Boon Mieke, Van Baalen Sophie
Department of Philosophy, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Eur J Philos Sci. 2019;9(1):16. doi: 10.1007/s13194-018-0242-4. Epub 2018 Dec 12.
In science policy, it is generally acknowledged that science-based problem-solving requires interdisciplinary research. For example, policy makers invest in funding programs such as Horizon 2020 that aim to stimulate interdisciplinary research. Yet the epistemological processes that lead to effective interdisciplinary research are poorly understood. This article aims at an epistemology for interdisciplinary research (IDR), in particular, IDR for solving 'real-world' problems. Focus is on the question why researchers experience cognitive and epistemic difficulties in conducting IDR. Based on a study of educational literature it is concluded that higher-education is missing clear ideas on the epistemology of IDR, and as a consequence, on how to teach it. It is conjectured that the lack of philosophical interest in the epistemology of IDR is due to a paradigm of science (called a ), which prevents recognizing severe epistemological challenges of IDR, both in the philosophy of science as well as in science education and research. The proposed alternative philosophical paradigm (called an ) entails alternative philosophical presuppositions regarding aspects such as the aim of science, the character of knowledge, the epistemic and pragmatic criteria for accepting knowledge, and the role of technological instruments. This alternative philosophical paradigm assume the production of knowledge for epistemic functions as the aim of science, and interprets 'knowledge' (such as theories, models, laws, and concepts) as that must allow for conducting epistemic tasks by epistemic agents, rather than interpreting knowledge as that objectively represent aspects of the world independent of the way in which it was constructed. The engineering paradigm of science involves that knowledge is indelibly shaped by how it is constructed. Additionally, the way in which scientific (or fields) construct knowledge is guided by the specificities of the discipline, which can be analyzed in terms of . This implies that knowledge and the of knowledge cannot be understood without at least some understanding of how the knowledge is constructed. Accordingly, scientific researchers need so-called to assist in analyzing and reconstructing how 'knowledge' is constructed and how different disciplines do this differently. In an engineering paradigm of science, these metacognitive scaffolds can also be interpreted as epistemic tools, but in this case as tools that guide, enable and constrain analyzing and articulating knowledge is produced (i.e., explaining epistemological aspects of doing research). In interdisciplinary research, metacognitive scaffolds assist interdisciplinary communication aiming to analyze and articulate how the discipline constructs knowledge.
在科学政策领域，人们普遍认为基于科学的问题解决需要跨学科研究。例如，政策制定者对诸如“地平线2020”这样旨在促进跨学科研究的资助项目进行投资。然而，导致有效跨学科研究的认识论过程却鲜为人知。本文旨在探讨跨学科研究（IDR）的认识论，特别是解决“现实世界”问题的跨学科研究的认识论。重点关注的问题是，为什么研究人员在进行跨学科研究时会遇到认知和认识论上的困难。基于对教育文献的研究得出的结论是，高等教育对跨学科研究的认识论缺乏清晰的认识，因此也不知道如何教授它。据推测，对跨学科研究认识论缺乏哲学兴趣是由于一种科学范式（称为a），它阻碍了在科学哲学以及科学教育与研究中认识到跨学科研究的严峻认识论挑战。所提出的替代哲学范式（称为an）在科学目的、知识特征、接受知识的认识论和实用标准以及技术工具的作用等方面带来了不同的哲学预设。这种替代哲学范式将为认知功能而产生知识作为科学的目标，并将“知识”（如理论、模型、定律和概念）解释为认知主体必须能够用以执行认知任务的东西，而不是将知识解释为客观呈现世界各方面而独立于其构建方式的东西。科学的工程范式意味着知识不可避免地受到其构建方式的影响。此外，科学学科（或领域）构建知识的方式受该学科特殊性的指导，这可以从……方面进行分析。这意味着，如果至少对知识是如何构建的没有一些了解，就无法理解知识及其构建过程。因此，科研人员需要所谓的元认知支架来协助分析和重构“知识”是如何构建的，以及不同学科是如何以不同方式进行构建的。在科学的工程范式中，这些元认知支架也可以被解释为认知工具，但在这种情况下，它们是指导、促成和限制对知识是如何产生的进行分析和阐述的工具（即解释研究过程中的认识论方面）。在跨学科研究中，元认知支架有助于跨学科交流，旨在分析和阐述各学科是如何构建知识的。
