![]() ” For most technically- and innovation-driven researchers, epistemological and ontological pretenses are not systematically considered when conceptualizing our experiences in everyday life. These lines of inquiry explore how we perceive the world around us and how those perceptions influence our interpretations of our own knowledge and reality. “Epistemology is defined as the study of how we know what we know. The disparity between disciplinary approaches has created a cultural divide that is stifling to the overall advancement of BII as a tool for sustainable societies.Įpistemological underpinnings-whether acknowledged or not-shape the normative aspects of innovation intentions and outcomes that vary substantially across disciplines and their associated subcultures. ![]() If it did, it would involve questions such as “What impact will this innovation decision have on human perceptions of ‘nature’? How will it influence indigenous people’s relationship to the land? What impact will this decision have on the inherent rights of nature to flourish?” However, in more philosophical circles of discourse, the underlying assumptions about normativity, ethics, and epistemological positions are regular topics. ![]() For most technically- or innovation-driven disciplines, the subject of epistemology and theories of knowledge are rarely a source of conversation and debate outside of limited circles (see Appendix A for a glossary of terms related to this topic.) A practical focus on the material aspects of innovation outcomes does not typically instigate a discourse of ways of knowing as evoked by epistemological inquiry. Various terms such as bioinspired innovation (BII), biomimicry, biomimetics, bionics, etc., have been used to label this approach to problem solving, with each label having its devotees. The translation of biological metaphors and analogies into design, organizational, and manufacturing solutions is frequently viewed as an expansive and provocative approach to problem solving. Adopting these recommendations could further advance the effectiveness of bioinspired innovation processes to positively impact social and ecological systems. (3) Ongoing dialogue and further research to develop novel epistemological approaches towards the topic. (2) The application of a gradient orientation towards sustainability instead of a dichotomous orientation. (1) The deliberate articulation of epistemological perspectives amongst team members. Drawing on examples in biology, we provide three recommendations to improve the clarity of the dialogue amongst interdisciplinary teams. This epistemological shift from one position to another frequently leaves practitioners with erroneous assumptions due to a naturalistic fallacy. We propose that there is a shift in epistemological assumptions within bioinspired innovation processes at the points where biological models derived from reductionist approaches are interpreted as socially-constructed design principles, which are then realized in practical settings wrought with complexity and multiplicity. This paper aims to advance the effectiveness of bioinspired innovation processes for positive benefits through interdisciplinary communication by exploring the epistemological assumptions in various fields that contribute to the discipline. The disparity between disciplinary approaches to bioinspired innovation has created a cultural divide that is stifling to the overall advancement of the approach for sustainable societies.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |