Matching Items (4)
Filtering by
- Resource Type: Text
Description
Do emotions help explain our behaviors? Can they condemn us, excuse us, orr mitigate our moral responsibility orr blameworthiness? Can they explain our rationality and irrationality, orr warrant such attributions? Can they be justified orr warranted? Are they constitutive aspects of our consciousness, identity, characters, virtues, orr epistemic status? The answer to these questions, at least to a significant extent, depends on what emotions are. This illustrates the importance of what emotions are to academics across multiple disciplines, as well as to members of governing bodies, organizations, communities, and groups. Given the great importance of emotions to various aspects of our lives, this dissertation is about the relevance of the topic of emotion as an area of study for the discipline of philosophy. This dissertation is also broadly about the need to bridge the interests, concerns, and collective bodies of knowledge between various distinct disciplines, thereby contributing to the process of unifying knowledge across the various disciplines within the realm of academia.
The primary aim in this dissertation is to initiate the unification of the interests, concerns, and collective bodies of knowledge across disciplines of academia. To do so, however, this dissertation aims to bridge some disciplinary divides between the disciplines of philosophy and psychology. I fulfill this aim by first demonstrating that interdisciplinary research and theorizing is needed within the disciplines of philosophy and psychology. I do this by considering how the problem of skepticism arises within these two disciplines. I also derive, propose, and argue for the acceptance of a new foundation for academic research and theorizing in response to the problem of skepticism. I refer to my proposal, in general, as The Proposal for Unification without Consilience (UC).
The primary aim in this dissertation is to initiate the unification of the interests, concerns, and collective bodies of knowledge across disciplines of academia. To do so, however, this dissertation aims to bridge some disciplinary divides between the disciplines of philosophy and psychology. I fulfill this aim by first demonstrating that interdisciplinary research and theorizing is needed within the disciplines of philosophy and psychology. I do this by considering how the problem of skepticism arises within these two disciplines. I also derive, propose, and argue for the acceptance of a new foundation for academic research and theorizing in response to the problem of skepticism. I refer to my proposal, in general, as The Proposal for Unification without Consilience (UC).
ContributorsMun, Cecilea (Author) / Calhoun, Cheshire (Thesis advisor) / Kobes, Bernard (Committee member) / Shiota, Michelle (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
Stroke is a leading cause of disability with varying effects across stroke survivors necessitating comprehensive approaches to rehabilitation. Interactive neurorehabilitation (INR) systems represent promising technological solutions that can provide an array of sensing, feedback and analysis tools which hold the potential to maximize clinical therapy as well as extend therapy to the home. Currently, there are a variety of approaches to INR design, which coupled with minimal large-scale clinical data, has led to a lack of cohesion in INR design. INR design presents an inherently complex space as these systems have multiple users including stroke survivors, therapists and designers, each with their own user experience needs. This dissertation proposes that comprehensive INR design, which can address this complex user space, requires and benefits from the application of interdisciplinary research that spans motor learning and interactive learning. A methodology for integrated and iterative design approaches to INR task experience, assessment, hardware, software and interactive training protocol design is proposed within the comprehensive example of design and implementation of a mixed reality rehabilitation system for minimally supervised environments. This system was tested with eight stroke survivors who showed promising results in both functional and movement quality improvement. The results of testing the system with stroke survivors as well as observing user experiences will be presented along with suggested improvements to the proposed design methodology. This integrative design methodology is proposed to have benefit for not only comprehensive INR design but also complex interactive system design in general.
ContributorsBaran, Michael (Author) / Rikakis, Thanassis (Thesis advisor) / Olson, Loren (Thesis advisor) / Wolf, Steven L. (Committee member) / Ingalls, Todd (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
Identity, or peoples’ situated sense of self, can be conceptualized and operationalized in a myriad of ways, including, among others, a person’s gender, socioeconomic status, degree of expertise, nationality, and disciplinary training. This study conceptualizes identity as fluid and constructed through social interaction with others, where individuals ask themselves “Who am I?” in relation to the people around them. Such a discursive conceptualization argues that we can observe peoples’ performance of identity through the close reading and examination of their talk and text. By discursively drawing boundaries around descriptions of “Who I am,” people inherently attribute value to preferred identities and devalue undesirable, “other” selves. This study analyzes ten workshops from the Toolbox Project conducted with graduate student scientists participating in the Integrative Graduate Education Research Traineeship (IGERT) program. The emotional tone, mood, and atmosphere of shared humor and laughter emerged as a context through which collaborators tested the limits of different identities and questioned taken for granted assumptions about their disciplinary identities and approaches to research. Through jokes, humorous comments, sarcasm, and laughter, students engaged in three primary forms of othering: 1) unifying the entire group against people outside the group, 2) differentiating group members against each other, and 3) differentiating oneself in comparison to the rest of the group. I use action-implicative discourse analysis to reconstruct these communicative practices at three levels—problem, technical, and philosophical—and explore the implications of group laughter and humor as sites of “othering” discursive strategies in graduate students’ efforts to negotiate and differentiate identity in the context of integrative collaboration.
ContributorsHinrichs, Margaret M (Author) / Tracy, Sarah J. (Thesis advisor) / Seager, Thomas P (Thesis advisor) / Hannah, Mark A (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016
Description
This dissertation focuses on creating a pluralistic approach to understanding and measuring interdisciplinarity at various scales to further the study of the evolution of knowledge and innovation. Interdisciplinarity is considered an important research component and is closely linked to higher rates of innovation. If the goal is to create more innovative research, we must understand how interdisciplinarity operates.
I begin by examining interdisciplinarity with a small scope, the research university. This study uses metadata to create co-authorship networks and examine how a change in university policies to increase interdisciplinarity can be successful. The New American University Initiative (NAUI) at Arizona State University (ASU) set forth the goal of making ASU a world hub for interdisciplinary research. This kind of interdisciplinarity is produced from a deliberate, engineered, reorganization of the individuals within the university and the knowledge they contain. By using a set of social network analysis measurements, I created an algorithm to measure the changes to the co-authorship networks that resulted from increased university support for interdisciplinary research.
The second case study increases the scope of interdisciplinarity from individual universities to a single scientific discourse, the Anthropocene. The idea of the Anthropocene began as an idea about the need for a new geological epoch and underwent unsupervised interdisciplinary expansion due to climate change integrating itself into the core of the discourse. In contrast to the NAUI which was specifically engineered to increase interdisciplinarity, the I use keyword co-occurrence networks to measure how the Anthropocene discourse increases its interdisciplinarity through unsupervised expansion after climate change becomes a core keyword within the network and behaves as an anchor point for new disciplines to connect and join the discourse.
The scope of interdisciplinarity increases again with the final case study about the field of evolutionary medicine. Evolutionary medicine is a case of engineered interdisciplinary integration between evolutionary biology and medicine. The primary goal of evolutionary medicine is to better understand "why we get sick" through the lens of evolutionary biology. This makes it an excellent candidate to understand large-scale interdisciplinarity. I show through multiple type of networks and metadata analyses that evolutionary medicine successfully integrates the concepts of evolutionary biology into medicine.
By increasing our knowledge of interdisciplinarity at various scales and how it behaves in different initial conditions, we are better able to understand the elusive nature of innovation. Interdisciplinary can mean different things depending on how its defined. I show that a pluralistic approach to defining and measuring interdisciplinarity is not only appropriate but necessary if our goal is to increase interdisciplinarity, the frequency of innovations, and our understanding of the evolution of knowledge.
I begin by examining interdisciplinarity with a small scope, the research university. This study uses metadata to create co-authorship networks and examine how a change in university policies to increase interdisciplinarity can be successful. The New American University Initiative (NAUI) at Arizona State University (ASU) set forth the goal of making ASU a world hub for interdisciplinary research. This kind of interdisciplinarity is produced from a deliberate, engineered, reorganization of the individuals within the university and the knowledge they contain. By using a set of social network analysis measurements, I created an algorithm to measure the changes to the co-authorship networks that resulted from increased university support for interdisciplinary research.
The second case study increases the scope of interdisciplinarity from individual universities to a single scientific discourse, the Anthropocene. The idea of the Anthropocene began as an idea about the need for a new geological epoch and underwent unsupervised interdisciplinary expansion due to climate change integrating itself into the core of the discourse. In contrast to the NAUI which was specifically engineered to increase interdisciplinarity, the I use keyword co-occurrence networks to measure how the Anthropocene discourse increases its interdisciplinarity through unsupervised expansion after climate change becomes a core keyword within the network and behaves as an anchor point for new disciplines to connect and join the discourse.
The scope of interdisciplinarity increases again with the final case study about the field of evolutionary medicine. Evolutionary medicine is a case of engineered interdisciplinary integration between evolutionary biology and medicine. The primary goal of evolutionary medicine is to better understand "why we get sick" through the lens of evolutionary biology. This makes it an excellent candidate to understand large-scale interdisciplinarity. I show through multiple type of networks and metadata analyses that evolutionary medicine successfully integrates the concepts of evolutionary biology into medicine.
By increasing our knowledge of interdisciplinarity at various scales and how it behaves in different initial conditions, we are better able to understand the elusive nature of innovation. Interdisciplinary can mean different things depending on how its defined. I show that a pluralistic approach to defining and measuring interdisciplinarity is not only appropriate but necessary if our goal is to increase interdisciplinarity, the frequency of innovations, and our understanding of the evolution of knowledge.
ContributorsPainter, Deryc T (Author) / Laubichler, Manfred D (Thesis advisor) / Maienschein, Jane (Committee member) / Bliss, Nadya T (Committee member) / Simeone, Michael P (Committee member) / Nesse, Randolph M. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019