首页> 外文期刊>Quaternary Science Reviews: The International Multidisciplinary Review Journal >Realising consilience: How better communication between archaeologists, historians and natural scientists can transform the study of past climate change in the Mediterranean
【24h】

Realising consilience: How better communication between archaeologists, historians and natural scientists can transform the study of past climate change in the Mediterranean

机译:实现一致性:考古学家,历史学家和自然科学家之间更好的沟通可以如何改变对地中海过去气候变化的研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

This paper reviews the methodological and practical issues relevant to the ways in which natural scientists, historians and archaeologists may collaborate in the study of past climatic changes in the Mediterranean basin. We begin by discussing the methodologies of these three disciplines in the context of the consilience debate, that is, attempts to unify different research methodologies that address similar problems. We demonstrate that there are a number of similarities in the fundamental methodology between history, archaeology, and the natural sciences that deal with the past ("palaeoenvironmental sciences"), due to their common interest in studying societal and environmental phenomena that no longer exist. The three research traditions, for instance, employ specific narrative structures as a means of communicating research results. We thus present and compare the narratives characteristic of each discipline; in order to engage in fruitful interdisciplinary exchange, we must first understand how each deals with the societal impacts of climatic change. In the second part of the paper, we focus our discussion on the four major practical issues that hinder communication between the three disciplines. These include terminological misunderstandings, problems relevant to project design, divergences in publication cultures, and differing views on the impact of research. Among other recommendations, we suggest that scholars from the three disciplines should aim to create a joint publication culture, which should also appeal to a wider public, both inside and outside of academia. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
机译:本文回顾了与自然科学家,历史学家和考古学家合作研究地中海盆地过去气候变化的方式有关的方法论和实践问题。我们首先在一致性辩论的背景下讨论这三个学科的方法论,即试图统一解决相似问题的不同研究方法论。我们证明,历史,考古学和处理过去的自然科学(“古环境科学”)之间在基本方法上有许多相似之处,这是由于它们对研究不再存在的社会和环境现象具有共同的兴趣。例如,这三种研究传统都采用特定的叙事结构作为交流研究结果的手段。因此,我们介绍并比较了每门学科的叙事特征。为了进行卓有成效的跨学科交流,我们必须首先了解每个学科如何应对气候变化的社会影响。在本文的第二部分,我们将讨论重点放在阻碍三个学科之间交流的四个主要实际问题上。这些包括术语上的误解,与项目设计有关的问题,出版物文化上的分歧以及对研究影响的不同看法。除其他建议外,我们建议来自这三个学科的学者应致力于建立一种联合出版文化,这种文化也应吸引学术界内外的广大公众。 (C)2015作者。由Elsevier Ltd.发布

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号