\makeatletter
\@ifundefined{HCode}
{\documentclass[screen,CRGEOS,Unicode,biblatex,Thematic]{cedram}
\addbibresource{crgeos20250254.bib}
\newenvironment{Table}{\begin{table}}{\end{table}}
\newenvironment{noXML}{}{}
\let\citep\parencite
\let\citet\textcite
\def\xcitealp#1#2{\citeauthor{#1}, \citelink{#1}{#2}}
\def\citealt#1#2{\citeauthor{#1}, \citelink{#1}{#2}}
\newcommand*{\citelink}[2]{\hyperlink{cite.\therefsection @#1}{#2}}
\def\defcitealias#1#2{}
\let\citetalias\textcite
\let\citepalias\parencite
\def\thead{\noalign{\relax}\hline}
\def\endthead{\noalign{\relax}\hline}
\def\tabnote#1{\vskip4pt\parbox{.95\linewidth}{#1}}
\def\botline{\\\hline}
\def\tbody{\noalign{\relax}}
\def\xsection#1{}
\def\Tg<#1>{\par}
\def\tsup#1{$^{{#1}}$}
\def\tsub#1{$_{{#1}}$}
\RequirePackage{etoolbox}
\usepackage{upgreek}
\def\jobid{crgeos20250254}
%\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}{\\}
\newcommand*{\hyperlinkcite}[1]{\hyper@link{cite}{cite.#1}}
\DOI{10.5802/crgeos.308}
\datereceived{2025-03-20}
\daterevised{2025-07-26}
\dateaccepted{2025-07-28}
\ItHasTeXPublished
}
{
\PassOptionsToPackage{authoryear}{natbib}
\documentclass[crgeos]{article}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} 
\def\CDRdoi{10.5802/crgeos.308}
\def\citelink#1#2{\citeyear{#1}}
\def\xcitealp#1#2{\citealp{#1}}
\makeatletter
\def\CDRsupplementaryTwotypes[#1]#2#3{}
\def\selectlanguage#1{} 
\def\hyperlinkcite#1#2{\citeyear{#1}}
\let\newline\break
}
\makeatother

\begin{document}

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

\TopicFR{Zone critique et socio-\'ecosyst\`emes}
\TopicEN{Critical zone and socio-ecosystems}

\CDRsetmeta{articletype}{foreword}

\title{Human-Environment Observatories: Foreword}

\alttitle{Les Observatoires Homme Milieu: Avant-propos}

\author{\firstname{Robert} \lastname{Chenorkian}}
\address{Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France} 
\email{Robert.chenorkian@univ-amu.fr}

\makeatletter
\def\@setdate{}%
\makeatother

\maketitle

\vspace*{-6pt}

\twocolumngrid

\end{noXML}

\xsection{}

{\advance\baselineskip by -.3pt

This thematic issue of the reports of the French Academy of Sciences,
Geosciences series is dedicated to the CNRS's Human-Environment
Observatories, (Observatoires Hommes-Milieux, OHM) and their
organisation. The included contributions present illustrations of
research results produced by these observatories, which have been in
existence, except for the one that has just been created (MIDELT), 
for between 7 and 18 years. The purpose of this foreword is
to explain what these observatories are and how they operate, so that
readers can understand their role and the content and characteristics
of the research they carry out.


The Human-Environment Observatories and the \textit{Interdisciplinary
Research Facility on Human-Environment Interactions} (Labex
DRIIHM\footnote{``Laboratoire d'Excellence'', an initiative of the
french government's ``Grand Emprunt'' to promote research in France
(Labex ANR-11-LABX-0010). Created in 2012, renewed in 2020 and extended
until 2026, it is currently awaiting possible longer-term renewal.}),
which is inextricably linked to it, were designed and built to study
the complexity of highly anthropised social-ecological system (SES) hit
by a crisis\footnote{Thus often labelled as ``in crisis'', which is a
linguistic stretch because the meaning of this qualification applied to
an SES is far from relevant.}. There can be no DRIIHM without an OHM,
and no OHM operating at full capacity without the DRIIHM. 


The two groups make up a CNRS-Ecology \& Environment system designed to
encourage and support the development of interdisciplinarity in human
and environmental sciences\footnote{Or SDE, which covers Earth, 
Life and Human and Social sciences, insofar as they are dedicated to this
field.}, the combination of which is necessary to understand the highly
complex nature of the SES affected by the crises caused mainly by
globalisation and global change. This system has been designed to
facilitate the emergence and use of this necessary interdisciplinarity
by avoiding or eliminating the difficulties usually encountered in its
implementation. 


The OHMs were conceived by the author as part of the CNRS's
``EDD''\footnote{I.e.\ environment and sustainable development.}
department in 2006, then developed as part of InEE's\footnote{CNRS's
institute of ecology and environment which is called now 
CNRS-Ecology \& Environment.}. The first OHM, Bassin Minier de
Provence, was created in 2007. They have been strengthened as a system
by the DRIIHM Labex (2012--2026), which brings them all together and
has led to a major functional and conceptual development of the overall
system. There are now 14 OHMs in mainland France, the French overseas
territories and abroad\footnote{They are Bassin minier de Provence
(2007), Oyapock (Guyane, 2008), Pyr\'{e}n\'{e}es -- Haut-Vicdessos
(2009), Tess\'{e}k\'{e}r\'{e} (Ferlo, S\'{e}n\'{e}gal, 2009), Estarreja
(Portugal, 2010), Vall\'{e}e du Rh\^{o}ne (2011), Littoral
m\'{e}diterran\'{e}en (2012), Nunavik (2012), Pima County (Arizona,
\'{E}tats-Unis, 2014), Pays de Bitche (2015), Patagonia-Bahia
Exploradores (Chili, 2015), Littoral cara\"{i}be (Guadeloupe, 2016),
Fessenheim (2018), MIDELT (Maroc, 2025).}. 

}

\section{The OHM-DRIIHM system}

\subsection{OHM}

\subsubsection{Definition and organisation: characteristics}


An OHM therefore studies (in time and space) an SES that has been, is,
or will be affected by a major crisis likely to profoundly change its
functioning and dynamics. This could be, for example, a mining
operation and the closure of the mine. These socio-ecosystemic crises,
which call into question the entire functioning of the SES into
consideration, make sense for all SDEs. They also necessarily
correspond to the questions and expectations of the society affected,
which must also be taken into account in the design and development of
research projects. In this way, the results of the research can not
only provide answers to the scientific questions posed by the
researchers, but can also help the Social Players (economic,
administrative, political, associative, ordinary inhabitants of the
area concerned) to devise their own responses to the issues they face,
in order to provide the best possible guidance for their actions in the
areas in which they are working towards Development. The OHMs are thus
a mechanism for fundamental and applied research and for taking account
of society's needs. It has been designed to encourage/support/promote
the interdisciplinarity needed to understand the complexity of
socio-ecosystems\footnote{This is the definition
given when it was first presented in Strasbourg on 6 March 2007, at a
SIC - INSU (CNRS) foresight symposium.}.

Another fundamental characteristic is that OHMs have been designed to
make SDE interdisciplinarity easy to achieve by avoiding, circumventing
or even eliminating the obstacles usually encountered in seeking it out.

\subsubsection{Basic principles}

OHMs are characterised by a constitutive, original and
identity-building heuristic framework, generally referred to as the
\textit{Ternary}, which is characterised by three concepts: the
Social-ecological Framework, the Disruptive Event and the Focal Object
(see below).


They are organised according to a series of characteristic functions,
the most important of which are:
\begin{itemize}
\item When an OHM is set up, a pre-configuration year is factored in,
during which its definition is clarified and a pre-problematisation is
co-constructed so that the ways in which it will be tackled can be
specified; 

\item The annual opening\footnote{See below.} of calls for research
projects (CRP), doctoral or post-doctoral contracts;

\item The formulation on these occasions of projects which can be,
freely, disciplinary or interdisciplinary;

\item The organisation of a number of seminars (one a year for each
OHM, for the DRIIHM, and others on specific themes), which represent
fundamental opportunities and times for meetings and exchanges, and are
the very basis of the life of the system;

\item A general co-operative approach, which may concern all those
involved in research (from students to senior staff, lecturers,
researchers, engineers or technicians), or, depending on the
circumstances, may also be extended to Social Players.

\item Particular and crucial attention will be paid to the duration of
the research, in order to free up time for discussion and reflection in
this diversity and to encourage active interaction and emergence on the
one hand, but also to take into account the specific and different
timeframes for each of the SDE and the people dedicated to them.
\end{itemize}
Other functionalities are also important, but those identified here are
at the very basis of the creation and development of the
``\textit{culture broth}'' \citep[cf.\ below and][p.~297--298]{Chenorkian2020} 
thanks to which the OHM-DRIIHM system can develop and make it possible
to create the interdisciplinarity necessary for an understanding of
SES. These elements form the conceptual and functional frameworks and
their interactions, which underpin the whole system.


\subsection{The DRIIHM, role and actions}

The role of the DRIIHM is to bring together and coordinate all the OHMs
into a functional structure.
\begin{itemize}
\item It allocates and monitors the funding awarded to the OHMs, in
particular during the various CRPs that it co-finances. It also ensures
and organises relations between the OHMs\footnote{See
\url{https://www.driihm.fr/}.}.

\item It fosters cross-disciplinary links (organised relations between
the OHMs via the staff who participate in them), enabling the
development of common tools: databases (G\'{e}oDRIIHM: geocatalogue of
metadata, PhotoDRIIHM: OHM photo library, DRIIHM-HAL: HAL collection of
scientific productions, Canal-U DRIIHM: video resources (films,
seminars, scientific mediation), ORRSO: Open Science Resource Search
Tool), etc.

\item It has enabled the emergence and implementation of permanent
working groups: EEDD (Education for the Environment and Sustainable
Development), DataDRIIHM (Working and Discussion Group on Data Produced
by OHMs, its Valorisation, Visualisation and 
FAIRisation)\footnote{FAIRisation: principle of data organisation,
the aim of which is to make digital resources easy to Find, Accessible,
Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR acronym).}.

\item It enables the development of bottom-up cross-disciplinary
research projects: SASI-OHM (Food systems under influence), ENERGON
(Energy transition), HYDECO (Connection, disconnection, reconnection in
socio-hydrosystems), mainly through the allocation of funding both for
the research concerned and for the organisation of discussion and
follow-up events.
\end{itemize}

It is essential to the ability to bring about and sustain the
development of interdisciplinarity, and it also plays a fundamental and
functional role of a reactor (in the biological sense of the term),
enabling the emergence and expansion of the ``culture broth'' that
fundamentally ensures that the OHM-DRIIHM system functions properly    
(diversity,\unskip\break indisciplinarity\footnote{{Sensu}
\xcitealp{Loty2005}{2005}; \xcitealp{CatellinLoty2013}{2013}.  
Cf.\ \citet[][p. 297]{Chenorkian2020}.}, transgressions, emergences,
innovations (serendipity), interdisciplinarity, cf.\ {below} and
\citet[][p. 39--49]{Morin1991}; \citet[p.~297--298]{Chenorkian2020}).

\vspace*{-2pt}

\subsection{Complexity}

\vspace*{-2pt}

The notion of complexity used here must be understood in the sense of
E. Morin and J.-L. Le Moigne \citep{Morin1990,LeMoigne1990}. All
SES, and particularly the highly anthropised ones that concern us here,
are highly complex, i.e.\ no single discipline can account for them and
explain how they work. There is therefore a structural need for
interdisciplinarity between all the SDEs\footnote{Known as the
Global Ecology approach.} that is required to address the complexity
of the SESs covered by the OHM-DRIIHM project. In a nutshell, we could
say ``interdisciplinarity, because of complexity''. For us, there is no
other reason\footnote{No moral or ethical reason. Cf.\ among others
\xcitealp{Lemay2017}{2017}, Critique de la raison disciplinaire: une r\'{e}volution
tranquille? TrajEthos, On interdisciplinarity, 6(1), 11--28, slide 18
Interdisciplinarity: ``research democracy''.}. This fact is absolutely
fundamental, because it conditions the entire organisation, functioning
and interdisciplinary capacities of the entire system, particularly in
its simplicity.

\vspace*{-2pt}

\section{Features and functions} 

\vspace*{-2pt}

\subsection{Human environment \textit{Observatory}}

\vspace*{-2pt}

An SES cannot be analysed because it is complex. To analyse it would be
to simplify it and thus destroy the links of interaction between all
the systems that make it up. ``We evaluate a complex system by
observing its behaviour'' \citep{LeMoigne1990}. This is why the meaning
of the term observatory in OHM is not as simple as it might seem.
``Observatory'' in this context has two meanings. It has the common
meaning of a device generally placed in a specific location, usually
bringing together various measuring devices whose recordings are
monitored over time, in accordance with strictly defined standards. The
results, which will be stored in a database, will be used to support
research into a specific theme of great importance to the subject under
consideration.

This meaning also exists in the case of OHMs, but ``Observatory'' is
above all a way of understanding the complexity of SES. Observation
will make it possible to build a systemic model\footnote{``The Complex is
made intelligible by modelling'' 
\citep[][p. 10]{LeMoigne1990}.}. Observation is the primary act
of research into SES. This research is built up through an iterative
sequence which includes observation/experimentation--comparison/systemic
modelling. In terms of iteration, this trans-scalar approach, for a
given question, leads to proposing the most probable interpretation
among the attested or conceived possibilities of the systems studied.

\subsection{The Ternary}

In principle, any OHM concerns a highly anthropised SES, marked by a
crisis that is also anthropogenic and that has profoundly disrupted it.
The challenge is to understand what has happened and what is happening
to this SES as a result of such upheaval and any resulting actions by
society.

The OHM's SES object can be read and understood according to a system
of three converging axes making up what is known as ``the Ternary''. It
consists of:
\begin{itemize}
\item The \textbf{Social-ecological framework} (Fait
Structurant), which corresponds to the state of the SES concerned, most
often marked in this case by a socio-economic activity with a high
environmental impact, but also by an ecological framework which weighs
heavily on humanity and human society. In all cases, the structuring
factor predominantly organises the initial functioning of the SES under
consideration.

\item The \textbf{Disrupting Event} (\'{E}v\'{e}nement
Fondateur), the crisis that has hit, is hitting or
will hit the SES, causing upheaval and establishing the conditions for
setting up a new way of working that is the subject of the studies
conducted by the OHM, its very heart.

\item The \textbf{Focal Object} (Objet Focal), determined by
the convergence of the first two, it defines the territory which,
concerned by the Social-ecological framework and the Disrupting Event, will be the
object of study for all the SDEs.
\end{itemize}
Each of the elements of the Ternary is necessarily anthropogenic. Each
interacts closely with the other two. This system forms the basis of
any OHM and conditions all the research activities that take place
within it. It facilitates and promotes interactions between the SDEs.
It is the very basis on which all interdisciplinarity is built in OHMs.

Thus, for the first OHM to be built, Bassin Minier de Provence (BMP,
Provence coalfield), \textit{the Social-ecological framework} is the
mining of the lignite deposit in this area, which has been going on for
more than two centuries, with all the socio-ecological consequences for
the organisation of this territory and the society that has developed
there; the \textit{Disrupting Event} was the closure of the mine in
2003, which put an end to this socio-ecologically decisive activity and
disrupted the entire existing SES and its dynamics. The \textit{Focal
Object} is defined as the entire area affected by the operation of the
mine and marked by its social, economic and ecological consequences,
and by the sudden closure of the mine and its consequences (closure of
the operation, of the employment area, changes in ecological, economic
and social living conditions).


Although an OHM is a single place (possibly made up of several
sites\footnote{Cf.\ OHM \textit{French Mediterranean coastal
zone}. 4 sites on the coast of Marseille, the Gulf of Aigues-Mortes,
in Corsica in Balagne and on the Biguglia lagoon.}), it will always
be protean depending on the points of view considered (the docker's
coastline will not be the same as that of the sailor, the tourist, the
town planner, etc.). All of them will necessarily have wide overlaps,
due in particular to the nature of the object itself, but also to the
reading grid put in place by the ternary and to its consequences on the
design of the research.

Particularities of the Disrupting Event.
\begin{itemize}
\item It is a major event for the SES under consideration, and more
often than not contradict sit head-on\footnote{It is then said to
be \textit{antagonistic}. Sometimes, however, it may simply have a
strong influence on the SES without directly contradicting the
Social-ecological framework (as in the case of the Oyapock or
Tess\'{e}k\'{e}r\'{e} OHMs, for example). This Disrupting Event is then
described as \textit{anagonic} \citep[cf.][]{Chenorkian2020}.}.

\item It is an open door to the SES, relevant to the 
Social-ecological Framework under consideration.

