Literature DB >> 27083079

Collaboration, interdisciplinarity, and the epistemology of contemporary science.

Hanne Andersen1.   

Abstract

Over the last decades, science has grown increasingly collaborative and interdisciplinary and has come to depart in important ways from the classical analyses of the development of science that were developed by historically inclined philosophers of science half a century ago. In this paper, I shall provide a new account of the structure and development of contemporary science based on analyses of, first, cognitive resources and their relations to domains, and second of the distribution of cognitive resources among collaborators and the epistemic dependence that this distribution implies. On this background I shall describe different ideal types of research activities and analyze how they differ. Finally, analyzing values that drive science towards different kinds of research activities, I shall sketch the main mechanisms underlying the perceived tension between disciplines and interdisciplinarity and argue for a redefinition of accountability and quality control for interdisciplinary and collaborative science.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Accountability; Collaboration; Disciplines; Epistemic Dependence; Interdisciplinarity; Quality control

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 27083079     DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.10.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stud Hist Philos Sci        ISSN: 0039-3681            Impact factor:   1.429


  5 in total

Review 1.  Scientific research across and beyond disciplines: Challenges and opportunities of interdisciplinarity.

Authors:  Fulvio Mazzocchi
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2019-04-30       Impact factor: 8.807

2.  [A Botanist in the History of Paper: Open and Closed Cooperations in the Sciences Around 1900].

Authors:  Josephine Musil-Gutsch; Kärin Nickelsen
Journal:  NTM       Date:  2020-03

3.  Misconduct and Misbehavior Related to Authorship Disagreements in Collaborative Science.

Authors:  Elise Smith; Bryn Williams-Jones; Zubin Master; Vincent Larivière; Cassidy R Sugimoto; Adèle Paul-Hus; Min Shi; David B Resnik
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2019-06-03       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  Time to care: why the humanities and the social sciences belong in the science of health.

Authors:  Brendan Clarke; Virginia Ghiara; Federica Russo
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-08-27       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen.

Authors:  Alonzo Alfaro-Núñez
Journal:  Environ Sci Eur       Date:  2022-08-23       Impact factor: 5.481

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.