Studies of scientific and technological thinking can be organized via a taxonomy of methodological approaches that reveal areas for further study. Dunbar provides such a taxonomy, using biological methods like in vivo and in vitro as examples. In vitro corresponds to laboratory simulations of scientific thinking; In Vivo corresponds to field studies of actual scientists and inventors. Dunbar expands this taxonomy to incorporate historical studies of scientists and inventors, computer simulation and the possibility of neurological studies. These methods can and should be combined: Computational simulations are frequently based on historical case-studies, for example. In this article, a wide range of studies are classified according to this taxonomy, and their main points summarized. Consideration is also given to studies of scientific and technological thinking in collaborative dyads and teams. The article concludes with suggestions for future research.
AlberdiE., SleemanD. H., & KorpiM. (2000). Accommodating surprise in taxonomic tasks: The role of expertise. Cognitive Science, 24, 53–91.
2.
AllenbyB. (2005). Technology at the global scale: Integrative cognitivism and Earth Systems Engineering Management. In GormanM. E., TweneyR. D., GoodingD. C. & KincannonA., Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 303–344). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
AnzaiY. (1991). Learning and use of representations for physics expertise. In EricssonK. A. & SmithJ., Toward a general theory of expertise (pp. 64–92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BakerL. M., & DunbarK. (2000). Experimental design heuristics for scientific discovery: The use of baseline and known standard controls. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53, 335–349.
5.
BellA. G. (1876). Experiments made by A. Graham Bell (Vol. I.): Bell Family Papers. Washington DC: Library of Congress.
6.
BradshawG. (1992). The airplane and the logic of invention. In GiereR. N., Cognitive models of science (Vol. XV, pp. 239–250). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
7.
BradshawG. (2005). What's so hard about rocket science? Secrets the rocket boys knew. In GormanM. E., TweneyR. D., GoodingD. C. & KincannonA., Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 259–275). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8.
BradshawG. L., LangleyP., & SimonH. A. (1983). Studying scientific discovery by computer simulation. Science, 222, 971–975.
9.
BrewerW. F. (2004). The representation of scientific theories: Psychologism revived. In PingL., ChenX., ZhilinZ., & HuaxiaZ., Science, cognition, and consciousness (pp. 33–52). Gruangzhou, China: Jiang Xi People's Press.
10.
BrewerW. F., & SamarapungavanA. (1991). Children's theories vs. scientific theories: Differences in reasoning or differences in knowledge?. In HoffmanR. R. & PalermoD. S., Cognition and the symbolic processes: Applied and ecological perspectivesHillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11.
BrunerJ., GoodnowJ., & AustinG. (1956). A study of thinking. New York: Wiley.
12.
CaporaelL. R. (1997). Evolution of truly social cognition: The core configurations model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 276–298.
13.
CaporaelL. R., & BaronR. M. (1997). Groups as the mind's natural environment. In SimpsonJ. A. & KenrickD. T., Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 317–343). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14.
CareyS. (1992). The origin and evolution of everyday concepts. In GiereR. N., Cognitive models of science (Vol. 15, pp. 89–128). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
15.
CarlsonW. B. (2000). Invention and evolution: The case of Edison's sketches of the telephone. In ZinmanJ., Technological innovation as an evolutionary process (pp. 137–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
CarlsonW. B., & GormanM. E. (1989). Thinking and doing at Menlo Park: Edison's development of the telephone, 1876–1878. In PretzerW., Thomas Edison's Menlo Park LaboratoryDetroit: Wayne Stat University Press.
17.
CarlsonW. B., & GormanM. E. (1990). Understanding invention as a cognitive process: The case of Thomas Edison and early motion pictures, 1888–1891. Social Studies of Science, 20, 387–430.
18.
CarlsonW. B., & GormanM. E. (1992). A cognitive framework to understand technological creativity: Bell, Edison, and the telephone. In WeberR. J. P., D. N., Inventive minds: Creativity in technology (pp. 48–79). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.
