Hmmm......you can't read our minds without active input to the listserv? I must be too used to working for the Fed.
I am following the thread with interest. I may have some input. Just as you may only have 10 minutes to spare to respond, I am not funded to do half the work I am asked and expected to do, much less question or respond to why am I here (as an ecologist... etc.). Don't let my title fool you; as a district botanist my funded 'work' is to kill invasive plants, an inherently unsatisfatory task. My training is as a community ecologist, and whileI have my own ideas about what the study or application of that is, your and wayne's and other's discussion keep me engaged and I assume that speaks to others as well. Maybe the thread loses importance, as the Occupy movement, with time, but it continues to surface, so let's none of us quit thinking, or expressing our thoughts. discourse keeps the process alive. thank you. david David C. Baker Botanist, Tiller Ranger District 541-825-3149 Phone 541-825-3110 Fax -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt Chew Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 2:41 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Ecology What is it? As of the latest digest I received, this thread had attracted input from fewer than 0.1% of the list's 12K recipients. Perhaps there are 12K reasons for remaining unengaged but I suspect they are all variations or combinations of a few basic themes. Rather than debate plausible rationalizations, I challenge you all to consider Wayne's question carefully. Sociologists who study the formation and dynamics of scientific disciplines use the concept of "boundary work" to describe the process of deciding what ideas (and those who adhere to them) are "inside" (therefore also "outside') of the group. So, what's "in" and what's "out" of ecology? Academic ecologists and biogeographers have a long tradition of border skirmishing. But beyond that ecology seems to have been accreting adherents, methods and ideas at quite clip for the last 40 years or so. As an "-ology", is ecology limited to studying something? Strictly speaking, yes; but we do not speak strictly. Is "ecology" a thing to be studied? We speak of the ecology of a place, of a geographical feature, of a species, of a population, of an assemblage, of a community (whatever that is) of an ecosystem (whatever that is) or of a landscape (etc.). Is ecology a method, a philosophy, an ethical stance, a moral commitment, a religious belief? Are you an ecologist? What makes you one? Recycling stuff? Organic gardening? Watching a TV show? Joining the Sierra Club, Audubon, and/or TNC (etc.)? Taking a class? Two classes? Earning a certificate? An Associate's degree? A BA? A BS? An MA? An MS? A Ph.D.? Some other accredited degree? Working in the field for 1/5/10/20 years? Should anyone who calls whatever they feel, think or do "ecology" be considered an ecologist because they call themselves one? If so, why does ESA have a certification process? Does that process exclude anyone who seeks certification? If so, can excluded individuals still call themselves an ecologists? Can those of us who never seek certification call ourselves ecologists? Does being certified mean you know what you're talking about, or merely that you're using the right words? If ecology means all those things, can it really mean any one of them? The impending 100th anniversaries of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" and of ESA and BES as organizations are good excuses to ponder all this. I'm expecting 12,000 answers by Monday night. But don't cc me. Just respond to the list. Matthew K Chew Assistant Research Professor Arizona State University School of Life Sciences ASU Center for Biology & Society PO Box 873301 Tempe, AZ 85287-3301 USA Tel 480.965.8422 Fax 480.965.8330 [email protected] or [email protected] http://cbs.asu.edu/people/profiles/chew.php http://asu.academia.edu/MattChew
