Development studies and cross-disciplinarity: Research at the social science–physical science...

Journal of International Development

J. Int. Dev. 20, 751–767 (2008)

Published online in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/jid.1494

DEVELOPMENT STUDIES ANDCROSS-DISCIPLINARITY: RESEARCHAT THE SOCIAL SCIENCE–PHYSICAL

SCIENCE INTERFACE

ANDY SUMNER1* and MICHAEL TRIBE2

1Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK2Bradford Centre for International Development, University of Bradford, UK and

Department of Econimics, University of Strathclyde, UK

Abstract: Cross-disciplinarity is widely accepted in the Development Studies (DS) com-

munity, but has principally been interpreted within the social sciences. However, much of the

research, practical planning and evaluation studies, and teaching/training in DS involves cross-

disciplinarity between the social and physical sciences. We consider the extent of this wider

variant of cross-disciplinarity, review factors inhibiting cross-disciplinary collaboration, and

explore implications relating to ‘single discipline analysis’ central to the interest of DS. Our

main conclusions are that cross-disciplinarity between social and physical sciences is central

to DS activity, and that disciplines, subject areas or knowledge communities need to be modest

in defining their ‘boundaries’ and flexible in encouraging cross-disciplinary collaboration.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: cross-disciplinarity; multi-disciplinarity; inter-disciplinarity; Development

Studies; social sciences; physical sciences; research methodology; epistemology

1 INTRODUCTION

Development Studies (DS) [is] the study of the interface of society and nature[that is

to say DS] addresses complex problems at the nature–society interface and thus has

to deal with issues in which phenomena of different ontological status are inter-

linked. Moreover, the discourse is characterised by a great diversity of perspectives

and views on the world, knowledge and research processes. Under these frame

*Correspondence to: Andy Sumner, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9RE,UK. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

752 A. Sumner and M. Tribe

conditions, synthesis and generation of common understanding becomes a challenge

(Molteberg and Bergstrøm, 2000, pp. 6–7).

Many of the issues which DS research seeks to address necessitate cross-disciplinarity.

While many people within the DS community are accustomed to cross-disciplinarity

within the social sciences, fewer extend cross-disciplinarity to the physical sciences.1

Given that DS researchers and practitioners are centrally focussed on improving standards

of living of the poor and marginalised many of whom are rural based and dependent in

some way or other upon natural resources for their livelihoods, a concern with the physical

world and its interaction with the social world is essential (Morton and Martin, 2004).

Regardless of whether we are dealing with urban or rural locations, development is about

well-being and what people can do, be and feel (McGregor, 2006, p. 1). What people can

do, be and feel and both their physiological and their physiological well-being very much

rely on physical systems as well as social systems.

We seek in this paper to identify (i) what factors inhibit cross-disciplinary DS research and

teaching including what Molteberg and Bergstrøm (2000) call differing ‘framing conditions’

(i.e. the worldview or ontological and epistemological assumptions) particularly in the

context of collaboration between social and physical scientists and (ii) the extent towhich DS

research and teaching can address these inhibiting factors in order to synthesise the insights

of diverse disciplines and to generate common understandings.

Section 2 discusses the nature of DS and cross-disciplinarity itself. Section 3 discusses

the factors which inhibit cross-disciplinary DS research and teaching and what insights

post-positivism may bring to DS. In light of this discussion Section 4 considers a case

study of water provision with some additional references to aspects of the environment

and development. Section 5 concludes with some tentative suggestions for ways to

proceed.

2 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES AND CROSS-DISCIPLINARITY

There is a burgeoning literature on the nature of DS (Molteberg and Bergstrøm, 2000;

Harriss, 2002; Loxley, 2004; Tribe and Sumner, 2004; Hulme and Toye, 2006; Sumner and

Tribe, 2008). Three common domains or continua emerge from this literature:

� T

1T2Ssimshec‘no

Co

he foci of DS: DS is about development (however defined).

� T
he purpose of DS: DS is generally instrumental (in some form of other—i.e. DS seeks
to ‘make a difference’).2

� T
he approach of DS: DS seeks to cross-disciplinary to a considerable extent.
The first domain or continuum, about the foci of ‘development’ can be sub-divided into

three sub-domains: (a) disinterested analysis of ‘development’ as a process of structural

societal change (such as urbanisation or industrialisation), (b) analysis of the achievement

his paper develops and extends issues and discussions presented in Sumner and Tribe (2008).ometimes the ‘instrumental’ role of DS is described as being ‘normative’. This is usually intended to refer

ply to a commitment to policy and practice and to welfare improvements. This use of the word ‘normative’ould not confused with its more rigorous use in economics where it means being the obverse of ‘positive’. Inonomics the ‘positive’ approach is regarded as being ‘value-free’, although this view is contestable, while thermative’ approach is regarded as involving implicit or explicit value judgements or opinions.

pyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Int. Dev. 20, 751–767 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/jid

Development Studies and Cross-Disciplinarity 753

of specific development outcomes (such as the Millennium Development Goals—the

MDGs) or (c) as a dominant discourse (such as the promotion of Western modernity as

desirable in post-colonial societies). This sub-division can be viewed as a continuum with

value-free analysis at one end (development as societal change—the change itself

unspecified) and with value-laden analysis at the other end (development as

‘modernisation’).

The second domain can again be placed within a continuum—of purpose—from

research and teaching based on theory, abstraction and analysis which includes limited

instrumentality at one end of the continuum to research and teaching with high policy

relevance and instrumentality at the other (such as evaluation studies or action-based

studies).

