Layered history: Styles of reasoning as stratified conditions of possibility

Elwick, James

doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2012.07.004

Cited by 20 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A condition of possibility is not a cause but a range of circumstances that enables the emergence of the object researched as a historical possibility. The actual emergence is contingent and dependent upon a wide range and theoretically unlimited set of stratified conditions (Elwick, 2012: 620). To think in terms of conditions of possibilities helps to include the agency of human actors as a historical force, as well as to make sense of the context within which historical objects emerge (Elwick, 2012: 620–621; Foucault, 1988: 257).…”

Section: Methodological Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The actual emergence is contingent and dependent upon a wide range and theoretically unlimited set of stratified conditions (Elwick, 2012: 620). To think in terms of conditions of possibilities helps to include the agency of human actors as a historical force, as well as to make sense of the context within which historical objects emerge (Elwick, 2012: 620–621; Foucault, 1988: 257). In this way, it is attainable to reconstruct and criticize the cultural underpinnings of RJ, opening new possibilities of critical understanding and action (Dreyfus and Rabinow, 1983: xxvii; Foucault, 1986: 53).…”

Section: Methodological Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Embodied victims: An archaeology of the ‘ideal victim’ of restorative justice

Maglione

2016

Criminology & Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article seeks to provide a historical-critical framework to reconstruct and discuss how the crime victim is portrayed within theoretical literature, policy and legal documents on restorative justice, with an emphasis on England and Wales. It first centres on a description of the most deep-rooted and wide-ranging discourses on the victim’s characteristics within restorative justice. Once these features have been organized into an ‘ideal’ model, the article traces the conditions which fed into its development, that is, the cultural context within which this model has emerged. The overall goal is not to test the ‘ideal victim’ within restorative justice, but rather to explore how this methodological tool, within a historical and critical approach, might help to shed light on some taken-for-granted assumptions of restorative justice and their legal, policy and practical implications, thus contributing to the critical assessment of this acclaimed “new frontier” of contemporary penality.

show abstract

Section: Methodological Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodological Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Embodied victims: An archaeology of the ‘ideal victim’ of restorative justice

Maglione

2016

Criminology & Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Which kinds of assumptions are at play in modeling and theorizing, including methodological and ontological assumptions (Elwick, 2012;van Fraassen, 1980;Hacking, 2002;Kuhn, 1970;Levins & Lewontin, 1985;Wimsatt 2007)? What are the functions of each assumption, and what happens when we replace a given assumption, or add new ones?…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The mind, the lab, and the field: Three kinds of populations in scientific practice

Winther

Giordano

Edge

et al. 2015

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tScientists use models to understand the natural world, and it is important not to conflate model and nature. As an illustration, we distinguish three different kinds of populations in studies of ecology and evolution: theoretical, laboratory, and natural populations, exemplified by the work of R. A. Fisher, Thomas Park, and David Lack, respectively. Biologists are rightly concerned with all three types of populations. We examine the interplay between these different kinds of populations, and their pertinent models, in three examples: the notion of "effective" population size, the work of Thomas Park on Tribolium populations, and model-based clustering algorithms such as Structure. Finally, we discuss ways to move safely between three distinct population types while avoiding confusing models and reality.Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. When citing this paper, please use the full journal title Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical SciencesWhat are the relationships among the populations that biologists postulate in idealized theoretical models, the populations they set up in experimental laboratories, and the populations they survey and sample in the wild? We describe three qualitatively different kinds of populations at the heart of distinct styles of scientific practice in ecology and evolution, viz., theoretical, laboratory, and field investigations. Distinguishing three types of populationsdtheoretical, laboratory, and naturaldprovides a useful lens for viewing both past and contemporary work in ecology and evolutionary biology.Three examples illustrate the value of distinguishing theoretical, laboratory, and natural populations: the concept of "effective" population size, the work of Thomas Park on flour beetle populations, and the use of model-based genetic clustering algorithms such as Structure. In keeping with the "Genomics and Philosophy of Race" theme of the special issue in which this article appears, our trichotomy can assist analyses of the implications of genomic studies for claims about the existence (or the non-existence) of human races. In the conclusion, we suggest ways to avoid conflating the three kinds of populations. Researchers can cycle through natural, laboratory, and theoretical populations, expressing genuine interest in each population type. Theoretical, laboratory, and natural populations also pertain to fields beyond ecology and evolution, including statistics.We analyze scientific practice. Although questions regarding realism and anti-realism, the concepteworld relation, and the general ontology of science lurk, our trichotomy is not intended as a rubric for determining how much a model does or does not correspond to reality. Admittedly, an overarching aim of population biology is to understand the complex structure and dynamics of populations "in the wild." Even so, the multiple ontologies of scientific practice are complexdarguably there is a world in a theoretical model (e.g., Morgan, 2012) or in an experimental system (e.g., Leon...

show abstract

“…The French Revolution, or the Second World War did not cause new kinds of physics to emerge, but they did provide the social and political conditions under which new kinds of inquiry became possible. Here I follow James Elwick, in defining a context as "a space of possibilities", in which different styles or patterns of practice may emerge (Elwick, 2012). If we adopt such a view, historical explanations that make appeal to wider social, cultural and political contexts need not be seen as alternatives to "internalist explanations", nor as depriving the historical actors of their agency.…”

Section: Scientific Traditions In Wider Social Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Contextual explanations of this kind, as Elwick notes, should not be construed as causal explanations. Rather, they refer to historically contingent conditions, under which certain forms of scientific practice become possible (Elwick, 2012). Thirdly, we may speak of a context as referring to the existence of certain cultural resources, which may be available to an individual by virtue of his or her social location, experiences, or affiliations.…”

Section: The Virtues Of Historiographical Pluralismmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Shaping of Inquiry: Histories of the Exact Sciences after the Practical Turn

Camilleri¹

2015

AHS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper I examine three emergent trends in praxis-oriented historiography that have underpinned historical studies of the exact sciences covering the period from 1750 to 1960. The first of these refers to what I call "tradition-centred" histories of scientific practice. This approach focuses on the formation of "cultures of practice" characterized by distinctive epistemic styles, which distinguish them from other such cultures. The second involves "tool-centred" histories of practice. This approach focuses on the way in which tools and techniques of inquiry open up new fields of inquiry, and the way in which the crafting of new tools and the refashioning of existing ones shape the dynamics of scientific practice. The third approach I examine relates to "actor-centred" histories, which typically take the form of biographical accounts focusing on the motivations, judgments and choices of individuals that shape scientific inquiry. This provide a useful analytic framework, in piecing together a broad picture of the different ways in which scientific inquiry is shaped and structured, and to see more clearly how different historiographical approaches complement one another in enriching our understanding of scientific practice.

show abstract

Layered history: Styles of reasoning as stratified conditions of possibility

Cited by 20 publications

References 20 publications

Embodied victims: An archaeology of the ‘ideal victim’ of restorative justice

Embodied victims: An archaeology of the ‘ideal victim’ of restorative justice

The mind, the lab, and the field: Three kinds of populations in scientific practice

The Shaping of Inquiry: Histories of the Exact Sciences after the Practical Turn

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About