Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
D. Shapere (1983)
Reason and the search for knowledge
Patricia Kitcher (1992)
Freud's Dream: A Complete Interdisciplinary Science of Mind
T. Kuhn, David Hawkins (1963)
The Structure of Scientific RevolutionsAmerican Journal of Physics, 31
Gregory Murphy (2002)
The Big Book of Concepts
I. Lakatos (1976)
Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes
D. Shapere, J. MacLachlan (1975)
Galileo : a philosophical studyPhysics Today, 28
D. Campbell (2017)
Ethnocentrism of Disciplines and the Fish-Scale Model of Omniscience
T. Broadbent, I. Lakatos, A. Musgrave (1972)
Criticism and the Growth of KnowledgeThe Mathematical Gazette, 56
H. Collins, R. Evans (2002)
The Third Wave of Science StudiesSocial Studies of Science, 32
Moti Nissani (1997)
Ten cheers for interdisciplinarity: The case for interdisciplinary knowledge and researchSocial Science Journal, 34
G. Lakoff (1988)
Women, fire, and dangerous things : what categories reveal about the mindDialogue, 29
A. Seller, L. Laudan (1978)
Progress and its problems: Toward a theory of scientific growthErkenntnis, 15
D. Hull (1982)
Exemplars and Scientific ChangePSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1982
S. Turner (2000)
What are Disciplines? And How is Interdisciplinary Different?
P. Galison (2008)
Ten Problems in History and Philosophy of ScienceIsis, 99
S. Star (1988)
Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice by H. M. Collins (review)Technology and Culture, 29
J. Carp (2012)
The secret lives of experiments: Methods reporting in the fMRI literatureNeuroImage, 63
E. Margolis, S. Laurence (1999)
Concepts: Core Readings
[In this chapter, the most common ways of distinguishing between branches of science are criticised for focusing too narrowly on a few dimensions of a highly complex phenomenon. Some usually neglected aspects are pointed out, which are required for a more adequate account of disciplinarity. The complexity of disciplines, however, renders an adequate concept hereof more or less useless as the foundation for analyses of specific cases of interdisciplinarity. “Discipline” and related concepts are compared to the alternative “approach”, which, it is argued, will serve us better as the basic unit of analyses of scientific crossbreeding. The thought that disciplines should be considered as bundles (of bundles) of approaches is discussed and some consequences are drawn.]
Published: Jun 26, 2018
Keywords: Interfield Theories; Epistemic Aspects; Action Science Approach; Interdisciplinary Activities; Discussion Hereof
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.