ChengP. C-H. (1996). Problem solving and learning with diagrammatic representations in physics. In PetersonD., Forms of representation (pp. 47–66). Exeter, U. K.: Intellect Books.
20.
ChengP. C-H., & SimonH. A. (1995). Scientific discovery and creative reasoning with diagrams. In SmithS. M., WardT. B., & FinkeR. A., The creative cognition approachCambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
ChiM. T. H., FeltovichP. J., & GlaserR. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.
22.
ClementJ. (1994). Use of physical intuition and imagistic simulation in expert problem solving. In TiroshD., Implicit and explicit knowledge: An educational approach (pp. 204–244). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
23.
ClementJ. J. (in press). Thought experiments and Imagery in expert protocols. Logic, Journal of the Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logic.
24.
CrouchT. (1989). The Bishop's boys: A life of Wilbur and Orville Wright. New York: Norton.
25.
DasguptaS. (1994). Creativity in invention and design: Computational and cognitive explorations of technological originality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
DunbarK. (1989). Scientific reasoning strategies in a simulated molecular genetics environment. Paper presented at the Program of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Ann Arbor, MI.
27.
DunbarK. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In SternbergR. J. & DavidsonJ., The nature of insight (pp. 365–396). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.
DunbarK. (1997). How scientists think. In WardT. B., SmithS. M. & VaidJ., Creative thoughtWashington, DC: American Psychological Association.
29.
DunbarK. (1999). How scientists build models: In vivo science as a window on the scientific mind. In MagnaniL., NersessianN. & ThagardP., Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 85–100). New York: Kluwer Academic Press.
30.
DunbarK. N., & FugelsangJ. A. (2005). Causal thinking in science: How science and students interpret the unexpected. In GormanM. E., TweneyR. D., GoodingD. C. & KincannonA., Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 57–80). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
EricssonK. A., & SimonH. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
EvansJ. S. B. T. (2002). The influence of prior belief on scientific thinking. In CarruthersP., StichS. P. & SiegalM., The cognitive basis of science (pp. 193–210). Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. (Published in association with the Hang Seng Centre for Cognitive Studies University of Sheffield and the Evolution and Higher Cognition Research Group Rutgers University).
33.
FeistG., & GormanM. E. (1998). The psychology of science: Review and integration of a nascent discipline. Review of General Psychology, 2, 3–47.
34.
FeistG. J. (2006). The psychology of science and origins of the scientific mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35.
FisherK., & FisherM. D. (1998). The distributed mind: Achieving high performance through the collective intelligence of knowledge work teams. New York: Amacom.
36.
GalisonP. (1997). Image & logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
37.
GentnerD. (1980). The structure of analogical models in science. (No. #4451). Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek and Newman Report.
38.
GentnerD., BremS., FergusonR., WolffP., MarkhamA. B., & ForbusK. (1997). Analogy and creativity in the works of Johannes Kepler. In WardT. B., SmithS. M. & VaidJ., Creative thought: an investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 403–459). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
39.
GentnerD., & GentnerG. R. (1983). Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity. In GentnerD., & StevensA.L., Mental models (pp. 99–129). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
40.
GiereR. (2002). Scientific cognition as distributed cognition. In CarruthersP., StichS. P. & SiegalM., The cognitive basis of science (pp. 285–299). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
41.
GliskyE. L., & SchachterD. L. (1989). Extending the limits of complex learning organic amnesia: Computer training in a vocational domain. Neuropsychologia, 27, 107–120.
42.
GoodingD. (1990). Mapping experiment as a learning process: How the first electromagnetic motor was invented. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 15(2), 165–201.
43.
GoodingD. C. (2004a). Cognition, construction and culture: Visual theories in the sciences. Cognition and Culture, 4, 551–594.
44.
GoodingD. C. (2004b). Envisioning explanations—The art in science. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 29, 278–294.
45.
