Ethnobiology is the study of relationships between humans and the biological world, more concisely termed biocultural research. Given the current environmental crisis, there is a lot at stake in this field of study because ethnobiologists study the relationships between humans and environments in most (if not all) times and places. My impression is that most ethnobiologists encounter this area of study through college courses and programs in anthropology that focus on ethnobotany and paleoethnobotany, the studies of humans and plants today and in the past. I first encountered the Journal of Ethnobiology (JOE: published by the Society of Ethnobiology [SOE]) in a class that I took in graduate school, zooarchaeology. The paper I read from the JOE was ‘Zooarchaeology and Taphonomy: A General Consideration’ by R. Lee Lyman, the professor who was teaching the class I took. Lee Lyman is decidedly not a person who studies plants! Another paper that I really enjoyed, by zooarchaeologist Don Grayson, was published in the first issue of JOE in 1981. I really liked these papers, so I immediately came to think that the Journal of Ethnobiology was a common place to publish papers on zooarchaeology.
In theory, my conclusion should have been correct, but in reality it was not. Much to Lee Lyman’s (and my) chagrin, JOE has never matured into a home publication for zooarchaeologists (I know this because Lee has told me of his frustration about it). Today, I am the Treasurer of the SOE, and I think there are some very good reasons why the JOE is not the venue I once thought it was. At the risk of offending some of my colleagues, I will voice some opinions about ethnobiology, SOE, and JOE in the rest of this post that pertain to the past, present, and future directions of ethnobiology.
The SOE was founded in 1978 by a diverse array of scholars including conservation biologists, ecologists, and anthropologists, but within a decade or two SOE was becoming increasingly (though by no means exclusively) anthropological. Further, the focus within anthropological ethnobiology tended to be on botanical topics and now and then on paleoethnobotany, ethnozoology, ethnolinguistics, and zooarchaeology. Through attrition, the focus of SOE swung away from its broad base. For years, as I see it (and I hold the membership records), numerous big figures in the field of ethnobiology served on the SOE board, but eventually the first wave of SOE ethnobiologists ran their course and the society hit a period during which it simply maintained itself. Many of the important scholars retained their memberships each year, many did not.
Today there is a new wave of ethnobiologists becoming involved in the SOE, and we are welcomed with open arms by our senior colleagues. However, we face some new challenges. How, for example, do we embrace our anthropological roots while once again broadening our base? Many senior researchers have moved away from ethnobiology or have simply adopted other academic communities (societies). A small industry of journals now publishes ethnobiological topics, and the JOE is no longer the umbrella publication it once was. It can be again, and under the current editors it is poised to do so. I think there are three things we must do to grow in a sustainable, healthy manner.
In theory, my conclusion should have been correct, but in reality it was not. Much to Lee Lyman’s (and my) chagrin, JOE has never matured into a home publication for zooarchaeologists (I know this because Lee has told me of his frustration about it). Today, I am the Treasurer of the SOE, and I think there are some very good reasons why the JOE is not the venue I once thought it was. At the risk of offending some of my colleagues, I will voice some opinions about ethnobiology, SOE, and JOE in the rest of this post that pertain to the past, present, and future directions of ethnobiology.
The SOE was founded in 1978 by a diverse array of scholars including conservation biologists, ecologists, and anthropologists, but within a decade or two SOE was becoming increasingly (though by no means exclusively) anthropological. Further, the focus within anthropological ethnobiology tended to be on botanical topics and now and then on paleoethnobotany, ethnozoology, ethnolinguistics, and zooarchaeology. Through attrition, the focus of SOE swung away from its broad base. For years, as I see it (and I hold the membership records), numerous big figures in the field of ethnobiology served on the SOE board, but eventually the first wave of SOE ethnobiologists ran their course and the society hit a period during which it simply maintained itself. Many of the important scholars retained their memberships each year, many did not.
Today there is a new wave of ethnobiologists becoming involved in the SOE, and we are welcomed with open arms by our senior colleagues. However, we face some new challenges. How, for example, do we embrace our anthropological roots while once again broadening our base? Many senior researchers have moved away from ethnobiology or have simply adopted other academic communities (societies). A small industry of journals now publishes ethnobiological topics, and the JOE is no longer the umbrella publication it once was. It can be again, and under the current editors it is poised to do so. I think there are three things we must do to grow in a sustainable, healthy manner.
1) We cannot afford to celebrate our anthropological roots too forcefully. Ecological anthropologists will always play a central role in the SOE, but the nature of scholarship these days is interdisciplinary, especially in the realm of environmental research. Thus, we must cast a wide net and provide a home that integrates research from a multitude of scholarly enterprises, such as environmental media, traditional ecological knowledge, environmental science, conservation biology, and environmental philosophy (to name just a few areas). We have witnessed success in this direction at our last few conferences and in the second issue of the JOE in 2009 (Volume 29, Issue 2 on Traditional Environmental Management, edited by Dana Lepofsky). But we must continue to grow in this direction.
2) We must make ethnobiology sustainable through more comprehensive investment in the future generations of environmental researchers. Healthy societies invest heavily in young scholars through reduced dues, student awards (see current awards), mentoring programs, and publication opportunities. There is no escaping the fact that SOE must institutionalize its support of the next generation. When the society was born this was not as necessary, but today the marketplace of ideas is crowded with many a society, many a publication outlet, and more than one way to skin the proverbial environmental research cat.
3) We (environmental researchers) must publish in the JOE, often. Big wigs, young guns, and researchers from broad backgrounds must use JOE as an outlet if the SOE is to be an umbrella forum for research on human-environment interactions and biocultural scholarship. We simply do not use this outlet enough. The JOE is now indexed, all back issues are available through the SOE website, issues are up-to-date and on time, and the JOE is complemented by a new monograph series (Contributions in Ethnobiology) and an open-access, online, short papers journal (Ethnobiology Letters). All the SOE requires is participation.
2) We must make ethnobiology sustainable through more comprehensive investment in the future generations of environmental researchers. Healthy societies invest heavily in young scholars through reduced dues, student awards (see current awards), mentoring programs, and publication opportunities. There is no escaping the fact that SOE must institutionalize its support of the next generation. When the society was born this was not as necessary, but today the marketplace of ideas is crowded with many a society, many a publication outlet, and more than one way to skin the proverbial environmental research cat.
3) We (environmental researchers) must publish in the JOE, often. Big wigs, young guns, and researchers from broad backgrounds must use JOE as an outlet if the SOE is to be an umbrella forum for research on human-environment interactions and biocultural scholarship. We simply do not use this outlet enough. The JOE is now indexed, all back issues are available through the SOE website, issues are up-to-date and on time, and the JOE is complemented by a new monograph series (Contributions in Ethnobiology) and an open-access, online, short papers journal (Ethnobiology Letters). All the SOE requires is participation.
The SOE has been undergoing an exciting transition during the last five years. It has been a pleasure to serve on the Society’s board during this period, but we remain static in terms of membership numbers. And the editors of the JOE continue to hope to attract better and better papers. With all due respect to the SOE of the past, I remain hopeful that we will provide an even broader umbrella for biocultural research in the future.
0 comments:
Post a Comment