Poiesis and Praxis 7 (4):249-274 (2011)
|Abstract||Among others, the term problem plays a major role in the various attempts to characterize interdisciplinarity or transdisciplinarity, as used synonymously in this paper. Interdisciplinarity (ID) is regarded as problem solving among science, technology and society and as problem orientation beyond disciplinary constraints (cf. Frodeman et al.: The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010). The point of departure of this paper is that the discourse and practice of ID have problems with the problem . The objective here is to shed some light on the vague notion of problem in order to advocate a specific type of interdisciplinarity: problem-oriented interdisciplinarity. The outline is as follows: Taking an ex negativo approach, I will show what problem-oriented ID does not mean. Using references to well-established distinctions in philosophy of science, I will show three other types of ID that should not be placed under the umbrella term problem-oriented ID : object-oriented ID ( ontology ), theory-oriented ID (epistemology), and method-oriented ID (methodology). Different philosophical thought traditions can be related to these distinguishable meanings. I will then clarify the notion of problem by looking at three systematic elements: an undesired (initial) state, a desired (goal) state, and the barriers in getting from the one to the other. These three elements include three related kinds of knowledge: systems, target, and transformation knowledge. This paper elaborates further methodological and epistemological elements of problem-oriented ID. It concludes by stressing that problem-oriented ID is the most needed as well as the most challenging type of ID|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jan C. Schmidt (2007). Towards a Philosophy of Interdisciplinarity. Poiesis and Praxis 5 (1):53-69.
Reza Zamani (2010). An Object-Oriented View on Problem Representation as a Search-Efficiency Facet: Minds Vs. Machines. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 20 (1):103-117.
Michael Decker & Torsten Fleischer (2010). When Should There Be Which Kind of Technology Assessment? A Plea for a Strictly Problem-Oriented Approach From the Very Outset. Poiesis and Praxis 7 (1-2):117-133.
Julie Thompson Klein & Carl Mitcham (eds.) (2010/2012). The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. OUP Oxford.
Nicholas Maxwell (1993). Induction and Scientific Realism: Einstein Versus Van Fraassen Part One: How to Solve the Problem of Induction. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44 (1):61-79.
Elijah Chudnoff (2011). What Should a Theory of Knowledge Do? Dialectica 65 (4):561-579.
Valentin Ageyev (2008). Creative Education as a Method of “Production” a Man as Subject of Own History. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 37:7-11.
Erika Mattila (2005). Interdisciplinarity "in the Making": Modeling Infectious Diseases. Perspectives on Science 13 (4):531-553.
Sheldon J. Chow (2013). What's the Problem with the Frame Problem? Review of Philosophy and Psychology 4 (2):309-331.
Jane Hedley (1992). Surviving to Speak New Language: Mary Daly and Adrienne Rich. Hypatia 7 (2):40 - 62.
Mark Sprevak (2005). The Frame Problem and the Treatment of Prediction. In L. Magnani & R. Dossena (eds.), Computing, Philosophy and Cognition.
Thomas Hofweber (2009). The Meta-Problem of Change. Noûs 43 (2):286 - 314.
Alvin I. Goldman (1983). Epistemology and the Theory of Problem Solving. Synthese 55 (1):21 - 48.
Added to index2011-05-22
Total downloads23 ( #60,159 of 722,826 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,826 )
How can I increase my downloads?