In recent years, epistemic pluralism has received considerable endorsement as an approach to constructing scientific explanations and pursuing empirical research programs. In this article, we briefly discuss the advantages of an epistemically pluralist approach before outlining our own model of epistemic pluralism. The model we present emphasizes the specific considerations that occur when determining and justifying the selection of conceptual strategies and how conceptual strategies work together to provide task-relevant insights. By clarifying these constraint relationships, we highlight the kinds of systematic considerations that must be taken into account when selecting conceptual strategies for research tasks. We present a case study based on gang research to demonstrate how such considerations occur and the epistemic and pragmatic benefits of doing so.
AldridgeJ.Medina-ArizJ.RalphsR. (2012). Counting gangs: Conceptual and validity problems with the Eurogang definition. In EsbensenF.-A.MaxsonC. L. (Eds.), Youth gangs in international perspective (pp. 35–51). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1659-3_3
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge.
5.
CarterE.WardT.Strauss-HughesA. (2021). The classification of crime and its related problems: A pluralistic approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 59, Article 101440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101440
6.
CartwrightN. (1999). The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge University Press.
CraverC. F. (2007). Explaining the brain: Mechanisms and the mosaic unity of neuroscience. Oxford University Press.
10.
CurryG. D. (2015). The logic of defining gangs revisited. In DeckerS. H.PyroozD. C. (Eds.), The handbook of gangs (pp. 7–27). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118726822.ch2
Dyberg-TengrothM. F. W. (2019). Moral disengagement in gang versus non-gang delinquents [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Nottingham.
13.
FeestU.SteinleF. (2016). Experiment. In HumphreysP. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of science (pp. 274–295). Oxford University Press.
14.
FriedmanM. (1974). Explanation and scientific understanding. Journal of Philosophy, 71(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/2024924
15.
GoldsteinA. P. (1991). Delinquent gangs: A psychological perspective. Research Press.
16.
GottfredsonM. R.HirschiT. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press.
17.
HaigB. D. (2014). Investigating the psychological world: Scientific method in the behavioral sciences. MIT Press.
18.
Hawkins-ElderH.WardT. (2021). From competition to co-operation: Shifting the “one best model” perspective. Theory & Psychology, 31(6), 821–841. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354321995900
19.
HeffernanR.WardT. (2017). A comprehensive theory of dynamic risk and protective factors. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 37(1), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.10.003
20.
HeffernanR.WegerhoffD.WardT. (2019). Dynamic risk factors: Conceptualization, measurement, and evidence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 48(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.06.004
21.
HochsteinE. (2016). Giving up on convergence and autonomy: Why the theories of psychology and neuroscience are codependent as well as irreconcilable. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 56(1), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.10.001
22.
HochsteinE. (2017). Why one model is never enough: A defense of explanatory holism. Biological Philosophy, 32(1), 1105–1125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-017-9595-x
23.
HospersJ. (1997). An introduction to philosophical analysis (4th ed.). Routledge.
24.
KaiserM. I. (2015). Reductive explanation in the biological sciences. Springer.
25.
KekesJ. (1993). The morality of pluralism. Princeton University Press.
26.
KellertS.LonginoH.WatersC. K. (2006). Scientific pluralism. University of Minnesota Press.
LudwigD. (2018). Letting go of “natural kind”: Toward a multidimensional framework of nonarbitrary classification. Philosophy of Science, 85(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1086/694835
29.
MatsudaK. N.EsbensenF. A.CarsonD. C. (2012). Putting the “gang” in “Eurogang”: Characteristics of delinquent youth groups by different definitional approaches. In EsbensenF.-A.MaxsonC. L. (Eds.), Youth gangs in international perspective (pp. 17–33). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1659-3_2
30.
MeldeC.EsbensenF. A. (2013). Gangs and violence: Disentangling the impact of gang membership on the level and nature of offending. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29(1), 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-012-9164-z
31.
MitchellS. D. (2003). Biological complexity and integrative pluralism. Cambridge University Press.
32.
MurphyD. (2006). Psychiatry in the scientific image. MIT Press.
33.
PotochnikA. (2017). Idealization and the aims of science. University of Chicago Press.
34.
PotochnikA.Sanches de OliveiraG. (2020). Patterns in cognitive phenomena and pluralism of explanatory styles. Topics in Cognitive Science, 12(4), 1306–1320. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12481
35.
PyroozD. C.LaFreeG.DeckerS. H.JamesP. A. (2017). Cut from the same cloth? A comparative study of domestic extremists and gang members in the United States. Justice Quarterly, 35(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2017.1311357
36.
PyroozD. C.MeldeC.CoffmanD. L.MeldrumR. C. (2021). Selection, stability, and spuriousness: Testing Gottfredson and Hirschi’s propositions to reinterpret street gangs in self-control perspective. Criminology, 59(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12268
37.
ReidS. E.ValasikM. (2018). Ctrl+ALT-RIGHT: Reinterpreting our knowledge of white supremacy groups through the lens of street gangs. Journal of Youth Studies, 21(10), 1305–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2018.1467003
38.
RuphyS. (2016). Scientific pluralism reconsidered: A new approach to the (dis)unity of science. University of Pittsburgh Press.
39.
SalmonW. C. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton University Press.
ShortJ. F.Jr. (1990). New wine in old bottles? Change and continuity in American gangs. In HuffC. R. (Ed.), Gangs in America (pp. 223–239). SAGE.
43.
StarS. L.GriesemerJ. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001
44.
ThagardP. (2019). Natural philosophy: From social brains to knowledge, reality, morality, and beauty (treatise on mind and society). Oxford University Press.
WardT.CarterE. (2019). The classification of offending and crime related problems: A functional perspective. Psychology, Crime & Law, 25(6), 542–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1557182
WardT.FortuneC. A. (2016). From dynamic risk factors to causal processes: A methodological framework. Psychology, Crime & Law, 22(1–2), 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x.2015.1117080
50.
WardT.HeffernanR. (2017). The role of values in forensic and correctional rehabilitation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 37, 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.09.002
51.
WeermanF. M.MaxsonC. L.EsbensenF.-A.AldridgeJ.MedinaJ.van GemertF. (2009). Eurogang program manual background, development, and use of the Eurogang instruments in multi-site, multi-method comparative research. https://www.umsl.edu/ccj/old/Eurogang/EurogangManual.pdf
52.
WegerhoffD.DixonL.WardT. (2019). The conceptualization of gangs: Changing the focus. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 47, 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.03.004
53.
WegerhoffD.WardT.DixonL. (2021). A pluralistic approach to the definition, classification, and explanation of gangs. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 58, Article 101546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101546
