), 737–774. (In Russian).
Einstein, A. (1967). Physics and reality. In Collected scientific works (vol. 4, pp. 200–204).Nauka. (In Russian).
Feygel’man, A. M. (2020). A work of science art as a boundary object in exchange zones. Tsifrovoy uchenyy: laboratoriya filosofa, 3(4), 15–27. (In Russian).
Il’ina, K. A. (2021). In search of identity: The university museum as a research problem (1960s – 2020). Voprosy muzeologii, 12(2), 150–163. (In Russian).
Kartasheva, E. I. (2010). Microhistory of a museum object: Towards the problem of the method of exposition interpretation. Voprosy muzeologii, 1, 126–132. (In Russian).
Kasavin, I. (2023). A social philosophy of science. An introduction. NOMOS Verlag.
Kirchberg, V. (2015). Museum sociology. In L. Hanquinet, & M. Savage (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of the sociology of art and culture (pp. 232–246). Routledge.
Kuznetsova, N. I. (2021). Discourse of historical knowledge: An epistemological analysis Filosofiya. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki, 5(4), 85–115. (In Russian).
Law, J. (2017) STS as Method. InU. Felt, R. Fouché, C. A. Miller, & L. Smith-Doerr (Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. (pp. 31–57). MIT Press.
Malyshkin, E. V., Gafarova, Yu., & Pogrebnyak, A. A. (2019). The inescapability of distributed things: Neighborhood and wealth. Sotsiologiya nauki i tekhnologiy, 10(3), 89–102. (In Russian).
Maslanov, E. V. (2023). Exchange zones and boundary objects: Towards a typology. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Filosofiya i konfliktologiya, 39(1), 159–170. (In Russian).
Nikonova, A. A. (2017). Museum object and/or exhibit: Towards a problem of museum heuristics. In Transformatsii muzeev-bibliotek-arkhivov i informatsionnoe obespechenie istoricheskoy nauki v informatsionnom obshchestve [Transformations of museums-libraries-archives and information support for historical science in the information society]. Seminar Proceedings (pp. 111–121). Moscow. 21 February 2017. INION RAS. (In Russian).
Petrunina, L. Ya. (2020). From a traditional museum to a social institution. Voprosy muzeologii, 11(1), 133–140. (In Russian).
Pisarev, A. A. (2021). STS and the possible future of the science museum: Towards a new Kunstkammer. ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Problemy vizual’noy semiotiki – ΠΡΑΞΗMΑ. Journal of Visual Semiotics. 2021. № 4. S. 131–185. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.23951/2312-7899-2021-4-131-185
Pogozhina, N. N. (2023). Modern trends in the communicative interaction of science and society. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, 76, 141–152. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17223/1998863Х/76/14
Rozov, M. A. (1996). Traditsii i novatsii v razvitii nauki. Nauchnye revolyutsii [Traditions and innovations in the development of science. Scientific revolutions]. In V. I. Kuptsov (Ed.), Filosofiya i metodologiya nauki [Philosophy and methodology of science] (pp. 202–250). Aspekt Press.
Samarina, N. G. (2013). Museum communication in the context of cultural memory and cultural heritage. Voprosy muzeologii, 2(8), pp. 45–55. (In Russian).
Schiele, B. (2014). Science museums and centres: evolution and contemporary trends. In M. Bucchi, & B. Trenchyu (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 40–57). Routledge; Taylor & Francis Group.
Sigfúsdóttir, Ó. (2021). Curatorial research as boundary work. Curator: The Museum Journal, 64(3), 1–18.
Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5), 601–617.
Star, S., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.
Sychenkova, L. A. (2010). On the methods of presenting history in museum expositions. Voprosy muzeologii, 2, 124–125. (In Russian).
Trompette, P., & Vinck, D. (2009). Revisiting the notion of boundary object. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 2009/1, 3(1), 3–25.
Wright, J. (2018). Rescuing objectivity: a contextualist proposal. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 48(4), 384–406.
Yusupova, T. I. (2019). On the projects of the museum of the history of science and technology in the 1930s and the “System of the World’s Greatest Museum Organism”. Voprosy istorii estestvoznaniya i tekhniki, 40(3), 569–582. (In Russian).
( 1.21 MB ) 
( 1.19 MB )
Issue: 4, 2024
Series of issue: Issue 4
Rubric: ARTICLES
Pages: 119 — 142
Downloads: 61