Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T18:29:26.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

22 - Epilogue

Interdisciplinarity in the Study of Culture, Mind, and Brain

from Part II - Applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2020

By
Laurence J. Kirmayer ,
Carol M. Worthman  and
Shinobu Kitayama
Edited by
Laurence J. Kirmayer ,
Carol M. Worthman ,
Shinobu Kitayama ,
Robert Lemelson  and
Constance A. Cummings
Laurence J. Kirmayer
Affiliation:
McGill University, Montréal
Carol M. Worthman
Affiliation:
Emory University, Atlanta
Shinobu Kitayama
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Robert Lemelson
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Constance A. Cummings
Affiliation:
The Foundation for Psychocultural Research
Get access

Summary

In this epilogue, we reflect on the prospects for advancing interdisciplinarity in the sciences of culture, mind, and brain. Neuroscience is increasingly applied to address questions of central concern to the social sciences. Social sciences, in turn, can contribute to neuroscience research in a variety of ways, including: (1) the study of social factors that influence the brain across the lifespan; (2) the context-sensitive translation of neuroscience research into applications in clinical and other social settings; (3) critical social analyses of cultural, conceptual, and institutional framing and constraints on neuroscience research, knowledge production, and applications; and (4) integration of each of these approaches in an ecosocial view of the brain in its social-cultural niche. Obstacles to interdisciplinarity stem from institutional structures, methodological strategies, epistemic commitments, and divergent ontologies. We describe strategies to surmount these obstacles, including: (1) institutionally, creating spaces for collaborative work, supporting interdisciplinary career tracks, and ensuring sustained funding; (2) conceptually, borrowing models and metaphors across disciplines, establishing boundary objects of common interest, using system diagrams to locate diverse levels and processes in the same model; and (3) methodologically, establishing convergent validity through mixed and hybrid methods, and creating shared databases and pipelines to facilitate integration of multiple perspectives.

