The “balance of nature” metaphor has been used to explain the functioning of natural systems from ancient times and continues to be invoked in popular culture, in spite of controversy regarding its use in the scientific community. We demonstrate that undergraduate students in the United States believe this term is descriptive of real ecological systems, and continue to do so after instruction in ecological science. A content analysis of students' definitions of the “balance of nature” and its causes varied widely with multiple, often contradictory, interpretations. A second survey confirmed that the range of definitions generated by students was representative of the larger educated population. Common responses included population regulation, species interactions, absence of disturbance and Nature. We speculate that the lack of a fixed meaning for the balance of nature term could lead to problems in education, public policy, and the transmission of ecological concepts to the general public.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Boyd, R. (1993) “Metaphor and Theory Change: What is `Metaphor' a Metaphor For?,'” in A. Ortony (ed.) Metaphor and Thought, pp. 381—532. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
2.
Cicero (1938) De natura deorum, trans. H. Rackham. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3.
Cooper, G. (2001) “Must There Be a Balance of Nature?,” Biology and Philosophy16: 481—506.
4.
Cuddington, K. (2001) “The `Balance of Nature' Metaphor and Equilibrium in Population Ecology,” Biology and Philosophy16: 463—79.
5.
Derrida, J. (1978) Writing and Difference, trans. A. Bass. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Eden, S. (1996) “Public Participation in Environmental Policy ,” Public Understanding of Science5: 183—204.
7.
Egerton, F.N. (1973) “Changing Concepts of the Balance of Nature ,” Quarterly Review of Biology48: 322—50.
8.
Forbes, S.A. (1887) “The Lake as a Microcosm,” Bulletin of the Peoria Scientific Associations pp. 77—87. Reprinted in Bulletin of the Illinois State Natural History Survey (1925) 15: 537—50.
9.
Grotzer, T.A. and Basca, B.B. (2003) “How Does Grasping the Underlying Causal Structures of Ecosystems Impact Students' Understanding?,” Journal of BiologicalEducation38: 1—14.
10.
Groves, F.H. and Pugh, A.F. (2002) “Cognitive Illusions as Hindrances to Learning Complex Environmental Issues,” Journal of Science Education and Technology11: 381—90.
11.
Hastings, A., Hom, C., Ellner, S., Turchin, P. and Godfray, H.C.J. (1993) “Chaos in Ecology: Is Mother Nature a Strange Attractor?,” Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics24: 1—33.
12.
Hogan, K. (2002) “Small Groups' Ecological Reasoning while Making an Environmental Management Decision,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching39: 341—68.
13.
Kingsland, S.E. (1985) Modelling Nature: Episodes in the History of Population Ecology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
14.
McCloskey, M. (1983) “Naive Theories of Motion,” in D. Gentner and A.L. Stevens (eds) Mental Models, pp. 299—324. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
Miller, J.L. and Bartsch, K. (1997) “The Development of Biological Explanation: Are Children Vitalists?,” Developmental Psychology33: 156—64.
16.
Orne, M.T. (1962) “On the Social Psychology of the Psychological Experiment: With Particular Reference to Demand Characteristics and their Implications,” American Psychologist17: 776—83.
17.
Piaget, J. (1951) The Child's Conception of the World. Savage, MD: Littlefield Adams.
18.
Pickett, S.T.A., Kolasa, J. and Jones, C.G. (1994) Ecological Understanding: The Nature of Theory and the Theory of Nature. New York: Academic Press.
19.
Pimm, S.L. (1991) Balance of Nature? Ecological Issues in the Conservation of Species and Communities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
20.
Scott, M. (1995) The Young Oxford Book of Ecology. New York: Oxford University Press.
21.
Smith, C.P. (2000) “Content Analysis and Narrative Analysis ,” in H.T. Reis and C.M. Judd (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology, pp. 313—35. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
22.
Smith, E.L. and Anderson, C.W. (1986) “Alternative Student Conceptions of Matter Cycling in Ecosystems,” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching , San Francisco.
23.
Stringham, T.K., Krueger, W.C. and Thomas, D.R. (2001) “Application of Non-equilibrium Ecology to Rangeland Riparian Zones,” Journal of Range Management54: 210—17.
24.
Tamir, P. and Zohar, A. (1991) “Anthropomorphism and Teleology in Reasoning about Biological Phenomena,” Science Education22: 57—67.
25.
Tytler, R., Duggan, S. and Gott, R. (2001) “Public Participation in an Environmental Dispute: Implications for Science Education,” Public Understanding of Science10: 343—64.
26.
Wood-Robinson, C. (1995) “Children's Biological Ideas: Knowledge about Ecology, Inheritance, and Evolution,” in S.M. Glynn and R. Duit (eds) Learning Science in the Schools: Research Reforming Practice, pp. 111—30. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
Wu, J. and Loucks, O.L. (1995) “From Balance of Nature to Hierarchical Patch Dynamics: A Paradigm Shift in Ecology,” Quarterly Review of Biology70: 439—66.
