Literature DB >> 27938718

Repertoires: A post-Kuhnian perspective on scientific change and collaborative research.

Rachel A Ankeny1, Sabina Leonelli2.   

Abstract

We propose a framework to describe, analyze, and explain the conditions under which scientific communities organize themselves to do research, particularly within large-scale, multidisciplinary projects. The framework centers on the notion of a research repertoire, which encompasses well-aligned assemblages of the skills, behaviors, and material, social, and epistemic components that a group may use to practice certain kinds of science, and whose enactment affects the methods and results of research. This account provides an alternative to the idea of Kuhnian paradigms for understanding scientific change in the following ways: (1) it does not frame change as primarily generated and shaped by theoretical developments, but rather takes account of administrative, material, technological, and institutional innovations that contribute to change and explicitly questions whether and how such innovations accompany, underpin, and/or undercut theoretical shifts; (2) it thus allows for tracking of the organization, continuity, and coherence in research practices which Kuhn characterized as 'normal science' without relying on the occurrence of paradigmatic shifts and revolutions to be able to identify relevant components; and (3) it requires particular attention be paid to the performative aspects of science, whose study Kuhn pioneered but which he did not extensively conceptualize. We provide a detailed characterization of repertoires and discuss their relationship with communities, disciplines, and other forms of collaborative activities within science, building on an analysis of historical episodes and contemporary developments in the life sciences, as well as cases drawn from social and historical studies of physics, psychology, and medicine.
Copyright © 2016 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Big science; Collaboration; Paradigm; Research organization; Scientific change; Scientific practice

Year:  2016        PMID: 27938718     DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2016.08.003

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


  3 in total

1.  Follow *the* science? On the marginal role of the social sciences in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Simon Lohse; Stefano Canali
Journal:  Eur J Philos Sci       Date:  2021-10-22       Impact factor: 1.602

2.  Re-situations of scientific knowledge: a case study of a skirmish over clusters vs clines in human population genomics.

Authors:  James Griesemer; Carlos Andrés Barragán
Journal:  Hist Philos Life Sci       Date:  2022-04-21       Impact factor: 1.452

3.  What Is New about the Exposome? Exploring Scientific Change in Contemporary Epidemiology.

Authors:  Stefano Canali
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-04-22       Impact factor: 3.390

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.