A History of Genomic Structures: The Big Picture

2015 ◽  
pp. 131-178
Author(s):  
Nicolas Carels
Keyword(s):  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
William A. Kretzschmar

Abstract In the history of linguistics there have been crucial moments when those of us interested in language have essentially changed the way we study our subject. We stand now at such a moment. In this presentation I will review the history of linguistics in order to highlight some past important changes in the field, and then turn to where we stand now. Some things that we thought we knew have turned out not to be true, like the systematic, logical nature of languages. Other things that we had not suspected, like a universal underlying emergent pattern for all the features of a language, are now evident. This emergent pattern is fractal, that is, we can observe the same distributional pattern in frequency profiles for linguistic variants at every level of scale in our analysis. We also have hints that time, as the persistence of a preference for particular variants of features, is a much more important part of our language than we had previously believed. We need to explore the new realities of language as we now understand them, chief among them the idea that patterned variation, not logical system, is the central factor in human speech. In order to account for what we now understand, we need to get used to new methods of study and presentation, and place new emphasis on different communities and groups of speakers. Because the underlying pattern of language is fractal, we need to examine the habits of every group of speakers at every location for themselves, as opposed to our previous emphasis on overall grammars. We need to make our studies much more local, as opposed to global. We do still want to make grammars and to understand language in global terms, but such generalizations need to follow from what we can now see as the pattern of language as it is actually used.


Author(s):  
Stephen Rippon

In his review of South East Britain in the later Iron Age, Hill (2007, 16) observed that ‘Since the 1980s, little attention has been given to large-scale social explanations and narratives in British Iron Age archaeology. Debates over core–periphery models, the interpretation of hillforts, and the nature of social organization, were—for good reason—eclipsed by a focus on the symbolic meanings of space, structured deposition, and ritual.’ He goes on to argue that British archaeology is in need of more ‘straightforward storyboards’ around which data can be arranged (Hill 2007, 16), and Brudenell (2012, 52) has similarly noted how ‘close-grained understandings have often been won at the expense of broader pictures . . . [and that] with a few exceptions, recent approaches have atomized the study of later prehistoric society, focussing on the specifics of the local social milieu at the expense of broader scales of social analysis’. There have been some ‘big picture’ studies—most notably Cunliffe’s (1974; 1978; 1991; 2005) Iron Age Communities in Britain—but all too often studies of this period have focused on specific counties, types of site, or artefact, and it is noticeable how little systematic mapping of data there was in three recent collections of papers (Gwilt and Haselgrove 1997; Haselgrove and Moore 2007; Haselgrove and Pope 2007). This study, in contrast, aims to shed light on one important ‘storyboard’: the territorial structures within which communities built their landscapes. The written history of Britain begins in the first century BC when we first get insights into its political and territorial arrangements, although as this was a period when the island was becoming embroiled in the political instability caused by the expansion of the Roman world, the trends seen then may not reflect the longer-term patterns of territorial stability or instability that preceded it. In 54 BC, for example, Caesar describes how his major opponents were a civitas (usually translated as ‘tribe’) who had recently surpassed the neighbouring Trinovantes as the paramount group in South East Britain (Gallic War, 20–1; Dunnett 1975, 8; Moore 2011).


Author(s):  
Renée Spencer ◽  
Julia M. Pryce ◽  
Jill Walsh

This chapter reviews some of the major overarching philosophical approaches to qualitative inquiry and includes some historical background for each. Taking a “big picture” view, the chapter discusses post-positivism, constructivism, critical theory, feminism, and queer theory and offers a brief history of these approaches; considers the ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions on which they rest; and details some of their distinguishing features. In the last section, attention is turned to the future, identifying three overarching, interrelated, and contested issues with which the field is being confronted and will be compelled to address as it moves forward: retaining the rich diversity that has defined the field, the articulation of recognizable standards for qualitative research, and the commensurability of differing approaches.


1993 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 469-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ludmilla Jordanova

The production of big pictures is arguably the most significant sign of the intellectual maturity of a field. It suggests both that the field's broad contours, refined over several generations of scholarship, enjoy the approval of practitioners, and that audiences exist with an interest in or need for overviews. The situation is somewhat more complicated in the history of science, since the existence of big historical pictures precedes that of a well-defined scholarly field by about two centuries. Broadly conceived histories of science and medicine were being written in the eighteenth century, when such an all-encompassing vision was central to the claims about the progress of knowledge upon which Enlightenment ideologues set such store. The Plato to Nato style histories, characteristic of the earlier twentieth century, were written largely by isolated pioneers, and while these were used in teaching as the field was becoming professionalized, recent scholars have preferred to concentrate on a monographic style of research. Despite the existence of the series started by Wiley, and now published by Cambridge University Press, it is only in the last ten years or so that more conscious attempts have been made to generate a big-picture literature informed by new scholarship. It is noteworthy that most of this is addressed to students and general readers, although there is no logical reason why it should not tackle major theoretical issues of concern to scholars. My point about maturity still holds, then, since as a designated discipline the history of science is rather new; it is still feeling out its relationship with cognate disciplines. Big-picture histories have an important role to play in these explorations since they make findings and ideas widely available and thereby offer material through which ambitious interpretations can be debated, modified and transformed.


