Problem-Feeding as a Model for Interdisciplinary Research

References

• Alvargonzález, D. 2011. “Multidisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity, Transdisciplinarity, and the Sciences.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 25: 387–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2011.623366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen, H., and S. Wagenknecht. 2013. “Epistemic Dependence in Interdisciplinary Groups.” Synthese 190: 1881–1898.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, E. 2013. “Uses of Value Judgements in Science: A General Argument, with Lessons from a Case Study of Feminist Research on Divorce.” Etica e Politica 15: 583–605. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof.
   Google Scholar
• Apostel, L., G. Berger, A. Briggs, and G. Michaud. 1972. Interdisciplinarity: Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities.
   Google Scholar
• Bechtel, W. 1986. “The Nature of Scientific Integration.” In Integrating Scientific Disciplines, edited by W. Bechtel, 3–52. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Bernstein, J. H. 2015. “Transdisciplinarity: A Review of its Origins, Development, and Current Issues.” Journal of Research Practice 11: 1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bilotta, G. S., A. M. Milner, and I. L. Boyd. 2014. “Quality Assessment Tools for Evidence from Environmental Science.” Environmental Evidence 3: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/2047-2382-3-14.
   Google Scholar
• Boden, M. 1999. “What is Interdisciplinarity.” In Interdisciplinarity and the Organisation of Knowledge in Europe, edited by R. Cunningham, 13–26. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Brewer, G. D. 1999. “The Challenges of Interdisciplinarity.” Theory and Practice 32: 327–337.
   Google Scholar
• Brister, E. 2016. “Disciplinary Capture and Epistemological Obstacles to Interdisciplinary Research: Lessons from Central African Conservation Disputes.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C :Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 56: 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.11.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darden, L. 1991. Theory Change in Science: Strategies from Mendelian Genetics. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Darden, L., and N. Maull. 1977. “Interfield Theories.” Philosophy of Science 44: 43–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas, H. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh, Pa: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dupré, J. 1994. “Against Scientific Imperialism.” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 2: 371–381.
   Google Scholar
• Dupré, J. 2007. “Fact and Value.” In Value-free Science?, edited by H. Kincaid, J. Dupré, and A. Wylie, 27–41. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• EBMWG. 1992. “Evidence-based Medicine. A New Approach to Teaching the Practice of Medicine.” JAMA 268: 2420–2425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eigenbrode, S. D., M. O’Rourke, J. D. Wulfhorst, D. M. Althoff, C. S. Goldberg, K. Merrill, W. Morse, et al. 2007. “Employing Philosophical Dialogue in Collaborative Science.” BioScience 57: 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1641/B570109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott, K. C. 2011. “Direct and Indirect Roles for Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 78: 303–324. https://doi.org/10.1086/659222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grantham, T. A. 2004. “Conceptualizing the (Dis)unity of Science.” Philosophy of Science 71: 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1086/383008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grüne-Yanoff, T. 2016. “Interdisciplinary Success without Integration.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 6: 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-016-0139-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, K. L., A. L. Vogel, and R. T. Croyle. 2019. Strategies for Team Science Success, edited by K. L. Hall, A. L. Vogel, and R. T. Croyle. Cham: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, K. L., A. L. Vogel, G. C. Huang, K. J. Serrano, E. L. Rice, S. P. Tsakraklides, and S. M. Fiore. 2018. “The Science of Team Science: A Review of the Empirical Evidence and Research Gaps on Collaboration in Science.” American Psychologist 73: 532–548. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000319.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansson, B. 1999. “Interdisciplinarity: For What Purpose ?” Policy Sciences 32: 339–343.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, F., and F. Lyon. 2013. “Transdisciplinary Environmental Research: Building Trust across Professional Cultures.” Environmental Science and Policy 31: 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.02.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holbrook, J. B. 2013. “What is Interdisciplinary Communication? Reflections on the Very Idea of Disciplinary Integration.” Synthese 190: 1865–1879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0179-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howick, Jeremy, Chalmers Ian, Glasziou Paul, Greenhalgh Trish, Heneghan Carl, Liberati Alessandro, Moschetti Ivan, Phillips Bob, and Thornton Hazel. 2011. "The 2011 Oxford CEMB Evidence Levels of Evidence (Introductory Document). Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653
   Google Scholar
• Huutoniemi, K., J. T. Klein, H. Bruun, and J. Hukkinen. 2010. “Analyzing Interdisciplinarity: Typology and Indicators.” Research Policy 39: 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.09.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser, M. I., M. Kronfeldner, and R. Meunier. 2014. “Interdisciplinarity in Philosophy of Science.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 45: 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-014-9269-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keen, S., T. M. Lenton, A. Godin, D. Yilmaz, M. Grasselli, and T. J. Garrett. 2021. Economists’ Erroneous Estimates of Damages from Climate Change. http://arxiv.org/abs/2108.07847.
