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’).
Warwick RELU research:
A practical example
Environmental & regulatory
sustainability of biopesticides.
Pesticides have many benefits, but …
• Resistance, new chemistry expensive.
• Integrated Pest Management.
• Microbial control agents:
– Desirable characteristics.
– Poor uptake in UK & EU.
No. registered compounds
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020
year
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.
Politics
Stakeholders
Evaluation of
costs & benefits
Biology of
Production Systems
Impact on biological data
requirements
Regulation
Research processes & methodologies
• 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?
The research wheel in social & natural sciences
deductive
Theory
inductive
Problem specification /
Conceptual framework
Conclusions &
inference
Hypotheses
Empirical research
Dominant models : neo-positivism & critical realism
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/