Search

The paper is devoted to the crucial issue of inter- and trans-disciplinary research: the synthesis. Its aim is to contribute to the enhancement of the scientific quality of integrated knowledge. The synthesis is the common result that has to be achieved through processes of integration. In order to be successful and lead to scientifically valid results, such processes of integration have to be convincing in terms of methods and in terms of epistemology. However, in inter- and trans-disciplinary projects, the fact that methods of integration have to be chosen and described in a way that allows a judgement of the validity and scope of findings is often neglected. Furthermore, there is a marked lack of concern in many such projects about the epistemic challenges that should be met in order to integrate knowledge originating from different fields. We introduce the “Inventory of Synthesis”, an instrument developed to facilitate the epistemic analysis and description of the integrated results of inter- or trans-disciplinary research and to identify where methods of integration are needed. This instrument thus helps to link the connected issues of the epistemic structure of the synthesis and of the choice of integration methods. Referring to the results of an interview study, we discuss the special challenge trans-disciplinary research has to cope with in dealing with non-academic knowledge. We endorse a double perspective, one from the point of view of inquiring into processes of integration and one from the point of view of designing and implementing them. Because we observe how the scholarly discourse on inter- and trans-disciplinary research and the demands accompanying the practical work in such projects risk drifting apart, we call for an approach to integration taking into account research findings on such processes and for research into integration informed by practical needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Philosophy may relate to interdisciplinarity in two distinct ways On the one hand, philosophy may play an auxiliary role in the process of interdisciplinarity, typically through conceptual analysis, in the understanding that the disciplines themselves are the main epistemic players. This version of the relationship I characterise as 'normal' because it captures the more common pattern of the relationship, which in turn reflects an acceptance of the division of organized inquiry into disciplines. On the other hand, philosophy may be itself the site for the production of interdisciplinary knowledge, understood as a kind of second-order understanding of reality that transcends the sort of knowledge that the disciplines provide, left to their own devices. This is my own position, which I dub 'deviant' and to which most of this article is devoted. I begin by relating the two types of interdisciplinarity to the organization of inquiry, especially their respective attitudes to the history of science. Underlying the two types are contrasting notions of what constitutes the 'efficient' pursuit of knowledge. This difference is further explored in terms of the organization of the university. The normal/deviant distinction was already marked in the institution's medieval origins in terms of the difference between Doctors and Masters, respectively, an artefact of which remains in the postgraduate/undergraduate degree distinction. In the context of the history of the university, the prospects for deviant interdisciplinarity were greatest from the early sixteenth to the early nineteenth century-the period called 'early modern' in the philosophy curriculum. Towards the end of that period, due to Kant and the generation of idealists who followed him, philosophy was briefly the privileged site for deviant interdisciplinarity. After Hegel's death, the mantle of deviant interdisciplinarity increasingly passed to some version of 'biology'. I explore the ' Natur-' and ' Geisteswissenschaft' versions of that post-philosophical vision, which continue to co-exist within today's biological science. I then briefly examine the chequered reputation of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, someone who exemplified the promise and perils of deviant interdisciplinarity over the past 200 years. I conclude with an Epilogue that considers contemporary efforts to engage philosophy in interdisciplinary work, invoking William James as an exemplar. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors discuss aspects of journal publications that have the capacity to publish and accurately cite quantitative descriptions of complex datasets. They explain that ecological meta-analyses will increasingly use the datasets directly alongside primary researches to ensure that the most effective syntheses are viable. The authors believe that creative synthesis of analysis and knowledge standards must be enforced to promote the collective effects of data, theory, and synthesis.

Synthesising arguments motivate changes to the conceptual tools, theoretical structure, and evaluatory framework employed in a given scientific domain. Recently, a broad coalition of researchers has put forward a synthesising argument in favour of an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis ('EES'). Often this synthesising argument is evaluated using a virtue-based approach, which construes the EES as a wholesale alternative to prevailing practice. Here I argue this virtue-based approach is not fit for purpose. Taking the central concept of niche construction as a case study, I show that an agenda-based approach better captures the pragmatic and epistemological goals of the EES synthesising argument and diagnoses areas of empirical disagreement with prevailing practice. • Argues against evaluating the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis ('EES') using theoretical virtues (a 'virtue-based' strategy). • Supports an 'agenda-based' strategy that evaluates the empirical aptness of the EES to pursue specific research objectives. • Using niche construction as a case study, shows how the agenda-based strategy can analyse disagreements over the EES. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author focuses on the importance of writing review papers. He states that review papers helps in clarification of the state of knowledge, explain contradictions and identify the needed research. He mentions that the most important aspect of review development is topic selection. He adds that reviews must provide original insights and useful syntheses.