CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT THE KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION

4.4.1 WHO ENTERS MATTERS – IDENTITY WORK

During the field studies at the labs, it became clear that I had to partake in what Emma Bell (1999) labels ‘identity work’ for ‘impression management’ (Bell 1999: 17 see also; Goffman, Jacobsen, and Kristiansen 2004). In order to obtain the knowledge that I was looking for, it proved important that I appeared as someone whom the scientists could legitimately confide in (Baarts 2007). In that relation, the informants’ perceptions of my identities such as ‘female’, ‘non-scientist’, ‘appreciative’, and ‘junior’ affected the knowledge created. In this section, I will account for this ‘identity work’ that I did, especially in relation to being female and coming from a business school, in order to be regarded as a legitimate receiver of information

My physical appearance mattered for the engagements at Curious George. I am relatively young, relatively tall and relatively female. Even though all of those identities already exist at Curious George, the combination of all three does seem to attract attention. One of the scientists, that I did not know, commented loudly that it was obvious that I was not used to the hard lab-work, since I saw it fitting to wear high-heeled boots at work. I also found out that I was referred to as Cecilie ‘with the big, brown eyes’, and there were other incidents where it became clear that my physical appearance had been a theme of discussion in the lab. I enjoyed conversations about fashion and clothes with some of the female scientists during lunch breaks. It works very well as an icebreaker, however, the other scientists still teased us for pursuing such “ridiculous” subjects and I thereby definitely (if not before) acquired an identity as ‘female’ by doing so – an identity that did not always seem to be as respected as the male one. At least it seems that ‘female’ connotes ‘less scientific’ (an observation, frequently made

by feminist science studies (e.g. Reinharz and Davidman 1992). At Gyro Gearloose, the tone of the entire lab is much more formal and gender is not on the agenda, neither mine, nor theirs. Once, someone questioned the fact that I was pursuing a PhD degree while my husband was ‘only’ finishing his Master’s degree. Apparently, he did not consider that the correct role distribution. But those who overheard the remark looked extremely embarrassed and the room fell silent. Gender is clearly not seen as a legitimate measurement for appropriate behaviour at Gyro Gearloose.

However, at Curious George it was perhaps my affiliation with ‘Copenhagen Business School’ – or ‘Money School’ as they called it – that proved to be a greater legitimacy problem than my gender. As we shall see in the analysis (both chapter 7 and 9), business is not considered a serious science in the same way as the biosciences, nor is the pursuit of profit considered very noble. While neither of these issues form a particularly big part of the present research project, just the fact that I had an office on the CBS campus was a point of curiosity and suspicion regarding my abilities among some of the scientists. Women from CBS (the students) were also referred to as ‘dolls’. Sometimes, they mentioned that it was people like me (studying business) who could figure out how to make money on their technologies – but they clearly did not consider that to be an advantage. At Gyro Gearloose, I got almost the opposite reception. There, especially the lab director seemed disappointed that I could not say more about market potentials and ethics, as he considered those my subject. He told me to be more daring and actually give some recommendations – very much in line with his philosophy that knowledge for the sake of knowledge was of no use.

My gender (at Curious George) and my academic affiliation (at both labs) were certainly the two most pervasive obstacles in relation to being considered a

legitimate knowledge seeker in the labs. And most of the time, neither of these were a problem. But there were times when I got the impression that I had to manage my identity carefully in order to be considered an individual whom they wanted to share their knowledge with. While it may have been an advantage that I was an outsider and thereby more ‘safe’ to confide in, it was also important for them that they found me capable of handling that knowledge and a worthy partner of conversation – and it is here that the impression management is important.

These identity negotiations vary from situation to situation. But in relation to gender and academic affiliation, I often tried to compensate for my

‘disadvantages’ with humour and other traits that were valued – strategies also described by Bell (1999: 23) and Baarts (2007). I also took care to underline that I had understood the science the scientists told me about (not that I always did), by referring to similar experiments or asking about certain topics that I remembered and had read about. I provided knowledge about science politics and explained certain logics in that system in order to show that I also possessed specialised knowledge. I also made fun of my ‘business background’ or provided ironic comments to distance myself from CBS. Furthermore, I repeated that I was not doing business studies at Curious George, however, at Gyro Gearloose, I did discuss the development of bio-business, the medical sector, FDA and the like with the PIs to show that I was well-informed and interested in their work. However, I never volunteered any specific advice. All of this may seem ridiculous and perhaps quite self-absorbed. But as Bell (1999) suggests:

‘Though the ethnographer's working role within the research setting is, to some extent, predetermined by ascribed characteristics, such as gender, which constrain data collection and colour narrator perspective, these impressions are

highly negotiable within the research process. The researcher is practically capable of utilizing social skill to exercise a degree of agency (Giddens, 1984) in defining a working role and shaping relationships with organizational members.’ (Bell 1999: 32, original reference)

To compensate for characteristics that, at times, were not seen as favourable in relation to being considered legitimate, I used my ‘social skills’ to change the scientists’ impression of me and move attention away from the business school.

But an important part of balancing this ‘impression management’ is also to remember personal integrity throughout these situations. I am actually quite proud of working at CBS – and I am certainly proud of being relatively female.

Therefore, I also employed other strategies that were more offensive than defensive. After some of the incidents at Curious George, I started to wear even higher heels, more make-up and more feminine outfits than I usually do. This is also impression management – it is just another strategy. By doing so, I both wanted to assert that women, of course, have a legitimate place in academia as equal partners in all kinds of conversations, and, at the same time, to use the reactions evoked to gain more knowledge about the culture.

Most importantly, at both labs I was eager to disassociate myself from the field that I am in fact a member of, namely, that of visiting laboratory ethnographers.

While the scientists were positive and welcoming, they had tried having ethnographers around before and therefore seemed tired of discussions involving the same topics, such as ‘for and against GMO’ or ‘for and against vaccines and diagnostic devices’ (the two labs respectively). It seemed important that I come up with new angles on my project about ‘responsibility’ if I wanted their attention and confidence. Their abilities to reflect about their own role in society, combined with annoyance with laboratory ethnographers ended up as an

inspiration for studying the scientists’ own ideas about responsibility instead of only ‘looking’ for ideas about responsibility that resembled those in the

‘Responsible Science’ literature.