Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-12T15:59:08.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mapping Ecologists’ Ecologies of Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Peter J. Taylor
Peter J. Taylor*
Affiliation:
Cornell University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ecologists, particularly those who consider socially generated effects in the environment, grapple with complex, changing situations. Historians, sociologists and philosophers studying the construction of science likewise attempt to account for (or discount) a wide variety of influences, which make up what historian Charles Rosenberg has called “ecologies of knowledge” (Rosenberg 1988). This paper introduces a graphic methodology, mapping, designed to assist researchers at both levels—in science and in science studies—to work with the complexity of their material. By analyzing the implications and limitations of mapping, I aim to contribute to an ecological approach to the philosophy of science. Let me start with two diagrams to open up the territory I will be exploring.

Dansereau’s diagram (Fig. 1) conveys a dynamic equilibrium of energy and resource import, export, flows up a trophic hierarchy, and down again to exert control over lower levels in an ecosystem (Dansereau 1973).

Type
Part III. Biology: The Non-Propositional Side
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1990 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1990 , 1990 , pp. 95 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Briggs, C.L. (1986), Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research.. New York.: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callebaut, W. (1991), How to take the naturalistic turn: Exchanges on the new theory of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Collins, H.M. and Yearley, S. (1991), “Epistemological chicken”, in Science as practice and culture. Pickering, A. (ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dansereau, P. (1973), Inscape and Landscape. Toronto: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, S. (1989), “Anti-foundationalism, theory hope, and the teaching of composition”, in Doing what comes naturally. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 343–355.Google Scholar
Fujimura, J. (1987), “Constructing doable problems in cancer research: Articulating alignment”, Social studies of scienc. 17:257–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, G.N. and Mulkay, M. (1984), Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1983), Representing and intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1988), Science as a process: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1990), Presidential address, Philosophy of Science Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, October 20,1990.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1987), Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1990), Science and relativism: Some key controversies in philosophy of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, J. (1986), “On the methods of long-distance control: Vessels, navigation and the Portuguese route to India”, in Power, action, belief. Law, J. (ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 231–260.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. (1991), “Science in the age of mechanical reproduction: Moral and epistemic relations between diagrams and photographs”, Biology and Philosophy. 6: 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, C.E. (1988), “Woods or trees: Ideas and actors in the history of science”, Isis 79:565–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Star, S.L. (1988), “Introduction: The sociology of science and technology”, Social Problem. 335:197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P.J. (1988), “Technocratic optimism, H.T. Odum, and the partial transformation of ecological metaphor after World War II”, Journal of the History of Biology. 21:213–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P.J. (1992a), “Community”, in Keywords in evolutionary biology. Keller, E.F. & Lloyd, E. (eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, P.J. (1992b), “Re/constructing socio-ecologies: System dynamic modeling of nomadic pastoralists in sub-Saharan Africa”, in The Right Tool for the Job: At Work in Twentieth Century Life Sources, Clarke, A. and Fujimura, J. (eds.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, P.J. and Blum, A.S. (1991a), “Pictorial representation in biology”, Biology & Philosophy. (In press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P.J. (1991b), “Ecosystems as circuits: Diagrams and the limits of physical analogies”, Biology & Philosoph. 6: 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, P. and Haila, Y. (1989), “Mapping workshops for teaching ecology”, Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. 70:123–125.Google Scholar
Williams, R. (1973), The country and the city. N.Y.: Oxford Univ. PressGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. (1980), “Ideas of Nature”, in Problems in Materialism and Culture. Williams, R. (ed.). London: Verso Press, pp. 67–85.Google Scholar