17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Epistemology for interdisciplinary research – shifting philosophical paradigms of science

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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, metacognitive scaffolds assist interdisciplinary communication aiming to analyze and articulate how the discipline constructs knowledge.

          Related collections

          Most cited references76

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The Role of Metacognitive Knowledge in Learning, Teaching, and Assessing

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Interdisciplinarity: A Critical Assessment

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                00-31-(0)53-4892659 , m.boon@utwente.nl , https://people.utwente.nl/m.boon , https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mieke_Boon2/publications
                s.j.vanbaalen@utwente.nl
                Journal
                Eur J Philos Sci
                Eur J Philos Sci
                European Journal for Philosophy of Science
                Springer Netherlands (Dordrecht )
                1879-4912
                1879-4920
                12 December 2018
                12 December 2018
                2019
                : 9
                : 1
                : 16
                Affiliations
                ISNI 0000 0004 0399 8953, GRID grid.6214.1, Department of Philosophy, , University of Twente, ; Enschede, The Netherlands
                Author notes

                This article belongs to the Topical Collection: EPSA17: Selected papers from the biannual conference in Exeter

                Guest Editors: Thomas Reydon, David Teira, Adam Toon

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2492-2854
                Article
                242
                10.1007/s13194-018-0242-4
                6383598
                30873248
                85ec7c38-16dd-4f04-9edf-bac22dfad9bb
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                : 31 March 2018
                : 15 November 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: University of Twente
                Categories
                Paper in Philosophy of Science in Practice
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Nature B.V. 2019

                interdisciplinarity,problem-solving,epistemological views,disciplinary matrix,kuhn,disciplinary perspectives,engineering paradigm of science,engineering sciences,higher education,expertise,metacognitive skills,higher-order cognitive skills,metacognitive scaffolds

                Comments

                Comment on this article