The Production and Reinforcement of Ignorance in Collaborative Interdisciplinary Research

Piso, Zachary; Sertler, Ezgi; Malavisi, Anna; Marable, Ken; Jensen, Erik Steen; Gonnerman, Chad; O’Rourke, Michael

doi:10.1080/02691728.2016.1213328

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Future research should then articulate what it means to do CIR well or poorly. Recent work on the role of values in setting scientific standards will be helpful here (e.g., Douglas, 2009;Elliott, 2017;Winsberg, Huebner, & Kukla, 2014), along with work on epistemic harm (e.g., Dotson, 2012;Fricker, 2007) and ignorance (e.g., Ortega, 2006;Piso et al, 2016;Tuana, 2006). From here, we will be able to evaluate instances of CIR and identify areas for improvement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is Collaborative, Interdisciplinary Reasoning? The Heart of Interdisciplinary Team Research

Laursen

2018

InformingSciJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim/Purpose: Collaborative, interdisciplinary research is growing rapidly, but we still have limited and fragmented understanding of what is arguably the heart of such research—collaborative, interdisciplinary reasoning (CIR). Background: This article integrates neo-Pragmatist theories of reasoning with insights from literature on interdisciplinary research to develop a working definition of collaborative, interdisciplinary reasoning. The article then applies this definition to an empirical example to demonstrate its utility. Methodology: The empirical example is an excerpt from a Toolbox workshop transcript. The article reconstructs a cogent, inductive, interdisciplinary argument from the excerpt to show how CIR can proceed in an actual team. Contribution: The study contributes operational definitions of ‘reasoning together’ and ‘collaborative, interdisciplinary reasoning’ to existing literature. It also demonstrates empirical methods for operationalizing these definitions, with the argument reconstruction providing a brief case study in how teams reason together. Findings: 1. Collaborative, interdisciplinary reasoning is the attempted integration of disciplinary contributions to exchange, evaluate, and assert claims that enable shared understanding and eventually action in a local context. 2. Pragma-dialectic argument reconstruction with conversation analysis is a method for observing such reasoning from a transcript. 3. The example team developed a strong inductive argument to integrate their disciplinary contributions about modeling. Recommendations for Practitioners: 1. Interdisciplinary work requires agreeing with teammates about what is assertible and why. 2. To assert something together legitimately requires making a cogent, integrated argument. Recommendation for Researchers: 1. An argument is the basic unit of analysis for interdisciplinary integration. 2. To assess the argument’s cogency, it is helpful to reconstruct it using pragma-dialectic principles and conversation analysis tools. 3. To assess the argument’s interdisciplinary integration and participant roles in the integration, it is helpful to graph the flow of words as a Sankey chart from participant-disciplines to the argument conclusion. Future Research: How does this definition of CIR relate to other interdisciplinary ‘cognition’ or ‘learning’ type theories? How can practitioners and theorists tell the difference between true intersubjectivity and superficial agreeableness in these dialogues? What makes an instance of CIR ‘good’ or ‘bad’? How does collaborative, transdisciplinary reasoning differ from CIR, if at all?

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is Collaborative, Interdisciplinary Reasoning? The Heart of Interdisciplinary Team Research

Laursen

2018

InformingSciJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3) Working Group in Practice: None of the respondents observed two camps of W3C and OGC members in the WG, or noticed any misunderstandings or culture issues between the 13 Time Ontology in the Web Ontology Language (OWL).…”

Section: The Whole Collaboration Depends On Goodwill and That Goodwil...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Standards Development for Smart Systems—A Potential Way Forward

Folmer

2021

IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, design and development of smart systems require cooperation of different technical disciplines. This multidisciplinarity represents a challenge for today's ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) standardization environment. This environment has evolved over the years and today comprises a huge variety of hundreds of Standards Setting Organisations, partly interconnected by a complex network of very diverse types of links and cooperation agreements. Yet, despite this complexity, ICT standardization is still very much monodisciplinary.Moreover, smart systems' future true ubiquity and the resulting massive societal ramifications imply that societal stakeholders also need to participate in their standardization, thus further complicating the process. Integrating the necessary background information about the current standardization environment with two empirical studies the article sheds some light on the need for, as well as the benefits and issues to be associated with, multidisciplinarity in ICT standards setting. To resolve these issues, the article proposes the deployment of BOMOS, a collection of guidelines that establish a layered set of activities necessary for the management of a standardization process. While this solution may further increase the complexity of the standardization environment, it offers much greater flexibility and caters much better for the multidisciplinary, cross-domain standardization than the current system does.

show abstract

“…178-179)). A disciplinary approach is by definition limited and partial: "Disciplinary researchers inherit ways of interacting with the world that are specialized for producing certain kinds of knowledge, and this specialization brings certain kinds of ignorance with it" [70] (p. 645). Interdisciplinary research can, therefore, be seen as a means of redressing ignorance, but interdisciplinarity can itself be a source of ignorance: "ignorance can emerge as a function of how the group is collectively situated" [70] (p. 649).…”

Section: Forgetting Disciplinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Capturing the Silences in Digital Archaeological Knowledge

Huggett

2020

Information

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The availability and accessibility of digital data are increasingly significant in the creation of archaeological knowledge with, for example, multiple datasets being brought together to perform extensive analyses that would not otherwise be possible. However, this makes capturing the silences in those data—what is absent as well as present, what is unknown as well as what is known—a critical challenge for archaeology in terms of the suitability and appropriateness of data for subsequent reuse. This paper reverses the usual focus on knowledge and considers the role of ignorance—the lack of knowledge, or nonknowledge—in archaeological data and knowledge creation. Examining aspects of archaeological practice in the light of different dimensions of ignorance, it proposes ways in which the silences, the range of unknowns, can be addressed within a digital environment and the benefits which may accrue.

show abstract

The Production and Reinforcement of Ignorance in Collaborative Interdisciplinary Research

Cited by 9 publications

References 38 publications

What is Collaborative, Interdisciplinary Reasoning? The Heart of Interdisciplinary Team Research

What is Collaborative, Interdisciplinary Reasoning? The Heart of Interdisciplinary Team Research

Standards Development for Smart Systems—A Potential Way Forward

Capturing the Silences in Digital Archaeological Knowledge

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About