Metascience ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-169
Author(s):  
Victor D. Boantza

1993 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 407-432 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Cunningham ◽  
Perry Williams

Like it or not, a big picture of the history of science is something which we cannot avoid. Big pictures are, of course, thoroughly out of fashion at the moment; those committed to specialist research find them simplistic and insufficiently complex and nuanced, while postmodernists regard them as simply impossible. But however specialist we may be in our research, however scornful of the immaturity of grand narratives, it is not so easy to escape from dependence – acknowledged or not – on a big picture. When we define our research as part of the history of science, we implicitly invoke a big picture of that history to give identity and meaning to our specialism. When we teach the history of science, even if we do not present a big picture explicitly, our students already have a big picture of that history which they bring to our classes and into which they fit whatever we say, no matter how many complications and refinements and contradictions we put before them – unless we offer them an alternative big picture.


Author(s):  
Filiz Mete ◽  
Serife Buyukkose ◽  
Ozlem Cakir ◽  
Ummugulsum Candeger

Nowadays, learning and instruction take place independent of time and space through the distance education system,wherein courses are conducted completely online through network technologies using interactive video -based instructional materials. This study examines the open and distance education system that was a part of the history of education in the Turkish republic first at universities, and then in high sch ools and secondary schools. It is aimed to narrate the history of open and distance education using graph theory trees in order to provide a better understanding of this process. Within this context, the project YAYÇEP may be mentioned. Historical developments can be narrated in a chronological order through graph theory trees, and this makes it possible to see the big picture. Open and distance education is discussed, historical information is given and, finally, a graph theory tree drawn using the graph theory is used to explain the topic.Keywords: Distance education, open education, graph theory, the history of distance education.


2016 ◽  
Vol 138 (05) ◽  
pp. 44-49
Author(s):  
James G. Skakoon

This article presents views and experiences of several engineers. Experts point out that books about the nature and history of technology can help round out an engineering education. Spencer Bondhus, a B.S.M.E degree holder, has been developing new products in the medical device industry. Adam Leemans has completed a Master of Science degree in energy and sustainability. Jill Hershman, another B.S.M.E graduate, finds Fearless Leadership: High-Performance Lessons From the Flight Deck by Carey D. Lohrenz very helpful in broad engineering thinking. Maxim Budyansky, the chief technology officer and co-founder of Avitus Orthopaedics, likes to learn about different ways of thinking as in The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom by Don Miguel Ruiz and Become What You Are by Alan W. Watts and also from self-improvement books like Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People.


2020 ◽  
pp. 46-61
Author(s):  
Alberto Campagnolo

Because of the prominence of book covers, the history of bookbindings has long been synonymous with the history of bookbinding decoration. These “outsides” of books carry plentiful information, but so do their often-ignored “insides,” since bookbinding structures and materials changed with time and geography. Beautiful decorations catch the eyes of many, but binding structures can also be read as full of historical information. New technologies make old books available in an unprecedented manner, but in configurations that have mostly ignored their original forms: complete book digitization requires more than photographs and transcriptions. The digital now offers new possibilities: books can be presented in the manner of the cubist painter, offering their outsides and insides concurrently. Through digital means, books as objects can begin to be read more wholly, leading to a better understanding of the big picture of the history of the book.


1993 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 391-405 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. R. R. Christie

This essay offers some preliminary and general considerations of big picture historiography of science, attempting an introductory specification of the topic by means of narratological analysis. It takes no strong, substantive position either pro or contra big pictures themselves, preferring an approach which is more diagnostic and heuristic in nature. After considering what may be meant by a term such as ‘big picture’ and its cognates, it interrogates the kind of desire which could lie behind the wish expressed by the conference title ‘Getting the Big Picture’: namely, that a big picture may be worth getting. It proceeds by way of a limited enquiry into what seems to be felt as a relative absence of big picture works in contemporary historiography, criticizing one very general historicocultural thesis which accounts for such an absence, advancing instead evolving features of the professional history of science community over the last thirty years as reasons for this relative absence. Concludingly, it turns the issues raised thus far on their head, in some measure at least. In trying for a more precise specification of the contemporary historiographical formation, we will discover eventually a situation not so much of relative absence of big pictures, rather one where there exists both frame and title for the picture, together with some distinguished painters' names; but where the canvas is only minimally marked, a partial and shadowy sketch, stylistically disjoined. Although this sounds paradoxical, a concrete paradox is not intended. The existence of frame and title enclosing mainly empty canvas indicates only the limitations of the pictorial metaphor for describing complex and developing sets of historiographical practice. What is instanced concludingly is less a theoretical paradox than an intelligible sequence and form of development which issues in a potential problem of practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document