Theory-Ladenness of Observation and Fact

This conceptual paper tries to tackle the advantages and the limitations that might arise from including second-order science into global climate change sciences, a research area that traditionally focuses on first-order approaches and that is currently attracting a lot of media and public attention. The paper addresses the differences between first-order and second-order science as well as some challenges of science in general, which second-order science might address and disclose.

For communicating second-order science, von Foerster’s ethical imperative provides a viable starting point. Proceeding from this, we plead in favour of emphasising the common grounds of diverging scientific opinions and of various approaches in second-order science instead of focussing on the differences. This will provide a basis for communication and stimulate scientific self-reflection.

A fundamental tool in approaches to space in its relationships with societies, direct or in situ observation is not always recognized as a valid, serious and rigorous method. We can postulate that it involves action (observation) of a subject (the observer) on an object (the situation observed) but these three terms are far from being explicit in research. That is why we invite considerations of viewing angles, both disciplinary and methodological as well as those of individuals, which create not only privileged perspectives but also blind spots.

The emergence of modern science was based on the idea of distance between the observer and the observed, a distance ensuring the objectivity and neutrality of researchers on the assumption that their personal beliefs and interests did not affect their ability to account for a reality understood as exterior. However this assumption is challenged with the presence of observers at the heart of what they see and know intimately (humanity, society, the environment). This promiscuity affects the recognition of the humanities and social sciences by the so-called natural, exact or hard sciences that dominate the organization of research and the distribution of resources.

Placing in question an objectivity guaranteed by exteriority has elicited different responses from across the humanities and social sciences, depending on the heterogeneous epistemological, ethical and methodological foundations of these disciplines including those particularly interested in the relationship between spaces and societies. One can mention, among others, the reflections of ethnology and sociology on the observer and their interactions with subjects and their environment, or those of geography on objects of observation, such as the landscape, lived space or territory. Architecture has developed methods and tools for the description and inventory of buildings and environments such as typology and morphological analysis. Psychology was inspired by animal ethology to design "in vitro" approaches to observe how individuals deal with things and / or in a group.

In this context, qualifications emerge that clarify the position of the observer, the conditions of observation and specificity of materials collected: participant observation, floating, rooted or itinerant, punctual or recurring observation etc.  All these approaches rely on recording techniques that are also very different, following modes that range from the personal to the impersonal: diary, notebook or sketches, photo, audio or video, mapping, measuring flows, surveys or inventories, etc.

Thus, if observation seems easy to access, it is simple only in appearance. It could be considered as the best expression of the inevitably situated nature of knowledge and researchers, and of the correlated necessity to make the conditions of the production of information apparent. Nevertheless, publications often do not clarify the positionality of the observer (what is the role of their age, gender, appearance and class, of their initial relation to the terrain, etc.?), the context of observation (under which conditions are they realized and with what tools?), or the definition of what is observed (people and/or places? facades, environments, practices, flows, trade...?).

This call invites authors to reflect on how they have mobilized direct observation in the conduct of their research. In particular, we wish to explore the hypothesis that the plurality of theoretical variations and techniques of observation is particularly salient when it relates to spaces, their configurations and uses. What status does observation give to space?  Does the recording and mining of data relative to spaces pose specific challenges? What are the criteria for methodological rigour and validity? What do we choose to keep or abandon in the observations made, what techniques preserve these traces?

We ask for reflections on the conceptual and technical choices made to observe and describe spaces at different scales: urban areas as a whole, places of residence, work and leisure, areas of daily travel or migration, even dreamt spaces, hated, fantasized... Are they creative ways to capture places and social activities? What is the scope of heuristic methods that articulate the observation to other modes of collecting and formatting data, such as statistics, photographs, maps, drawings, or literary descriptions? Is the observation of space necessarily visual or can it pass via other sensory faculties (hearing, smell, touch...)? Is observation able to report the passage of time at the different scales of social dynamics in the long term and if so, by what methods? Finally, is observation central or peripheral to other methods of acquiring information? What critiques could be made?  Are there situations in which observation cannot be used for practical or ethical reasons? Can we, should we watch everything?

Coordination:
Florence Bouillon and Jérôme Monnet

Schedule
15 November 2014: deadline for submission of articles
February 2015: response to authors

The journal doesn’t receive abstracts but only full original papers, not published or submitted elsewhere.
Papers could be submitted and evaluated in English, Italian, German, Spanish and French. Once the paper accepted by the reviewers, the author will have to submit a French translation of good quality.
Submitted papers must not exceed 42 000 signs (spaces included) including notes, references, annexes, but excluding the abstracts.
Recommendations to authors will be found in each issue and on the journal’s website: http://www.espacesetsocietes.msh-paris.fr/eng/norms-for-the-presentation-of-submitted-papers-recommendations-to-authors/

International website of the journal: http://www.cairn-int.info/journal-espaces-et-societes.htm