   Google Scholar
• Kincaid, H. 2008. Molecular Biology and the Unity of Science Author (s): Harold Kincaid Source : Philosophy of Science, Vol. 57, No. 4 (Dec., 1990), pp. 575–593 Published by : The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association St. Philosophy 57: 575–593.
   Google Scholar
• Klein, J. T. 1990. Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Klein, J. T. 2017. “The Typologies of Interdisciplinarity.” In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, edited by R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, and R. C. Dos Santos Pacheco. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Koskinen, I., and U. Mäki. 2016. “Extra-academic Transdisciplinarity and Scientific Pluralism: What might They Learn from One Another?” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 6: 419–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-016-0141-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. 1970. “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” In Knowledge and Postmodernism in Historical Perspective: Vol. II (Issue 2). The University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.5840/philstudies196413082.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. 1977. “Objectivity, Value Judgement and Theory Choice.” In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, 320–339. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laudan, L. 1978. Progress and its Problems. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• MacLeod, M., and M. Nagatsu. 2016. “Model Coupling in Resource Economics: Conditions for Effective Interdisciplinary Collaboration.” Philosophy of Science 83: 412–433. https://doi.org/10.1086/685745.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacLeod, M., and M. Nagatsu. 2018. “What Does Interdisciplinarity Look Like in Practice: Mapping Interdisciplinarity and its Limits in the Environmental Sciences.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 67: 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.01.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäki, U. 2009. “Economics Imperialism.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 39: 351–380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäki, U. 2016. “Philosophy of Interdisciplinarity. What? Why? How?” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 6: 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-016-0162-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maull, N. L. 1977. “Unifying Science without Reduction.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 8: 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(77)90012-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMullin, E. 1982. “Values in Science.” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 2: 3–28.
   Google Scholar
• Mennes, J. 2020. “Putting Multidisciplinarity (Back) on the Map.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 10, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-020-00283-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, S. 2009. Unsimple Truths. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mitroff, I., and T. Featheringham. 1974. “On Systemic Problem Solving and the Error of the Third Kind.” Behavioral Science 19: 383–393.
   Google Scholar
• Nickles, T. 1981. “What is a Problem that We May Solve It?” Synthese 47: 85–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nickles, T. 2006. “Heuristic Appraisal: Context of Discovery or Justification.” In Revisting Discovery and Justification, edited by J. Schickore, and F. Steinle, 159–182. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• O’Malley, M. A., and O. S. Soyer. 2012. “The Roles of Integration in Molecular Systems Biology.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C :Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43: 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.10.006.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• O’Neill, B. C., E. Kriegler, K. Riahi, K. L. Ebi, S. Hallegatte, T. R. Carter, R. Mathur, and D. P. van Vuuren. 2014. “A New Scenario Framework for Climate Change Research: The Concept of Shared Socioeconomic Pathways.” Climatic Change 122: 387–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0905-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Rourke, M., and S. Crowley. 2013. “Philosophical Intervention and Cross-disciplinary Science: The Story of the Toolbox Project.” Synthese 190: 1937–1954.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Rourke, M., S. Crowley, and C. Gonnerman. 2016. “On the Nature of Cross-disciplinary Integration: A Philosophical Framework.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C :Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 56: 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.10.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, W. S., and E. Winsberg. 2018. “Values and Evidence: How Models Make a Difference.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 8: 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-017-0180-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Persson, J., E. L. Johansson, and L. Olsson. 2018. “Harnessing Local Knowledge for Scientific Knowledge Production: Challenges and Pitfalls within Evidence-based Sustainability Studies.” Ecology and Society 23: 4. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10608-230438.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Persson, J., H. Thorén, and L. Olsson. 2018. “The Interdisciplinary Decision Problem: Popperian Optimism and Kuhnian Pessimism in Forestry.” Ecology and Society 23, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10401-230340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pezzey, J. C. V. 2018. High Unknowability of Climate Damage Valuation means the Social Cost of Carbon Will Always Be Disputed.
   Google Scholar
• Pindyck, R. S. 2017. “The Use and Misuse of Models for Climate Policy.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 11: 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rew012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popper, K. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Putnam, H. 2002. The Collapse of the Fact/value Dicothomy (Issue c). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rudner, R. 1953. “The Scientist qua Scientists Makes Value Judgments.” Philosophy of Science 20: 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, J. C. 2008. “Towards a Philosophy of Interdisciplinarity. An Attempt to Provide a Classification and Clarification.” Poiesis Und Praxis 5: 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-007-0037-8.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, J. C. 2011. “What is a Problem?” Poiesis Und Praxis 7: 249–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-011-0091-0.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schmidt, J. C. 2022. Philosophy of Interdisciplinarity. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315387109-1.
   Google Scholar
• Star, S. L., and J. R. Griesemer. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, “Translations” and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39.” Social Studies of Science 19: 387–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steel, D. 2010. “Epistemic Values and the Argument from Inductive Risk.” Philosophy of Science 77: 14–34. https://doi.org/10.1086/650206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steel, D. 2013. “Acceptance, Values, and Inductive Risk.” Philosophy of Science 80: 818–828. https://doi.org/10.1086/673936.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steele, K. 2012. “The Scientist qua Policy Advisor Makes Value Judgments.” Philosophy of Science 79: 893–904. https://doi.org/10.1086/667842.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorén, H. 2015a. “History and Philosophy of Science as an Interdisciplinary Field of Problem Transfers.” In Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics. Vol. 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18600-9_8.
   Google Scholar
• Thorén, H. 2015b. The Hammer and the Nail: Inderdisciplinarity and Problem Solving in Sustainability Science.
   Google Scholar
• Thorén, H., and L. Breian. 2016. “Stepping Stone or Stumbling Block? Mode 2 Knowledge Production in Sustainability Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C :Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 56, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.11.002.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thorén, H., and J. Persson. 2013. “The Philosophy of Interdisciplinarity: Sustainability Science and Problem-Feeding.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 44, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-013-9233-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorén, H., J. Persson, and L. Olsson. 2021. “A Pluralist Approach to Epistemic Dilemmas in Event Attribution Science.” Climatic Change 169: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03263-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorén, H., N. Soininen, and N. Kotamäki. 2021. “Scientific Models in Legal Judgements: The Relationship Between Law and Environmental Science as Problem-feeding.” Environmental Science and Policy 124: 478–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.07.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. 1972. Human Understanding. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Vuuren, D. P., J. Edmonds, M. Kainuma, K. Riahi, A. Thomson, K. Hibbard, G. C. Hurtt, et al. 2011. “The Representative Concentration Pathways: An Overview.” Climatic Change 109: 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voinov, A., and H. H. Shugart. 2013. ““Integronsters”, Integral and Integrated Modeling.” Environmental Modelling and Software 39: 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.05.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wahlberg, L. 2010. Legal Questions and Scientific Answers: Ontological Differences and Epistemic Gaps in the Assessment of Causal Relations. Lund, Sweden: Lund University.
   Google Scholar
• Wahlberg, L., and J. Persson. 2017. “Importing Notions in Health Law: Science and Proven Experience.” European Journal of Health Law 24: 565–590. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718093-12453308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winsberg, E., N. Oreskes, and E. Lloyd. 2020. “Severe Weather Event Attribution: Why Values won’t Go Away.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 84: 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2020.09.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar