Scientific Integration under the Spotlight
Interdisciplinary Practices and Dynamics in Argentine Neuroscientific Research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52712/issn.1850-0013-381Keywords:
science policies, research groups, scientific collaboration, disciplinary migrations, scientific institutionsAbstract
Contemporary neurosciences are produced by the confluence of multiple disciplines and lines of research. Studying them offers an opportunity to observe how the integration of heterogeneous knowledge takes place. This article aims to characterize the integration of neuroscience knowledge in Argentina, focusing on the practices that scientists use to produce interdisciplinary knowledge, how these practices transform research output, and how they strain institutional and organizational structures. A qualitative study was carried out, based mainly on interviews and documentary and bibliographic analysis, following the methodology established for other studies on interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. The results present six practices to characterize how scientists integrate elements (information, data, techniques, tools, perspectives, concepts, and theories) from two or more disciplines. The conclusion identifies three interdisciplinary dynamics that underlie the practices and that can function as heuristics for thinking about science policy and the management of interdisciplinarity. It also points out the implications of the work for thinking about processes of knowledge integration in neuroscience.
Downloads
References
Akkerman, S. F. & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132-169. DOI: 10.3102/0034654311404435.
Ankeny, R. A. & Leonelli, S. (2016). Repertoires: A post-Kuhnian perspective on scientific change and collaborative research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 60, 18-28. DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2016.08.003.
Apostel, L. (1972). Interdisciplinarity Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities. OECD.
Arias, C., Bermejo, F., Hüg, M. X., Venturelli, N., Rabinovich, D. & Skarp, A. O. (2012). Echolocation: An action-perception phenomenon. New Zealand Acoustics, 25(2), 20-27.
Barberis, S. D., Branca, M. I. & Venturelli, A. N. (2017). A pluralist framework for the philosophy of social neuroscience. En Neuroscience and Social Science (501–530). Springer.
Barry, A., Born, G. & Weszkalnys, G. (2008). Logics of interdisciplinarity. Economy and Society, 37(1), 20-49. DOI: 10.1080/03085140701760841.
Bernard, H. R., Wutich, A. & Ryan, G. W. (2016). Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic Approaches. SAGE Publications.
Brizuela, N. E. (2019). La música en el cuerpo: Percepción espacio-corporal de la música en personas ciegas y con visión normal. Recuperado de: http://rdu.unc.edu.ar:80/handle/11086/16977.
Bruun, H., Hukkinen, J., Huutoniemi, K. & Klein, J. T. (2005). Promoting interdisciplinary research. The case of the Academy of Finland. Helsinki: Academy of Finland.
Callard, F., & Fitzgerald, D. (2015). Rethinking Interdisciplinarity across the Social Sciences and Neurosciences. Londres: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1057/9781137407962.
Carrer, H. (2010). El Doctorado en Neurociencias de la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento, 2(2), 1–3.
Choudhury, S. & Slaby, J. (2016). Critical neuroscience: A handbook of the social and cultural contexts of neuroscience. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Ciccia, L. (2017). La ficción de los sexos: Hacia un pensamiento Neuroqueer desde la Epistemología Feminista. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Colaço, D. (2021). How Do Tools Obstruct (and Facilitate) Integration in Neuroscience? En J. Bickle, C. F. Craver & A.-S. Barwich (Eds.), The Tools of Neuroscience Experiment: Philosophical and Scientific Perspectives. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781003251392.
Craver, C. F. (2005). Beyond reduction: Mechanisms, multifield integration and the unity of neuroscience. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36(2), 373–395. DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2005.03.008.
Cruz, P., Vienni Baptista, Bianca, B., Aguiar, X. & Repetto, L. (2012). Apuntes para la caracterización del trabajo interdisciplinario en la Universidad de la República (Uruguay). Revista Digital Universitaria, 13(5), 3–14.
Di Paolo, E. (2013). El enactivismo y la naturalización de la mente. En D. Chico & M. Bedia (Eds.), Nueva ciencia cognitiva: Hacia una teoría integral de la mente. Madrid: Plaza y Valdes Editores.
Gerson, E. M. (2013). Integration of specialties: An institutional and organizational view. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 44(4, Part A), 515–524. DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2012.10.002.
Gibbons, M. & Nowotny, H. (2001). The Potential of Transdisciplinarity. En J. T. Klein, R. Häberli, R. W. Scholz, W. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, A. Bill, & M. Welti (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem Solving among Science, Technology, and Society (67-80). Basilea: Birkhäuser Basel. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-0348-8419-8_7.
Gilberto, G., Bauza, C. D. G., Bermejo, F. R. & Tommasini, F. C. (2019). Plataforma para la Creación de Audiojuegos: Una Solución Mediante el uso de Interfaces Enactivas. AJEA, 4. DOI: 10.33414/ajea.4.362.2019.
Goñi Mazzitelli, M., Vienni Baptista, Bianca, B., Ferrigno, F. & Guedes, P. (2018). Modalidades de trabajo en equipos interdisciplinarios: Formatos, conceptos y dificultades, una mirada desde Uruguay. ClimaCom Cultura Científica, 5(13), 65–92.
Gorman, M. E. (2002). Levels of expertise and trading zones: A framework for multidisciplinary collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 32(5-6), 933–938.
