Ethnophysiography: An exploration of Transdisciplinarity

1
EthnophysiographyAn exploration
ofTrans-disciplinarity

• by
• Andrew Turk
• SEMINAR
• School of IT, Murdoch University
• 28th May, 2004

2
Collaborators

• Prof. David Mark
• Department of Geography, Buffalo University
  (USA)
• Members of the Roebourne community,
  especially Allery Sandy, Trevor Solomon, Marion
  Cheedy, Nita Fishook, and Jane Cheedy provided
  invaluable assistance regarding the Yindjibarndi
  language.
• Plus other academic researchers from many
  disciplines philosophy IT cognitive science
  geography anthropology linguistics cultural
  studies, etc etc

3
Research Integration

• Disciplinary
• Multi-disciplinary
• Inter-disciplinary
• Trans-disciplinary
• Post-disciplinary
• Increasing levels of integration of fields of
  knowledge and research paradigms
• to address complex messy problems
• This research project is a good example.

4
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE Facilitating the
interoperability of Spatial Information Systems
(SIS), via examination of inter-cultural
aspects of spatial understanding and
classification of geographic features. Question
s of ontology and epistemology are central to the
development of enhanced SIS interoperability.
Allowing for culture is deeper then the
adjusting GUI. Ethnophysiography is a new
ethnoscience of landforms.
5
Research fieldwork with Yindjibarndi language
6
Looking towards the coast from tableland
7
The tableland
8
Ethnophysiography Study with the Yindjibarndi
People - words used for hills and water features
A yinda called "Nangarnyungu At Jindawarrina
A marnda near Jindawarrina
9
marnda
bargu
burbaa
10
mountain
marnda
bargu
hill
burbaa
11
Water flow

• Yindjibarndi also has two words for water flow in
  nature
• Manggurdu is the term for flood, or for other
  strong, deep water flow
• Yijirdi is the Yindjibarndi word for a shallow,
  narrow flow or trickle of water
• It appears that, unlike in English, the
  Yindjibandi treat the water flow and the channel
  as different things

12
Types of water

• In Yindjibarndi permanent and temporary water
  features that otherwise appear similar are
  considered to be different kinds of features
• English, in contrast, treats permanence of water
  bodies and water courses as only an attribute or
  property, and expresses it through adjectives
  such as "temporary", "seasonal", "intermittent",
  or "ephemeral"
• This is a significant difference between
  Yindjibarndi and English in the conceptualization
  of watercourses

13
General conclusion - Yindjibarndi study None of
the Yindjibarndi terms for landscape features is
exactly equivalent to one single term in English.
Yindjibarndi terms divide up sub-domains of
geographic reality quite differently than do
English terms. (more details in Mark/Turk
COSIT03 paper) The results support the
ethnophysiography hypothesis that people from
different places and cultures use different
conceptual categories for geographic
features. Hence, we want to investigate the
ontological issues involved in Ethnophysiography,
in ways which do not confer special status to any
particular worldview. Need a trans-disciplinary
approach.
14
Start from fundamentals Kindedness   Things in
the world have (inherent) "properties" and also
"attributes" assigned to them (by individuals,
groups, conventions, fiats, etc), which may be
assigned because of some properties or
irrespective of any properties.   Discontinuities
in perceptible properties lead people to group
things into categories (different kinds). This
meta-attribute could be termed "kindedness".
15
A group of objects (or phenomena) exhibiting high
kindedness (and high perceptibility of
differentiating properties) will produce
categorizations which are self-differentiating
manifest evident intuitively obvious
inescapable and unambiguous - leading to
"non-collusive unanimity" of categorization.
example The ability to perceive the kindedness
may depend on personal attributes of people (e.g.
visual acuity cognitive style), or experience
(expertise prior knowledge), or technical
apparatus (e.g. a microscope). Hence, to this
extent, the perceptibility of kindedness is only
partly in the thing itself, and partly a
function of attributes of the observer and the
observation process and technology.
16
Categorization may be individual or influenced by
social/cultural processes - e.g. conventions
laws. We may learn categorizations and not
bother seeking alternatives (of our own
devising).   Language greatly lessens the need
for individuals to develop their own
categorizations.
17
Kindedness Continuum
landforms A v B I----------------
--------------------------------------------------
---------I A maximum kindedness (and
perceptibility of kindedness) - leads to
"self-evident categorisation". Such "natural
kinds" (if they exist at all) may or may not be
recognised by human (or other) agents. B
minimum kindedness (and perceptibility of
kindedness) - kinds need to be generated by
assigning nominal "fictive categories. In
between there is a continuum of kindedness.
18

• Ontology, in its long-established philosophical
  sense,
• seeks to identify the constituents of reality.
• However, philosophers from different traditions
  have alternative explanations of what constitutes
  reality and how it may be known and categorized
  e.g.
• Are 'meanings' in the world or in people's
  heads?
• Is ontology about reality or concepts?
• Is it meaningful to talk about multiple
  ontologies
• or is there only the (big O) Ontology?
• Are ontologies strictly about (physical) reality
  (truth)
• or can they include 'mere' beliefs? e.g.
  warlu in yinda
• Do ontologies consist of words or thoughts, or
  both?
• Where does 'ontology' finish and 'epistemology'
  start,
• or do they overlap?

