Knowledge Integration
Permanent URI for this collection
This is the collection for the University of Waterloo's Department of Knowledge Integration.
Research outputs are organized by type (eg. Master Thesis, Article, Conference Paper).
Waterloo faculty, students, and staff can contact us or visit the UWSpace guide to learn more about depositing their research.
Browse
Recent Submissions
Item Pathways of Influence: Understanding the Impacts of Philosophy of Science in Scientific Domains(Springer, 2021-03-22) Plaisance, Kathryn S.; Michaud, Jay; McLevey, JohnPhilosophy of science has the potential to improve scientific practice, science policy, and science education; moreover, recent research indicates that many philosophers of science think we ought to increase the broader impacts of our work. Yet, there is little to no empirical data on how we are supposed to have an impact. To address this problem, our research team interviewed 35 philosophers of science regarding the impact of their work in science-related domains. We found that face-to-face engagement with scientists and other stakeholders was one of the most – if not the most – effective pathways to impact. Yet, working with non-philosophers and disseminating research outside philosophical venues is not what philosophers are typically trained or incentivized to do. Thus, there is a troublesome tension between the activities that are likely to lead to broader uptake of one’s work and those that are traditionally encouraged and rewarded in philosophy (and which are therefore the most consequential for careers in philosophy). We suggest several ways that philosophers of science, either as individuals or as a community, can navigate these tensions.Item A Framework for Analyzing Broadly Engaged Philosophy of Science(Cambridge University Press, 2022-01-01) Plaisance, Kathryn S.; Elliott, Kevin C.Philosophers of science are increasingly interested in engaging with scientific communities, policy makers, and members of the public; however, the nature of this engagement has not been systematically examined. Instead of delineating a specific kind of engaged philosophy of science, as previous accounts have done, this article draws on literature from outside the discipline to develop a framework for analyzing different forms of broadly engaged philosophy of science according to two key dimensions: social interaction and epistemic integration. Clarifying the many forms of engagement available to philosophers of science can advance future scholarship on engagement and promote more strategic engagement efforts.Item The Philosophy of Behavioral Biology(Springer, 2012) Reydon, Thomas; Plaisance, Kathryn S.This volume offers a broad overview of central issues in the philosophy of behavioral biology, addressing philosophical issues that arise from the most recent scientific findings in biological research on behavior. It thus exemplifies an approach to philosophy of science that is scientifically informed as well as interdisciplinary. Accordingly, it includes chapters by professional philosophers and philosophers of science, as well as practicing scientists. The volume originates from the conference, “Biological Explanations of Behavior: Philosophical Perspectives”, held in Hannover, Germany, in June 2008. Participants in this conference represented the fields of behavioral genetics, evolutionary biology, cognitive science, philosophy of biology, philosophy of science, and communication studies. Conference presentations were organized into three main themes: explanations in behavioral genetics, developmental explanations of behavior, and the evolution of behavior. The book largely mirrors this organization, in addition to representing another theme in the philosophy of behavioral biology, namely neurobiological explanations of behavior. In what follows, we sketch out an overview of the book, both by describing some of the major themes and philosophical context, as well as providing detailed summaries of each of the chapters.Item Show me the numbers: a quantitative portrait of the attitudes, experiences, and values of philosophers of science regarding broadly engaged work(Springer, 2019-09-23) Plaisance, Kathryn S.; Graham, Alexander V.; McLevey, John; Michaud, JayPhilosophers of science are increasingly arguing for the importance of doing scientifically- and socially-engaged work, suggesting that we need to reduce barriers to extra-disciplinary engagement and broaden our impact. Yet, we currently lack empirical data to inform these discussions, leaving a number of important questions unanswered. How common is it for philosophers of science to engage other communities, and in what ways are they engaging? What barriers are most prevalent when it comes to broadly disseminating one’s work or collaborating with others? To what extent do philosophers of science actually value an engaged approach? Our project addresses this gap in our collective knowledge by providing empirical data regarding the state of philosophy of science today. We report the results of a survey of 299 philosophers of science about their attitudes towards and experiences with engaging those outside the discipline. Our data suggest that a significant majority of philosophers of science think it is important for non-philosophers to read and make use of their work; most are engaging with communities outside the discipline; and many think philosophy of science, as a discipline, has an obligation to ensure it has a broader impact. Interestingly, however, many of these same philosophers