A Sociology of Interdisciplinarity

In building upon the cases presented in Chaps. 10.1007/978-3-030-88455-0_2, 10.1007/978-3-030-88455-0_3, and 10.1007/978-3-030-88455-0_4, we develop a Sociology of Interdisciplinarity that draws our empirical insights together with resources from Science and Technology Studies (STS), in addition to Sociology of Scientific Knowledge, Research Policy, Infrastructure Studies, Anthropology, and Philosophy of Science. The key novelty of this framework is using STS insights to unpick the dynamics and consequences of interdisciplinary science, which distinguishes us from decades of earlier interdisciplinarity studies and gaps in understanding. Moreover, we not only focus on individual scholars and their experiences but pay careful attention to the wider contexts of interdisciplinary research, such as the impacts of funding structures, different access to resources, and power relations. We are careful in our approach so that our units of analyses—which vary from research groups and projects to whole epistemic communities and research policies—are most appropriate for the problem definitions that we put forward. The framework rests on a set of six dimensions, which we discuss in relation to current debates in the literature and our empirical analyses.

The Modified Imitation Game: A Method for Measuring Interactional Expertise

The study of the sociology of scientific knowledge distinguishes between contributory and interactional experts. Contributory experts have practical expertise—they can “walk the walk.” Interactional experts have internalized the tacit components of expertise—they can “talk the talk” but are not able to reliably “walk the walk.” Interactional expertise permits effective communication between contributory experts and others (e.g., laypeople), which in turn facilitates working jointly toward shared goals. Interactional expertise is attained through long-term immersion into the expert community in question. To assess interactional expertise, researchers developed the imitation game—a variant of the Turing test—to test whether a person, or a particular group, possesses interactional expertise of another. The imitation game, which has been used mainly in sociology to study the social nature of knowledge, may also be a useful tool for researchers who focus on cognitive aspects of expertise. In this paper, we introduce a modified version of the imitation game and apply it to examine interactional expertise in the context of blindness. Specifically, we examined blind and sighted individuals’ ability to imitate each other in a street-crossing scenario. In Phase I, blind and sighted individuals provided verbal reports of their thought processes associated with crossing a street—once while imitating the other group (i.e., as a pretender) and once responding genuinely (i.e., as a non-pretender). In Phase II, transcriptions of the reports were judged as either genuine or imitated responses by a different set of blind and sighted participants, who also provided the reasoning for their decisions. The judges comprised blind individuals, sighted orientation-and-mobility specialists, and sighted individuals with infrequent socialization with blind individuals. Decision data were analyzed using probit mixed models for signal-detection-theory indices. Reasoning data were analyzed using natural-language-processing (NLP) techniques. The results revealed evidence that interactional expertise (i.e., relevant tacit knowledge) can be acquired by immersion in the group that possesses and produces the expert knowledge. The modified imitation game can be a useful research tool for measuring interactional expertise within a community of practice and evaluating practitioners’ understanding of true experts.

Why do Environmental and Ecological Economics Diverge?

Environmental economics and ecological economics became established scientific fields as a result of the growth and the success of the environmental movement in the 1960s and 1970s. Using the strong programme in the sociology of scientific knowledge and the general theory of scientific/intellectual movements, this article compares four pairs of scholars (two pairs of scholars appropriated for these fields and fields' founders during the emergence and establishment of the fields). The article depicts how their institutional, ideological and scientific backgrounds contributed to the divergence of these fields. Practitioners of environmental economics and ecological economics were influenced by different strands of the environmental movement. Environmental economics has epistemological and institutional links with environmentalism and ecological economics with ecologism. Different types of interdisciplinarity were used in these fields—a bridge building type of interdisciplinarity in the case of environmental economics and a restructuring and integrative in the case of ecological economics.

Beyond the Nature/Culture Division. Building Complementary Knowledge on Disease

The aim of the article is to present successful instances of building complementary knowledge on disease which go beyond the traditional division between natural and socio-cultural sciences. I argue that this is partially possible due to the changes in biological narratives and feminism’s attitude towards biology, with reciprocal references. First, I describe selected trends in the philosophy of biology which reflect changes in biological research towards more non-reductionist approaches. Then, I present some important aspects of the recent current in feminist studies called ‘new feminist materialism,’ and underline its clear attempt at combining research results from physics, biology, humanities, and social sciences. Finally, I present some main facets of studies on disease: in feminist reflection, Ludwik Fleck’s psycho-sociology of scientific knowledge, and in the medical humanities approach.

Scientific Communication and Codification

In the sociology of scientific knowledge and the sociology of translation, heterogeneous networks have been studied in terms of practices and so-called actor-networks. However, scientific practices are intellectually structured by codes. Cognitive structures interact and co-construct the organization of scholars and discourses into research programs, specialties, and disciplines. The intellectual organization of the sciences adds to and feeds back on the configurations of authors and texts. The social, textual, and cognitive sub-dynamics select upon each other asymmetrically. Selections can further be selected for stabilization along trajectories and then also be globalized—symbolically generalized—into regimes of expectations.

Stop studying “fake news” (we can still fight against disinformation in the media)

The problem of “fake news” has received considerable attention both in public discourse and in scholarship. However, many have argued that the term should be avoided for ideological reasons or because it lacks clarity. At the same time, a growing body of literature investigates “fake news” empirically. We complement this discussion by reflecting on epistemological and methodological problems with the term “fake news” and the implications for possible solutions to the problem of disinformation such as automatic detection and increased media literacy. Based on the principle of symmetry established in the sociology of scientific knowledge, we show that a classification of messages according to the researcher’s assessment of their truthfulness can lead to biased or tautological explanations. We argue that many researchers commit themselves to the truth or falsehood of messages in cases where they should not and avoid such a commitment when it is necessary.

Anticipation and the Dynamics of Expectations

The operationalization of socio-cognitive structures in terms of observables such as texts (e.g., in discourse analysis and scientometrics) or the behavior of agents (e.g., in the sociology of scientific knowledge) may inadvertedly lead to reification. The dynamics of knowledge are not directly observable, but knowledge contents can be reconstructed. The reconstructions have the status of hypotheses; hypotheses can be tested against observations. Whereas agent-based modelling (ABM) focuses on observable behavior, simulations based on algorithms developed in the theory and computation of anticipatory systems (CASYS) enable us to visualize the incursive and recursive dynamics of knowledge at the individual level as different from the potentially hyper-incursive dynamics at the intersubjective level. The sciences can be considered as “strongly anticipatory” at this supra-individual level: expectations are discursively reconstructed in terms of next generations of expectations. This reflexive restructuring is embedded in historical dynamics on which it feeds back as a selection environment. The agents and texts entertain discursive models and thus be considered “weakly anticipatory” participants in the communication.

An Unlikely Symbiosis: Science and Law

Science has historically held a position of high regard in society. Science is intimately connected to law. These disciplines meet in the courtroom. Due to the nature of civil and criminal disputes in the United States, litigators retain expert witnesses to explicate nuanced subjects, including science. Unfortunately, the common law system has not always favored sound science. This paper examines how science and law can work in concert to benefit all people. Some feel that scientists should simply educate courtrooms, but further scrutiny questions the feasibility of this approach. Understanding the sociology of scientific knowledge elucidates this debate and is applied to the forensic sciences. Science and law have the capacity to improve the human condition and increase equity among all people. KEYWORDS: Science Communication; Expert Witnesses; Science; Public Perception; Law; Misinformation

Literature and Science

Though “literature and science” has denoted many distinct cultural debates and critical practices, the historicist investigation of literary-scientific relations is of particular interest because of its ambivalence toward theorization. Some accounts have suggested that the work of Bruno Latour supplies a necessary theoretical framework. An examination of the history of critical practice demonstrates that many concepts presently attributed to or associated with Latour have been longer established in the field. Early critical work, exemplified by Marjorie Hope Nicolson, tended to focus one-sidedly on the impact of science on literature. Later work, drawing on Thomas Kuhn’s idea of paradigm shifts, and on Mary Hesse’s and Max Black’s work on metaphor and analogy in science, identified the scope for a cultural influence on science. It was further bolstered by the “strong program” in the sociology of scientific knowledge, especially the work of Barry Barnes and David Bloor. It found ways of reading scientific texts for the traces of the cultural, and literary texts for traces of science; the method is implicitly modeled on psychoanalysis. Bruno Latour’s accounts of literary inscription, black boxing, and the problem of explanation have precedents in the critical practices of critics in the field of literature and science from the 1980s onward.

The Need for Multidisciplinary Research within the History and Theory of Homeopathy

The controversial issue of homeopathy's scientificity will, in all probability, not be settled by means of clinical trials alone, as long as uncertainty or ignorance about methodological, philosophical, and socio-economical essentials prevail on both sides of the argument. Rather than uncritically adopt the standards of the currently predominant paradigm, homeopathy should not forget its roots, peculiarities, and self-conception. Contrary to conventional medicine, it is based on a teleological image of humanity, a holistic and sustainable approach towards curing sickness, and an up-to-date concept of medical theory in terms of healing arts. However, under today's frameworked conditions of industrialisation, commercialisation and commodification, the strengths of homeopathy tend to be disregarded or even attacked, and a special kind of reductionist and materialist rationality, compatible with expanding markets and profits, is preferably facilitated. To reveal and demonstrate these developments and relationships on a scientific level, there is a need for multidisciplinary research on the part of the humanities, such as history and theory of medicine, history and theory of science, history of economics, sociology of scientific knowledge, and philosophy.