Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive, Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Laboratory of Engineering for Complex Systems, Irstea, Aubière, France.
PLoS One. 2019 Sep 4;14(9):e0221907. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221907. eCollection 2019.
Scientists across disciplines must often work together to address pressing global issues facing our societies. For interdisciplinary projects to flourish, scientists must recognise the potential contribution of other disciplines in answering key research questions. Recent research suggested that social sciences may be appreciated less than hard sciences overall. Building on the extensive evidence of ingroup bias and ethnocentrism in intergroup relations, however, one could also expect scientists, especially those belonging to high status disciplines, to play down the contributions of other disciplines to important research questions. The focus of the present research was to investigate how hard and social scientists perceive one another and the impact of interdisciplinary collaborations on these perceptions. We surveyed 280 scientists at Wave 1 and with 129 of them followed up at Wave 2 to establish how ongoing interdisciplinary collaborations underpinned perceptions of other disciplines. Based on Wave 1 data, scientists who report having interdisciplinary experiences more frequently are also more likely to recognise the intellectual contribution of other disciplines and perceive more commonalities with them. However, in line with the intergroup bias literature, group membership in the more prestigious hard sciences is related to a stronger tendency to downplay the intellectual contribution of social science disciplines compared to other hard science disciplines. This bias was not present among social scientists who produced very similar evaluation of contribution of hard and social science disciplines. Finally, using both waves of the survey, the social network comparison of discipline pairs shows that asymmetries in the evaluation of other disciplines are only present among discipline pairs that do not have any experience of collaborating with one another. These results point to the need for policies that incentivise new collaborations between hard and social scientists and foster interdisciplinary contact.
跨学科的科学家必须经常合作,以解决我们社会面临的紧迫全球问题。为了使跨学科项目蓬勃发展,科学家必须认识到其他学科在回答关键研究问题方面的潜在贡献。最近的研究表明,社会科学的总体认可度可能低于硬科学。然而,基于群体间关系中内群体偏见和民族中心主义的广泛证据,人们也可以预期科学家,尤其是那些属于高地位学科的科学家,会淡化其他学科对重要研究问题的贡献。本研究的重点是调查硬科学和社会科学家如何相互看待对方,以及跨学科合作对这些看法的影响。我们在第 1 波调查了 280 名科学家,其中 129 名在第 2 波中进行了跟进,以确定正在进行的跨学科合作如何影响对其他学科的看法。基于第 1 波的数据,报告有更多跨学科经验的科学家也更有可能认识到其他学科的知识贡献,并认为与他们有更多的共同点。然而,与群体偏见文献一致的是,在更有声望的硬科学领域的群体成员身份与更强烈的贬低社会科学学科的知识贡献的倾向有关,而与其他硬科学学科相比则如此。这种偏见在产生对硬科学和社会科学学科贡献的非常相似评价的社会科学家中并不存在。最后,使用调查的两个波,学科对之间的社会网络比较表明,只有在没有任何合作经验的学科对之间,对其他学科的评价不对称才存在。这些结果表明需要制定政策,鼓励硬科学和社会科学家之间建立新的合作关系,并促进跨学科联系。