Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T19:17:18.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cross-Disciplinary Research as a Platform for Philosophical Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2016

STEPHEN J. CROWLEY ,
CHAD GONNERMAN  and
MICHAEL O'ROURKE
STEPHEN J. CROWLEY
Affiliation:
BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
CHAD GONNERMAN
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN INDIANAcgonnerman@usi.edu
MICHAEL O'ROURKE
Affiliation:
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

It is argued that core areas of philosophy can benefit from reflection on cross-disciplinary research (CDR). We start by giving a brief account of CDR, describing its variability and some of the ways in which philosophers can interact with it. We then provide an argument in principle for the conclusion that CDR is philosophically fecund, arguing that since CDR highlights fundamental differences among disciplinary research worldviews, it can be used to motivate new philosophical problems and supply new insights into old problems. We close by providing an argument by example that uses the epistemology of peer disagreement to establish the potential of CDR for core philosophical areas. With this argument, we aim to demonstrate how the complex research contexts that CDR affords can point the way toward important avenues of epistemological research by highlighting potential limitations of key epistemological components, such as peerage and uniqueness.

Keywords

cross-disciplinary researchresearch worldviewsdisagreementidealizationepistemic peersuniqueness
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , Summer 2016 , pp. 344 - 363
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2016 

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

Bammer, Gabriele. (2013) Disciplining Interdisciplinarity. Canberra: ANU E-Press.Google Scholar
Bergmann, Michael. (2009) ‘Rational Disagreement after Full Disclosure’. Episteme, 6, 336–53.Google Scholar
Christensen, David. (2007) ‘Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News’. Philosophical Review, 116, 187–217.Google Scholar
Cohen, Stuart. (2013) ‘A Defense of the (Almost) Equal Weight View’. In Christensen, D. and Lackey, J. (eds.), The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 98–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, Nancy J., and Hilton, Margaret L.. (2015) Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
De Cruz, Helen, and De Smedt, Johan. (2013) ‘The Value of Epistemic Disagreement in Scientific Practice. The Case of Homo Floresiensis’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 44, 169–77.Google Scholar
De Dreu, Carsten K. W. (2006) ‘When Too Little or Too Much Hurts: Evidence for a Curvilinear Relationship Between Task Conflict and Innovation in Teams’. Journal of Management, 32, 83–107.Google Scholar
Dohn, Nina B. (2011) ‘Roles of Epistemology in Investigating Knowledge: “Philosophizing With”’. Metaphilosophy, 42, 431–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eigenbrode, Sanford D., O'Rourke, Michael, Wulfhorst, J. D., Althoff, David M., Goldberg, Caren S., Merrill, Kaylana, et al. (2007) ‘Employing Philosophical Dialogue in Collaborative Science’. BioScience, 57, 55–64.Google Scholar
Elga, Adam. (2010) ‘How to Disagree about How to Disagree’. In Feldman, R. and Warfield, T. (eds.), Disagreement (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 175–86.Google Scholar
Feldman, Richard. (2003) Epistemology. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Feldman, Richard. (2006) ‘Epistemological Puzzles about Disagreement’. In Hetherington, S. (ed.), Epistemology Futures (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 216–36.Google Scholar
Feldman, Richard. (2007) ‘Reasonable Religious Disagreements’. In Antony, L. (ed.), Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life (New York: Oxford University Press), 194–214.Google Scholar
Feldman, Richard, and Warfield, Ted. (2010) ‘Introduction’. In Feldman, R. and Warfield, T. (eds.), Disagreement (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 1–9.Google Scholar
Frigg, Roman, and Hartmann, Stephan. (2012) ‘Models in Science’. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2012 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/models-science/.Google Scholar
Frodeman, Robert. (2008) ‘Redefining Ecological Ethics: Science, Policy, and Philosophy at Cape Horn’. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 597–610.Google Scholar
Frodeman, Robert. (2010) ‘Introduction’. In Frodeman, R., Klein, J. T., and Mitcham, C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity (Oxford: Oxford University Press), xxix–xxxix.Google Scholar
Frodeman, Robert. (2014) Sustainable Knowledge: A Theory of Interdisciplinarity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, William. (1979) ‘Special Relativity and the Present’. Philosophical Studies, 36, 233–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorman, Michael, ed. (2010) Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise: Creating New Kinds of Collaboration. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul, and Stotz, Karola. (2014) ‘Conceptual Barriers to Interdisciplinary Communication: When Does Ambiguity Matter?’ In O'Rourke, M., Crowley, S., Eigenbrode, S., and Wulfhorst, J. D. (eds.), Enhancing Communication and Collaboration in Interdisciplinary Research (Los Angeles, CA: Sage), 195–215.Google Scholar
