Openness to Social Science Knowledges? The Politics of Disciplinary Collaboration within the Field of UK Food Security Research

Abstract

This article explores a form of knowledge politics played out within and between universities and research institutes as sites of certified disciplinary expertise in the agro‐food domain. It investigates the openness of this domain to the expertise of the agro‐food social sciences particularly when challenge‐led research programmes require collaboration across disciplines. A case study is provided by the multi‐discipline field of food security research in the UK involving interviews with key stakeholders. The article examines how this research field’s disciplinary diversity is understood by key stakeholders. Interview data are analysed thematically in terms of the current and potential contribution of social science disciplines, the different ways in which stakeholders imagine social science research, and whether social scientists themselves recognise and align with these different imaginaries. The article concludes by arguing that the field of food security research in the UK is open only selectively to agro‐food social science knowledges and that this is likely to have negative implications for addressing the challenges of food security. Further, if the promise of collaborative working between disciplines in agro‐food research fields is to be made good then the emphasis of agro‐food knowledge politics scholarship and the governance of knowledge‐making needs to change.

Environmental imaginaries and the environmental sciences of antimicrobial resistance

“…Bringing other forms of expertise and experience to bear on the environmental dimension of AMR is therefore an important task within future work. In doing so, work on the research field of AMR and the environment is 'opened up' (Morris et al, 2019). That a move towards this is already happening is evidenced in UKRI's AMR research programme which requires a multi-disciplinary approach in the projects it funds.…”

Priorities for social science and humanities research on the challenges of moving beyond animal-based food systems

“…In this paper, we have described a research prioritisation process that was designed to develop capacity, mutual understanding and impact amongst researchers within the social sciences and humanities and to help coordinate research effort to address the societal grand challenge of moving beyond animal-based food systems. The process focused deliberately upon social sciences and humanities researchers in recognition of the more generally observed problem of selective openness to these disciplines within multi-discipline research programmes designed to address societal grand challenges (Morris et al, 2019). Organising the process in this way proved extremely worthwhile as it provided a dedicated space in which scholars had the freedom to identify collectively the most important research questions from their perspectives at a time when research funders are slowly beginning to acknowledge the need for research in this domain.…”

“…However, this is not a blanket recommendation. As Morris et al (2019) argue inter/trans-disciplinarity should always be approached critically even though this challenges dominant research governance discourses which naturalise these ways of producing knowledge. Whether the reframing of the topic as described here is suitable for the purposes of engaging a wider group of participants, or whether an alternative, less obviously contentious framing is needed is another matter to which the designers of future prioritisation exercises will need to pay close attention.…”

“…Addressing societal grand challenges can be viewed as a challenge in itself, requiring a willingness to explore new combinations of existing and novel approaches to knowledge production (Kuhlmann and Rip, 2018) as reflected in the frequent use of multi-, inter-and trans-disciplinary research programmes that bring together researchers from the natural sciences, social sciences and humanities as well as non-academic stakeholders (Efstathiou, 2016). However, it has been shown that this process can narrowly position or even mis-conceive the contribution of social sciences and humanities (Shove, 2010;Castree et al, 2014;Felt, 2014;Balmer et al, 2015), leaving such research programmes only 'selectively open' to the breadth of competencies and insights provided by these disciplines (Morris et al, 2019). This selective openness may impoverish, if not inhibit research impact.…”

Optimization and reflexivity in interdisciplinary agri-environmental scholarship

“…In Datta's (2018) experience on an interdisciplinary project, he found that respect, trust, vulnerability, attentiveness to others' feelings, professional flexibility, timely leadership, and courage were essential to a successful outcome. Adequately addressing these issues can be particularly challenging for many researchers, given the power asymmetries between different disciplines (Morris et al, 2019) and between academic ranks.…”