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: – ‘1st wave’: evolutionary game

theory.

– ‘2nd 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.

year

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020N

o. r

egis

tere

d co

mpo

unds

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

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

deductiveinductive

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/