A new book has come out � the product of a collaboration between scholars in Canada, India, and elsewhere. Its title is Science and Narratives of Nature, East and West. I was happy to be involved in this project, by writing a paper for a workshop in Manipal, India, and then revising it to appear as a chapter in this book.
The project, and the book, is about the history of science (broadly defined). For my chapter, I discussed a topic that seemed related to the nature of the Manipal workshop itself, and that is a feature of academic work that is often taken for granted: that of people traveling around the world to present what they learned back at their home place. The fact that we had all traveled so far to share what we had learned suggested a belief that what we would say would not only be relevant to our own places of study, but would also be of interest to people who came from other, very different and distant places. That's actually quite a remarkable thing, when you stop and think about it.
So, my focus was on two key aspects of science:
- that it is situated: scientific activities are always located somewhere � in laboratories, the field, or elsewhere, and these locations are central to how science is done and what knowledge is produced;
- and that it is mobile: scientists usually assert that the knowledge they have gained in these places is credible and useful elsewhere than where it was produced.
This situation presents an interesting paradox, even a contradiction: that science can be both situated in a place, and yet when it's being mobilized that local character can be ignored or described as irrelevant.
But as I explored in my paper, these characteristics of being situated and mobile are related to each other in various ways. I showed this by linking the history of science and environmental history, with reference to various episodes in the history of ecology and environmental science.
I talked about various significant features of situated science, particularly in field science. In a variety of ways aspects of the field influence scientific practice and knowledge, including characteristics of the environment itself that is being studied, the experience of being and working in the field, scientists' specific material practices, and the strategies that scientists follow when they assert the authority and credibility of their knowledge.
One place this is especially evident is the Arctic, where particular environmental features, such as permafrost, sea ice, or Arctic mammals have attracted scientists' attention, and where distinctive environmental conditions have also influenced how scientists have worked, and their strategies for asserting the authority of their work. So for example, in past decades northern scientists were seen as credible to the extent that they had experience in the north itself, and had demonstrated endurance and resourcefulness there. In recent decades, on the other hand, northern scientists have asserted their credibility on the basis of their affiliation with scientific disciplines based in the south, through training in a southern university, publication in journals based in the south, and so on.
This mention of disciplines also relates to the mobile dimension of science: that results obtained in one environment may be seen as credible in another place. In my paper I discussed this in the context of the science of salmon farming. Over the last few decades this industry has developed as a global industry, and at the same time, so has the science associated with it. Knowledge about how to farm salmon and about its environmental impacts now flow around the world between the various sites of salmon farming. How this happens � so that, for example, knowledge about salmon farms gained in Ireland is seen as relevant to salmon farms in British Columbia, provides interesting insights into the history of recent science in an era of globalization.
I also discussed how the situated and mobile characteristics of science intertwine in a variety of ways. One way in which this becomes evident is in the distinction between study in the field and in the laboratory. These are often seen as contrasting examples of situated and mobile science. But this distinction is often blurred. This is evident, for example, in the practice of "natural experiments" (to use Robert Kohler's term) in which scientists use features of a local environment to mimic laboratory experimental practice.
One final comment about the experience of that workshop in Manipal, and of writing up a chapter to contribute to this book: it has led me to pay more attention to the geography of science as well as to its history, guided by an awareness that the places where science is done really matter to what knowledge is produced; and also that scientific practices and knowledge don't just move on their own, but that when scientists are producing knowledge, they are also producing its mobility.
No comments:
Post a Comment