GoodingD. C. (2005). Seeing the forest for the trees: Visualization, cognition, and scientific interference. In GormanM. E., TweneyR. D., GoodingD. C., & KincannonA., Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 173–218). Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
46.
GoodingD. C., & AddisT. R. (1993). Modeling Faraday's experiments with visual functional programming 1: Models, methods and examples(Working Paper): Joint Research Councils' Initiative on Cognitive Science & Human Computer Interaction Special Project Grant #9107137.
47.
GormanM. E. (1989). Error, falsification and scientific inference: An experimental investigation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 385–412.
48.
GormanM. E. (1992). Simulating science: Heuristics, mental models and technoscientific thinking. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
49.
GormanM. E. (1995). Confirmation, disconfirmation and invention: The case of Alexander Graham Bell and the telephone. Thinking and Reasoning, I, 31–53.
50.
GormanM. E. (1997). Mind in the world: Cognition and practice in the invention of the telephone. Social Studies of Science, 274583–624.
51.
GormanM. E. (1998). Transforming nature: Ethics, invention and design. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
52.
GormanM. E. (2002). Types of knowledge and their roles in technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27, 219–231.
53.
GormanM. E. (2003). Expanding the trading zones for convergent technologies. In RocoM. C. & BainbridgeW. S., Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (pp. 424–428). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
54.
GormanM. E. (2004). Collaborating on convergent technologies: Education and practice. In RocoM. C. & MontemagnoC. D., The coevolution of human potential and converging technologies (Vol. 1013, pp. 25–37). New York: The New York Academy of Sciences.
55.
GormanM. E., Gorman, MargaretE., LattaR. M., & CunninghamG. (1984). How disconfirmatory, confirmatory and combined strategies affect group problem-solving. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 65–79.
56.
GruberH. (1981). Darwin on Man: A Psychological Study of Scientific Creativity (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
57.
GruberH. E. (1989). Networks of enterprise in creative scientific work. In GholsonB., ShadishW.R., NeimeyerR.A., & HoutsA.C., Psychology of science: Contributions to metascience (pp. 246–266). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58.
HolmesF. L. (1980). Hans Krebs and the discovery of the ornithine cycle. Federation Proceedings, 39, 216–225.
59.
HolmesF. L. (2004). Investigative pathway: patterns and stages in the careers of experimental scientists. New Haven: Yale University Press.
HughesT. P. (1998). Rescuing prometheus. New York: Pantheon books.
62.
HutchinsE. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
63.
Johnson-LairdP. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
64.
Johnson-LairdP. N. (2005). Flying bicycles: How the Wright brothers invented the airplane. Mind & Society, 1, 1–22.
65.
KlahrD. (2000). Exploring Science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
66.
KlahrD. (2005). A framework for cognitive studies of science and technology. In GormanM. E., TweneyR. D., GoodingD. C. & KincannonA., Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 81–95). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
67.
KlahrD., & DunbarK. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1–48.
68.
KlaymanJ., & HaY.-W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94, 211–228.
69.
KochS. (1985). The nature and limits of psychological knowledge: Lessons of a century qua “science.”. In KochS. & LearyD. E., A century of psychology as science (pp. 75–97). New York: McGraw-Hill.
70.
KuhnD. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96, 674–689.
71.
KuhnT. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
72.
KulkarniD., & SimonH. A. (1988). The processes of scientific discovery: The strategies of experimentation. Cognitive Science, 12, 139–175.
73.
LarkinJ. H., McDermottJ., SimonD. P., & SimonH. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335–1342.
74.
LiangD. W., MorelandR., & ArgoteL. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 384–393.
75.
MagnaniL., NersessianN., & ThagardP.. (1999). Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery. New York: Kluwer Academic Press.
76.
McCrayP. (2004). Giant telescopes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
77.
MynattC. R., DohertyM. E., & TweneyR. D. (1977). Confirmation bias in simulated research environment: An experimental study of scientific inference. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 85–95.
78.
