{"title":"What is a problem?: On problem-oriented interdisciplinarity.","authors":"Jan C Schmidt","doi":"10.1007/s10202-011-0091-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Among others, the term \"problem\" plays a major role in the various attempts to characterize interdisciplinarity or transdisciplinarity, as used synonymously in this paper. Interdisciplinarity (ID) is regarded as \"problem solving among science, technology and society\" and as \"problem orientation beyond disciplinary constraints\" (cf. Frodeman et al.: The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010). The point of departure of this paper is that the discourse and practice of ID have problems with the \"problem\". The objective here is to shed some light on the vague notion of \"problem\" in order to advocate a specific type of interdisciplinarity: problem-oriented interdisciplinarity. The outline is as follows: Taking an ex negativo approach, I will show what problem-oriented ID does not mean. Using references to well-established distinctions in philosophy of science, I will show three other types of ID that should not be placed under the umbrella term \"problem-oriented ID\": object-oriented ID (\"ontology\"), theory-oriented ID (epistemology), and method-oriented ID (methodology). Different philosophical thought traditions can be related to these distinguishable meanings. I will then clarify the notion of \"problem\" by looking at three systematic elements: an undesired (initial) state, a desired (goal) state, and the barriers in getting from the one to the other. These three elements include three related kinds of knowledge: systems, target, and transformation knowledge. This paper elaborates further methodological and epistemological elements of problem-oriented ID. It concludes by stressing that problem-oriented ID is the most needed as well as the most challenging type of ID.</p>","PeriodicalId":89217,"journal":{"name":"Poiesis & praxis : international journal of ethics of science and technology assessment","volume":"7 4","pages":"249-274"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10202-011-0091-0","citationCount":"82","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Poiesis & praxis : international journal of ethics of science and technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-011-0091-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2011/5/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 82
Abstract
Among others, the term "problem" plays a major role in the various attempts to characterize interdisciplinarity or transdisciplinarity, as used synonymously in this paper. Interdisciplinarity (ID) is regarded as "problem solving among science, technology and society" and as "problem orientation beyond disciplinary constraints" (cf. Frodeman et al.: The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010). The point of departure of this paper is that the discourse and practice of ID have problems with the "problem". The objective here is to shed some light on the vague notion of "problem" in order to advocate a specific type of interdisciplinarity: problem-oriented interdisciplinarity. The outline is as follows: Taking an ex negativo approach, I will show what problem-oriented ID does not mean. Using references to well-established distinctions in philosophy of science, I will show three other types of ID that should not be placed under the umbrella term "problem-oriented ID": object-oriented ID ("ontology"), theory-oriented ID (epistemology), and method-oriented ID (methodology). Different philosophical thought traditions can be related to these distinguishable meanings. I will then clarify the notion of "problem" by looking at three systematic elements: an undesired (initial) state, a desired (goal) state, and the barriers in getting from the one to the other. These three elements include three related kinds of knowledge: systems, target, and transformation knowledge. This paper elaborates further methodological and epistemological elements of problem-oriented ID. It concludes by stressing that problem-oriented ID is the most needed as well as the most challenging type of ID.
其中,术语“问题”在描述跨学科或跨学科的各种尝试中起着重要作用,正如本文中同义使用的那样。跨学科性(ID)被认为是“在科学、技术和社会之间解决问题”,是“超越学科约束的问题导向”(参见Frodeman et al.: The Oxford Handbook of interdisciplarity)。牛津大学出版社,牛津,2010)。本文的出发点是本我的话语与实践在“问题”上存在问题。这里的目的是阐明“问题”的模糊概念,以便提倡一种特定类型的跨学科:面向问题的跨学科。本文的大纲如下:我将采用否定的方法,说明问题导向的ID并不意味着什么。参考科学哲学中公认的区别,我将展示另外三种不应该放在“面向问题的ID”这个总称之下的ID:面向对象的ID(“本体论”)、面向理论的ID(认识论)和面向方法的ID(方法论)。不同的哲学思想传统可以与这些可区分的意义相关。然后,我将通过查看三个系统元素来澄清“问题”的概念:不希望的(初始)状态,期望的(目标)状态,以及从一个状态到另一个状态的障碍。这三个要素包括三种相关的知识:系统知识、目标知识和转换知识。本文进一步阐述了问题导向ID的方法论和认识论要素。它最后强调,问题导向的ID是最需要的,也是最具挑战性的ID类型。