Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:46:10.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Group Deliberation, Social Cohesion, and Scientific Teamwork: Is There Room for Dissent?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Deborah Perron Tollefsen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent discussions of rational deliberation in science present us with two extremes: unbounded optimism and sober pessimism. Helen Longino (1990) sees rational deliberation as the foundation of scientific objectivity. Miriam Solomon (1991) thinks it is overrated. Indeed, she has recently argued (2006) that group deliberation is detrimental to empirical success because it often involves groupthink and the suppression of dissent. But we need not embrace either extreme. To determine the value of rational deliberation we need to look more closely at the practice and practitioners of science. I offer a closer look here by exploring the joint agency of small research teams. Although there are factors that contribute to the suppression of dissent in group contexts, a closer look at the literature on group dynamics suggests that there are ways to mitigate the effects of groupthink. Thus, there is reason to be cautiously optimistic about the value of rational deliberation within certain scientific contexts.

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 3 , Issue 1-2 , June 2006 , pp. 37 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bratman, M. (1999). “Shared cooperative activity”. In Faces of Intention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratman, M. (2004). “Shared valuing and frameworks for practical reasoning”. In Scheffler, S. and Smith, M. (eds.), Reason and Value: Themes from the Moral Philosophy of Joseph Raz. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. (2006). “Dynamics of sociality”. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, vol. 30, Shared Intentions and Collective Responsibility, pp. 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carron, A.V. and Bray, S.R.. (2002). “Team cohesion and team success in sport”. Journal of Sport Sciences 20: 119–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dyaram, L. and Kamalanabhan, T. J.. (2005). “Unearthed: the other side of group cohesiveness”. Journal of Social Science 10(3): 185–90.Google Scholar
Evans, C. R. and Dion, K. L.. (1992). “Group cohesion and performance: a meta analysis”. Small Group Research 23 (2): 242–50.Google Scholar
Janis, I. (1972). Victims of Groupthink. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1990). “Division of Cognitive Labor”. The Journal of Philosophy 87(1): 5–22.Google Scholar
Longino, H. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudrack, P.E. (1989). “Group cohesiveness and productivity: a closer look”. Human Relations 42(9): 771–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullen, B. and Cooper, C.. (1994). “The relationship between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration”. Psychological Bulletin 115(2): 210–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, L. H. (1990). Who Knows: From Quine to Feminist Empiricism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Solomon, M. (2001). Social Empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
Solomon, M. (2005). “Social epistemology of science.” Paper for Inquiry conference on developing a consensus research agenda. Rutgers University, Feb. 16–18.Google Scholar
Solomon, M. (2006). “Groupthink vs. The Wisdom of the Crowds: The social epistemology of deliberation and dissent”. Southern Journal of Philosophy, volume 44, Supplement: 28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staley, K. (2004). The Evidence for the Top Quark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traweek, S. (1992). Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, J.C., Woods, D.D., and Patterson, E.S. (1996). “Functionally distributed coordination during anomaly response in space shuttle mission control.” In Human Interaction with Complex Systems. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 68–78.Google Scholar
Watts, J.C., Woods, D.D. and Patterson, E.S. (1997). “A cognitive analysis of functionally distributed anomaly response in space shuttle mission control”. (CSEL Report 1997–TR–O2) The Ohio State University, Cognitive Systems Engineering Laboratory.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. (2006). “Socially naturalized norms of epistemic rationality: aggregation and deliberation”. Southern Journal of Philosophy, volume 44, Supplement: 43–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar