Commentary: How Science is Done
ByAndrea A. diSessa
Pages 26

As one of the initiators of the Knowledge Analysis/Interaction Analysis (KAIA) agenda, I  was gratified to find a chapter such as this one, offered by Hall, Nemirovsky, Ma, and Kelton.4 The chapter is, indeed, generous – in the everyday sense, and also in the narrower generous* sense – in its treatment of some knotty issues. I find it to be without partisanship, and the intention to be neutral and balanced is everywhere visible. The reviews of histories of accomplishments, both within the KA and IA communities and outside them (Charles Darwin, Santiago Ramón y Cajal, Jane Goodall), are, in themselves, interesting, revealing, and good fodder for discussion. But, I’m most grateful that the chapter explicitly raises a meta-scientific perspective. It is more than possible (but I would not take it for granted) that what has separated IA and KA – or what might unite them – is as much meta-scientific as it is scientific. Predilections for ways to do science are almost certainly consequential, and the case of connections or disconnections between IA and KA really ought to be examined from that perspective.