Science, Society, Interdisciplinary C-studies

YSS - 31306 Philosophy of Sciences                                   MSc Development & Rural Innovation

Dr. Leon Pijnenburg                                Essay                                                  Vincent Delobel

Wageningen University                                                         Period 2, Academic year 2012-2013

Science, Society and Interdisciplinary Case-studies

Introduction 

Through the history of science, several debates about how to conduct research and produce knowledge properly have animated academic communities. In addition, the relation between these communities and the rest of society has always been a topic for discussions. In this course, we tried to understand the different points of view, the conflicting opinions, and their implications on the way to build knowledge. In this essay, I report my own reflections about these issues. To do so, I attempt to link the debates between constructivism and realism, naturalism and interpretivism, the discussions we had in class during this course as well as during other courses and my own experience both at university and on my parents’ farm where we experiment agroecological techniques. In this paper, three parts succeed each other. First, I report my thoughts about the relation between science and society.  Secondly, I tackle the implications of the debate between constructivism and realism on the interdisciplinary studies. Finally, through the example of the study of agroforestry systems, I try to show the scientific relevance of case studies as a result of these different debates.

1.    Science and Society

When I arrived at University, as a young student, I was impressed by the size of the institution and its long history. Since 1425, many people have gathered to develop knowledge, to build theories, to discover and understand new phenomena. I felt the weight of this heritage and the sophistication of this social institution that focused on knowledge production during centuries. The first Monday, I went to the ceremony where the Rector declares the beginning of the academic year. During this ceremony, various lecturers gave speeches and most of them used the term “academic community”. At that moment, I understood that as smart all those people are, they gather to develop even more their knowledge and they consider themselves as a community. Also, they agree on a code of conduct that rules the research activities and their ethical implications. Moreover, they defined three fundamental missions [1] for their entity: to educate, to research and to contribute to society.

After the discussions we had in class, the level of the social actor seems to be the most appropriate to think about how we learn and understand. Indeed, this phenomenon takes place in the mind of each of us but, we are never alone during this process. Obviously, we could not learn without the other members of our social networks (family, friends, colleagues…) and the rest of the world (animals, plants, material things).  They all contribute to the development of our language, our cognitions, our representations, our feelings, etc. We learn through our relations with others, through interaction.

Also, the social actors’ reasons for developing knowledge can be multiple and of different natures. As human beings, we need to solve everyday life problems, to (attempt to) answer existential questions, to understand and to predict both natural and social phenomena. These sources of motivations do not only exist at an individual level; collective imperatives can also demand that we develop knowledge. Thus, social organizational issues such as common goods exploitation require developing knowledge on social interactions as well as predictions of the natural processes. 

Moreover, the struggle for survival exerts pressure on social actors and communities not only to develop but also to transmit bodies of knowledge over generations (Steiner, 2002[2]) and to make them more robust, i.e. to describe, explain or accurately predict. The issue of transmission matters less in the epistemological debate between realism and constructivism; I will instead focus on the second issue that we tackled during the class discussion.

In fact, among our lecturers, there is an agreement on the possibility to compare the knowledge in terms of robustness. Some are more resistant to reality and/or to time than others; some gather stronger evidence than others. The main issue is how to evaluate this robustness.  Already, two streams of thoughts can be distinguished. On the one hand, the criterion of external validity illustrates the idea that a statement, as an attempt to put in words how things really are, is true if it fits the reality. Thus, it is possible to produce true statements about the reality and we can test them out there in order to make them closer to reality. On the other hand, the criterion of internal validity is defined as “the extent to which the structure of a research design enables us to draw unambiguous conclusions from our results” (de Vaus, 2001[3], p.28). This idea insists more on the internal strength of the knowledge production as a construction process. As well, the criteria of internal consistency demands that the statement is not self-contradictory (Manon, 2008[4]); the statement, as a construction of mind(s), should fit the mind’s logics.

As we can imagine, the issue of robustness is of such important that it leads to strong debates and the creation of methodological standards, of rules, of “schools” within the academic world. The achievements of natural sciences due to the success of their rigorous methods contributed to the institutionalization of the scientific activity: the knowledge production became more and more reserved to “scientists”.  Building upon predecessors’ achievements, the “scientists” accumulate more and more complex knowledge about the world. This scientific community is seen as centralized, distinct from the world but produces knowledge about it and tests its hypothesis “in the real world”. It is clear that the world has a lot of different aspects and dimensions. Their study leaded to the creation of different disciplines i.e. transtemporal sub-communities of scientists; the scientists got specialized in particular fields of study, trained to specific research methods. Nevertheless, the third mission of University is to contribute to society. Does it mean that the academic community considers itself as related or/but distinct from the rest of the world?

The criticisms against this “centralized” conception of science are legion: please scientists, come back to reality.  In fact, the scientists are not the only social actors that produce knowledge; there are many other actors and entities among society (i.e. the studied world) that try to know the world better, to solve real problematic situations. More and more, this “other social actors” want the scientific community not only to “enlighten” them but also to listen to “their reality” in order to do research in a more relevant way. These issues challenge both the specialization process and the idea of knowledge accumulation. Already, we can perceive some manifestation of the underlying debate between constructivism and realism.

2.    Realism, constructivism and interdisciplinary studies

Rapidly, the capacity of specialized scientists to solve real world, contextually embedded problems showed its limits. In facts, these problematic situations can be understood from many different points of views and analyzed differently by different scientists from various academic disciplines. Different disciplines give answers that are sometimes contradictory. Such challenges require interdisciplinary studies in order to get closer to reality of actors; they demand that scientists are not only specialists but also generalists to help them better. But is it so easy to conciliate those different answers, causal explanations, predictions? What are the realist and constructivist points of view on this issue?

In the “realistic” point of view, the world exists on its own and we can know truth about this independent reality. It assumes that the truth exists in the real world (i.e. outside there) and it implies that we can discover it by experiencing reality. The methods of natural sciences characterized notably by testing, in the real world, hypotheses developed by the scientist have been strongly influenced by this point of view.

Thus, based on these assumptions, interdisciplinary studies would be easy. In fact, the unique reality, the real world out there, is the unique source of truth for scientists. The truth would be unique and the different academic disciplines would only be different ways to study a single reality, to reach a unique body of true knowledge. Apparently, this assumption prevents from all coordination problems between the different disciplines. In fact, interdisciplinary studies encounter a lot of such difficulties and lead to question this radical realistic point of view.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, Constructivists consider truth more as an agreement of minds than an independent reality out there that we have to discover. Thus, different social actors accept, agree on, believe in human-made statements that they consider as true. According to these assumptions, different “truth” can coexist. Each scientific discipline, as group of human beings, develops its own truth expressed in its own language, centered on a shared domain of study. Although the radical constructivism blurs some fundamental boundaries and considers that the world does not exist on its own, the constructivist approaches as a whole give some insight that can help to understand the difficulties interdisciplinary studies encounter. By tolerating the coexistence of different truth, this kind of approach can more easily bring together different disciplines, entry points, analyzes in order to study a single problematic situation. Although all the problems of conciliation and coherence are not solved, the constructivism criticisms lead to accept the coexistence of different truth instead of considering their conflict as necessary. Nevertheless, I think that this conception of science activity faces two main issues:  the one of generalization and the use of knowledge as a weapon.

Firstly, the constructivist approaches consider all knowledge as constructions contextually embedded. On the opposite of radical realist approaches, they do not seek to provide universally true laws. By giving such importance to the context, these approaches reduce the possibilities to generalize the statements they produce.  Case studies are particularly relevant to illustrate the local construction of knowledge. The case study is a research design that aim to draw the full picture of one case, one problematic situation by considering it as a whole and to find local patterns. This research design considers particularly the context in which the phenomenon takes place and seeks to understand it as completely as possible. By doing so, the case studies are far from providing us with universal laws, patterns that we easily generalize. This does not correspond at all to the objective of positivist nor realist epistemology. Nevertheless, the case studies are still connected to each other; they all take place in a particular scientific or more broadly societal debate to which they seek to bring insights, pieces of evidence, arguments, etc.

Secondly, by considering knowledge production as a construction process, the Constructivism highlights the existence of a purpose in every scientific activity. In this vein, knowledge can be seen as a weapon, a way to make others accept, to convince. The efforts made to construct and spread the knowledge can be supported by a subjective intention, an interest contextually embedded. In additon, previous findings and theories are sometimes reused, reworked, recycled into new arguments to convince in current debates. This issue is more visible in constructivist approaches that explicitly recognize it. On the other hand, realist approaches tend to hide it behind the efforts they made to be neutral. They claim to seek to be objective and value-free but they are often criticized for their “hidden politics”.

Thus, the interdisciplinary studies and the criticisms of realism lead to rethink the relation between science and society and particularly the role of “experts”. Moreover, the current issues of sustainable agriculture, climate change, chronic hunger etc. demand interdisciplinary approaches in order to provide societies with relevant solutions. Indeed, both social and natural processes are often intertwined in these issues. Also, the context of local “problematic situations” really matters. So, what kind of epistemology do we need to scientifically respond to these issues?

3.    Agroforestry and Case studies

In order to bring elements of answer to this fundamental question, I will focus on a scientific domain I am particularly interested in and which is related to several of these “tomorrow challenges”: the study of agroforestry systems.

Firstly, let us go back to the epistemological debate. According to A. Comte, the main aim of scientific activities is to predict phenomena. To do so implies to uncover universal and underlying laws that “govern” the relation between phenomena. This positivist point of view considers a theory or a concept as “scientific” only if it is able of being verified empirically. Thus, the positivist philosophers adopted a very restricted definition of scientific activity that does not fit well to social scientific domains.

In fact, in social sciences, there is nearly no law that meets really the criteria natural sciences demand. In the study of human societies, we can observe regularities, similar patterns among research units. Nevertheless, the importance of the context (we study embedded phenomena and situated actors), its changing properties (societies change over time), and the complexity of phenomena (numerous interactions) make it impossible for the researcher to conduct experiments in theoretically controlled environment.

In addtion the study of agroforestry systems implies the understanding of agroecosystems, i.e. not only the one of ecological processes but the one of social dynamics also. In these systems, humans play a central role in the combination of the biochemical processes, in the improvement of their functioning and in fine in the design of the ecosystems. In fact, human action is central to regulate the interactions between the different components of these agroecosystems and to enhance its productivity toward selected goals by converting ecological processes into beneficial inputs for crops and wood production as well as for other ecosystem services. The agroforestry, as an agricultural practice, embodies the idea of multifunctional agriculture; by mixing plant (tree, crop and sometimes animal) species, this practice seeks to fulfill several functions at the ecosystem level according to the local population’s needs. Thus, this single practice can be concretized in various ways, adapted to different ecological and socioeconomic contexts.

At the end of the Agroforestry course I took this period, we had interesting discussions about epistemological issues; in the following paragraph, I report my personal thoughts. As a scientific domain, the study of agroforestry systems encounters also the problems brought by an uncontrolled environment and a huge number of factors and interactions. The local ecological conditions and the characteristics of local human communities that live in the ecosystem are such important that even natural laws become contextual. Thus, the general statements such as “agroforestry increases soil fertility”, even produced by rigorous experimentation, are not helpful anymore.  Most of our lecturers were natural scientists that tried to uncover laws or at least patterns in this domain of study but they told us that, in reality, it all depends. In fact, the actual functioning of these agroecosystems results from trade-off decisions farmers made; numerous factors sometimes considered as “the context” really matter. In my opinion, the kind of situation shows the academic relevance of case studies. Through a situated analysis, this research design seeks to identify the factors that play an actual role in a particular situation (defined in space and time) and to understand how the mechanisms take place in natural conditions. According to the lecturers, in the study of agroforestry systems, science becomes very powerful in case studies; deep and situated analysis can contribute to solve real-life problems better than conclusions of artificial experiments. Moreover, as we discussed above, case studies are connected to each other and actively contribute to scientific debates. 

In addition, the epistemological debate has implications on the issue of the role of science in society also. In the discourses about development, knowledge has been often used as a weapon in political battle fields at the international level as well as the social actors’ level. In my opinion, the Green Revolution discourse spread universal agronomical laws and principles translated into practices from the center (the “developed” countries, agricultural “experts”) to the periphery (“underdeveloped” countries, farmers who need to be enlightened). Today, in reaction to that, agroecology as an alternative discourse is characterized by situated production of knowledge and horizontal exchanges among farmers. The epistemological characteristics of case studies seem to respond to criticism of radical naturalist, positivist, and realist approaches and fit into other discourses and relations between science and society.

Conclusions

This essay consists in reflections gathered in three parts that succeed and respond to each other. First, I began with the process of knowledge production in itself, its location at the social actor’s level and the construction of academic communities. Then, I tackled the relation between these communities and society insisting particularly on three processes: the institutionalization, the centralization and the specialization. I reported also the criticisms formulated by non-academic actors and the idea of a less centralized conception of Science.  In the second part, I tackled the implications of the debate between constructivism and realism on the interdisciplinary studies. In fact, the current global issues (chronic hunger, climate change, sustainable development etc.) demand such studies but two issues pop up: the tension between the importance of the context and the will of generalization on the one hand, the purpose of every research activity and the value-free claim on the other hand. Finally, through the example of the study of agroforestry systems, I try to show the scientific relevance of case studies as a result of these different debates. Taking the positivist point of view as a starting point, I tried to sum up the characteristics and the requirements of social sciences and then the ones of the study of agroforestry systems that involves the understanding of both social and natural processes. This scientific domain questions the relevance of general statements, even produced by rigorous experimentation, but that are not helpful anymore. In fact, the context of every case matters greatly; the case studies are relevant ways to scientifically investigate such situations.

____________________

 

References

·         de Vaus D. (2001), Research Design in Social Research, Sage Publications Ltd, London, 296pp. ISBN: 9780761953470.

·         Manon S. (2008), A quoi reconnait-on qu’une théorie est scientifique ?. On Philolog.fr, web page consulted on 2/12/2012. http://www.philolog.fr/a-quoi-reconnait-on-quune-theorie-est-scientifique/.

·         Steiner G. (2002), Extraterritorialité, Essais sur la littérature et la révolution du langage, Hachette Littératures, Paris. ISBN : 2.01.279131.X.

·         Université catholique de Louvain, Le mot du Recteur, web page consulted on Nov. 20th, 2012. http://www.uclouvain.be/12537.html

---

[1] Université catholique de Louvain, Le mot du Recteur, web page consulted on Nov. 20^th, 2012. http://www.uclouvain.be/12537.html

[2] Steiner G. (2002), Extraterritorialité, Essais sur la littérature et la révolution du langage, Hachette Littératures, Paris. ISBN : 2.01.279131.X.

[3]de Vaus D. (2001), Research Design in Social Research, Sage Publications Ltd, London, 296pp. ISBN: 9780761953470.

[4] Manon S. (2008), A quoi reconnait-on qu’une théorie est scientifique ?. On Philolog.fr, web page consulted on 2/12/2012. http://www.philolog.fr/a-quoi-reconnait-on-quune-theorie-est-scientifique/.