Environmental problems often outstrip the abilities of any single scientist to understand, much less address them. As a result, collaborations within, across, and beyond the environmental sciences are an increasingly important part of the environmental science landscape. Here, we explore an insufficiently recognized and particularly challenging barrier to collaborative environmental science: value pluralism, the presence of non-trivial differences in the values that collaborators bring to bear on project decisions. We argue that resolving the obstacles posed by value pluralism to collaborative environmental science requires detecting and coordinating the underlying problematic value differences. We identify five ways that a team might coordinate their problematic value differences and argue that, whichever mode is adopted, it ought to be governed by participatory virtues, pragmatic resolve, and moral concern. Relying on our experiences with the Toolbox Dialogue Initiative, as well as with other dialogical approaches that support team inquiry, we defend the claim that philosophical dialogue among collaborators can go a long way towards helping teams of environmental scientists and fellow travelers detect their problematic value differences. Where dialogical approaches fare less well is in helping teams coordinate these differences. We close by describing several principles for augmenting philosophical dialogue with other methods, and we list several of these methods in an appendix with brief descriptions and links for further learning. Overall, the article makes three main contributions to the research collaboration and values in science literatures: (1) It deepens our understanding of problematic value pluralism in team science; (2) It provides actionable guidance and methods for improving values-oriented philosophical dialogue interventions; and (3) It demonstrates one way of doing engaged philosophy.

环境问题往往超出任何一位科学家的理解能力，更不用说解决它们了。因此，环境科学内部、跨领域和超越环境科学的合作是环境科学领域中越来越重要的一部分。在这里，我们探讨了协作环境科学中一个未被充分认识且特别具有挑战性的障碍：价值多元化，即合作者对项目决策产生影响的价值观存在重大差异。我们认为，解决价值多元化对协作环境科学构成的障碍需要检测和协调潜在的有问题的价值差异。我们确定了团队可能协调他们有问题的价值差异的五种方式，并认为无论采用哪种模式，它应该受到参与美德、务实的决心和道德关怀的支配。依靠我们在“工具箱对话倡议”以及其他支持团队调查的对话方法方面的经验，我们捍卫这样一种说法，即合作者之间的哲学对话可以大大有助于帮助环境科学家团队和其他旅行者发现他们有问题的价值差异. 对话方法在帮助团队协调这些差异方面表现不佳。最后，我们描述了用其他方法增强哲学对话的几个原则，我们在附录中列出了其中的几个方法，并附有简要描述和进一步学习的链接。总体而言，本文对科学文献中的研究合作和价值做出了三个主要贡献：（1）加深了我们对团队科学中存在问题的价值多元化的理解；(2) 为改进价值导向的哲学对话干预提供可操作的指导和方法；(3) 它展示了一种从事哲学的方式。