Hammarfelt, B. (2019). Discipline. ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization. Recuperado de: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hb:diva-21859.
Hidalgo, C., Vienni Baptista, B., Simón, C. & Scanio, P. (2018). Encrucijadas interdisciplinarias. Buenos Aires: Ediciones CICCUS & CLACSO.
Hubbs, G., O’Rourke, M. & Orzack, S. H. (2020). The Toolbox Dialogue Initiative. The Power of Cross-Disciplinary Practice. Oxfordshire: Taylor & Francis Group. Recuperado de: http://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/product/openreader?id=none&isbn=9780429801754.
Huutoniemi, K. & Rafols, I. (2017). Interdisciplinarity in research evaluation. En R. Frodeman (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Klein, J. T. (2017). Typologies of Interdisciplinarity. En R. Frodeman (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity (21-34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Klein, J. T. (2021). Beyond Interdisciplinarity: Boundary Work, Communication, and Collaboration. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197571149.001.0001.
Lipina, S. J., Martelli, M. I., Vuelta, B. L., Injoque-Ricle, I. & Augusto, J. (2004). Pobreza y desempeño ejecutivo en alumnos preescolares de la ciudad de Buenos Aires (República Argentina). Interdisciplinaria, 21(2), 153-193.
Lunati, V., Podlubne, A., Bermejo, F. & Arias, C. (2013). Análisis de Fijaciones en Movimientos para Localización y Reconocimiento Auditivo de Objetos. Mecánica Computacional, 32(45).
Marcovich, A. & Shinn, T. (2014). Toward a New Dimension: Exploring the Nanoscale. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mauro, A. (2020). El Programa Mente Cerebro Educación: Un estudio epistemológico. Síntesis, 10, 199–220.
Mauro, A. (en prensa). Estudio bibliométrico exploratorio sobre la conformación y configuración de las neurociencias en Argentina (1980-2020). En Ciencia, tecnología y sociedad. Abordajes desde Argentina, Brasil y México. México: IIS UNAM.
Mauro, A. & Venturelli, A. N. (2020). Prácticas de vinculación disciplinar en las neurociencias cognitivas contemporáneas. Jornadas de Epistemología e Historia de la Ciencia, 182-194.
Pickering, A. (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rela, L., Berón de Astrada, M. & Etchenique, R. (2009). Taller de Neurociencias. Recuperado de: https://web.archive.org/web/20090721032912/http://www.neurotaller.com.ar/.
Segretin, M. S., Lipina, S., Hermida, M. J., Sheffield, T., Nelson, J., Espy, K. & Colombo, J. (2014). Predictors of cognitive enhancement after training in preschoolers from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. Recuperado de: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00205.
Skidelsky, L., Lawler, D. & Pérez, D. (2017). Temas de filosofía de la psicología: Una cartografía de la época (Vol. 1). Buenos Aires: Eudeba.
Smulski, M. (2019). Hibridación y coproducción científica. Una mirada antropológica a la investigación en ciencias cognitivas sobre desarrollo infantil en contextos de pobreza. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Smulski, M., Hidalgo, C. & Lipina, S. (2015). Representaciones de la pobreza y la desigualdad infantil en la ciencia del desarrollo en Argentina. Papeles de trabajo. Centro de Estudios Interdisciplinarios en Etnolingüística y Antropología Socio-Cultural, 30, 60–77.
Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual review of information science and technology, 41(1), 643–681.
Star, S. L. & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, “Translations” and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.
Stokols, D., Hall, K. L., Taylor, B. K. & Moser, R. P. (2008). The Science of Team Science. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S77–S89. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.002.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. En Handbook of qualitative research (273–285). Nueva York: Sage Publications.
Sullivan, J. A. (2016). Construct Stabilization and the Unity of the Mind-Brain Sciences. Philosophy of Science, 83(5), 662–673. DOI: 10.1086/687853.
Timmermans, S. & Berg, M. (1997). Standardization in Action: Achieving Local Universality through Medical Protocols. Social Studies of Science, 27(2), 273–305. DOI: 10.1177/030631297027002003.
Venturelli, A. N. & Branca, M. I. (2015). Evidencia y neurociencias cognitivas: El caso de la resonancia magnética funcional. Tópicos, Revista de Filosofía, 50, 177. DOI: 10.21555/top.v0i50.721.
Vidal, F. & Ortega, F. (2017). Being brains: Making the cerebral subject. Nueva York: Fordham University Press.
Vienni Baptista, B. & Goñi Mazzitelli, M. (2021). Aportes para los estudios sobre interdisciplina y transdisciplina: Modalidades, estrategias y factores para la integración. Utopía y Praxis Latinoamericana, 26(94), 110-127.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 CC Attribution 4.0
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All CTS's issues and academic articles are under a CC-BY license.
Since 2007, CTS has provided open and free access to all its contents, including the complete archive of its quarterly edition and the different products presented in its electronic platform. This decision is based on the belief that offering free access to published materials helps to build a greater and better exchange of knowledge.
In turn, for the quarterly edition, CTS allows institutional and thematic repositories, as well as personal web pages, to self-archive articles in their post-print or editorial version, immediately after the publication of the final version of each issue and under the condition that a link to the original source will be incorporated into the self-archive.
