On the Difference between Chalk and Cheese—A Response to Whitmarsh et al's Comments on “beyond the ABC: Climate Change Policy and Theories of Social Change”

on ``Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change'' In their critique of `̀ Beyond the ABC'',Whitmarsh et al (2010) object to my observation that behavioural and practice-based theories are as different as chalk and cheese and contend that contributions from different disciplines can and should be integrated in order to address complex problems like those of sustainability. In reply I take the chance to remind these commentators, and maybe other readers too, of established debates about the relation between social theory, method, and problem definition. I will not dwell on these issues at any lengthömost are already much better addressed in standard textbooks on social enquiryöbut I will take this opportunity to say a little more about the theoretical underpinnings of what seem to be neutral, self-evidently important, policy problems. To begin with the basics, Kuhn's concept of a paradigm is as good a place to start as any. For present purposes, the key insight is that scientific knowledge is both organised around, and enabled by, `̀ conceptual and instrumental tools'' (1970, page 37) that are themselves important in determining what does and does not qualify as a relevant problem. Since observation is itself theory laden (Hanson, 1981), contrasting paradigms are incommensurable on a number of counts. They generate different methods of enquiry, different meanings of evidence, and different sorts of research agendas. To revert to the terms I used in `̀ Beyond the ABC'', some paths are made of chalk and others of cheese. This is not something to worry about; nor is it an obstacle to be overcome. As hinted at above, paradigms are not obstructions to knowledge production: they are conditions of it. Having got that straight we can begin to address the practical consequences of the coexistence of different and sometimes competing social scientific paradigms for academic engagement with urgent, `real-world' challenges like those of sustainability, consumption, and climate change. In what follows I comment on a few such implications, starting with what it means to call for interdisciplinarity. As Whitmarsh et al observe, interdisciplinarity is `̀ increasingly valued''öbut what does this mean in terms of knowledge production, in what sense is collaboration between contrasting paradigms possible, and on whose terms are alliances to be forged? Evans and Marvin are not alone in acknowledging the methodological naivety of the commonplace suggestion that ``more disciplines lead to more complete knowledge as the gaps and lacunae of one group are filled and complemented by the skills and knowledge of the others'' (2006, page 1012). In their words such views are mistaken in assuming ``that there is just one problem and that, by approaching it from many different sides, we can build up a complete picture'' (page 1012). Given that problem definitions are themselves rooted in particular world views, they are inevitably infused with specific theoretical and methodological commitments. On closer inspection, many calls for interdisciplinarity turn out to be calls for different sorts of experts to contribute to questions that are already defined and framed in a certain way. For example, and as I explained in `̀ Beyond the ABC'', versions of interdisciplinarity in which sociologists are invited to fill out the context of individual behaviour only make sense for those who already subscribe to a behaviour-context model of social action. As is obvious, this problem definition is of limited relevance for those whose enquiry is guided by theories of structuration or social practice. Commentary Environment and Planning A 2011, volume 43, pages 262 ^ 264