\makeatletter
\@ifundefined{HCode}
{\documentclass[screen,CRGEOS,Unicode,Thematic]{cedram}
%\usepackage[sort&compress,square,comma,authoryear]{natbib}
\usepackage[square,comma,authoryear]{natbib}
\newenvironment{Table}{\begin{table}}{\end{table}}
\renewcommand\bibsection{\section*{\refname}}
\newenvironment{noXML}{}{}
\def\thead{\noalign{\relax}\hline}
\def\endthead{\noalign{\relax}\hline}
\def\tbody{\noalign{\relax}}
\def\tsup#1{$^{{#1}}$}
\def\tsub#1{$_{{#1}}$}
\RequirePackage{etoolbox}
\usepackage{upgreek}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} 
\def\jobid{crgeos20230803}
%\graphicspath{{/tmp/\jobid_figs/web/}}
\graphicspath{{./figures/}}
\newcounter{runlevel}
\usepackage{multirow} 
\def\nrow#1{\@tempcnta #1\relax%
\advance\@tempcnta by 1\relax%
\xdef\lenrow{\the\@tempcnta}}
\def\morerows#1#2{\nrow{#1}\multirow{\lenrow}{*}{#2}}
\let\MakeYrStrItalic\relax
\def\refinput#1{}
\def\back#1{}
\csdef{Seqnsplit}{\\}
\DOI{10.5802/crgeos.268}
\datereceived{2023-09-13}
\daterevised{2024-05-14}
\dateaccepted{2024-06-10}
\ItHasTeXPublished
}
{
\PassOptionsToPackage{authoryear}{natbib}
\documentclass[crgeos]{article}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} 
\def\CDRdoi{10.5802/crgeos.268}
\makeatletter
\def\CDRsupplementaryTwotypes#1#2{}
 \def\selectlanguage#1{} 
}
\makeatother

\begin{document}

\begin{noXML}

\CDRsetmeta{articletype}{research-article}

%\makeatletter
%\def\TITREspecial{\relax}
%\def\cdr@specialtitle@english{Human Environment Observatory}
%\def\cdr@specialtitle@french{Observatoire Homme Milieu (OHM)}
%\makeatother

\title{The OHM Pays de Bitche as a testing ground for interdisciplinary
and participatory scientific practice}

\alttitle{L'OHM Pays de Bitche comme terrain d'exp\'erimentation d'une
pratique scientifique interdisciplinaire et participative}

\author{\firstname{Fabien} \lastname{Hein}\CDRorcid{0000-0003-4659-7925}}
\address{Senior Lecturer in Sociology, ex-Director (2015--2023) of the
Pays de Bitche Human-Environment Observatory (OHM PdB),  France}
\address{Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire des Environnements Continentaux (LIEC), France}
\address{Universit\'e de Lorraine,  UFR Sciences Humaines et Sociales
-- Metz,  France}
\email{fabien.hein@univ-lorraine.fr}

\keywords{\kwd{Interdisciplinarity}
\kwd{Participatory research}
\kwd{Experimentation}
\kwd{Action}
\kwd{Cooperation}
\kwd{Gift}}

\altkeywords{\kwd{Interdisciplinarit\'e}
\kwd{Recherche participative}
\kwd{Exp\'erimentation}
\kwd{Action}
\kwd{Coop\'eration}
\kwd{Don}}

\thanks{OHM ``Pays de Bitche'' and LabEx DRIIHM, French programme
``Investissements d'Avenir'' (ANR-11-LABX-0010)}

\begin{abstract} 
This article explores the process of implementing an interdisciplinary
and participatory scientific approach in the ``OHM Pays de Bitche''
(Pays de Bitche Human-Environment Observatory).\looseness=-1
\end{abstract}

\begin{altabstract} 
Cet article propose dexaminer le processus de mise en {\oe}uvre dune
pratique scientifique interdisciplinaire et participative au sein de
l'Observatoire Hommes--Milieux \og Pays de Bitche \fg{}.
\end{altabstract} 

\maketitle

\vspace*{1pc}

\twocolumngrid

\end{noXML}

\section{Introduction}\label{sec1}

Interdisciplinarity means bringing people from different scientific
disciplines together to work on the same area of 
study\footnote{Translator's note: all quotations in this paper have
been translated from the original French source. There are many,
relatively similar definitions of interdisciplinarity. Generally, they
all set it apart from multidisciplinarity  (the juxtaposition of
disciplinary knowledge) and transdisciplinarity  (research combining
scientists and non-scientists in the same knowledge production
process). They then stress that interdisciplinary tends to articulate
knowledge in the form of a dialogue that partially reorganizes the
theoretical fields involved 
\citep{Chenorkian2023,Louvel2015,Vinck2000}.}. Meanwhile, participatory
research aims to get scientists and non-scientists working 
together\footnote{Participatory research is covered by a number of
fairly polysemous definitions that largely agree on its experimental
nature\unskip\break 
\citep{Billaudetal2017}.}. Developing interdisciplinarity and
participatory research hinges on the circulation of knowledge, which
calls for mutual  understanding\footnote{My intention is not to
further the debate on the best way of qualifying and defining
interdisciplinarity and participatory research; I prefer to focus on
the specifically experiential and situative dimension of these
practices. This approach, inspired by the sociology of action, focuses
on how individuals forge relationships with one another as they take
action  together.}. In both cases, these practices essentially revolve
around social  exchange\footnote{These social exchanges may make it
possible to reconcile science and democracy, in the sense that they
contribute to ``the invention of mechanisms that encourage, promote
and nurture the possibility for citizens to take an interest in the
knowledge that aspires to guide and build their future, and that
compels this knowledge to reveal itself and to challenge their choices,
their relevance, the issues they prioritize and those they
neglect'' \citep{Stengers1997}. This search for conciliation
should not suggest that there is a structural opposition between
science and democracy. On the contrary, the process aims to 
deepen the
democratic dynamic through a ``dialogical 
democracy'' 
\citep{Callonetal2001}.}. We often think that well thought-out
coordination procedures will suffice to foster interdisciplinarity,
citizen participation in scientific activity or, in a word,
cooperation. Except that intention is not the same thing as
achievement. Given the intellectual aspect of scientific work, we often
overlook the fact that cooperation cannot be dictated, but this is
something that is experienced practically on a day-to-day basis. This
is especially true when we acknowledge that the mainspring of
cooperation is driven by emotions, the effects of which  (sympathy,
recognition, gratitude, pride, pleasure, etc.) and the mishaps that
occur along the way generally elude supposedly rational thinking of
researchers. Human  sciences---and the sociology of work in
particular---highlight the importance of technical coordination
procedures. However, they also underscore the fact that these
procedures remain inadequate since they need to be given meaning if
they are to be effective in any way. This article explores the process
of implementing an interdisciplinary and participatory scientific
approach in the ``OHM Pays de Bitche'' (Pays de Bitche
Human-Environment Observatory), and draws some practical and
theoretical conclusions. 