The third domain, the primary concern of this paper, is about cross-disciplinary insights

and it can also be placed in a continuum—of approaches—multi-disciplinary, inter-

disciplinary and trans-disciplinary research (each denoting an increasing level of

integration between constituent disciplines). To clarify at the outset: cross-disciplinarity

is a generic term meaning any kind of mixing of disciplines. Multi-disciplinarity entails

researchers in teams conducting research from their own disciplinary viewpoint and

where the team as a whole includes researchers from a number of disciplines. Inter-

disciplinarity is a step further towards integration, rather than the co-existence of different

disciplines (the disciplines are still discernable but some level of deeper integration is

evident). Individuals within teams seek to integrate concepts and methodologies and the

individual researchers are based primarily in one discipline but will have familiarity with

at least a second discipline. Trans-disciplinarity relates to complete integration of two or

more disciplines with the possibility of forming a new discipline.3 However, whether we

should even think of disciplines is itself open to question. In their recent contribution,

Hulme and Toye (2006, pp. 1095–1096) prefer to speak not of disciplines but of

‘knowledge communities’ or ‘a network of knowledge-based experts who share an

interest in a subset of knowledge issues, and who accept common procedural protocols as

criteria to judge the success of their knowledge creation activities’. They argue what

matters is consensus within the community on aims and methods.4

Contemporary DS has often been described as some combination of one or more social

science disciplines and subjects such as economics, sociology, anthropology, politics,

human geography and perhaps philosophy and psychology (Jackson, 2002; Kanbur, 2002).

The combination is not routinely perceived to extend to physical sciences.5 The

positionality of the authors here is as economists seeking to be cross-disciplinary. Arguably

economists have more in common with physical scientists (notably epistemologically) than

other social scientists. Many economists regard their research, writing and teaching as

being parts of an objective search for simple, universal laws within a positivist approach.

DS has often experienced palpable tensions between economics and other social sciences

3These conceptualisations of DS have been represented in Molteberg and Bergstrøm’s perception of cross-disciplinary concepts with ‘additive’ approaches at one end (multi-disciplinarity) and fully ‘integrative’approaches at the other end (trans-disciplinarity) (2000, p. 11). See for further discussion Kanbur (2002, p. 483).4Thus, DS might be thought of as a ‘knowledge community’ which draws on other cross-cutting ‘knowledgecommunities’ including social policy, environmental studies, gender studies and post-colonial studies. For manywho work in DS poverty is the central focus of the subject area, and even those who would take a broader view ofDS are very much concerned with improvements in standards of living and in human conditions.5This may partly be because social scientists do not regularly perceive the need to extend the combination ofdisciplines and subjects to the physical sciences. Where collaboration is needed within DS it is often the physicalscientists rather than the social scientists who perceive this need more strongly. This issue will become clearer inthe context of the roles of Cairncross and of Bradley set out in the Annex to this paper.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Int. Dev. 20, 751–767 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/jid


perhaps due to its dominant position in development thinking and within development

agencies in particular (Harriss, 2002; Kanbur, 2002, 2006; Loxley, 2004).6 However, many

of the fundamental advances over the last 40 years in the course of the evolution of DS into

a form of cross-disciplinarity have been led (rather than resisted) by development

economists such as Amartya Sen and others). Furthermore, many of the criticisms of

‘mainstream’ economics have come from within the economics profession and from

development economists in particular.7

3 WHAT INHIBITS CROSS-DISCIPLINARITY IN DEVELOPMENT

STUDIES?

We would argue that cross-disciplinarity is inhibited by at least two key inter-related

factors. First, at a basic level, a lack of communication (or of at least speaking to those

outside ones own discipline) due to institutional structures, incentives and the ‘political

economy’ of research itself. Second, an inability to reconcile differing world views or

‘framing condition’ such as assumptions on reality and ‘credible’ knowledge production

processes across disciplines.

On the first, DS is reasonably well placed to deal with reconciling communication

because departments and research centres of DS typically have a range of disciplines

covered by their staff. Although many DS researchers do not work in dedicated DS centres

and working in the same department is no guarantee of smooth communication of course!

Outside dedicated DS centres institutional and incentive structures differ between

disciplines and might discourage collaboration between disciplines or knowledge

communities even within the same department or centre. Incentives for cross-disciplinarity

may be limited because careers are rewarded by working within, and abiding by, the

prevailing notions of ‘high quality’ research and teaching within a particular discipline in

order to publish in the journals of that discipline. DS is also well placed here because it has

many cross-disciplinary journals although some might argue economics still has a

dominant role (see below).

To a large extent universities are organised around disciplines, as are professional

associations, journals, library classifications and research funding bodies that shape and

frame career and organisational incentives. Much of the identity of a researcher or

university teacher is derived from their prime discipline, which provides a ‘comfort zone’

or ‘low risk’ career strategy, with regular communication and collaboration between

people who understand and speak the same disciplinary language. Gould (2003), drawing

on 7th century Greek poetry, argues that scholars are either hedgehogs or foxes. Hedgehogs

stick to a single effective strategy throughout their academic careers. In contrast, foxes

devise many strategies throughout their academic career. Foxes are thus more likely to

cross-disciplines. However, the fox which is within many academics remains hidden

6Woolcock (2007, p. 64) goes as far as to note ‘there can be little doubt that, for better or worse, economics is thelingua franca or international development’. Some economists would probably suggest that economics should notbe regarded as a social science in the same sense as the other constituent disciplines of DS. Evidence for thedominance of economics would include Broad’s (2006) exploration of the World Bank’s research department’sactivities over the last few years. Further evidence is provided by the remark that the World Bank-initiated GlobalDevelopment Network has been ‘dominated by the economics discipline’ (Clift, 2002, p. 475).7In this context it is, of course, necessary to distinguish between research and journal papers which can be regardedas representing the ‘theoretical frontiers’ of DS, and the content of entry-level (or even advanced) teaching texts.


DOI: 10.1002/jid


because scholarly career structures are typically built for hedgehogs working work within

closely defined disciplinary boundaries, and career rewards are linked to respect for these

boundaries. The fox within may emerge in the later stages of an academic career after a

researcher has become well established or even after retirement (which loosens

institutional constraints).8

DS is—arguably—reasonably well placed to deal with the reconciliation of differing

framing conditions due to its own diversity. The foci of DS might be regarded as having a

tendency towards positivism due to the implicit assumption that all developing countries

share some common characteristics, or alternatively it might tend towards relativist

approaches because of the highly diverse political, social, economic and cultural contexts.

The purpose of DS might suggest a tendency towards positivism, related to the search for

policy conclusions, solutions and generalisable laws, but on the other hand there could be a

tendency towards relativism because of the use of an applied or instrumental point of

departure. The approach of DS then is where we seek to reconcile these differing

epistemological positions in the process of combining disciplines in a form of cross-

disciplinarity.

In contemporary DS both positivism and relativism have a clear influence. Positivism,

for example, has a descriptive function in measuring and quantifying phenomena and also

has an analytical function in the type of quantitative modelling (Dollar and Kraay, 2002,

2004 on the relationship between economic growth and poverty reduction is an example

but this has been criticised—see Amann et al., 2006). Relativism also has a strong

influence in the interpretation and understanding of development through discourses

such as the post-development critique, and also in the rise of participatory approaches

to research in DS (e.g. Escobar, 1995 on post-development and Narayan et al., 2002 on

PPA).

The use of ‘evidence’ in health policy formation in developing countries is one

interesting example of a ‘collision’ between physical and social sciences. In health policy

research and practice, there is a well-held perception of a ‘hierarchy of evidence’ within the

terms of accepted methodologies. ‘Hard’ evidence is regarded as objective and

quantitative. In contrast, ‘soft’ evidence is that which is subjective and qualitative.

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and systematic reviews of RCTs, are at the top of this

hierarchy while ‘expert’ opinion and anecdotal evidence are at the bottom (Davies and

Nutley, 2004, p. 480).

Upshur et al. (2001, p. 94) have proposed a model of health policy ‘evidence’ to

demonstrate how different types of ‘evidence’ predominate in different disciplines. Their

model has four quadrants each with details of what kind of research is seen as credible in

different disciplines. The vertical axis is methodology (meaning to measurement) and the

horizontal axis is context (particular to general context). The four quadrants are then

qualitative personal (concrete/historical), qualitative general (concrete/social), quantitative

personal (personal/mathematics) and quantitative general (impersonal/mathematics).

Upshur et al. argue that each of these dominated in different disciplines. The first in clinical

medicine, the second in social sciences, the third in clinical epidemiology and the fourth in

economics and political science.

In short, what constitutes ‘good’ (i.e. reliable) knowledge in physical science—in the

above example in health—is based on the research process. Within health research

different disciplines emphasise different methodological and contextual approaches. RCTs

8See for further discussion Sumner and Tribe (2008).


DOI: 10.1002/jid


are currently perceived as the ‘gold standard’ in clinical epidemiology, however, the RCT

approach would be much more difficult to use—arguably impossible in certain

circumstances—in the social sciences. A focus on randomised and controlled situations

raises issues relating to objectivity in the research process, in academic writing and

teaching and in the pursuit of rigour. In addition, there are different levels of certainty and

‘closure’ in physical sciences as compared with the social sciences for which the obverse

consists of different levels of uncertainty.

The concept of degrees of certainty/uncertainty introduced in the above discussion on

RCTs in health policy research raises much deeper questions for cross-disciplinary DS.

There is a need for common ground on which to proceed and post-positivism may provide a

way forward with such common epistemological grounds for DS.

Post-positivism is a recent formation and is a humbler form of positivism. It (perhaps

surprisingly) demonstrates parallels between quantum physics in the physical sciences

and in some ways aspects of post-modernism theory in the social sciences. It argues

that knowledge acquisition should be based on the establishment of probabilistic

propositions rather than on certainty; for relative objectivity rather than absolute

objectivity and for the achievement of approximate truth rather than of ‘total’ truth. It

additionally argues there are a range of potential or possible observations that collapse into

one only at the act of observation itself and that the observer and the observed creates

reality by observing.

Post-positivism is associated with quantum physicists, Heisenberg and Bohr amongst

others, and is linked to the ‘uncertainty principle’ (Heisenberg, 1927; Bohr, 1958) which is

based on the fact that there is a mathematical limit to the accuracy with which things can be

observed in the physical world. For example, Heisenberg (1927) argued that it is

impossible to determine both the position and momentum of subatomic particles with any

real accuracy and furthermore, that the observed particle is altered by the very act of being

observed. This therefore challenges the notion that the observer (researcher) and the

observed (researched) are independent.9 Further, many fundamental theoretical constructs

within the physical sciences have never been observed empirically at all but serve as

explanatory devices (Heisenberg noted that no one has actually observed a particle or a

wave).

There are some interesting parallels here with analytical approaches and constructs in

the social sciences and specifically for cross-disciplinary DS. Heuristic devices such as the

‘perfectly competitive market’ in economics do not need to have an empirical existence in

order to be relevant to systematic and rigorous analysis. However, to raise such heuristic

devices to a level of expectation which seeks empirical verification would be unrealistic.

They also provide ’ideal types’ with which to compare reality. Another example of a

heuristic device, within political science, would be the concept of a perfectly functioning

democracy. Again, in socio-economic analysis the concept of ‘good governance’ is

commonly used, but without any expectation that such a phenomenon exists anywhere. The

notion of abstract concepts is important in systematic discussion of ‘development’.

Drawing on quantum physics somewhat further, is the notion that objects necessarily have

an existence at a definite point or position, exist at many positions, but may sometimes be

observed at only one point in time and space. A single observation at a particular point in

9A related issue is the question of research ethics or values. Medical ethics tend to be highly positivistic in terms ofseparation of the ‘researcher’ and the ‘researched’. One of the principal functions of research ethics guidelines is tocreate ‘distance’ between the researcher and the ‘researched’—an ethical safety zone. Participatory methods inDS certainly remove the demarcation between researcher/researched.


DOI: 10.1002/jid


time and space does not necessarily mean that other observations are not possible at other

points in time and space.

4 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES AT THE SOCIAL–PHYSICAL SCIENCE

INTERFACE: THE CASES OF WATER AND THE ENVIRONMENT

The previous section of this paper was concerned with the exploration of the context within

which cross-disciplinary work within the social sciences, and between the social and the

physical sciences, may—or may not—take place. This section will start with an

exploration of the extent to which cross-disciplinarity is evident in research and training

programmes. We will also present what we believe to be an innovatory approach to the

analysis of the optimum level of water quality which depends on both economic and

technical (i.e. social and physical sciences) inputs within a post-positivist context. The

discussion will focus principally on the water and sanitation sector as a critical example of

a part of the economy and society where social and physical scientists need to make

complementary and collaborative contributions to sector analysis. We will also present

some comparable evidence relating to the environment.

Water is one of the most important resources known to human beings. The segments of

the water sector include potable water for human consumption, irrigation water (and

drainage), industrial water supplies, river and canal management and water-borne

sanitation. For ‘developing’ countries there is still a considerable degree of ‘dualism’

within the water sector, with significant proportions of the population (particularly in rural

and peri-urban areas) still dependent upon ‘natural’ water supply from rivers and streams,

springs and wells for household requirements. Even in urban areas, public water supply is

still widely provided through stand-pipes rather than the individually piped household

water supply which is nearly universal in higher and middle income industrialised

countries (UNDP, 2006, Chap 1). In developing countries, public health and disease control

programmes can secure significant success when combined with improvements to the

quality of public water supply.

For a comprehensive view of research and training relating to the water sector and

relevant to the theme of this paper it would be necessary to undertake a survey of

institutions in order to assess the extent to which cross-disciplinarity is incorporated into

their programmes. Such a survey would need to distinguish between the institutional

intentions, for example as represented by the information available on the world wide web,

and the actuality (i.e. the output of and outcomes arising from these programmes). Relevant

evidence would consist of descriptive statements (e.g. research summaries or course

curricula and syllabi), the professional composition of staff, working papers and

publications as well as the characteristics of graduates from teaching and training

programmes. Within the time available for the preparation of this paper such a

comprehensive survey was not possible, and so the evidence presented in the Annex is

limited to a relatively small number of institutions (we selected a small number of the most

significant relevant institutions).

For the water sector four sets of data are provided in the Annex. First is some information

relating to research and teaching taken from the website of Wageningen University in the

Netherlands and from the website of the University of Loughborough in the UK. Second is

some information about working papers/publications from the multi-country WELL

programme which relates in many respects to the research outcomes. Third, is further


DOI: 10.1002/jid


information about research and teaching from a representative organisation from a

developing country—namely the Institute of Water and Sanitation Development (IWSD)

in Zimbabwe. Fourth is information about a selection of researchers (particularly

concerned with policy and practice) working in the water sector of developing countries.

The Annex also presents some information about cross-disciplinary work relating to the

environment in developing countries. The first set of information relates to the University

of Wageningen and to the University of East Anglia, which has relevant activities in its

School of Environmental Studies and in its School of Development Studies. The second set

of information relates to The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in India, taken as

being an example of work in developing countries.

Having assembled the information in the Annex, and having viewed a range of other

comparable material in this process our conclusion is that there is considerable evidence of

cross-disciplinary activity between the social and physical sciences relating to the water

sector and to the environment in developing countries. Clearly a more thorough review

could have provided additional evidence and a fuller analysis, but we take the view that this

would have been unlikely to have affected the main conclusions.10 Earlier in this paper it

was suggested that cross-disciplinary collaboration in both research and teaching may be

inhibited by institutional barriers as well as by disciplinary conventions and conservatism.

However, despite this there is a considerable degree of cross-disciplinary cooperation and

flexibility evident in the specialist field of ‘water and development’ both institutionally and

individually.

Another dimension of the cross-disciplinarity issue is the extent to which it is exhibited

in multiple disciplinary skills in the individual, or in multiple individual skills within a

team. Few individuals can aspire to master the breadth of disciplines involved in the water

and sanitation sector. The Annex to this paper includes some relevant information relating

to the work of a limited number of individual researchers who have been active in the water

sector over the last few decades. The evidence which has been assembled complements that

from the institutions which have been surveyed.

In the discussion which follows we wish to explore the way in which cross-disciplinary

analysis can be used to increase understanding of decision-making in the water and

environment ‘sectors’. The analysis addresses a question which is largely economic and

technical in nature, although we will later consider its implications for other social

sciences. Our approach will also relax assumptions about the certainty of observations and

will not seek determinate solutions largely because we are working within the context of

the post-positivistic notions of (un)certainty which have been discussed above.

Consider Figure 1. Marginal costs and marginal benefits are shown on the vertical axis

associated with increased levels of water quality shown on the horizontal axis. As higher

levels of water quality are achieved the marginal cost required to achieve this additional

quality increase successively—illustrating the principle of diminishing marginal returns to

additional inputs. On the other hand, as water quality is increased the marginal benefit

associated with the increased quality falls. Where the two curves cross the marginal costs

equal the marginal benefits and so the intersection represents the ‘optimal’ level of water

10One question is exactly how one might assess the extent of ‘success’ of any attempts at cross-disciplinarity—byprocesses—this would involve interviewing those involved in such work about their perceptions of how well theirexpectations were met and/or outcomes—do the teaching programmes curricula show some level of synthesisand/or are the outputs accepted by cross-disciplinary journals. Suffice to note here that such an investigation wouldbe a major research project in itself!


