9 found
See also
  1. Epistemic dependence in interdisciplinary groups.Hanne Andersen & Susann Wagenknecht - 2013 - Synthese 190 (11):1881-1898.
    In interdisciplinary research scientists have to share and integrate knowledge between people and across disciplinary boundaries. An important issue for philosophy of science is to understand how scientists who work in these kinds of environments exchange knowledge and develop new concepts and theories across diverging fields. There is a substantial literature within social epistemology that discusses the social aspects of scientific knowledge, but so far few attempts have been made to apply these resources to the analysis of interdisciplinary science. Further, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   56 citations  
  2.  42
    Empirical Philosophy of Science: Introducing Qualitative Methods into Philosophy of Science.Hanne Andersen, Nancy J. Nersessian & Susann Wagenknecht (eds.) - 2015 - Cham: Springer International Publishing.
    The book examines the emerging approach of using qualitative methods, such as interviews and field observations, in the philosophy of science. Qualitative methods are gaining popularity among philosophers of science as more and more scholars are resorting to empirical work in their study of scientific practices. At the same time, the results produced through empirical work are quite different from those gained through the kind of introspective conceptual analysis more typical of philosophy. This volume explores the benefits and challenges of (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  3.  48
    Opaque and Translucent Epistemic Dependence in Collaborative Scientific Practice.Susann Wagenknecht - 2014 - Episteme 11 (4):475-492.
    This paper offers an analytic perspective on epistemic dependence that is grounded in theoretical discussion and field observation at the same time. When in the course of knowledge creation epistemic labor is divided, collaborating scientists come to depend upon one another epistemically. Since instances of epistemic dependence are multifarious in scientific practice, I propose to distinguish between two different forms of epistemic dependence, opaque and translucent epistemic dependence. A scientist is opaquely dependent upon a colleague if she does not possess (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  4. Facing the Incompleteness of Epistemic Trust: Managing Dependence in Scientific Practice.Susann Wagenknecht - 2015 - Social Epistemology 29 (2):160-184.
    Based on an empirical study of a research team in natural science, the author argues that collaborating scientists do not trust each other completely. Due to the inherent incompleteness of trust, epistemic trust among scientists is not sufficient to manage epistemic dependency in research teams. To mitigate the limitations of epistemic trust, scientists resort to specific strategies of indirect assessment such as dialoguing practices and the probing of explanatory responsiveness. Furthermore, they rely upon impersonal trust and deploy practices of hierarchical (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  5.  14
    A social epistemology of research groups: collaboration in scientific practice.Susann Wagenknecht - 2016 - London: Palgrave-Macmillan.
    This book investigates how collaborative scientific practice yields scientific knowledge. At a time when most of today’s scientific knowledge is created in research groups, the author reconsiders the social character of science to address the question of whether collaboratively created knowledge should be considered as collective achievement, and if so, in which sense. Combining philosophical analysis with qualitative empirical inquiry, this book provides a comparative case study of mono- and interdisciplinary research groups, offering insight into the day-to-day practice of scientists. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  6. Feeling with the Organism: A Blueprint for an Empirical Philosophy of Science.Susann Wagenknecht & Erika Mansnerus - 2015 - In Hanne Andersen, Nancy J. Nersessian & Susann Wagenknecht (eds.), Empirical Philosophy of Science: Introducing Qualitative Methods into Philosophy of Science. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  7. Four Asymmetries Between Moral and Epistemic Trustworthiness.Susann Wagenknecht - 2014 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 3 (6):82-86.
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  8. Collaboration in scientific practice—-A social epistemology of research groups.Susann Wagenknecht - 2014 - Dissertation, Aarhus University
    This monograph investigates the collaborative creation of scientific knowledge in research groups. To do so, I combine philosophical analysis with a first-hand comparative case study of two research groups in experimental science. Qualitative data are gained through observation and interviews, and I combine empirical insights with existing approaches to knowledge creation in philosophy of science and social epistemology. -/- On the basis of my empirically-grounded analysis I make several conceptual contributions. I study scientific collaboration as the interaction of scientists within (...)
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  9.  11
    Debating Troy in the Mass Media – The Catalytic Impact of Public Controversy on Academic Discourse.Susann Wagenknecht - 2012 - In Simone Roedder Martina FranzenPeter Weingart & Peter Weingart (eds.), The Sciences’ Media Connection – Public Communication and its Repercussions. Springer. pp. 291-306.
    he Troy controversy (2001–2005) illustrates the substantial impact of mass media on academic discourse among specialists. Triggered by a disputed exhibition, the controversy breaks out in the mass media and quickly escalates. In leading newspapers, Germany’s most renowned archeologists discuss findings and their interpretation in Troy research fiercely. The public Troy controversy is best characterized as an inter-specialist debate since lay people virtually have no say. The chapter provides an overview of the course that the public and the subsequent academic (...)
    Direct download  
    Export citation