Keywords

interdisciplinarityneurosciencesocial scienceecosocial viewsystems theorymultilevel explanationcultural diversity
Type
Chapter
Information
Culture, Mind, and Brain
Emerging Concepts, Models, and Applications
 , pp. 494 - 512
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ali, S. S., Lifshitz, M., & Raz, A. (2014). Empirical neuroenchantment: From reading minds to thinking critically. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 357. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00357CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alivisatos, A. P., Chun, M., Church, G. M., Greenspan, R. J., Roukes, M. L., & Yuste, R. (2012). The brain activity map project and the challenge of functional connectomics. Neuron, 74(6), 970–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.06.006Google Scholar
Allwood, C. M. (2018). The nature and challenges of Indigenous psychologies. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Andersen, H. (2016). Collaboration, interdisciplinarity, and the epistemology of contemporary science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 56, 1–10.Google Scholar
Badcock, P. B., Friston, K. J., Ramstead, M. J. D., Ploeger, A., & Hohwy, J. (2019). The hierarchically mechanistic mind: An evolutionary systems theory of the human brain, cognition, and behavior. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-019-00721-3Google Scholar
Barry, A., & Born, G. (Eds.). (2013). Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the social and natural sciences. Routledge.Google Scholar
Bateson, M. C. (1972). Our own metaphor: A personal account of a conference on the effects of conscious purpose on human adaptation. Knopf.Google Scholar
Bechtel, W. (2012). Mental mechanisms: Philosophical perspectives on cognitive neuroscience. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203810095Google Scholar
Bennett, M., & Hacker, P. (2003). Philosophical foundations of neuroscience. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bhaskar, R., Danermark, B., & Price, L. (2018). Interdisciplinarity and wellbeing: A critical realist general theory of interdisciplinarity. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315177298Google Scholar
Boone, W., & Piccinini, G. (2016). The cognitive neuroscience revolution. Synthese, 193(5), 1509–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0783-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromham, L., Dinnage, R., & Hua, X. (2016). Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success. Nature, 534(7609), 684. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18315Google Scholar
Byrne, D. S., & Callaghan, G. (2013). Complexity theory and the social sciences: The state of the art. Routledge.Google Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Sheridan, J. F., & McClintock, M. K. (2000). Multilevel integrative analyses of human behavior: Social neuroscience and the complementing nature of social and biological approaches. Psychological Bulletin, 126(6), 829–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.6.829CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The systems view of life: A unifying vision. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choudhury, S., McKinney, K. A., & Kirmayer, L. J. (2015). “Learning how to deal with feelings differently”: Psychotropic medications as vehicles of socialization in adolescence. Social Science & Medicine, 143, 311–19.Google Scholar
Choudhury, S., & Slaby, J. (Eds.). (2011). Critical neuroscience: A handbook of the social and cultural contexts of neuroscience. Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Coen, E. (2012). Cells to civilizations: The principles of change that shape life. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, H. (2017). Gravity’s kiss: The detection of gravitational waves. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2017). Why democracies need science. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. P., & Peebles, D. (2015). Beyond single-level accounts: The role of cognitive architectures in cognitive scientific explanation. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(2), 243–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12132Google Scholar
Crary, J. (2013). 24/7: Late capitalism and the ends of sleep. Verso Books.Google Scholar
Craver, C. F. (2009). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199299317.003.0007Google Scholar
Dawson, M. R. (2013). Mind, body, world: Foundations of cognitive science. Athabasca University Press.Google Scholar
De Jaegher, H., Di Paolo, E., & Adolphs, R. (2016). What does the interactive brain hypothesis mean for social neuroscience? A dialogue. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1693), 20150379. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0379Google Scholar
Dennett, D. (2007). Heterophenomenology reconsidered. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 6, 247–70.Google Scholar
De Vos, J., & Pluth, E. (2015). Neuroscience and critique: Exploring the limits of the neurological turn. Routledge.Google Scholar
Di Paolo, E. A., Cuffari, E. C., & De Jaegher, H. (2018). Linguistic bodies: The continuity between life and language. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11244.001.0001Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. (2016). Do online social media cut through the constraints that limit the size of offline social networks? Royal Society Open Science, 3(1), 150292. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150292Google Scholar
Dunn, E. C., Soare, T. W., Zhu, Y., Simpkin, A. J., Suderman, M. J., Klengel, T., Smith, A. D. A. C., Ressler, K. J., & Relton, C. L. (2019). Sensitive periods for the effect of child adversity on DNA methylation: Results from a prospective, longitudinal study. Biological Psychiatry, 85, 838–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2018.12.023Google Scholar
Efstathiou, S., & Mirmalek, Z. (2014). Interdisciplinarity in action. In Cartwright, N. & Montuschi, E. (Eds.), Philosophy of social science: A new introduction (pp. 233–48). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eronen, M. I. (2015). Levels of organization: A deflationary account. Biology & Philosophy, 30(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-014-9461-zGoogle Scholar
Feldman, D. (2019). Chaos and dynamical systems. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691189390Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, D., & Callard, F. (2015). Social science and neuroscience beyond interdisciplinarity: Experimental entanglements. Theory, Culture & Society, 32(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0263276414537319Google Scholar
Frodeman, R., Klein, J. T., & Pacheco, R. C. S. (Eds.). (2017). The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198733522.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, T. (2017). Ecology of the brain: The phenomenology and biology of the embodied mind. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199646883.001.0001Google Scholar
Gao, P., & Ganguli, S. (2015). On simplicity and complexity in the brave new world of large-scale neuroscience. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 32, 148–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2015.04.003Google Scholar
Haack, S. (2005). The unity of truth and the plurality of truths. Principia: An International Journal of Epistemology, 9(1–2), 87–109.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1996). The looping effects of human kinds. In Sperber, D., Premack, D., & Premack, A. J. (Eds.), Symposia of the Fyssen Foundation. Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate (pp. 351–94). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198524021.003.0012Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1999). The social construction of what? Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (2002). Historical ontology. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0475-5_13Google Scholar
Hanson, J. L., Chung, M. K., Avants, B. B., Shirtcliff, E. A., Gee, J. C., Davidson, R. J., & Pollak, S. D. (2010). Early stress is associated with alterations in the orbitofrontal cortex: a tensor-based morphometry investigation of brain structure and behavioral risk. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(22), 7466–7472.Google Scholar
