Rees Amanda
Department of Sociology, University of York, Heslington, York Y10 5DD, UK.
Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci. 2006 Jun;37(2):311-33. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2006.03.008. Epub 2006 May 18.
The ideals and realities of field research have shaped the development of behavioural primatology over the latter half of the twentieth century. This paper draws on interviews with primatologists as well as a survey of the scientific literature to examine the idealized notion of the field site as a natural place and the physical environment of the field as a research space. It shows that what became standard field practice emerged in the course of wide ranging debate about the techniques, personal qualities and site conditions best suited to the scientific study of the natural behaviour of apes and monkeys. Although the laboratory was a constant presence in this debate, the export of techniques from the laboratory to the field was limited, due to concerns that experimental manipulation would destroy the naturalness of the behaviour. The paper goes on to demonstrate the central significance given by primatologists to the unique social, historical and ecological circumstances of particular field sites, and to sketch some of the complexities that fieldworkers contend with in trying to realize their ideals. Primatologists seek field sites that answer their questions; but once their studies become long term, they also need to find questions that answer to ever changing conditions at those sites.
野外研究的理想与现实塑造了20世纪后半叶行为灵长类学的发展。本文通过对灵长类学家的访谈以及对科学文献的调查,来审视将野外研究地点视为自然之地的理想化观念,以及将野外物理环境视为研究空间的观念。研究表明,标准的野外研究实践是在关于最适合对猿猴自然行为进行科学研究的技术、个人特质和研究地点条件的广泛辩论过程中形成的。尽管实验室在这场辩论中一直存在,但由于担心实验操作会破坏行为的自然性,从实验室向野外输出技术受到了限制。本文接着论证了灵长类学家对特定野外研究地点独特的社会、历史和生态环境的高度重视,并勾勒了野外工作者在努力实现其理想时所面临的一些复杂性。灵长类学家寻找能回答他们问题的野外研究地点;但一旦他们的研究变成长期研究,他们还需要找到能应对这些地点不断变化情况的问题。