CoLab authors have published a new paper, “What Is ‘Good’ Science? How Disciplinary Norms and Expectations Discourage Broad Interdisciplinary Collaboration,” in Perspectives on Science, which analyzes interview data from 20 scientists and engineers who have collaborated with philosophers of science. The paper examines how disciplinary expectations in science and engineering can hinder philosophy-science collaborations. Analysis suggests that there are two different ways of understanding what ‘good’ science looks like: one is field-aligned, which is more technical, data-driven, and aligned with disciplinary goals, while the other is field-disruptive, which asks more foundational questions but is less likely to be rewarded by disciplinary structures. We argue that broad interdisciplinary collaborations, such as those spanning the humanities-STEM divide, can produce field-disruptive science that has the potential to benefit science and engineering.
The paper is available to read in Perspectives on Science, and there is also a research brief that shares key findings from the study.