Perhaps we might view inclusivity in science as a spectrum and some disciplines are more inclusive than others. From this perspective, it seems like the epistemology depends on the scholar's ability to convince other scholars of the validity of their results/findings, especially the referees/reviewers. Regardless, some are likely to suggest that their discipline is excessively rigid while others may argue it is too flexible.

science-ing is not very inclusive

it is very humancentric

heck the academy in general is not very inclusive

I get chased off campus before I can even make it to a classroom

there are lots of ways of knowing

and methodological currents carrying answers to the questioned-unquestioned-searched-and-unsearched

heyy what makes something valid anyway?

is what is valid to you

valid to me

is validity bound to some sorta onto-epistemological geo-cognitivity

or is validity universal.. is there such a thing as universal onto-epistemological metaphysical spaces

is suggesting a pluralistic epistemological landscape valid

would criticism against a pluralistic onto-epistemological being

be an expression of validity

or

an expression of ones onto-epistemological patterning

I am not sure what makes a worldview 'better'

are you suggesting just because ya stand up on two-legs you got a better view of the world

why are emphasizing viewing n' seeing so much anyway?

don't ya want a better world-smelling-feeling-n' being to?

if world- 'viewing' is all your worried about maybe ya should just start doing your science in taller buildings

or merge flying n' science instead of art n' science

Kuhn and Feyerabend both say that knoweldge is grounded in the discourse - i.e. as Rob Catlett said - the ability of the scholar's ability to convince other scholars of the validity of their results.

Paul Feyerabend Against Method

Thomas Kuhn - Structure of Scientific reviolutions.

I'd also recommend Motterlini's book on Feyerabend adn Lakatos - as well as Lakatos' work.

"Is the scientific method the only valid approach to answer research questions in the pursuit of new knowledge?"

No. Science has a prescribed method or methods of generating new knowledge which is really on geared to understanding the physical world. Even then, in the depths of the theoretical studies, such as quantum physics, we do not truly know if it is correct or not. It does provide working hypothesis, but human beings have no way of knowing the 'truth'. The we come to the conclusion of astrophysics that "dark matter" must exist .. Really??? A type of 'matter' that has no other property of matter than gravity?

Much of this deeply theoretical knowledge is beyond human experience.

Science can also never create new knowledge of the social world. Unfortunately, Science claims a privileged position in world knowledge as the 'most rigorous' discipline, so some researchers in the social sciences aim, falsely, for a rigorous position similar to science.

Very nice question. I have an article and published in academia edu but still bahasa Indonesia