DOI: 10.1002/jid

Marginal Benefit andMarginal Cost

Marginal cost curve

a

Marginal benefit curve

b

Level of Water Quality

Figure 1. Costs and benefits of increased water quality (the optimal level of water quality)


quality—a higher quality or lower quality of water than that shown at this point would

provide lower net benefits. Figure 1 is derived from arguments presented in Weiss (1994,

pp. 2–3) and in Tribe (1996, pp. 17–18) as applied to environmental pollution control

(which will be referred to more directly later in this paper), but the same arguments apply to

water quality.

Let us review how the position and shape of the marginal cost and marginal benefit

curves would be determined in practice. The marginal cost curve depends upon the nature

of the inputs required in order to achieve higher qualities of water, on the technical

relationships between increased physical inputs and water quality, and on the prices of the

inputs. It will be apparent that only the prices of the inputs are strictly in the economic

sphere, the other two factors lying in the technical (or physical science) domain. The

marginal benefit curve depends upon the physical level of benefits arising from higher

water quality and on the values or prices associated with those benefits. The benefit which

might be expected to arise as a result of higher water quality would include better health

leading to higher physical labour productivity and a higher quality of life—both of which

need to have associated values. Again, the higher labour productivity is determined by

technical factors—the relationship between better health and increased labour inputs and

between increased labour inputs and increased production. The prices to be applied to the

increased production (and in detailed analysis to the labour inputs) are in the economic

sphere. The valuation of a higher quality of life is also in the economic sphere, although

we recognise that there are non-economic issues associated with higher levels of well-

being.11

In Figure 1, the ‘optimum’ level of water quality is given at the quantity ‘b’ and the

associated level of marginal costs and benefits is shown at ‘a’. With a level of water quality

higher than ‘b’ the marginal costs exceed the marginal benefits so that any point to the right

of ‘b’ is inferior, and with a level of water quality lower than ‘b’ it is possible to improve the

net benefit by increasing water quality because to the left of ‘b’ marginal benefits exceed

marginal costs. This is traditional neo-classical economics—with marginal analysis—but

11In economic analysis of the quality of life contingent valuation methods are used, for example to obtain directinformation about the value placed on the quality of life by people. Psycho-sociological factors are significant indetermining attitudes to the quality of life and to well-being in a cross-disciplinary context within the socialsciences, although there are also connections with technical or physical science factors.


DOI: 10.1002/jid

Marginal Benefit andMarginal Cost

Marginal costcurve

a’’Area of uncertainty

a’

Marginal benefitcurve

b’ b’’Level of Water Quality

Figure 2. Costs and benefits of increased water quality—including uncertainty (the optimal level ofwater quality)


the form of the analysis is largely free of value judgements,12 and—of course—abstracts

from a range of non-economic issues which policy makers would also like to consider.

Our concern in this paper is not so much with the quality of water, or with the quality of

economic analysis, but is with the relationship between the social and the physical sciences

in cross-disciplinary work. We have already explained that, in our view, the simple

economic analysis which has been rehearsed here is critically dependent upon the

information of a technical nature which could be regarded as coming from the physical

sciences—the analysis is clearly not ‘purely economic’. We would now like to extend this

argument towards a post-positivist approach—or at least something near a post-positivist

approach.

In the real world, we would argue, the degree of determinateness associated with a single

point intersection of curves of infinite narrowness shown in Figure 1 does not exist. Within

the technical or physical science sphere there is a level of uncertainty about the

observations which is implicit in the diagram, both on the costs side and on the benefits

side. There is also a level of uncertainty about the values (falling within the economic

sphere) which are applied to the technical or physical data in determining the shape and

position of the two curves.

Our concerns about the determinateness of the argument set out in Figure 1, and

particularly about the degree of certainty with which technical/physical and economic

parameters can be treated, led us logically to a modified exposition which is shown in

Figure 2. In this modified form of the relationship the marginal cost and marginal benefit

curves are shown as rather wide lines in contrast to the narrow lines which are

conventionally shown. The width of the lines is intended to represent the degree of

uncertainty associated with estimating values represented by the two curves. The greater

the degree of certainty in any values the narrower the line will be, and the obverse also

applies. The implication of this is that the intersection between the two curves is not a

single determinate point, but is rather a diamond shape which has been shown as an ‘area of

12Value judgements in economics are controversial, particularly with non-economists. While neo-classicaleconomics may claim to be largely free of value judgements the implicit underlying view which pervades muchneo-classical economic analysis is that the existing income distribution is acceptable. While this may be a validworking assumption for much analysis, it should usually be made more explicitly than is the case.


DOI: 10.1002/jid


uncertainty’ in the diagram. The ‘outcomes’ of analysis of this type mean that conclusions

should be in terms of ranges of values rather than of single values—inviting a type of

sensitivity analysis. In order to identify the level of certainty or of uncertainty around

predicted values it is necessary to know something about the economic factors, the social

factors and the technical/physical science factors affecting the shape and position of the

curves shown in Figure 2. Each of the disciplines involved in this type of analysis need to

exhibit a degree of modesty about their particular contribution to understanding, and they

also need to interact with each other in order to increase the collaborative understanding of

the phenomena which are being studied.

The study of the environment probably represents an even broader subject area than that

associated with water. A similar brief survey of institutions has been undertaken to that

relating to the water sector (indeed, in the case of the University of Wageningen the extracts

from information on the website has been included in the Annex together with that for the

water sector). For the environment, in addition to that for the University of Wageningen,

information has been included for the Schools of Environmental Studies and of

Development Studies of the University of East Anglia. In the case of the environment, the

institution which has been selected to represent the ‘developing country constituency’ is

TERI of India. Again, there is significant evidence that these research and training

institutions aspire to a considerable degree of cross-disciplinarity, including that between

the social and physical sciences.

Reference has been made above to the fact that in their discussion of the optimal level of

pollution, or of pollution abatement, Weiss (1994, pp. 2–3) and Tribe (1996, pp. 17–18)

used essentially the same type of diagram as that applied to water quality in Figure 1.

