The division of cognitive labor: two missing dimensions of the debate

Abstract

The question of the division of cognitive labor has given rise to various models characterizing the way scientists should distribute their efforts. These models often consider the scientific community as a self-governed sphere constituted by rational agents making choices on the basis of fixed rules. Such models have recently been criticized for not taking into account the real mechanisms of science funding. Hence, the question of the utility of the DCL models in guiding science policy remains an open one. In this paper, we show that two unconsidered dimensions would have to be taken into account. First, DCL studies miss the existence of distinct levels of epistemic objectives organizing the research process. Indeed, the scientific field is structured as a system of hierarchical, interconnected practices which are defined both by their inherent purposes and by various superposed external functions. Second, I criticize the absence of ontological considerations, since the epistemological significance of pluralism is highly dependent on the nature of the object under study. Because of these missing dimensions, current DCL models might have a limited usefulness to identify good practices of research governance.

Download options

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,856

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-01-31

Downloads
16 (#672,325)

6 months
1 (#386,040)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

The Division of Cognitive Labor.Philip Kitcher - 1990 - Journal of Philosophy 87 (1):5-22.
Epistemic Rationality as Instrumental Rationality: A Critique.Thomas Kelly - 2003 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (3):612–640.
Science, Truth, and Democracy.A. Bird - 2003 - Mind 112 (448):746-749.

View all 28 references / Add more references

Citations of this work

Formal Models of the Scientific Community and the Value-Ladenness of Science.Vincenzo Politi - 2021 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 11 (4):1-23.
Structure-Sensitive Testimonial Norms.Benedikt T. A. Höltgen - 2021 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 11 (3):1-23.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Division of Cognitive Labor: Two Missing Dimensions of the Debate.Baptiste Bedessem - 2018 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 9 (1):3.
Some Remarks on the Division of Cognitive Labor.Marco Viola - 2015 - RT. A Journal on Research Policy and Evaluation 3.
Diversity and the Division of Cognitive Labor.Ryan Muldoon - 2013 - Philosophy Compass 8 (2):117-125.
The Epistemic Norms of Intra-Scientific Testimony.Mikkel Gerken - 2015 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 45 (6):568-595.
A Unified Model of the Division of Cognitive Labor.Rogier De Langhe - 2014 - Philosophy of Science 81 (3):444-459.
The Epistemic Division of Labor Revisited.Johanna Thoma - 2015 - Philosophy of Science 82 (3):454-472.
Linguistic Labor and its Division.Jeff Engelhardt - 2019 - Philosophical Studies 176 (7):1855-1871.
Self Organization and Adaptation in Insect Societies.Robert E. Page & Sandra D. Mitchell - 1990 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:289 - 298.
A Roadmap for Integrating the Brain with Mind Maps.Andreas Demetriou & Antigoni Mouyi - 2007 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30 (2):156-158.
Models as Relational Categories.Tommi Kokkonen - 2017 - Science & Education 26 (7-9):777-798.