believe engaged work is generally undervalued in the discipline. We think these findings call for cautious optimism on the part of those who value engaged work—while there seems to be more interest in engaging other communities than many assume, significant barriers still remain.Item A Pluralistic Approach to Interactional Expertise(Elsevier, 2014-09) Plaisance, Kathryn S.; Kennedy, Eric B.The concept of interactional expertise – characterized by sociologists Harry Collins and Robert Evans as the ability to speak the language of a discipline without the corresponding ability to practice – can serve as a powerful way of breaking down expert/non-expert dichotomies and providing a role for new voices in specialist communities. However, in spite of the vast uptake of this concept and its potential to fruitfully address many important issues related to scientific expertise, there has been surprisingly little critical analysis of it. We seek to remedy this situation by considering potential benefits of interactional expertise and the ways in which the current conception can – and cannot – realize those benefits. In particular, we argue that interactional expertise hasn't reached its full potential for addressing who ought to be involved in scientific research and decision-making, largely owing to an unnecessarily restrictive way of operationalizing the concept. In its place, we offer a broader, more pluralistic account of interactional expertise – one that is in line with the original spirit of the concept, but also captures the diversity that we see as being an important aspect of interactional experts and the value they can bring to the table.Item Understanding “What Could Be”: A Call for ‘Experimental Behavioral Genetics’(Springer, 2018-08-13) Burt, S. Alexandra; Plaisance, Kathryn; Hambrick, David Z.Behavioral genetic (BG) research has yielded many important discoveries about the origins of human behavior, but offers little insight into how we might improve outcomes. We posit that this gap in our knowledge base stems in part from the epidemiologic nature of BG research questions. Namely, BG studies focus on understanding etiology as it currently exists, rather than etiology in environments that could exist but do not as of yet (e.g., etiology following an intervention). Put another way, they focus exclusively on the etiology of “what is” rather than “what could be”. The current paper discusses various aspects of this field-wide methodological reality, and offers a way to overcome it by demonstrating how behavioral geneticists can incorporate an experimental approach into their work. We outline an ongoing study that embeds a randomized intervention within a twin design, connecting “what is” and “what could be” for the first time. We then lay out a more general framework for a new field—experimental BGs—which has the potential to advance both scientific inquiry and related philosophical discussions.Item Selection and Influence: A Meta-Analysis of the Association Between Peer and Personal Offending(Springer, 2019-06) Gallupe, Owen; McLevey, John; Brown, SarahObjectives Whether people are affected by the criminal behavior of peers (the “influence” perspective) or simply prefer to associate with others who are similar in their offending (the “selection” perspective) is a long-standing criminological debate. The relatively recent development of stochastic actor-oriented models (SAOMs—also called SIENA models) for longitudinal social network data has allowed for the examination of selection and influence effects in more comprehensive ways than was previously possible. This article reports the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that use SAOMs to test for peer selection and influence effects. Methods A systematic review and 3-level random effects meta-analysis of studies that have used SAOMs to test selection and influence dynamics for offending behavior. Results There is support for both influence (mean log odds ratio = 1.23, p < 0.01, 21 effects, pooled n = 21,193) and selection dynamics (mean log odds ratio = 0.31, p < 0.01, 28 effects, pooled n = 21,269). Type of behavior, country, and the year of the first wave of data collection are found to moderate the influence effect; no significant moderation effects are found for peer selection on offending. Conclusions People are both influenced by the offending of their peers and select into friendships based on similarity in offending.Item TalkingTiles: Supporting Personalization and Customization in an AAC App for Individuals with Aphasia(ACM, 2015-11) Huijbregts, Thomas; Wallace, James R.The development of ‘Post-PC’ interactive surfaces, such as smartphones and tablets, and specialized support software informed by HCI research has created new opportunities for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) tech- nologies. However, it is unclear to what degree these opportunities have been realized in practice. We conducted a field study to explore the use of one such application, TalkingTiles, by individuals with aphasia. Following a training session and one week of use, we conducted interviews with participants, their partners, and their caregivers at a local support facility. We found that TalkingTiles can be effective in supporting communication when used in concert with other communication methods, and when time can be invested in customizing the app. We discuss our findings, and implications for design with respect to customizability, simplicity, and the limitations of interactive surfaces in supporting communication.