Epistemic pluralism and the justification of conceptual strategies in science

Wegerhoff, Daniel; Ward, Tony; Dixon, Louise

doi:10.1177/09593543211063827

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The problem for the discipline is that it cannot be governed by a single epistemology and method because the different temporalities of biological and social processes require multiple ways of investigating what it is to be human. Yet, rather than constituting grounds for "crisis anxiety," embracing pluralism represents a potentially fruitful and creative terrain on which to advance knowledge (Wegerhoff et al, 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychology: Where history, culture, and biology meet

Newton

2022

Theory & Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues that the same epistemological assumptions cannot be confidently applied in the transition from the biological to the social arenas of psychology, as a consequence of the sociocultural instability resulting from human linguistic and technological flair. To illustrate this contention, reference is made to historicist theses within critical and sociocultural psychology, the work of Ian Hacking and Norbert Elias, the centrality of language and technology to sociocultural instability, and the illustrative issues raised by cultural neuroscience and replication studies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychology: Where history, culture, and biology meet

Newton

2022

Theory & Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Epistemological pluralism places a broad range of paradigmatic assumptions, scientific perspectives, and methodological practices on equal footing, eliminating disciplinary hierarchies in transdisciplinary research teams and in science more broadly (Healy, 2003;Miller et al, 2008). Major assumptions of epistemological pluralism are that no single paradigm or perspective can capture all aspects of complex phenomena, and no discipline or paradigm holds a priori predominance in interpreting events, rejecting paradigms, or constraining research agendas (Wegerhoff et al, 2022). Epistemological pluralists recognize the complexity of natural phenomena, juxtapose that complexity with the limits of knowledge for single human agents, acknowledge the overwhelming level of detail needed to understand even local problems and events, and how that level of detail obscures and biases one's interpretations of distal problems and events even within one's field (Potochnik, 2017).…”

Section: Developmental Psychopathology: From Multidisciplinarity To E...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Developmental psychopathology as a meta-paradigm: From zero-sum science to epistemological pluralism in theory and research

Beauchaine

2024

Dev Psychopathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a thoughtful commentary in this journal a decade ago, Michael Rutter reviewed 25 years of progress in the field before concluding that developmental psychopathology (DP) initiated a paradigm shift in clinical science. This deduction requires that DP itself be a paradigm. According to Thomas Kuhn, canonical paradigms in the physical sciences serve unifying functions by consolidating scientists’ thinking and scholarship around single, closed sets of discipline-defining epistemological assumptions and methods. Paradigm shifts replace these assumptions and methods with a new field-defining framework. In contrast, the social sciences are multiparadigmatic, with thinking and scholarship unified locally around open sets of epistemological assumptions and methods with varying degrees of inter-, intra-, and subdisciplinary reach. DP challenges few if any of these local paradigms. Instead, DP serves an essential pluralizing function, and is therefore better construed as a metaparadigm. Seen in this way, DP holds tremendous untapped potential to move the field from zero-sum thinking and scholarship to positive-sum science and epistemological pluralism. This integrative vision, which furthers Dante Cicchetti’s legacy of interdisciplinarity, requires broad commitment among scientists to reject zero-sum scholarship in which portending theories, useful principles, and effective interventions are jettisoned based on confirmation bias, errors in logic, and ideology.

show abstract

“…In chapter seven I consider how such an epistemically pluralist approach might be pursued within gang research. Drawing particularly on my work in Wegerhoff et al (2021), I present my own model of epistemic pluralism which emphasises the specific considerations that occur when determining and justifying the selection of conceptual strategies (i.e., definitions, classifications, explanations) for different purposes. I provide a detailed explication of how research tasks constrain conceptual strategies and how conceptual strategies work together to provide task-relevant insights.…”

Section: Argument and Structure Of This Thesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Drawing upon the work conducted in Wegerhoff et al (2021), this chapter expands upon my arguments for an epistemically pluralist approach to coordinating gang research by detailing the kinds of considerations that occur when determining the best conceptual strategies for a task. That is, where I have previously argued for the overall utility of a pluralist approach to gang research, I now discuss the specific considerations that occur when designing such an approach.…”

Section: Gang Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, anthropological studies may facilitate the identification of phenomena relevant to distinguishing gangs across contexts, or critical studies may better facilitate understanding of the motivations for gang membership and action (as well as a society's motivations for responding to gangs in particular ways). I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer of the paper "Epistemic Pluralism and the Justification of Conceptual Strategies in Science" (Wegerhoff et al, 2021) for prompting the clarification of this framing. 33 Including the kinds of collaboration across/among disciplines.…”

Section: Research Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding gangs: Developing an epistemically pluralist framework for gang research

Wegerhoff¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gangs are associated with a range of social, criminal, and economic harms. Yet, after almost a century of dedicated research, the development of effective and ethical responses to such harms has proven difficult. Recent attempts to address this have seen the establishment of the Eurogang Program; an international group of gang researchers and practitioners coordinated around a consensus definition of gangs. Since its recent inception, the Eurogang Program has quickly become the dominant framework of research and practice. While much is being staked on the success of the Eurogang Program, the suitability of such a programme for progressing gang research is yet to be thoroughly examined. In this thesis I therefore conduct a meta-theoretical examination of the state of gang research and particularly the Eurogang Program and its associated practices. By examining the frameworks underpinning gang research and drawing upon insights from the philosophy of science, I characterise the Eurogang approach as an attempt to coordinate gang research through means of unification (i.e., through the privileging of particular research perspectives and strategies to achieve coordination through consensus). I draw attention to some major limitations of these unificatory attempts and emphasise how the consensus Eurogang definition does not appropriately set up researchers to be able to develop the various kinds of conceptual and theoretical understandings of gangs required to improve gang policy and practice. Instead, I make the case for a framework known as epistemic pluralism, in which researchers do not pursue consensus but rather cultivate multiple systems of knowing to serve a variety of different research purposes. After establishing the benefit of epistemic pluralism, I examine how such a framework may be applied to the gang field. This involves specific discussion of the various aims of gang researchers and the roles that conceptual strategies (i.e., definitional, classificatory, and explanatory approaches) play in providing the pragmatic and epistemic (i.e., knowledge-related) insights required to meet them. These discussions offer a novel perspective on the roles of conceptual strategies in the process of knowledge production and justification. Having established the general kinds of strategies required for different research purposes, I then consider some specific examples of conceptual strategies that are relevant to meeting the various needs of gang researchers. This takes the form of the Conceptual Framework for Gang Research (CFGR). This novel approach offers greater opportunities for more meaningful kinds of research coordination and maximises the likelihood of establishing the conceptual and theoretical understandings of gangs required to improve gang policy and practice. The value of this thesis as a case study for pursuing epistemic pluralism in the sciences is also discussed.

show abstract

Epistemic pluralism and the justification of conceptual strategies in science

Cited by 6 publications

References 51 publications

Psychology: Where history, culture, and biology meet

Psychology: Where history, culture, and biology meet

Developmental psychopathology as a meta-paradigm: From zero-sum science to epistemological pluralism in theory and research

Understanding gangs: Developing an epistemically pluralist framework for gang research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About