Sharachchandra Lele - Session 04, 2022-12-25

(00:00:37) Challenges in producing impactful knowledge Lele discusses the process of producing impactful knowledge and the challenges involved. He emphasises the importance of starting with a problem-driven approach rather than being driven solely by theory or methods. However, defining the problem itself becomes a dilemma, as it can be influenced by those in power and may lack broader relevance. Lele gives the example of his work on forests and the need to understand the relationship between forests, livelihoods, and sustainability. He also highlights the significance of being in the right place at the right time and taking advantage of windows of opportunity for making a real impact. Lele further illustrates his experiences with research on pollution in rivers and heavy metal concentrations. He faced challenges such as denial from authorities and resistance to change. Although his research had some impact in terms of raising awareness and initiating limited action, the long-term steps he recommended were not implemented due to reluctance and pressures from industry and politics. Additionally, Lele mentions his involvement in drafting a water policy for Karnataka. Despite extensive work and consultations, the final document was disregarded and a diluted version was eventually produced, reflecting the challenges of bringing about change in sectors with high stakes and vested interests. He acknowledges that pursuing impactful research requires building collaborations and networks with practitioners, activists, and other academics. However, this can divert time and energy from conducting research itself. On the other hand, if researchers solely respond to problem definitions set by the state or other powerful actors, the resulting research may not address the most crucial issues.

(00:11:14) Significance of interdisciplinary approaches in addressing environmental challenges

Lele emphasises the importance of interdisciplinary work in addressing environmental problems effectively. He believes that environmental issues have both biophysical and social dimensions, and to contribute meaningful knowledge towards solving these problems, one needs to consider all aspects. Lele suggests a softer form of interdisciplinarity, where one discipline is informed by another. For instance, a social science study can be ecologically informed, or an ecological study can be socially informed. This approach allows researchers to immerse themselves in the relevant literature and focus on key variables while exploring the political economy, sociology, or [interviewee addition: ecological] knowledge aspects of the problem. Lele also highlights the need to challenge the notion of a single truth in ecology and recognise the different lenses through which stakeholders view the environment. He urges scientists to be socially informed, considering the values and stakes society has in the problem. He also discusses the importance of bridging disciplinary gaps and suggests that teams with both disciplinary specialists and bridging actors can create a holistic problem definition and facilitate meaningful collaboration. He goes on to share that in his water work, a successful and strong disciplinary team was sensitive to other disciplines. However, in other cases, such as when working on forests, it was challenging to build teams due to mismatched research interests. He adds that the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE) PhD programme aims to produce individuals who can bridge disciplinary gaps, with a focus on fostering a bridging role among graduates.

(00:21:46) Contextualising forest and water sectors Lele explains the contextual challenges and distinctions between the forest and water sectors. The forest sector’s long colonial history and vested interests within the forest bureaucracy hinder alternative governance approaches. In contrast, the citizen-driven aspect of the water sector, coupled with the borewell revolution, allows for more direct engagement. However, the entrenched irrigation bureaucracy and the perception of the water sector as highly engineered pose barriers for social scientists. Lele observes that social scientists tend to gravitate more towards forest-related questions, perceiving the water sector as more science and technology-oriented. Interdisciplinary collaboration and assembling multi-disciplinary teams prove more difficult in the water sector.

(00:26:37) Value neutral science in conservation biology and conservation Lele discusses the challenges of conducting value-neutral science in the field of conservation biology. The discipline inherently adopts a mission-oriented approach towards biodiversity conservation, making neutrality difficult. The goal of conservation sets a predetermined value for the research, limiting critical questioning of goals and assumptions. Additionally, Lele emphasises the need to understand the diverse values and stakes that society holds in ecosystems, beyond just conservation. Conservation biology should acknowledge the multiplicity of values and engage in decision-making processes that consider various perspectives. Lele also highlights the importance of recognising that conservation is a social value and not a scientific given. Science can inform specific aspects of conservation, but it is society that determines the values and priorities associated with conservation efforts. He says that the field of conservation biology needs to be more self-reflective and critically examine its assumptions and goals to ensure that its research aligns with the broader needs and values of society. Lele also discusses the power associated with the label of “value-neutral science” in the field of conservation. Scientists often want to maintain the perception of objectivity and use the label to assert authority in policy discussions. However, Lele questions whether scientists truly understand and acknowledge the inherent values embedded in conservation work. The discussion around value neutrality is conflicted within the scientific community, and there has been limited exploration of these issues. This conflict is not unique to the Indian context but exists globally. Some scientists resort to justifications such as nature having intrinsic value to maintain the appearance of value neutrality.

