I'll answer the question in one short easy to understand definition.
 
To quote ESA:  Annual Meeting,  August 2000 
 
Ecology is:  "The scientific discipline that is concerned with the 
relationships between organisms and their past, present and future 
environments, both living and non-living."
 
This is the definition I teach in my classes.  Ecology is to environmentalism 
or environmental science as Physics is to engineering.  One is the science, the 
other is an application that makes use of the "theory" established by the 
science. 
 
Liane
 
****************************************
D. Liane Cochran-Stafira, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Biological Sciences
Saint Xavier University
3700 West 103rd Street
Chicago, Illinois  60655

phone:  773-298-3514
fax:    773-298-3536
email:  [email protected]
http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/

<http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/> 

________________________________

From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Matt Chew
Sent: Mon 11/14/2011 4:41 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

Reply via email to