Hansson, Sven. (2008) ‘Philosophy and Other Disciplines’. Metaphilosophy, 39, 472–83.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. (1993) ‘Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What is ‘Strong Objectivity’?’ In Alcoff, L. and Potter, E. (eds.), Feminist Epistemologies (New York: Routledge), 49–82.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Michael, Schmidt, Jan, and Nersessian, Nancy. (2013) ‘Philosophy of and as Interdisciplinarity’. Synthese, 190, 1857–64.Google Scholar
Kelly, Thomas. (2005) ‘The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement’. In Gendler, T. and Hawthorne, J. (eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Volume I (Oxford: Clarendon), 167–96.Google Scholar
Kelly, Thomas. (2010) ‘Peer Disagreement and Higher-Order Evidence’. In Feldman, R. and Warfield, T. (eds.), Disagreement (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 111–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. (1993) Advancement of Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klein, Julie T. (2008) ‘Evaluation of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research: A Literature Review’. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2S), S116–S123.Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, Karin. (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kopec, Matthew, and Titelbaum, Michael G.. (2016) ‘The Uniqueness Thesis’. Philosophy Compass, 11, 189–200.Google Scholar
Lackey, Jennifer. (2010) ‘A Justificationist View of Disagreement's Significance’. In Haddock, A., Millar, A., and Pritchard, D. (eds.), Social Epistemology (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 298–325.Google Scholar
Ladyman, James. (2008) ‘Idealization’. In Psillos, S. and Curd, M. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Science (London: Routledge), 358–66.Google Scholar
Marrelli, Mauro, Li, Chaoyang, Rasgon, Jason, and Jacobs-Lorena, Marcelo. (2007) ‘Transgenic Malaria-Resistant Mosquitoes Have a Fitness Advantage When Feeding on Plasmodium-Infected Blood’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 5580–83.Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan. (1985) ‘Galilean Idealization’. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 16, 247–73.Google Scholar
Minson, Julia, Liberman, Varda, and Ross, Lee. (2011) ‘Two to Tango: Effects of Collaboration and Disagreement on Dyadic Judgment’. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1325–38.Google Scholar
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research and Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy. (2004) Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, Lynn. (1993) ‘Epistemological Communities’. In Alcoff, L. and Potter, E. (eds.), Feminist Epistemologies (New York: Routledge), 121–59.Google Scholar
Nemeth, Charlan, and Nemeth-Brown, Brendan. (2003) ‘Better than Individuals? The Potential Benefits of Dissent and Diversity for Group Creativity’. In Paulus, P. and Nijstad, B. (eds.), Group Creativity: Innovation through Collaboration (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 63–84.Google Scholar
Nemeth, Charlan, Brown, Keith, and Rogers, John. (2001) ‘Devil's Advocate vs. Authentic Dissent: Stimulating Quantity and Quality’. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 707–20.Google Scholar
O'Rourke, Michael, and Crowley, Stephen. (2013). ‘Philosophical Intervention and Cross-Disciplinary Science: The Story of the Toolbox Project’. Synthese, 190, 1937–54.Google Scholar
Prinz, Jesse J. (2008) ‘Empirical Philosophy and Experimental Philosophy’. In Knobe, J. and Nichols, S. (eds.), Experimental Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 189–208.Google Scholar
Schulze, Anna, and Seuffert, Verena. (2013) ‘Conflicts, Cooperation, and Competition in the Field of Science and Technology’. In Feist, G. and Gorman, M. (eds.), Handbook of the Psychology of Science (New York: Springer), 303–30.Google Scholar
Stokols, Daniel, Fuqua, Julian, Gress, Jennifer, Harvey, Richard, Phillips, Kimari, Baezcondi-Garbanati, Lourdes, et al. (2003) ‘Evaluating Transdisciplinary Science’. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 5, S21–S39.Google Scholar
Thagard, Paul. (1997) ‘Collaborative Knowledge’. Noûs, 31, 242–61.Google Scholar
Turner, Stephen. (2000) ‘What are Disciplines? And how is Interdisciplinarity Different?’ In Weingart, P., and Stehr, N. (eds.), Practising Interdisciplinarity (Toronto: University of Toronto Press), 46–65.Google Scholar
Weingart, Peter. (2010). ‘A Short History of Knowledge Formations’. In Frodeman, R., Klein, J. T., and Mitcham, C.. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 3–14.Google Scholar
Wildman, Wesley. (2010) Religious Philosophy as Multidisciplinary Comparative Inquiry. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Yong, Kevyn, Sauer, Stephen J., and Mannix, Elizabeth E.. (2014) ‘Conflict and Creativity in Interdisciplinary Teams’. Small Group Research, 45, 266–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar