Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Chad Gonnerman is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Chad Gonnerman.


Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences | 2016

On the nature of cross-disciplinary integration: A philosophical framework

Michael O'Rourke; Stephen Crowley; Chad Gonnerman

Meeting grand challenges requires responses that constructively combine multiple forms of expertise, both academic and non-academic; that is, it requires cross-disciplinary integration. But just what is cross-disciplinary integration? In this paper, we supply a preliminary answer by reviewing prominent accounts of cross-disciplinary integration from two literatures that are rarely brought together: cross-disciplinarity and philosophy of biology. Reflecting on similarities and differences in these accounts, we develop a framework that integrates their insights-integration as a generic combination process the details of which are determined by the specific contexts in which particular integrations occur. One such context is cross-disciplinary research, which yields cross-disciplinary integration. We close by reflecting on the potential applicability of this framework to research efforts aimed at meeting grand challenges.


Cogent Arts & Humanities | 2016

Human values and the value of humanities in interdisciplinary research

Brian Robinson; Stephanie E. Vasko; Chad Gonnerman; Markus Christen; Michael O’Rourke

Abstract Research integrating the perspectives of different disciplines, or interdisciplinary research, has become increasingly common in academia and is considered important for its ability to address complex questions and problems. This mode of research aims to leverage differences among disciplines in generating a more complex understanding of the research landscape. To interact successfully with other disciplines, researchers must appreciate their differences, and this requires recognizing how the research landscape looks from the perspective of other disciplines. One central aspect of these disciplinary perspectives involves values, and more specifically, the roles that values do, may, and should play in research practice. It is reasonable to think that disciplines differ in part because of the different views that their practitioners have on these roles. This paper represents a step in the direction of evaluating this thought. Operating at the level of academic branches, which comprise relevantly similar disciplines (e.g. social and behavioral sciences), this paper uses quantitative techniques to investigate whether academic branches differ in terms of views on the impact of values on research. Somewhat surprisingly, we find very little relation between differences in these views and differences in academic branch. We discuss these findings from a philosophical perspective to conclude the paper.


Social Epistemology | 2016

The Production and Reinforcement of Ignorance in Collaborative Interdisciplinary Research

Zachary Piso; Ezgi Sertler; Anna Malavisi; Ken Marable; Erik Jensen; Chad Gonnerman; Michael O’Rourke

One way to articulate the promise of interdisciplinary research is in terms of the relationship between knowledge and ignorance. Disciplinary research yields deep knowledge of a circumscribed range of issues, but remains ignorant of those issues that stretch outside its purview. Because complex problems such as climate change do not respect disciplinary boundaries, disciplinary research responses to such problems are limited and partial. Interdisciplinary research responses, by contrast, integrate disciplinary perspectives by combining knowledge about different issues and as a result reduce ignorance about more aspects of the problem. In this paper, we develop this idea and argue that while interdisciplinary research can help remediate damaging ignorance about complex problems, it also creates conditions in which other damaging forms of ignorance can arise. We illustrate this point in detail with three case studies before discussing three implications of our analysis for identifying and managing deleterious ignorance in the context of interdisciplinary research.


Archive | 2012

Restrictionism and Reflection

Jonathan M. Weinberg; Joshua Alexander; Chad Gonnerman; Shane Reuter


Archive | 2015

Discovering Philosophical Assumptions that Guide Action Research: The Reflexive Toolbox Approach

Chad Gonnerman; Michael O'Rourke; Stephen Crowley; Troy E. Hall


Philosophical Studies | 2018

Framing how we think about disagreement

Joshua Alexander; Diana E. Betz; Chad Gonnerman; John Waterman


Studies in History and Philosophy of Science | 2017

Scientists’ attitudes on science and values: Case studies and survey methods in philosophy of science

Daniel Steel; Chad Gonnerman; Michael O'Rourke


Archive | 2018

Experimental Philosophy of Science and Philosophical Differences across the Sciences

Brian Robinson; Chad Gonnerman; Michael O'Rourke


Archive | 2018

Knowledge, Certainty, and Skepticism

John Waterman; Chad Gonnerman; Karen Yan; Joshua Alexander


Global Environmental Change-human and Policy Dimensions | 2017

Understanding scientists’ computational modeling decisions about climate risk management strategies using values-informed mental models

Lauren A. Mayer; Kathleen Loa; Bryan Cwik; Nancy Tuana; Klaus Keller; Chad Gonnerman; Andrew M. Parker; Robert J. Lempert

Collaboration


Dive into the Chad Gonnerman's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Brian Robinson

Grand Valley State University

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Daniel Steel

University of British Columbia

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Bryan Cwik

Portland State University

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge