IntSci Moderators: Topic 3 summary
Linking hard- and soft-researchers in Integrated Science - the
people side of things
(Wed 8 Mar - Fri 10 Mar)
In Topic 3 we have focused on a subset of the overall discussion on the theory and practice of science for sustainability. Here we explored the challenges, experiences and issues associated with bringing together disciplines commonly described as “hard” and “soft science”. The questions set up initially to help structure the conversation were as follows:
Question 7 - What are the commonly understood challenges of linking hard and soft researchers?
Question 8 - What are the novel experiences of trying to link hard and soft researchers?
Question 9 - Where do the benefits and burdens lie in linking hard and soft researchers?
Question 10 - How does the comparative lack of legitimacy of soft research methodologies (e.g., action research, appreciative inquiry, participatory evaluation) pose challenges for integrated research and what approaches have been used to legitimize them?)
Hard Science, soft science, or just science?
A common response of participants has been to question the usefulness of the terminology. “Hard and soft” are terms that have historical baggage, make distinctions that are unproductive, and reflect a dominant paradigm that is unsuited to a discussion around sustainability science, where we are “trying to do something new” [Terry Mctigue, Libby Robin, John Schooneveldt, Nagendra Harini]. Val Brown adds to this that concentrating on the divisions of science disciplines perpetuates part of the problem, i.e., the “dominance of within science dialogue” to the exclusion of the multiple knowledge sources necessary for complex problem solving. Others suggest that it is more useful to apply the terms hard and soft to problem situations or information [Chris Jacobsen, Ron McCormick]. David Walter Toews redefines the problem as “how do we accommodate or integrate multiple epistemologies which we need to do to make collective decisions”
The challenges and what we can do with them
M. Rafiqul Islam, suggests one of the principal challenges in working with differing epistemologies is the “attitude of individuals”. Alexander de Sherbinin adds that from his own experience in the areas of Global Environmental Change and Sustainable Development research that the natural sciences dominate control over budgets and while “there is genuine recognition on the part of natural scientists that expertise in human dimension is absolutely necessary…there is often some naivet* about how best to incorporate it”, coupled with a lack of recognition of the diversity within the field of social research . Others see the challenges at a group level as the lack of common language and shared definitions of concepts [Lars Vedso], and at an institutional level through the territorial nature of disciplines and departments [Cecilia Ferreyra]. A number of participants comment on the sheer effort and time required [Chrys Horn, Kelly Biendenweg, Roger Young, Nagendra Harini]
There is some distinction in the conversation between participants discussing the difficulties of working with multi-discipline/perspective teams, and with being interdisciplinary as an individual in study or work. As a biophysically trained researcher Cecilia Ferreyra offers her experiences moving into interdisciplinary work, noting the challenges as being beyond language differences to moving from a positivist to constructivist paradigm and requiring the development of “interactive skills”. This is echoed by Kelly Biendenweg who notes the substantively greater time and effort required to work in interdisciplinary work, while the rewards are clearly still preferentially biased towards discipline based efforts. Jen Shaffer contributes to this discussion by commenting on how “if we need to create a future in science where multi-disciplinary, transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary research is supported…a cadre of interdisciplinary problem solvers needs to be developed. The development of academic interdisciplinary programmes is one means of promoting this.
In response to bridging the divisions to bring together multi-disciplinary teams a number of participants suggest processes where those from different epistemological backgrounds focus on common problems, which exposes assumptions [Terry, McTigue, M. Rafiqul Islam, Alexander de Sherbinin, Phil Henshaw] and mitigate the effects of discipline specific jargon through ‘plain English dialogue [Libby Robin]. Others talk of developing mutual respect [Roger Young, Lars Vedso], and legitimizing perspectives through introducing different disciplines at an early stage and discussing the key issues of linking with others [Lars Vedson] . Still others suggest the need to accept the value of single disciplines within multiple voices and hence the need to facilitate dialogue through a moderator/facilitator [M. Rafiqul Islam]. Val Brown expands on Bohemian Rules, which need to be adopted personally by all participants, not just provided as a structure by a facilitator, and rather than overriding differences act to magnify these increasing the opportunity for learning, and the opening up to paradox and complexity. Wendy Gregory writes of her work with deliberative dialogue, as a social researcher within a biophysical research environment looking for a way to open scientists to the socio-ecosystemic aspects of the issues they work on.
Within this discussion there are also calls for a more holistic revision of science. Alexander de Sherbinin suggests a proactive, even normative view of science, with an ontology that includes ethical and moral considerations. Within this he suggests a focus on social systems rather than “human dimensions”, the need to talk about interaction rather than integration and comments that “multidisciplinary work involves not just putting each discipline together, but the restructuring of each discipline.
Burdens and Benefits
Richard Bawden adds to the discussion around challenges and needs for linking different epistemologies with a call for what he considers a key issue, i.e., a “critical epistemic awareness of all who are engaged in the quest for sustainability – citizen and scholar alike”. However, Chrys Horn questions the implementation of this in practice. Citing from her own experience as a social researcher in a dominantly biophysical research setting she notes the difficulties when “only one part of the partnership does it” and asks “what are the costs of that to those doing it when other partners are not?” She also asks “Why is it that some hard scientists get the idea that there are different world views that we need to be working with and why are some so difficult to reach with this idea?
Despite the challenges and difficulties raised in these discussions the benefits appear to many to be worth the effort. These include the appreciation of similarities and differences gained by people, increased respect for different disciplines, a pioneering spirit of focusing on a common objective, and the opportunity to open themselves to learning from one another [Lars Vedso, Roger Young, Chrys Horn, Chris Jacobsen]. In addition, others use the exposure to new ways of thinking to reflect on their own science, such as Nagendra Harini, an ecologist, who uses her new learning in the social sciences to conduct an internal dialogue to critique her generally accepted theoretical frameworks.
kind regards to all
Margaret Kilvington, Chrys Horn, Will Allen
IntSci Conference Managers
http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/social/IntSci_info.asp