...and that such analyses of the relationships of power between disciplines can help understand dynamics in interdisciplinary fields, the reception of different ideas, or why some authors are seen as ‘ahead of their time’.

#TheEnd

I argue that these discussions can be illuminated by understanding the history of evolutionary biology as marked by practices of diffuse gatekeeping and selective acceptance of concepts and theories on the grounds of these biased standards…

Although the discussants did not perfectly track disciplinary boundaries, the ability of paleontology to provide theories and explanations that contradicted pop. gen. assumptions seemed to be at the core of the controversy.

Participants in this controversy did not agree on the nature of valid evidence, or on the meaning of notions such as ‘stasis’, and would shift the discussion back and forth reflecting their own disciplinary background.

My central case study is the controversy around the Turkana Lake molluscan fossils, presented in 1981 as representing a case of punctuated equilibrium. I show that the discussion that followed reflected wider disagreements regarding the standards for evolutionary biology. (🖼️ Williamson, 1981)

...and that, specially after the so-called ‘hardening’ of the MS, these limited or constrained the contributions of other disciplines. Here I focus on paleontology, and show the dissatisfaction that was mounting between paleontologists because of this.

I illustrate this with the historical case of evolutionary biology, particularly the setting of standards, and their ensuing ‘tightening’, by the architects of the Modern Synthesis (MS). I argue that these reflected mostly those of population genetics…

For example, relationships of power (or other factors during the initial negotiations of standards) might favor one of the original disciplines, allowing them to impose their own standards preferentially in the new field.

In the paper I examine gatekeeping as the result of establishing standards in interdisciplinary fields, with a focus on the situations in which these standards are “unfair” for some of the participant disciplines.

Thanks to you for your talk and the discussions during the breaks! Amazing workshop really