1. Biodiversity, agriculture and environmental justice: a meeting to discuss and debate issues in interdisciplinary research UWC November 2007

2. Validity of scientific knowledge and public intervention: the case of agriculture in sustainable development EBPBiosoc

3. The EBP-BIOSOC Project This project is designed to analyse the way in which the empirical validity of available scientific knowledge is evaluated and taken into account in public intervention that brings into play relations between agriculture, biodiversity conservation, and economic cohesion. The research takes place in three different political contexts (France, Brazil and South Africa). It mobilizes knowledge from social science, biotechnical science, ecology and the philosophy of science and intends to assess advantages and limits of evidence- based-policies approaches

4. The EBP-BIOSOC Project WP1. What difficulties confront the designers of intervention measures (related to agriculture and biodiversity conservation) in accessing adequate scientific knowledge and assessing its limits or validity? WP2. What knowledge is actually available? Which meta- knowledge is provided to make it usable for research and practice? Workshop on interdisciplinarity WP3. Analyse the way in which the limits of scientific knowledge are taken into account in the economic and political regulation of contradictions between social and conservation objectives

5. Why a workshop on interdisciplinarity? Basic hypothesis: the difficulties we encounter in linking various scientific approaches, dealing with social, biotechnical and/or ecological phenomena, do not have only institutional reasons. They also result from misunderstandings between researchers, and between researchers and other partners, regarding the actual content of scientific knowledge that is produced, its limits, and the conceptual architectures that are behind various approaches. There is a need to better address these specific sort of difficulties. The idea of the workshop was born from the conjunction of two initiatives (Rick Rohde "Let's meet and talk"(2006), Research programme on Evidence based policy (EBP-BIOSOC))

6. Starting point for this workshop: “unity of science” or not? If there was we could start addressing problems without considering the heterogeneity of scientific approaches Research programme: framework describing the different conceptual components of a research activity (Lakatos 1970) Several research programmes possible in one discipline

7. What is a discipline? Four components: Intellectual – research programmes which can be based on contradictory hypotheses Institutional – guarantee the validation and teaching of the knowledge produced Material – tools, databases etc History – analysis encompasses above three aspects Laurent 2006

8. “Research Programme” Lakatos Core of theoretical hypotheses which are considered irrefutable by those in charge of the programme

9. “Research Programme” Lakatos Ad hoc protective hypotheses that protect the hard core from anomalies and define the domain of validity of results

10. “Research Programme” Lakatos Hypotheses to be tested to expand world of explainable facts

11. “Research Programme” Equilibrium rangeland ecology

12. Animal numbers Animal number Vegetation Production Basis of recommended stocking rates Equilibrial view

13. Ad hoc protective hypotheses Animal type will modify relationship Ecosystem will modify relationship Hypotheses to be tested There is an optimal management system to ensure ecological and economic sustainability

14. Rainfall Annual Rainfall Vegetation production Non-equilibrial view

15. Rangeland policies for the commons developed from a three layered conceptual model: Equilibrial ecological model Tragedy of the commons narratives One Modernisation pathway Foundation of (unsuccessful) rangeland policy for pastoral systems in Africa and elsewhere from colonial times onwards Rohde et al. 2006

16. To develop new rangeland policy we need New scientific facts which better link biophysical processes and socio-economic factors Implications that research programmes must change e.g farmers’ practices, complexity theory …..

17. Aim of workshop To have an extended and open discussion on how: To acknowledge the diversity of theoretical approaches and kinds of knowledge To better assess the content of this diversity for building scientific knowledge and understanding which part of reality is studied To better asses the consequences of this heterogeneity for practitioners and researchers

18. Monday 5 th November 2007 09.15 Coffee, tea 09.30 Opening and Introductions Nicky Allsopp 10.00 Session 1: Social sciences, natural sciences… what boundaries? Rapporteur: Jacques Baudry Catherine Laurent: Disciplinary boundaries and science heterogeneity (30 min) Marc Kirsch: Social sciences, natural sciences: boundaries, conflicts, cooperation(30 min) Break (10 min) Discussion 12.30 Lunch 13.15 Meet PLAAS 14.30 Session 2: Mapping scientific approaches (“research programmes” in economics and other social sciences, ecology and biotechnical sciences, and consequences for linking disciplinary approaches) Rapporteur: Rick Rohde Bruno Tinel: Outlining research programmes in economics, a first step (30 min) Agnès Ricroch: How to define biodiversity (20 min) Françoise Burel: Research programmes in ecology (20 min) Break (10 min) Discussion

19. Tuesday 6 th November 2007 9.15 Coffee. tea 9.30 Session 3: From policy implementation issues to research practice: how are concerns regarding “biodiversity”, “cohesion” and “environmental justice” changing disciplines and interactions between disciplines? Rapporteur: Frank Matose Bram Büscher: Disciplining biodiversity? The political ecology of academic enterprise in South African biodiversity conservation (30 min) Jacques Baudry: Spatial dimension in ecological and interdisciplinary research (20 min) Catherine Laurent: Spatial dimension in economics and interdisciplinary research (20 min) Break (10 min) Discussion 13.00 Lunch 14.00 Towards Synthesis

20. Convention for this workshop Pluridisciplinarity = collaboration between scientists belonging to different disciplines Interdisciplinarity = collaboration between scientists belonging to different disciplines and aiming at a better integration of their approaches Transdisciplinarity = collaboration between scientists belonging to different disciplines and aiming at a better integration of their approaches+ association of non- scientific partners

21. Why interdisciplinarity and not transdisciplinarity? Time Problems facing interdisciplinarity not only institutional ones We need to understand each other’s disciplines before we can successfully tackle transdisciplinarity: –how is knowledge constructed and tested in different disciplines? –what are the core hypotheses of different disciplines? –can we construct interdisciplinary “research programmes”?

22. Introducing participants Who you are? Where do you come from? Why are you interested in interdisciplinarity?

24. Transdisciplinarity is the examination of problems…. which have arisen in a sector outside of science whose solutions is considered to be urgent which are therefore deemed by the public to be relevant which are presented to science through institutional pathways to the solution of which scientific and non-scientific problem-solving capacities are contributing, above all by integrating stakeholders from the sectors of society which are affected directly of indirectly by the problems and questions at hand. Moll & Zander 2006

25. To include or not? Do we want to produce a consensus of opinion or examine “truth”

26. Rangeland Ecology Combinations of equilibrial, non-equilibrial and state-and–transition dynamics working at various spatial and temporal scales

27. Transdisciplinarity Transdisciplinarity develops a distinct but evolving framework to guide problem solving efforts. This is generated and sustained in the context of application and not developed first and then applied to that context later by a different group of practioners … Transdisciplinary knowledge develops its own distinct theoretical structures, research methods and mode of practice, though they may not be located on the prevailing disciplinary maps… Diffusion of the results occurs primarily as the original practitioners move to a new problem contexts rather than through reporting results in professional journals or at conferences … It is a problem solving capability on the move. It is marked especially but not exclusively by the ever closer interaction of knowledge production with a succession of problem contexts. Gibbons et al 1994