ZusammenfassungDie Studie analysiert die Dynamik wissenschaftlicher Kooperation zwischen Natur- und Geisteswissenschaften an einem Beispiel aus der historischen Papierforschung in Wien um 1900. Im Mittelpunkt steht der Wiener Pflanzenphysiologe Julius Wiesner (1838–1916), der ab 1884 (und bis 1911) mittelalterliche Papiermanuskripte unter dem Mikroskop prüfte. Dies erfolgte in produktiver Zusammenarbeit mit Paläographen, Archäologen und Orientalisten (Josef Karabacek, Marc Aurel Stein, Rudolf Hoernle). Der Aufsatz untersucht, warum dies gelang und wie die Zusammenarbeit sich entwickelte. Wir unterscheiden dabei zwei Formen der Kooperation: Während Wiesner (...) anfangs nur reaktiv zuarbeitete, in einer „geschlossenen Kooperation“, trat er später in „offene Kooperationen“ ein, in der beide Parteien die Fragen definieren und geeignete Methoden entwickeln. Diese Form der Kooperation erwies sich als besonders erfolgreich – zugleich war sie besonders anspruchsvoll, denn neben fachlicher Expertise erforderte sie erhebliche „Integrationsexpertise“ (Andersen 2016). Dies wurde begünstigt durch die lokale Konstellation in einer Umbruchphase der historischen Hilfswissenschaften. Wiesner konnte seine Kenntnisse der technischen Mikroskopie einbringen und gewann ein genuines Interesse an den historischen Fragen, während die Geisteswissenschaftler bereit waren, sich naturwissenschaftlichen Verfahren gegenüber zu öffnen und Wiesner letztlich als Papierhistoriker eigenen Rechts anzuerkennen. (shrink)

The paper uses the example of historical paper research in Vienna around 1900 in order to analyze the dynamics of scientific cooperation between the natural sciences and the humanities. It focuses on the Vienna-based plant physiologist Julius Wiesner (1838–1916), who from 1884 to 1911 studied medieval paper manuscripts under the microscope in productive cooperation with paleographers, archaeologists and orientalists (Josef Karabacek, Marc Aurel Stein, Rudolf Hoernle). The paper examines why these cooperations succeeded and how they developed over time. Here we (...) distinguish between two forms of cooperation: while Wiesner initially worked only reactively, in a “closed cooperation”, he later entered into “open cooperations”, in which both parties defined research questions and methods. This form of cooperation proved particularly successful, but at the same time was especially demanding because, in addition to contributing one’s own skills, it required considerable “interlocking expertise” (Andersen 2016). This was favored because the historical auxiliary sciences were in a phase of upheaval. Wiesner contributed his knowledge of technical microscopy and developed a genuine interest in historical questions, while the humanists were prepared to open themselves to scientific processes and ultimately acknowledged Wiesner as a historian of paper in his own right. (shrink)

During the late twentieth century, drawing on C. P. Snow’s well-known concept of a “two cultures” divide between scientists and humanists, many psychologists identified polarizing divergences in their discipline. This essay traces how purported professional divides affected the understanding and management of mental retardation in clinical psychology. Previous work in the history of science has compared the differing cultures of disciplines, demonstrating that there is no one, unified science. Through an examination of multiple “two cultures” divides within the discipline of (...) psychology, the essay demonstrates that perceived divergences in the field were animated by considerations of professional identity, ambitions, and goals. It argues that differing views among clinical psychologists about mental retardation, and crucially the localization of its causes—in individual bodies, minds, and genomes or within social institutions—reflected their position among the multiple “cultures” of psychology. References to Snow’s two cultures spanned the late twentieth-century scientific and clinical literature and were often used to encourage a conversation about the nature and goals of research in a field. In considering these purported “two cultures” divides, the essay proposes that historians of science must take care to look beyond constructed polarities, to instead analyze the resulting discussions about professional training and purpose. (shrink)

"The aim of the present paper is to situate the recent attempts to study the phenomena of knowledge management in a larger epistemological context. More precisely, I intend to look at it from the perspective of the philosophy of the humanities. This involves understanding it as an endeavor concerned with the search for regularities. As a result, key notions figuring in the repertoire of this kind of undertaking, primarily those of notes and notebooks, are scrutinized for the purpose of revealing (...) their theoretical function. This points towards some ontological issues, such as the idea of taking notes as cultural kinds, namely something analogous to the idea of natural kinds. Keywords: notes, notebooks, cultural kind, cultural artefact, pattern, commonplace-book". (shrink)