Disciplinary boundaries and heterogeneity of sciences Catherine Laurent ( UWC 5-6 november 2007)

Disciplinary boundaries and heterogeneity of sciences 1. About the notion of “ discipline ” 2. "Kinds of knowledge" 3. "Disciplines", "kinds of knowledge" and "levels of evidence"

About the notion of “ discipline ” An "obvious" definition: “A discipline is a set of rules and definitions, a domain of objects, a body of hypotheses considered to be true, theoretical and technical instruments, and a history. A discipline consists of a set of statements whose organization and coherence are regulated.". (Popelard, Vernan, p.20)

About the notion of “ discipline ” An "obvious" definition “A discipline is a set of rules and definitions, a domain of objects, a body of hypotheses considered to be true, theoretical and technical instruments, and a history (cf. M. Foucault). A discipline consists of a set of statements whose organization and coherence are regulated.". (Popelard, Vernan, p.20) But… Disciplines have also institutional components (institutions that guarantee the validation and teaching of the knowledge produced) and material components (tools, databases, etc.)

About the notion of “ discipline ” An "obvious" definition But… Disciplines ARE NOT coherent conceptual architectures; in one discipline different theoretical approaches may coexist, they highlight different parts of the reality, they may rely on contradictory hypotheses. (see for instance ecology and economics) --> To break away with the notion of discipline for understanding the conceptual content of theories => the notion of "research programme" of Lakatos.

“ Disciplines ” and "kinds of knowledge" Maybe what is at stake in a discipline is not the conceptual architectures of the theories it is constituted of, but the "kind of knowledge" it produces (Hacking 1999). Social sciences would rather produce "interactive knowledge" while natural sciences would produce "indifferent knowledge"

”Kinds of knowledge" "Interactive knowledge". Production of classifications: the entities that are classified may change their behaviour when they are aware of their position in the classification (ex. farmer's practices) "Indifferent knowledge". No interaction between the classifications and the behaviour of the entities that are classified (ex. botany inventory).

”Kinds of knowledge" Consequences of the production of "interactive knowledge" -Instability of the object that is studied ("self fulfilling prophecies" or rejection of the classification) (environmentally friendly practices versus modernist practices) -Decrease of the prediction capacities -Ethical consequences (specific responsibility when delivering knowledge that is source of interactions)

"Discipline", ”Kinds of knowledge" "Kinds of knowledge" are not linked to disciplines -All disciplines may produce different kinds of knowledge according to their aim (science for action or pure knowledge production) -But … social scientists have a long tradition of debating about these issues while natural science may tend to leave it aside

"Discipline", ”Kinds of knowledge" Hybrid models (e.g. classification producing interactive knowledge and classifications producing indifferent knowledge) result in the production of interactive knowledge. For ex. classification of grazing practices linked to vegetation composition  for natural sciences (ecology) interdisciplinarity may result in a change of the kind of knowledge that is produced ; it may result in a change of the "quality" of the scientific results (less predictivity"  For social sciences there is a need to assess the consequences of the interactions that are induced by the production of knowledge from hybrid models

”Kinds of knowledge" and level of evidence It may be more difficult to produce "high level evidence" for approaches resulting in interactive knowledge -What is "true" may change over the periods -Instability of the phenomena under study makes it more difficult to secure relevant long term observations

The notion of "level of evidence" For practice, in all the domains, it may be useful to make the most of the "best available evidence". "best" = ?? Some learning from "evidence based medicine": the notion of increasing levels of "evidence" 1.Opinion of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies or reports of expert committees. 2.Evidence from historical comparisons. 3.Evidence from cohort or case-control analytic studies. Evidence from well-designed controlled trials without randomization. 4. Evidence obtained from at least one properly randomized controlled trials.

Searching the best level of evidence 1.Arguments, opinions from respected authorities based on experience, descriptive studies, or reports from expert committees 2.Evidence gained from historical or geographical comparisons, 3 Evidence from case studies carried out in a controlled framework, 4.Evidence with data collection on representative situations allowing statistical test of hypotheses. 1.Opinion of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies or reports of expert committees. 2.Evidence. from historical comparisons. 3.31: Evidence from cohort or case-control analytic studies. 32: Ev. from well-designed CTs without randomization. 4Evidence obtaned from at least one properly CRT.

Levels of evidence and data collection 4. Evidence from extensive studies associating in depth case studies with data collection on representatives situations allowing statistical test of hypotheses. 3. Evidence from case studies carried out in a controlled framework, 2. Evidence gained from historical or geographical comparisons, 1. Arguments, opinions from respected authorities based on experience, descriptive studies, or reports from expert committees [weak evidence] Data collection length (years) Level of evidence

"Level of evidence" and "interactive knowledge" years Level of evidence Accuracy of the initial description of the fact under study Time is necessary to build high level evidence years Interactive knowledge is source of instability over time

"Disciplines", "Kind of knowledge" and "Evidence" Beyond disciplinary boundaries, different traditions of knowledge production One aspect of the heterogeneity of scientific approaches regards the kind of knowledge that is produced Different relationship to production o interactive knowledge may be a source of difficulties for collaborations in situations of pluridisciplinarity and for assessment of the results of these collaborations

About the notion of “ discipline ” Vulgate of the notion of discipline “A discipline is a set of rules and definitions, a domain of objects, a body of hypotheses considered to be true, theoretical and technical instruments, and a history (cf. M. Foucault). A discipline consists of a set of statements whose organization and coherence are regulated.". (Popelard, Vernan, p.20) A second definition A discipline has to be defined as a complex set which necessarily comprises intellectual components (research programmes which can be based on contradictory hypotheses), institutional components (institutions that guarantee the validation and teaching of the knowledge produced) and material components (tools, databases, etc.). Its history (its historical background) has to be analysed from a threefold perspective since a discipline is based intellectually on a genealogy of problems, professionally on a series of institutional authorities, and materially on a set of technical devices --> To break away with the notion of discipline for internal analyses