User:Indigoclarkson/sandbox

 Disciplinary Categories and Reframing Deforestation in Guinea 



This chapter aims to explore how disciplinary categories can lead to a lack of information flow, by creating knowledge borders in interdisciplinary work, and how hierarchy amongst disciplinary categories leads to the assumption that one solution fits all.

Disciplinary categories can be applied to a variety of contexts; therefore its precise meaning will naturally vary. As a working definition for this chapter, we will understand disciplinary categories to essentially be the bordered fields of academia. For example, mathematics and anthropology are different disciplinary categories. The rigidity and distinction in academic disciplines are intrinsic in its etymology, which can lead to disregarding of ideas that do not conform to the accepted canon.

(The word 'discipline' is derived from the Latin word disciplus. Its early usage is to refer to the training of disciples 'to proper conduct and action by instructing them in the same'. It is also used to refer to 'a system of rules' and 'the order maintained among persons'.)

What we will follow as the purpose of disciplinary categories is to 'reduce complexity', (suggested by Peter Morville, in his book 'Intertwingled'). The term complexity, in this sense, illustrates the abundant forms of knowledge that exist. The categorisation of academic knowledge into distinct disciplines is primarily with the aim to organise this information according to methodologies, beliefs, and language used. It is notable that the 'cultural aspects of disciplines and their cognitive aspects are inseparably intertwined'.

The specialist thinking that the existence of disciplinary categories encourages, has frequently led to a lack of interaction between different disciplines, especially in policy-making. This prevents us from reaching holistic conclusions when thinking about real-world problems.

To present these issues of disciplinary categorisation in context, we will discuss a case study in Guinea regarding environmental conservation / deforestation of Guinea based on the research of M. Leach and J. Fairhead. It is a notable piece of interdisciplinary work that reflects how only considering the viewpoints from a certain disciplinary category, means that essential evidence is missed out or misinterpreted, and how this can form impartial conclusions.

Case Study


Complex real-world issues generally require an interdisciplinary approach, which involves the collaboration of several academic disciplinary categories. We will explore the relevance of this in a particular study conducted by James Fairhead and Melissa Leach. In 1995, the pair set out to Guinea, located in West Africa, which was believed to be undergoing a deforestation crisis.

Administrators and ecologists have maintained that there used to be a lot of forest cover in Guinea in the past, compared to what was observed in 1995. These ‘assumptions’ arose as policy-makers believed that factors such as ‘population growth’ in the area, and economical advancements, have somehow ‘disrupted’ a former state of the forest where there used to be a greater cover. Therefore, pieces of evidence (predominantly provided by scientific disciplines) is often automatically viewed as proof of deforestation in that area, rather than considering other potential perspectives.

Observations particularly looked at Kissidougou; a city located in Guinea's forest-savanna transition zone in the south. It consists of patches of dense rain forests, and experts believe that these forest patches are 'the last and endangered relics of a once extensive natural rain forest cover' that were destroyed due to human activity in the area. The findings of certain species of trees, and other forms of vegetation, that are typically found in the outskirts of forest patches, led to experts concluding that this is a result of the destruction of the forests.

James Fairhead and Melissa Leach challenged this narrative by conducting research that encompassed several disciplines like history, economics, archaeology and anthropology to show that the emergence of these forest patches was primarily due to the intervention of local communities, rather than as a result of deforestation. This reflects the importance of incorporating local perspectives into environmental conservation.

Through extensive mathematical modelling and ecological analysis, policy makers and scientists established the change in the lifestyles and land use of the people living in Kissidougou as the primary reason of their deforestation narrative. A study conducted by French botanist Jacques-Georges Adam in 1948 considered the movement and population growth of the Mandinka people drove away the presence of the original "forest people" living in the area. This is further supported by a study devoted to local fire-setting, in which the author stated that "degradation seems to be recent" and that the lack of dense forests is unnatural since the climate in 1995 did support general forest cover. From this, we can infer that this narrative was established through considering research and analysis from mainly scientific fields, including botany and climatology.

Methods deriving from scientific disciplines have predominantly been used to prove the occurrence of deforestation. This links to the presence of a hierarchical system amongst disciplinary categories, by which scientific disciplines have been 'empowered to reflect on vegetation change', due to the greater reliance on the objectivity of the evidence its provides based on experimental data. It therefore gives it that leverage to 'inform policies to address it', compared to other disciplinary categories that may hold other perspectives. The scientific methodology includes establishing evidence of how vegetation was like in the past, by analysing its current state, and then determining whether there has been any signs of degradation.

Leach and Fairhead decided to approach the problem through the lens of other disciplines.

First, the pair decided to speak to the villagers about the history of the village and to consult aerial photographs that show the history of the area's vegetation. Not only did the oral and archival history reveal that actually there was an increase in forest patches in the area, the "rapid population growth causing deforestation" narrative was also proven to be false. Their 1995 report states, "Comparing census data suggests that Kissidougou’s rural population has increased by only 70% since 1917." Furthermore, through analysing explorers' reports and broader regional history, anthropological evolution, and archaeology, they found that certain areas had significantly higher rural populations in the 19th century than in 1995. Therefore, when viewing the problem through an interdisciplinary lens, it becomes apparent that the change in population demographics did not result in degradation.

The researchers also included socioeconomic analysis of Kissidougou's population to explain how their activities impacted the change in vegetation in the area. The villagers have adapted the land to suit the changing socioeconomic conditions and signals. They switched from coffee planting to fruit tree planting after the post-colonial period, due to falling prices. Changes in employment and opportunities and emigration also caused a change in the farming organisation, and the structural changes helped change the savanna into the forest patches that were wrongly thought to be there since the precolonial period.

It is clear from this case study that a more appropriate solution can be reached by, but not limited to, including social anthropological, oral historical, archival and aerial photographic evidence.

This issue highlights the importance of preventing policy making from being based on scientific assumptions that do not take into account historical and cultural interpretations of the issue at hand.

Issues in policy-making can arise when decisions are made based on interactions from a limited number of disciplinary fields. The outcome can have over-simplified or reduced scope of a complex issues.

A question that can be considered is whether some disciplines naturally more connected to policy-making than others - whether the research of academic disciplines that are considered to be more objective, producing more quantitative data tend to be more conducive, having a greater affinity, or easier to deal with in regard to policy-making. For example, by calculating loss of forest cover mathematically and using these figures to drive a decision to impose fines or compulsory plantation of new trees in this area, avoids understanding of the important cultural values and livelihoods of locals from a specific area. Difficulties arise from assessing the weight of quantitative data from some disciplines against the qualitative of others.3

Applying same policies to different environments involves limited understanding holistically of the issue, thus using less disciplines, and thus a dependency on narratives. One of the aims of working in an interdisciplinary way, combining multiple disciplines, is that new knowledge can be forged from amongst the knowledge borders, reducing ‘routinised action’, forging new solutions.

Historical methodology can be used to understand longer-term climate and vegetation history, whilst also revealing significant information, such as how inhabitants have enriched soil and vegetation at given times. It can be seen that by including these narratives and perspectives from the inhabitants as part of the research methodology,  a more important but perhaps conflicting truth can arise.

As a counter-point to the advocacy of disciplinary in solving real-world complex issues, however it might be that not all issues benefit from working across disciplines.

What is important however, is that academic disciplines are subjected to scrutiny from alternative approaches and disciplines. Encouraging communication and opening up a dialogue will always be beneficial.

In order to solve complex worldwide problems, there becomes a need to pull research out of disciplinary silos, to focus on the problems more holistically. It is generally considered that conservation of biodiversity can benefit from integration of different disciplinary perspectives. As Leach mentioned in a 2007 interview, 'We urgently need new, interdisciplinary approaches to understanding and addressing situations that combine an understanding of social, technological and environmental processes.'

Range of Research Methodology Among Academic Disciplines
Data is essential in solving real world problems, but different academic disciplines are anchored to different methods of collecting data. This can lead to different ‘evidence’, and perhaps then a different truth and approach to solving the same issue. Different disciplines rely on different research methodology - from interviews, content analysis, subject participation, focus groups to language-based analysis to name a few. This becomes a problem in interdisciplinary work, when disciplines disagree about a certain way research is being conducted, including what they classify as evidence.

However, in some cases [i.e. Guinea], when carrying out research based on the methodology from a single discipline, it increases the likelihood of it leading to a conclusion that does not take into account, the perspectives that would be raised by other disciplines. By integrating the viewpoints of other disciplines in discussions about how research should be conducted for particular issues, it can help raise attention to any weaknesses of the research (factors it may be neglecting). Thus this collaboration can help improve the methodology, and prevent any errors made when forming conclusions, and providing solutions.

Communication Between Disciplines
Research integrating both quantitative and qualitative methods is becoming more and more common. A solution to overcoming the borders of academic disciplinary research is the employment of overall designed systems for mixed-method research, existing in different ‘typologies’, but many of these have been constructed in theoretical terms and are yet to be tested in real world examples. These typologies draw attention to questions such as : which has priority, the qualitative or quantitative data?, Is there more than one data strand? Are the types of data (from disciplines) collected simultaneously or sequentially?

Perceived Hierarchy Among Disciplines
Academic disciplines have ‘distinctive cultural characteristics’, with ‘cultural differences’. They can be seen as communities. 'Disciplinary groups can usefully be regarded as academic tribes, each with their own set of intellectual values and their own patch of cognitive territory'. Due to this, disciplinary categories are often reformed and shaped by the social and cultural contexts of the time, which also varies depending on location, in the way that it is organised.

It is often the case then, that some disciplinary categories tend to 'dominate’ in terms of their input on a range of issues, according to a hierarchical structure. This is essentially dependent on what kinds of particular perspectives (carried within a certain discipline) are reinforced by certain social constructs, including authoritative bodies such as the government. This would entail giving the viewpoints that are encompassed within a certain discipline(s) a greater weight than others, and this can result in not adequately considering the perspectives derived from other disciplinary categories. Thus interactions between the disciplines can often be limited.

When looking at an organisational chart, within a policy making department for example, it is important to ask whether an existing 'hierarchy [is] reinforcing the unhealthy division of disciplines.' This in turn can directly affect how interdisciplinary approaches can take place, hence, how solutions are formed.

Conclusion
A point of view is that by travelling over the borders of academic disciplines, greater validity can be reached - thus a more comprehensive account of an area of inquiry can be established.

It is evident how creating an interdisciplinary approach in policy-making, can allow the logical synthesis of perspectives, derived from different disciplinary categories. This can be seen as vital in contributing to the critical understanding of a real-world problem like conservation.

This can therefore open the doors to new solutions, that incorporates all the crucial knowledge required to initiate productive change. As seen from the case study, this can be done by preventing the divisions of knowledge, into disciplinary categories, from acting as mandatory silos from which one cannot emerge from, but rather allow information to be exchanged across disciplines, regardless of differences in methodologies, terminology and evidence.

On a conclusive note, a piece of interdisciplinary work, and the different disciplinary categories involved, can be recognised as having a crucial symbiotic relationship (defined as being 'mutually beneficial' ). This means that not only can the process of different academic disciplines successfully working together on an issue, help drive forward and foster useful interdisciplinary solutions, but it can also, in turn, contribute to the further development of each of these disciplines themselves via the perspectives shared between the disciplines.