Your Hypothesis or Mine? Terminological and Conceptual Variation Across Disciplines

Cross-disciplinary research (CDR) is a necessary response to many current pressing problems, yet CDR practitioners face diverse research challenges. Communication challenges can limit a CDR team’s ability to collaborate effectively, including differing use of scientific terms among teammates. To ill...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Shannon M. Donovan, Michael O’Rourke, Chris Looney
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2015-05-01
Series:SAGE Open
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015586237
id doaj-b05338b9b7b94bd8a6d1dc73a14d56dc
record_format Article
spelling doaj-b05338b9b7b94bd8a6d1dc73a14d56dc2020-11-25T03:01:43ZengSAGE PublishingSAGE Open2158-24402015-05-01510.1177/215824401558623710.1177_2158244015586237Your Hypothesis or Mine? Terminological and Conceptual Variation Across DisciplinesShannon M. Donovan0Michael O’Rourke1Chris Looney2University of Alaska Anchorage, AK, USAMichigan State University, MI, USAWashington State Department of Agriculture, WA, USACross-disciplinary research (CDR) is a necessary response to many current pressing problems, yet CDR practitioners face diverse research challenges. Communication challenges can limit a CDR team’s ability to collaborate effectively, including differing use of scientific terms among teammates. To illustrate this, we examine the conceptual complexity and cross-disciplinary ambiguity of the term hypothesis as it is used by researchers participating in 16 team building workshops. These workshops assist CDR teams in finding common ground about fundamental research assumptions through philosophically structured dialogue. Our results show that team members often have very different perceptions about the nature of hypotheses, the role of hypotheses in science, and the use of hypotheses within different disciplines. Furthermore, we find that such assumptions can be rooted in disciplinary-based training. These data indicate that potentially problematic terminological differences exist within CDR teams, and exercises that reveal this early in the collaborative process may be beneficial.https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015586237
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Shannon M. Donovan
Michael O’Rourke
Chris Looney
spellingShingle Shannon M. Donovan
Michael O’Rourke
Chris Looney
Your Hypothesis or Mine? Terminological and Conceptual Variation Across Disciplines
SAGE Open
author_facet Shannon M. Donovan
Michael O’Rourke
Chris Looney
author_sort Shannon M. Donovan
title Your Hypothesis or Mine? Terminological and Conceptual Variation Across Disciplines
title_short Your Hypothesis or Mine? Terminological and Conceptual Variation Across Disciplines
title_full Your Hypothesis or Mine? Terminological and Conceptual Variation Across Disciplines
title_fullStr Your Hypothesis or Mine? Terminological and Conceptual Variation Across Disciplines
title_full_unstemmed Your Hypothesis or Mine? Terminological and Conceptual Variation Across Disciplines
title_sort your hypothesis or mine? terminological and conceptual variation across disciplines
publisher SAGE Publishing
series SAGE Open
issn 2158-2440
publishDate 2015-05-01
description Cross-disciplinary research (CDR) is a necessary response to many current pressing problems, yet CDR practitioners face diverse research challenges. Communication challenges can limit a CDR team’s ability to collaborate effectively, including differing use of scientific terms among teammates. To illustrate this, we examine the conceptual complexity and cross-disciplinary ambiguity of the term hypothesis as it is used by researchers participating in 16 team building workshops. These workshops assist CDR teams in finding common ground about fundamental research assumptions through philosophically structured dialogue. Our results show that team members often have very different perceptions about the nature of hypotheses, the role of hypotheses in science, and the use of hypotheses within different disciplines. Furthermore, we find that such assumptions can be rooted in disciplinary-based training. These data indicate that potentially problematic terminological differences exist within CDR teams, and exercises that reveal this early in the collaborative process may be beneficial.
url https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015586237
work_keys_str_mv AT shannonmdonovan yourhypothesisormineterminologicalandconceptualvariationacrossdisciplines
AT michaelorourke yourhypothesisormineterminologicalandconceptualvariationacrossdisciplines
AT chrislooney yourhypothesisormineterminologicalandconceptualvariationacrossdisciplines
_version_ 1724692313803849728