Advertisement

Distributed Cognition in Aid of Interdisciplinary Collaborations

Chapter
  • 81 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics book series (SAPERE, volume 56)

Abstract

What does it take to perform collaborative interdisciplinarity with good epistemic and academic results? This pragmatical question, slightly rephrased, has been one of the few key issues of the philosophical studies on interdisciplinarity since the Seventies. In this paper I aim at addressing that question adopting a conceptual framework weirdly not yet used for this purpose: distributed cognition theories. In particular I will focus on the embodied, emerging, and extended nature of cognitive activities at the core of successful examples of collaborative interdisciplinarity. In the first section of this paper I will briefly review the literature on interdisciplinary collaborations. In the second section I will present the perspective from which I aim at addressing their recurrent problems: a broadly conceived distributed cognition theory, which incorporates insights from the extended mind approach, and from the theories on emerging and embodied cognition. In the third section of the paper I will analyze some of the usual emerging problems of collaborative interdisciplinarity by referring to some well-documented case studies. Then, I will propose some ways to face those problems in the organization and development of a collaborative interdisciplinary project, referring to it as a complex system of distributed cognitive activities.

References

  1. Ackoff RL (1974a) Redesigning the future. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackoff RL (1974b) The systems revolution. Long Range Plan 7:2–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen H (2013) The second essential tension: on tradition and innovation in interdisciplinary research. Topoi 32:3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson JR (1983) The architecture of cognition. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Apostel L, Berger G, Briggs A, Michaud G (eds) (1972) Interdisciplinarity: problems of teaching and research in universities. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  6. Boden M (1997) What is interdisciplinarity? In: Cunningham R (ed) Interdisciplinarity and the organisation of knowledge in Europe. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, pp 13–26Google Scholar
  7. Bromham L, Dinnage R, Hua X (2016) Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success. Nature 534:684–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown MJ (2009) Science as socially distributed cognition: bridging philosophy and sociology of science. In: FrançSois K, Löwe B, Müller T, Van Kerkhove B (eds) Bringing together philosophy and sociology of science. Foundations of the Formal Sciences VII, New York, pp 285–299Google Scholar
  9. Buller H (2009) The lively process of interdisciplinarity. Area 41(1):395–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chandrasekharan S, Nersessian NJ (2015) Building cognition: the construction of computational representations for scientific discovery. Cognit Sci 39(8):1727–1763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins H, Evans R (2002) The third wave of science studies studies of expertise and experience. Soc Stud Sci 32:235–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Derry SJ, DuRussel LA, O’Donnell AM (1998) Individual and distributed cognitions in interdisciplinary teamwork: a developing case study and emerging theory. Educ Psychol Rev 10:25–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Donaldson A, Ward N, Bradley S (2010) Mess among disciplines: interdisciplinarity in environmental research. Environ Plan 42(A):1521–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fiore SM, Hoffman RR, Salas E (2008) Learning and performance across disciplines: an epilogue for moving multidisciplinary research toward an interdisciplinary science of expertise. Mil Psychol 20(1):155–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. Giere P (2002) Scientific cognition as distributed cognition. In: Carruthers P, Stich S, Siegal M (eds) The cognitive basis of science. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 285–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grimm SR (2009) Reliability and the sense of understanding. In: Regt HD, Leonelli S, Eigner K (eds) Scientific understanding: philosophical perspectives. University of Pittsburg Press, Pittsburg, pp 83–99Google Scholar
  18. Grune-Yanoff T (2016) Interdisciplinary success without integration. Eur J Philos Sci 6:343–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hardwig J (1991) The role of trust in knowledge. J Philos 88(12):693–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holbrook JB (2013) What is interdisciplinary communication? Reflections on the very idea of disciplinary integration. Synthese 190:1865–1879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hollan J, Hutchins E, Kirsh D (2000) Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation of human-computer interaction research. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact 7(2):174–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the wild. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  23. Jantsch E (1970) Inter- and transdisciplinary university: a systems approach to education and innovation. High Educ 1(1):7–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Keil FC (2003) Folkscience: coarse interpretations of a complex reality. Trends Cognit Sci 7:368–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klein JT (1990) Interdisciplinarity: history, theory and practice. Wayne State University, DetroitGoogle Scholar
  26. Koskinen I, Maki U (2016) Extra-academic transdisciplinarity and scientific pluralism: what might they learn from one another? Eur J Philos Sci 6:419–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lachance C, Lariviére V (2014) On the citation lifecycle of papers with delayed recognition. J Inform 8(4):863–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lariviére V, Haustein S, Börner K (2015) Long-distance interdisciplinarity leads to higher scientific impact. PloS ONE 10(3):e0122565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lopez WL (2015) Interdisciplinariety: a perspective from the dynamics of scientific production and communication. Univ Psychol 14:1–2Google Scholar
  30. MacLeod M, Nersessian NJ (2014) Strategies for coordinating experimentation and modeling in integrative system biology. J Exp Zool 322:230–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. MacLeod M, Nersessian NJ (2016) Interdisciplinary problem-solving: emerging modes in integrative system biology. Eur J Philos Sci 6:401–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maki U (2016) Philosophy of interdisciplinarity. What? Why? How? Eur J Philos Sci 6:327–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maki U, MacLeod M (2016) Interdisciplinarity in action: philosophy of science perspectives. Eur J Philos Sci 6:323–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Merton RK (1968) The Matthew effect in science. Science 159:56–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Metzger N, Zare RN (1999) Interdisciplinary research: from belief to reality. Science 283:642–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mills CM, Keil FC (2004) Knowing the limits of one’s understanding: the development of an awareness of an illusion of explanatory depth. J Exp Child Psychol 87:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Naiman R (1999) Interdisciplinarity in philosophy of science. Ecosystems 2:292–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Naiman RJ, Bisson PA, Lee RG, Turner MG (1998) Watershed management. In: Naiman RJ, Bilby RE (eds) River ecology and management: lessons from the Pacific coastal ecoregion. Springer, New York, pp 642–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Paletz SBF, Chan J, Schunn CD (2016) Uncovering uncertainty through disagreement. Appl Cognit Psychol 6:343–360Google Scholar
  40. Rhee YE (2017) Can scientific cognition be distributed? Ann Jpn Assoc Philos Sci 26:29–37Google Scholar
  41. Rogers Y (1997) A brief introduction to distributed cognition. http://www.slis.indiana.edu/faculty/yrogers/papers/dcog/dcog-brief-intro.pdf
  42. Rose LT, Daley SG, Rose DH (2011) Let the questions be your guide: Mbe as interdisciplinary science. J Compil 5(4):81–91Google Scholar
  43. Rozenblit L, Keil FC (2002) The misunderstood limit of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth. Cognit Sci 26:521–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ryle G (1949) The concept of mind. Hutchinson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Stahl G (2006) Group cognition: computer support for building collaborative knowledge. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stahl G (2010) Group cognition as a foundation for the new science of learning. In: Khine MS, Saleh IM (eds) New science of learning. Springer, Canada, pp 23–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Star SL, Greisemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology. Soc Stud Sci 19(1):387–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Strathern M (2004) Commons and borderlands: working papers on interdisciplinarity, accountability and the flow of knowledge. Sean Kingston Publishing, Wantage, OxonGoogle Scholar
  49. Thagard P (2006) How to collaborate: procedural knowledge in the cooperative development of science. South J Philos 44:177–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thorén H, Persson J (2013) The philosophy of interdisciplinarity: sustainability science and problem-feeding. J Gen Philos Sci 44:337–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Waskan JA (2006) Models and cognition. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weingart P (2000) Interdisciplinarity: the paradoxical discourse. In: Weingart P, Stehr N (eds) Practicing interdisciplinarity. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp 25–42Google Scholar
  53. Werner K (2019) Cognitive confinement: theoretical considerations on the construction of a cognitive niche, and on how it can go wrong. Synthese. Special issue knowing the unknown (page forthcoming)Google Scholar
  54. Ylikosky P (2009) The illusion of depth of understanding in science. In: Regt HD, Leonelli S, Eigner K (eds) Scientific understanding: philosophical perspectives. University of Pittsburg Press, Pittsburg, pp 100–119Google Scholar
  55. Zollman KJS (2007) The communication structure of epistemic communities. Philos Sci 74(1):574–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Humanities, Philosophy SectionUniversity of PaviaPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations