Open peer commentary on the article “Second-Order Science of Interdisciplinary Research: A Polyocular Framework for Wicked Problems” by Hugo F. Alrøe & Egon Noe. Upshot: Alrøe and Noe are right in addressing Rittel and Webber’s notion of “wicked problems” as crucial for interdisciplinary research. However, I can see neither that they are providing a sufficiently clear understanding of “science” in their concept of a “second-order science of interdisciplinary research,” nor that their “polyocular framework” can contribute anything useful to addressing the practical challenges posed by wicked problems.
Hoffmann M. H. G. (2014) What is “science”? For what do we need a “polyocular framework”? Constructivist Foundations 10(1): 83–84. http://constructivist.info/10/1/083
To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.