Realismi ja konstruktivismi tieteidenvälisessä ympäristötutkimuksessa : yhteismitattomuus, yhteensovittaminen vai dialogi?

Tutkimuksessa tarkasteltiin luonnontieteellisen ja ihmistieteellisen tutkimustradition tieteenfilosofisia eroja ympäristötutkimuksen alueella ja arvioitiin erojen merkitystä tieteidenvälisessä ympäristötutkimuksessa. Johtoajatuksena oli luonnontieteellisen realismin ja ihmistieteellisen konstruktivismin välinen dualismi, joka tuottaa kaksijakoisen näkemyksen ympäristökysymyksistä: yhtäältä ympäristöä tutkitaan yhtenäisenä, kausaalisten säännönmukaisuuksien verkostona ja toisaalta moninaisena, ihmisten elettyinä ympäristöinä. Työn tarkoituksena oli analysoida tätä dualismia tieteenfilosofisin käsittein ja esittää sen perusteella huomioita realistisen ja konstruktivistisen tutkimustavan yhdistämisestä tieteidenvälisessä ympäristötutkimuksessa. Tutkimusongelmaa lähestyttiin teoreettisesti ideaalityyppiseen tarkasteluun perustuen. Realismia ja konstruktivismia tarkasteltiin tieteenfilosofisina paradigmoina, jotka jäsentävät ja ohjaavat tieteellistä toimintaa usein tiedostamattomalla tasolla. Aineistona käytettiin tieteenfilosofista ja ympäristötieteellistä kirjallisuutta, jota kerättiin ja jäsennettiin tutkimusongelman ohjaamana. Tieteidenvälisen tutkimuksen filosofisia tausta-asetelmia selvennettiin hahmottamalla realismin ja konstruktivismin välistä dualismia viidestä näkökulmasta. Kukin näkökulma kuvaa jotakin dualismin taustalla olevaa käsitteellistä kiistaa, jossa ympäristökysymykset asettuvat vastakkaisiin filosofisiin kategorioihin. Kiistat valottavat ympäristön monitulkintaisuutta kahden tieteellisen käsitteistön välimaastossa. Tieteidenvälinen ympäristötutkimus on tämän tarkastelun perusteella haasteellinen pyrkimys, sillä ongelmien juuret ovat syvällä ympäristötieteiden erilaisessa perinteessä. Hajanaiseen epistemologiseen perustaan nojaava ympäristötietämys ei rakennu yhtenäiseksi kokonaiskuvaksi muuten kuin hyvin abstraktilla tasolla. Ympäristötutkimuksen ongelmakeskeinen luonne kuitenkin edellyttää joustavia lähestymistapoja tieteidenvälisen yhteistyön lisäksi. Erilainen tietämys on tarpeen tuoda yhteen, mutta säilyttää samalla ympäristötutkimukselle tärkeä tietämystapojen rikkaus. Tähän haasteeseen voidaan vastata etsimällä yhteisiä episteemisiä lähtökohtia tieteiden välisen vuorovaikutuksen ja avoimen dialogin edistämiseksi

A closer look at multidisciplinary aspects of LASTU programme

Given the stated goals of the program, interdisciplinarity was a norm rather than an exception in the funded projects. The projects successfully applied computational methods to understand and solve complex problems in various domains of science and society, including domains that had not yet fully exploited the advanced computing capabilities. Besides the ‘vertical’ integration of methods and substance fields, the program also facilitated interaction in a ‘horizontal’ direction, i.e. between fields that traditionally operate within their own experimental and theoretical settings. Almost all projects have also continued the interdisciplinary collaboration established in the LASTU program. The program has mainly strengthened existing networks of collaboration rather than created completely new contacts. The interdisciplinary scope of many projects was modest, covering research fields that interact with each other on a more or less regular basis. Moreover, while computational methods are becoming more frequent in the social sciences and humanities, too, these domains were less represented in the program. A few projects did cover humanities issues, such as the human aspects of cognition, language, speech or health, but especially the involvement of social sciences was low. While the rationale of interdisciplinary collaboration in most projects was to better understand a real-world phenomenon, the organization of interaction between disciplines depended on the specific goals of each consortium. Interdisciplinarity served one or more of five general functions: problem solving, conceptual bridging, exploration, method development, and technology development. Interdisciplinarity was instrumental especially for the first three functions. Interdisciplinary collaborations aiming at problem solving started with a real world issue, such as climate uncertainty, problems in spoken language, or forest management, and designed their interaction for finding an appropriate problem formulation and its solution. Attempts to conceptual bridging took place among two or more theoretically oriented partners, with a view to investigate links between different disciplinary approaches (e.g. physical and chemical scales) to the same phenomenon. Interdisciplinary collaboration also served the exploration of unknown scientific territories (e.g. two-person neuroscience) by combining intellectual resources in a new way. While these functions organize interdisciplinary interactions in many domains of research, computational science may be salient by virtue of boosting these functions by advanced computing capabilities. Interdisciplinarity was realized in the projects through concrete research activities that served as nexuses between disciplinary partners. Key areas of interdisciplinary exchange were the definition of research problems (e.g. how to operationalize climate uncertainty to improve weather forecasts), the selection and development of theoretical concepts or models (e.g. bridging models that cover different scales in time and space), and interpretation of empirical evidence (e.g. using new imaging methods for studying the vocal folds). Interdisciplinarity was thus an integral part of the research process, rather than an addition to it. None of the projects, for example, performed interdisciplinary activities around the application of results only. The importance of specific interdisciplinary activities, however, was often perceived differently by different partners. ‘Importers’ of computational methods, for example, emphasized the role of interdisciplinary collaboration in the interpretation of data, whereas ‘exporters’ put a premium on interdisciplinary exchanges around theoretical concepts. Divergent interests were rarely an obstacle for successful collaboration. Instead, they enabled an effective division of cognitive labor, as parties could pursue their specific goals in harmony while benefitting from the complementary expertise of each other. Major challenges of interdisciplinary collaboration lay in epistemic or cognitive differences between the participating fields. Partners did not always understand each other’s goals, concepts, methods, or language, which brought about problems in identifying the most relevant research questions, striking an appropriate level of analysis, or agreeing upon a common vocabulary. Cultural or operational challenges relating to different ways of designing models, balancing between theory and data, or writing academic papers were also common. Challenges were overcome by trial-and-error in the course of collaboration, which often resulted in delays in the completion of research. Many project leaders, however, stated that the challenges of interdisciplinary research were not much different from those of conventional academic research. The scientific publications of the seven already reported projects distributed across 21 out of 27 disciplinary categories listed in the Scopus journal database. While the most diverse set of publications spanned across 13 disciplinary categories, the least diverse of them spanned only three categories. Also the interdisciplinary balance of publications varied between the projects, and the overall balance of the program’s publications was biased toward a single discipline, Physics and Astronomy. Based on the disciplinary diversity of publications, five of the seven reported projects were clearly interdisciplinary. At the same time, the degree of co-authoring between consortium partners was relatively low: only one project regularly integrated the contributions of participating disciplines into joint publications. The emphasis the project leaders put on interdisciplinary learning and capacity building, however, suggests that some of the most important impacts of interdisciplinary research cannot be captured by quantitative performance measurement

