Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Philosophical intervention and cross-disciplinary science: the story of the Toolbox Project

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article we argue that philosophy can facilitate improvement in cross-disciplinary science. In particular, we discuss in detail the Toolbox Project, an effort in applied epistemology that deploys philosophical analysis for the purpose of enhancing collaborative, cross-disciplinary scientific research through improvements in cross-disciplinary communication. We begin by sketching the scientific context within which the Toolbox Project operates, a context that features a growing interest in and commitment to cross-disciplinary research (CDR). We then develop an argument for the leading idea behind this effort, namely, that philosophical dialogue can improve cross-disciplinary science by effecting epistemic changes that lead to better group communication. On the heels of this argument, we describe our approach and its output; in particular, we emphasize the Toolbox instrument that generates philosophical dialogue and the Toolbox workshop in which that dialogue takes place. Together, these constitute a philosophical intervention into the life of CDR teams. We conclude by considering the philosophical implications of this intervention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays (M. Holquist & C. Emerson, Trans.). Austin, TX: The University of Texas Press.

  • Baron N. (2010) Escape from the Ivory Tower: A guide to making your science matter. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxter L. A., Montgomery B. M. (1998) A guide to dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships. In: Montgomery B., Baxter L. Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ

  • Beebe S. A., Masterson J. T. (2009) Communicating in small groups: Principles and practices (9th ed.). Pearson, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett L. M., Gadlin H., Levine-Finley S. (2010) Collaboration and team science: A field guide. National Institutes for Health, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird, A., & Kuhn, T. (Winter 2011 Edition). In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/thomas-kuhn/. Retrieved 23 April 2012.

  • Campion M.A., Papper E.M., Medsker G.J. (1996) Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology 49(2): 429–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casey-Campbell M., Martens M. L. (2009) Sticking it all together: A critical assessment of the group cohesion-performance literature. International Journal of Management Reviews 11(2): 223–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark H. (1996) Using language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Collins H., Evans R., Gorman M.E. (2010) Trading zones and interactional expertise. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38(4): 657–666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crow M. (2010) Organizing teaching and research to address the grand challenges of sustainable development. BioScience 60(7): 488–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowley, S. J., Eigenbrode, S. D, O’Rourke, M., & Wulfhorst, J. D. (2010). Localization in cross-disciplinary research: A philosophical approach. Multilingual 114. http://www.multilingual.com/downloads/114LCDR.pdf. Retrieved 10 July 2011.

  • Eaglesham, A., & Hardy, R. W. F. (Eds.). (2009). Adapting agriculture to climate change. National Agricultural Biotechnology Council Report 21. Ithaca, NY.

  • Eigenbrode, S. D., O’Rourke, M., Althoff, D., Goldberg, C., Merrill, K., Morse, W., et al. (2007). Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. BioScience, 57, 5564.

  • Feldman, R., Warfield, T. (Eds.). (2010) Disagreement. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank L. K. (1961) Interprofessional communication. American Journal of Public Health 51: 1798–1804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frodeman, R., Klein, J. T., Mitcham, C. (Eds.). (2010) The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Galison P. (1997) Image and logic. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman E. (1981) Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, M. E. (Eds.). (2010) Trading zones and interactional expertise. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Graybill J. K., Dooling S., Shandas V., Withey J., Greve A., Simon G. L. (2006) A rough guide to interdisciplinarity: Graduate student perspectives. BioScience 56: 757–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson C. E., Palutikof J. P., Dlugolecki A., Giannakopoulos C. (2006) Bridging the gap between science and the stakeholder: The case of climate change research. Climate Research 31: 121–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone B. (2008) Discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Keyton J. (1999) Relational communication in groups. In: Frey L.R., Gouran D.S., Poole M.S. (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 192–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein J. T. (1990) Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Wayne State University Press, Detroit, MI

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein J. T (1996) Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, VI

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein J. T. (2010) Creating interdisciplinary campus cultures: A model for strength and sustainability. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein J. T. (2011) Research integration: A comparative knowledge base. In: Repko A. F., Newell W. H., Szostak R. Case studies in interdisciplinary research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

  • Kornblith H. (1993) Inductive inference and its natural ground. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. [1970] (1962/1970a). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (2nd edition, with postscript).

  • Lélé S., Norgaard R. B. (2005) Practicing interdisciplinarity. BioScience 55: 967–975

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littlejohn S. W., Foss K. A. (2008) Theories of human communication (9th ed.). Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Machlis, G. E., Hanson, T., Špirić, Z., & Mckendry, J. E. (2011). Warfare ecology: A new synthesis for peace and Security.. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • McDonough E. F. (2000) Investigation of factors contributing to the success of cross-functional teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management 17(3): 221–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, T. R., Baird, T. D., Littlefield, C. M., Kofinas, G., Chapin III, F. S., & Redman, C. L. (2008). Epistemological pluralism: Reorganizing interdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 46. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art46/. Retrieved 10 July 2011.

  • National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research and Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy (NAS). (2004). Facilitating interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

  • Polanyi M. (1958) Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell J. (1990) Why am I afraid to tell you who I am?. Argus Communications, Niles, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell B. (1997) The problems of philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenberger E. (2001) Interdisciplinarity and social power. Progress in Human Geography 25: 365–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson J. L. (2009) Building collective communication competence in interdisciplinary research teams. Journal of Applied Communication Research 37(3): 278–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuomela R. (2007) The philosophy of sociality: The shared point of view. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Winowiecki L., Smukler S., Shirley K., Remans R., Peltier G., Lothes E. et al (2011) Tools for enhancing interdisciplinary communication. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy 7(1): 74–80

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 48824-1032, USA

    Michael O’Rourke

  2. Department of Philosophy, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA

    Stephen J. Crowley

Authors
  1. Michael O’Rourke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen J. Crowley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael O’Rourke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

O’Rourke, M., Crowley, S.J. Philosophical intervention and cross-disciplinary science: the story of the Toolbox Project. Synthese 190, 1937–1954 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0175-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0175-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation