2006Science and Public PolicyRequires access

Expert knowledge, Mode-2 and scientific disciplines: two contrasting views

Johannes Lenhard, Holger Lücking, Holger Schwechheimer

Open publisher page 29 citations

Abstract

In the recent debate in the sociology of the sciences about transdisciplinarity, Mode-2 science is heralded as inducing a new disciplinary structure of science and scientific research. We argue that this debate can be interpreted as a continuation of an older discussion about two conflicting conceptions of interdisciplinarity that we call ‘early integration’ and ‘late integration’, the latter pleading for a strong disciplinary basis of interdisciplinary projects, whereas the former advocates dismissing disciplinary approaches right from the start. As a prominent representative of transdisciplinary science, climate research is considered as a case study. It is at least questionable whether a weakening or erosion of disciplinary approaches can be diagnosed in this field. We argue that the demand for ‘socially robust knowledge’ that makes transdisciplinary science inevitable, as is claimed by Nowotny, does not imply a weakening of the disciplinary structure of science.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In the recent debate in the sociology of the sciences about transdisciplinarity, Mode-2 science is heralded as inducing a new disciplinary structure of science and scientific research. We argue that this debate can be interpreted as a continuation of an older discussion about two conflicting conceptions of interdisciplinarity that we call ‘early integration’ and ‘late integration’, the latter pleading for a strong disciplinary basis of interdisciplinary projects, whereas the former advocates dismissing disciplinary approaches right from the start. As a prominent representative of transdisciplinary science, climate research is considered as a case study. It is at least questionable whether a weakening or erosion of disciplinary approaches can be diagnosed in this field. We argue that the demand for ‘socially robust knowledge’ that makes transdisciplinary science inevitable, as is claimed by Nowotny, does not imply a weakening of the disciplinary structure of science.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 29 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In the recent debate in the sociology of the sciences about transdisciplinarity, Mode-2 science is heralded as inducing a new disciplinary structure of science and scientific research. We argue that this debate can be interpreted as a continuation of an older discussion about two conflicting conceptions of interdisciplinarity that we call ‘early integration’ and ‘late integration’, the latter pleading for a strong disciplinary basis of interdisciplinary projects, whereas the former advocates dismissing disciplinary approaches right from the start. As a prominent representative of transdisciplinary science, climate research is considered as a case study. It is at least questionable whether a weakening or erosion of disciplinary approaches can be diagnosed in this field. We argue that the demand for ‘socially robust knowledge’ that makes transdisciplinary science inevitable, as is claimed by Nowotny, does not imply a weakening of the disciplinary structure of science.

Key concepts: Discipline, Transdisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity, Sociology, Epistemology, Sociology of scientific knowledge, Engineering ethics, Social science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Expert knowledge, Mode-2 and scientific disciplines: two contrasting views — Research Paper | ScholarLens