Exactly the same set of arguments and explanations of the diagram apply in the case of

pollution control to those outlined earlier to the case of water quality, and so it is not

necessary to repeat them here. Rather than being an articulation of a system of analysis

which is generic to all economics this similarity of approach simply reflects that the same

type of ‘problematic’ applies in both the pollution (one aspect of environmental analysis)

and water quality cases: that of identifying the appropriate level of intervention for the

achievement of maximum potential net benefits.

The specific example (identification of the ‘optimum’ level of water quality) which we

have used to demonstrate how the social and physical sciences interact within the analysis

of a relatively narrow research question raises the issue of whether comparable examples

might be found for the interaction between—for example—anthropology or sociology and

the physical sciences. For the ‘research question’ addressed—specification of optimum

water quality—anthropological, sociological and political science analysis might not have

very much to contribute. However, within the analysis of potable water supply and use

there are many issues which require analysis and insights from these social sciences. Intra-

household resource management, community development and institutional analysis are

essential parts of a wider view of public water supply and use. However, each of

these social science disciplines can only provide a view of part of the complete ‘picture’,

and like economics they also depend critically on information and analysis from the

physical and engineering sciences if their contributions are to be of value to deliberations

leading to policy interventions (which are significant outcomes from much DS research and

practice).

There are a considerable number of other subject areas where it would have been

possible to undertake similar surveys relevant to DS, including agricultural production

systems, industrial production systems and preventive medicine. It seems clear that for DS,


DOI: 10.1002/jid


as for other knowledge communities or subject areas, cross-disciplinarity between the

social and physical sciences is of considerable importance.

5 CONCLUDING DISCUSSION

The principal objectives of this paper have been to explore the factors which hinder cross-

disciplinary DS work and how such inhibitors might be overcome. Cross-disciplinarity

within DS requires appropriate incentives and institutional structures as well as the

relaxation of some disciplinary underlying world views. The discussion in the paper

concludes that cross-disciplinarity is absolutely essential for DS, and that this cross-

disciplinarity has to include both social and physical sciences. It was also emphasised that

individual disciplines need to be modest and flexible in defining their ‘boundaries’ and in

encouraging cross-disciplinary collaboration.

In addition to a broad discussion of methodological issues associated with the

concerns outlined above the paper presents significant evidence of the cross-

disciplinary institutional approach to research and teaching relating to the water

sector in DS, and also outlines a detailed case study of the interaction between the

economic and technical analysis of optimum potable water quality. This institutional

evidence and the detailed case study are suggestive of how cross-disciplinarity can be

applied for other sectors of the economy and society and for other combinations of

social and physical sciences.

There are a considerable number of other subject areas where it would have been

possible to undertake similar institutional surveys relevant to DS, including agricultural

production systems, industrial production systems and preventive medicine. It seems clear

that for DS, as for other knowledge communities or subject areas, cross-disciplinarity

between the social and physical sciences is of considerable importance.

The paper also explores the probabilistic approach of post-positivist analysis, which

contrasts with the conventional determinism of economic analysis. The conclusion of this

exploration is that cross-disciplinarity is even more essential within the post-positivist

context.

However, it is not entirely clear what kind of ‘ground rules’ might be established to guide

those working in cross-disciplinary areas such as DS. It may be best to adopt a modest

approach and to take ‘small steps’. It might also be necessary for those using a cross-

disciplinary approach to lead a ‘double-life’ with presence in both single disciplinary (their

departmental base and the nature of their original training perhaps) and multi-disciplinary

knowledge communities (such as DS). This is certainly a strategy which can be observed

within the DS community. On-line spaces and fora provide useful meeting places for such a

(second) life. Other themes of our discussion include the adoption of a level of subjectivity-

awareness rather than one of absolute objectivity, and the reaching of conclusions relating

to approximate truth rather than to dogmatic ‘totality’. Outcomes in DS research and

writing need to make ‘knowledge’ claims which do not specify absolute ‘closure’. Donald

Rumsfeld’s (2008) comment, noting the significance of knowledge and uncertainty in a

different context, is of considerable relevance to a number of our concrns in this paper:

as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also

know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we

do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we

don’t know.


DOI: 10.1002/jid


6 ANNEX—INSTITUTIONAL EVIDENCE OF CROSS-DISCIPLINARITY

Due to limitations of space it has not been feasible to reproduce large sections of relevant

material which is readily available from the websites which have been identified in this

Annex. One of the principal issues associated with the interpretation of statements of intent

on the websites which have been accessed (e.g. relating to cross-disciplinarity in research

and training) is the question of the extent to which these intentions are converted to cross-

disciplinary activity and outcomes in practice. This caveat represents a ‘rider’ which has to

be borne in mind in terms of our conclusions.

6.1 Mainly Water-Related

6.1.1 Research and training at Wageningen University

One of the biggest, and most comprehensive, cross-disciplinary water research and training

programmes is provided by Wageningen University in the Netherlands. Wageningen also

has a significant set of programmes relating to the environment and development. The

website provides considerable evidence of the breadth of these programmes in terms of

both subject areas and cross-disciplinarity.

Sources: The homepage for environmental sciences at Wageningen University can be found

at http://www.wageningenuniversiteit.nl/uk/about/organisation/chairþgroups/environmental/

and the homepage for social sciences can be found at http://www.wageningenuniversiteit.

nl/uk/about/organisation/chairþgroups/social/

6.1.2 Research and training at Loughborough University

The University of Loughborough and its partner institutions are noted for specialisation in

water-related issues particularly through the WELL programme which is managed by the

Water, Engineering and Development Centre at the University. The WELL programme

involves collaboration with a number of sister institutions including the: International

Water and Sanitation Centre (The Netherlands), London School of Hygiene & Tropical

Medicine (UK), African Medical and Research Foundation (Kenya), Centre for Health

and Population Research (Bangladesh), IWSD (Zimbabwe), National Water Resources

Institute (Nigeria), Social and Economic Unit Foundation (India) and Training, Research

and Networking for Development (Ghana).

