, Volume 190, Issue 11, pp 1937–1954 | Cite as

Philosophical intervention and cross-disciplinary science: the story of the Toolbox Project

  • Michael O’RourkeEmail author
  • Stephen J. Crowley


In this article we argue that philosophy can facilitate improvement in cross-disciplinary science. In particular, we discuss in detail the Toolbox Project, an effort in applied epistemology that deploys philosophical analysis for the purpose of enhancing collaborative, cross-disciplinary scientific research through improvements in cross-disciplinary communication. We begin by sketching the scientific context within which the Toolbox Project operates, a context that features a growing interest in and commitment to cross-disciplinary research (CDR). We then develop an argument for the leading idea behind this effort, namely, that philosophical dialogue can improve cross-disciplinary science by effecting epistemic changes that lead to better group communication. On the heels of this argument, we describe our approach and its output; in particular, we emphasize the Toolbox instrument that generates philosophical dialogue and the Toolbox workshop in which that dialogue takes place. Together, these constitute a philosophical intervention into the life of CDR teams. We conclude by considering the philosophical implications of this intervention.


Toolbox Project Philosophical intervention Applied epistemology Cross-disciplinary research Collaboration Communication 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays (M. Holquist & C. Emerson, Trans.). Austin, TX: The University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baron N. (2010) Escape from the Ivory Tower: A guide to making your science matter. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Baxter L. A., Montgomery B. M. (1998) A guide to dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships. In: Montgomery B., Baxter L. Dialectical approaches to studying personal relationships. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  4. Beebe S. A., Masterson J. T. (2009) Communicating in small groups: Principles and practices (9th ed.). Pearson, BostonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett L. M., Gadlin H., Levine-Finley S. (2010) Collaboration and team science: A field guide. National Institutes for Health, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Bird, A., & Kuhn, T. (Winter 2011 Edition). In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved 23 April 2012.
  7. Campion M.A., Papper E.M., Medsker G.J. (1996) Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology 49(2): 429–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Casey-Campbell M., Martens M. L. (2009) Sticking it all together: A critical assessment of the group cohesion-performance literature. International Journal of Management Reviews 11(2): 223–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark H. (1996) Using language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collins H., Evans R., Gorman M.E. (2010) Trading zones and interactional expertise. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38(4): 657–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crow M. (2010) Organizing teaching and research to address the grand challenges of sustainable development. BioScience 60(7): 488–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crowley, S. J., Eigenbrode, S. D, O’Rourke, M., & Wulfhorst, J. D. (2010). Localization in cross-disciplinary research: A philosophical approach. Multilingual 114. Retrieved 10 July 2011.
  13. Eaglesham, A., & Hardy, R. W. F. (Eds.). (2009). Adapting agriculture to climate change. National Agricultural Biotechnology Council Report 21. Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  14. Eigenbrode, S. D., O’Rourke, M., Althoff, D., Goldberg, C., Merrill, K., Morse, W., et al. (2007). Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. BioScience, 57, 5564.Google Scholar
  15. Feldman, R., Warfield, T. (Eds.). (2010) Disagreement. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Frank L. K. (1961) Interprofessional communication. American Journal of Public Health 51: 1798–1804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frodeman, R., Klein, J. T., Mitcham, C. (Eds.). (2010) The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Galison P. (1997) Image and logic. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  19. Goffman E. (1981) Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  20. Gorman, M. E. (Eds.). (2010) Trading zones and interactional expertise. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  21. Graybill J. K., Dooling S., Shandas V., Withey J., Greve A., Simon G. L. (2006) A rough guide to interdisciplinarity: Graduate student perspectives. BioScience 56: 757–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hanson C. E., Palutikof J. P., Dlugolecki A., Giannakopoulos C. (2006) Bridging the gap between science and the stakeholder: The case of climate change research. Climate Research 31: 121–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnstone B. (2008) Discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MAGoogle Scholar
  24. Keyton J. (1999) Relational communication in groups. In: Frey L.R., Gouran D.S., Poole M.S. (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 192–222Google Scholar
  25. Klein J. T. (1990) Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Wayne State University Press, Detroit, MIGoogle Scholar
  26. Klein J. T (1996) Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, VIGoogle Scholar
  27. Klein J. T. (2010) Creating interdisciplinary campus cultures: A model for strength and sustainability. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  28. Klein J. T. (2011) Research integration: A comparative knowledge base. In: Repko A. F., Newell W. H., Szostak R. Case studies in interdisciplinary research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  29. Kornblith H. (1993) Inductive inference and its natural ground. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuhn, T. [1970] (1962/1970a). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (2nd edition, with postscript).Google Scholar
  31. Lélé S., Norgaard R. B. (2005) Practicing interdisciplinarity. BioScience 55: 967–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Littlejohn S. W., Foss K. A. (2008) Theories of human communication (9th ed.). Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, CAGoogle Scholar
  33. Machlis, G. E., Hanson, T., Špirić, Z., & Mckendry, J. E. (2011). Warfare ecology: A new synthesis for peace and Security.. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. McDonough E. F. (2000) Investigation of factors contributing to the success of cross-functional teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management 17(3): 221–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller, T. R., Baird, T. D., Littlefield, C. M., Kofinas, G., Chapin III, F. S., & Redman, C. L. (2008). Epistemological pluralism: Reorganizing interdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 46. Retrieved 10 July 2011.
  36. National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research and Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy (NAS). (2004). Facilitating interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  37. Polanyi M. (1958) Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  38. Powell J. (1990) Why am I afraid to tell you who I am?. Argus Communications, Niles, ILGoogle Scholar
  39. Russell B. (1997) The problems of philosophy. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Schoenberger E. (2001) Interdisciplinarity and social power. Progress in Human Geography 25: 365–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thompson J. L. (2009) Building collective communication competence in interdisciplinary research teams. Journal of Applied Communication Research 37(3): 278–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tuomela R. (2007) The philosophy of sociality: The shared point of view. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Winowiecki L., Smukler S., Shirley K., Remans R., Peltier G., Lothes E. et al (2011) Tools for enhancing interdisciplinary communication. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy 7(1): 74–80Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyBoise State UniversityBoiseUSA

Personalised recommendations