One seems plunged into its archives, when the other develops long -term concepts and analyzes. There Interdisciplinary factory nuances this opposition between the historian and the political scientist. Their research practices can converge despite many institutional and professional obstacles.
“” I am not sure I am a good historian, but I am sure I am not a good economist ». In 1990, Bernard Lepetit illustrated by this sentence the fact that a “ discipline is not only a mode of structuring reality described “, But it’s” also a profession, that is to say a set of proven procedures which constitute a first guarantee of a coherent discourse ». He thus proposed to define interdisciplinarity as “ A controlled process of reciprocal loans, between the different human sciences, concepts, issues and methods for renewed readings of social reality ».
Published almost twenty years later, The interdisciplinary factoryresumes part of the communications for the study days “ Political science/History “, Heads at the National Foundation for Political Science in March 2004, under the direction of Michel Offerlé and Henry Rousso. Considering that “ For several years, historians, political scientists, sociologists have expressed renewed appetite for interdisciplinary cooperation “, The organizers wanted to take” measurement of this evolution and (…) make it a first assessment ». The parentage is not claimed, but the work does not offer another definition. This is where its originality lies: rather than yet another theoretical redefinition of interdisciplinarity, this collective work is resolutely turned towards practices.
In fifteen contributions (plus a double introduction and three conclusions), the Interdisciplinary factory offers a very rich panorama of the different ways by which sociologists, political scientists and historians have renewed their understanding of “ Social reality For the past twenty years. This implies a heterogeneity of the contributions which is assumed and claimed by the directors of the work: Michel Offerlé indicates that “ All (the) contributions relate to the political object that none of the authors also seek to enclose in a flat definition “(P. 16), while Henry Rousso specifies that” This work does not seek a thematic unit and is an assumed eclecticism as to the subjects and land mentioned (P. 19).
This choice immediately puts the reader in the face of a reality underlined all the conclusions of the work, like Jean-Claude Caron who notes that a “ real interdisciplinarity does not necessarily mean a standardization of concepts, objects and methods (P. 248). Indeed, political scientists, sociologists and historians are ready to enrich their “ toolboxes “Respective, in particular by” reciprocal loans ». But pleading for a decompartmentalization of the disciplines is not claiming a unification or a “ dedisciplinarization »Of the social sciences.
The uses of interdisciplinarity
Bernard Lepetit saw, as a historian, three main uses to a restricted practice of interdisciplinarity: designate new objects ; Establish the conditions to add to the intelligibility of reality ; Allow more thoughtful approaches, better controlled. Here again, the contributions gathered in The interdisciplinary factory perfectly illustrate this proposal.
Alain Chatriot and Claire Lemercier thus present the “ imperative “That they set themselves” For a research project on the history of state advisory practices (P. 191). This project, opened within the framework of their respective theses, designates new objects (intermediate bodies, legal regulations, etc.) as much as it contributes to a better knowledge of “ the history of the state through its practices (P. 202). By being in a “ intermediate space “(P. 203), this” in between “(P. 193) Relations between the State and the” civil society “, They argue for a social history anxious to mobilize any knowledge likely to illuminate its sources – from the right to history of science, through political science and quantitative methods (p. 192).
On a different ground, Laure Blévis’s text shows everything that an interdisciplinary approach can bring to our understanding of an apparently known object. It thus proposes a historical sociology of citizenship built “ to the confluence of multiple disciplines: sociology, political science and history, but also law, anthropology, even incidentally literature (P. 105). His study of this “ marked field of research “(P. 103), is based on a double originality: a” field trip »Towards the colonies – in order to grasp the challenges of citizenship on the periphery – and a consideration of law as a real object of study – both to grasp” The strictly legal dimension of colonial domination “, And to overcome it in” taking colonial law seriously And by studying practices (p. 106).
Finally, note that several contributions propose an analysis of the way in which sociologists and political scientists have constituted and exploited their corpus of archives. In addition to the texts of which this is the main object (those of Pierre-Yves Baudot and Gildas Tanguy) we will particularly remember the remarks of Delphine Dulong and Laure Blévis. They thus report two frequent pitfalls, whose historians themselves are not always exempt: the “ temptation of police history “(P. 48) and the” The risk of over -re -development (P. 113). Faced with what she calls the “ Sociologist’s instrumental report to history “(P. 48), Delphine Dulong thus recalls that he has conceptual tools, specific to her discipline, allowing to escape these pitfalls (p. 50). Laure Blévis, for her part, underlines the importance of “ Basic rules of the historical method “To avoid this” Canishing risk of all research in the social sciences (P. 113).
Take its object seriously
Whether it is the constitution of the archival corpus, or the choice of conceptual tools to mobilize, The interdisciplinary factory recall how the stage of the “ construction of the object »Social science research is important. As Alain Chatriot and Claire Lemercier write, “ Some questions should ask themselves (P. 192) And most contributions emphasize that interdisciplinarity is most often imposed as a necessity.
Irene Di Jorio explains very well that, to answer the questions she was asking about the actors of the “ Propaganda of the French State “And the knowledge they mobilized, it was” so to speak, forced to increase the angles of attack tenfold “, That his” object of study (A) exhorted to diversify approaches (P. 206). On a very different field, Sarah Gensburger shows that if her initial approach wanted to be fully sociological (p. 133), his will to grasp the challenges of the notion of “ memory policies », Very little studied by sociologists, forced him to mobilize the work of other disciplines. She notably underlines that it is “ the theoretical tools implemented by memory historians “Which allowed him to” Complete the formulation of (its) problematic and help (its) field management (P. 134). Finally, Guillaume Mouralis notes that, starting from an interrogation on “ The trials brought to the East German officials “Following German unification, these are” The characteristics of (sound) object of study “Who we” First of all led to backing the chronological limits (P. 179).
These three examples illustrate an important teaching of the work. As Jean-Claude Caron writes in conclusion, “ interdisciplinarity cannot be decreed: it operates as a need or a necessity (P. 243). The interdisciplinary factory Thus shows, examples in support, the fertility of an approach more concerned with the nature of the object studied than disciplinary anchors (and postures).
Institutional issues of interdisciplinarity
This way is not without pose legitimacy problems to researchers who decide to borrow it. If this question is rarely addressed in publications dealing with interdisciplinarity, it is however central. The stake is both methodological and academic.
A discipline is indeed first of all a set of knowledge. The researcher who engages on the path of interdisciplinarity must demonstrate his ability to handle procedures and methods that do not fall under his initial training. We still refer here to the contribution of Laure Blévis who – through her own relationship to law and history – specifies that this question “ refers to a common experience of (young) researchers who try the crossing of disciplines ». She explains that “ One of the most problematic aspects (in any case one of the most distressing) of the multidisciplinary option is certainly the return of the first results and the confrontation with the “titled” and institutionally legitimate members of the disciplines concerned (P. 105).
If serious work can quickly get around this difficulty, it is from an academic point of view that the most important obstacles are drawn up. As Marc Lazar writes, “ THE Pacs Between history and political science is not yet signed, and marriage even less celebrated (P. 253). This is partly the consequence of the situation of the labor market of social sciences. To explain the maintenance of strong disciplinary distinctions, Jacques Lagroye thus adds to the will to preserve know-how, that-significant-of the “ legitimate protection of “house” candidates trained in the context of each discipline, when the scarcity of posts to be filled exacerbates competition (P. 265).
Building interdisciplinary knowledge is therefore to seek a point of agreement between conceptual differences, different methodological requirements and multiple professional rivalries. The interdisciplinary factory offers a good example of what this point of agreement could be. We will only regret the absence of a real synthesis of the two directors of the book, who offer the reader – in order to “ respect the diversity (of their) expectations ” And “ views »(P. 11) – Not one but two presentation texts.