\item When it appears, the Disrupting Event~causes most of the dynamics
(sub-systems) of~the SES and their trajectories to change at roughly
the same time. It thus determines a Time Zero ($T_{0}$) and
brings together all the SDEs, which thus have the same temporal
relationship with it. It gives them the same starting point for
studying the evolution of the SES affected by this crisis. It is a
major tool for assessing the changes that have occurred, their
significance and the evolution of their trajectories. This is an
exceptional situation for comparing the results obtained by all the
research, whatever the disciplines (or interdisciplines) involved (see\break
Figure~\ref{fig1}).

\item $T_{0}$ is used to establish a \textit{before} and an
\textit{after}. It also allows us to determine a state zero (see
Figure~\ref{fig1}), that of the SES at the time of the Disrupting
Event. This moment, which is not very large in terms of time, makes it
possible to establish an inventory, framed by the
ternary, which will provide an invaluable basis for understanding and
assessing the impact of the crisis and its consequences. Any OHM must
give priority to establishing this baseline situation, which will be
the reference point for understanding all the new dynamics and
assessing changes in the old ones\footnote{Depending on the purpose of
the baseline study, an analytical approach may legitimately be used, as
long as the aim is to determine the components (study of a given
taxon, for example) and not the dynamics, at which point the complexity
(interactions, etc.) becomes apparent and therefore need to be
approached in the right way.}.

\item $T_{0}$ also makes it possible to establish a before
and an after (see Figure~\ref{fig1}). It therefore forms the basis of the
retrospective observation that will enable us to understand the
dynamics at work in the context of the Social-ecological framework and
their trajectories, and thus provide a high level of understanding of
the causes and dynamics of the zero state, an essential circumstance
for understanding the conditions of the post-Disrupting Event future.\pagebreak
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics{fig01}
\caption{\label{fig1}Consequences of the Disrupting Event on the SES
studied by OHM.}
\end{figure*}
The Disrupting Event
\begin{itemize}
\item is a major factor in simplifying not the SES under
consideration,  which is impossible \mbox{because} of its
complexity, but its approach (the only way to make this complex system
easier to understand).

\item necessarily has a temporal dimension, unlike a natural event
(earthquake, tsunami, for example\footnote{We are talking here about
the impact of these two events on the SES, and not about the events
themselves, which obviously have their own history, most often
independent of the SES they will impact, which is in no way linked to
their occurrence. This is why such a natural event (earthquake,
tsunami) cannot be a Disrupting Event and and provide a basis for the
creation of an OHM.}). It is necessarily built up over time (see, for
example, the reasons for the closure of the Provence coal mines or the
Fessenheim power station). 

\item poses questions of profound changes to the SES, reconversion and
rehabilitation, which necessarily concern all SDEs. This is one of the
major factors facilitating the emergence of interdisciplinarity.

\item These issues will very often be socially and ecologically
sensitive. The ternary approach and the Disrupting Event bring
scientists and society very close together. It makes it easy to take
account of the social context and queries when formulating research
questions. This is one of the hallmarks of OHM research, and a
guarantee of its relevance to society.

\item Presents a uniqueness. The Disrupting Event is unique in its
role, space and time. It is a door that opens onto the SES at a given
point at a given moment and in major contradiction/modification of the
Social-ecological Framework. Although it is necessarily the result of different
components that have converged to make its appearance possible, this in
no way alters its uniqueness.

\item Is fundamentally stable. This event is characterised. It has no
future in itself\footnote{E.g.\ the closure of Houill\`{e}res de
Provence. This fact {per se} will not change. It is marked
in its form at a given moment, the moment of closure.}. It is the
dynamics that are put in place from the moment it occurs that evolve,
and the study of these dynamics is the very raison d'\^{e}tre of the
OHM.
\end{itemize}

\subsection{Interdisciplinarity}

There are many definitions of this term\footnote{Cf.\ 
\citet{Chenorkian2020}; in the Anglo-Saxon context, and particularly
in the United States, interdisciplinarity actually corresponds to a
process of disciplinarisation, the construction of a new discipline:
``What is considered interdisciplinary today might be considered
disciplinary tomorrow.'', \citet{USNSF},
\url{https://new.nsf.gov/funding/learn/research-types/learn-about-interdisciplinary-research}.}.
In the context of the OHM, ``interdisciplinarity'' is the tool which, by
bringing together the various SDE disciplines and their contributions,
makes it possible to understand the complexity of the SES under
consideration and to answer the scientific questions raised by its
understanding. Each person's contributions, in terms of operations and
results, provide enrichment for all, leading to the emergence of an
``enlightened~disciplinarity'', which is the first level of our
interdisciplinarity \citep[cf.][pp.\ 301--302]{Chenorkian2020}.


