Science and Policies of Deforestation in the Amazon: Reflecting Ethnographically on Multidisciplinary Collaboration

  • Marko Monteiro


This chapter discusses results from an ethnography of a multidisciplinary scientific project focused on the Amazon. The ethnography shows that arriving at usable scientific results through interdisciplinary work can be a challenge because such sharing is conditioned by misunderstandings between disciplinary boundaries. These misunderstandings involve disparate views on the potentials of modelling to be applied to social phenomena, which affects how the knowledge production process was carried out in practice. By making these challenges visible and analysable, ethnography can be a powerful tool in such cooperative efforts, helping scientists to navigate issues which, although usually seen as problems, can be mobilized as an important part of the process of knowledge production.


Ethnography Anthropology of science and technology Science-policy interface Environmental infrastructures STS Brazil 


  1. Amazalert. 2015. Final Report Summary – AMAZALERT (Raising the Alert About Critical Feedbacks Between Climate and Long-term Land Use Change in the Amazon). Amazalert Project. Accessed 14 Dec 2016.
  2. Andreae, M., O. Acevedo, A. Araújo, P. Artaxo, et al. 2015. The Amazon Tall Tower Observatory (ATTO) in the Remote Amazon Basin: Overview of First Results from Ecosystem Ecology, Meteorology, Trace Gas, and Aerosol Measurements. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 15: 10723–10776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avissar, R., P. Silva Dias, M. Silva Dias, and C. Nobre. 2002. The Large-Scale Biosphere-Atmosphere Experiment in Amazonia (LBA): Insights and Future Research Needs. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 107(D20): LBA 54-1–LBA 54-6.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, U. 1996. World Risk Society as Cosmopolitan Society? Ecological Questions in a Framework of Manufactured Uncertainties. Theory, Culture and Society 13(4): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloor, D. 1999. Anti-Latour. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 30(1): 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brugnach, M., A. Tagg, F. Keil, and W. de Lange. 2007. Uncertainty Matters: Computer Models at the Science–Policy Interface. Water Resources Management 21(7): 1075–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins, H., and S. Yearley. 1992. Epistemological Chicken. In Science as Practice and Culture, ed. A. Pickering, 301–326. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. de Gonçalves, L., J. Borak, M. Costa, S. Saleska, et al. 2013. Overview of the Large-scale Biosphere–Atmosphere Experiment in Amazonia Data Model Intercomparison Project (LBA-DMIP). Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 182: 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edwards, P. 2003. Infrastructure and Modernity: Force, Time, and Social Organization in the History of Sociotechnical Systems. In Modernity and Technology, ed. T. Misa, P. Brey, and A. Feenberg, 185–225. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2010. A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fischer, M. 2001. Ethnographic Critique and Technoscientific Narratives: The Old Mole, Ethical Plateaux, and the Governance of Emergent Biosocial Polities. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 25: 355–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fitzgerald, D., M. Littlefield, K. Knudsen, J. Tonks, and M. Dietz. 2014. Ambivalence, Equivocation and the Politics of Experimental Knowledge: A Transdisciplinary Neuroscience Encounter. Social Studies of Science 44(5): 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forsythe, D. 1998. Using Ethnography to Investigate Life Scientists’ Information Needs. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 86(3): 402–409.Google Scholar
  14. Fortun, K., and M. Fortun. 2005. Scientific Imaginaries and Ethical Plateaus in Contemporary US Toxicology. American Anthropologist 107(1): 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Franklin, S. 1995. Science as Culture, Cultures of Science. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 163–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibbons, M. 2000. Mode 2 Society and the Emergence of Context-sensitive Science. Science and Public Policy 27(3): 159–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grossman, D. 2016. Amazon Rainforest to get a Growth Check. Science 352(6286): 635–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guston, D., and D. Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time Technology Assessment. Technology in Society 24: 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hess, D. 2001. Ethnography and the Development of Science and Technology Studies. In Handbook of Ethnography, ed. P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, and L. Lofland, 234–246. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hine, C. 2007. Multi-sited Ethnography as a Middle Range Methodology for Contemporary STS. Science, Technology and Human Values 32(6): 652–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hochstetler, K., and M. Keck. 2007. Greening Brazil: Environmental Activism in State and Society. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Irwin, A. 2008. STS Perspectives on Scientific Governance. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, ed. E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, 583–607. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jasanoff, S. 1987. Contested Boundaries in Policy-Relevant Science. Social Studies of Science 17(2): 195–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ———. 2003. Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science. Minerva 41(3): 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Knorr-Cetina, K. 1983. New Developments in Science Studies: The Ethnographic Challenge. Canadian Journal of Sociology 8(2): 153–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lahsen, M. 2005. Seductive Simulations? Uncertainty Distribution Around Climate Models. Social Studies of Science 35: 895–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. ———. 2009. A Science–Policy Interface in the Global South: The Politics of Carbon Sinks and Science in Brazil. Climatic Change 97: 339–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lapola, D., and R. Norby 2014. Amazon-FACE: Assessing the Effects of Increased Atmospheric CO2 on the Ecology and Resilience of the Amazon Forest–Science plan and Implementation Strategy. Accessed 16 Dec 2016.
