Ce que l’interdisciplinarité fait aux disciplines

Abstract

L’essor de l’interdisciplinarité dans les sciences suscite de nombreuses interrogations quant à l’avenir des disciplines : dans quelle mesure demeurent-elles des unités centrales de différenciation des sciences ? Sont-elles amenées à disparaître ou à se recomposer sous l’effet de dynamiques scientifiques, et de pressions politiques, favorables à l’interdisciplinarité ? Cet article propose d’étudier les conséquences de la coopération interdisciplinaire sur les territoires et les frontières des disciplines. À la différence des travaux de sociologie des sciences qui abordent cette question, nous mettons moins l’accent sur les dimensions cognitives des disciplines que sur leurs dimensions sociales. En particulier, nous nous demandons dans quelle mesure l’interdisciplinarité peut représenter une ressource d’action et aider les disciplines en présence à consolider leurs institutions. Une étude empirique conduite sur la nanomédecine en France et en Californie nous amène à mettre en évidence deux éléments favorables au renforcement des territoires disciplinaires au contact de l’interdisciplinarité : d’une part, des pratiques interdisciplinaires propices au travail de démarcation vis-à-vis d’approches antérieures ou concurrentes ; d’autre part, la plasticité des frontières disciplinaires, qui autorise l’extension de la juridiction des disciplines.

Is interdisciplinarity distinctive? Scientific collaborations through research projects in natural sciences

“…At the disciplinary level, our findings follow the evidence that interdisciplinarity differs according to the plasticity and symbolic hierarchy of disciplines (Abbott, 1988; Louvel, 2015). On the side of chemistry, there is clear evidence of the plasticity of this discipline that favors its extension by the integration of biological issues, which allows chemists to distinguish themselves from competing approaches in life sciences: biology and medical natural sciences.…”

“…Interdisciplinarity has often been addressed through bibliometric and network analysis (Larivière and Gingras, 2014; Leydesdorff, 2007; Porter and Rafols, 2009; Rafols and Meyer, 2009). However, there has been little discussion of how practices differ according to the particularities of the disciplines involved, notably their degree of plasticity (Louvel, 2015). The literature tends to consider chemistry as a science without a ‘territory’ (Bensaude-Vincent and Stengers, 2001).…”

“…We assume that interdisciplinarity may function as a resource aiming at strengthening a dominant position by expanding one’s own network outside their disciplinary expertise (Bourdieu, 2018; Gingras, 2012), and therefore expand their jurisdiction, as it is the case with the collaborations of chemistry with biology (Abbott, 1988; Louvel, 2015). We also assume that less dominant scientists may benefit from the credibility of linked discipline (Strasser, 2006).…”

“…Concomitantly, the period witnesses an unprecedented development of the life sciences, whose recently acquired status as a 'big science' often requires large investments resulting in vast collaboration networks (Aggeri et al, 2007;Benninghoff and Leresche, 2003;Bonneuil, 2015;Gingras, 2018). At the end of the 20th century, the rise of molecular biology and biotechnologies has led many scholars in the natural, medical, and technical sciences to reorient themselves toward the field of life sciences (Gugerli et al, 2010;Louvel, 2015), and thus led to reconfigure the symbolic hierarchy of scientific disciplines in the natural sciences, especially between (organic) chemistry and (functional) biology (Benz, 2019;Magner, 2002;Morange, 2020;Strasser, 2006). Although recent research addresses the unavoidable epistemological debate about the resilience of evolutionary biology (Larregue et al, 2020;Meloni, 2016;Peterson, 2017), the second half of the 20th century was definitely marked by the undisputed rise of physicochemical approaches to life, hence the dominance of functional biology (Gros, 2012;Mayr, 1961;Stettler, 2002).…”