Epistemology for Interdisciplinary Research – Shifting Philosophical Paradigms of Science
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Published
Jul 17, 2025
Copyright Information
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Bassel Almasalmeh
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1472-5278
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1472-5278
Abstract
In science policy, it is generally acknowledged that science-based problem-solving requires interdisciplinary research. For example, policy makers invest in funding programs such as Horizon 2020 that aim to stimulate interdisciplinary research. Yet the epistemological processes that lead to effective interdisciplinary research are poorly understood. This article aims at an epistemology for interdisciplinary research (IDR), in particular, IDR for solving ‘real-world’ problems. Focus is on the question why researchers experience cognitive and epistemic difficulties in conducting IDR. Based on a study of educational literature it is concluded that higher-education is missing clear ideas on the epistemology of IDR, and as a consequence, on how to teach it. It is conjectured that the lack of philosophical interest in the epistemology of IDR is due to a philosophical paradigm of science (called a physics paradigm of science), which prevents recognizing severe epistemological challenges of IDR, both in the philosophy of science as well as in science education and research. The proposed alternative philosophical paradigm (called an engineering paradigm of science) entails alternative philosophical presuppositions regarding aspects such as the aim of science, the character of knowledge, the epistemic and pragmatic criteria for accepting knowledge, and the role of technological instruments. This alternative philosophical paradigm assume the production of knowledge for epistemic functions as the aim of science, and interprets ‘knowledge’ (such as theories, models, laws, and concepts) as epistemic tools that must allow for conducting epistemic tasks by epistemic agents, rather than interpreting knowledge as representations that objectively represent aspects of the world independent of the way in which it was constructed. The engineering paradigm of science involves that knowledge is indelibly shaped by how it is constructed. Additionally, the way in which scientific disciplines (or fields) construct knowledge is guided by the specificities of the discipline, which can be analyzed in terms of disciplinary perspectives. This implies that knowledge and the epistemic uses of knowledge cannot be understood without at least some understanding of how the knowledge is constructed. Accordingly, scientific researchers need so-called metacognitive scaffolds to assist in analyzing and reconstructing how ‘knowledge’ is constructed and how different disciplines do this differently. In an engineering paradigm of science, these metacognitive scaffolds can also be interpreted as epistemic tools, but in this case as tools that guide, enable and constrain analyzing and articulating how knowledge is produced (i.e., explaining epistemological aspects of doing research). In interdisciplinary research, metacognitive scaffolds assist interdisciplinary communication aiming to analyze and articulate how the discipline constructs knowledge.
Metrics
Metrics Loading ...
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Keywords
InterdisciplinarityProblem-solvingEpistemological viewsDisciplinary matrixKuhnDisciplinary perspectivesEngineering paradigm of scienceEngineering sciencesHigher educationExpertiseMetacognitive skillsHigher-order cognitive skillsMetacognitive scaffolds
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F. “Teaching with and about Nature of Science, and Science Teacher Knowledge Domains.” Science & Education, Vol. 22, No. 9 (2013), pp. 2087–2107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9520-2
Aboelela, S. W., Larson, E., Bakken, S., Carrasquillo, O., Formicola, A., Glied, S. A., Gebbie, K. M. “Defining Interdisciplinary Research: Conclusions from a Critical Review of the Literature.” Health Services Research, Vol. 42 (2007), pp. 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00621.x
Addae, J. I., Wilson, J. I., & Carrington, C. “Students’ perception of a Modified form of PBL Using Concept Mapping.” Medical Teacher, Vol. 34, No. 11 (2012), pp. e756–e762. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.689440
Alvargonzález, D. “Multidisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity, Transdisciplinarity, and the Sciences.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 25, No. 4 (2011), pp. 387–403. https://doi.org/10.1080 /02698595.2011.623366
Andersen, H. “Collaboration, interdisciplinarity, and the epistemology of contemporary science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, Vol. 56 (2016), pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.10.006
–––. “The Second Essential Tension: On Tradition and Innovation in Interdisciplinary Research.” Topoi, Vol. 32, No. 1 (2013), pp. 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-012-9133-z.
Andersen, H., & Wagenknecht, S. “Epistemic Dependence in Interdisciplinary Groups.” Synthese, Vol. 190, No. 11 (2013), pp. 1881–1898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0172-1
Aneas, A. “Transdisciplinary Technology Education: A Characterisation and some ideas for Implementation in the University.” Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 40, No. 9 (2015), pp. 1715–1728. https://doi.org/10.1080 /03075079.2014.899341
Apostel, L., Berger, G., Briggs, A., & Michaud, G. “Interdisciplinarity Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities.” Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1972.
Aram, J. D. “Concepts of Interdisciplinarity: Configurations of Knowledge and Action.” Human Relations, Vol. 57, No. 4 (2004), pp. 379–412 http://www.journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0018726704043893
Bammer, G. Disciplining Interdisciplinarity - integration and Implementation Sciences for Researching Complex Real-world Problems (Canberra: Australian National University E-press: 2013).
Bergmann, M. “The Integrative Approach in Transdisciplinary Research.” in: M. Bergmann, T. Jahn, T. Knobloch, W. Krohn, C. Pohl, & E. Schramm (eds.), Methods for Transdisciplinary Research - A Primer for Practice. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag, 2012, pp. 22–49.
