Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Naturalizing the essential tension

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Kuhn’s “essential tension” between conservative and innovative imperatives in enquiry has an empirical analogue—between the potential benefits of collectivization of enquiry and the social dynamic impediments to effective sharing of information and insights in collective settings. A range of empirical materials from social psychology and organization theory are considered which bear on the issue of balancing these opposing forces and an institution is described in which they are balanced in a way which is appropriate for collective knowledge production.

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

  • Bourdieu P. (1986). The forms of capital. In: Richardson J.(ed) Handbook for theory and research for the sociology of education. New York, Greenwood Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins B., Guetzkow H. (1964). A social psychology of group processes for decision-making. New York, Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly T., Koput K. (2002). Naturalistic decision making and the new organizational context. In: Shapira Z.(ed) Organizational decision making. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramton C.D. (2002). Attribution in distributed work groups. In: Hinds P., Kiesler S.(eds) Distributed work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Agostino F. (1990): The Aimless Rationality of Science. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 4, 33–50

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Agostino F. (1993): ‘Demographic’ Factors in Revolutionary Science: The Wave Model. Methodology and Science 26, 41–52

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Agostino F. (2000): Incommensurability and Commensuration: Lessons from (and to) Ethico-Political Theory. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 31, 429–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Agostino F. (2003): Incommensurability and Commensuration: The Common Denominator.

  • D’Agostino F. (2004): Pluralism and Liberalism. In: Gaus G.F., Kukathas C.(eds) Handbook of Political Theory. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Agostino F. (2005a): Kuhn’s Risk-Spreading Argument. Episteme 1, 201–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Agostino F. (2005b): Rituals of Cosmopolitanism. Sites of Cosmopolitanism: Citizenship. Aesthetics, Culture

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Agostino F. (2005c): The Sinews of a Free Society: Autonomy, Democracy and Education. In: Battin T.(ed) A Passion for Politics: Essays in Honour of Graham Maddox. Pearson Education Australia, Sydney, pp. 99–109

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Agostino F. (2006): Two Conceptions of Rationality. Economy and Society 35, 1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu C., West M. (2001), Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology 86, 1191–1201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth D. (2000). Social comparison and influence in groups. In: Wheeler S.(ed) Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller S. (1988). Social epistemology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller S. (1994). Social psychology of scientific knowledge: Another strong programme. In: Shadish W., Fuller S.(eds) Social psychology of science. New York, The Guilford Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Gellner E. (1989). Plough, sword and book. Chicago, University of Chicago Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman A. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford, Clarendon Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodin R. (ed) (1996). The theory of institutional design. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Grawitch M.J., Munz D.C. (2005). Individual and group affect in problem-solving workgroups. In Haertel C.E., Zerbe W.J., Ashkanasy N.M. (eds) Emotions in organizational behavior. Mahwah & London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek F.A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review 35, 519–530

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinsz V., Tinsdale S., Vollrath D. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin 121, 43–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr N., MacCoun R., Kramer G. (1996). Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review 103, 687–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesler S., Cummings J.N. (2002). What do we know about proximity and distance in work groups? A legacy of research. In Hinds P., Kiesler S. (eds) Distributed work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher P. (1990). The division of cognitive labor. Journal of Philosophy 87, 5–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher P. (1993). The advancement of science. New York, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. (1959 [1977]). The essential tension: Tradition and innovation in scientific research. In T. Kuhn (Ed.), The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

  • Kuhn T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, University of Chicago Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Kusch M. (2002). Knowledge by agreement: The programme of communitarian epistemology. Oxford, Clarendon Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos I. (1970). Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. In: Lakatos I., Musgrave A.(eds) Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan R., Laudan L. (1989). Dominance and the disunity of method. Philosophy of Science 56, 221–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin P.R. (1980). Social combination processes of cooperative problem-solving groups on verbal intellective tasks. In: Fishbein M. (ed) Progress in social psychology (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino H. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, Princeton University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Manin B., Przeworski A., Stokes S.C. (1999): Democracy, accountability, and representation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Mannix E.A., Griffith T., Neale M.A. (2002). The phenomenology of conflict in distributed work teams. In: Hinds P., Kiesler S.(eds) Distributed work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • March J. (2002). Understanding how decisions happen in organizations. In: Shapira Z.(ed) Organizational decision making. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • March J., Olsen J.P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Universitetsforlaget, Bergen

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreland R., Levine J. (1992). Problem identification in groups. In: Worchel S., Wood W., Simpson J.(eds) Group process and productivity. Newbury Park CA, Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Moscovici S. (1980). Toward a theory of conversion behavior. In Berkowitz L.(ed) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13). New York, Academic Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth C. (1992). Minority dissent as a stimulant to group performance. In: Worchel S., Wood W., Simpson J.(eds) Group process and productivity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Nola R. (1989). Review of Harvey Siegel, Relativism Refuted. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40, 419–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne J. (2002). The Scarecrow’s search: A cognitive psychologist’s perspective on organization decision making. In: Shapira Z.(ed) Organizational decision making. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi M. (1967). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper K. (1972). The logic of scientific discovery. London, Hutchinson

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenwein R. (1994). Social influence in science: Agreement and dissent in achieving scientific consensus. In: Shadish W., Fuller S.(eds) The social psychology of science. New York, The Guilford Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheidel T. (1996). Divergent and convergent thinking in group decision-making. In: Hirokawa R.Y.(ed) Communication and group decision making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt F.F. (1994). Socializing epistemology: The social dimensions of knowledge. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadish W., Fuller S. (1994). The social psychology of science. New York, The Guilford Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadish W., Fuller S., Gorman M. (1994). Social psychology of science: A conceptual and empirical research program. In: Shadish W., Fuller S.(eds) The social psychology of science. New York, The Guilford Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon H.A. (1992). Economics, bounded rationality and the cognitive revolution. Aldershot, Edward Elgar

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith A. (1893). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. London, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon M. (2001). Social empiricism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press (Bradford Books)

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasser G. (1992). Pooling of unshared information during group discussion. In: Worchel S., Wood W., Simpson J.(eds) Group process and productivity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasser G., Birchmeier Z. (2003). Group creativity and collective choice. In: Paulus P.B., Nijstad B.A.(eds) Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Suls J.M. (2000). Opinion comparison. In: Suls J.M., Wheeler L.(eds) Handbook of social comparison. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Suls J.M., Wheeler L. (2000). Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein C.R. (2003). Why societies need dissent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece D. (1998). Design issues for innovative firms: Bureaucracy, incentives and industrial structure. In: Chandler A., Hagstrom P., Solvell O.(eds) The dynamic firm: The role of technology, strategy, organization, and regions. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel E. (1998). “Sticky Information” and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. In: Chandler A., Hagstrom P., Solvell O.(eds) The dynamic firm: The role of technology, strategy, organization, and regions. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins J.W.N. (1970). Against ‘Normal Science’. In: Lakatos I., Musgrave A.(eds) Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press .[12pt]

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Arts, University of Queensland, Forgan Smith Building, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia

    Fred D’Agostino

Authors
  1. Fred D’Agostino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fred D’Agostino.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

D’Agostino, F. Naturalizing the essential tension. Synthese 162, 275–308 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9192-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9192-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation