One way in which RestPoll stands out as a research project is the level of collaboration both among scientists and towards other partners such as farmers. While preserving pollinators is a common goal, there can nonetheless be different perspectives on the research subject. The natural and social sciences each take their own approach towards interaction between flora, fauna or human folk. What is it like working at this interface between scientific fields?
Policy
At a very fundamental level, interdisciplinary collaboration could mean looking in a different way at the landscape. Designing, enforcing or evaluating policies related to agriculture and farming requires insights from both natural and social sciences. However, the management of land and water may not mean the same thing from the perspective of the policy-maker and the ecologist. There could even be a debate about which data are the most relevant.
Dealing with agricultural sustainability in southern France, Tristan Berchoux and colleagues at the Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Montpellier (IAMM) encountered such issues. Data from natural sciences offered them an objective understanding of natural resources. What they also needed, though, was information on the ways of governing the water. Understanding the perspective of different parties involved in water and land management helped the team in reaching a more balanced assessment of these invaluable resources.
As it turned out, water management was not only an issue of the government at the scale of the river authorities. Also involved were Authorised Syndical Associations (ASA), which comprised farmers managing the local irrigation networks. As a geographer, Tristan was the one needing to integrate the two fields and make sense of their findings. Working with scientists and stakeholders from both natural and social fields can therefore be challenging – but Tristan also found it fascinating to include different data and methods into a picture.
Methodology
Interdisciplinary methods can also inform the field work that researchers undertake. Anda Ādamsone-Fiskoviča at the Baltic Studies Centre (BSC) in Latvia felt a breath of fresh air as she, a sociologist, joined her biology intern Maja Raemakers in the meadows. Where Anda normally focuses on the human aspect in farming, the appearance and behaviour of plants as well as insects provided her with insight into the practicalities of pollinator monitoring.
In terms of methodology, it came as a surprise to Anda’s scientific frame of mind that the biological field work can be a bit fussy. While protocols for pollinator monitoring are well defined, their real-life application requires adjustment. Farm fields classified as degraded, restored or reference sites can change category over time, also modifying the framework. In addition, the fixed path that pollinator monitors take during a transect means they may miss information and specimens just outside their view, which influences accuracy of data.
Anthropocentrism
Even more fundamentally, the different subject matter of the natural and social sciences can cast a contrasting glance on the value of pollinators. For a biologist, flora and fauna are the focal point with an intrinsic worth. Social scientists will acknowledge this natural value, but also view it in the light of a human lens: how do pollinators matter to human beings? The two perspectives need not be mutually exclusive, but they can present some iniquity.
Anda again experienced this issue in the field, where it may be inevitable that insects die during research work. This situation begs the question whether humans have the right to do harm in order to save other lives. Apart from ethical considerations, the method used also influences the accuracy of data, which makes the discussion all the more problematic.
The human factor can have direct as well as indirect effects on insects. The honey bees are beloved by many, but they compete with wild bees over available resources. As the former are looked after by humans, they are often stronger and may threaten the latter’s survival. Beekeepers and conservations can therefore be at odds along the same lines as social and natural scientists. Anda is keen on exploring this issue further through a social science lens.
A pollinator by any other name
Even the words which we use may speak to the world view of natural and social scientists. As Anda observes, the term “pollinator” tells us the function of an animal in a human image – their ability to serve our needs. She suggests that “nectar gatherer” would be an objective reflection of their own interests. By being so aware of these natural and social perspectives towards pollination, Anda shows that interdisciplinary research may be mutually enriching.
