From thing to sign and "natural object": Toward a genetic phenomenology of graph interpretation

Science Technology and Human Values

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 327-356

  Roth, Wolff Michael ^a   Bowen, G Michael ^b   Masciotra, Domenico ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA   (Canada)

^b LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À TROIS RIVIÈRES   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036092666     PISSN: 01622439     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/016439027003001     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Barwise, J. 1988. On the circumstantial relation between meaning and content. In Meaning and mental representations, edited by U. Eco, M. Santambrogio, and P. Violi, 23-39. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
2. Bastide, F. 1990. The iconography of scientific texts: Principles of analysis. In Representation in scientific practice, edited by M. Lynch and S. Woolgar, 187-229. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Bertin, J. 1983. Semiology of graphics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
4. Bourdieu, P. 1980. Le sens pratique. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
5. Bowen, G. M., and W.-M. Roth. 1998. Are preservice science teachers prepared to teach inquiry? Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, 13-17 April, San Diego, CA.
6. Bowen, G. M., W.-M. Roth, and M. K. McGinn. 1999. Interpretations of graphs by university biology students and practicing scientists: Towards a social practice view of scientific representation practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36:1020-43.
7. Brown, J. S., and P. Duguid. 1992. Enacting design for the workplace. In Usability: Turning technologies into tools, edited by P. S. Adler and T. A. Winograd, 164-97. New York: Oxford University Press.
8. Derrida, J. 1981. Dissemination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9. _. Monolingualism of the other; or, the prosthesis of origin. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
10. Eco, U. 1976. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
11. _. 1984a. The name of the rose. Boston, MA: G. K. Hall.
12. _. 1984b. Semiotics and the philosophy of language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
13. Edgerton, S. 1985. The renaissance development of the scientific illustration. In Science and the arts in the renaissance, edited by J. Shirley and D. Hoeniger, 168-97. Washington, DC: Folger Shakespeare Library.
14. Garfinkel, H., M. Lynch, and E. Livingston. 1981. The work of a discovering science construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11:131-58.
15. Goodwin, C. 1995. Seeing in depth. Social Studies of Science 25:237-74.
16. Heidegger, M. 1977. Sein und zeit (Being and time). Tübingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer.
17. Latour, B. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
18. _. 1992. Aramis ou l'amour des techniques (Aramis or the love of technology). Paris: Éditions la Découverte.
19. _. 1993. La clef de Berlin et autres leçons d'un amateur de sciences (The key to Berlin and other lessons of a science lover). Paris: Éditions la Découverte.
20. Lave, J. 1988. Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21. Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22. Lavoie, J. 1998. Moth imperils B.C. economy. Times Colonist, 17 October, A1, A2.
23. Lee, S., and W.-M. Roth. 2001. How ditch and drain become a healthy creek: Representations, translations and agency during the re/design of a watershed. Social Studies of Science, 31:315-56.
24. Lemke, J. L. 1998. Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In Reading science, edited by J. R. Martin and R. Veel, 87-113. London: Routledge.
25. Livingston, E. 1995. An anthropology of reading. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
26. Lynch, M. 1991. Method: Measurement-ordinary and scientific measurement as elhnometh-odological phenomena. In Ethnomethodology and the human sciences, edited by G. Button, 77-108. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27. Lynch, M., and S. Woolgar. eds. 1990. Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Ochs, E., P. Gonzales, and S. Jacoby. 1996. "When I come down I'm in the domain state": Grammar and graphic representation in the interpretive activity of physicists. In Interaction and grammar, edited by E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, and S. A. Thompson, 328-69. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29. Pickering, A. 1995. The mangle of practice: Time, agency, & science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30. Preziosi, D. 1986. The multimodality of communicative events. In Frontiers in semiotics, edited by J. Deely, B. Williams, and F. E. Kruse, 44-50. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
31. Ricklefs, R. E. 1990. Ecology. 3d ed. New York: Freeman.
32. Ricæur, P. 1991. From text to action: Essays in hermeneutics, II. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
33. _. 1992. Oneself as another. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34. Roth, W.-M. 1996. The co-evolution of situated language and physics knowing. Journal of Science Education and Technology 3:171-91.
35. _. Forthcoming. Graphing Henderson Creek: A case of relations in sociomaterial practice. In The development of notational representations, edited by S. Strauss. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
36. Roth, W.-M., and G. M. Bowen. 1999a. Complexities of graphical representations during lectures: A phenomenological approach. Learning and Instruction 9:235-55.
37. _. 1999b. Digitizing lizards or the topology of vision in ecological fieldwork. Social Studies of Science 29:719-64.
38. _. 1999c. Of cannibals, missionaries, and converts: Graphing competencies from grade 8 to professional science inside classrooms and outside field/laboratory. Science, Technology, & Human Values 24;179-212.
39. _. 2001a. Of disciplined minds and disciplined bodies. Qualitative Sociology 24 (4): 459-81.
40. _. 2001b. Professionals read graphs: A semiotic analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32:159-94.
41. Roth, W.-M., G. M. Bowen, and M. K. McGinn. 1999. Differences in graph-related practices between high school biology textbooks and scientific ecology journals. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36:977-1019.
42. Roth, W.-M., M. K. McGinn, and G. M. Bowen. 1998. How prepared are preservice teachers to leach scientific inquiry? Levels of performance in scientific represenlalion practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education 9:25-48.
43. Saint-Martin, F. 1990. Semiotics of visual language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
44. Schank, R. C. 1994. Goal-based scenarios: A radical look at education. Journal of the Learning Sciences 3:429-53.
45. Schiano, D. J., and B. Tversky. 1992. Structure and strategy in encoding simplified graphs. Memory & Cognition 20:12-20.
46. Scribner, S. 1986. Thinking in action: Some characteristics of practical thought. In Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world, edited by R. J. Sternberg and R. K. Wagner, 13-30. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47. Sharrock, W., and G. Button. 1991. The social actor: Social action in real time. In Ethnomethodology and the human sciences, edited by G. Button, 137-75. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48. Tabachneck-Schijf, H.J.M., A. M. Leonardo, and H. A. Simon. 1997. CaMeRa: A computational model for multiple representations. Cognitive Science 21:305-50.
49. Woolgar, S. 1990. Time and documents in researcher interaction: Some ways of making out what is happening in experimental science. In Representation in scientific practice, edited by M. Lynch and S. Woolgar, 123-52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.