Boon, M. “An Engineering Paradigm in the Biomedical Sciences: Knowledge as Epistemic tool,” Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, Vol. 129 (2017a), pp. 25–39. https://doi:j.pbiomolbio.2017.04.001
–––. “Contingency and inevitability in science – Instruments, Interfaces and the Independent World.” in: L. Soler, E. Trizio, & A. Pickering (eds.), Science as it Could Have Been: Discussing the Contingent/inevitable Aspects of Scientific Practices. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2015, pp. 151–174.
–––. “How science is applied in technology.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 20, No. 1 (2006), pp. 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698590600640992
–––. “In Defense of Engineering Sciences: On the Epistemological Relations between Science and Technology,” Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, Vol. 15, No. 1 (2011), pp. 49–71. https://doi.org/10.5840 /techne20111515
–––. “Measurements in the Engineering Sciences: An Epistemology of Producing Knowledge of Physical Phenomena.” in: N. Mößner & A. Nordmann (eds.), Reasoning in Measurement. London and New York: Routledge, 2017, 203–219.
–––. “Philosophy of Science, In Practice: A Proposal for Epistemological Constructivism,” in: H. Leitgeb, I. Niiniluoto, P. Seppälä, & E. Sober (eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science – Proceedings of the 15th International Congress (CLMPS 2015). College Publications, 2017, pp. 289–310.
–––. “Scientific Concepts in the Engineering Sciences: Epistemic tools for Creating and Intervening with Phenomena.” in: U. Feest & F. Steinle (eds.), Scientific Concepts and Investigative Practice. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012, pp. 219– 243.
–––. “Scientific Methodology in the Engineering Sciences.” in: D. Michelfelder & N. Doorn (eds.), Chapter 4 in the Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Engineering. New York: Taylor & Francis / Routledge, 2019.
Boon, M., & Knuuttila, T. “Models as Epistemic tools in Engineering Sciences: A Pragmatic Approach.” in: a. Meijers (ed.), Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences. Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 9. North-Holland: Elsevier, 2009, pp. 687–720.
Bosque-Perez, N. A., Klos, P. Z., Force, J. E., Waits, L. P., Cleary, K., Rhoades, P. Holbrook, J. D. “A pedagogical model for team-based, problem-focused interdisciplinary doctoral education.” BioScience, Vol. 66, No. 6 (2016), pp. 477–488. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw042
Boumans, M. “Built-in justification.” in: M. S. Morgan & M. Morrison (eds.), Models as mediators - perspectives on natural and social science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 66–96.
Cartwright, N. How the Laws of physics lie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, 1983).
Cartwright, N. The dappled world. A study of the boundaries of science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
Cat, J. “The Unity of Science.” in: E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014).
Chan, C. K., Zhao, Y., & Luk, L. Y. “A validated and reliable instrument investigating engineering students’ perceptions of competency in generic skills.” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 106, No.2 (2017), pp. 299– 325. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20165.
Chang, H. Is water H2O? Evidence, realism and pluralism (The Netherlands: Springer, 2012).
Chang, H. “Epistemic Activities and Systems of Practice: Units of Analysis in Philosophy of Science After the Practice Turn.” in: L. Soler, M. Lynch, S. D. Zwart, & V. Israel-Jost (eds.), Science after the Practice Turn in the Philosophy, History, and Social Studies of Science (New York & London: Routledge, 2014), pp. 75–87.
Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. “The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience.” Social Studies of Science, Vol. 32 (2002), pp. 235–296.
Collins, H., & Evans, R. Rethinking Expertise (Chicago. London: The University of Chicago Press, 2007).
Cullingan, P. J., & Pena-Mora, F. “Engineering.” in R. Frodeman (ed.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 147–160.
Darden, L., & Maull, N. “Interfield theories.” Philosophy of Science, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1977), pp. 43–64.
DeZure, D. “Interdisciplinary pedagogies in higher education.” in R. Frodeman (ed.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 372–387.
Dupré, J. “The disunity of science.” Mind, Vol. 92, No. 367 (1983), pp. 321–346.
Edmondson, K. M., & Novak, J. D. “The Interplay of Scientific Epistemological Views, Learning Strategies, and Attitudes of College Students.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 30, No. 6 (1993), pp. 547–559. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300604.
Flavell, J. H. “Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive–developmental Inquiry.” American Psychologist, Vol. 34, No. 10 (1979), pp. 906. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
Fortuin, K. P. J., & van Koppen, C. S. A. “Teaching and Learning Reflexive Skills in Inter- and Transdisciplinary Research: A Framework and its Application in Environmental Science Education.” Environmental Education Research, Vol. 22, No. 5 (2016), pp. 697–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1054264
Frodeman, R. “Introduction,” in: R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, & C. Mitcham (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: The Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. xxix-xxxix.
Frodeman, R., & Mitcham, C. “New Directions in Interdisciplinarity: Broad, Deep, and Critical.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 27, No. 6 (2007), pp. 506–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467607308284
Giere, R. N. “An Agent-based Conception of Models and Scientific Representation.” Synthese, Vol. 172 (2010), pp. 269– 281.
–––. “How Models are used to Represent Reality.” Philosophy of Science, Vol. 71 (2004), pp. 742–752.
–––. Scientific Perspectivism. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2006.
–––. Science without Laws: Science and its Conceptual Foundations. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1999.
Gnaur, D., Svidt, K., & Thygesen, M. “Developing students’ collaborative skills in interdisciplinary learning environments.” International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 31, No. 1B) (2015), pp. 257–266.