\section{The Pays de Bitche human-environment observatory
(OHM)}\label{sec2}
Located in the north-east of the Moselle department, the Pays de Bitche
is a landlocked rural area with the German border 
(Rhineland-Palatinate) to the north and the Bas-Rhin department to the
south. The territory is home to just under 35,000 inhabitants in 46
municipalities. It was marked by a strong military presence for several
centuries. However, the reconfiguration of the French armed forces
since compulsory military service was abolished in 1996 appears to have
triggered a profound transformation of the area, with widespread
decline in rail services, industry, agriculture, demography and public
services. Since 2015, the OHM Pays de Bitche has been studying this
region as it undergoes transformation at the nexus of social and
ecological phenomena, applying a socio-ecosystem approach focused on
two main topics  (which are not mutually exclusive). On one hand, there
are the projects addressing the issues of decline and legacies. On the
other hand, there are the projects looking at the area's carrying
capacity, bringing to light the defining interpretative frameworks 
(the realm of meaning) and the resulting narrative
processes. 

From the outset, there were two aims when setting up this OHM:  (i)~a
fairly conventional interdisciplinary objective, bringing together
researchers from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds, and  (ii)~a
``plural'', ``participatory'' or ``mixed'' objective considering local
stakeholders as legitimate members of our activities, given that local
people know the area better than the researchers who set out to study
it  \citep{Chenorkian2023,Chenorkian2020}. Alongside half a dozen
workshops to prepare the ground for this OHM, I also conducted close to
70 interviews with military personnel, association leaders,
tradespeople, entrepreneurs, doctors, shopkeepers, elected
representatives, civil servants, retired people, sportspeople, hunters,
fishers, naturalists, teachers, hikers, farmers, beekeepers, foresters,
artists, high school students, students, jobseekers, and so on, with a
view to validating or rejecting the working hypotheses and the
feasibility of the studies. This fieldwork gradually led to the
formation of a multidisciplinary and multi-sectoral team of researchers
and local  stakeholders\footnote{Since its beginnings, the OHM PdB has
included around fifty researchers  (biologists, historians,
geographers, geochemists, pedologists, sociologists, etc.) as well as
around twenty local actors  (associative actors, cultural actors,
engineers and conservationists from the Vosges du Nord regional natural
park, forest agents, teachers, elected officials, hunters, naturalists,
farmers, etc.). To get a more precise idea, see \textit{Le Pays de
Bitche. Un territoire en mutation}  \citep{Hein2024}.}, all highly
motivated by the collaborative study of the Pays de Bitche. Over time,
this team managed to identify a structural factor of significant
heuristic value, to define a socio-ecological focus and to identify key
themes, in accordance with the OHM's terms of  reference\footnote{The
OHM terms of reference are conditioned by a ``territory'' in which a
``founding event'' occurs, from which a ``structuring fact'' arises,
from which ``socio-ecological issues'' organized into ``key themes''
are  constructed.}. This work was then set out in a collaborative
concept note submitted to the executive committee of LabEx DRIIHM in
early January 2015. Creation of the OHM Pays de Bitche  (OHM PdB) was
approved by DRIIHM and CNRS-INEE (now called CNRS Ecology \& Environment) on 1 March 2015, making it the tenth
OHM to become operational.

\section{Social intelligence}\label{sec3}
At first glance, this sequential process appears to be the outcome of
an approach designed to gather and organize the knowledge needed to
understand the territory, and to satisfy the requirements of a
scientific framework based on rationality; in other words, to
demonstrate the rigour and logical consistency in the 
analyses\footnote{The model of rational thought is a legacy of
Descartes, who in his \textit{Meditations} in 1641, sought to align
material reality with laws that only mathematical analysis could
identify. Today, the computational theory of the mind inherent in
cognitive psychology pursues the idea that we are a kind of
``information processing system''.}. In reality, the cold
rationality of certain scientists sometimes resulted in a condescending
attitude towards local stakeholders. In contrast, the fervent activism
of a handful of local players sometimes came across as disdain for the
scientists, who were perceived as not being sufficiently committed or
as seeking to encroach on what the locals regarded as their turf. In
both cases, everyone appeared to see competence as an individual
quality and, as such, did not really see how they could benefit from
sharing skills. Clearly, in both instances, this attitude reflects a
lack of social intelligence  \citep{Naess2017} when it comes to
behavioural  skills\footnote{To give one example among others, during
the first seminar to report on the work of the OHM PdB in 2016, the
buffet was organized by a local farmer, bison breeder, also
vice-president of the \textit{French breeders' association of American
bison}. After quickly introducing it to one of the researchers present,
the latter lectured him with strong comments on the physical and
ethological characteristics of the animal, its reproductive behavior,
its diet, as if an ignorant person were standing in front of him. A
heartbreaking  spectacle.}. Obviously, a lack of behavioural skills in
no way prevents someone from pursuing a scientific career safe inside a
laboratory, nor does it prevent someone from pursuing a career as an
activist within a group that has already espoused their cause.
Nonetheless, these positions denote a lack of emotional maturity, and
thus prevent the development of a key  quality---albeit one that is
often underestimated in today's society: a sympathetic attitude. The
ability to relate to others, the tact with which we approach others, is
based on our ability to show understanding for emotions other than our
own. Behavioural skills encompass a set of personal qualities and
social aptitudes that are highly valuable in social interaction. The
academic world, by virtue of its position in the social hierarchy, is
seen as an authority but is not always fully aware of the role of
feelings and emotions in social  interactions\footnote{As scientific
rationality has developed, direct experience has been consigned to a
secondary role. What prevails are quantifiable and measurable
scientific facts. This is probably why we now expect so much from
robots, transhumanism and artificial intelligence. To achieve maximum
efficiency, we seek infallibility and thus predictability. In reality,
human beings are not rational. They try to adopt rational behaviour,
which is very different. It is amusing to note that only scientists
continue to believe that they are rational, neutral and scientifically
objective \citep{Stengers2022}.}. Yet this is a crucial prerequisite
for working collaboratively with others, whether they have a similar
level of knowledge to you or not, for the simple reason that
``competence has become collective: it means knowing how to work
with and exchange with others''  \citep{Alter2009}. In this respect, if
you want to run an interdisciplinary, multi-stakeholder research team,
you first have to learn to show consideration for others, which can
only be achieved by listening to and acknowledging them. 

\section{Democratizing research}\label{sec4}
How can local stakeholders be involved in a research activity, when
there is presumed to be an asymmetry of knowledge and expertise between
them and the academics? By recognizing that this knowledge and
expertise are diverse and that they are spread across a wide range of
stakeholders. As such, it is something to be shared both ways 
\citep{Chenorkian2023}\footnote{The sociology of expertise shows how
common sense knowledge  (semantic and procedural) is shared between
experts and  non-experts 
\citep{Trepos1996,Lascoumes2002,Domenech2017}.}. Human activity can be
performed in two main modes: a sociable mode and a non-sociable mode.
Sociable activity addresses other people, and its guiding norms are
transparent, i.e. understandable to the uninitiated. Non-sociable
activity, by contrast, segregates and isolates. This process ultimately
leads to a loss of quality. Sociologist Richard Sennett observed that
this phenomenon is just as prevalent in science as it is in the craft
or industrial sectors  \citep{Sennett2010}. However, in one case the
activity progresses, while in the other it invariably grinds to a halt.
This finding encourages us to explore new forms of exchange as a means
of democratizing research. In \textit{Agir dans un monde incertain} 
(Acting in an Uncertain World), the sociologists 
\citet{Callonetal2001} call for the exploration of possible worlds, the
invention of new procedures and the deployment of new assessment tools.
This implies putting an end to the reign of experts, to the contempt
for collective intelligence and to the demands for perpetual adaptation
\citep{Stiegler2019}. The idea of collective learning, irrespective of
qualification levels, can enrich democracy provided that the research
community agrees to step out of its laboratories. This could well be
the model that best fits the idea of radical democracy  (that is
popular, egalitarian and deliberative) as expressed by philosopher and
educationalist  \citet{Dewey2010}. A key consequence of the
participatory nature of this radical democracy is that it dispenses
with the construction of a certainty based on the expert's unilateral 
opinion\footnote{It is not a question here of asserting that
scientists systematically behave like experts, but of recognizing that
some of them can sometimes be tempted to arrogate to themselves the
monopoly of rationality in deliberative spaces. Except that in
practice, it is impossible to maintain a strict separation between
ordinary people and experts. Expertise as we understand it today is
``distributed'' locally between a plurality of  actors.}, instead
favouring a deeper understanding of uncertainty underpinned by
collective expertise combining a range of disciplines, sectors and
stakeholders. Of course, in the academic sphere, the combination of
heterogeneous knowledge and stakeholders from diverse backgrounds is
not a given. Social and educational structures are far from receptive
to the prospect of democratizing  research\footnote{The same applies
to political participation. Despite citizens' aspirations, we can see
little evidence of deliberative democracy in the quagmire of the
prevailing representative democracy. The growing opposition to
centralized public action seems to suggest that citizens are no longer
content to make do solely with representative democracy. Public
decision-making needs to be legitimized in two ways. In the first
instance, via elections. But also during the process, through wider
governance and the ongoing involvement of citizens to help shape public
action. This is what we call the deliberative process. Deliberative
democracy allows for greater social inclusion in decision-making,
thereby rendering that decision-making more legitimate 
\citep{BlondiauxManin2021,Domenech2017}.}.
This is all the more true
given that the world of research is still profoundly attached to the
principle of  reduction\footnote{The most prevalent form of knowledge
in the Western world rests on a principle of reduction and disjunction.
Reductionism means understanding a composite whole based on knowledge
of the primary elements that it is made up of. The principle of
disjunction, meanwhile, consists of isolating and separating cognitive
difficulties from one another, which has led to the separation of
disciplines that are now hermetic to one another  \citep{Morin1999}.},
that it is\unskip\break 
dependent on a disciplinary organization, that it is now
subject to market-driven performance requirements and that, ultimately,
it remains largely subservient to legitimist statutory considerations.
While, overall, these reasons tend to keep participatory research in
the realm of intentionality, or even incantation, they have never been
a limiting factor for the experiments conducted by the OHM PdB, as we
shall see in the rest of this paper. 

\section{Experimenting with research}\label{sec5}
The desire to democratize research is part of an alternative political
philosophy with multiple but converging  roots---a profound source of
inspiration for the \textit{modus operandi} of the OHM PdB. The first
of these roots are the pragmatic movement, whose most famous theorists
include John Dewey. The second derives from the theory of action
popularized by Hans Joas. The third, which encompasses the previous
two, is based on Marcel Mauss's gift paradigm. 

\subsection{The theory of inquiry}\label{sec5.1}
Dewey established a very strong link between democracy and pedagogy,
with the ambition of reinstating each individual's power and skills 
\citep{Dewey2022}. In his view, the purpose of learning (at school and,
by extension, at university) is to increase our capacity for action,
which is how the act of learning contributes to democracy. Dewey wanted
to restore democracy at its source, starting with each citizen's
competences. In trying to understand the way humans think 
\citep{Dewey2004}, he became convinced that the process of experience
was essential. Experience in the sense of an emotional imprint, of
something  (an event or a relationship) that moves, stimulates and sets
something in motion. But also in the sense of a hands-on experience
that requires skill.  \citep{Sennett2000}. Dewey designed an education
system centred on research and children's needs, but also on the
relevance of the solutions provided by science and technology. From
this perspective, what makes him so original is his assumption that
there is a common ground between what human knowledge has achieved
throughout history and what children seek as solutions to the problems
they encounter in the world. The strength of his thinking lies in the
fact that this approach can be extended to all human beings, children
and adults alike. And this approach is based on the theory of inquiry.
Very simply put, for Dewey, the inquiry always starts from an
indeterminate situation. An uncertain and unstable situation. From this
starting point, humans formulate hypotheses and adopt an interpretative
framework to guide their actions. These actions are then either
validated or rejected by experience  (trial and error). The advantage
of this approach to action is that practice cannot be dissociated from
cognition  (gesture and reflection). The somatic (which concerns the
body, as opposed to the psychic) is inseparable from the social body
(the individual and the collective). In this sense, experience is an
articulation of thought and action. An experiment in which ideas and
hypotheses are constantly put to the test. Consequently, ideas and
behaviour, norms and values are never acquired definitively. Some are
more stable than others, but they are never immutable or eternal. It
should be made clear that this is not simply a matter of adapting to
the environment. It is not about adaptation, but about being creative
in our tangible experience of the world. 

\subsection{The theory of action}\label{sec5.2}
The extent of human possibilities reflects a key concept in the human
sciences: action. There are two dominant models of action in sociology.
The first maintains that individuals are essentially shaped by the
norms of the society they belong to. This means that there is
relatively little room for free will since humans are largely
conditioned by the processes of socialization, from a holist
perspective. In contrast, the second model argues that individuals are
relatively free to make their own decisions, i.e. that in all
circumstances they act on the basis of an assessment of their actions,
reflecting a rational choice consistent with the principles of
methodological individualism. In the 1990s, a third model 
emerged,\unskip\break
promoted by sociologist  \citet{Joas1999}.
It emphasizes the
creative nature of human action given the range of human possibilities
(this model is not exclusive to the other two).
In his view, creativity cannot be
dissociated from all human activities; each of us is creative
in our own way, and the very richness of the body provides the
resources for a broad field of creative  action\footnote{Here, I am
referring to the famous ``techniques of the body'' described by
Mauss, who considered the human body as ``man's first and most
natural instrument'' \citep{Mauss2001}. The techniques of the body
are to be found on a continuum that ranges from provoking emotions
among spectators  \citep{Leveratto2006} to survival techniques
\citep{Clot2018}.}. Experiencing life calls for creativity. And
creativity leads us to explore new possibilities for experience. For
him, this creative dimension is built into rational and normative
action. In this respect, the concept of social bricolage prevails 
\citep{Javeau2001}. Of course, we cannot ignore the importance of habit
and routine in human action. This is why we need to see creativity not
in its romantic form  (the mystery of inspiration, purported genius),
but rather in terms of degrees. A creativity that generates connections
to people, objects, skills or ideas. These analyses help us to
understand the role of emotional dynamics in the paths taken by
researchers and activists. In particular, they cast doubt on the idea
that deliberative spaces and situations of expertise are devoid of
emotion. Not only are the spheres of politics and expertise permeated
by emotional dynamics, but these emotions contribute to the proper
functioning of democratic regimes. In this theory, emotional logic and
decision-making logic work together. These logics have the potential to
trigger a commitment to action, which is precisely what the OHM seeks
to encourage.

