This study was designed to find out what scientists and science students actually do when they are reading familiar and unfamiliar graphs. This study provides rich details of the subtle changes in the ontologies (ensemble of elements perceptually available) of scientists and science students as they engage in the reading tasks assigned to them. In the course of the readers’ interpretation work, initially unspecified marks on paper (“ its ”) are turned into objects with particular topologies that are said to correspond to specific features in the world. We theorize this interpretive work as a transition of graphs from things to signs that come to stand for natural objects. Especially among physicists and theoretical ecologists, graphs enter new relations and become natural objects in their own right.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barwise, J.1988. On the circumstantial relation between meaning and content. In Meaning and mental representations, edited by U. Eco, M. Santambrogio, and P. Violi, 23-39. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
2.
Bastide, F.1990. The iconography of scientific texts: Principles of analysis. In Representation in scientific practice, edited by M. Lynch and S. Woolgar, 187-229. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
Bertin, J.1983. Semiology of graphics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
4.
Bourdieu, P. 1980. Le sens pratique. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
5.
Bowen, G. M., and W.-M. Roth. 1998. Are preservice science teachers prepared to teach inquiry? Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, 13-17 April, San Diego, CA.
6.
Bowen, G. M., W.-M. Roth, and M. K. McGinn. 1999. Interpretations of graphs by university biology students and practicing scientists: Towards a social practice view of scientific representation practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching36:1020-1043.
7.
Brown, J. S., and P. Duguid. 1992. Enacting design for the workplace. In Usability: Turning technologies into tools, edited by P. S. Adler and T. A. Winograd, 164-197. New York: Oxford University Press.
8.
Derrida, J.1981. Dissemination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
Derrida, J.Monolingualism of the other; or, the prosthesis of origin. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
10.
Eco, U.1976. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
11.
Eco, U.1984a. The name of the rose. Boston, MA: G. K. Hall.
12.
Eco, U.1984b. Semiotics and the philosophy of language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
13.
Edgerton, S.1985. The renaissance development of the scientific illustration. In Science and the arts in the renaissance, edited by J. Shirley and D. Hoeniger, 168-197. Washington, DC: Folger Shakespeare Library.
14.
Garfinkel, H., M. Lynch, and E. Livingston. 1981. The work of a discovering science construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences11:131-158.
15.
Goodwin, C.1995. Seeing in depth. Social Studies of Science25:237-274.
16.
Heidegger, M.1977. Sein und zeit (Being and time). Tübingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer.
17.
Latour, B.1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
18.
Latour, B.1992. Aramis ou l’amour des techniques (Aramis or the love of technology). Paris: Éditions la Découverte.
19.
Latour, B.1993. La clef de Berlin et autres leçons d’un amateur de sciences (The key to Berlin and other lessons of a science lover). Paris: Éditions la Découverte.
20.
Lave, J.1988. Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, S., and W.-M. Roth. 2001. How ditch and drain become a healthy creek: Representations, translations and agency during the re/design of a watershed. Social Studies of Science, 31:315-356.
24.
Lemke, J. L.1998. Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In Reading science, edited by J. R. Martin and R. Veel, 87-113. London: Routledge.
25.
Livingston, E.1995. An anthropology of reading. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
26.
Lynch, M.1991. Method: Measurement—ordinary and scientific measurement as ethnomethodological phenomena. In Ethnomethodology and the human sciences, edited by G. Button, 77-108. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Lynch, M., and S. Woolgar, eds. 1990. Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.
Ochs, E., P. Gonzales, and S. Jacoby. 1996. “When I come down I’m in the domain state”: Grammar and graphic representation in the interpretive activity of physicists. In Interaction and grammar, edited by E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, and S. A. Thompson, 328-369. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29.
Pickering, A.1995. The mangle of practice: Time, agency, & science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
Preziosi, D.1986. The multimodality of communicative events. In Frontiers in semiotics, edited by J. Deely, B. Williams, and F. E. Kruse, 44-50. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
31.
Ricklefs, R. E.1990. Ecology. 3d ed.New York: Freeman.
32.
Ricæur, P.1991. From text to action: Essays in hermeneutics, II. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
33.
Ricæur, P.1992. Oneself as another. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
Roth, W.-M.1996. The co-evolution of situated language and physics knowing. Journal of Science Education and Technology3:171-191.
35.
Roth, W.-M. Forthcoming. Graphing Henderson Creek: A case of relations in sociomaterial practice. In The development of notational representations, edited by S. Strauss. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
36.
Roth, W.-M., and G. M. Bowen. 1999a. Complexities of graphical representations during lectures: A phenomenological approach. Learning and Instruction9:235-255.
37.
Roth, W.-M., and G. M. Bowen. 1999b. Digitizing lizards or the topology of vision in ecological fieldwork. Social Studies of Science29:719-764.
38.
Roth, W.-M., and G. M. Bowen. 1999c. Of cannibals, missionaries, and converts: Graphing competencies from grade 8 to professional science inside classrooms and outside field/laboratory. Science, Technology, & Human Values24:179-212.
39.
Roth, W.-M., and G. M. Bowen. 2001a. Of disciplined minds and disciplined bodies. Qualitative Sociology24 (4): 459-481.
40.
Roth, W.-M., and G. M. Bowen. 2001b. Professionals read graphs: A semiotic analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32:159-194.
41.
Roth, W.-M., G. M. Bowen, and M. K. McGinn. 1999. Differences in graph-related practices between high school biology textbooks and scientific ecology journals. Journal of Research in Science Teaching36:977-1019.
42.
Roth, W.-M., M. K. McGinn, and G. M. Bowen. 1998. How prepared are preservice teachers to teach scientific inquiry? Levels of performance in scientific representation practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education9:25-48.
43.
Saint-Martin, F.1990. Semiotics of visual language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
44.
Schank, R. C.1994. Goal-based scenarios: A radical look at education. Journal of the Learning Sciences3:429-453.
45.
Schiano, D. J., and B. Tversky. 1992. Structure and strategy in encoding simplified graphs. Memory & Cognition20:12-20.
46.
Scribner, S.1986. Thinking in action: Some characteristics of practical thought. In Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world, edited by R. J. Sternberg and R. K. Wagner, 13-30. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47.
Sharrock, W., and G. Button. 1991. The social actor: Social action in real time. In Ethnomethodology and the human sciences, edited by G. Button, 137-175. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48.
Tabachneck-Schijf, H.J. M., A. M. Leonardo, and H. A. Simon. 1997. CaMeRa: A computational model for multiple representations. Cognitive Science21:305-350.
49.
Woolgar, S.1990. Time and documents in researcher interaction: Some ways of making out what is happening in experimental science. In Representation in scientific practice, edited by M. Lynch and S. Woolgar, 123-152. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
