Definitions by Abzugal

Evidence-based violence

A more specific term: the use of evidence (data, statistics, RCTs) to justify policies or practices that cause harm to individuals or communities. Examples include: using cost-benefit analysis to close public hospitals in poor neighborhoods, citing crime statistics to justify mass incarceration or police brutality, or using “proven” teaching methods that segregate students. Evidence-based violence hides behind the legitimacy of “data-driven” decisions. Critics argue that evidence does not speak for itself; values determine what is done with evidence. Evidence-based violence is the dark side of the “what works” movement.

Evidence-based violence Example: “The city used crime statistics (evidence) to justify a stop-and-frisk policy. The policy reduced reported crime but terrorized Black and Latino youth. That’s evidence‑based violence.”

Evidence-based violence by Abzugal June 5, 2026

Scientific Violence

A critical term for the use of scientific authority, methods, or findings to harm, marginalize, or oppress individuals or groups. This includes eugenics (forced sterilization), race science (justifying slavery/colonialism), medical experimentation without consent (Tuskegee, Mengele), and the use of statistics to cut welfare or justify police violence. Scientific violence is often hidden behind claims of neutrality and objectivity. Critics argue that science is not inherently violent, but when it is yoked to state or corporate power, it can become a weapon. Recognizing scientific violence is a first step toward a more just science.

Scientific Violence Example: “The Tuskegee syphilis study was scientific violence: doctors withheld treatment from Black men to study disease progression, using scientific authority to justify racialized harm.”

Scientific Violence by Abzugal June 5, 2026

Ethnography of Science Communication

A qualitative research method that immerses the researcher in the daily work of science communication—press offices, science museums, social media teams, public lectures. Ethnographers observe how communicators choose stories, frame uncertainty, handle controversy, and interact with publics. They conduct interviews and analyze internal documents. This approach reveals the tacit knowledge, unspoken norms, and organizational pressures that shape what the public receives. It also studies how publics actually engage with science communication in real settings (e.g., watching a science YouTube channel). It provides thick description that surveys cannot capture.

Ethnography of Science Communication Example: “The ethnography of a science museum’s social media team showed that they avoided discussing vaccine side effects because ‘engagement metrics dropped.’ The public received a sanitized version, not full transparency.”

Ethnography of Science Communication by Abzugal June 5, 2026

Anthropology of Science Communication

A field that uses anthropological methods (ethnography, cross-cultural comparison) to study science communication as a cultural practice. It examines how different communities—from indigenous groups to suburban moms to lab scientists—produce, interpret, and contest scientific messages. It focuses on local meanings, rituals of trust, and the role of storytelling in science communication. It also studies how science communication is received and transformed by non-Western or marginalized groups, revealing the cultural assumptions embedded in “neutral” science messaging. It often documents the failure of top-down models and the importance of culturally grounded communication.

Anthropology of Science Communication Example: “The anthropology of science communication showed that a vaccination campaign failed in a rural African community not because of ignorance, but because the messenger (government) was mistrusted and the message conflicted with local healing rituals.”

Anthropology of Science Communication by Abzugal June 5, 2026

Sociology of Science Communication

A subfield that studies science communication as a social practice embedded in institutions, power relations, and cultural contexts. It examines who communicates (scientists, journalists, influencers, PR firms), through which channels (social media, museums, press releases), to which audiences (differentiated by class, race, education), and with what effects (trust, polarization, action). It analyzes how funding sources shape messages, how media logics distort science, and how publics interpret messages through existing social identities. It also studies the social construction of “trust” and “expertise.”

Sociology of Science Communication Example: “The sociology of science communication revealed that vaccine hesitancy was not an information deficit but a trust deficit rooted in historical medical abuse; simply repeating facts (the deficit model) made things worse.”

Sociology of Science Communication by Abzugal June 5, 2026

Philosophy of Science Communication

A branch of philosophy that examines the normative foundations, ethical dilemmas, and epistemic assumptions of communicating science to publics. It asks: what is the goal of science communication—informing, persuading, building trust, or democratizing expertise? Should science communicators be neutral or advocate? How much uncertainty should be disclosed? It critiques the “deficit model” (assuming the public lacks facts and needs filling) and explores participatory, dialogic models. It also examines the ethics of framing, risk communication, and the use of fear or hope. Unlike social science approaches (which describe what communicators do), philosophy of science communication asks what they ought to do and why.

Philosophy of Science Communication Example: “The philosophy of science communication challenged the assumption that ‘just the facts’ are enough during COVID: facts without trust-building and empathy can backfire. Communicators must consider ethics, not just accuracy.”

Philosophy of Science Communication by Abzugal June 5, 2026

Anthropology of Scientific Community

An ethnographic study of scientific communities as human groups with their own cultures, hierarchies, and norms. It examines how scientists are trained (apprenticeship model), how they collaborate and compete, how they assign credit and prestige (Matthew effect), how they handle dissent (paradigm resistance), and how they pass on tacit knowledge (informal tips, embodied skills). It uses methods from social and cultural anthropology to reveal that science is not a purely logical process but a social institution with rituals, status, and power. It is foundational for Science and Technology Studies (STS).

Anthropology of Scientific Community Example: “The anthropology of scientific community showed that a postdoc’s success depended not just on brilliance but on choosing the right mentor, networking at conferences, and learning the lab’s unspoken rules. Science is social capital.”

Ethnography of Scientific Community

The use of ethnographic methods to study specific scientific communities as living cultures. It involves long‑term immersion in a lab, department, or research field to observe how scientists interact, how they learn their craft, how they negotiate disputes, and how they produce consensus. It reveals the tacit knowledge, the informal hierarchies, and the emotional dimensions (excitement of discovery, frustration of failure) that are invisible from the outside. Classic examples include Latour & Woolgar’s Salk Institute study and Traweek’s study of high‑energy physicists.

Example: “The ethnography of a neuroscience lab showed that ‘significant’ results often emerged from late‑night conversations at the pub, not from formal data analysis. The scientists were building a shared interpretation, not just discovering facts.”

Anthropology of Scientific Community by Abzugal June 5, 2026