\subsection{The gift paradigm}\label{sec5.3}
Marcel Mauss, one of the pioneers of French anthropology, believed that
the general basis of human relationships is founded on the gift as a
catalyst for social ties. According to him, the gift paradigm governs
the essence of our relationships with others, in the form of a triple
obligation: giving, receiving and reciprocating  \citep{Mauss2001}. It
is, if you like, a law of reciprocity common to all human societies 
(whether primitive or modern).
In this respect, Mauss\unskip\break 
considers the
gift to be a complete social phenomenon covering all dimensions of
social life---economic, political, religious, cultural, aesthetic,
symbolic, and so on---which, in his view, it is important to
reconstruct as finely as  possible\footnote{In many respects, Mauss's
methodological recommendations are a precursor to the complex thinking
theorized by Edgar Morin, for whom complexity refers to the elementary
Latin meaning of the word ``complexus''. In other words, ``that
which is woven together''. In his view, the real problem  (of
thought reform) is that we have learned to separate far too much. It
would, in fact, be more useful to learn to link things. For Morin,
linking is not just about establishing an end-to-end connection.
Linking is about establishing a connection that operates in a dialogue
loop. In line with Mauss, Morin advocates shifting from simple thinking
(guessing, preferring, believing) to complex thinking  (proposing
hypotheses for solutions, creating relationships, seeking criteria,
relying on valid justifications, accepting self-correction). And this
shift can only occur through systematic learning. This requires social
and educational structures conducive to complex and systemic thinking,
of which OHM are potential agents  \citep{Morin1990}.}. Mauss's
thinking remains highly topical in that it powerfully refutes the
assumptions of economic theory, which reduces human action to$^{2}$ the
logic of self-interested calculation alone, and postulates that all
significant human interaction needs to be analysed in terms of market 
relations\footnote{Broadly speaking, there are three main ways of
considering the gift  (which refer back to the theories of action
mentioned above). Firstly, a gift motivated by interest, as favoured by
economists Secondly, a totally selfless and voluntary gift, as favoured
by philosophers. Thirdly, a gift offered under constraint, as favoured
by structuralist sociologists and anthropologists. Here, my remarks
will focus on the economic interpretation of the gift that dominates in
the neoliberal context, considering its social, ecological and climatic
ravages. For an in-depth look at the gift paradigm, I refer you to the
work of Alain Caill\'e, and to the prolific works of  \textit{La Revue
du MAUSS}.}. Mauss demonstrated that most non-Western societies did not
organize themselves according to market principles, and his successors
have confirmed that this is still the case today 
\citep{GraeberWengrow2021,Caille2019}. Many leading intellectuals were
quick to disqualify the gift paradigm on the grounds that it sought to
explain human action in terms of love and devotion. This is a grotesque
misunderstanding and points to the huge weight of interest and
calculation in social analysis. It would be more accurate to consider
the act of giving as ambivalent, at times selfless, at times
self-serving, simultaneously voluntary and obligatory, sometimes
hostile, at other times friendly, alternately a poison and a gift. I
tend to think, in accordance with Alain Caill\'{e}, that the gift
paradigm should be set as a kind of middle way, i.e. in its dialectical
relations, which have considerable merit of highlighting human
interdependencies and which, alas, are increasingly obscured under the
assault of modernity  \citep{DebaiseStengers2023}. The idea that human
beings build lasting relationships through giving seems obvious to me
and has convinced me to instil and nurture the spirit of giving within
the OHM PdB. In France at least, setting up a human-environment
observatory in a rural area is fairly straightforward. Where there's a
will there's a way. Establishing a long-term presence in a territory is
a completely different matter. We are reminded of this in a number of
the sociological classics, heavily steeped in ethnography
\citep{Wacquant2001,Whyte1996,Wolf1995}. Alain Touraine, referring to
William Foote Whyte's famous survey, summed things up quite explicitly:
``the understanding of the other in the sharing of a common 
condition''\footnote{Back cover  \citep{Whyte1996}.}. There is a
tendency to forget, however, that this willingness to understand others
through participation  (known as participant observation in the
methodological jargon used in sociology) is worthless without the
spirit of giving, which gives the research experience its full value.

\section{Interdisciplinary and participatory research as polyphonic
art}\label{sec6}
In principle, knowledge, like water, air, health and safety, is as
precious as it is universal. All these elements are intended to be
enjoyed by all and must therefore be accessible to all. In this
respect, interdisciplinarity is not so much a personal effort or an
institutional imperative as a gift that will potentially enrich each
stakeholder. It is no different for local stakeholders. Their
participation in research, whatever their level of commitment, is a
process of give-and-take. Everything fits into the gift paradigm, from
information, advice, a helping hand, a word of encouragement and a
sympathetic eye to technical knowledge, a recommendation, a
prescription, an analysis, an interpretation, or a little time given.
Simply put, interdisciplinary and participatory research is founded on
the belief that an alliance between all parties is essential and
unwavering. In practice, this conviction expands the work force and, in
so doing, contributes to an experimental cross-learning process 
\citep{Hubertetal2013}\footnote{This experimental process should not
be understood as a demonstration with the power to make everyone agree.
It allows relatively heterogeneous interests to be tested, making
everyone more attentive to motivations, consequences and risky 
generalizations.}. Interdisciplinarity and participatory research are
therefore nothing more than cooperative practices based on the exchange
mechanisms at the heart of the social bond. Ultimately, the driving
forces of cooperation lie more in the process of exchange than in its
content. It may seem counter-intuitive to consider that the object of
the exchange is less important than the process itself, but for
sociologist Norbert Alter: ``We choose to cooperate with a
particular person because we want to cooperate with them. Social
exchanges are often driven by emotion first, with professional
considerations coming second.'' \citep{Alter2009}. Cooperative
relationships are founded on feelings---gratitude, pride or
complicity---which bring pleasure that is sought after in its own
right. This means that the personalities of the parties involved are
decisive, since the quality of give-and-take relationships  (in the
sense of reciprocity) determines the functional effectiveness of the
exchanges  \citep{Caille2019}. Cooperation is therefore the mark of a
kind of freely consented ``mutual indebtedness'' \citep{Alter2009}.
Agreeing to cooperate produces value since it generates exchanges of
data, information and analyses and it creates social bonds, thus adding
to the ``substance of the world'' \citep{DebaiseStengers2023}.
In its astonishing simplicity, cooperation seems to make perfect sense.
On closer inspection, however, this polyphonic cooperation requires
very specific conditions for activation, before it can bring meaning
and effectiveness to interdisciplinary and participatory practice. 

\subsection{The conditions for cooperation}\label{sec6.1}
Establishing cooperation within the gift economy starts with giving,
which implies generosity on the part of those who aspire to work on a
team. The next phase requires a reciprocal response. Cooperation is
neither totally self-interested nor completely selfless, but requires a
bond, reciprocity which, to be sustainable, must be based on stable
relationships, or at the very least trust. Finally, to maintain the
quality of the bonds, cooperation must recognize the investments made
by each party, in other words, recognize each person as a subject and
show them gratitude. Generally speaking, and to varying degrees, it is
reasonable to assume that social exchanges are always organized in much
the same way. The principle is simple: giving someone your time or
knowledge encourages them to give in return. The satisfaction derived
from this exchange generates cooperation and can potentially create
what is known as ``team spirit'', which is itself a condition
for the smooth running of OHM  (or any other organization). The gift
paradigm emphasizes the extent to which social exchanges help to forge
links, which in turn enables the circulation of information, knowledge,
ideas, reputations and forms of solidarity or exclusion that go far
beyond what people are formally required to exchange. As a result, the
nature of the links determines both the act of living together and of
social avoidance. As Alter reminds us of the conclusion to his
remarkable book: `We cooperate because we feel connected or want
to become connected. We refuse to cooperate for the opposite reasons.
Taken together, all these small decisions produce what we call
``social exchanges''' \citep{Alter2009}. As far as the OHM
PdB is concerned, the choice of extended cooperation has always
prevailed, and I shall try to describe this with the help of several
examples that illustrate the degrees of reciprocity between scientists
and the local  stakeholders\footnote{We could also talk about
\textit{mutualistic} links ``i.e. those linking heterogeneous
beings who need each other for different reasons''
\citep{DebaiseStengers2023}.}---albeit at the expense of a certain
descriptive complexity, given the many links and issues that are
difficult to untangle.

\subsection{Giving: Survey on ticks}\label{sec6.2}
In theory, the spirit of giving that drives the OHM PdB is implicitly
fuelled by a spirit of public service, which inherently commits
researchers  (public servants) to giving back (knowledge) what they
have received (public money, or the trust of an institution such as the
CNRS). In practice, researchers accept this type of argument to varying
degrees. Some see the OHM simply as a way of funding their own
research, while others---fortunately the majority---are well aware of
the social issues involved in public research. This stance prompted us
to establish the OHM PdB in the local landscape in a way that ensures
the broadest possible dissemination of our results to the public. We
thus set out to identify the relevant resource structures. The
\textit{communaut\'{e} de communes}  (grouping of municipalities) makes
it possible to target local elected representatives and institutional
leaders. The Lyc\'{e}e Teyssier  (high school) in Bitche is useful for
reaching out to students and  teachers\footnote{Since the start of our
partnership in 2016, we have worked closely with the three successive
principals, four teachers  (natural sciences and humanities) and their
first and final year  classes.}. Finally, a wider and more diverse
audience can be reached via the media library, caf\'{e}s, community
centres, municipal halls, farms and outdoor spaces. We cannot claim to
have reached the entire population, far from it, but we have at least
widened the scope as far as possible. Clearly, one of our greatest
accomplishments has been kindling enthusiasm among the teaching staff
at Lyc\'{e}e Teyssier in Bitche  (the only lyc\'{e}e in the area). This
eagerness soon convinced us to adjust our objectives to match the
teachers' interests, first by running practical workshops for high
school students to raise their awareness of the scientific approach.
Each year, at the request of teachers, we have offered workshops in
anthracology, palynology, parasitology, microbiology, cartography,
sociology and ethnology, based on surveys carried out by researchers in
the area, thus ensuring that the overall educational approach is highly
coherent. We can take the example of the survey of ticks to illustrate
some of these  aspects\footnote{The implementation of the OHM PdB has
allowed to federate the disciplinary skills benefiting from a base of
information and a network of actors necessary for the realization of an
interdisciplinary scientific project declining the concept 
``EcoHealth''.}. This research programme was launched locally in 2016
with two conference/debates organized in community halls. The fact that
between 150 and 200 people attended each time, and were particularly
attentive and responsive, clearly shows that this was a sensitive 
issue\footnote{This theme was suggested to me by a gamekeeper in 2014
during pre-configuration work for the OHM  PdB.}. This was confirmed by
preliminary qualitative sociological surveys carried out in 2017 and
2018 by sociology students from the Universit\'{e} de Lorraine. After
the Covid pandemic, the research resumed with a series of tick sampling
campaigns  (June 2020, April 2021, May 2021 and June 2021) at two 
sites\footnote{Multifactorial determinism of the abundance of a
biological contaminant: the bacteria responsible for Lyme disease
carried by the tick \textit{Ixodes  ricinus}.}. At the same time, we
sent a sociological questionnaire to Pays de Bitche residents in the
first quarter of 2021 to assess their level of knowledge about ticks
and associated diseases. What was original about this approach is that
the questionnaire was administered by students from Lyc\'{e}e Teyssier,
ensuring that we reached a population spread across the whole area,
mainly made up of the students' families. In addition to this work, two
microbiology and parasitology workshops were held in 2022 (indoor) and
2023  (field), along with a general-interest conference on the
bacterial virulence of ticks (Figure~2) as part of an
exhibition on ticks (30~March to 5~May 2021), followed by a lecture and
discussion presenting the initial results of the research 
(Figure~3, 13~May 2022). The synergy between Lyc\'{e}e
Teyssier, the Bitche media library and the OHM PdB has fostered an
alliance in which everyone is keen to be a good co-operator. The gifts
within this alliance have produced an infinite variety of results:
disseminating knowledge, raising awareness of a public health issue,
answering questions, listening to  testimonies\footnote{Sometimes in a
very poignant way, in situations of distress and where patients are
forced to roam the medical system, where science is incapable of
providing concrete  answers.}, carrying out a field survey, collecting
data, etc. These gifts have also led to a recognition of the
stakeholders' value based on their capacity to give and, in the
process, have boosted their willingness to give more to spark other
initiatives.

\subsection{Receiving: annual programme}\label{sec6.3}
The \textit{Researcher's Film Festival} (which became \textit{Sciences
en Lumi\`{e}re} in  2017)\footnote{\textit{Sciences en Lumi\`{e}re} is
a scientific and technical culture initiative run by the CNRS and the
Universit\'{e} de  Lorraine.} was a key partner in stimulating local
dynamics. The documentaries on ticks came from their collections. Their
staff also produced flyers and handled communications. The OHM PdB was
very enthusiastic about partnering the \textit{Researchers' Film
Festival}, which was looking to establish itself in a rural area. From
2018, the ensuing emulation gave rise to a multidimensional annual
event combining conferences and debates, readings, shows, exhibitions
and outings on themes such as the forest  (\textit{Promenons dans les
bois}, from 8 September to 18 October 2018), water  (\textit{J'ai
trouv\'{e} l'eau si belle}, from 8 September to 18 October 2019), the
northern lights  (\textit{Aurores bor\'{e}ales}, from 21~August to
23~October 2021), wildlife  (\textit{Sauvage par nature}, from
31~January to 25~March 2023)  (illustrations) and will no doubt turn
the spotlight on soil in 2024. To varying degrees, each of these events
involves numerous local stakeholders  (Pays de Bitche media library
network, Forum Social Rural, Parc Naturel R\'{e}gional des Vosges du
Nord, Office National des For\^{e}ts, Lyc\'{e}e Teyssier, Artopie
artists' residency, Association mosellane d'\'{e}conomie montagnarde,
etc.). This close-knit web of relations eventually cemented the OHM
PdB's role as a leading scientific facilitator, with its resources
fostering the emergence of initiatives and projects among local
stakeholders. That the event, which is repeated every year, is now
something of a ritual appears to stem from a law of reciprocity. In
fact, the event has no budget of its own and relies exclusively on the
resources pooled by each partner. In this respect, the value of the
gifts  (in terms of time spent, funds allocated or goods, services and
staff made available) lies more in the social value of a joint
programme for the territory than in the value of a single personal
initiative. A chain of cooperation is set in motion, bringing together
individuals, groups, professionals, volunteers, venues, objects,
mechanisms, institutions and so on. A whole culture of mutual aid is
taking shape here. Of course, contributions are not always and
necessarily selfless, as the long list of logos on the communication
materials reminds us---that is one of the elements of recognition, of
course---but the core value of the operation lies in creating the
network of relations required to make the programme a success. The gift
spurs action, making people do things and potentially generating social
cohesion, provided it is underpinned by three fundamentals: a sense of
security, a sense of equality and, above all, a sense of trust 
\citep{ServigneChapelle2017}. It is thus through a state of reciprocal
dependence that the social bond extends over time in the manner of an 
(ever fragile) feedback loop. This has convinced us to try and extend
the spirit of giving even further.

\subsection{Reciprocating: survey on energy trajectories}\label{sec6.4}
How else do we explain the fact that a number of retired scientists
from the Pays de Bitche and  elsewhere\footnote{I would like to thank
the five retirees in question once again for their generosity towards
the OHM PdB. They will know who they  are.} come and lend a hand with
our work? By their own admission, staying involved in research keeps
them physically and intellectually fit. Aside from their own personal
interests, their involvement with us undoubtedly enables the younger
generations benefit from their experience. Their modesty probably
prevents them from stating as much, but if we look to Mauss, it would
not be far-fetched to claim that they are giving back what they
received themselves over the course of their careers. In fact, this
testifies to the social depth of the gift cycle, driven by an
obligation of reciprocity. In other words, the return gift frees us
from any  obligation---although it does not negate it, as it is then
passed on in turn. Ultimately, it is the mark of the cycle's excellent
health. The example of retirees underlines the power of the gift
mechanism, making it all the more vital that we understand it in order
to develop interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research. The OHM
experiment has enabled us to test a number of research configurations,
including the most random and frankly  ineffectual\footnote{This
ranges from interns who have lost all sense of proportion and turned to
a form of own-account militancy, fiercely denigrating the OHM
structure, to researchers who, once they have pocketed their research
funding, no longer respond to requests, and to local stakeholders who
lash out against the OHM for not responding quickly enough to their
expectations, and so  on.}. We can obviously not examine them all, and
instead prefer to focus on one experiment that has been a success. One
of those experiments is part of an ongoing study into the energy
trajectories of the inhabitants of the Pays de  Bitche\footnote{This
survey is part of an inter-OHM research programme entitled ENERGON,
which brings together six OHM  (Rhone Valley, Provence Coalfield, Nunavik, Pima County, Fessenheim and Pays de  Bitche).}.
The survey is headed by an ecologist and a sociologist, although it has
a dominant human sciences\unskip\break 
element. Several cohorts of students have
been involved in the work: carrying out an inventory of the energy
sector  (March 2022, M1 Sociology), conducting semi-directive
interviews with local residents  (October 2022, M1 ethnology), and
administering questionnaires for local residents  (April 2023, L2
sociology). The project has also benefited from the contribution of two
interns  (March--April 2023, L3 Humanities and January--July 2023, M1
Ethnology). Its initial results will be presented at the end of 2023,
at the OHM PdB's annual feedback seminar. Referring to this event as a
``feedback seminar'' is quite apt in that it marks the third
stage in the cycle of giving, in which we repay the population and our
partners for what they have given us. This approach was reinforced by
``hot'' and ``cold'' feedback from the survey carried
out by the ethnology students. At the end of their week in the field,
they were invited to present their findings and analyses before
stakeholders in the field, giving them the opportunity to validate or
refute their hypotheses and observations by subjecting them to critical
scrutiny. During the second university semester, they were then asked
to rework their data as part of a methods course supervised by a
lecturer. The final goal was to submit a research report at the end of
the academic year and, in the meantime, to put their work to the test
once again at a ``cold'' feedback event at Lyc\'{e}e Teyssier 
(late March 2023), again in the presence of local stakeholders, as well
as the high school students. This exercise had four main objectives.
Firstly, to produce data for the OHM PdB. Secondly, to invite students
to give an oral account of their fieldwork to a large audience.
Thirdly, to encourage interaction between local stakeholders, high
school students and teachers. And fourthly, to give the pupils,
students and local stakeholders an opportunity to gain practical
experience of the demands of scientific work. More generally, this
experimental process is designed to create social bonds, apply
methodology and disseminate  knowledge\footnote{Generally speaking,
students are very enthusiastic about the idea of carrying out
well-defined, progressive fieldwork with a tangible purpose. It will
not come as a surprise that there is a chronic lack of practical
application for what is taught in the humanities and social sciences.
The needs of the OHM PdB thus provide an opportunity to back up
academic teaching with a hands-on blend of theoretical and practical
knowledge. For local stakeholders, these operations are a chance to
enrich their viewpoints on the topic in question. Interaction between
the parties involved often depends on the respective status of the
participants. Elected representatives sometimes seek to align the
results with the interests of the local authority they represent.
Teachers often retain a\unskip\break 
critical stance, ready to highlight any
shortcomings. Local authority employees tend to provide additional
information and ask technical questions. In short, everyone plays their
part and---to date---in a spirit of goodwill. The main indicator of the
operation's success is the presence of local stakeholders at the
``hot'' and ``cold'' feedback  sessions.}.\unskip\break The 
ambition is to use multiple situations to broaden the resonance across the
territory, so as to foster a culture of interdisciplinarity and
participation that will hopefully engender habits, attitudes and a
taste for science. Then comes the question of objectively measuring the
effects of these experiments. 

\section{Measuring the impact}\label{sec7}
If it is true that a gift results in a return gift, and that mutual aid
begets mutual aid, then the actions we take can serve as measuring
instruments. Attendance at scientific events can be a useful indicator.
The four editions of the collective programme  (\textit{Promenons dans
les bois, J'ai trouv\'{e} l'eau si belle, Aurores bor\'{e}ales, Sauvage
par nature}) drew nearly 8000 people, with an average of 2000 per
event. The fourteen conference/debates and readings organized directly
by the OHM at these events attracted an average of 63 people, for a
total of 890. It is, of course, difficult to infer the real 
(qualitative) benefits of these operations from a quantitative
assessment. However, these  figures primarily reflect the OHM's gifts
to the territory. The real impact  (in terms of the effects produced)
can be measured more by the regularity of  attendance\footnote{It
could rightly be argued that the audiences are socially homogeneous and
endogamous. This is true to an extent. Half of the regular audience is
made up of teachers and public service staff and executives. However,
the other half is much more diverse and changeable and it would appear
that the location of the event is decisive in their attendance.
Mobility is thus a valuable indicator, telling us about the distance
people are prepared to travel  (in short, the effort they will make) to
take part in an event of scientific interest, a factor that would
justify a study in its own  right.}, the level of participation in
debates, expressions of satisfaction based on applause, and the
comments made at the end of events, although all of these remains
rather difficult to assess. In my view, one reliable indicator could be
the number of internship applications
from the Pays de Bitche, from\unskip\break
former students of Lyc\'{e}e Teyssier. 
For a wide range of reasons, and
despite the particularly attractive hosting conditions, the OHM PdB has
always had great difficulty recruiting  interns\footnote{The
geographical distance from the university sites, the almost complete
lack of public transport, the need to have a car, a driving licence and
fully comprehensive car insurance are real obstacles. To this we can
add the symbolic obstacles that feature in the most common
representations  (among university teachers and students alike): the
Pays de Bitche is seen as a backwater area with little appeal, where
German is spoken and which is rural in character, which is seen as a
considerable disadvantage. I only managed to change these perceptions
very slightly by organizing courses, seminars and workshops in the
area. It is amusing to note that, for a while, only African students
having recently arrived in France accepted my internship offers\,\ldots\ 
because they weren't receiving any in the university cities and my
internship positions were not being  filled.}. Over time, however, and
thanks to the OHM's presence in the area, an increasing number of
applications have been received. Young people from the Pays de Bitche
have been recruited to contribute to our work. In addition, the OHM PdB
funds exploratory projects led by local stakeholders, provided that
they are based on the work of other researchers and involve long-term
cooperation. The OHM PdB's management board has also recently decided
to add a non-scientist member to its small  team\footnote{In this
case, she is a history-geography and civic education teacher from the
Teyssier high school in  Bitche.}. Meanwhile, local stakeholders have
been invited to contribute to a book on the Pays de Bitche, both as
authors and as reviewers. These wide-ranging initiatives underline the
fact that interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research at the OHM
PdB is more than just academic rhetoric: it is a living, breathing
experiment. There is no need to set the bar too high in the hope that
local players will begin to analyse their territory using scientific
methodology. As a process, this is a potentially desirable horizon, but
not a necessity. More modestly, we might say that instead of
effectiveness in terms of achieving the stated objectives, it is more
realistic to aim for efficiency in terms of utilizing the resources
available. Above all, it is important to establish the conditions for a
cross-learning process between researchers from different disciplines
and non-research partners What this means is that, at this stage, the
most important aspect is not so much a hypothetical stabilized body of
knowledge as the\unskip\break 
process by which it was produced, given that the
general principle of the exchanges is to create links. Hence the
importance of a convivial environment. For example, many of our
conference/debates are followed by a meal with music, where discussions
can continue  (well into the night)\footnote{These informal sessions
are arranged from the outset, via local associations or caterers
specialized in smaller events, who view the operation as an opportunity
to showcase their know-how and products. The same goes for local
musicians. This notion of conviviality is by no means trivial, which
becomes particularly clear when it is structurally prevented. Let me
give you just one example. After the public presentation of the
fieldwork carried out by the M1 Ethnology students at Lyc\'ee
Teyssier, we were all invited to have lunch in the school canteen.
Except that teachers were made to eat in the teachers' dining room
and students in the students' dining room. School rules prevented
adults from having lunch together because of their different
statuses---a symbolic and practical hindrance to the convivial 
experience.}. By expanding the offering this way, the aim is to go
further than simply disseminating knowledge to forge links. This is
what Alter refers to as ``the principle of expenditure'', in
line with Georges Bataille's observation that ``consumption is the
means by which separated beings communicate. Everything is apparent,
everything is open and everything is infinite between individuals who
consume intensely'' \citep{Alter2009}. In the logic of giving,
these sequences of mutual indebtedness commit the recipient to giving
back in turn. Of course, no one forces them to do so, and neither is it
possible to set an expiry date. This is why OHM PdB's expenditure, or
indeed the increase in expenditure, however imprecise it may be,
remains a gamble Of course, the applause, the smiles, the shared
laughter, the warmth of the conversations at the end of a conference
are all expressions of gratitude from the public for the work carried
out by the OHM. But the challenge also lies in furthering the
relationship. And not necessarily as regards the OHM PdB. If one of the
attendees develops a passion for palynology, microbiology or sociology
after attending a conference and starts a university course, if another
offers their services, as in the case of retired scientists or a young
intern for example, or if yet another becomes a friend, the
three-pronged act of giving will have served its purpose.
Interdisciplinary and participatory research  (pre-configuration,
governance, research, feedback, transformation) is a product of this
same effervescence.
There is a strong
temptation to try and codify the
exchanges between the parties, to identify ``who does what''.
Clearly, the gift approach lies at the heart of the exchanges,
\mbox{cooperation} and sometimes coordination. What philosophers Isabelle
Stengers and Didier Debaise call ``generative devices'' are
``intentional arrangements, collectively constructed and
experienced, which both presuppose and foster the capacity of those who
participate in them to give a shared sense of purpose to the situations
that involve  them''\footnote{He adds: `The aim of such
arrangements is not to achieve a unanimity that would smooth out
differences and bring an end to conflicts, but to add substance to what
boils down to a matter of conflict, subject to the exclusive concept of
``either/or''. Consenting to taking part in such a process means being
willing to believe that it is possible for all of us, and thanks to
others, to arrive at a truth about the situation that concerns us, in a
way that does not mean triumph for some and defeat for others' 
\citep{DebaiseStengers2023}.}. However, in the spiral of exchange, it is
often difficult to know precisely whether we are giving, receiving or
reciprocating. Likewise, it is impossible to reduce these exchanges to
a cognitive, strategic or functional dimension. From a Maussian
perspective, the most important thing is to find ways of sustaining
cooperation and making it more fluid. This is the very condition for
interdisciplinary and participatory scientific
practice. 

\section{As long as we remain modest}\label{sec8}
The world has, on the whole, succumbed to the dictates of economic
reason  (ideology of progress, myth of growth, belief in development,
material over-consumption, industrial over-production,
techno-solutionism, widespread competition, flexibility,
neo-management, the supremacy of evaluation)  \citep{DardotLaval2009},
and the world of research is no exception to this rule 
\citep{Stengers2022,Stengers2013}. The logic of performance takes
precedence over the process. Intentions are increasingly ambitious:
carrying out investigations to publish scientific results, practising
interdisciplinarity to provide answers to major contemporary issues,
involving civil society to democratize knowledge and increase its
circulation. But to admit that intentions---however laudable---have a
performative function that can do away with the need to consider
circumstances and effects, in a word,
the process by which these
ambitions are achieved, is nothing short of magical 
thinking\footnote{Sociologist Lucien L\'evy-Bruhl  (a comrade of
Emile Durkheim) believed that magical thinking was ingrained in 
every\unskip\break
human being. By this he meant the ability to think we can bend reality
to our will. His work was severely criticized by Marcel Mauss in his
day, largely because the latter thought that it sent primitive peoples
back to a pre-logical stage. In 1962, in \textit{La pens\'{e}e sauvage}
(\citeyear{Levi-Strauss1962}),  
L\'{e}vi-Strauss repeated that it was absurd to
contrast the rationality of modern thought with the irrationality of
primitive thought. More recently, sociologist Bertrand Meheust, a
specialist in the history of psychology, has tended to see magical
thinking as an attempt to escape the anxiety of the unknown or of inner
conflict. The idea here is that it's better to be wrong than uncertain 
\citep{Meheust2009}.}. This is easily explained. Once they look beyond
the theoretical universe of their epistemological framework,
researchers come up against the materiality of the social world.
Outside the cosy comfort of the office, the concept gets caught up in
the real world and suddenly finds itself less secure, raising a whole
series of practical questions starting with: ``how?''.~A
definitive answer seems unlikely. There are far too many parameters to
take into consideration, and they are far too unstable to let us narrow
down standards, procedures or even  models\footnote{This means dealing
with social, cultural, economic, geographical and political parameters,
all of which attest to the particularly complex nature of the 
exercise.}. Everything needs to be repeated, time and time again. 

\section{Conclusion}\label{sec9}
It is a fact that the production of knowledge is becoming increasingly
collective due to the growing complexity of the parameters that need to
be considered. The rise in the number of disciplinary viewpoints and
the need to engage non-academic forces in research are major
challenges. It is still clearly early days for the complex thinking
advocated by Edgar Morin\footnote{For Morin, complexity refers to the
elementary Latin meaning of the word ``complexus''. In other words, ``that
which is woven together''. In his view, the real problem  (of thought
reform) is that we have learned to separate far too much. It would, in
fact, be more useful to learn to link things. For Morin, linking is not
just about establishing an end-to-end connection. Linking is about
establishing a connection that operates in a dialogue loop. Morin
advocates shifting from simple thinking  (guessing, preferring,
believing) to complex thinking  (proposing hypotheses for solutions,
creating relationships, seeking criteria, relying on valid
justifications, accepting self-correction). And this shift can only
happen through systematic learning. This requires social and
educational structures conducive to complex and systemic thinking 
\citep{Morin1990}.}. Hence the
importance of 
documenting local\unskip\break
experiments\footnote{On interdisciplinarity 
\citep{Darbellayetal2016}. On participatory science 
\citep{Houllieretal2017}.}, focusing less on \textit{what should be
done} than on \textit{what is possible}. When it comes to
possibilities, there is a huge range of resources and constraints which
largely depend on the creativity of the stakeholders and their desire
to work together to overcome problem situations. This means reversing
the usual order of values. Stimulating interdisciplinary and
participatory scientific practice cannot be solely focused on
delivering scientific results. Let's not put the horse before the cart!
First, it is vital to find the best ways of working together with the
aim of achieving joint scientific production. This means creating a
shared scientific culture\footnote{According to Stengers, this implies
a ``culture of symbiosis'', i.e. ``a culture in which each protagonist is
able to set out what is important to them and to understand that what
they learn from the other should always be considered as answers to the
questions that are of concern to the later'' \citep{Stengers2013}.}. In
other words, swimming in the same waters. Ideas and attitudes become
``cultural'' when they spread within a given population. `This
distributive conception of culture goes against the usual social and
cognitive science notions of culture, such as the error of perceiving
it as a well-defined system or an independent variable, and the
tendency to ``essentialize'' culture and treat it as an explanation
rather than as a phenomenon to be explained' \citep{Atran2003}. In this
way, and with all due humility, we can legitimately envisage
implementing interdisciplinary and participatory scientific practices.
The challenge is `for different ``partners'' to succeed in thinking
together, for each of them to take seriously the concerns of the
others'  \citep{Stengers2013}. This requires a long-term approach 
\citep{Chenorkian2020} and a healthy dose of modesty. At a time when
biodiversity and the climate are under unprecedented threat, it is
imperative to consider the power of collective achievements since they
fuel thought and multiply action, fostering alliances between
individuals determined to gain a better understanding of a territory,
or even of the world, by constantly exchanging knowledge and know-how
in a process of equalization in which non-humans are also fully
involved. In short, the production of collective intelligence to meet
the challenge of learning. If the
most determining issue of our time is
\mbox{habitability,} there is hardly anything other than knowledge to provide
answers. Hence the importance of a shared scientific culture. Which
makes it all the more necessary to train people  (scientists or not)
capable of assessing risks, of making human actions intelligible, in
describing the fabric of interdependence at all levels, of thinking
about beings with their environment. This science of relationships and
conditions of habitability is fundamental in its capacity to awaken the
imagination and make the world more interesting. A science which, in
addition to the rigor and requirements that underpins it, is capable,
when interpreting the facts, of mobilizing political, social, economic
or technical knowledge frameworks. A science anchored in concrete
matters. If the advancement of knowledge has always been a driving
force for the sciences at the cost of a relative disconnection with
society and living things, the advancement of knowledge in terms of
habitability requires, for its part, a general remobilization of
ability to learn and understand. An open science in short.

\section*{Declaration of interests}
The author does not work for, advise, own shares in, or receive funds
from any organization that could benefit from this article, and has
declared no affiliations other than his research institution.

\section*{Funding}
This work was carried out within the framework of the OHM ``Pays de
Bitche'' and (co)funded by the LabEx DRIIHM, French programme
``Investissements d'Avenir'' (ANR-11-LABX-0010) which is managed by the
ANR.

\section*{Acknowledgements}
I would like to express my warmest thanks to Corinne Pardo and Thierry
Heulin for proofreading this text and helping me to improve it
substantially. 

\CDRGrant[ANR]{ANR-11-LABX-0010}

\back{}

\def\og{\guillemotleft}
\def\fg{\guillemotright}

\bibliographystyle{crgeos}
\bibliography{crgeos20230803}
\refinput{crgeos20230803-reference.tex}

\end{document}
