Integration of approaches in David Wake’s model-taxon research platform for evolutionary morphology. Griesemer, J. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 44(4, Part A):525–536, December, 2013. 00010![Integration of approaches in David Wake’s model-taxon research platform for evolutionary morphology [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex What gets integrated in integrative scientific practices has been a topic of much discussion. Traditional views focus on theories and explanations, with ideas of reduction and unification dominating the conversation. More recent ideas focus on disciplines, fields, or specialties; models, mechanisms, or methods; phenomena, problems. How integration works looks different on each of these views since the objects of integration are ontologically and epistemically various: statements, boundary conditions, practices, protocols, methods, variables, parameters, domains, laboratories, and questions all have their own structures, functions and logics. I focus on one particular kind of scientific practice, integration of “approaches” in the context of a research system operating on a special kind of “platform.” Rather than trace a network of interactions among people, practices, and theoretical entities to be integrated, in this essay I focus on the work of a single investigator, David Wake. I describe Wake’s practice of integrative evolutionary biology and how his integration of approaches among biological specialties worked in tandem with his development of the salamanders as a model taxon, which he used as a platform to solve, re-work and update problems that would not have been solved so well by non-integrative approaches. The larger goal of the project to which this paper contributes is a counter-narrative to the story of 20th century life sciences as the rise and march of the model organisms and decline of natural history.
@article{griesemer_integration_2013,
title = {Integration of approaches in {David} {Wake}’s model-taxon research platform for evolutionary morphology},
volume = {44},
issn = {1369-8486},
url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848613000356},
doi = {10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.03.021},
abstract = {What gets integrated in integrative scientific practices has been a topic of much discussion. Traditional views focus on theories and explanations, with ideas of reduction and unification dominating the conversation. More recent ideas focus on disciplines, fields, or specialties; models, mechanisms, or methods; phenomena, problems. How integration works looks different on each of these views since the objects of integration are ontologically and epistemically various: statements, boundary conditions, practices, protocols, methods, variables, parameters, domains, laboratories, and questions all have their own structures, functions and logics. I focus on one particular kind of scientific practice, integration of “approaches” in the context of a research system operating on a special kind of “platform.” Rather than trace a network of interactions among people, practices, and theoretical entities to be integrated, in this essay I focus on the work of a single investigator, David Wake. I describe Wake’s practice of integrative evolutionary biology and how his integration of approaches among biological specialties worked in tandem with his development of the salamanders as a model taxon, which he used as a platform to solve, re-work and update problems that would not have been solved so well by non-integrative approaches. The larger goal of the project to which this paper contributes is a counter-narrative to the story of 20th century life sciences as the rise and march of the model organisms and decline of natural history.},
number = {4, Part A},
journal = {Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences},
author = {Griesemer, James},
month = dec,
year = {2013},
note = {00010},
keywords = {David B. Wake, Evolutionary morphology, Integration, Model taxon, Research system},
pages = {525--536}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"NhPWpgP9hpjAHmWEH","bibbaseid":"griesemer-integrationofapproachesindavidwakesmodeltaxonresearchplatformforevolutionarymorphology-2013","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2019-03-08T07:06:40.476Z","title":"Integration of approaches in David Wake’s model-taxon research platform for evolutionary morphology","author_short":["Griesemer, J."],"year":2013,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://bibbase.org/zotero/mkoo","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Integration of approaches in David Wake’s model-taxon research platform for evolutionary morphology","volume":"44","issn":"1369-8486","url":"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848613000356","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.03.021","abstract":"What gets integrated in integrative scientific practices has been a topic of much discussion. Traditional views focus on theories and explanations, with ideas of reduction and unification dominating the conversation. More recent ideas focus on disciplines, fields, or specialties; models, mechanisms, or methods; phenomena, problems. How integration works looks different on each of these views since the objects of integration are ontologically and epistemically various: statements, boundary conditions, practices, protocols, methods, variables, parameters, domains, laboratories, and questions all have their own structures, functions and logics. I focus on one particular kind of scientific practice, integration of “approaches” in the context of a research system operating on a special kind of “platform.” Rather than trace a network of interactions among people, practices, and theoretical entities to be integrated, in this essay I focus on the work of a single investigator, David Wake. I describe Wake’s practice of integrative evolutionary biology and how his integration of approaches among biological specialties worked in tandem with his development of the salamanders as a model taxon, which he used as a platform to solve, re-work and update problems that would not have been solved so well by non-integrative approaches. The larger goal of the project to which this paper contributes is a counter-narrative to the story of 20th century life sciences as the rise and march of the model organisms and decline of natural history.","number":"4, Part A","journal":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Griesemer"],"firstnames":["James"],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"December","year":"2013","note":"00010","keywords":"David B. Wake, Evolutionary morphology, Integration, Model taxon, Research system","pages":"525–536","bibtex":"@article{griesemer_integration_2013,\n\ttitle = {Integration of approaches in {David} {Wake}’s model-taxon research platform for evolutionary morphology},\n\tvolume = {44},\n\tissn = {1369-8486},\n\turl = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848613000356},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.03.021},\n\tabstract = {What gets integrated in integrative scientific practices has been a topic of much discussion. Traditional views focus on theories and explanations, with ideas of reduction and unification dominating the conversation. More recent ideas focus on disciplines, fields, or specialties; models, mechanisms, or methods; phenomena, problems. How integration works looks different on each of these views since the objects of integration are ontologically and epistemically various: statements, boundary conditions, practices, protocols, methods, variables, parameters, domains, laboratories, and questions all have their own structures, functions and logics. I focus on one particular kind of scientific practice, integration of “approaches” in the context of a research system operating on a special kind of “platform.” Rather than trace a network of interactions among people, practices, and theoretical entities to be integrated, in this essay I focus on the work of a single investigator, David Wake. I describe Wake’s practice of integrative evolutionary biology and how his integration of approaches among biological specialties worked in tandem with his development of the salamanders as a model taxon, which he used as a platform to solve, re-work and update problems that would not have been solved so well by non-integrative approaches. The larger goal of the project to which this paper contributes is a counter-narrative to the story of 20th century life sciences as the rise and march of the model organisms and decline of natural history.},\n\tnumber = {4, Part A},\n\tjournal = {Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences},\n\tauthor = {Griesemer, James},\n\tmonth = dec,\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tnote = {00010},\n\tkeywords = {David B. Wake, Evolutionary morphology, Integration, Model taxon, Research system},\n\tpages = {525--536}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Griesemer, J."],"key":"griesemer_integration_2013","id":"griesemer_integration_2013","bibbaseid":"griesemer-integrationofapproachesindavidwakesmodeltaxonresearchplatformforevolutionarymorphology-2013","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848613000356"},"keyword":["David B. Wake","Evolutionary morphology","Integration","Model taxon","Research system"],"downloads":0,"html":""},"search_terms":["integration","approaches","david","wake","model","taxon","research","platform","evolutionary","morphology","griesemer"],"keywords":["david b. wake","evolutionary morphology","integration","model taxon","research system"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["pJXBJ7FpDvMhH6hs5"]}