CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION
6.4 Future plans
As this thesis deals with enhancing our conceptions of a science for Galápagos and discusses the importance of making information accessible to scientists and their publics, I have been concerned from the beginning with finding a way to share the information produced in this research with various audiences. Electronic copies of this thesis will be distributed to GSC respondents and a hard copy will be left in the library at USFQ
Galápagos. As for sharing information with residents, Co-director 2 and I are discussing the possibility of mounting a public exhibition either at the GSC or on the boardwalk (one of the central social spaces in San Cristóbal) for which we would create large posters, graphs, and visuals of various kinds to display the community perspective—scientists included— gathered in this study. If such an exhibition becomes impossible to mount due to financial and/or time constraints, I plan to develop an informational pamphlet highlighting some of the key findings of this study for distribution at the GSC.
164
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW GUIDE QUESTIONS FOR RESIDENTS
1. Define science in your own words
2. Is science important in your daily life? If so, how?
3. Do you believe that science has had a positive/negative/no impact in San Cristóbal and why?
4. Should Galápagos scientists be obligated to conduct research that addresses specific local issues?
5. Describe the ideal relationship between the Center and the town. 6. What kind of information would you like to access via GSC outreach?
7. Are there individuals or groups here that you think could contribute to science research? If so, whom and how?
165
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW GUIDE QUESTIONS FOR GSC REPRESENTATIVES
1. Please describe the logics underlying GSC outreach. 2. Please describe current and planned outreach activities.
3. Are there particular things that you think that San Cristóbal residents ought to learn from science and research? If so, what are they?
4. Do you believe that local individuals or groups have the capacity to contribute to the production of scientific knowledge? If so, whom and how?
5. Should residents have a say in the direction of Galápagos research? 6. What is your definition of a science for Galápagos?
166
APPENDIX C: GENERAL INFORMATION (GSC RESPRESENTATIVES)
GSC representative Place of Origin Area(s) of expertise
S1 Galápagos Ecology and evolutionary biology
S2
Europe (long-time resident of Ecuador and
Galápagos)
Natural resource use and conservation biology
S3 Mainland Ecuador Marine biology
S4
Europe (long-time resident of Ecuador and
Galápagos) Marine biology
S5 Galápagos Marine biology
Co-director 1 United States Geography
Co-director 2 Mainland Ecuador Geography
Executive Board
Member Mainland Ecuador Anthropology
Program Manager United States Geography
Outreach Coordinator
United States (long-time resident of Ecuador and Galápagos)
Higher education administration and community programming
167
168
REFERENCES
Agrawal, A. & Ostrom, E. (2001). Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Politics & Society, 29 (4), 495–514.
Altheide, D.L. (1987). Ethnographic content analysis. Qualitative Sociology, 10, 65-77. Barnett, J. et al. (2012). Imagined publics and engagement around renewable energy
technologies in the UK. Public Understanding of Science. 21(1), 36–50.
Barnett, L. (1958, September 8). Darwin’s world of nature: Part II. The Enchanted Isles. Life Magazine, 45 (10), 56-76.
Bodmer, W.L. & Wilkins, J. (1992). Research to improve public understanding programmes. Public Understanding of Science, 1 (1), 7-10.
Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, E., McCallie, T., Phillips, J. Shirk,…CC Wilderman. 2009. Public participation in scientific research: defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Center for
Advancement of Informal Education (CAISE), Washington, D.C. Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge.
Bloor, D. (1991). Knowledge and social imagery (second edition; first published in 1976).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Broks, P. (2006). Understanding popular science. London: Open University Press.
Burchell, K. (2007). Empiricist selves and contingent “others”: The performative function of the discourse of scientists working in conditions of controversy. Public
Understanding of Science,16,145-162.
Burningham, K., Barnett, J., Carr, A., Clift, R., & Wehrmeyer, W.(2007). Industrial
constructions of publics and public knowledge: a qualitative investigation of practice in the UK chemicals industry. Public Understanding of Science, 6,23-43.
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In John Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge (196-233). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Callon, M. (1987) Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological
analysis. In Wiebe Bijker et al. (Eds), The social construction of technological
systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (88-103). London: MIT Press.
169
Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In John Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (132–165). London: Routledge.
Callon, M. (1994). Is Science a Public Good? Science, Technology and Human Values. 19, 395-422.
Center for Advancement of Informal Education (CAISE) (2009). Public participation in scientific research: defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. Washington D.C.: Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, E., McCallie, T., Phillips, J. Shirk, & Wilderman, CC.
Charles Darwin Foundation and World Wildlife Fund. 2002. A Biodiversity vision for the Galápagos Islands. Ed. R. Bensted-Smith. Puerto Ayora, Galápagos: CDF. Charles Darwin Foundation. (2007) Galápagos at Risk: A Socioeconomic Analysis of the Situation in the Archipelago. Puerto Ayora, Galápagos, Ecuador: Watkins, G. & Cruz, F. Charles Darwin Foundation. (2008). A Paradigm Shift in Galápagos Research. Galápagos
Islands, Ecuador: Watkins, G.
Cohen, N and Bowan, R. (1964) Report on the Galápagos international scientific project. Retrieved from
http://datazone.darwinfoundation.org/media/pdf/3/NG_3_July_1964_Cohen%26Bow man_GISP.pdf
Collins, H. (.1992) Changing order: replication and induction in scientific practice (second
edition; first publishedin 1985). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Collins, H.M. and Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32, 235-296.
Cronon, W. (1996) The Trouble with wilderness; or, getting back to the wrong nature. In William Cronon (Ed.), Uncommon ground: Rethinking the human place in nature (69-90). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Davies, S. (2008). Construction communication: talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29 (4), 413-434.
Davies S. (2009). Doing dialogue: genre and flexibility in public engagement with science. Science as Culture, 18(4), 397-416.
Delgado, A., Kjolberg K.L., & Wickson, F. (2012). Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science. 20 (6), 826-845.
170
Dickson, D (2000). Science and its public: The need for a third way. Social Studies of Science, 30 (6), 917-923.
Doing, P. (2004). ‘Lab Hands’ and the Scarlet O’: Epistemicpolitics and (scientific) labor.
Social Studies ofScience, 34, 299–323.
Eden, S. (2010). NGOs, the science-lay Dichotomy, and Hybrid Spaces of Environmental Knowledge. In Peter Meusburger, David Livingstone, & Heike Jons (Eds.),
Geographies of Science, Knowledge and Space 3 (217-230). New York: Spring Publishing Company.
Fayard, P. (1992). Let’s stop persecuting people who don’t think like Galileo. Public Understanding of Science. 1, 15-16.
Finchum, R. (2002). The beliefs and perceptions of fishermen regarding management actions, regulations, and the protection of the Galápagos Marine Reserve, Ecuador. (Master’s of Science thesis) Retrieved from
http://warnercnr.colostate.edu/docs/hdnr/cpamt/gal.fishermenstudy.csu.pdf
Finnegan, D. (2004). The work of ice: glacial theory and scientific culture in early Victorian
Edinburgh. BritishJournal for the History of Science. 37, 29–52.
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. Brighton, Sussex: Harvester Press.
Foucault, M. (1989). The archaeology of knowledge. Translated by A M Sheridan Smith. London: Routledge.
Franklin, S. (1995). Science as culture, cultures of science. Annual Review of Anthropology,
24, 163–84.
Fundación para el Desarrollo Alternativo Responsable para Galápagos (2005). Informe entre el conflicto y la colaboración: el manejo participativo en la Reserva Marina de Galápagos. Sistematización, evaluación y factores de éxito del modelo participativo. Puerto Ayora, Galápagos: Zapata, C.
Gieryn, T.F. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from nonscience: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795.
Gilbert, N. and Mulkay, M. (1984) Opening Pandora’s Box: a Sociological Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glick, T. (1974). The comparative reception of Darwinism. Austin: University of Texas Press.
