Actualités

François Dedieu co-author of « COVID-19 : une crise organisationnelle »

On the occasion of the publication of ” COVID-19, une crise organisationnelle “, IFRIS is pleased to interview François Dedieu, co-author of the book and member of IFRIS.

Interview with François Dedieu (Researcher at INRAE, member of UMR LISIS and IFRIS) on the occasion of the publication of the book “Coronavirus: an organizational crisis, by Henri Bergeron, Olivier Borraz, Patrick Castel and François Dedieu, published in October 2020 by Presses de Sciences Po.

Marc Barbier (MB): François, you have a research agenda in the sociology of organizations and public action, having already worked on the 1999 storm with your thesis, and then on pesticides for several years. Could you tell us how this work fits into your research agenda at the crossroads of crisis management and processes of creating ignorance or invisibility?

François Dedieu (FD): My work focuses on public action in environmental matters. I first worked on the management of natural disasters, then on pesticide policy, seeking to understand why a certain number of warnings and dangers are ignored, even though they are well known. The book “Coronavirus: an organizational crisis”, co-authored with my colleagues at the CSO, Olivier Borraz, Henri Bergeron and Patrick Castel, is in line with my work on extreme situations, since in the management of this pandemic, we find a certain number of recurrent traits encountered in crisis situations, such as the underestimation of alerts, the lack of coordination between the parties involved, or the capacity of actors to improvise in order to deal with this unknown situation

MB: This book comes in the context of the 2nd wave of the epidemic; can you tell us about the production of this book and what it was intended to say and propose? It is not very usual to see such a research perspective exposed in the middle of a crisis situation, what can this book add among many others?

FD: During the lockdown, we exchanged a lot with my colleagues and friends from the CSO, Henri Bergeron, Olivier Borraz, and Patrick Castel on crisis management. Henri and Patrick are very familiar with the health organization, while Olivier and I have worked on risks and disasters. We tried to put these two perspectives together in order to better understand what was being observed in this crisis. We thus published two articles in the AOC magazine, which quickly led to the writing of the book.

This crisis, probably more than any other, is a tangle of complex factors, which makes it particularly difficult to understand and calls for a lot of humility. The social sciences, in the broadest sense of the term, can help us to understand what is going on. Our contribution comes from the sociology of organizations and public action. It seeks to understand the constraints that weigh on decision-makers in order to better understand the various trade-offs, such as the one between the economy and health, for example. This approach is also interested in the coordination between actors at the national level (scientific council and the government), and at the territorial level (hospital and city medicine; prefects and regional health agencies, etc.). This type of analysis thus makes it possible to question the relationship between science and politics: what scientific knowledge is mobilized and what tends to be relegated to the margins? How is it mobilized in the current context, which is particularly controversial, as we have seen with Chloroquine? Does the political decision rely mainly on epidemiological modeling? And which one? What are the indicators used in the face of a virus that presents so many unknowns? We observe for example at the moment, that contrary to the first wave, the R0 seems to be less important, contrary to the positivity rate and especially the occupancy rate of resuscitation beds to justify decisions.

The work is an unusual exercise. It consists in delivering a “hot” analysis of the event. We start from surprises on the observation of facts to formulate hypotheses from the first empirical elements available and from the literature on crises, disasters and health organization. For example, one surprise, which is at the heart of the book, consists in noting the gap that exists between the haste with which the containment decision was taken and the plans and preparatory measures such as the Pandemic plan conceived 15 years ago and which foresaw all the problems we are facing: closing of schools, massive transport stoppages etc. We also wonder about the excessive confidence of the government in the face of the first alerts between January and March 2020. The first empirical elements collected, combined with the literature, allow us to hypothesize that these first decisions (and sometimes non-decisions) are based on an undue sense of preparedness, which itself comes from a slow drift of the means allocated to the pandemic risk after the bad lessons learned from previous crises such as H1N1 in 2009. Similarly, we show how hospitals were able to cope with the crisis, by adapting their organizations and modifying the more unusual modes of collaboration (shift of power from directors to physicians). We hope that this “on-the-spot” analysis will help to shed light on what is happening. But it has a counterpart that we assume. Even though we are continually seeking to collect data, we do not have the hindsight to collect all the data we would need to test all our hypotheses.

MB: The book develops an analysis of a form of organizational failure. Are there any “crisis management” situations that call for a particular form of organization that would be so difficult, if not impossible, to put in place based on what the State and its administrations are in France? How does your work fit into the reflection on what is called “post-crisis” when we are not yet truly out of it?

The book is less concerned with organizational flaws than with the nature of the organizational system put in place to manage the crisis. We note, for example, the omission of certain agencies and crisis specialists, such as the Cellule Interministérielle de Gestion de Crise (CIC), which was mobilized rather late, and which would have contributed to a broader vision of the problems raised by the crisis (transport, security, inequalities, etc.) than those strictly medical. We hypothesize that there is a form of mistrust on the part of the executive towards the traditional crisis management organizations that failed during the management of Hurricane Irma in 2017. These agencies are mobilized late, under pressure from critics, and without really specifying their role. We then observe a classic phenomenon of crisis situations: overlapping jurisdictions, conflicts of territories between crisis managers. We also observe that there is very little reflection from the central administration on the concrete implementation of measures, as shown by the confusion surrounding screening strategies, which undermines the identify-trace-isolate strategy.

What should be done? As far as emergency management is concerned, we must be modest. Many studies agree that there is no such thing as “good crisis management” but that it is necessary to constantly reconcile anticipation and adaptation, which implies accepting a certain amount of failure and error. On the other hand, it seems very important to learn quickly from the actions undertaken and to learn from what did not work, especially in this crisis that is stretching out over time. The question is: in which organization and at which territorial level should we set up these mechanisms that generate these learning vectors: the CIC? the Prefecture? Sociologists do not have an infallible science, and we should work on these aspects hand in hand with crisis managers on this point.

On the other hand, and for the post-crisis period, we are convinced that the way in which we prepare for and learn from crises in France needs to be reviewed in depth. Indeed, official feedback tends too often to “single out” crises, insisting on their exceptional and singular character. Crises have their own singularity, of course, but they also have strong recurrences such as the de-sectorization or innovation of responses, aspects that are stubbornly ignored and yet appear crucial for dealing with unknown situations. We therefore propose to use the history and cumulative analysis of crisis management cases as management tools, which can be used for training or crisis exercises, for example.

MB: You speak of an organizational crisis, but isn’t that reducing the biological component of this crisis too much? Moreover, we are dealing with a pandemic, managed in a particular way by nation-states which have different health systems and government practices, do you already have a comparative perspective from your approach of the French case?

FD: Having worked on natural disasters, I am all too familiar with the constructivist pitfall of the sociology of disasters, which would give the impression that the answers alone would be sufficient to explain the dynamics of disasters. In this crisis, “everything” is not a social construct, since this virus still presents very strong unknowns related to its modes of action and its modes of circulation. Acknowledging the importance of biological and viral uncertainties in the choices that are made should not make us forget, however, that the responses that are made also have an impact on the control of the pandemic.

It would be interesting to make an international comparison to better understand the capacity of national responses to contain the circulation of the virus. For example, until recently, Germany was praised for its efficiency, its decentralized organization in Lander, its superior hospital and testing capacities, and even more, a Chancellor with a scientific background. However, we can see that Germany is now aligning itself with the other European countries and is forced to apply a partial containment since it is beginning to have difficulty in containing the virus. German scientists state that the main difference between France and Germany lies in the faster initial formation of clusters (especially the one in Mulhouse) which, once they have reached a certain critical size, no longer allow the application of testing and screening strategies. The same is true for Switzerland and Belgium, where the epidemic suddenly flared up.

The international comparison can therefore better show how, despite the (more or less) great diversity of the measures taken, the States are still overwhelmed by the number of cases, which could allow to better identify the weight of the uncertainties on the circulation of this virus. On another level, an international comparison can also help us to better understand the nature of the responses to this crisis. Thus, and for example, we observe certain similarities between France and the United States in their preparation. The risk of a global pandemic has been on the agenda of the American authorities for about ten years and the country has an agency dedicated to this risk with significant resources: the Center for Disease Control. And like France, the USA was also surprised and overwhelmed. Do we observe the same undue sense of preparedness built over a long period of time? Research still has a lot to do on this subject.

Interview de François Dedieu, co-auteur de l’ouvrage « Covid 19, une crise organisationnelle » en format pdf

SciencesPo – Ouvrage « Covid-19, une crise organisationnelle »

Débats en visioconférence autour du livre « Covid-19, une crise organisationnelle » le 26 novembre 2020 organisés par SciencesPo et CSO.

[Public Sénat] – Broadcast ” Un monde en docs ” with the participation of Marc Barbier ( Director IFRIS, DR INRAe)-” Agriculture 3.0 “

The LCP – Public Sénat channel broadcast the program “Un monde en docs” on Saturday, February 27, 2021.

“Agriculture 3.0” is about agriculture and digital technology: technology at the service of farmers?

Drone, milking robot, advanced cartography…: technological tools are increasingly present in agriculture. Valuable aids for some, they allow better organization of work and more efficient actions. Others, on the other hand, fear being too dependent on increasingly sophisticated machines.
How to find the right balance so as not to lose the link with the land and the animals? Don’t technological evolutions risk reinforcing a two-speed agricultural system? Jérôme Chapuis and his guests dissect the advantages and disadvantages of these technological developments.
With the participation of :
Marc Barbier
Agronomist and sociology researcher, Director of IFRIS, Director of Research at INRAE
Benoît Biteau
Member of the European Parliament (Green group)
Laurent Duplomb
Senator (LR) of the Haute-Loire
Véronique Bellon-Maurel
Director #DigitAg – Institute Convergences Agriculture Numérique
A must-see on Public Sénat in replay!

The 2021 Call for IFRIS Postdoctoral Project is open ! – Deadline – March 5th, 2021

Four (4) post-doctoral positions are available at the Institute for Research and Innovation in Society. IFRIS welcomes science, technology and society scholars in all social science disciplines: history, sociology, political sciences, anthropology, economics, management sciences or law.

 

The 2021 Call for IFRIS Postdoctoral Projects is open

Useful dates

Online declaration of interest opened:    January 20th

Deadline for the reception of proposals: March 5th, 2021

End of pre-selection phase:                      March 30th, 2021

Selection phase: international reviewing process during May and June and decision by the IFRIS Executive Committee in early July 2021.

Decision transmission to candidate for a feedback: End of July 2021

 

Positions

Four (4) post-doctoral positions are available at the Institute for Research and Innovation in Society ( ifris.org )

IFRIS welcomes science, technology and society scholars in all social science disciplines: history, sociology, political sciences, anthropology, economics, management sciences or law.

STS is understood in a broad sense related to the production and use of science and technologies in societies. The post-doc candidates should submit original research projects on specific issues that relate to public health, biomedicine, agricultural sciences, food security, climate change, biodiversity, environmental questions, ICT, “big data” and internet, historical and social construction of technologies, risk and regulation, development and research policies, global distribution of knowledge, intellectual and property rights and global commons, circulation of knowledge, construction of public research policies, multilevel governance of science and technology, knowledge and local development, regimes of regulations and production of sciences and innovation in society.

See the list of projects funded by IFRIS to date for your information.

Selected candidates will be attached to one of the following IFRIS research units (name and acronym are followed by the scientific organisation to which the unit is attached). See the website links for more details on these units and, please, consult the postdoctoral fellowship vademecum.