Goddiksen, M. P. “Clarifiying interactional and contributory expertise.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, Vol. 47 (2014), pp. 111–117.
Goddiksen, M., & Andersen, H. “Expertise in interdisciplinary science and education.” Centre for Science Studies Aarhus University (2014) [Preprint]. Retrieved from: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/11151
Grantham, T. A. “Conceptualizing the (dis)unity of science.” Philosophy of Science, Vol. 71, No. 2 (2004), pp. 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1086/383008
Green, S. “When one model is not enough: Combining epistemic tools in systems biology.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Vol. 44, No. 2 (2013), pp. 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.03.012
Grüne-Yanoff, T. “Models as products of interdisciplinary exchange: Evidence from evolutionary game theory.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, Vol. 42, No. 2 (2011), pp. 386–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. shpsa.2010.12.004
–––. “Teaching philosophy of science to scientists: Why, what and how.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 4, Vol. No.1 (2014), pp. 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-013-0078-x
Haynes, C. & Brown-Leonard, J., “From Surprise Parties to Mapmaking: Undergraduate Journeys toward Interdisciplinary Understanding.” The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 81, No. 5, (2010), pp. 645–666. https://doi. org/10.1080/00221546.2010.11779070.
Hirsch-Hadorn, G., Pohl, C., & Bammer, G. “Solving Problems through Transdisciplinary Research.” in R. Frodeman (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 431–452.
Holbrook, J. B. “What is Interdisciplinary Communication? Reflections on the Very Idea of Disciplinary Integration.” Synthese, Vol. 190, No. 11 (2013), pp. 1865–1879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0179-7
Huutoniemi, K., Klein, J. T., Bruun, H., & Hukkinen, J. “Analyzing Interdisciplinarity: Typology and Indicators.” Research Policy, Vol. 39 (2010), pp. 79–88.
Ivanitskaya, L., Clark, D., Montgomery, G., & Primeau, R. “Interdisciplinary Learning: Process and Outcomes,” Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 27, No. 2 (2002), pp. 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021105309984
Jacobs, J. A., & Frickel, S. “Interdisciplinarity: A Critical Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 35, No.1 (2009), pp. 43–65.
Jantsch, E. “Inter- and Transdisciplinary University: A systems approach to education and innovation.” Higher Education, Vol. 1, No.1 (1972), pp.7–37.
Khosa, D. K., & Volet, S. E. “Promoting effective collaborative case-based learning at university: A metacognitive intervention.” Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 38, No. 6 (2013), pp. 870–889. https://doi.org/10.1080 /03075079.2011.604409.
Klein, J. T. “A taxonomy of Interdisciplinarity,” in R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, & C. Mitcham (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 15–30.
–––. Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville: University Press, 1996.
–––. Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory and Practice. Detroit: Wayne state University Press, 1990.
Kline, S. J. Conceptual Foundations for Multidisciplinary Thinking. California Stanford University Press, 1995.
Knuuttila, T., & Boon, M. “How do models give us knowledge? The case of Carnot’s ideal heat engine.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science, Vol. 1, No. 3 (2011), pp. 309–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-011-0029-3
Krohn, W. “Interdisciplinary cases and disciplinary knowledge.” in R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, & C. Mitcham (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 31–49.
Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2nd ed., 1970.
Lattuca, L. R. Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary Research and Teaching Among College and University Faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2001.
–––. “Learning interdisciplinarity: Sociocultural Perspectives on Academic Work.” The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 73, No.6 (2002), pp. 711–739 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1558403
Lattuca, L. R., Knight, D. B., Ro, H. K., & Novoselich, B. J. “Supporting the development of Engineers' interdisciplinary competence.” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 106, No.1 (2017), pp. 71–97. https://doi. org/10.1002/jee.20155
Liu, S. Y., Lin, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. “College Students' scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in Socioscientific decision making.” Science Education, Vol. 95, No. 3 (2011), pp. 497–517. https://doi.org/10.1002 /sce.20422
Lourdel, N., Gondran, N., Laforest, V., Debray, B., & Brodhag, C. “Sustainable development cognitive map: A new method of evaluating student understanding.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 8, No. 2 (2007), pp. 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370710726634
MacLeod, M. “What Makes Interdisciplinarity Difficult? Some Consequences of Domain Specificity in Interdisciplinary Practice.” Synthese, Vol. 195 (2016), pp. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1236-4
MacLeod, M., & Nersessian, N. J. “Coupling simulation and experiment: The bimodal strategy in integrative systems biology.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences Part A, Vol. 44, No. 4 (2013), pp. 572–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. shpsc.2013.07.001
Maki, U. “Philosophy of interdisciplinarity. What? Why? How? European Journal for Philosophy of Science.” Vol. 6, No. 3 (2016), pp. 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-016-0162-0.
Mansilla, V. B. “Learning to synthesize: the development of interdisciplinary understanding.” in R. Frodeman (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 288–306.
Mattila, E. “Interdisciplinarity Bin the making: Modeling infectious diseases.” Perspectives on Science, Vol. 13, No. 4 (2005), pp. 531–553. https://doi.org/10.1162/106361405775466081
Maull, N. L. “Unifying science without reduction.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, Vol. 8, No. 2 (1977), pp. 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(77)90012-7
McComas, W. F., Almazroa, H., & Clough, M. P. “The nature of science in science education: An introduction.” Science & Education, Vol. 7, No. 6 (1998), pp. 511–532. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008642510402
Menken, S., & Keestra, M. An Introduction to Interdisciplinary Research: Theory and Practice. Amsterdam: University Press, 2016.