171
González, M., Montes, C., Rodríguez, J., & Tapia, W. (2008) Rethinking the Galápagos Islands as a Complex Social-Ecological System. Ecology and Society, 13, (2), 13. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art13/
Gregory, J.& Miller, S. (1998). Science in public: communication, culture, and credibility. New York: Plenum.
Grenier, C. (2007) Conservación contra natura: las islas Galápagos. IFEA / Embajada de Francia en Ecuador / IRD / Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar / Ediciones Abya- Yala.
Gusterson, H.(1996). Nuclear rites: a weapons laboratory at the end of the cold war.
Berkeley, CA: University ofCalifornia Press.
Haraway, D.J. 1991. Simians, cyborgs, and women: The re-invention of nature.London: Free Association Books.
Hennessy, E. (2010) Crisis in Nature’s Eden: Conserving Nature and Culture in the Galápagos Islands. (Master’s of Arts Thesis) (UMI No.1478157).
Hennessy, E. and McCleary A. (2011). Nature’s Eden? The Production and Effects of ‘Pristine’ Nature in the Galápagos Islands. Island Studies Journal, 6(2), 131-156. Hess, D.J. (2011). Science in an Era of Globalization: Alternative Pathways. In Sandra
Harding (Ed.), The Postcolonial Science and Technology Studies Reader. Durham: Duke University Press.
Hill, A. and Michael, M. (1998). Engineering acceptance: Representations of “the public” in debates on biotechnology. In Peter Wheale, Rene Von Schomberg & Peter Glasner (Eds.), The social management of genetic engineering (201-217). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Hilgartner, S. (1990).The dominant view of popularization: conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science. 20,519-539.
Holifield, R. (2010). Regulatory Science and Risk Assessment in Indian Country: Taking Tribal Publics into Account. In Peter Meusburger, David Livingstone, & Heike Jons (Eds.), Geographies of Science, Knowledge and Space 3 (217-230). New York: Spring Publishing Company.
Hughes, P. (1982). Preparing for accidents at nuclear power stations: the role of emergency planning in a technological society. (Unpublisehd Master’s of Philosophy thesis). University of Lancaster, UK.
Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science: a study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London: Routledge.
172
Irwin, A. (2006). The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the 'new' scientific governance. Social Studies of Science, 36, 299-320.
James, M. (2010) Collecting evolution: the vindication of Charles Darwin by the 1905-1906 Galápagos expedition of the California Academy of Sciences. In Proceedings of the California academy of science series (197-210).
Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order. London: Routledge.
Jasanoff, S. (1996). Beyond epistemology: relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Social Studies of Science, 26(2), 393-418.
Kerr A., Cunningham-Burley,S., & Tutton, R. (2007). Shifting subject positions: Experts and lay people in public dialogue. Social Studies of Science. 37(3), 385-411.
Kirsch, S. (2007). Ecologists and the experimental landscape: the nature of science at the US Department of Energy's Savannah River Site. Cultural Geographies. 14(4), 485-510. Kleinman, D.L., Delborne, J.A., & Anderson, A.A. (2012). Engaging citizens: The high cost of citizen participation in high technology. Public Understanding of Science. 20(2), 221-240.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1983) New developments in science studies: the ethnographic challenge.
CanadianJournal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, 8, 153–77.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1995). Laboratory studies: the cultural approach to the study of science. In Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Peterson & Trevor Pinch (Eds.),
Handbook of scienceand technology studies (140-166).
Kohler,R (2002). Place and practice in field biology. History of Science, 191.
Larson, E.J. (2001) Evolution’s Workshop: God and Science on the Galápagos Islands. New York: Basic Books.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1999). On recalling ANT. In John Law. & John Hassard (Ed). Actor network
theory and after (15-25). Oxford: Blackwell.
Latour, B. (2004). Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Boston:
Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor network-theory. Oxford:
173
Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts.
(second edition; first published in 1979).Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.
Law, J. (1994). Organizing modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Law, J. (1999) After ANT: complexity, naming and topology. In John Law and John Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (1–14). Oxford: Blackwell.
