Working together across disciplines Challenges for the natural and social sciences

RELU project team at Warwick University Dept of Politics & International Studies. Wyn Grant, Justin Greaves. Warwick HRI. Dave Chandler, Gill Prince. Dept of Biological Sciences. Mark Tatchell.

contents Why work together? The research process & methodological considerations. Practical issues for effective collaboration. Conclusions. Is multi-disciplinary collaboration sufficient or should we aim higher?

Why work together? Fundamental research Some areas have a natural overlap: –Development of theory. Behavioural research in economics & biology: –‘1 st wave’: evolutionary game theory. –‘2 nd wave’ : unified theories of behaviour.

Fundamental research Borrowing of ideas, or genuine collaboration. Work on a common problem, need a common language (e.g. mathematics). Complementary methodologies → unified theory & methodology. Kudos in academic community.

Strategic & applied research Human activity causes global problems. Social and natural sciences needed for effective solutions. Project teams often multidisciplinary: can they influence each other?

Strategic & applied research Teams form for specific project. Issues of buy-in? Methodologies often kept separate. Different languages. Hard for partners to influence each other? Danger of unequal relationships. Lower value in academic community, but very important in wider world.

Science & society Natural scientists must become better communicators. Public understanding of scientific process (Hails & Dale, 2005). Social scientists need to understand natural science. Public value of science (Wilsdon et al., 2005)

Science & society Enhanced confidence in public & stakeholders. Develop language for effective communication : –social & natural scientists & public. Public engagement not highly valued in academic circles (‘media dons’).

Environmental & regulatory sustainability of biopesticides. Warwick RELU research: A practical example

Pesticides have many benefits, but … Resistance, new chemistry expensive. Integrated Pest Management. Microbial control agents: –Desirable characteristics. –Poor uptake in UK & EU.

Biopesticides: regulatory innovation using political & natural science? Strengths & weaknesses of regulation. Research on ecology of microbial agents. Evaluate costs & benefits in a holistic way. Biological data requirements. Regulatory innovation.

Evaluation of costs & benefits Politics Stakeholders Biology of Production Systems Regulation Impact on biological data requirements

Analysis of the research process in social & natural science: –Challenge preconceptions. –Help overcome constraints to collaboration. Can the same approaches be used to study the natural & social worlds? Research processes & methodologies

The research wheel in social & natural sciences Dominant models : neo-positivism & critical realism deductive inductive Problem specification / Conceptual framework Hypotheses Empirical research Theory Conclusions & inference

Methodological issues (1): experiments Ability to do replicated experiments differs between social & natural science. Use of comparison : circumvents problems of not being able to do an experiment. Need to develop best methodologies available for natural & social science.

Methodological issues (2): Issues of scale & inference Ecological & individualistic fallacies: –Ecological: identify relationships at aggregate level that do not reflect the corresponding relationship at individual level. –Individual: draw conclusions from groups based on data gathered with the individual.

Methodological issues (3): Issues of scale & inference Specific, micro level studies can proliferate at the expense of broad questions. Bottom up approaches often use simplified systems for study: danger of individualistic fallacy. In biology, a new field of studying complex systems is emerging. Use of model organisms/ systems in biology.

The challenge of interdisciplinary research How can social & natural science components influence each other in a project? Social science more flexible: can respond quickly to input from natural scientists. Protocols followed in natural science can make research less flexible. Need for upstream influence. Avoid having ‘pet’ social scientists.

Day to day issues Need to understand the other discipline. Appreciate that different schools exist within each discipline. Problems of technical language : plain speaking required! Social science writing is more discursive.

Working together has positive outcomes Better social & natural science. –Better analytical tools for social science. –Natural scientists’ knowledge on social issues placed in a systematic framework. Joint outcomes. –Fundamental research: development of theory. –Applied / strategic: sustainable solutions for complex problems. –Science & society: better communication & upstream thinking. New opportunities. –Access to new sources of money for new kinds of research. –Non threatening collaborations.

Thanks for your attention www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/biopesticides/