The website for the Water, Engineering and Development Centre contains clear

references to the cross-disciplinary nature of the centre’s research and training, and the

publications and working papers listed for the WELL programme also fall with this cross-

disciplinary character.

Source: Details of the Water, Engineering and Development Centre can be found at its

website http://wedc.lboro.ac.uk/

Further information about WELL may be obtained from its website at http://www.

lboro.ac.uk/well/about-well/about-well.htm

6.1.3 The Institute of Water and Sanitation Development (Zimbabwe)

‘The IWSD promotes applied and academic research meant to support decision-making

and policy formulation in the water and sanitation sector. The institute is the managing

agency for the Water Research Fund for Southern Africa (WARFSA), which promotes

capacity building of researchers in Southern Africa and also better understanding of


DOI: 10.1002/jid


Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) implementation. IWSD has and

continues to carry out research within its focus areas, that is water quality, poverty, urban

sanitation, gender, information dissemination and utilisation’.

Source: Accessed from the IWSD website at: http://www.iwsd.co.zw

6.1.4 Contributions of individuals

Two particular, high-profile, individuals who are well known for their research and

publications in recent decades in the water sector of developing countries are Sandy

Cairncross and David Bradley—both associated with the London School of Hygiene and

Tropical Medicine (LSHTM and also with a range of other institutions working in the water

and sanitation sector). For Cairncross, a civil engineer by profession, two publications have

been selected as being representative. One focusses on ‘socio-environmental risk factors’ in

the transmission of hepatitis A in Brazil (de Almeida et al., 2002) and the other focusses on

‘environmental risks in the developing world’ (Ezzati et al., 2005). Both of these publications

were co-authored by five people, emphasising the significance of team work, and of multi-

disciplinary teams. For Bradley, a medical practitioner by profession, some relevant

information is available from the website of the ‘Science and Innovation for Sustainable

Development Forum’.13 On this website Bradley is described as a ‘network member classified

within these core themes: guidance (institutions and incentives); connecting the ecological,

economic and social; cities; integrative methods for place-based analysis; indicators and

monitoring; driving forces relevant to a sustainability transition; complex adaptive systems;

impacts and response’. These themes clearly indicate a high degree of both individual multi-

disciplinarity and of team work, which is further emphasised by a selection of some of the

publications with which Bradley was associated either as co-author or as co-editor (White

et al., 1972; Sabben-Clare et al., 1980; Weil et al., 1990; Bradley et al., 1992).

An additional dimension is provided by work undertaken at the Bradford Centre for

International Development at the University of Bradford. Frances Cleaver initially studied

History, but has evolved over time through training and experience into a social

development specialist. She has worked closely with Tom Franks in the ‘water and

development’ area (Cleaver and Franks, 1998, 2002). Tom Franks is a civil engineer who

has worked in the water sector in developing countries professionally for about three

decades. The collaboration between Cleaver and Franks is a good example of cross-

disciplinary work linking the social and physical sciences—that is of team work.

Additionally the Bradford department includes P. B. Anand, originally trained as a civil

engineer, with a PhD in economics and a specialist in the water sector. In a recently

published book Anand explores the water sector in developing countries in a multi-

dimensional context, synthesising aspects of several disciplines in his analysis (Anand,

2007). Through this he represents a cross-disciplinary individual bridging the social and

physical sciences.

6.2 Mainly Environment-Related

6.2.1 Environmental social sciences at the University of East Anglia

The University of East Anglia, UK has well-established research and teaching programmes

relating to the environment and to international development. The School of

13This website can be found at: http://sustsci.aaas.org/index.html


DOI: 10.1002/jid


Environmental Sciences has established a set of research themes in Climate Change

Science and Society; Marine and Atmospheric Sciences; Environmental Biology;

Environmental Social Sciences and Geological Sciences—which clearly includes a direct

connection between the environment and social sciences. The content of the webpage

relating to environmental social sciences is clear about the significance of multi-

disciplinary and cross-disciplinary studies, and a quotation has been reproduced below:

Source: The University of East Anglia’s School of Environmental Sciences website is at

http://www1.uea.ac.uk/cm/home/schools/sci/env/research/themes

6.2.2 Development Studies at the University of East Anglia

The School of Development Studies has a number of multi-disciplinary research and

training programmes, involving collaboration with other Schools in the University. The

following selection has been taken from the website:

‘DEV is profoundly committed to inter/multi-disciplinary research and excellence in

teaching. Our values and innovative approach have been developed over a 40-year period,

bringing together researchers and students from different disciplines (economists, social

scientists, natural resource scientists) into close-knit and overlapping research areas and

teaching teams’.

Source: The School of Development Studies website is at http://www1.uea.ac.uk/cm/

home/schools/ssf/dev

6.2.3 The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), India

TERI is one of the institutions in India which aims to run multi-disciplinary research and

training programmes relating to the environment, explicitly involving both social and

physical sciences. Its website contains the following:

‘The Energy Environment Policy Division is engaged in policy research to effect an

improvement in the quality of the environment, and to bring about efficient management of,

and equitable access to, natural resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The strength of the division lies in the ability of its multi-disciplinary team to pool their

experience for a comprehensive understanding and assessment of an issue, analysing the

interplay of multifarious drivers including economic, socio-cultural, political and

environmental factors operating on the ground’.

Source: The TERI website can be accessed at http://www.teriin.org/

REFERENCES

Amann E, Aslanidis N, Nixson F, Walters B. 2006. Economic growth and poverty alleviation: a

reconsideration of Dollar and Kraay. The European Journal of Development Research 18(1): 22–

44.

Anand PB. 2007. Scarcity, Entitlements and the Economics of Water in Developing Countries.

Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.

Bohr N. 1958. Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. Wiley Interscience: Chichester, UK.

Bradley DJ, Stephens C, Harpham T, Cairncross S. 1992. A Review of Environmental Health Impacts

in Developing Country Cities. The World Bank: Washington.

Broad R. 2006. Research, knowledge, and the art of ‘paradigm maintenance’: the World Bank’s

Development Economics Vice-Presidency (DEC). Review of International Political Economy

13(3): 387–419.


DOI: 10.1002/jid


Cleaver F, Franks T. 1998. The challenges ahead—water resource management for the next

millennium. Editorial in special edition of Waterlines 16(4): 2–4.

Cleaver F, Franks T. 2002. People, livelihoods and decision-making in catchment management: a

case study from Tanzania. Waterlines 20(3): 7–10.

Clift C. 2002. Foreword to symposium on cross-disciplinarity in the Global Development Network.

World Development 30(3): 475–476.

Davies H, Nutley S. 2004. Healthcare: evidence to the fore. In What Works? Evidence Based

Policy and Practice in Public Services, Davies H, Nutley S, Smith P (eds). The Policy Press:

Bristol, UK, pp. 43–68.

de Almeida L, Amaku M, Azevedo R, Cairncross S, Massad E. 2002. The intensity of transmission of

hepatitis A and heterogeneities in socio-environmental risk factors in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Transactions of the Royal Society for Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 96(6): 605–610.

Dollar D, Kraay A. 2002. Growth is good for the poor. Journal of Economic Growth 7(3): 195–225.

Dollar D, Kraay A. 2004. Growth is good for the poor. In Growth, Inequality, and Poverty: Prospects

for Pro-poor Economic Development, Shorrocks A, Van Der Hoeven R (eds). Oxford University

Press: Oxford, pp. 62–80.

Escobar A. 1995. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World.

Princeton University Press: Princeton.

Ezzati M, Utzinger J, Cairncross S, Cohen AJ, Singer BH. 2005. Environmental risks in the

developing world: exposure indicators for evaluating interventions, programmes, and policies.

Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 59(1): 15–22.

Gould J. 2003. The Hedgehog, the Fox and the Magister’s Pox. Harmony Books: New York.

Harriss J. 2002. The case for cross-disciplinary approaches in international development. World

Development 30(12): 487–496.

Heisenberg W. 1927. Uber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und

Mechanik. Zeitschrift fur Physik 43: 172–198 (English translation: Wheeler J.A, Zurek H.

1983. Quantum Theory and Measurement. Princeton University Press: New Haven, Conn).

Hulme D, Toye J. 2006. The case for cross-disciplinary social science research on poverty, inequality

and wellbeing. Journal of Development Studies 42(7): 1085–1107.

Jackson C. 2002. Disciplining gender? World Development 30(12): 497–509.

Kanbur R. 2002. Economics, social science and development. World Development 30(12): 477–486.

Kanbur R. 2006. What’s social policy got to do with economic growth? Downloaded on 1 August

2005 from http://www.arts.cornell.edu/poverty/kanbur/

Loxley J. 2004. What is distinctive about international development studies? Canadian Journal of

Development Studies 25(1): 25–38.

McGregor A. 2006. Researching wellbeing: from concepts to methodology. Wellbeing Developing

Countries (WeD). Research Group Working Paper 20. University of Bath, Bath, UK.

Molteberg E, Bergstrøm C. 2000. Our common discourse: diversity and paradigms in development

studies. Centre for International Environment and Development Studies, Agricultural University

of Norway (NORAGRIC). Working Paper Number 20. NORAGRIC, As, Norway.

Morton J, Martin A. 2004. Natural resources research and development studies. Paper Prepared for

DSA Annual Conference, Church House, London, 6 November.

Narayan N, Patel R, Schafft K, Rachemacher A, Koch-Schulte S. 2002. Voices of the Poor: Can

Anyone Hear Us? World Bank: Washington, DC.

Rumsfeld D. 2008. Donald Rumsfeld Quotes. From About.com Political Humor: accessed at http://

politicalhumor.about.com/cs/quotethis/a/rumsfeldquotes.htm week beginning 4 February2008.

Sabben-Clare EE, Bradley DJ, Kirkwood K (eds). 1980. Health in Tropical Africa During the

Colonial Period. Clarendon Press: Oxford.


DOI: 10.1002/jid


Sumner A, Tribe M. 2008. International Development Studies: Theory and Methods in Research and

Practice. Sage: London.

Tribe M. 1996. Environmental control and industrial projects in less developed countries. Project

Appraisal 11(1): 13–26.

Tribe M, Sumner A. 2004. The Nature of Development Studies. Paper Prepared for the DSA Annual

Conference, Church House, London, 6 November. Downloaded on 20 June 2007 from http://

www.devstud.org.uk/conference/workshops/3.2-devstud.htm

UNDP. 2006. Human Development Report 2006—Beyond Scarcity: Power, poverty and the Global

Water Crisis. Palgrave Macmillan for the United Nations Development Programme: New York.

Upshur R, Van Den Kerkhof E, Goel V. 2001. Meaning and measurement: an inclusive model of

evidence in health care. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 7(x): 91–96.

Weil DEC, Alicbusan AP, Wilson JF, Reich MR, Bradley DJ. 1990. The Impact of Development

Policies on Health: A Review of the Literature. World Health Organization: Geneva.

Weiss J (ed.). 1994. The Economics of Project Appraisal and the Environment. Edward Elgar:

Cheltenham.

White GF, Bradley DJ, White AU. 1972. Drawers of Water: Domestic Water Use in East Africa.

University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Woolcock M. 2007. Higher education, policy schools, and development studies: what should Masters

degree students be taught? Journal of International Development 19(1): 55–73.


DOI: 10.1002/jid

Development studies and cross-disciplinarity: Research at the social science–physical science...

Documents

Transcript of Development studies and cross-disciplinarity: Research at the social science–physical science...