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, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
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).
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.
See also Andersen and Wagenknecht (forthcoming) for a detailed analysis of epistemic dependence in interdisciplinary groups.
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
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
Andersen H (2010) Joint acceptance and scientific change: a case study. Episteme 7:248–265
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
Beaver D, Rosen R (1978) Studies in scientific collaboration. Part I. The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics 1:65–84
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
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
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
D’Agostino F (2008) Naturalizing the essential tension. Synthese 162:275–308
de Langhe R (2010) The division of labour in science: the tradeoff between specialisation and diversity. J Eco Methodol 17:37–51
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
Hagstrom WO (1965) The scientific community. Basic Books, New York
Hardwig J (1985) Epistemic dependence. J Philos 82:335–349
Hardwig J (1988) Evidence, testimony, and the problem of individualism—a response to Schmitt. Soc Epistemol 2:309–321
Hardwig J (1991) The role of trust in knowledge. J Philos 88:693–708
Hoyningen-Huene P (1992) Reconstructing scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Kitcher P (1990) The division of cognitive labor. J Philos 87:5–22
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
Kuhn TS (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago University Press, Chicago
Kuhn TS (1983) Commensurability, comparability, communicability. PSA 2:669–688
Kuhn TS (1991) The road since structure. PSA 1990(2):3–13
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
Merton RK (1973) The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Mulkay MJ (1993) Science and the sociology of knowledge. Gregg Revivals, London
Shapere D (1971) The paradigm concept. Science 172:706–709
Thagard P (2006) How to collaborate: procedural knowledge in the cooperative development of science. South J Philos XLIV:177–196
Wray KB (2002) The epistemic significance of collaborative research. Philos Sci 69:150–168
Wray KB (2006) Scientific authorship in the age of collaborative research. Stud Hist Philos Sci 37:505–514
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
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-012-9133-z