Mutual Linguistic Socialisation in Interdisciplinary Collaboration

  • Tiago Ribeiro Duarte


This chapter examines the deliberate efforts of mutual linguistic socialisation carried out by paleoclimatologists and paleo-modellers through which they seek to improve communication between both communities. These efforts include the creation of summer schools and graduate programmes where students learn from experts from both fields, the joint supervision of PhD students by paleoclimatologists and paleo-modellers, informal conversations at conferences and in collaborative projects, and university departments with academics from both research areas. I argue that most of these initiatives do not result in individuals acquiring a high level of linguistic competence in the domain that is not their own, namely interactional expertise (IE). Yet these efforts can help to bridge communicative gaps between paleoclimatologists and paleo-modellers.


  1. Burroughs, W.J. 2001. Climate Change: A Multidisciplinary Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Charlesworth, M., L. Farrall, T. Stokes, and D. Turnbull. 1989. Life Among the Scientists: An Anthropological Study of an Australian Scientific Community. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Collins, H.M. 1983. The Meaning of Lies: Accounts of Action and Participatory Research. In Accounts and Action, ed. Nigel Gilbert and Peter Abel, 69–78. London: Gower.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 1984. Researching Spoonbending: Concepts and Practise of Participatory Fieldwork. In Social Researching: Politics, Problems, Practise, ed. C. Bell and H. Roberts, 54–69. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 1992. Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2007. Mathematical Understanding and the Physical Sciences. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 38: 667–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ———. 2009. Walking the Talk: Doing Gravity’s Shadow. In Ethnographies Revisited, ed. A.J. Puddephatt, W. Shaffir, and S.W. Kleinknecht, 289–304. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 2011. Language and Practice. Social Studies of Science 41(2): 271–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins, H.M., and R. Evans. 2002. The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience. Social Studies of Science 32(2): 235–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ———. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ———. 2014. Quantifying the Tacit: The Imitation Game and Social Fluency. Sociology 48(1): 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ———. 2015. Expertise Revisited, Part I—Interactional Expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 56: 103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Demeritt, D. 2001. The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91(2): 307–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doing, P. 2004. ‘Lab hands’ and the ‘Scarlet O’: Epistemic Politics and (Scientific) Labor. Social Studies of Science 34(3): 299–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Duarte, T.R. 2013. Expertise and the Fractal Model – Communication and Collaboration between Climate-Change Scientists. PhD thesis, Cardiff University.Google Scholar
  16. Edwards, P.N. 2010. A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Galison, P. 1996. Computer Simulations and the Trading Zone. In The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power, ed. P. Galison and D.J. Stump, 118–157. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 1997. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2010. Trading with the Enemy. In Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise, ed. M. Gorman, 25–52. Cambridge, MA; London: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goodwin, C. 1994. Professional Vision. American Anthropologist 96(3): 606–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. ———. 1997. The Blackness of Black: Color Categories as Situated Practice. In Discourse, Tools, and Reasoning: Essays on Situated Cognition, ed. L.B. Resnick, R. Saljo, C. Pontecorvo, and B. Burge, 111–142. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jasanoff, S., and B. Wynne. 1998. Science and Decisionmaking. In Human Choice & Climate Change, ed. S. Rayner and E.L. Malone, 1–87. Columbus: Battelle Memorial Institute.Google Scholar
  23. Jeffrey, P. 2003. Smoothing the Waters: Observations on the Process of Cross-Disciplinary Research Collaboration. Social Studies of Science 33(4): 539–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Knorr-Cetina, K. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Mody, C.C.M. 2005. Instruments in Training: The Growth of American Probe Microscopy in the 1980s. In Pedagogy and the Practice of Science: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, ed. D. Kaiser, 185–216. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Mody, C.C.M., and D. Kaiser. 2008. Scientific Training and the Creation of Scientific Knowledge. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, ed. E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, 3rd ed., 377–402. Cambridge, MA and London, UK: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Monteiro, M., and E. Keating. 2009. Managing Misunderstandings: The Role of Language in Interdisciplinary Scientific Collaboration. Science Communication 31(1): 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pinch, T.J. 1986. Confronting Nature: The Sociology of Solar Neutrino Detection. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reyes-Galindo, L. 2011. The Sociology of Theoretical Physics. PhD thesis, Cardiff University.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 2014a. Participant Comprehension and Qualitative Observation: A Micro-Sociological Study of Theoretical Physics, SAGE Research Methods Cases. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  31. ———. 2014b. Linking the Subcultures of Physics: Virtual Empiricism and the Bonding Role of Trust. Social Studies of Science 44(5): 736–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reyes-Galindo, L., and T.R. Duarte. 2015. Bringing Tacit Knowledge Back to Contributory and Interactional Expertise: A Reply to Goddiksen. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 49: 99–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ribeiro, R. 2007. Knowledge Transfer. PhD thesis, Cardiff University.Google Scholar
  34. ———. 2013. Levels of Immersion, Tacit Knowledge and Expertise. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 12(2): 367–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shackley, S., and B. Wynne. 1995. Integrating Knowledges for Climate Change: Pyramids, Nets and Uncertainties. Global Environmental Change 5(2): 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shackley, S., P. Young, S. Parkinson, and B. Wynne. 1998. Uncertainty, Complexity and Concepts of Good Science in Climate Change Modelling: Are GCMs the Best Tools? Climatic Change 38(2): 159–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shapin, S. 1994. A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Shrager, J. 2007. The Evolution of BioBike: Community Adaptation of a Biocomputing Platform. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 38: 642–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Star, S.L., and J.R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional Ecology, Translations and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science 19(3): 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weinel, M. 2010. Technological Decision-Making Under Scientific Uncertainty: Preventing Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV in South Africa. PhD thesis, Cardiff University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tiago Ribeiro Duarte
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of BrasíliaBrasíliaBrazil

Personalised recommendations