首页> 外文期刊>Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. A >Objective styles in northern field science
【24h】

Objective styles in northern field science

机译:北方领域科学中的客观风格

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Social studies of science have often treated natural field sites as extensions of the laboratory. But this overlooks the unique specificities of field sites. While lab sites are usually private spaces with carefully controlled borders, field sites are more typically public spaces with fluid boundaries and diverse inhabitants. Field scientists must therefore often adapt their work to the demands and interests of local agents. I propose to address the difference between lab and field in sociological terms, as a difference in style. A field style treats epistemic alterity as a resource rather than an obstacle for objective knowledge production. A sociological stylistics of the field should thus explain how objective science can co-exist with radical conceptual difference. I discuss examples from the Canadian North, focussing on collaborations between state wildlife biologists and managers, on the one hand, and local Aboriginal Elders and hunters, on the other. I argue that a sociological stylistics of the field can help us to better understand how radically diverse agents may collaborate across cultures in the successful production of reliable natural knowledge. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
机译:社会科学研究经常将自然场址作为实验室的延伸。但这忽视了现场站点的独特性。实验室场所通常是边界受到严格控制的私人空间,而野外场所通常是界限分明,居民多样的公共场所。因此,现场科学家必须经常使其工作适应当地特工的需求和利益。我建议从社会学角度解决实验室和田野之间的差异,作为风格上的差异。现场风格将认知变化视为一种资源,而不是客观知识生产的障碍。因此,该领域的社会学文体学应该解释客观科学如何与根本的概念差异共存。我讨论了来自加拿大北部的例子,一方面集中于州野生动植物生物学家和管理者之间的合作,另一方面则侧重于本地原住民长者和猎人之间的合作。我认为,该领域的社会学文体学可以帮助我们更好地理解,在成功产生可靠的自然知识的过程中,从根本上说,多样化的代理如何跨文化协作。 (C)2015 Elsevier Ltd.保留所有权利。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号