 

List of IFRIS Research Units

Centre Alexandre Koyré (CAK), CNRS, EHESS, Muséum

Centre Population et développement (CEPED), IRD, Université Paris Descartes

Centre d’Economie de Paris Nord (CEPN), Université Paris 13, CNRS

Centre de recherche médecine, sciences, santé, santé mentale, société (CERMES3), CNRS, INSERM, EHESS, Université Paris Descartes

Centre de recherche Connaissance Organisation et Systèmes Techniques (COSTECH), Université Technologique de Compiègne

Histoire des Technosciences en Société (HT2S), CNAM

Institut de Recherche Interdisciplinaire en Sciences Sociales (IRISSO), CNRS, INRA, Université Paris Dauphine

Laboratoire Techniques, Territoires, Sociétés (LATTS), UPEM, Ecole des Ponts, CNRS

Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire pour la Sociologie Economique (LISE), CNAM

Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Sciences Innovations Sociétés (LISIS), CNRS, ESIEE, INRA, UPEM

Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire de Recherche en Science de l’Action (LIRSA), CNAM

Patrimoines locaux et gouvernance (PALOC), IRD, MNHN

Centre d’Etude des Mouvement Sociaux (CEMS), EHESS, CNRS, INSERM

 

Candidates do not need to have previous knowledge of these research groups. Nonetheless, it is advised that candidates consult their websites, of make direct contact with the unit, so that they can best design and tailor their research project.

Contacts can also be made through the IFRIS Direction (direction@ifris.org) for further information about this call.

 

Requirements

Selected candidates are eligible for a 24-month contract, under the French standard in relation to salary and work status.

Contracts will start as soon as possible after selection, according to candidates’ previous obligations and engagements. Selected candidates will have to start before January 31st, 2022 at the latest and might start from November 2021.

To be eligible, post-doc candidates should hold a Ph.D. or doctoral degree or should have already fulfilled all the obligations for obtaining their Ph.D. or doctoral degree before the end of 2021. For the French candidates, their Phd defence report is also required (“rapport de soutenance”) if available.

In case the candidate does not have their degree by the date of this submission, he/she should submit a reference letter from their doctoral supervisor certifying that he/she will hold his/her Ph.D. or doctoral degree before the end of 2021. This letter is to be provided by July 5th, 2021.

If an applicant is selected but does not meet the December 31st, 2021 deadline to obtain his/her PhD, he/she will lose the benefit of his/her selection.

 

Applications

Candidates have to fill out an online form on the IFRIS Website and upload their proposal, consisting of:

– A cover letter written by the candidate to indicate the way she/he believes her/ his project contributes to IFRIS research agenda. The candidate should indicate her/his former relations to IFRIS research units, if any. Candidates are not requested to indicate in which IFRIS research unit they would like to be hosted, but nevertheless are free to do so.

– A two pages Curriculum Vitae. The CV should indicate diplomas, trajectory, places and institutions where the candidate has worked and studied. Previous post-doc propositions should be indicated, if any.

–  A research project (no more than 10 pages). The project should be written in English, including a plan of activities for the whole 24-month period and a tentative budget. The project should clearly state its objective, methodology, theoretical position, type and mode of collection of empirical material, research strategy and expected outcomes. It should also indicate the type of expected production out of this period of time (workshops, book, articles, or any other envisioned material). Original projects and theoretical breakthrough are particularly welcome.

– A complete list of publications.

 

Evaluation of the research project

Quality of the candidate’s academic and research trajectory.

Quality of the track record for experienced candidates. Young PhD researchers are welcome.

Scientific originality and methodological robustness and feasibility of the work plan.

Relevance in relation to IFRIS agenda and Strategic Research Orientations.

 

About salary

The IFRIS Postdoc’s net salary is indexed on French wages rate of Public Research Organization.

On average, the net salary is around 2 000 euros per month (2465.68 €/month before social contribution) according to a range of 1800 to 2100 €/month.

The postdoc position allows rights to the French social security public service. Access to social security coccurs on the first day of the post-doctoral contract,  with a rapid subscription. A complementary health insurance might also be contracted.

For visa issues, post-docs will receive a specific hosting agreement (“convention d’accueil”) from a university service called ACCESS PARIS and will be assisted by the IFRIS administrative staff for that purpose.

 

Previous Call

Results of previous funding

The 2020 Call for IFRIS Postdoctoral Project is extended to March 1st, 2020

Four (4) post-doctoral positions are available at the Institute for Research and Innovation in Society (ifris.org).
IFRIS welcomes science, technology and society scholars in all social science disciplines: history, sociology, political sciences, anthropology, economics, management sciences or law.

STS is understood in a broad sense of issues related to the production and use of science and technologies in societies. The post-doc candidates should propose original research projects on specific issues that relate to public health, biomedicine, agricultural sciences, food security, climate change, biodiversity, environmental questions, ICT, “big data” and internet, historical and social construction of technologies, risk and regulation, development and research policies, global distribution of knowledge, intellectual and property rights and global commons, circulation of knowledge, construction of public research policies, multilevel governance of science and technology, knowledge and local development, regimes of regulations and production of sciences and innovation in society.
See the list of projects funded by IFRIS to date for your information.

Selected candidates will be attached to one of the following IFRIS research units (name and acronym are followed by the scientific organisation to which the unit is attached). See the website links for more details on these units and, please, consult the postdoctaral fellowship vademecum.

Candidates do not need to have previous knowledge of these research groups.

Nonetheless, it might be useful for them to consult their websites or take contacts that might help them designing their research project. Contacts can be made through the IFRIS Directiondirection@ifris.org

Selected candidates are eligible for a 24-month contract, under the French standard in relation to salary and work status. Contracts will start as soon as possible after selection, according to candidates’ previous obligations and engagements, and on January 1st, 2021 at the latest.

Requirements
To be eligible, post-doc candidates should hold a Ph.D. or doctoral degree as on the date of December 15th, 2020 at the latest and should have already fulfilled all the obligations for the acquisition of their Ph.D. or doctoral degree.
In case the candidate do not have their degree by the date of this submission, he/she should present a reference letter from their doctoral supervisor certifying that he/she will hold his/her Ph.D. or doctoral degree as on the date of June 5th, 2020 at the latest.
If an applicant is selected but does not meet the deadline to obtain his/her PhD, he/she will loose the benefit of his/her selection.
Candidates cannot apply for a post-doc position within a research group where they have prepared their doctoral research work.

Applications
Candidates should fill out the online form by clicking on the following link http://labex.ifris.org/post-doc-application-gdpr/ and send their research proposals by March 1st, 2020, consisting of:

  • A cover letter written by the candidate to indicate the way she/he believes her/ his project contributes to IFRIS research agenda. The candidate should indicate her/his former relations to IFRIS research units, in case they exist. Candidates are not requested to indicate in which IFRIS research unit they would like to be hosted, but nevertheless can do so.
  • A one page Curriculum Vitae. The Vitae should indicate diplomas, trajectory, places and institutions where the candidate has worked and studied. Previous post-docs should be indicated in case there has been any.
  • A research project (no more than 10 pages). The project should be written in English, including a plan of activities for the whole 24-month period and a tentative budget. The project should clearly state its objective, methodology, theoretical position, type and mode of collection of empirical material, research strategy, and expected outcomes. It should also indicate the type of expected production out of this period of time (workshops, book, articles, or any other envisioned material).
  • A complete list of publications.
  • In case the candidate do not have their degree by the date of this submission, he/she should present a reference letter from their doctoral supervisor certifying that he/she will hold his/her Ph.D. or doctoral degree as on the date of July 1th, 2020 at the latest. For the French candidates, their viva report is also required (“rapport de soutenance”).

Selection criteria

  • Quality of the research project
  • Relevance in relation to IFRIS agenda
  • Potential of the topic to favour the integration of the candidate to the hosting research group
  • Quality of the candidate’s academic and research trajectory

Information about salary, social security and visa

  • About salary: the IFRIS Postdoc’s net salary is indexed on French wages rate of Public Research Organization.
  • In average the net salary is around 2 000 euros per month (2465.68 €/month before social contribution), according to a range of 1800 to 2100 €/month.
  • The postdoc position is opening right to the French social security public service, a complementary health insurance might be also contracted; the access to social security occurs happens at the starting day with a quick subscription.
  • For visa issue, postdoc will get a specific hosting agreement (“convention d’accueil”) from a university services called ACCESS PARIS and would be helped by our administrative staff for that purpose.

The application will be uploaded on the IFRIS website, the project will also have to delivered in one single file, pdf format, and should be saved under the following name: Name_appelpostdoc_IFRIS.pdf (where “name” is the last name of the candidate)
Information addressed to: direction@ifris.org

Useful dates
Opening of Candidature declaration : 10 January 2020

Deadline for the receipt of proposal: March 1st, 2020 

End of pre-selection phase :  March 30, 2020

Selection of the applications by the IFRIS Executive Committe and decision transmission to candidate on July 10, 2020.

Publication de l’ouvrage “The Transformation of Research in the South: policies and outcomes” – David O’Brien & Rigas Arvanitis

Publication of the book
The Transformation of Research in the South: policies and outcomes

Dear colleagues

David O’Brien and Rigas Arvanitis are very happy to inform you that, finally, the book of our 2016 Conference is out !

Arvanitis, Rigas and O’Brien, David (eds.) (2019), The Transformation of Research in the South. Policies and outcomes. Paris : Editions des archives contemporaines, 166 p. ISBN : 9782813003034, doi : 10.17184/eac.9782813003034

http://eac.ac/books/9782813003034

You can download the whole book (link above) and your paper individually since the book is fully open access. The details for downloading your paper is mentioned in the table of contents of the book below.

Présentation :

Profound transformations are affecting the research systems around the world. We witness the emergence of new or restructured organizations to steer public research or promote innovation, new programmatic directions within these organizations, increased funding dedicated to research in academic settings, and new domestic and international partnerships and collaborations. A multiplicity of organizations and funding sources have appeared, creating a complex web where resources circulate along with knowledge in ways that are reshaping research systems in the South.

This book gathers a large sample of these changes presented during a symposium organized by IDRC, IRD, IFRIS, and OECD, seeking to better understand their institutional, political and economic drivers. These cases document the building of scientific capacity and the broader use of results from scientific research and presents lessons for public policy. A large variety of case studies of specific research organizations and comparative analysis of the wider research system are presented in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Table of contents

Préface (in French)
Jean Lebel and Jean-Paul Moatti
pp. i-ii, doi : 10.17184/eac.2106
http://eac.ac/articles/2106

Foreword (in English)
Jean Lebel et Jean-Paul Moatti
pages v-vi, doi : 10.17184/eac.2107
http://eac.ac/articles/2107

The Transformation of Research in the South: An introduction
David O’Brien and Rigas Arvanitis
pages 1-6, doi : 10.17184/eac.2092
http://eac.ac/articles/2092

Research policy in Arab countries: international cooperation, competitive calls, and career incentives
Rigas Arvanitis and Sari Hanafi
pages 7-12, doi : 10.17184/eac.2093
http://eac.ac/articles/2093

Science-granting councils in Sub-Saharan Africa: A typology of diverse science funding configurations
Johann Mouton
pages 13-24, doi : 10.17184/eac.2094
http://eac.ac/articles/2094

Production, circulation, and use of social research in Bolivia, Paraguay, and Peru
María Balarin, Ignacio González, Fernando Masi, Belén Servín, Natalia Peres, and Miguel Vera
pages 25-28, doi : 10.17184/eac.2095
http://eac.ac/articles/2095

Evolution of science policy in South Africa
Michael Kahn
pages 29-32, doi : 10.17184/eac.2096
http://eac.ac/articles/2096

Instruments shaping policy design: Sectoral Funds and Argentina Innovadora 2020
Ana Pereyra and Solange Martinez Demarco
pages 33-36, doi : 10.17184/eac.2097
http://eac.ac/articles/2097