Kestävyys, poikkitieteellisyys ja tietämisen monimutkaisuus : Heuristiikka avuksi?

Ympäristöongelmat ovat luonteeltaan moniulotteisia ja tämän ominaisuutensa vuoksi käytännössä vaikeita ratkaista. Tällaisista ongelmista yleisessä keskustelussa esiin nousee ennen kaikkea ilmastonmuutos seurannaisvaikutuksineen. Toinen lajityyppiin kytkeytyvä ongelmavyyhti liittyy kestävään kehitykseen. Katri Huutoniemi pohtii artikkelissaan näiden ongelmien luonnetta pirullisina ongelmina, joiden ratkaisemiseen perinteinen tieteellinen tarkastelu ei välttämättä tarjoa riittävää välineistöä. Hän ehdottaa tekstissään vaihtoehtoiseksi ratkaisuvälineeksi heuristiikkaa. Sen avulla voitaisiin saada parempi ote yleensä luonteeltaan poikkitieteellisiin pirullisiin ongelmiin.Peer reviewe

Tieteidenvälisyys tutkimuksen arvioinnissa

The evaluation of interdisciplinary research is complicated by ambiguity about what interdisciplinarity is and what it should be. The question is topical, as evaluation plays an important role in how science is being shaped and changed today. The chapter performs a meta-analysis of the concept of interdisciplinarity in research evaluation, and gives an epistemic account of what would be involved in such evaluations. First, it discusses the various ways interdisciplinarity can add value to the disciplinary organization of academia and their respective implications for research evaluation. Second, it provides tools for mapping and measuring these value-added properties and illustrates what kind of evidence they can convey to research evaluations. The combined examination of values and indicators enables a more differentiated understanding of what exactly to look at when evaluating interdisciplinary research—and more generally, how to design research evaluations from an interdisciplinary point of view.Peer reviewe

Comparing Customary Rules of Fairness: Evaluative Practices in Various Types of Peer Review Panels

African and African American StudiesSociolog

Ulospäin suuntautuva ajattalu : Heuristiikkoja ympäristöongelmien systeemiseksi ymmärtämiseksi

The chapter argues that dealing with environmental sustainability requires a systemic, yet open-ended approach to human–environment interaction. It discusses a cognitive strategy for capturing environmental issues as emergent and systemic features of this interaction. With three heuristic variations, the chapter illustrates the benefits of looking systematically out- and upwards from the initial object of interest. Each heuristic provides an orientation framework for making connections amongst a range and variety of factors in order to create a comprehensive and purposeful understanding of environmental issues.Peer reviewe

Ratkaisuja visioimassa : Asiantuntijaharkinta ympäristön tulevaisuuksista

A central task in solving complex sustainability problems is to envision sustainable paths. In this task the heuristic capabilities of experts can be used. By drawing on the literature on expertise and a Delphi study of the future of transport and its CO2 emissions, the chapter discusses expert deliberation as a heuristic process. In this process, it is important to consider how expertise is defined, how expert panels are constructed, how their deliberation is managed, and what prospects for sustainable solutions the process yields. The chapter concludes that expert deliberation is a useful heuristic for exploring and ‘scoping’ future solutions.Peer reviewe

Heuristiikat kognitiivisina työkaluina kestävyyden tavoittelussa

The chapter probes the cognitive foundations of the heuristic approach that unites the volume. It discusses the key challenges taken up in the book, sustainability and transdisciplinarity, in the light of embodied, autopoietic epistemology. Heuristics are seen as cognitive devices with which autopoietic observers adapt to and survive in particular environments. The chapter unpacks heuristics for sustainability from the perspective of cognitive linguistics and embodied cognition, and illustrates the analysis with reference to the cases presented in earlier chapters. It then reformulates transdisciplinary inquiry as a co-creative heuristic that can influence the autopoiesis of disciplinary systems.Peer reviewe