Epistemology for interdisciplinary research – shifting philosophical paradigms of science

Abstract

In science policy, it is generally acknowledged that science-based problem-solving requires interdisciplinary research. For example, policy makers invest in funding programs such as Horizon 2020 that aim to stimulate interdisciplinary research. Yet the epistemological processes that lead to effective interdisciplinary research are poorly understood. This article aims at an epistemology for interdisciplinary research (IDR), in particular, IDR for solving ‘real-world’ problems. Focus is on the question why researchers experience cognitive and epistemic difficulties in conducting IDR. Based on a study of educational literature it is concluded that higher-education is missing clear ideas on the epistemology of IDR, and as a consequence, on how to teach it. It is conjectured that the lack of philosophical interest in the epistemology of IDR is due to a philosophical paradigm of science (called a physics paradigm of science ), which prevents recognizing severe epistemological challenges of IDR, both in the philosophy of science as well as in science education and research. The proposed alternative philosophical paradigm (called an engineering paradigm of science ) entails alternative philosophical presuppositions regarding aspects such as the aim of science, the character of knowledge, the epistemic and pragmatic criteria for accepting knowledge, and the role of technological instruments. This alternative philosophical paradigm assume the production of knowledge for epistemic functions as the aim of science, and interprets ‘knowledge’ (such as theories, models, laws, and concepts) as epistemic tools that must allow for conducting epistemic tasks by epistemic agents, rather than interpreting knowledge as representations that objectively represent aspects of the world independent of the way in which it was constructed. The engineering paradigm of science involves that knowledge is indelibly shaped by how it is constructed. Additionally, the way in which scientific disciplines (or fields) construct knowledge is guided by the specificities of the discipline, which can be analyzed in terms of disciplinary perspectives . This implies that knowledge and the epistemic uses of knowledge cannot be understood without at least some understanding of how the knowledge is constructed. Accordingly, scientific researchers need so-called metacognitive scaffolds to assist in analyzing and reconstructing how ‘knowledge’ is constructed and how different disciplines do this differently. In an engineering paradigm of science, these metacognitive scaffolds can also be interpreted as epistemic tools, but in this case as tools that guide, enable and constrain analyzing and articulating how knowledge is produced (i.e., explaining epistemological aspects of doing research). In interdisciplinary research, metacognit...

Reply to Betts et al. “When are hypotheses useful in ecology and conservation?”

“…At the same time, one might object that ecology and conservation scientists are not obliged to structure their research questions by drawing on epistemology (the study of how we know and come to know things) and Science and Technology Studies because these are other disciplines, and no-one is obligated to be interdisciplinary (but see Boon & Van Baalen 2019). Multiple disciplines exist since (to simplify), historically, particular methods and approaches have been more generative for particular subjects than others.…”

From Multidisciplinarity to Transdisciplinarity and from Local to Global Foci: Integrative Approaches to Systemic Resilience Based upon the Value of Life in the Context of Environmental and Gender Vulnerabilities with a Special Focus upon the Brazilian Amazon Biome

“…This is interpreted by philosophers of science as the emergence of an "engineering paradigm" [125]. Interdisciplinarity is acknowledged in science-based problem-solving research (engineering) and transdisciplinarity is acknowledged in resilience research [126]. Awareness and knowledge can be accessed both from outside and inside.…”

Transdisciplinary Research on Indoor Environment and Health as a Social Process

“…Academia is structured around traditional research fields, with separate divisions, departments, and faculties delineating boundaries that can be difficult to overcome [ 21 ]. Also, tacit barriers that are not part of official structures or regulations can be difficult to address, barriers such as cognitive and epistemological [ 22 ] or social differences, leading to territorial disputes, unwillingness to share data, and the strong link between the researcher as a person and the research, expressed as “my research” [ 23 , 24 ]. It has therefore been widely recognized that TD should be considered a social process in addition to a conceptual one [ 25 , 26 ].…”