The two coexisting ecological paradigms
Acta Biotheoretica 47 (2) (1999)
| Abstract | We analyse theories and research approaches in ecology and find that they fall into two internally homogeneous groups of linked ideas, each comprising a unique set of premises. The two sets of interpretive statements are thus mutually exclusive; they constitute alternative theoretical developments in ecology and should not be seen as complementary. They can, therefore, be considered two paradigms (Kuhn, 1962). Our interpretation is supported by the minimal overlap, if any, in the premises and research directions of the two approaches. We label the dominant group of ideas the demographic paradigm and the less developed one the autecological paradigm. The internal logic of the demographic paradigm of ecology is strongly developed and consistent. Its premises and logic extend into current models of population genetics, biogeography, palaeontology, evolutionary theory and conservation biology. Nevertheless, many phenomena contradict the premises of the demographic paradigm; these contradictions cannot be accommodated within its theoretical framework without major disruptions in logic ensuing. Such phenomena can, in contrast, be understood in terms of the autecological paradigm. Because the status and strengths of the autecological paradigm are generally unrecognised and because autecology is frequently misrepresented in the literature, we redefine its premises and clarify its structure and aims as an aid to its future development. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesTim Futing Liao (1990). A Unified Three-Dimensional Framework of Theory Construction and Development in Sociology. Sociological Theory 8 (1):85-98.
Alan R. Drengson (1980). Shifting Paradigms: From the Technocratic to the Person-Planetary. Environmental Ethics 2 (3):221-240.
Jonathan St B. T. Evans (2012). Questions and Challenges for the New Psychology of Reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning 18 (1):5 - 31.
Robert E. Sanders & Larry W. Martin (1975). Grammatical Rules and Explanations of Behavior. Inquiry 18 (1):65 – 82.
V. Brand (2009). Empirical Business Ethics Research and Paradigm Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics 86 (4):429 - 449.
Augustin Buendia & Carolina Morales (2003). A New Educational Paradigm for Evolving Development. World Futures 59 (8):561 – 568.
K. B. Wray (2011). Kuhn and the Discovery of Paradigms. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 41 (3):380-397.
G. H. Walter & R. Hengeveld (2000). The Structure of the Two Ecological Paradigms. Acta Biotheoretica 48 (1).
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads1 ( #274,556 of 548,984 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
