<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>

COPY SCRIPT

For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eu

Claim

The interdisciplinary decision problem: Popperian optimism and Kuhnian pessimism in forestry

descriptionPublicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article 01 Oct 2018 Sweden, Finland Resilience Alliance, Inc.Ecology and Society, volume 23 (issn: 1708-3087,

Authors: Johannes Persson; Henrik Thorén; Lennart Olsson;

doi: 10.5751/es-10401-230340

The interdisciplinary decision problem: Popperian optimism and Kuhnian pessimism in forestry

- Summary
- Subjects
- References
  (12)
- Metrics

Abstract

Interdisciplinary research in the fields of forestry and sustainability studies often encounters seemingly incompatible ontological assumptions deriving from natural and social sciences. The perceived incompatibilities might emerge from the epistemological and ontological claims of the theories or models directly employed in the interdisciplinary collaboration, or they might be created by other epistemological and ontological assumptions that these interdisciplinary researchers find no reason to question. In this paper we discuss the benefits and risks of two possible approaches, Popperian optimism and Kuhnian pessimism, to interdisciplinary knowledge integration where epistemological and ontological differences between the sciences involved can be expected. Peer reviewed

Countries

Sweden, Finland

Related Organizations

Subjects by Vocabulary

Microsoft Academic Graph classification: media_common.quotation_subject Sustainability studies Pessimism Optimism Knowledge integration Natural (music) Sociology media_common Forestry Decision problem Sustainability Ontology

ACM Computing Classification System: InformationSystems_MISCELLANEOUS

Keywords

philosophy of interdisciplinarity, QH301-705.5, 611 Philosophy, HISTORY, ontology, Biology (General), QH540-549.5, 4112 Forestry, sustainability issues, Ecology, forestry, silviculture, sustainability, SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE, REDUCTION, Philosophy, interdisciplinary integration, Social Sciences Interdisciplinary

12 references, page 1 of 2

Jerneck, A., and L. Olsson. 2013. More than trees! Understanding the agroforestry adoption gap in subsistence agriculture: insights from narrative walks in Kenya. Journal of Rural Studies 32:114-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.04.004 Jerneck, A.. L. Olsson, B. Ness, S. Anderberg, M. Baier, E. Clark, T. Hickler, A. Hornborg, A. Kronsell, E. Lövbrand, and J. Persson. 2011. Structuring sustainability science. Sustainability Science 6(1):69-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-010-0117-x Klein, J. T. 1990. Interdisciplinarity: history, theory, and practice. Wayne State University Press, Detroit, Michigan, USA. [OpenAIRE]

Kuhn, T. S. 1977. The essential tension: selected studies in scientific tradition and change. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Kuhn, T. S. 1996/1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Third edition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226458106.001.0001 Lakatos, I. 1976. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. Pages 205-259 in S. G. Harding, editor. Can theories be refuted? D. Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1863-0_14 Lenoir, T. 1997. Instituting science: the cultural production of scientific disciplines. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, USA.

Mårald, E., N. Langston, A. Sténs, and J. Moen. 2016. Changing ideas in forestry: a comparison of concepts in Swedish and American forestry journals during the early twentieth and twentyfirst centuries. Ambio 45(Suppl. 2):74-86. http://dx.doi. org/10.1007/s13280-015-0744-7 Maull, N. L. 1977. Unifying science without reduction. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 8(2):143-162. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(77)90012-7 Midgley, M. 1984. Reductivism, fatalism and sociobiology. Journal of Applied Philosophy 1(1):107-114. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.1984.tb00190.x Neumayer, E. 2013. Weak versus strong sustainability. Fourth edition. Edwin Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. http://dx.doi. org/10.4337/9781781007082 Newton, A. C. 2016. Biodiversity risks of adopting resilience as a policy goal. Conservation Letters 9(5):369-376. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/conl.12227 Neyman, J., and E. Pearson. 1933. On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical inference. Biometrica 20A:175-240, 263-294. [OpenAIRE]

Nissani, M. 1997. Ten cheers for interdisciplinarity: the case for interdisciplinary knowledge and research. Social Science Journal 34(2):201-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0362-3319(97)90051-3 Nyland, R. D. 2002. Silviculture: concepts and applications. Second edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, USA. [OpenAIRE]

Olsson, L., A. Jerneck, H. Thorén, J. Persson, and D. O'Byrne. 2015. Why resilience is unappealing to social science: theoretical and empirical investigations of the scientific use of resilience. Science Advances 1(4):e1400217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/ sciadv.1400217

Parker, W. S. 2006. Understanding pluralism in climate modeling. Foundations of Science 11(4):349-368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10699-005-3196-x Popper, K. 1963. Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, UK.

Popper, K. 1995. The myth of the framework: in defence of science and rationality. M. A. Nottorno, editor. Routledge, London, UK.

Puettmann, K. J., D. K. Coates, and C. Messier. 2009. A critique of silviculture. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Sherif, M., and C. W. Sherif. 1969. Interdisciplinary coordination as validity check: retrospect and prospects. Chapter 1 in M. Sherif and C. W. Sherif, editors. Interdisciplinary relationships in the social sciences. Aldine Transaction, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.

chevron_left
1
2
chevron_right

Impact byBIP!

	citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	7
	popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.	Top 10%
	influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	Average
	impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.	Top 10%

	citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	7
	popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.	Top 10%
	influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).	Average
	impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.	Top 10%