Division of labor is not a process or a misleading concept

Deborah Gordon (Behav Ecol Sociobiol. doi: 10.1007/s00265-015-2045-3 , 2016) advocates abandoning the term “division of labor” (DOL) on the grounds that it implies a process by which individual colony members become persistent specialists by virtue of their “essential internal attributes.” S...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Behavioral ecology and sociobiology 2016-07, Vol.70 (7), p.1109-1112
1. Verfasser: Jeanne, Robert L
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1112
container_issue 7
container_start_page 1109
container_title Behavioral ecology and sociobiology
container_volume 70
creator Jeanne, Robert L
description Deborah Gordon (Behav Ecol Sociobiol. doi: 10.1007/s00265-015-2045-3 , 2016) advocates abandoning the term “division of labor” (DOL) on the grounds that it implies a process by which individual colony members become persistent specialists by virtue of their “essential internal attributes.” She claims that there is little evidence for such links, and that continued use of the term distracts us from focusing on how distributed processing leads to task allocation (TA) in the colony, which she considers to be sufficient explanation of how colonies organize work. I argue instead that the term DOL as understood by most social insect researchers today is descriptive, useful, and carries no such implications of process or links to internal attributes. I suggest that the confusion can be addressed by recognizing the distinction between the ontogenetic causes of DOL, which set individuals’ response thresholds (RT) during their development, and the behavioral and physiological mechanisms that act in the moment to determine TA via distributed processing. I further suggest that the term “specialization” as applied to social insects should be understood to mean simply “to concentrate on,” without requiring that it be accompanied by increased performance efficiency.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00265-016-2146-7
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1798950012</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>44857004</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>44857004</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c362t-d10f506e02c25b2579852ffb4fca8ef51baec48e08f86d4994aaf93a52cb52ce3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UEtLAzEQDqJgrf4AD2LAc3SSTbJZb1KfUPCgPYdsNikp7aYmW8F_b8qKePIwDMz3Gj6EzilcU4D6JgMwKQhQSRjlktQHaEJ5xQjUkh2iCVQciOC8OkYnOa8AQFKlJuj2PnyGHGKPo8dr08aEQ8Z9HLDB2xStyxmXm8GbkNfOdKFfYht767bDKTryZp3d2c-eosXjw_vsmcxfn15md3NiK8kG0lHwAqQDZplomagbJZj3LffWKOcFbY2zXDlQXsmONw03xjeVEcy2ZVw1RVejb_nnY-fyoFdxl_oSqWkxawQAZYVFR5ZNMefkvN6msDHpS1PQ-4r0WJEuFel9RbouGjZqcuH2S5f-OP8juhhFqzzE9JvCuRI1AC_45Yh7E7VZppD14o0Vg_KmKriovgHHF3q7</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1798950012</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Division of labor is not a process or a misleading concept</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Jeanne, Robert L</creator><creatorcontrib>Jeanne, Robert L</creatorcontrib><description>Deborah Gordon (Behav Ecol Sociobiol. doi: 10.1007/s00265-015-2045-3 , 2016) advocates abandoning the term “division of labor” (DOL) on the grounds that it implies a process by which individual colony members become persistent specialists by virtue of their “essential internal attributes.” She claims that there is little evidence for such links, and that continued use of the term distracts us from focusing on how distributed processing leads to task allocation (TA) in the colony, which she considers to be sufficient explanation of how colonies organize work. I argue instead that the term DOL as understood by most social insect researchers today is descriptive, useful, and carries no such implications of process or links to internal attributes. I suggest that the confusion can be addressed by recognizing the distinction between the ontogenetic causes of DOL, which set individuals’ response thresholds (RT) during their development, and the behavioral and physiological mechanisms that act in the moment to determine TA via distributed processing. I further suggest that the term “specialization” as applied to social insects should be understood to mean simply “to concentrate on,” without requiring that it be accompanied by increased performance efficiency.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0340-5443</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-0762</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00265-016-2146-7</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Animal behavior ; Animal Ecology ; Animal populations ; Animal social behavior ; Ants ; Behavioral Sciences ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; COMMENTARY ; Division of labor ; Honey bee colonies ; Insect behavior ; Insect castes ; Insect colonies ; Insect morphology ; Insects ; Life Sciences ; ontogeny ; polyethism ; Social insects ; Zoology</subject><ispartof>Behavioral ecology and sociobiology, 2016-07, Vol.70 (7), p.1109-1112</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c362t-d10f506e02c25b2579852ffb4fca8ef51baec48e08f86d4994aaf93a52cb52ce3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c362t-d10f506e02c25b2579852ffb4fca8ef51baec48e08f86d4994aaf93a52cb52ce3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44857004$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/44857004$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27903,27904,41467,42536,51297,57995,58228</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jeanne, Robert L</creatorcontrib><title>Division of labor is not a process or a misleading concept</title><title>Behavioral ecology and sociobiology</title><addtitle>Behav Ecol Sociobiol</addtitle><description>Deborah Gordon (Behav Ecol Sociobiol. doi: 10.1007/s00265-015-2045-3 , 2016) advocates abandoning the term “division of labor” (DOL) on the grounds that it implies a process by which individual colony members become persistent specialists by virtue of their “essential internal attributes.” She claims that there is little evidence for such links, and that continued use of the term distracts us from focusing on how distributed processing leads to task allocation (TA) in the colony, which she considers to be sufficient explanation of how colonies organize work. I argue instead that the term DOL as understood by most social insect researchers today is descriptive, useful, and carries no such implications of process or links to internal attributes. I suggest that the confusion can be addressed by recognizing the distinction between the ontogenetic causes of DOL, which set individuals’ response thresholds (RT) during their development, and the behavioral and physiological mechanisms that act in the moment to determine TA via distributed processing. I further suggest that the term “specialization” as applied to social insects should be understood to mean simply “to concentrate on,” without requiring that it be accompanied by increased performance efficiency.</description><subject>Animal behavior</subject><subject>Animal Ecology</subject><subject>Animal populations</subject><subject>Animal social behavior</subject><subject>Ants</subject><subject>Behavioral Sciences</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>COMMENTARY</subject><subject>Division of labor</subject><subject>Honey bee colonies</subject><subject>Insect behavior</subject><subject>Insect castes</subject><subject>Insect colonies</subject><subject>Insect morphology</subject><subject>Insects</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>ontogeny</subject><subject>polyethism</subject><subject>Social insects</subject><subject>Zoology</subject><issn>0340-5443</issn><issn>1432-0762</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UEtLAzEQDqJgrf4AD2LAc3SSTbJZb1KfUPCgPYdsNikp7aYmW8F_b8qKePIwDMz3Gj6EzilcU4D6JgMwKQhQSRjlktQHaEJ5xQjUkh2iCVQciOC8OkYnOa8AQFKlJuj2PnyGHGKPo8dr08aEQ8Z9HLDB2xStyxmXm8GbkNfOdKFfYht767bDKTryZp3d2c-eosXjw_vsmcxfn15md3NiK8kG0lHwAqQDZplomagbJZj3LffWKOcFbY2zXDlQXsmONw03xjeVEcy2ZVw1RVejb_nnY-fyoFdxl_oSqWkxawQAZYVFR5ZNMefkvN6msDHpS1PQ-4r0WJEuFel9RbouGjZqcuH2S5f-OP8juhhFqzzE9JvCuRI1AC_45Yh7E7VZppD14o0Vg_KmKriovgHHF3q7</recordid><startdate>20160701</startdate><enddate>20160701</enddate><creator>Jeanne, Robert L</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QR</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160701</creationdate><title>Division of labor is not a process or a misleading concept</title><author>Jeanne, Robert L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c362t-d10f506e02c25b2579852ffb4fca8ef51baec48e08f86d4994aaf93a52cb52ce3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Animal behavior</topic><topic>Animal Ecology</topic><topic>Animal populations</topic><topic>Animal social behavior</topic><topic>Ants</topic><topic>Behavioral Sciences</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>COMMENTARY</topic><topic>Division of labor</topic><topic>Honey bee colonies</topic><topic>Insect behavior</topic><topic>Insect castes</topic><topic>Insect colonies</topic><topic>Insect morphology</topic><topic>Insects</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>ontogeny</topic><topic>polyethism</topic><topic>Social insects</topic><topic>Zoology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jeanne, Robert L</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Chemoreception Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Behavioral ecology and sociobiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jeanne, Robert L</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Division of labor is not a process or a misleading concept</atitle><jtitle>Behavioral ecology and sociobiology</jtitle><stitle>Behav Ecol Sociobiol</stitle><date>2016-07-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>70</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>1109</spage><epage>1112</epage><pages>1109-1112</pages><issn>0340-5443</issn><eissn>1432-0762</eissn><abstract>Deborah Gordon (Behav Ecol Sociobiol. doi: 10.1007/s00265-015-2045-3 , 2016) advocates abandoning the term “division of labor” (DOL) on the grounds that it implies a process by which individual colony members become persistent specialists by virtue of their “essential internal attributes.” She claims that there is little evidence for such links, and that continued use of the term distracts us from focusing on how distributed processing leads to task allocation (TA) in the colony, which she considers to be sufficient explanation of how colonies organize work. I argue instead that the term DOL as understood by most social insect researchers today is descriptive, useful, and carries no such implications of process or links to internal attributes. I suggest that the confusion can be addressed by recognizing the distinction between the ontogenetic causes of DOL, which set individuals’ response thresholds (RT) during their development, and the behavioral and physiological mechanisms that act in the moment to determine TA via distributed processing. I further suggest that the term “specialization” as applied to social insects should be understood to mean simply “to concentrate on,” without requiring that it be accompanied by increased performance efficiency.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><doi>10.1007/s00265-016-2146-7</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0340-5443
ispartof Behavioral ecology and sociobiology, 2016-07, Vol.70 (7), p.1109-1112
issn 0340-5443
1432-0762
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1798950012
source Jstor Complete Legacy; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Animal behavior
Animal Ecology
Animal populations
Animal social behavior
Ants
Behavioral Sciences
Biomedical and Life Sciences
COMMENTARY
Division of labor
Honey bee colonies
Insect behavior
Insect castes
Insect colonies
Insect morphology
Insects
Life Sciences
ontogeny
polyethism
Social insects
Zoology
title Division of labor is not a process or a misleading concept
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T00%3A34%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Division%20of%20labor%20is%20not%20a%20process%20or%20a%20misleading%20concept&rft.jtitle=Behavioral%20ecology%20and%20sociobiology&rft.au=Jeanne,%20Robert%20L&rft.date=2016-07-01&rft.volume=70&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1109&rft.epage=1112&rft.pages=1109-1112&rft.issn=0340-5443&rft.eissn=1432-0762&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00265-016-2146-7&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E44857004%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1798950012&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=44857004&rfr_iscdi=true