Employing Philosophical Dialogue in Collaborative Science
Open accessAbstract
Integrated research across disciplines is required to address many of the pressing environmental problems facing human societies. Often the integration involves disparate disciplines, including those in the biological sciences, and demands collaboration from problem formulation through hypothesis development, data analysis, interpretation, and application. Such projects raise conceptual and methodological challenges that are new to many researchers in the biological sciences and to their collaborators in other disciplines. In this article, we develop the theme that many of these challenges are fundamentally philosophical, a dimension that has been largely overlooked in the extensive literature on cross-disciplinary research and education. We present a “toolbox for philosophical dialogue,” consisting of a set of questions for self-examination that cross-disciplinary collaborators can use to identify and address their philosophical disparities and commonalities. We provide a brief user's manual for this toolbox and evidence for its effectiveness in promoting successful integration across disciplines.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Many challenges of cross-disciplinary research have been overlooked and may also arise within disciplines.
“Although fundamentally philosophical in nature, many of the challenges of cross-disciplinary research have been overlooked and may also arise within disciplines (eg between theoreticians and empiri-cists, or between modelers and experimentalists; Eigenbrode et al. 2007).”
From Creating and maintaining high‐performing collaborative research teams: the importance of diversity and interpersonal skills (2014) · cites this paper as Eigenbrode et al. 2007
The sections “Exploring fundamental assumptions about the scientific process” and “An analysis of the philosophical aspects of cross-disciplinary research” describe philosophical roots of cross-disciplinary challenges and say the literature underemphasizes examining them. “The challenges of cross-disciplinary research” acknowledges challenges in single-discipline collaboration, and “Disciplinary collaboration” gives empirical and theoretical emphases as examples. The paper does not say that many of the challenges themselves have been overlooked; its narrower point is that their underlying assumptions receive too little attention. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredEffective interdisciplinary collaboration requires attention to processes and goals and managing philosophical differences among team members.
“Effective interdisciplinary collaboration requires careful attention to processes and goals, and understanding and managing basic philosophical differences among team members (Benda et al. 2002;Eigenbrode et al. 2007).”
From Creating and maintaining high‐performing collaborative research teams: the importance of diversity and interpersonal skills (2014) · cites this paper as Eigenbrode et al. 2007
Individual team members have different points of view and philosophies.
“Individual team members also have different points of view and philosophies (Eigenbrode et al. 2007).”
From Creating and maintaining high‐performing collaborative research teams: the importance of diversity and interpersonal skills (2014) · cites this paper as Eigenbrode et al. 2007
Philosophical differences among team members originate in distinctive ways scientists operate and include differences in motivation, methodology, values, objectivity, and evidence requirements.
“Such philosophical differences originate in the distinctive ways that scientists operate and include differences in: motivation for research, methodology, values, objectivity, and the amount and kind of evidence that they require for knowledge generation.”
From Creating and maintaining high‐performing collaborative research teams: the importance of diversity and interpersonal skills (2014) · cites this paper as Eigenbrode et al. 2007
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- de Rosnay J. 1979. The Macroscope: A New World Scientific System. New York: Harper and Row.
- Galison P. 1997. Image and Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Giampietro M. 2003. Multi-scale Integrated Analysis of Agroecosystems. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press.
- Greco J, Sosa E, eds. 1999. The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology. Oxford (United Kingdom): Blackwell.
- Klein JT. 1996. Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
- Loux MJ. 2002. Metaphysics. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
- Machamer P, Wolters G, eds. 2004. Science,Values, and Objectivity. Pittsburgh (PA): University of Pittsburgh Press.
- Mitchell SD, Daston L, Gigerenzer G, Sesardic N, Sloep PB. 1997. The whys and hows of interdisciplinarity. Pages 103-150 in
- National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Facilitating Inter- disciplinary Research and Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy. 2005. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington (DC): National Academies Press.
- Rescher N. 2001. Philosophical Reasoning: A Study in the Methodology of Philosophizing. Oxford (United Kingdom): Blackwell.
- Silberstein M. 2002. Reduction, emergence and explanation. Pages 80-107 in Machamer P, Silberstein M, eds. The Blackwell Guide to the Philoso- phy of Science. Oxford (United Kingdom): Blackwell.
- Stillwaggon E. 2005. AIDS and the Ecology of Poverty. Oxford (United Kingdom): Oxford University Press.
- Taper ML, Lélé SR, eds. 2004. The Nature of Scientific Evidence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management
Raymond, C. M., Fazey, I., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Robinson, G. M., & Evely, A. C. (2010) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.023 · Cited by 1,116 · see citing works
Cheruvelil, K. S., Soranno, P. A., Weathers, K. C., Hanson, P. C., Goring, S. J., Filstrup, C. T., & Read, E. K. (2014) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1890/130001 · Cited by 302 · see citing works
Transdisciplinary Research, Transformative Learning, and Transformative Science
Pennington, D. D., Simpson, G. L., McConnell, M. S., Fair, J. M., & Baker, R. J. (2013) · BioScience · doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.7.9 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Transdisciplinary teaching and research: what is possible in higher education?
McClam, S., & Flores-Scott, E. M. (2012) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562517.2011.611866 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
- Authors
- Eigenbrode, S. D., O'rourke, M., Wulfhorst, J. D., Althoff, D. M., Goldberg, C. S., Merrill, K., Morse, W., Nielsen-Pincus, M., Stephens, J., Winowiecki, L., & Bosque-Pérez, N. A.
- Affiliations
- Syracuse University (US)
- University of Idaho (US)
- Corresponding author
- Eigenbrode, Sanford D.
- ORCID
- Venue
- BioScience
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-01-01
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 55-64
- ISSN
- 0006-3568 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-3244
- OpenAlex
- W2147557001
- Cited by
- 411
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 16.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- BioScience (publishedVersion)
- PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
- BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Idaho National Laboratory
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Conservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
- Keywords
- philosophical dialogue, interdisciplinary research, collaborative science, philosophy of science, interdisciplinary collaboration, research integration, environmental problems
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