Lefebvre,H. (1974). The production of space. Trans (1991). Wiley-Blackwell. Leydesdorff, L. & Ward, J. (2005) Science shops: a kaleidoscope of science-society
collaborations in Europe. Public Understanding of Science, 14,353-372.
Lezaun, H. & Soneryd, L. (2007). Consulting citizens: technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science, 16 (3), 279- 297.
Livingstone, D. (1995). The spaces of knowledge: Contributions towards a historical geography of science. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 13, 5-34. Livingstone, D. (2003). Putting science in its place: Geographies of scientific knowledge.
The Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Locke, S. (1999). Golem science and the public understanding of science: From deficit to dilemma. Public Understanding of Science, 8, 75-92.
Lorimer, H & Spedding, N. (2005) Locating field science: a geographical family expedition
to Glen Roy, Scotland. British Journal forthe History of Science 38, 13–33.
Low, M. & Barnett, C. (2000) After globalization. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18, 53-61.
Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social
studies of science.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lynch, M. (2001). Ethnomethodology and the logic of practice. In Theodore, R. Schatzki, Karin Knorr-Cetina, & Eike von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (131-148). London: Routledge.
MacDonald F. (2011). Doomsday fieldwork, or, how to rescue Gaelic culture? The salvage paradigm in geography, archaeology, and folklore, 1955 – 62. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 29(2),309 – 335
Martins, B. &Richards, E. (1995) “Scientific knowledge, controversy, and public decision- making.” In Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Peterson & Trevor Pinch
(Eds.), Handbook of scienceand technology studies (506-526).
174
Massey, D. (1993). Power-geometry and a progressive sense of place. In Jon Bird, Barry Curtis, Tim Putnam, & George Roberton (Eds.) Mapping the futures: Local cultures, global change (59-69). London and NewYork: Routledge.
Massey, D. (1994). Space, Place and Gender. University of Minnesota Press.
Massey, D. (1999). Space-time, science and the relationship between physical and human geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 24 (3), 261-276. Massey, D. (2005). For Space. Sage Publications Ltd.
Michael, M. (1992). Lay discourses of science: Science in general, science in particular, and self. Science, Technology and Human Values. 17(3), 313-333.
Michael, M. (1996). Ignoring science: discourses of ignorance in the public understanding of science. In Alan Irwin and Brian Wynne (Eds.). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology (107-125). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Michael, M. and Brown, N. (2000). From the representation of publics to the performance of “lay political science”. Social Epistemology. 14,3-19.
Miller, J.D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science. 13,273-294.
Mol, A.2002: The body multiple: ontology in medicalpractice. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Morgan, D.L. (1993). Qualitative content analysis: A guide to paths not taken. Qualitative Health Research, 3, 112-121.
Nader, L. 1996: Introduction: anthropological inquiry into boundaries, power, and
knowledge. In Laura Nader (Ed.), Naked science: anthropological inquiry into
boundaries,power, and knowledge (1-25). London: Routledge.
Naylor, S. (2002) Historical geographies of science: places, contexts, cartographies. The British Journal for the History of Science. 38(1), 1-12.
Naylor ,S. (2010) Regionalizing Science: Placing Knowledges in Victorian England. London: Pickering and Chatto.
Neresini, F. & Bucchi, M. (2011). Which indicators for the new public engagement activities? An exploratory study of European research institutions. Public Understanding of Science. 20(1), 64-79.
Nothnagel, D.(1996). The reproduction of nature incontemporary high-energy physics. In
Phillipe Descola & Gisli Pálsson (Eds), Nature and society: Anthropological
175
Ophir, A. & Shapin, S. (1991). The place of knowledge: A methodological survey. Science in
Context, 4, 3–21.
Ospina, P. (2006). Galápagos, naturaleza y sociedad: actores sociales y conflictos ambientales. Corporación Editora Nacional Quito.
Outram, D. (1996). New spaces in natural history. In Nicholas Jardine, James Secord, & E.C. Spary (Eds.), Cultures of Natural History( 249-265). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peluso, N.L. (1993). Coercing conservation: the politics of state resource control. Global Environmental Change 3 (2),199–218.
Phillips, L. (2011). Analysing the dialogic turn in the communication of research-based knowledge: An exploration of tensions in collaborative research. Public
Understanding of Science, 20(1), 80-100.
Prewitt, K. (1982). The public and science policy. Science, Technology and Human Values. 7 (39),5-14.
Quiroga, D. (2009). Galápagos: the crafting of a natural laboratory. Journal of Political Ecology. 16, 123-140.
Quiroga, D & Ospina, P. (2009). Percepciones Sociales Sobre la Ciencia y los Científicos en Galápagos. In Washington Tapia, Pablo Ospina, Diego Quiroga, Jose A. Gonzalez, & Carlos Montes, Ciencia para la Sostenibilidad en Galápagos (109-126).Quito. Ravetz, J. (1971). Scientific knowledge and its social problems. Oxford: Clarendon
Robbins, P. (1998). Authority and Environment: Institutional Landscapes in Rajasthan, India, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 88(3), 410-435
Robbins, P. (2004). Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. Wiley Blackwell.
Rose, S & Rose, H. (1971). Social Responsibility (III): The Myth of the Neutrality of Science. Impact of Science on Society, 21(2), 137-149.
The Royal Society. (1985). Public understanding of science. Report of a Royal Society ad hoc group endorsed by the Council of the Royal Society.
Santander T.,Gonzalez, J.A., Tapia, W., Araujo, E., & Montes, C. (2009). Tendencias de la investigación científica en Galápagos y sus implicaciones para el manejo del
archipiélago. In Washington Tapia, Pablo Ospina, Diego Quiroga, Jose A. Gonzalez, & Carlos Montes, Ciencia para la Sostenibilidad en Galápagos (109-126).Quito. Sclove, R.E. (1995) Democracy and Technology. New York and London: The Guildford
176
Schaffer, S. (1991) The eighteenth Brumaire of Bruno Latour. Studies in History and
Philosophy of Science, 22, 174–92.
Schaffer,S (1998) Physics laboratories and the Victorian country house. In Crosbie Smith & Jon Agar (Eds.), Making Space for Science (149-180). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Schultz, S., Braun, K. & Griessler, E. (2007) “A Non-Antagonistic Setting, ‘Authentic
Publics’ and Moments of Unease.” Participatory Governance and Institutional Innovation [PAGANINI] Contract No. CIT2-CT-2004–505791.
Secord, J. (2004). Keynote plenary lecture on 6 August 2004 at the fifth joint meeting of the British Society for the History of Science, the Canadian Society for the History and Philosophy of Science/La Société Canadienne d’Histoire et de Philosophie des Sciences, and the History of Science Society (of the USA) at Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Shapin, S. (1984). Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle’s literary technology. Social
Studies of Science, 14, 481–520.
Shapin,S. (1988). The house of experiment in seventeenth-century England. Isis , 79, 373- 404.
Shapin, S. (1990). Science and the public. In R. C. Olby, G. N. Cantor, J. R. R. Christie, &
M. J. S. Hodge (Eds.), Companion to the history of modern science (990–1007).
London:Routledge.
Sturgis, P. & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13,55-74.
Thomas, G. & Durant, J. (1987). Why should we promote the public understanding of science? Scientific literacy papers: a journal of research in science, education, and research, 1-14.
Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: the world of high energy physicists.
Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.
Traweek, S. (1992). Border crossings: narrative strategies in science studies and among
physicists in Tsukuba Science City, Japan. In Pickering, A (Ed.), Science as practice
and culture (429-465). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Turney, J. (1996). Public understanding of science. Department of Science and Technology Studies, University College London, The Lancet. 347, 9008, 1087-1090
Whitley, Richard (1985) Knowledge Producers and Knowledge Acquirers: Popularisation as a relation between scientific fields and their publics. In Terry Shinn & Richard Whitley (Eds), Expository science: Forms and functions of popularisation, sociology of the sciences yearbook (3-28). Dordrecht & Boston, MA: Reidel.