Mitchell, S. D. Unsimple Truths, Science Complexity and Policy. Chicago and Londen: The University of Chicago Press, 2009.
Nagel, E. The Structure of Science; Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961.
National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Engineering; Institute of Medicine; Policy and Global Affairs; Committee on Science, E., and Public Policy; Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2005.
National Science Foundation. Impact of Transformative Interdisciplinary Research and Graduate Education on Academic Institutions. Washington, Cd, 2008.
Nersessian, N. J. Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009.
Nersessian, N. J., & Patton, C. “Model-based Reasoning in Interdisciplinary Engineering.” in: a. W. M. Meijers (ed.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences. Northholland: Elsevier, 2009, pp. 687–718.
Newell, W. H. “A theory of interdisciplinary studies.” Issues in Integrative Studies, Vol. 19, (2001), pp. 1–25.
–––. “The state of the field: Interdisciplinary theory.” Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies, Vol. 31 (2013), pp. 22–43.
Newstetter, W. C. “Designing cognitive apprenticeships for biomedical engineering.” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 94, No. 2 (2005), pp. 207–213.
Nikitina, S. “Three strategies for interdisciplinary teaching: Contextualizing, conceptualizing, and problem-centring.” Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 38, No. 3 (2006), pp. 251–271. https://doi.org/10.1080 /00220270500422632
Novak, J. D. “Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 27, No.10 (1990), pp. 937–949. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660271003.
Oppenheim, P., & Putnam, H. “Unity of science as a working hypothesis,” in H. Feigl, M. Scriven, & G. Maxwell (eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, Vol. 2 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1958), pp. 3–36.
O'Rourke, M., Crowley, S., & Gonnerman, C. “On the nature of cross-disciplinary integration: A philosophical framework.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C, Vol. 56 (2016), pp. 62–70. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.10.003
Pintrich, P. R., “The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching. and assessing,” Theory into practice, Vol. 41, No. 4 (2002), pp. 219–225 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3
Procee, H. “Reflection in education: A Kantian epistemology.” Educational Theory, Vol. 56, No. 3 (2006), pp. 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2006.00225.x.
Repko, A. F. Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2008.
Repko, A. F., & Szostak, R. Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory. Los Angeles: Sage, 3rd ed., 2017.
Repko, A., Navakas, F., & Fiscella, J. “Integrating Interdisciplinarity: How the theories of common ground and Cognitive_Interdisciplinarity are informing the debate on interdisciplinary integration.” Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies, Vol. 25, No. 16 (2007), pp. 1–31.
Robles, M. M. “Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills needed in Today’s workplace.” Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 75, No. 4 (2012), pp. 453–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569912460400
Rossini, F. A., & Porter, A. L. “Frameworks for integrating interdisciplinary research.” Research Policy, Vol. 8, No. (1979), pp. 70–79.
Schmidt, J. C. “Towards a philosophy of interdisciplinarity.” Poiesis & Praxis, Vol. 5, No. 1 (2008), pp. 53–69. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10202-007-0037-8
–––. “What is a problem? On problem-oriented interdisciplinarity.” Poiesis & Praxis, Vol. 7, No. 4 (2011), pp. 249–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-011-0091-0.
Sin, C. “Epistemology, sociology, and learning and teaching in physics.” Science Education, Vol. 98, No. 2 (2014), pp. 342– 365. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21100
Spelt, E. J., Biemans, H. J., Tobi, H., Luning, P. A., & Mulder, M. “Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review.” Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 21, No. 4 (2009), pp. 365– 378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9113-z.
Stentoft, D. “From saying to doing interdisciplinary learning: Is problem-based learning the answer?” Active Learning in Higher Education, 2017. (online) http://www.journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177 /1469787417693510
Strang, V. “Integrating the social and natural sciences in environmental research: A discussion paper.” Environment, Development and Sustainability, Vol. 11, No. 1 (2009), pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-007-9095-2
Suárez, M. “Scientific representation: Against similarity and isomorphism.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 17, No. 3 (2003), pp. 225–244.
–––. “Scientific representation.” Philosophy Compass, Vol. 5, No. 1 (2010), pp. 91–101.
Thomas, L., Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. “Using concept maps and goal-setting to support the development of self-regulated learning in a problem-based learning curriculum.,” Medical Teacher, Vol. 38, No. 9 (2016), pp. 930–935. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159x.2015.1132408
Thorén, H. “The hammer and the nail: interdisciplinarity and problem solving in sustainability science.” (PhD thesis, Lund University, 2015), pp. 1-356.
Thorén, H., & Persson, J. “The philosophy of Interdisciplinarity: Sustainability science and problemfeeding.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science, Vol. 44, No. 2 (2013), pp. 337–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-013- 9233-5
Tsai, C. C. “Teachers' scientific epistemological views: The coherence with instruction and students' views.” Science Education, Vol. 91, No. 2 (2007), pp. 222–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20175
Tuana, N. “Embedding philosophers in the practices of science: Bringing humanities to the sciences.” Synthese, Vol. 190, No. 11 (2013), pp. 1955–1973. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0171-2
Turner, S. “What are disciplines? And how is interdisciplinarity different,” in: N. Stehr & P. Weingart (eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000, pp. 46–65.
