[automatically translated from the original]

• Summary:

• Context and justification:

Interdisciplinarity is a practical necessity in research, especially in cases of complex aggregation, and this is particularly true when adopting a public policy perspective. Public policies often intertwine different dimensions of the natural or environmental and the social, making it impossible to analyze situations related to them or to propose measures to address their disadvantages or avoid them without resorting to multiple fields of knowledge, which must necessarily engage in dialogue. However, successful dialogue cannot be achieved through the mere adoption of a “practical position”, as it is not even certain that such a position can be easily adopted. Our practical attitude primarily unfolds within our disciplinary traditions. For example, considering an object like the Great Green Wall, an economist may demonstrate that for every dollar invested, there is a 1.2 dollar increase in the resources of the concerned populations. However, this response does not validate its interest in terms of reforestation. To understand its impact, one must be able to measure the increase in green mass (using satellite data). Yet, to determine if this increase is attributable to reforestation, one must also consult data related to rainfall over a certain period, since an increase in rainfall could concurrently be the cause of the increase in green mass. The phenomenon of interest thus encompasses different sectors of the socio-environmental reality, none of which can be conclusively considered in isolation.

The multidimensional nature of our phenomena invites an interdisciplinary approach. Initially, it is essential to provide an adequate description of this approach, which necessarily implies an “epistemological” perception of our disciplines, which operate on methodologies we have ceased to question in terms of how they address reality. This questioning should probably occur at the level of this addressing, rather than at the level of conclusions, for the interdisciplinary approach to position itself effectively. Next, it is necessary to adopt a common language or koinè. This involves understanding how scientific communities function internally and how exchanges between members of different communities occur in situ and contextually. This entails both a conceptual inquiry (the logic of language games in context) and a sociological inquiry into interactions between professionals involved.

Given the specific goals of IPORA, a third epistemic aspect related to interdisciplinarity involves transactions between different professional epistemic communities and public policy makers. Similar to the interdisciplinary approach, we are dealing with a koinè, i.e., the search for a common language between two categories of actors: scientists and public actors, who are likely interested in the practical effects of interdisciplinarity since public policy involves findings (linked to scientific disciplines), a priori solutions (also linked to scientific disciplines), normative production (use of the law), forecasting (statistical models), anticipation of social acceptability (related to anthropology and sociology), and political risks (related to political science).

• Objectives:

The first objective is to conduct concrete analyses of interdisciplinarity as practices articulating epistemic communities and to understand the keys to their successful conditions.

The second objective is to comprehend how these articulations produce an object (standardized characteristics, procedures, etc.) that can be assimilated by public actors; in other words, how they manufacture a public policy prescription.

The third objective is to pave the way for a praxeological analysis of the reception of scientific statements by the public, which is too often limited to cognitivist approaches focused on biases and scientific illiteracy among ordinary society members.

The fourth objective is to communicate with stakeholders about the mechanisms that ensure the successful function of interdisciplinarity and the articulation of scientific work with public policies, which cannot be mere application measures. This communication aims to disseminate best practices.

• Primary methods:

Several methods will be utilized, including ethnographic methods (observation of communities), propaedeutic interviews (information gathering on activities), semi-structured interviews (actor positioning with respect to activities), and bibliometrics (necessary for reviewing interdisciplinary publications).

The work is primarily ethnomethodological, focusing on the analysis of conversation, where the meaning of statements is inseparable from their contextualization and structuring into “turns of speech”. Ethnography will follow interactions, particularly their linguistic content. Scientific meetings, conferences, seminars, and IPORA team workshops will be the main investigation field. Wherever possible, with participant consent, exchanges will be recorded and transcribed. Methodological sections of articles adopting an interdisciplinary approach will also be analyzed beyond bibliometrics, through ethnomethodology, which also allows for investigation of written materials. Semi-structured interviews will serve a preparatory purpose, providing access to technical information and general ideas about interdisciplinarity. These interviews will be exhaustive, conducted with all researchers directly involved in IPORA activities. Bibliometrics will help objectify the challenges of an interdisciplinary approach by focusing on journals, highlighting the epistemological disciplining of researchers by publication possibilities and criteria used in journals.