Skip to main content

The Second Essential Tension: on Tradition and Innovation in Interdisciplinary Research

Abstract

In his analysis of “the essential tension between tradition and innovation” Thomas S. Kuhn focused on the apparent paradox that, on the one hand, normal research is a highly convergent activity based upon a settled consensus, but, on the other hand, the ultimate effect of this tradition-bound work has invariably been to change the tradition. Kuhn argued that, on the one hand, without the possibility of divergent thought, fundamental innovation would be precluded. On the other hand, without a strong emphasis on convergent thought, science would become a mess created by continuous theory changes and scientific progress would again be precluded. On Kuhn’s view, both convergent and divergent thought are therefore equally necessary for the progress of science. In this paper, I shall argue that a similar fundamental tension exists between the demands we see for novel insights of an interdisciplinary nature and the need for established intellectual doctrines founded in the classical disciplines. First, I shall revisit Kuhn’s analysis of the essential tension between tradition and innovation. Next, I shall argue that the tension inherent in interdisciplinary research between, on the one hand, intellectual independence and critical scrutiny and, on the other hand, epistemic dependence and trust is a complement to Kuhn’s essential tension within mono-disciplinary science between convergent and divergent thought.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. Kuhn’s version of this mechanism has been analyzed in detail by Hoyningen-Huene (1992). Further developments on cognitive division of labor can be found in the works of, among others, Kitcher (1990), D'Agostino (2008), de Langhe (2010), and de Langhe and Greiff (2010). Analyses of concrete cases of distribution of latent differences in the scientific community can be found in Andersen (2009) and the publications of the Andersen et al. (2006).

  2. As argued by Hoyningen-Huene (1992, p. 235) such latent differences can be caused by different criteria for concept use, different interpretations of values, or differential identification with the reigning views. See also Andersen (2009) for a detailed case study of latent conceptual differences and their importance for the reaction to anomalies.

  3. For overviews of this development, see e.g. Beaver and Rosen (1978); Beaver and Rosen (1979a, b); Thagard (2006); Wray (2002, 2006).

  4. See also Andersen and Wagenknecht (forthcoming) for a detailed analysis of epistemic dependence in interdisciplinary groups.

  5. For a detailed argument, see Andersen (2010) as well as Andersen and Wagenknecht (forthcoming).

References

  • Andersen H (2006) How to recognize introducers in your niche. In: Andersen HB, Christiansen FV, Jørgensen KV, Hendricks V (eds) The way through science and philosophy: essays in honour of Stig Andur Pedersen. College Publications, London, pp 119–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen H (2009) Unexpected discoveries, graded structures, and the difference between acceptance and neglect. In: Meheus J, Nickles T (eds) Models of discovery and creativity. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen H (2010) Joint acceptance and scientific change: a case study. Episteme 7:248–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen H, Wagenknecht S (forthcoming) Epistemic dependence and formation of knowledge in interdisciplinary groups. doi:10.1007/s11229-012-0172-1

  • Andersen H, Barker P, Chen X (2006) The cognitive structure of scientific revolutions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Beaver D, Rosen R (1978) Studies in scientific collaboration. Part I. The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics 1:65–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaver D, Rosen R (1979a) Studies in scientific collaboration Part III. Professionalization and the natural history of modern scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics 1:231–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaver D, Rosen R (1979b) Studies in scientific collaboration. Part II. Scientific co-authorship, research productivity and visibility in the French scientific elite, 1799–1830. Scientometrics 1:133–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell DT (1969) Ethnocentrism of disciplines and the fish-scale model of omniscience. In: Sherif M, Sherif CW (eds) Interdisciplinary relationships in the social sciences. Aldine, Chicago, pp 328–348

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Agostino F (2008) Naturalizing the essential tension. Synthese 162:275–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Langhe R (2010) The division of labour in science: the tradeoff between specialisation and diversity. J Eco Methodol 17:37–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Langhe R, Greiff M (2010) Standards and the distribution of cognitive labour. A model of the dynamics of scientific activity. Log J IGPL 18:278–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagstrom WO (1965) The scientific community. Basic Books, New York

  • Hardwig J (1985) Epistemic dependence. J Philos 82:335–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardwig J (1988) Evidence, testimony, and the problem of individualism—a response to Schmitt. Soc Epistemol 2:309–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardwig J (1991) The role of trust in knowledge. J Philos 88:693–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyningen-Huene P (1992) Reconstructing scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher P (1990) The division of cognitive labor. J Philos 87:5–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1959) The essential tension: tradition and innovation in scientific research. In: Taylor CW, Barron F (eds) Scientific creativity: its recognition and development. Wiley, New York, pp 341–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago University Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1983) Commensurability, comparability, communicability. PSA 2:669–688

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1991) The road since structure. PSA 1990(2):3–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (2000) The trouble with the historical philosophy of science. In: Conant J, Haugeland J (eds) The road since structure. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 105–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton RK (1973) The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulkay MJ (1993) Science and the sociology of knowledge. Gregg Revivals, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapere D (1971) The paradigm concept. Science 172:706–709

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard P (2006) How to collaborate: procedural knowledge in the cooperative development of science. South J Philos XLIV:177–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wray KB (2002) The epistemic significance of collaborative research. Philos Sci 69:150–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wray KB (2006) Scientific authorship in the age of collaborative research. Stud Hist Philos Sci 37:505–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the Danish Council for Independent Research | Humanities for funding for the project “Philosophy of Contemporary Science in Practice” and to Brian Hepburn for valuable comments to an earlier version of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hanne Andersen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Andersen, H. The Second Essential Tension: on Tradition and Innovation in Interdisciplinary Research. Topoi 32, 3–8 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-012-9133-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-012-9133-z

Keywords

  • Thomas S. Kuhn
  • Paradigm
  • Incommensurability
  • Scientific community
  • Epistemic dependence
  • Interdisciplinarity