Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"Problems without apparent solutions plague the contemporary world. Roberts proposes a new \"Design Strategy\" to approach these wicked problems and lays out its history and evolution, its process, principles, mindsets, skillsets and toolkits that inform and guide design practice\"-- Provided by publisher.

Many in Operations Research/Management Science (OR/MS) have long predicted a major contraction in the field. Given the recent trends in OR/MS hiring, this contraction may have finally arrived, both in academia, as well as in industry. This study maintains that part of this contraction is because we drifted from the field's broad, real-world roots due to a limited philosophical foundation of the field, our realist view of reality. If our commonly held realist philosophy has, in the ironic fashion described herein, given rise to the \"academic drift\" in the field, the recognition of a relativist philosophy that emphasizes understanding over problem solving could help return the field to its roots.

This paper offers an introductory view of the concept of habitual domains. It describes how they affect behavior, discusses their formation, dynamics, stability, and application, and points out how to expand and enrich them. Finally, this concept is related to the operations research profession to suggest how its habitual domains can be expanded and enriched to make OR workers more effective, both individually and collectively.

\"This book presents perspectives from world experts in the field of wisdom studies to propose how wisdom can provide the foundation upon which solutions to social and global problems can be grounded. The authors argue that where society has come to rely on leaders with skills relating to knowledge and intelligence; instead we should focus on wisdom-based acumen for our leaders in government, business, and the military. In this book the authors offer evidence-based definitions of wisdom and apply these to world problems they believe could potentially be solved using wise solutions. Among the case studies confronted are terrorism and war, poverty and economic disparity, climate change, increased antibiotic resistance and political corruption. Focusing on the cognitive, social and emotional processes involved in everyday decision-making, this book presents a compelling argument for the application of wise problem-solving to complex world issues that will appeal in particular to those in leadership, teaching and policy roles, and open new pathways in the fields of wisdom-studies, psychology, sociology and political theory\"--Page 4 of cover.

In science policy, it is generally acknowledged that science-based problem-solving requires interdisciplinary research. For example, policy makers invest in funding programs such as Horizon 2020 that aim to stimulate interdisciplinary research. Yet the epistemological processes that lead to effective interdisciplinary research are poorly understood. This article aims at an epistemology for interdisciplinary research (IDR), in particular, IDR for solving ‘real-world’ problems. Focus is on the question why researchers experience cognitive and epistemic difficulties in conducting IDR. Based on a study of educational literature it is concluded that higher-education is missing clear ideas on the epistemology of IDR, and as a consequence, on how to teach it. It is conjectured that the lack of philosophical interest in the epistemology of IDR is due to a philosophical paradigm of science (called a physics paradigm of science ), which prevents recognizing severe epistemological challenges of IDR, both in the philosophy of science as well as in science education and research. The proposed alternative philosophical paradigm (called an engineering paradigm of science ) entails alternative philosophical presuppositions regarding aspects such as the aim of science, the character of knowledge, the epistemic and pragmatic criteria for accepting knowledge, and the role of technological instruments. This alternative philosophical paradigm assume the production of knowledge for epistemic functions as the aim of science, and interprets ‘knowledge’ (such as theories, models, laws, and concepts) as epistemic tools that must allow for conducting epistemic tasks by epistemic agents, rather than interpreting knowledge as representations that objectively represent aspects of the world independent of the way in which it was constructed. The engineering paradigm of science involves that knowledge is indelibly shaped by how it is constructed. Additionally, the way in which scientific disciplines (or fields) construct knowledge is guided by the specificities of the discipline, which can be analyzed in terms of disciplinary perspectives . This implies that knowledge and the epistemic uses of knowledge cannot be understood without at least some understanding of how the knowledge is constructed. Accordingly, scientific researchers need so-called metacognitive scaffolds to assist in analyzing and reconstructing how ‘knowledge’ is constructed and how different disciplines do this differently. In an engineering paradigm of science, these metacognitive scaffolds can also be interpreted as epistemic tools, but in this case as tools that guide, enable and constrain analyzing and articulating how knowledge is produced (i.e., explaining epistemological aspects of doing research). In interdisciplinary research, metacognitive scaffolds assist interdisciplinary communication aiming to analyze and articulate how the discipline constructs knowledge.

Interdisciplinarity is strongly promoted in science policy across the world. It is seen as a necessary condition for providing practical solutions to many pressing complex problems for which no single disciplinary approach is adequate alone. In this article we model multi- and interdisciplinary research as an instance of collective problem solving. Our goal is to provide a basic representation of this type of problem solving and chart the epistemic benefits and costs of researchers engaging in different forms of cognitive coordination. Our findings suggest that typical forms of interdisciplinary collaboration are unlikely to find optimal solutions to complex problems within short time frames and can lead to methodological conservatism. This provides some grounds for both reflecting on current science policy and envisioning more effective scientific practices with respect to interdisciplinary problem solving.

\"Our Dissertations, Ourselves: Shared Stories of Women's Dissertation Journeys engages readers in intimate stories from twenty women who wrote doctoral dissertations across nine disciplines--biology, English literature, modern languages, history, mathematics, music, nursing, philosophy, and social work. Their stories bring to light the common experiences, emotions, and challenges in the sometimes overwhelming process of writing of a dissertation amidst a full and complex life. Through dialogue with these women, the authors found that much of the dissertation journey is shaped by the challenges and transformations in the writer's own identity and relationships. The book is not designed to be a prescriptive \"how to\" book, but rather to help women writing dissertations, as well as their advisors, gain new understandings of the often isolating world of the dissertation writer and celebrate the courage and creativity that these twenty women demonstrate\"-- Provided by publisher.

Ethicists, policy-makers, and the general public have questioned whether artificial entities such as robots warrant rights or other forms of moral consideration. There is little synthesis of the research on this topic so far. We identify 294 relevant research or discussion items in our literature review of this topic. There is widespread agreement among scholars that some artificial entities could warrant moral consideration in the future, if not also the present. The reasoning varies, such as concern for the effects on artificial entities and concern for the effects on human society. Beyond the conventional consequentialist, deontological, and virtue ethicist ethical frameworks, some scholars encourage “information ethics” and “social-relational” approaches, though there are opportunities for more in-depth ethical research on the nuances of moral consideration of artificial entities. There is limited relevant empirical data collection, primarily in a few psychological studies on current moral and social attitudes of humans towards robots and other artificial entities. This suggests an important gap for psychological, sociological, economic, and organizational research on how artificial entities will be integrated into society and the factors that will determine how the interests of artificial entities are considered.