Authors
Evelyn Brister
Rochester Institute of Technology
Abstract
Complex environmental problems require well-researched policies that integrate knowledge from both the natural and social sciences. Epistemic differences can impede interdisciplinary collaboration, as shown by debates between conservation biologists and anthropologists who are working to preserve biological diversity and support economic development in central Africa. Disciplinary differences with regard to 1) facts, 2) rigor, 3) causal explanation, and 4) research goals reinforce each other, such that early decisions about how to define concepts or which methods to adopt may tilt research design and data interpretation toward one discipline’s epistemological framework. If one of the contributing fields imposes a solution to an epistemic problem, this sets the stage for what I call disciplinary capture. Avoiding disciplinary capture requires clear communication between collaborators, but beyond this it also requires that collaborators craft research questions and innovate research designs which are different from the inherited epistemological frameworks of contributing disciplines.
Keywords interdisciplinarity  collaboration  applied epistemology  biodiversity  conservation policy  social epistemology
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.11.001
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal.Heather Douglas - 2009 - University of Pittsburgh Press.

View all 23 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Framing the Epistemic Schism of Statistical Mechanics.Javier Anta - 2021 - Proceedings of the X Conference of the Spanish Society of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science.
Traversing Technology Trajectories.Frederick Klaessig - 2021 - NanoEthics 15 (2):149-168.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Challenges of Cross-Disciplinary Research.Jens Aagaard-Hansen - 2007 - Social Epistemology 21 (4):425 – 438.
Interdisziplinäre Systemintegration Und Innovationsgenese: Ein Methodologischer Zugang Für Die Interdisziplinäre Forschung. [REVIEW]Dietmar Wechsler & Annette C. Hurst - 2011 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 42 (1):141-155.
Research Skills for the Future: An Interdisciplinary Perspective.Rick Szostak - 2013 - Journal of Research Practice 9 (1):Article V3.
Issues of Academic Disciplines in Agricultural Research.H. O. Kunkel - 1988 - Agriculture and Human Values 5 (4):16-25.
Agreeing to Differ: African Democracy--- Its Obstacles and ProspectsDenied?Steven Friedman - 1999 - Social Research: An International Quarterly 66 (3).
Interdisciplinary Bioethics on the Crossroad of Research Methods.Eliane Azevêdo - 2007 - Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 17 (2):34-34.
The Rhetorical Strategy of Boundary-Work.Anne Holmquest - 1990 - Argumentation 4 (3):235-258.
How and Why to Teach Interdisciplinary Research Practice.Rick Szostak - 2007 - Journal of Research Practice 3 (2):Article M17.
The Formulation of Epistemological Disjunctivism.Craig French - 2016 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 92 (1):86-104.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-12-02

Total views
601 ( #13,356 of 2,498,533 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
92 ( #7,861 of 2,498,533 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes