Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T16:59:55.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Epistemic Significance of Collaborative Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

K. Brad Wray
K. Brad Wray*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Alberta
*
Send request for reprints to the author, Department of Philosophy, University of Alberta, 4-115 Humanities Centre, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2E5, Canada.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I examine the epistemic import of collaborative research in science. I develop and defend a functional explanation for its growing importance. Collaborative research is becoming more popular in the natural sciences, and to a lesser degree in the social sciences, because contemporary research in these fields frequently requires access to abundant resources, for which there is great competition. Scientists involved in collaborative research have been very successful in accessing these resources, which has in turn enabled them to realize the epistemic goals of science more effectively than other scientists, thus creating a research environment in which collaboration is now the norm.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 69 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 150 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

‡

I thank David Hull, Harold Kincaid, Robert K. Merton, Lori Nash, Jean-François Auger, Allan Walstad, Jonathan Cohen, Les Burkholder, and Keith Douglas for comments on earlier drafts. I also thank the referees for Philosophy of Science for their insightful reports. Finally, I thank my audience at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for the History and Philosophy of Science, and the philosophy departments at the University of Saskatchewan, University of Mississippi, Trent University and the University of Guelph, to whom I presented earlier versions of the paper.

References

Beaver, Donald deB., and Rosen, R. (1978), “Studies in Scientific Collaboration: Part I. The Professional Origins of Scientific Coauthorship”, Studies in Scientific Collaboration: Part I. The Professional Origins of Scientific Coauthorship 1:65–84.Google Scholar
Beaver, Donald deB., and Rosen, R. (1979a), “Studies in Scientific Collaboration: Part II. Scientific Coauthorship, Research Productivity and Visibility in the French Scientific Elite, 1799–1830”, Studies in Scientific Collaboration: Part II. Scientific Coauthorship, Research Productivity and Visibility in the French Scientific Elite, 1799–1830 1:133–149.Google Scholar
Beaver, Donald deB., and Rosen, R. (1979b), “Studies in Scientific Collaboration: Part III. Professionalization and the Natural History of Modern Scientific Co-authorship”, Studies in Scientific Collaboration: Part III. Professionalization and the Natural History of Modern Scientific Co-authorship 1:231–245.Google Scholar
Ben-David, Joseph (1991), “Organization, Social Control, and Cognitive Change in Science”, in Freudenthal, Gad (ed.), Scientific Growth: Essays on the Social Organization and Ethos of Science. Berkeley: University of California Press, 321–342.Google Scholar
Ben-David, Joseph, and Aran, Lydia (1991), “Socialization and Career Patterns as Determinants of Productivity of Medical Researchers”, in Freudenthal, Gad (ed.), Scientific Growth: Essays on the Social Organization and Ethos of Science. Berkeley: University of California Press, 71–89.Google Scholar
Cole Stephen, Leonard Rubin, and Cole, Jonathan R. (1978), Peer Review in the National Science Foundation: Phase One of a Study. Washington: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Crane, Diana (1972), Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cummins, Robert (1975), “Functional Analysis”, Functional Analysis 72:741–765.Google Scholar
Frank Fox, Mary (1991), “Gender, Environmental Milieu, and Productivity in Science”, in Zuckerman, Harriet, Cole, Jonathan, and Bruer, John (eds.), The Outer Circle. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 188–204.Google Scholar
Fuller, Steve (2000), The Governance of Science: Ideology and the Future of the Open Society. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E. (1993), “Functional Analysis and Proper Functions”, Functional Analysis and Proper Functions 44:409–422.Google Scholar
Hardwig, John (1985), “Epistemic Dependence”, Epistemic Dependence 82:335–349.Google Scholar
Hull, David (1988), Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Developments of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kincaid, Harold (1996), Philosophical Foundations of the Social Sciences: Analyzing Controversies in Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1993), The Advancement of Science: Science Without Legend, Objectivity Without Illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1998), “A Plea For Science Studies”, in Koertge, Noretta (ed.), A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 32–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsey, Duncan (1978), The Scientific Publication System in Social Science: A Study of the Operation of Leading Professional Journals in Psychology, Sociology, and Social Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
Little, Daniel (1991), Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Long, J. Scott (1992), “Measures of Sex Differences in Scientific Productivity”, Measures of Sex Differences in Scientific Productivity 71:159–178.Google Scholar
Maienschein, Jane (1993), “Why Collaborate?”, Why Collaborate? 26:167–183.Google Scholar
McGrath, Joseph E., and Altman, Irwin (1966), Small Group Research: A Synthesis and Critique of the Field. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. ([1963] 1973a), “The Ambivalence of Scientists”, in Storer, Norman W. (ed.), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 381–412.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. ([1957] 1973b), “Priorities in Scientific Discovery”, in Storer, Norman W. (ed.), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 286–324.Google Scholar
Price, Price Derek de (1963), Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, Price Derek de, and Beaver, Donald (1966), “Collaboration in an Invisible College”, Collaboration in an Invisible College 21:1011–1018.Google Scholar
Shapin, Steven (1994), A Social History of Truth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, Paul (1997), “Collaborative Knowledge”, Collaborative Knowledge 31:242–261.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Linda J. (1998), “Authorship: The Coin of the Realm, The Source of Complaints”, Authorship: The Coin of the Realm, The Source of Complaints 280:216–217.Google Scholar
Wright, Larry (1973), “Functions”, Functions 82:139–168.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, Harriet (1977), Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, Harriet, and Merton, Robert K. ([1971] 1973a), “Institutionalized Patterns of Evaluation in Science”, in The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 460–496.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, Harriet, and Merton, Robert K. ([1972] 1973b), “Age, Aging, and Age Structure in Science”, in The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 497–559.Google Scholar