Joëlle Proust Institut Jean-Nicod http://dividnorm.ens.fr

1. Joëlle ProustInstitut Jean-Nicodhttp://dividnorm.ens.fr Large grants training day University of London April 12, 2013 Interdisciplinary issues

2. Outline • Personal data and Presentation of the DIVIDNORM project • General issues • Topic • Partners • Presentation of the project • Research questions • Societal and technologicaldevelopments • Main problems to besolved

3. Personalinterdisciplinary profile • Initial education in philosophy and in experimentalpsychology • Interdisciplinary exposition in UC Berkeley, end of the 70s (Grants from the SloanFoundation) • Recruitment in CREA (now Institut Jean-Nicod), an interdisciplinary CNRS unit. • Interdisciplinaryresearchwith: • Marc Jeannerod (Neuroscience) • Henri Grivois (Psychiatry) • PI for two large interdisciplinaryprojects, ESF (2006-2009) and ERC (2011-2016)

4. http://dividnorm.ens.fr Divided metacognition: when epistemic norms conflictERC Project 2011-2016

5. Goals • Providea naturalisticexplanation of epistemicnorms, i.e., of the informational dimensions reliedupon in predictingand evaluatingsuccess in a first-order cognitive action. • Explainthe differentialsensitivity to thesenormsacross cultures within a realistapproach of epistemicnorms.

6. Methods • Conceptual work (e.g.: on strategic and epistemic standards of acceptance). • Experimental study of sensitivity to epistemic norms, through the metacognitive assessments of young children and adults in Europe and Japan (behaviour+fMRI) • Observation and experimentation about sensitivity to epistemic norms in a rural population from Madagascar (Cognitive anthropology)

7. Specific methodological guidelines a) Norm sensitivity is best assessed in procedural metacognition Such a method can reveal fine-grained variance in epistemic strategies, for an age group, a cultural group, and a task of reference, independentlyfromlinguistic and conceptualabilities. b] Norms in conflict: epistemic norm sensitivity is best assessed in divided metacognition Normative awareness should preferrably be studied when it involves internal conflicts and trade-offs, because suchcontextsrevealsubjects’ epistemicpreferencesgiventheir instrumental goals.

8. Participants • Philosophy: Joëlle Proust. Masters and Doctoral students: Anne Coubray, Martin Fortier, JouliaSmortchkova. • Neurosciences: Laurence Conty, Julie Grèzes, (Laboratoire de Neuroscience Cognitive, ENS). Post-docs: Benoît Montalan, Terry Eskenazy. Students: Matias Balthazard, Amélie Jacquot. • Psychology of Development: • BeateSodian(LMU, Munich). Postdoc: Markus Paulus • FabriceClément(U. de Neuchâtel). Postdoc: StéphaneBernard • Atsushi Senju(BirkbeckCollege)Shoji Itakura(Université de Kyoto) • Cognitive anthropology: Maurice Bloch (London School of Economics, ENS). Postdoc: Denis Régnier.

9. General issues

10. Determining the topic • An innovative, althoughriskyprojectisoftenfound of higher value than a projectthatmerelyextendsexistingresearch by the applicant.

11. Choice of partners: rules of thumb • Important thateachpartnercontributespieces of knowledgethat are needed by otherpartners (not: « business as usual ») • If possible, createinnovativeinterdisciplinary collaborations (advantages, but also: costs!). • Discuss the topic and methods of eachsubproject in greatdetailbeforesubmitting the project.

12. Presentation of a bigproject • thereis a common structure to all grant applications (well-known in science, lessso in humanities).

13. Presentation of a bigproject • Full name and acronym • Object (5 lines of introductorypresentation of the target issue) • State of the art, including • Important results • Problemsstillunsolved, targetproblem • How doesthisproject relate to the targetproblem? • Arguments: new ideas, new evidence, new methods • Whyis the applicant in a position to address the problem? • Research questions, workplan & deliverables • Expected outcomes • Theoretical developments opened by the proposal • Societal and technological developments

14. Presentation of a bigproject • Keep in mindthat the projectwillbeassessed by an interdisciplinary jury. • The state of the art must be: • informative and exhaustive in its essential elements. • intelligibleeven by non-specialists • crisplywritten, allowingunsolvedproblems to emerge and offering a strong motivation for carrying out additionalresearch

15. Research questions • Are usuallyaddressedwithdifferentmethods. • Must, however, beintegrated, and contribute to answergeneral issues.

16. Dividnormresearch questions • R1 – What are epistemic norms? (Philosophy) • R2 – Which representational medium for norm sensitivity: emotions, or concepts? (Philosophy and Cognitive Science) • R3- How does sensitivity to epistemic norms develop? (Developmental Psychology, Philosophy of mind) • R4- How is norm dominance secured in a given context? Is normative conflict influenced by culture? (Dev and Ex Psychology & neuroscience, transfer of experiments from Europe to Japan, Philosophy and epistemology) • R5. Is epistemic norm sensitivity to one's own mental agency always transferable to assess others', and reciprocally? (in children and adults):(Dev and Ex Psychology & neuroscience. Consequences relevant to Philosophy • R6 - How are epistemic norms cross-culturally understood by thinkers? (Anthropology). Consequences relevant to Philosophy

17. Research questions • Shouldbefurthersubdividedin subprojects, experiments, scientific goals. • They are used to state commitments to deliverables. • Research questions and their subdivisions withtheir respective deadlines are used to report progress in successive financial and scientific reports.

18. Societal and TechnologicalDevelopments

19. Is yourresearchpotentiallyhelpful to addressconcrete issues ? Applications to: • Education • Public health, • Societalproblems, cross-cultural differencesetc. • Particulartechnological applications

20. DIVIDNORM societal and technologicaldevelopments The present research should contribute to the development of new educational technologies by: • Exploring the specific patterns of EN sensitivity in children of a given school age and background. • Enhancing plasticity in EN sensitivity in children and adults. • Providing students with self-regulated methods of self-appraisal, based on technologies such as videotraining and social robotics.

21. Main problems to besolved

22. Dominance relations betweenfields • If the PI doesnotbelong to the dominant field, problems to beexpected: • Will the dominant field(s) completetheir part as expected (extreme cases: do somethingentirelydifferent)? • Will the dominant field(s) make the necessary efforts to learn/use a foreignterminology?

23. Dominance relations betweenfields • If the PI belongs to the dominant field, problem to beexpected: • may not sincerelyrecognize the value of othermethods for approaching the subject. • May not, in retrospect, acknowledge the contribution of otherfields to the definition of his/herresearchproject. • no reciprocity

24. Post-docs’ careers and publishing • Post-docs recruited in interdisciplinaryprojectsmay have interestnot to publish in interdisciplinaryjournals, but rather to concentrate on theirownfield in order to have convincingCVs.

25. Research questions • Need to bediscussed in detail by the PI witheachcontributor, alongwith the methods to beused. • If possible, all the contributorsshouldagreewith the entireorganization of the research, and maketheir expectations explicit.

26. Authororder in publications • Need to benegotiated as soon as possible, for examplewhenresearch questions are determined.

27. Yourquestions are welcome! http://joelleproust.org http:// dividnorm.ens.fr