Working Together Across Disciplines

1. Working Together Across Disciplines Challenges for the Natural and Social Sciences David Chandler and Wyn Grant

2. Why collaboration is needed • Many global problems can only be addressed by such collaboration: • climate change, GM technology, stem cell therapy • Emphasis on evidence-based policy-making. • More public scrutiny of natural science.

3. Understanding & communication • Scientists must become better communicators. • Public understanding of scientific process (Hails & Dale, 2005). • Social scientists need to understand natural science & vice versa.. • Public value of science (Wilsdon et al., 2005)

4. The challenge for social & natural scientists • To develop a common language & effective methodological framework. • A key aim of the RELU programme & our project on biopesticides in particular.

5. The obstacles • Endogenous features of disciplines • e.g. ‘stick to what you know’, perceived theoretical incompatibilities. • Lack of a common framework within which to conduct research. • Structural features of universities and RAE. • Training and professional regulation.

6. Political science and biology: the possibilities of partnership • UK political science defined by eclecticism: ‘junction subject’ • Political science has drawn on social biology (W J M Mackenize). • Punctuated equilibrium models draw on evolutionary biology. (Baumgartner & Jones)

7. The opportunities of partnership • Political scientists interested in interactions between entities & setting. • Political science & biology have an interest in adaptation to environment. • Heightened importance of environment & life science issues creates new opportunities for collaboration.

8. Warwick: the learning curve • Biologists thought that political scientists may be identified with a particular political position. • Political scientists had little awareness of molecular or systems biology. • Use theories to drive and test hypotheses in similar ways.

9. The research wheel Theory Problem specification / Conceptual framework Conclusions & inference Hypotheses Empirical research deductive inductive

10. The practical solution • Reading literature from the other discipline and presenting it to team meetings. • Allowed understanding of methodologies and vocabularies. • Political scientists write more discursively.

11. Political & biological sciences: Some similar challenges • Debate in biological science about what constitutes a species. • Similar taxonomic dilemmas in study of politics. • Unit of analysis issues relate to risks of committing individual or ecological fallacies. • Scaling up problem in biology.

12. Some similarities & differences • Both disciplines use comparison • Controlled experiments norm in biology, role of model species. • Human behaviour more diverse: use the concept of the median voter but not identify one (the search for ‘Worcester woman’).

13. What each discipline gains • Political science can help with translating natural science evidence into policies. • Can help natural scientists to appreciate constraints faced by decision-makers. • Political scientists need scientific advice to participate effectively in highly technical regulatory debate.

14. What each discipline gains (2) • Knowledge of scientists about decision-making & policy networks could be placed in a more systematic framework • Political science helped biologists to be more deductive and theoretically guided. • A very positive experience thanks to the project team.

15. Thanks to: Justin Greaves, Gillian Prince & Mark Tatchell Thanks for your attention