MynattC. R., DohertyM. E., & TweneyR. D. (1978). Consequences of confirmation and disconfirmation in a simulated research environment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 395–406.
79.
NersessianN. J. (1984). Faraday to Einstein: Constructing meaning in scientific theories. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
80.
NersessianN. J. (2005). Interpreting scientific and engineering practices: Integrating the cognitive, social and cultural dimensions. In GormanM. E., TweneyR. D., GoodingD. C. & KincannonA., Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 17–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
81.
NormanD. A. (1993a). Cognition in the head and the world: An introduction to the special issue on situated action. Cognitive Science, 17, 1–6.
82.
NormanD. A. (1993b). Things that make us smart: Defending human attributes in the age of the machine. New York: Addison Wesley.
83.
OkadaT., & SimonH. A. (1997). Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 109–146.
84.
PiagetJ., & GarciaR. (1989). Psychogenesis and the history of science. (FeiderH.,). New York: Columbia University Press.
85.
PolanyiM. (1966). The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc.
86.
QinY., & SimonH. A. (1990). Laboratory replication of scientific discovery processes. Cognitive Science, 14, 281–312.
87.
RudwickM. J. S. (1985). The great Devonian controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
88.
RulkeD., & ZaheerS. (2001). Shared and unshared transactive knowledge in complex organizations: An exploratory study. In LantT. K. & ShapiraZ., Organizational cognition: computation and interpretation (pp. 83–100). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
SchachterD. L. (1998). Memory and awareness. Science, 280, 59–60.
91.
SchunnC. D., CrowleyK., & OkadaT. (1998). The growth of multidisciplinarity in the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science, 22, 107–130.
92.
ShragerJ. (2005). Diary of an insane cell mechanic. In GormanM. E., TweneyR. D., GoodingD. C. & KincannonA., Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 119–136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
93.
ShragerJ., & LangleyP. (1990). computational models of scientific discovery and theory formation. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
94.
SiminaM., KolodnerJ. L., RamA., & GormanM. E. (1998, August). Opportunistic enterprises in invention. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Madison, WI.
95.
ThagardP. (1999). How scientists explain disease. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
96.
ToulminS., & LearyD. E. (1985). The cult of empiricism in psychology, and beyond. In KochS. & LearyD. E., A century of psychology as science (pp. 594–617). New York: McGraw-Hill.
97.
TrickettS. B., SchunnC. D., & TraftonJ. G. (2005). Puzzles and peculiarities: How scientist attend to and process anomalies during data analysis. In GormanM. E., TweneyR. D., GoodingD. C. & KincannonA., Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 97–118). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
98.
TweneyR. D. (1989). Fields of enterprise: On Michael Faraday's thought. In WallaceD. B. & GruberH. E., Creative people at work: Twelve cognitive case studiesNew York: Oxford University Press.
99.
TweneyR. D. (1991). Faraday's notebooks: The active organization of creative science. Physical Education, 26, 301–306.
100.
TweneyR. D. (1998). Towards a cognitive psychology of science: Recent research and its implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 150–153.
101.
TweneyR. D., DohertyM. E., & MynattC. R.. (1981). On scientific thinking. New York: Columbia University Press.
102.
TweneyR. D., & GoodingD. C. (1991). Michael Faraday's ‘Chemical Notes, Hints, Suggestions and Objects of Pursuit of 1822. London: Peregrinus / IEE..
103.
TweneyR. D., MearsR. P., & SpitzmullerC. (2005). Replicating the process of discovery: Michael Faraday and the interaction of gold and light. In GormanM. E., TweneyR. D., GoodingD. C. & KincannonA., Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 137–158). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
104.
VosniadouS., & BrewerW. F. (1992). Mental models of the Earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535–585.
105.
WeberR. J., & PerkinsD. N. (1989). How to invent artifacts and ideas. New Ideas in Psychology, 7, 49–72.
106.
WegnerD. M. (1986). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In MullenB. & GoethalsG. R., Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). New York: Springer-Verlag.