19
In its more recent Information Systems sense, an
ontology is a logical theory that provides "an
explicit, partial account of a conceptualization"
. (Guarino and Giaretta, 1995, p. 32) The
ontology stipulates the taxonomy that forms the
basis of a data dictionary used in building an
information system. For an ethnographer, it is
important that the meanings adopted for the terms
'ontology' and 'epistemology' are coherent with
the worldview of a particular speech community
(cultural group). (Watson-Verran and Turnbull,
1995)
20
Interdisciplinary communication is being
inhibited by the lack of a common agreed
terminological basis for the discussion of
ontology, in the context of geo-spatial
information. We needed terms to use in
Ethnophysiography. Redefining existing terms and
convincing others to adopt such definitions seems
futile. This need led to the new framework of
'Conceptualizations of a Domain (COADs). This
acts as an over-arching paradigm/taxonomy/terminol
ogy trans-disciplinary
21
Suggested initial set of Conceptualizations of a
Domain (COADs)

• O-COAD Categories in the World
• X-COAD Categories in the Human Environment
• (à la Gibson) affordances
• P-COAD Categories in one Mind
• G-COAD Shared Categories within a Group
• U-COAD Human categorization Universals perhaps
• L-COAD Categories Embodied the Words of a
  Language
• E-COAD Categories resulting from an Ethnography
• IS-COAD Categories entailed in the data
  dictionary of
• an Information System

22
Note These top 3 COADs are external models of
the human-environment-language system
U-COAD Human categorization Universals
E-COAD Categories resulting from an ethnography
IS-COAD Categories entailed in the data
dictionary of an Information System
Speech Community (Whorf? Searle? Social
Reality? Memes? Analogous to species?)
G-COAD Shared categories within a Group
L-COAD Categories Embodied in the Words and
Grammar of a Language
Geographic Cognition
P-COAD Categories in one Mind
People
Environment

• X-COAD Categories in the Human Environment (à la
  Gibson)
• Affordances
• Perceptions

Utility of Kinds
Perceptibility of Kindedness
O-COAD Physical Reality
Kindedness in the World
23
This research can have practical
implications. e.g. - Ngarluma and Yindjibarndi
native title claim. The Australian Federal Court
recently found that the Ngarluma and Yindjibarndi
peoples hold non-exclusive rights over parts of
the claim area. Hence, joint management of land
use is necessary. Could make use of
interoperable, companion SIS, one using English
terminology (AUSLIG ontology) and other using
Yindjibarndi landscape concepts. The
trans-disciplinary approach provides the
integration of disciplines to facilitate this.
24
For development of cross-cultural interoperable
SIS need to determine the data dictionaries
(IS-COADs). SIS must incorporate the way
landscape is thought about in the Yindjibarndi
worldview (G-COAD). So utilize the landform
terminology (L-COAD), informed by ethnographic
study (E-COAD). For instance, in protocols for
community consultation regarding clearing of
non-native water weeds, would need to establish
an appropriate mapping between the Yindjibarndi
term "yinda" (permanent pool, complete with
"warlu" spirit) and the AUSLIG feature codes for
lake and waterhole.
25
It may be possible to break down the (physical)
characteristics of all landscape features into
primitives (size, shape, height/depth, etc.) to
establish the required terminological
mapping. Or the differences in
conceptualizations (G-COADs) may be so complex as
to require that each feature be individually
(double) classified in the field. Although
this latter alternative may seem
labour-intensive, it could have the added
advantage of establishing the proper name of each
significant landscape feature, and also it would
be a process which demonstrates respect for the
knowledge of the local people.
26
CONCLUSIONS Much more ethnophysiography research
is needed - work in SW of US has started. The
COADs formulation is a way of structuring such
investigations and facilitating
trans-disciplinary discussions. This may assist
in understanding issues concerning spatial
concepts and ontology, and hence assist with SIS
interoperability.
27
Research Approach

• Trans-disciplinary methodology
• Integration of knowledge domains IS, Geography,
  Philosophy, Psychology, anthropology,
  linguistics, etc, etc
• Positivist, Interpretivist and Critical research
  paradigms used
• On-going process re methods and outcomes

28
ANY QUESTIONS or COMMENTS ?