Kauffman, S. A. (2019). A world beyond physics: The emergence and evolution of life. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kellert, S. H. (1993). In the wake of chaos: Unpredictable order in dynamical systems. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226429823.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirmayer, L. J. (2015). Re-visioning psychiatry: Toward an ecology of mind in health and illness. In Kirmayer, L. J., Lemelson, R., & Cummings, C. A. (Eds.). Re-visioning psychiatry: Cultural phenomenology, critical neuroscience, and global mental health (pp. 622–60). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139424745Google Scholar
Kirmayer, L. J. (2019). Toward an ecosocial psychiatry. World Social Psychiatry, 1(1), 30–32.Google Scholar
Kirmayer, L. J., Adeponle, A., & Dzokoto, V. A. A. (2018). Varieties of global psychology: Cultural diversity and constructions of the self. In S. Fernando and R. Moodley (eds.) Global psychologies (pp. 21–37). Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirmayer, L. J., & Gómez-Carrillo, A. (2019). Agency, embodiment and enactment in psychosomatic theory and practice. Medical Humanities, 45(2), 169–182.Google Scholar
Kirmayer, L. J., Lemelson, R., & Barad, M. (2007). Epilogue: Trauma and the vicissitudes of interdisciplinary integration. In L. J. Kirmayer, R. Lemelson, & M. Barad (Eds.), Understanding trauma: Integrating biological, clinical, and cultural perspectives (pp. 475–89). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kirmayer, L. J., & Ramstead, M. J. D. (2017). Embodiment and enactment in cultural psychiatry. In Durt, C., Fuchs, T., & Tewes, C. (Eds.), Embodiment, enaction, and culture: Investigating the constitution of the shared world (pp. 397–422). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kotchoubey, B., Tretter, F., Braun, H. A., Buchheim, T., Draguhn, A., Fuchs, T., Hasler, F., Hastedt, H., Hinterberger, T., Northoff, G., Rentschler, I., Schleim, S., Sellmaier, S., van Elst, L. T., & Tschacher, W. (2016). Methodological problems on the way to integrative human neuroscience. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 10, 41. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2016.00041CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krakauer, D. C. (Ed.). (2019). Worlds hidden in plain sight: The evolving idea of complexity at the Santa Fe Institute, 1984–2019. SFI Press.Google Scholar
Krieger, M. H. (2012). Doing physics: How physicists take hold of the world. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Labonté, B., Farah, A., & Turecki, G. (2015). Early-life adversity and epigenetic changes: Implications for understanding suicide. In Kirmayer, L. J., Lemelson, R., & Cummings, C. A. (Eds.). Re-visioning psychiatry: Cultural phenomenology, critical neuroscience, and global mental health (pp. 206–35). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139424745.012Google Scholar
Laliberté, V., Ramstead, M. J. D., Langlois-Therien, T., Choudhury, S., & Kirmayer, L. J. (2019). How can the social sciences contribute to the neurosciences? Challenges and opportunities in the era of big data [Manuscript in preparation]. Department of Psychiatry, McGill University.Google Scholar
Larsen, R. R., & Hastings, J. (2018). From affective science to psychiatric disorder: Ontology as a semantic bridge. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00487Google Scholar
Lowe, C. J., Reichelt, A. C., & Hall, P. A. (2019). The prefrontal cortex and obesity: A health neuroscience perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(4), 349–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.01.005Google Scholar
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The enigma of reason. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, S. D. (2009). Unsimple truths: Science, complexity, and policy. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226532653.001.0001Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231Google Scholar
Noble, D. (2016). Dance to the tune of life: Biological relativity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316771488Google Scholar
Núñez, R., Allen, M., Gao, R., Rigoli, C. M., Relaford-Doyle, J., & Semenuks, A. (2019). What happened to cognitive science? Nature Human Behaviour, 3(8), 782–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Malley, M. A., Brigandt, I., Love, A. C., Crawford, J. W., Gilbert, J. A., Knight, R., Mitchell, S. D., & Rohwer, F. (2014). Multilevel research strategies and biological systems. Philosophy of Science, 81(5), 811–28. https://doi.org/10.1086/677889Google Scholar
Page, S. E. (2010). Diversity and complexity. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400835140Google Scholar
Paus, T. (2013). Population neuroscience. Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36450-1Google Scholar
Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1997). The end of certainty. Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Pykett, J. (2015). Brain culture: Shaping policy through neuroscience. Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1t89jbmGoogle Scholar
Raichle, M. E. (2009). A brief history of human brain mapping. Trends in Neurosciences, 32(2), 118–26.Google Scholar
Ramstead, M. J., Veissière, S. P., & Kirmayer, L. J. (2016). Cultural affordances: Scaffolding local worlds through shared intentionality and regimes of attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1090. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01090Google Scholar
Robinson, M. D. (2019). The market in mind: How financialization is shaping neuroscience, translational medicine, and innovation in biotechnology. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11726.001.0001Google Scholar
Rose, N., & Abi-Rached, J. M. (2013). Neuro: The new brain sciences and the management of the mind. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400846337Google Scholar
Schwitzgebel, E. (2011). Perplexities of consciousness. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8243.001.0001Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (2011). Wittgenstein and the Background. American Philosophical Quarterly, 48(2), 119–28.Google Scholar
Siskin, C. (2016). System: The shaping of modern knowledge. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smith, B., & Ceusters, W. (2010). Ontological realism: A methodology for coordinated evolution of scientific ontologies. Applied Ontology, 5(3–4), 139–88. https://doi.org/10.3233/AO-2010-0079Google Scholar
Sporns, O. (2013). The human connectome: Origins and challenges. NeuroImage, 80, 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.03.023CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thurner, S., Hanel, R., & Klimek, P. (2018). Introduction to the theory of complex systems. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198821939.001.0001Google Scholar
Turner, S. (2017). Knowledge formations: An analytic framework. In Frodeman, R., Klein, J. T., & Pacheco, R. C. S. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198733522.001.0001Google Scholar
United Nations, Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2018). 2018 Revision of world urbanization prospects. https://population.un.org/wup/Google Scholar
Veissière, S. P., Constant, A., Ramstead, M. J., Friston, K. J., & Kirmayer, L. J. (2020). Thinking through other minds: A variational approach to cognition and culture. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43, e90, 1–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X19001213Google Scholar
Veissière, S. P., & Stendel, M. (2018). Hypernatural monitoring: a social rehearsal account of smartphone addiction. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 141.Google Scholar
Vidal, F., & Ortega, F. (2017). Being brains: Making the cerebral subject. Fordham University Press. https://doi.org/10.5422/fordham/9780823276073.001.0001Google Scholar
West, G. (2017). Scale: The universal laws of growth, innovation, sustainability, and the pace of life in organisms, cities, economies, and companies. Penguin Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×