  30. Latour, B. 1995. The ‘Pedofil’ of Boa Vista: A Photo-Philosophical Montage. Common Knowledge 4(1): 144–187.Google Scholar
  31. Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lynch, M. 1982. Technical Work and Critical Inquiry: Investigations in a Scientific Laboratory. Social Studies of Science 12(4): 499–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Macnaghten, P., M. Kearnes, and B. Wynne. 2005. Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences? Science Communication 27(2): 268–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Malhi, Y., L. Aragão, D. Galbraith, C. Huntingford, et al. 2009. Exploring the Likelihood and Mechanism of a Climate-Change-Induced Dieback of the Amazon Rainforest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(49): 20610–20615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miguel, J., and M. Monteiro. 2014a. Por que devemos nos interessar por modelos climáticos? Climacom 1(1): 6–17.Google Scholar
  36. ——— 2014b. Modelos do Clima, Modelos Políticos: Uma breve historiografia da previsão numérica e modelagem climática no CPTEC/INPE. Anais da REACT-Reunião de Antropologia da Ciência e Tecnologia, Campinas, 2014.Google Scholar
  37. Miller, C. 2004. Climate Science and the Making of a Global Political Order. In States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order, ed. S. Jasanoff, 46–66. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Miller, C., and P. Edwards. 2001. Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Monteiro, M. 2012. Imagens de satélite como sítio etnográfico? Interpretando práticas de sensoriamento remoto no Brasil. In Ciência, Tecnologia e Sociedade no Brasil, ed. M. Kerbauy, T. Andrade, and C. Hayashi, 251–278. Campinas: Alínea.Google Scholar
  40. ———. 2015. Construindo imagens e territórios: Pensando a visualidade e a materialidade do sensoriamento remoto. História, Ciências, saúde – Manguinhos 22(2): 577–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Monteiro, M., and E. Keating. 2009. Managing Misunderstandings: The Role of Language in Interdisciplinary Scientific Collaboration. Science Communication 31(1): 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Monteiro, M., S. Seixas, and S. Vieira. 2014. The Politics of Amazonian Deforestation: Environmental Policy and Climate Change Knowledge. WIREs Climatic Change 5: 689–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Morita, A. 2013. Traveling Engineers, Machines, and Comparisons: Intersecting Imaginations and Journeys in the Thai Local Engineering Industry. East Asian Science Technology and Society 7(2): 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mosse, D. 2005. Cultivating Development: An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  45. ———. 2006. Anti-social Anthropology? Objectivity, Objection, and the Ethnography of Public Policy and Professional Communities. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 12(4): 935–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. ———. 2007. Notes on the Ethnography of Expertise and Professionals in International Development. Ethnografeast III ‘Ethnography and the Public Sphere’, Lisbon.Google Scholar
  47. Nelkin, D. 1975. The Political Impact of Technical Expertise. Social Studies of Science 5(1): 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. ———. 1992. Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Nepstad, D., C. Stickler, B. Soares-Filho, and F. Merry. 2008. Interactions among Amazon Land Use, Forests and Climate: Prospects for a Near-term Forest Tipping Point. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 363: 1737–1746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nobre, C., P. Sellers, and J. Shukla. 1991. Amazonian Deforestation and Regional Climate Change. Journal of Climate 4: 957–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Owen, R., P. Macnaghten, and J. Stilgoe. 2012. Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society. Science and Public Policy 39(6): 751–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pereira, G. 2008. Política Espacial Brasileira e a Trajetória do INPE (1961–2007). PhD dissertation, State University of Campinas.Google Scholar
  53. Pickering, A. 1993. The Mangle of Practice: Agency and Emergence in the Sociology of Science. The American Journal of Sociology 99(3): 559–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rabinow, P., and G. Bennett. 2012. Designing Human Practices: An Experiment with Synthetic Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rajão, R. 2012. ICTBased Monitoring of Climate Change Related Deforestation: The Case of INPE in the Brazilian Amazon. NICCD. Accessed 16 Dec 2016.
  56. Rajão, R., and T. Vurdubakis. 2013. On the Pragmatics of Inscription: Detecting Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Theory, Culture and Society 30(4): 151–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sébastien, L., T. Bauler, and M. Lehtonen. 2014. Can Indicators Bridge the Gap between Science and Policy? An Exploration into the (Non) Use and (Non) Influence of Indicators in EU and UK Policy Making. Nature and Culture 9(3): 316–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shackley, S., and B. Wynne. 1996. Representing Uncertainty in Global Climate Change Science and Policy: Boundary-Ordering Devices and Authority. Science, Technology and Human Values 21(3): 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shore, C., and S. Wright. 2003. Anthropology of Policy: Perspectives on Governance and Power. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Stilgoe, J., R. Owen, and P. Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation. Research Policy 42: 1568–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vergara, W., and S. Scholz 2011 Assessment of the Risk of Amazon Dieback. The World Bank. Accessed 5 Nov 2015.
  62. Victor, D. 2015. Embed the Social Sciences in Climate Policy. Nature 520: 27–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marko Monteiro
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Science and Technology PolicyInstitute of Geosciences (IG), State University of Campinas, UNICAMPCampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations