Volume 10 · Number 1 · Pages 65–76
Second-Order Science of Interdisciplinary Research: A Polyocular Framework for Wicked Problems

Hugo F. Alrøe & Egon Noe

Log in to download the full text for free

> Citation > Similar > References > Add Comment


Context: The problems that are most in need of interdisciplinary collaboration are “wicked problems,” such as food crises, climate change mitigation, and sustainable development, with many relevant aspects, disagreement on what the problem is, and contradicting solutions. Such complex problems both require and challenge interdisciplinarity. Problem: The conventional methods of interdisciplinary research fall short in the case of wicked problems because they remain first-order science. Our aim is to present workable methods and research designs for doing second-order science in domains where there are many different scientific knowledges on any complex problem. Method: We synthesize and elaborate a framework for second-order science in interdisciplinary research based on a number of earlier publications, experiences from large interdisciplinary research projects, and a perspectivist theory of science. Results: The second-order polyocular framework for interdisciplinary research is characterized by five principles. Second-order science of interdisciplinary research must: 1. draw on the observations of first-order perspectives, 2. address a shared dynamical object, 3. establish a shared problem, 4. rely on first-order perspectives to see themselves as perspectives, and 5. be based on other rules than first-order research. Implications: The perspectivist insights of second-order science provide a new way of understanding interdisciplinary research that leads to new polyocular methods and research designs. It also points to more reflexive ways of dealing with scientific expertise in democratic processes. The main challenge is that this is a paradigmatic shift, which demands that the involved disciplines, at least to some degree, subscribe to a perspectivist view. Constructivist content: Our perspectivist approach to science is based on the second-order cybernetics and systems theories of von Foerster, Maruyama, Maturana & Varela, and Luhmann, coupled with embodied theories of cognition and semiotics as a general theory of meaning from von Uexküll and Peirce.

Key words: Perspectivism, semiotics, complex phenomena, social systems theory, differentiation of science, perspectival knowledge asymmetries.


Alrøe H. F. & Noe E. (2014) Second-order science of interdisciplinary research: A polyocular framework for wicked problems. Constructivist Foundations 10(1): 65–76. http://constructivist.info/10/1/065

Export article citation data: Plain Text · BibTex · EndNote · Reference Manager (RIS)

Similar articles

Alrøe H. F. & Noe E. (2012) Observing Environments
Alrøe H. F. & Noe E. (2014) Communication, Autopoiesis and Semiosis
Brier S. (2009) Cybersemiotic Pragmaticism and Constructivism
Alrøe H. F. & Noe E. (2012) Authors’ Response: Systems, Environments, and the Body
Gasparyan D. (2020) Semiosis as Eigenform and Observation as Recursive Interpretation


Alrøe H. F. & Kristensen E. S. (2002) Towards a systemic research methodology in agriculture: Rethinking the role of values in science. Agriculture and Human Values 19(1): 3–23. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Alrøe H. F. & Noe E. (2008) What makes organic agriculture move – protest, meaning or market? A polyocular approach to the dynamics and governance of organic agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 7(1/2): 5–22. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Alrøe H. F. & Noe E. (2011) The paradox of scientific expertise: A perspectivist approach to knowledge asymmetries. Fachsprache – International Journal of Specialized Communication Vol. XXXIV, 3–4/2011: 152–167. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Alrøe H. F. & Noe E. (2012) Observing environments. Constructivist Foundations 8(1): 39–62. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/8/1/039.alroe
Alrøe H. F. & Noe E. (2014) Communication, autopoiesis and semiosis. Open Peer Commentary on “Social autopoiesis?” by Hugo Urrestarazu. Constructivist Foundations 9(2): 183–185. Online at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/9/2/183.alroe http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/9/2/183.alrøe
Alrøe H. F. (2000) Science as systems learning: Some reflections on the cognitive and communicational aspects of science. Cybernetics and Human Knowing 7(4): 57–78. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Andersen E. S. (1991) Techno-economic paradigms as typical interfaces between producers and users. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 1(2): 119–144. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Andersen N. Å. (2003) Discursive analytical strategies: Understanding Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau, Luhmann. Policy Press, Bristol. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Andersen N. Å. (2008) Partnerships: Machines of possibility. Policy Press, Bristol. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Anderson R. L. (1998) Truth and objectivity in perspectivism. Synthese 115: 1–32. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Atlan H. (1986) A tort et à raison. Intercritique de la science et du mythe. Seuil, Paris. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Barwich A.-S. (2014) A sense so rare: Measuring olfactory experiences and making a case for a process perspective on sensory perception. Biological Theory 9(3): 258–268. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Bateson G. (1979) Mind and nature. A necessary unity. E. P. Dutton, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Bohr N. (1985) Kundskabens enhed. In: Naturbeskrivelse og menneskelig erkendelse. Udvalgte artikler og foredrag fra årene 1927–1962. Rhodos, Copenhagen: 19–39. Danish original published in 1957. English translation: Bohr N. (1955) Science and the unity of knowledge. In: Bohr N., The unity of knowledge, Doubleday & Co., New York: 47–62. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Börner K., Contractor N., Falk-Krzesinski H. J., Fiore S. M., Hall K. L., Keyton J. & Uzzi B. (2010) A multi-level systems perspective for the science of team science. Science Translational Medicine 2(49): 1–5. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Bracken L. J. & Oughton E. A. (2006) What do you mean? The importance of language in developing interdisciplinary research. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 31: 371–382 ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Callebaut W. (2003) Lorenz’s philosophical naturalism in the mirror of contemporary science studies. Ludus Vitalis 11(20): 27–55. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Callebaut W. (2007) Simon’s silent revolution. Biological Theory 2(1): 76–87. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Callebaut W. (2010) The dialectics of dis/unity in the Evolutionary Synthesis and its extensions. In: Pigliucci P. & Müller G. B. (eds.) Evolution: The extended synthesis. MIT Press, Cambridge MA: 443–481. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Callebaut W. (2012) Scientific perspectivism: A philosopher of science’s response to the challenge of big data biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43(1): 69–80. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Caporael L., Griesemer J. R. & Wimsatt W. C. (eds.) (2013) Developing scaffolds in evolution, culture, and cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge MA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Cartwright N. D. (1999) The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Chen X. (1997) Thomas Kuhn’s latest notion of incommensurability. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 28: 257–273. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Clark A. (2008) Supersizing the mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Collins H. (2004) Interactional expertise as a third kind of knowledge. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 3: 125–143. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Collins H. (2010) Tacit and explicit knowledge. Chicago University Press, Chicago. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Collins H., Evans R. & Gorman M. (2007) Trading zones and interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 38(4): 657–666. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Darden L. & Maull N. (1977) Interfield theories. Philosophy of Science 44(1): 43–64. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Dawkins R. (1982) The extended phenotype. Oxford University Press, Oxford. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Favrholdt D. (ed.) (1999) Niels Bohr – Collected works. Volume 10: Complementarity beyond physics (1928–1962) Elsevier, Amsterdam. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Foerster H. von (1981) Observing systems. Intersystems, Seaside CA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Foerster H. von (2003) Understanding understanding. Essays on cybernetics and cognition. Springer, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Folse H. J. (1985) The philosophy of Niels Bohr: The framework of complementarity. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Fraassen B. C. van (2008) Scientific representation: Paradoxes of perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Fuller S. (1988) Social epistemology. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Fuller S. (1993) Philosophy of science and its discontents. Second edition. Guilford, New York. Originally published in 1989. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Fuller S. (2010) Deviant interdisciplinarity. In: Frodeman R., Klein J. T. & Mitcham C. (eds.) Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford: 50–64. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Fuller S. (2011) Humanity 2.0: What it means to be human past, present and future. Palgrave, London. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Funtowicz S. O. & Ravetz J. R. (1990) Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Dordrecht, Kluwer. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Galison P. (1997) Images and logic: A material culture of micro-physics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Giere R. N. (1988) Explaining science: A cognitive approach. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Giere R. N. (1999) Science without laws. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Giere R. N. (2006) Perspectival pluralism. In: Kellert. S. H., Longino H. E. & Waters C. K. (eds.) Scientific pluralism. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis: 26–41. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Giere R. N. (2006) Scientific perspectivism. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Griesemer J. (2002) Development, culture, and the units of inheritance. Philosophy of Science 67: S348–S368. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Hales S. D. & Welshon R. (2000) Nietzche’s perspectivism. University of Illinois Press, Chicago. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Hardwick C. S. & Cook J. (eds.) (1977) Semiotic and significs: The correspondence between Charles S. Peirce and Victoria Lady Welby. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Harrison S., Massey D. & Richards K. (2008) Conversations across the divide. Geoforum 39(2): 549–551. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Hoffmann M. H. G. & Borenstein J. (2014) Understanding ill-structured engineering ethics problems through a collaborative learning and argument visualization approach. Science and Engineering Ethics 20(1): 261–276. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Holbrook J. B. (2013) What is interdisciplinary communication? Reflections on the very idea of disciplinary integration. Synthese 190(11): 1865–1879. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Hull D. L. (2000) The professionalization of science studies: Cutting some slack. Biology and Philosophy 15(1): 61–91. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kellert S. H. (2006) Disciplinary pluralism for science studies. In: Kellert. S. H., Longino H. E. & Waters C. K. (eds.) Scientific pluralism. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis: 215–230. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kitcher P. (1998) A plea for science studies. In: Koertge N. (ed.) A house built on sand: Exposing postmodern myths about science. Oxford University Press, New York: 22–56. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Klein J. T. (1996) Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, VA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Klein J. T. (2004) Interdisciplinarity and complexity: An evolving relationship. E:CO 6(1–2): 2–10. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Klein J. T. (2010) A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In: Frodeman R. (ed.) The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford: 15–30. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Koskinen K. (2013) Knowledge production in organizations. Springer, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Krishnan A. (2009) What are academic disciplines? Some observations on the disciplinarity vs. interdisciplinarity debate. National Centre for Research Methods Working Paper Series 03/09. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/783
Kuhn T. S. (1996) The structure of scientific revolutions. Third edition. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Originally published in 1962. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kuhn T. S. (2000) The road since structure. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Ladyman J., Lambert J. & Wiesner K. (2013) What is a complex system? European Journal for Philosophy of Science 3(1): 33–67. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Lakatos I. (1978) The methodology of scientific research programmes. Volume 1: Philosophical papers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Latour B. (1988) The pasteurization of France. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Levinson S. C. & Majid A. (2014) Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind & Language 29(4): 407–427. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Lipsey R. & Lancaster K. (1956) The general theory of second best. Review of Economic Studies 24(1): 11–32. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Longino H. E. (2006) Theoretical pluralism and the scientific study of behavior. In: Kellert. S. H., Longino H. E. & Waters C. K. (eds.) Scientific pluralism. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis: 102–131. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Luhmann N. (1989) Ecological communication. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Luhmann N. (1990) Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Luhmann N. (1992) The concept of society. Thesis Eleven 31: 67–80. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Luhmann N. (1995) Social systems. Stanford University Press, Stanford. German original published in 1985. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Luhmann N. (2000) Art as a Social System. Stanford University Press, Stanford. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Læssøe J., Ljungdalh A., Alrøe H. F., Noe E., Christensen T., Dubgaard A., Olsen S. B., Kærgård N. & Kastberg P. (2014) Three perspectives on motivation and multi criteria assessment of organic food systems. Ecology and Society 19(3): 7. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Maruyama M. (1974) Paradigmatology and its application to cross-disciplinary cross-professional and cross-cultural communication. Dialectica 28: 135–196. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Maruyama M. (2004) Peripheral vision – polyocular vision or subunderstanding. Organization Studies 25: 467–80. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Maturana H. R. & Varela F. J. (1980) Autopoiesis and cognition. The realization of the living. Reidel, Dordrecht. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Maturana H. R. & Varela F. J. (1987) The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Shambhala, Boston. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Maturana H. R. (2014) Understanding social systems? Constructivist Foundations 9(2): 187–188. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/9/2/187.maturana
Mesarovic M. D. & Sreenath S. N. (2006) Beyond the flat earth perspective in systems biology. Biological Theory 1(1): 33–34. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Miller T. R., Baird T. D., Littlefield C. M., Kofinas G., Chapin F. III & Redman C. L. (2008) Epistemological pluralism: reorganizing interdisciplinary research. Ecology and Society 13(2): 46. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Mingers J. (2004) Can social systems be autopoietic? Bhaskar’s and Giddens’ social theories. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 34(4): 403–426. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Mitchell S. D. (2009) Unsimple truths: Science, complexity, and policy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Moran J. (2010) Interdisciplinarity. Second Edition. Routledge, Oxon UK. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Müller H. F. J. (2007) Epistemology returns to its roots. Constructivist Foundations 2(2–3): 72–80. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/2/2–3/072.muller
Müller K. H. (2014) Mapping a new and post-disciplinary research frontier – Science and cybernetics at the second-order level. In: Müller K. H., The new science of cybernetics. Volume 4. In press. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Noe E. & Alrøe H. F. (2003) Farm enterprises as self-organizing systems: A new transdisciplinary framework for studying farm enterprises? International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 11(1): 3–14. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Noe E. & Alrøe H. F. (2006) Combining Luhmann and Actor-Network Theory to see farm enterprises as self-organizing systems. Cybernetics and Human Knowing 13(1): 34–48. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Noe E. & Alrøe H. F. (2012) Observing farming systems: Insights from social systems theory. In: Darnhofer I., Gibbon D. & Dedieu B. (eds.) Farming systems research into the 21st century: The new dynamic. Springer, Dordrecht: 387–403. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Noe E. & Alrøe H. F. (2014) Agroecology and Social Sciences – Regulation of agroecosystems. In: Monteduro M., Buongiorno P., di Benedetto S. & Isoni A. (eds.) Law and Agroecology: A Transdisciplinary Dialogue. Springer. In press. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Noe E. & Alrøe H. F. (2014) Sustainable agriculture issues explained by differentiation and structural coupling using social systems analysis. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. Online first. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Noe E., Alrøe H. F. & Langvad A. M. S. (2008) A polyocular framework for research on multifunctional farming and rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 48(1): 1–15. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Norton B. G. (2012) The ways of wickedness. Analyzing messiness with messy tools. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25: 447–465. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Nöth W. (2011) Some neglected semiotic premises of some radically constructivist conclusions. Constructivist Foundations 7(2): 12–14. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/7/2/12.noeth
Ortega y Gasset J. (1961) The modern theme. Edited by James Cleugh. Harper & Row, New York. Spanish original published in 1923. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
O’Rourke M., Crowley S., Eigenbrode S. D. & Wulfhorst J. D. (eds.) (2014) Enhancing communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research. Sage, Thousand Oaks CA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Palmer C. L. (2001) Work at the boundaries of science: Information and the interdisciplinary research process. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Palmquist S. (1993) Kant’s system of perspectives: An architectonic interpretation of the critical philosophy. University Press of America, Lanham MD. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Peirce C. S. (1998) Excerpts from letters to Lady Welby. In: The essential Peirce Volume 2. Indiana University Press, Bloomington: 477–491. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Pennington D. D. (2008) Cross-disciplinary collaboration and learning. Ecology and Society 13(2): 8. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Repko A. F. (2012) Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory. Second edition. Sage, Thousand Oaks CA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Riegler A. & Scholl A. (2012) Luhmann and the sociological turn in constructivism. Constructivist Foundations 8(1): 1–4. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/8/1/001.riegler
Riegler A. (2001) Towards a radical constructivist understanding of science. Foundations of Science 6: 1–30. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/riegler/20
Riegler A. (2005) Inclusive worldviews: Interdisciplinary research from a radical constructivist perspective. In: Aerts D., D’Hooghe B. & Note N. (eds.) Worldviews, science and us: Redemarcating knowledge and its social and ethical implications. World Scientific, Singapore. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/riegler/34
Rittel H. W. J. & Webber M. M. (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4: 155–169. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Rudolph L. (ed.) (2013) Qualitative mathematics for the social sciences. Routledge, London. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Schaeffer W. (ed.) (1984) Finalization in science. Kluwer, Dordrecht. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Scholl A. (2012) Between realism and constructivism? Luhmann’s ambivalent epistemological standpoint. Constructivist Foundations 8(1): 5–12. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/8/1/005.scholl
Sebeok T. (2001) Biosemiotics: Its roots, proliferation and prospects. Semiotica 134(1/4): 61–78. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Shapere D. (1984) Reason and the search for knowledge. D. Reidel, Dordrecht. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Simon H. (1977) Sciences of the artificial. Second edition. MIT Press, Cambridge MA. Originally published in 1969. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
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: 387–420. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Stichweh R. (1992) The sociology of scientific disciplines: On the genesis and stability of the disciplinary structure of modern science. Science in Context 5: 3–15. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Stokes D. (1997) Pasteur’s quadrant – Basic science and technological innovation. Brookings Institution Press, Washington DC. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Strijbos S. (2010) Systems thinking. In: Frodeman R., Klein J. T. & Mitcham C. (eds.) Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford: 453–469. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Suppes P. (1978) The plurality of science. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1978(2): 3–16. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Szostak R. (2007) Modernism, postmodernism, and interdisciplinarity. Issues in Integrative Studies 26: 32–83. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Thorsøe M. H., Alrøe H. F. & Noe E. (2014) Observing the observers – uncovering the role of values in research assessments of organic food systems. Ecology and Society 19(2): 46. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Uexküll J. von (1982) The theory of meaning. Semiotica 42(1): 25–79. German original: Uexküll J. von (1940) Bedeutungslehre. J. A. Barth, Leipzig. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
van Fraassen B. C. (2008) Scientific representation: Paradoxes of perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Varela F. J., Thompson E. & Rosch E. (1991) The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press, Cambridge MA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Weingart P. (2010) A short history of knowledge formations. In: Frodeman R. (ed.) The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford: 3–14. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Wimsatt W. C. (2007) Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: Piecewise approximations to reality. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Comments: 0

To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.