Turner, V. K., Benessaiah, K., Warren, S., & Iwaniec, D. “Essential tensions in interdisciplinary scholarship: Navigating challenges in affect, epistemologies, and structure in environment–society research centers.” Higher Education, Vol. 70, No. 4 (2015), pp. 649–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9859-9
Van den Beemt, A., MacLeod, M., Van der Veen, J. T., Van de Ven, A. M. A., Van Baalen, S. J., Klaassen, R. G., & Boon, M. “Interdisciplinary engineering education: A systematic review on vision, teaching, and support.” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 109, No. 3 (2020).
Van Fraassen, B. C., Scientific representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Weideman, M., & Kritzinger, W. “Concept mapping: A proposed theoretical model for implementation as a knowledge repository.” ICT in Higher Education, 2003. Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUSE/projects/ireport/articles/concept_maps/Concept%20map%20as%20knwoledge%20 repository.pdf
Yerrick, R. K., Pedersen, J. E., & Arnason, J. "We're just spectators: A case study of science teaching, epistemology, and classroom management.” Science Education, Vol. 82, No. 6 (1998), pp. 619–648.
Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. “A review of research on metacognition in science education: Current and future directions.” Studies in Science Education, Vol. 49, No. 2(2013), pp. 121–169. https://doi.org/10.1080 /03057267.2013.847261
Aboelela, S. W., Larson, E., Bakken, S., Carrasquillo, O., Formicola, A., Glied, S. A., Gebbie, K. M. “Defining Interdisciplinary Research: Conclusions from a Critical Review of the Literature.” Health Services Research, Vol. 42 (2007), pp. 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00621.x
Addae, J. I., Wilson, J. I., & Carrington, C. “Students’ perception of a Modified form of PBL Using Concept Mapping.” Medical Teacher, Vol. 34, No. 11 (2012), pp. e756–e762. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.689440
Alvargonzález, D. “Multidisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity, Transdisciplinarity, and the Sciences.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 25, No. 4 (2011), pp. 387–403. https://doi.org/10.1080 /02698595.2011.623366
Andersen, H. “Collaboration, interdisciplinarity, and the epistemology of contemporary science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, Vol. 56 (2016), pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.10.006
–––. “The Second Essential Tension: On Tradition and Innovation in Interdisciplinary Research.” Topoi, Vol. 32, No. 1 (2013), pp. 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-012-9133-z.
Andersen, H., & Wagenknecht, S. “Epistemic Dependence in Interdisciplinary Groups.” Synthese, Vol. 190, No. 11 (2013), pp. 1881–1898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0172-1
Aneas, A. “Transdisciplinary Technology Education: A Characterisation and some ideas for Implementation in the University.” Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 40, No. 9 (2015), pp. 1715–1728. https://doi.org/10.1080 /03075079.2014.899341
Apostel, L., Berger, G., Briggs, A., & Michaud, G. “Interdisciplinarity Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities.” Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1972.
Aram, J. D. “Concepts of Interdisciplinarity: Configurations of Knowledge and Action.” Human Relations, Vol. 57, No. 4 (2004), pp. 379–412 http://www.journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0018726704043893
Bammer, G. Disciplining Interdisciplinarity - integration and Implementation Sciences for Researching Complex Real-world Problems (Canberra: Australian National University E-press: 2013).
Bergmann, M. “The Integrative Approach in Transdisciplinary Research.” in: M. Bergmann, T. Jahn, T. Knobloch, W. Krohn, C. Pohl, & E. Schramm (eds.), Methods for Transdisciplinary Research - A Primer for Practice. Frankfurt/New York: Campus Verlag, 2012, pp. 22–49.
Boon, M. “An Engineering Paradigm in the Biomedical Sciences: Knowledge as Epistemic tool,” Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, Vol. 129 (2017a), pp. 25–39. https://doi:j.pbiomolbio.2017.04.001
–––. “Contingency and inevitability in science – Instruments, Interfaces and the Independent World.” in: L. Soler, E. Trizio, & A. Pickering (eds.), Science as it Could Have Been: Discussing the Contingent/inevitable Aspects of Scientific Practices. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2015, pp. 151–174.
–––. “How science is applied in technology.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 20, No. 1 (2006), pp. 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698590600640992
–––. “In Defense of Engineering Sciences: On the Epistemological Relations between Science and Technology,” Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, Vol. 15, No. 1 (2011), pp. 49–71. https://doi.org/10.5840 /techne20111515
–––. “Measurements in the Engineering Sciences: An Epistemology of Producing Knowledge of Physical Phenomena.” in: N. Mößner & A. Nordmann (eds.), Reasoning in Measurement. London and New York: Routledge, 2017, 203–219.
–––. “Philosophy of Science, In Practice: A Proposal for Epistemological Constructivism,” in: H. Leitgeb, I. Niiniluoto, P. Seppälä, & E. Sober (eds.), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science – Proceedings of the 15th International Congress (CLMPS 2015). College Publications, 2017, pp. 289–310.
–––. “Scientific Concepts in the Engineering Sciences: Epistemic tools for Creating and Intervening with Phenomena.” in: U. Feest & F. Steinle (eds.), Scientific Concepts and Investigative Practice. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012, pp. 219– 243.
–––. “Scientific Methodology in the Engineering Sciences.” in: D. Michelfelder & N. Doorn (eds.), Chapter 4 in the Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Engineering. New York: Taylor & Francis / Routledge, 2019.
Boon, M., & Knuuttila, T. “Models as Epistemic tools in Engineering Sciences: A Pragmatic Approach.” in: a. Meijers (ed.), Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences. Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 9. North-Holland: Elsevier, 2009, pp. 687–720.
Bosque-Perez, N. A., Klos, P. Z., Force, J. E., Waits, L. P., Cleary, K., Rhoades, P. Holbrook, J. D. “A pedagogical model for team-based, problem-focused interdisciplinary doctoral education.” BioScience, Vol. 66, No. 6 (2016), pp. 477–488. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw042
Boumans, M. “Built-in justification.” in: M. S. Morgan & M. Morrison (eds.), Models as mediators - perspectives on natural and social science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 66–96.
Cartwright, N. How the Laws of physics lie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, 1983).
Cartwright, N. The dappled world. A study of the boundaries of science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
Cat, J. “The Unity of Science.” in: E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014).
Chan, C. K., Zhao, Y., & Luk, L. Y. “A validated and reliable instrument investigating engineering students’ perceptions of competency in generic skills.” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 106, No.2 (2017), pp. 299– 325. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20165.
Chang, H. Is water H2O? Evidence, realism and pluralism (The Netherlands: Springer, 2012).
Chang, H. “Epistemic Activities and Systems of Practice: Units of Analysis in Philosophy of Science After the Practice Turn.” in: L. Soler, M. Lynch, S. D. Zwart, & V. Israel-Jost (eds.), Science after the Practice Turn in the Philosophy, History, and Social Studies of Science (New York & London: Routledge, 2014), pp. 75–87.
Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. “The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience.” Social Studies of Science, Vol. 32 (2002), pp. 235–296.
Collins, H., & Evans, R. Rethinking Expertise (Chicago. London: The University of Chicago Press, 2007).
Cullingan, P. J., & Pena-Mora, F. “Engineering.” in R. Frodeman (ed.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 147–160.
Darden, L., & Maull, N. “Interfield theories.” Philosophy of Science, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1977), pp. 43–64.
DeZure, D. “Interdisciplinary pedagogies in higher education.” in R. Frodeman (ed.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 372–387.
Dupré, J. “The disunity of science.” Mind, Vol. 92, No. 367 (1983), pp. 321–346.
Edmondson, K. M., & Novak, J. D. “The Interplay of Scientific Epistemological Views, Learning Strategies, and Attitudes of College Students.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 30, No. 6 (1993), pp. 547–559. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300604.
Flavell, J. H. “Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive–developmental Inquiry.” American Psychologist, Vol. 34, No. 10 (1979), pp. 906. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
Fortuin, K. P. J., & van Koppen, C. S. A. “Teaching and Learning Reflexive Skills in Inter- and Transdisciplinary Research: A Framework and its Application in Environmental Science Education.” Environmental Education Research, Vol. 22, No. 5 (2016), pp. 697–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1054264
Frodeman, R. “Introduction,” in: R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, & C. Mitcham (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: The Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. xxix-xxxix.
Frodeman, R., & Mitcham, C. “New Directions in Interdisciplinarity: Broad, Deep, and Critical.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Vol. 27, No. 6 (2007), pp. 506–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467607308284
Giere, R. N. “An Agent-based Conception of Models and Scientific Representation.” Synthese, Vol. 172 (2010), pp. 269– 281.
–––. “How Models are used to Represent Reality.” Philosophy of Science, Vol. 71 (2004), pp. 742–752.
–––. Scientific Perspectivism. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2006.
–––. Science without Laws: Science and its Conceptual Foundations. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1999.
Gnaur, D., Svidt, K., & Thygesen, M. “Developing students’ collaborative skills in interdisciplinary learning environments.” International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 31, No. 1B) (2015), pp. 257–266.
Goddiksen, M. P. “Clarifiying interactional and contributory expertise.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, Vol. 47 (2014), pp. 111–117.
Goddiksen, M., & Andersen, H. “Expertise in interdisciplinary science and education.” Centre for Science Studies Aarhus University (2014) [Preprint]. Retrieved from: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/11151
Grantham, T. A. “Conceptualizing the (dis)unity of science.” Philosophy of Science, Vol. 71, No. 2 (2004), pp. 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1086/383008
Green, S. “When one model is not enough: Combining epistemic tools in systems biology.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Vol. 44, No. 2 (2013), pp. 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.03.012
Grüne-Yanoff, T. “Models as products of interdisciplinary exchange: Evidence from evolutionary game theory.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, Vol. 42, No. 2 (2011), pp. 386–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. shpsa.2010.12.004
–––. “Teaching philosophy of science to scientists: Why, what and how.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 4, Vol. No.1 (2014), pp. 115–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-013-0078-x
Haynes, C. & Brown-Leonard, J., “From Surprise Parties to Mapmaking: Undergraduate Journeys toward Interdisciplinary Understanding.” The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 81, No. 5, (2010), pp. 645–666. https://doi. org/10.1080/00221546.2010.11779070.
Hirsch-Hadorn, G., Pohl, C., & Bammer, G. “Solving Problems through Transdisciplinary Research.” in R. Frodeman (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 431–452.
Holbrook, J. B. “What is Interdisciplinary Communication? Reflections on the Very Idea of Disciplinary Integration.” Synthese, Vol. 190, No. 11 (2013), pp. 1865–1879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0179-7
Huutoniemi, K., Klein, J. T., Bruun, H., & Hukkinen, J. “Analyzing Interdisciplinarity: Typology and Indicators.” Research Policy, Vol. 39 (2010), pp. 79–88.
Ivanitskaya, L., Clark, D., Montgomery, G., & Primeau, R. “Interdisciplinary Learning: Process and Outcomes,” Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 27, No. 2 (2002), pp. 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021105309984
Jacobs, J. A., & Frickel, S. “Interdisciplinarity: A Critical Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 35, No.1 (2009), pp. 43–65.
Jantsch, E. “Inter- and Transdisciplinary University: A systems approach to education and innovation.” Higher Education, Vol. 1, No.1 (1972), pp.7–37.
Khosa, D. K., & Volet, S. E. “Promoting effective collaborative case-based learning at university: A metacognitive intervention.” Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 38, No. 6 (2013), pp. 870–889. https://doi.org/10.1080 /03075079.2011.604409.
Klein, J. T. “A taxonomy of Interdisciplinarity,” in R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, & C. Mitcham (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 15–30.
–––. Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville: University Press, 1996.
–––. Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory and Practice. Detroit: Wayne state University Press, 1990.
Kline, S. J. Conceptual Foundations for Multidisciplinary Thinking. California Stanford University Press, 1995.
Knuuttila, T., & Boon, M. “How do models give us knowledge? The case of Carnot’s ideal heat engine.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science, Vol. 1, No. 3 (2011), pp. 309–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-011-0029-3
Krohn, W. “Interdisciplinary cases and disciplinary knowledge.” in R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, & C. Mitcham (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 31–49.
Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2nd ed., 1970.
Lattuca, L. R. Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary Research and Teaching Among College and University Faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2001.
–––. “Learning interdisciplinarity: Sociocultural Perspectives on Academic Work.” The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 73, No.6 (2002), pp. 711–739 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1558403
Lattuca, L. R., Knight, D. B., Ro, H. K., & Novoselich, B. J. “Supporting the development of Engineers' interdisciplinary competence.” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 106, No.1 (2017), pp. 71–97. https://doi. org/10.1002/jee.20155
Liu, S. Y., Lin, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. “College Students' scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in Socioscientific decision making.” Science Education, Vol. 95, No. 3 (2011), pp. 497–517. https://doi.org/10.1002 /sce.20422
Lourdel, N., Gondran, N., Laforest, V., Debray, B., & Brodhag, C. “Sustainable development cognitive map: A new method of evaluating student understanding.” International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 8, No. 2 (2007), pp. 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370710726634
MacLeod, M. “What Makes Interdisciplinarity Difficult? Some Consequences of Domain Specificity in Interdisciplinary Practice.” Synthese, Vol. 195 (2016), pp. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1236-4
MacLeod, M., & Nersessian, N. J. “Coupling simulation and experiment: The bimodal strategy in integrative systems biology.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences Part A, Vol. 44, No. 4 (2013), pp. 572–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. shpsc.2013.07.001
Maki, U. “Philosophy of interdisciplinarity. What? Why? How? European Journal for Philosophy of Science.” Vol. 6, No. 3 (2016), pp. 327–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-016-0162-0.
Mansilla, V. B. “Learning to synthesize: the development of interdisciplinary understanding.” in R. Frodeman (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 288–306.
Mattila, E. “Interdisciplinarity Bin the making: Modeling infectious diseases.” Perspectives on Science, Vol. 13, No. 4 (2005), pp. 531–553. https://doi.org/10.1162/106361405775466081
Maull, N. L. “Unifying science without reduction.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, Vol. 8, No. 2 (1977), pp. 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(77)90012-7
McComas, W. F., Almazroa, H., & Clough, M. P. “The nature of science in science education: An introduction.” Science & Education, Vol. 7, No. 6 (1998), pp. 511–532. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008642510402
Menken, S., & Keestra, M. An Introduction to Interdisciplinary Research: Theory and Practice. Amsterdam: University Press, 2016.
Mitchell, S. D. Unsimple Truths, Science Complexity and Policy. Chicago and Londen: The University of Chicago Press, 2009.
Nagel, E. The Structure of Science; Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961.
National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Engineering; Institute of Medicine; Policy and Global Affairs; Committee on Science, E., and Public Policy; Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2005.
National Science Foundation. Impact of Transformative Interdisciplinary Research and Graduate Education on Academic Institutions. Washington, Cd, 2008.
Nersessian, N. J. Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009.
Nersessian, N. J., & Patton, C. “Model-based Reasoning in Interdisciplinary Engineering.” in: a. W. M. Meijers (ed.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences. Northholland: Elsevier, 2009, pp. 687–718.
Newell, W. H. “A theory of interdisciplinary studies.” Issues in Integrative Studies, Vol. 19, (2001), pp. 1–25.
–––. “The state of the field: Interdisciplinary theory.” Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies, Vol. 31 (2013), pp. 22–43.
Newstetter, W. C. “Designing cognitive apprenticeships for biomedical engineering.” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 94, No. 2 (2005), pp. 207–213.
Nikitina, S. “Three strategies for interdisciplinary teaching: Contextualizing, conceptualizing, and problem-centring.” Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 38, No. 3 (2006), pp. 251–271. https://doi.org/10.1080 /00220270500422632
Novak, J. D. “Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 27, No.10 (1990), pp. 937–949. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660271003.
Oppenheim, P., & Putnam, H. “Unity of science as a working hypothesis,” in H. Feigl, M. Scriven, & G. Maxwell (eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, Vol. 2 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1958), pp. 3–36.
O'Rourke, M., Crowley, S., & Gonnerman, C. “On the nature of cross-disciplinary integration: A philosophical framework.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C, Vol. 56 (2016), pp. 62–70. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.10.003
Pintrich, P. R., “The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching. and assessing,” Theory into practice, Vol. 41, No. 4 (2002), pp. 219–225 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3
Procee, H. “Reflection in education: A Kantian epistemology.” Educational Theory, Vol. 56, No. 3 (2006), pp. 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2006.00225.x.
Repko, A. F. Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2008.
Repko, A. F., & Szostak, R. Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory. Los Angeles: Sage, 3rd ed., 2017.
Repko, A., Navakas, F., & Fiscella, J. “Integrating Interdisciplinarity: How the theories of common ground and Cognitive_Interdisciplinarity are informing the debate on interdisciplinary integration.” Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies, Vol. 25, No. 16 (2007), pp. 1–31.
Robles, M. M. “Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills needed in Today’s workplace.” Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 75, No. 4 (2012), pp. 453–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569912460400
Rossini, F. A., & Porter, A. L. “Frameworks for integrating interdisciplinary research.” Research Policy, Vol. 8, No. (1979), pp. 70–79.
Schmidt, J. C. “Towards a philosophy of interdisciplinarity.” Poiesis & Praxis, Vol. 5, No. 1 (2008), pp. 53–69. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10202-007-0037-8
–––. “What is a problem? On problem-oriented interdisciplinarity.” Poiesis & Praxis, Vol. 7, No. 4 (2011), pp. 249–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-011-0091-0.
Sin, C. “Epistemology, sociology, and learning and teaching in physics.” Science Education, Vol. 98, No. 2 (2014), pp. 342– 365. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21100
Spelt, E. J., Biemans, H. J., Tobi, H., Luning, P. A., & Mulder, M. “Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review.” Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 21, No. 4 (2009), pp. 365– 378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9113-z.
Stentoft, D. “From saying to doing interdisciplinary learning: Is problem-based learning the answer?” Active Learning in Higher Education, 2017. (online) http://www.journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177 /1469787417693510
Strang, V. “Integrating the social and natural sciences in environmental research: A discussion paper.” Environment, Development and Sustainability, Vol. 11, No. 1 (2009), pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-007-9095-2
Suárez, M. “Scientific representation: Against similarity and isomorphism.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 17, No. 3 (2003), pp. 225–244.
–––. “Scientific representation.” Philosophy Compass, Vol. 5, No. 1 (2010), pp. 91–101.
Thomas, L., Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. “Using concept maps and goal-setting to support the development of self-regulated learning in a problem-based learning curriculum.,” Medical Teacher, Vol. 38, No. 9 (2016), pp. 930–935. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159x.2015.1132408
Thorén, H. “The hammer and the nail: interdisciplinarity and problem solving in sustainability science.” (PhD thesis, Lund University, 2015), pp. 1-356.
Thorén, H., & Persson, J. “The philosophy of Interdisciplinarity: Sustainability science and problemfeeding.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science, Vol. 44, No. 2 (2013), pp. 337–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-013- 9233-5
Tsai, C. C. “Teachers' scientific epistemological views: The coherence with instruction and students' views.” Science Education, Vol. 91, No. 2 (2007), pp. 222–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20175
Tuana, N. “Embedding philosophers in the practices of science: Bringing humanities to the sciences.” Synthese, Vol. 190, No. 11 (2013), pp. 1955–1973. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0171-2
Turner, S. “What are disciplines? And how is interdisciplinarity different,” in: N. Stehr & P. Weingart (eds.), Practising interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000, pp. 46–65.
Turner, V. K., Benessaiah, K., Warren, S., & Iwaniec, D. “Essential tensions in interdisciplinary scholarship: Navigating challenges in affect, epistemologies, and structure in environment–society research centers.” Higher Education, Vol. 70, No. 4 (2015), pp. 649–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9859-9
Van den Beemt, A., MacLeod, M., Van der Veen, J. T., Van de Ven, A. M. A., Van Baalen, S. J., Klaassen, R. G., & Boon, M. “Interdisciplinary engineering education: A systematic review on vision, teaching, and support.” Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 109, No. 3 (2020).
Van Fraassen, B. C., Scientific representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Weideman, M., & Kritzinger, W. “Concept mapping: A proposed theoretical model for implementation as a knowledge repository.” ICT in Higher Education, 2003. Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/dept/SUSE/projects/ireport/articles/concept_maps/Concept%20map%20as%20knwoledge%20 repository.pdf
Yerrick, R. K., Pedersen, J. E., & Arnason, J. "We're just spectators: A case study of science teaching, epistemology, and classroom management.” Science Education, Vol. 82, No. 6 (1998), pp. 619–648.
Zohar, A., & Barzilai, S. “A review of research on metacognition in science education: Current and future directions.” Studies in Science Education, Vol. 49, No. 2(2013), pp. 121–169. https://doi.org/10.1080 /03057267.2013.847261
How to Cite
Almasalmeh, Bassel. 2025. “Epistemology for Interdisciplinary Research – Shifting Philosophical Paradigms of Science”. Tajseer Journal 7 (1). https://doi.org/10.29117/tis.2025.0214.
Section
Translations