(00:42:51) Socially relevant biology

Lele emphasises the importance of socially relevant biology and urges biologists to consider the multiple values that society holds regarding biological systems. He suggests that scientists should openly acknowledge the specific values they are addressing and strive for multivalent science that explores trade-offs and synergies among different values. Additionally, he highlights the need for biologists to be explicit about their chosen stakeholders and consider whether they are privileging certain groups or neglecting underprivileged stakeholders. He encourages a shift towards studying neglected values and voices, such as the consequences of human deaths caused by tigers. He underscores the need for conscious choices in research directions to address the imbalances and promote a more inclusive and equitable approach to scientific inquiry.

(00:48:27) Subjectivity in ecological research Lele acknowledges that scientists, including ecologists, can become emotionally attached to their values and hypotheses, leading to biases in their research. He highlights that emotional attachments to values, such as justice or biodiversity, can have a greater impact on scientific objectivity than attachments to specific hypotheses. Ecologists, he says, need to grapple with subjectivity and recognise the indeterminacy of ecosystems, similar to how social scientists engage with the positionality of the researcher.

(00:52:32) Democratisation of research and decision-making and the Master’s course in ATREE in Conservation Practice The concept of democratisation in the context of research and decision-making processes is discussed. Lele argues that while India has a representative democracy, it remains inadequate due to social differentiation and the marginalisation of certain voices. He suggests the need for grassroots-level democracy and greater democratic accountability of institutions involved in research and policy-making. He emphasises the importance of incorporating public input and feedback into the process and highlights the elitism that exists within the scientific community. Lele proposes mechanisms such as public hearings, advisory boards with diverse perspectives, and engaging with practitioners, activists, and non-scientists to ensure social relevance and accountability in scientific work. He gives the example of having a diverse Advisory Board for the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development (CISED). Further, he calls for expanding societal accountability beyond the government and recognising the importance of engaging with the wider public and non-scientific stakeholders. Lele reflects on his personal experience with respect to the Master’s course in Conservation Practice offered by ATREE. He mentions that it provides an opportunity to bring interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary work into teaching, exposing students to various issues, skills, and approaches that can influence conservation and environmental outcomes. He expresses a desire to broaden the focus from conservation to environmental practice and says that this expansion may occur in the future.

(00:59:57) Rethinking undergraduate education for social change Lele discusses the need for undergraduate programmes with broader training, as traditional university setups often provide narrow specialisation. He mentions the emergence of private universities with liberal arts programmes that expose students to a wider range of disciplines. He emphasises the importance of a broad foundation for those aspiring to work for social change, highlighting that knowledge production is just one avenue for creating change. He suggests that students should have exposure to a variety of fields to inform their future paths and enable them to navigate the inherent values in their chosen fields.

(01:02:58) Satisfaction from producing knowledge

He goes on to speak about the satisfaction derived from producing relevant and impactful knowledge in different contexts. He mentions the mapping of forest rights in the Western Ghats, which continues to be relevant in conservation, development, and forest management debates. He also highlights his engagement with communities in Central India, assisting them in claiming their forest rights and utilising science to complement their ecological knowledge. Additionally, he says he found satisfaction in interdisciplinary work on the Arkavathi and Noyyal rivers, linking social and natural aspects, despite the policy implications still unfolding.

(01:07:53) Understanding scientists’ exposure to social aspects and the challenges of building dialogue in conservation Lele is interested in studying scientists’ exposure to social aspects in conservation and the challenges of building dialogue, particularly in polarised contexts. He seeks systematic exploration to understand the reasons behind these difficulties, aiming for a comprehensive approach beyond personal opinions.