\subsubsection{The creation of interdisciplinarity: the ``culture broth''}

The interdisciplinary approach, as defined above, is not likely to
emerge naturally within the framework of traditional research and
higher education systems, because nothing is provided within them to
encourage it as such. It is therefore necessarily transgressive,
because it clashes with the organisations, concepts, workings and
traditions of most of these systems. The emergence of
interdisciplinarity therefore necessarily presupposes a resolution of
these elements that would oppose its development and, in particular, an
open-mindedness (indisciplinarity, see note 11) that allows the
contributions all disciplines to be echoed by the players in each of
them.

The challenge, therefore, within the OHM-DRIIHM framework and the SES  
under consideration, is to remove these obstacles by promoting the
convergence of the various SDEs concerned. The entire OHM-DRIIHM system
has been designed with this aim in mind.


\paragraph*{Design}

\citet[][p.~38--49]{Morin1991} characterised and theorised the question of  
the liberation of thought, its insubordination to norms, its ability to
transgress dogmas and to identify the ``conditions that allow its
autonomy, and correlatively, the conditions of objectivity, innovation
and evolution of knowledge'' [p.~39]. This is exactly the challenge
we face when it comes to the emergence of interdisciplinarity
in OHMs.

To achieve the objective set here, the conditions are created for the
emergence of a virtuous circle that sets up a ``culture broth'' that 
Morin describes this as the existence of a dialogical exchange
activity, in which antagonisms and opposites complement each other
[p. 42], developing ``cultural heat'', ``caloric activation'' [p.
49], ``lively debates, exchanges,\,\ldots\ antagonisms''. Admittedly, this
activation leads to a lot of wasted energy and a lot of uncertainty,
but it also provides many opportunities for the development of ideas
and knowledge [p. 49].  This culture broth increases and frees up
the possibility of expressing deviances that can lead to hybridisation
or, better still, a creative synthesis of opposing ideas  [p. 41].


The OHM-DRIIHM mechanism for creating interdisciplinarity was built on
these conditions and  principles, described here with quotes from E.
Morin\footnote{The two mirror-graphs in
\citet[][p. 298, Figure 3]{Chenorkian2020}, illustrate these
functions and their implementation.}.

\vspace*{2pt}

\paragraph*{Putting it into practice}

Every OHM is an object that is co-constructed and co-problematised at
the time of its creation by all the SDEs involved. It is therefore
fully intelligible and accessible to all the SDEs and their
representatives from the outset. The crises affecting all the SESs
considered by the OHM {ipso facto} concern the fields of
interest and research of all the SDEs concerned. The subject is
therefore necessarily relevant to all of them. Working on it makes
sense and is of interest to all of them.

The OHM is therefore, by design, a functional place for all
disciplines to share ideas and research results, which form the
breeding ground from which interdisciplinarity develops. The OHM-DRIIHM
system provides all levels with the tools and dynamics to ensure
natural, frequent and productive outcomes. All these elements are
necessary for the SDEs to come on board. The framework thus created is
the very basis of the ``spontaneous'' emergence of interdisciplinarity
that we know from this system and which is its strength.

\vspace*{2pt}

\paragraph*{Basics of operation and efficiency}

The principle is to proscribe anything that over-disciplines or blocks
exchanges and debates, and prohibits the emergence of new avenues. Yet
these are the most common practices in the way research works. This is
a typical example of the construction of a ``culture
broth''\footnote{For a more detailed presentation, see
\citet[][p.~297--299]{Chenorkian2020}.}. The main thing is to avoid:
\begin{itemize}
\item not expertise, which is fundamental and beneficial to all, but
the posture of the expert, which gives a word of authority to one and
prohibits the interventions of others and exchanges between all.

\item excellence as the ultimate goal for each individual, which it
then closes in on itself and its skills. Excellence should only be
sought for the interdisciplinary system and its explanatory performance
and results.

\item the search for consensus in dialogue, which is unfortunately
terribly widespread but which neutralises, even undermines, any
capacity to transgress, a transgression which is nonetheless the very
breeding ground for interdisciplinarity and innovation.
\end{itemize}
On the contrary it seeks to: 
\begin{itemize}
\item encourage anything that opens up, decompartmentalises and
provokes open debate: diversity of scientific cultures, diversity of
disciplines, populations, functions, levels, to allow/encourage
interactions, disciplinary transgressions and innovations, in a word,
diversity;

\item simultaneously install the presence of hierarchy, panarchy and
an-archy \citep[cf.][]{Chenorkian2014,Chenorkian2020} in combinations and
relationships that are as far as necessary multi-scalar, trans-scalar
and a-scalar.

\item set up, plan and build meeting places and times to talk and
listen, to exchange ideas both formally and informally;

\item create opportunities for iterations (i.e.\ create the dynamics for
these iterations to take place) wherever necessary.\Tg</p>
\Tg<p>\noindent All the seminars, which are open to both academic and non-academic
participants in the scheme, are ideal places for developing these
behaviours and dynamics.
\end{itemize}

\subsection{The construction of research in OHM-DRIIHM: calls for
research, Post Doctoral and Doctoral projects}

These are essential elements of OHM research. Calls for proposals are
normally issued annually\footnote{Since 2020, the calls have been
biennial for funding and management reasons, but in terms of content,
for research and development, annual frequency is still considered
preferable.}. They enable research to steer with great efficiency while
leaving it a great deal of freedom. There are only two constraints on  
applicants: (i) their projects must fit into the Ternaire, whatever the
SDE concerned, and~(ii) they must in principle  be in line with the\unskip\break
(pre-)problematisation established  by each OHM and thus adapted to the 
wishes of all SDEs\footnote{Is represented on the OHM Board, whose role
is to ensure that these themes are selected and that they are
relevant.},  whatever they may be, who will thus be able to find meaning
and interest in their results\footnote{However, there is always the
possibility of innovating and proposing research that is not
problematised. Such proposals will be submitted to the OHM's evaluation
committees, which may accept them if they see fit.}.

The winning research projects have two years to be completed. This
ensures, among other things, that the OHM maintains an active research
dynamic. What's more, it is still possible to submit follow-up projects
which, like all the others, will be subject to evaluation and
acceptance by each OHM during each campaign.

These projects can be both disciplinary and interdisciplinary. This is
a key factor in the emergence and~success of interdisciplinarity in the
OHM-DRIIHM scheme, as it removes many of the major obstacles otherwise
encountered. The possibility of developing cross-disciplinary projects
makes it possible to:
\begin{itemize}
\item naturally remove any suspicions about the quality of the work,
since it can be published in the best disciplinary journals and
therefore evaluated accordingly;

\item remove the problems of personal commitment, since working within
the framework and rules of the disciplines enabling everyone, young
or established researchers, to access understanding and consideration
by their community for their research without encountering specific
difficulties\,\ldots;

\item remove all the difficulties associated with a priori
interdisciplinarity\footnote{Building a common language, new
concepts, etc.}, which is always very difficult, uncertain and
time-consuming to establish, sometimes to no avail.
\end{itemize}
The benefit of the proposed research for all disciplines and its
relevance and capacity to make sense for the community as a whole are  
ensured by the co-construction of all the SDEs during the year of 
\mbox{pre-configuration} and by the  periodic re-profiling which follows and
redefines the relevance of the research choices as the OHMs evolve and
their research progresses.


These research projects are one of the essential elements of the
``culture broth'' in terms of sharing and exchange between the SDEs. The
projects are presented upon their selection and their results are
reported during the annual restitution seminars and highlighted during
the annual DRIIHM seminars This ensures that all the SDEs within the
OHM and at DRIIHM level are kept informed of research activities, both
in terms of the issues and questions raised and the results obtained.
In addition, once each project has been completed, a short summary text
(4 pages) must be produced\footnote{This practice
concerned one of the OHMs. Its generalisation is recent and is
therefore gradually being put in place.}. This will be archived and
will always be available on the OHM and DRIIHM websites. This will
enable everyone to find out about the research carried out and its
results, and to use them as food for thought in constructing research
questions, benefiting from the progress already made, even if it is
old.

Finally, the OHM framework guarantees that everyone, whatever their
discipline, works on the same object (Focal Object), thus opening up a
great capacity for everyone to interact, across a very broad
disciplinary spectrum, and enabling the easy and fertile emergence of
inter-disciplinary interactions.


\subsection{The question of assessments}

Disciplinary research projects can also be published rapidly, as soon
as their own results have been obtained, and potentially in the best
journals accessible in their discipline. In the case of the OHM-DRIIHM
system, this means that the evaluation of research work can be
``subsidiarised'' by expert disciplinary bodies recognised by all,
thereby removing any suspicion of quality from the outset. This will
also immediately raise the profile of the research components emerging
from the OHMs, which will then be able to open the way to the
interdisciplinary results to which they will necessarily contribute
when the time comes.


As far as the evaluation of interdisciplinarity is concerned, the  
question is more delicate and difficult to answer. There is no
comprehensible evaluation of~interdisciplinarity that is accessible to
all disciplinary bodies. For us, peer assessment, which is the basis of all    
disciplinary assessments,  cannot work because, by definition, there can
be no interdisciplinary ``peer''. Interdisciplinarity cannot be
qualitatively fixed because its composition and, above all, the reality
of the interactions that actually take place within it are
fundamentally variable according to
circumstances\footnote{This is not necessarily
accepted by everyone. See for example
\url{https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/f/52470.html}.}. 


The most well-developed interdisciplinary evaluation systems tend to
assess the conformity of the work with an interdisciplinary
``ideal''\footnote{Cf.\ \citet{HuutoniemiRafols2016,
McLeishStrang2016, Laursenetal2022}; also
\citet{Huutoniemietal2010}.}, which says nothing about the efficiency of
the research undertaken (i.e.\ its ability to achieve its
scientific goals). As~far as we are concerned, in our setting, an
interdisciplinary project is assessed on the basis of its ability to
resolve the question for which it was designed using the systemic
modelling process, i.e.\ its ability to propose a system
that best explains how the SES operates in relation to this question.
This ability to convince is assessed by its ability to take into
account~and integrate into the model as many of the observations made
as possible, whatever the original~disciplinary or interdisciplinary
field, and their~characteristics in the description of this
functioning.

The OHM-DRIIHM system produces interdisciplinarity through its overall
organisation and operation. These enable a permanent dynamic to~be
established, fuelled by both disciplinary and interdisciplinary CRPs,
seminars, and activites which are both cross-disciplinary and
enlightening---all of which form part of the culture broth
and the dynamic that enables it to emerge and become effective. This is
how interdisciplinarity emerges ``spontaneously'', as a result of all the
schemes. In the OHMs, interdisciplinarity can be built and operated
anywhere and at any time. They were designed precisely for that
purpose.

\section{Summary and conclusion}

Interdisciplinarity in the OHM-DRIIHM system is successfully and easily
achieved thanks to: 
\begin{itemize}
\item Very few constraints (Ternary, participation in operations, 4 p.);

\item A choice of disciplinary or interdisciplinary research;

\item Avoiding obstacles linked to interdisciplinarity (disciplinary
relevance, recognised assessments);

\item The sharing of study objects by all disciplines (Focal Object,
Ternary as a whole) with relevance for all (co-construction of the OHM
and its issues); native inter-disciplinary convergence of research
objectives (OHM framework);

\item The overall organisation, which allows the creation of
times and places (temporalities, durations, meetings on occasions and
in configurations not otherwise foreseen) favourable to exchanges
between disciplines, or even communities, which allow intra- and
inter-disciplinary thinking to mature, as well as the development of
indisciplinarity;

\item The presentation of results and the ensuing discussions
(``enlightened disciplinarity'') have provided insights into each other's
work;\Tg</p>
\Tg<p>\noindent We achieve
\item A ``spontaneous'' interdisciplinarity that is naturally interwoven
thanks to the layout of the entire OHM-DRIIHM system and the resulting
dynamics;

\item Systemic modelling to build an understanding of complexity and
assess the validity of proposals;

\item Results that are stored so that they can be identified and, if
necessary, reactivated as and when required;

\item The establishment of a permanent capacity for transgression,
creation and openness (seminars, cross-disciplinary initiatives, DRIIHM
events);

\item Continuing to create and adapt the system according to the
principle implemented from the outset: no concept without application,
no recurring behaviour without theorising.
\end{itemize}
The way OHMs work and their effectiveness are \mbox{constantly} being 
demonstrated. All the contributions given In this special issue OHM
bear witness to this.

\back{}

\vspace*{-2pt}

\printbibliography
\refinput{crgeos20250254-reference.tex}

\end{document}