Developing and implementing a research and innovation policy framework in Vietnam
Nguyen Thi Thu Oanh and Michael Braun
pages 37-42, doi : 10.17184/eac.2098
http://eac.ac/articles/2098

Strengthening innovation and development-research capacity in African universities: The case of AfricaLics
Ann Kingiri, Rebecca Hanlin, Margrethe Holm Andersen, and Aschalew Tigabu
pages 43-48, doi : 10.17184/eac.2069
http://eac.ac/articles/2069

How people’s movements have influenced research priorities in India: Illustrative case studies
Padma Prakash, Padma Deosthali, and Sangeeta Rege
pages 49-54, doi : 10.17184/eac.2070
http://eac.ac/articles/2070

How young scholars in four ASEAN countries forged successful research careers
Catherine Beaudry and Carl St-Pierre
pages 55-60, doi : 10.17184/eac.2071
http://eac.ac/articles/2071

Institutional restructuring in South Africa: Centralizing research management to influence policy and practice
Harsha Dayal
pages 61-64, doi : 10.17184/eac.2072
http://eac.ac/articles/2072

Strengthening the interactive capabilities of public research institutes in South Africa
Glenda Kruss
pages 65-70, doi : 10.17184/eac.2073
http://eac.ac/articles/2073

Enhancing innovation for inclusive development of national research councils in Southeast Asia: Process and outcomes
Segundo Joaquin Eclar Romero, Jr.
pages 71-76, doi : 10.17184/eac.2074
http://eac.ac/articles/2074

Looking for Transformative Innovation in the South: The Case of the Chilean Mining Sector
Gonzalo Rivas, Jaime Alvarez, and Dan Poniachik
pages 77-82, doi : 10.17184/eac.2075
http://eac.ac/articles/2075

Mechanisms to enhance dialogue among communities involved in STI policy: The Latin American experience
José Miguel Natera and Gabriela Dutrénit
pages 83-86, doi : 10.17184/eac.2076
http://eac.ac/articles/2076

How research groups cope with gaps in science, technology, and innovation policy in Colombia: The case of a nanotechnology research group
Astrid Jaime, Constanza Pérez Martelo, Bernardo Herrera, Gonzalo Ordóñez and Dominique Vinck
pages 87-92, doi : 10.17184/eac.2077
http://eac.ac/articles/2077

Governing science–industry relations in the South: From networks of power to developmental coalitions
Keston K. Perry
pages 93-96, doi : 10.17184/eac.2078
http://eac.ac/articles/2078

Managing research for impact
Zenda Ofir
pages 97-104, doi : 10.17184/eac.2079
http://eac.ac/articles/2079

Under-reporting research relevant to local needs in the South: Database biases in rice research
Ismael Ràfols, Tommaso Ciarli, and Diego Chavarro
pages 105-110, doi : 10.17184/eac.2080
http://eac.ac/articles/2080

Assessing impacts of agricultural research for development in countries of the South
Ludovic Temple, Danièle Barret, Marie-Hélène Dabat, Agathe Devaux-Spatarakis, Guy Faure, Etienne Hainzelin, Syndhia Mathé, Aurélie Toillier, Bernard Triomphe
pages 111-114, doi : 10.17184/eac.2081
http://eac.ac/articles/2081

Mapping international knowledge flows: Three dimensions for a framework to evaluate transnational cooperation in research
Leonardo Costa Ribeiro, Leandro Alves Silva, Márcia Siqueira Rapini, Gustavo Britto, and Eduardo da Motta e Albuquerque
pages 115-120, doi : 10.17184/eac.2082
http://eac.ac/articles/2082

Dynamics of South–South cooperation in health biotechnology
Halla Thorsteinsdóttir and Sachin Chaturvedi
pages 121-126, doi : 10.17184/eac.2083
http://eac.ac/articles/2083

Research Cooperation on the Sustainability of the Marginal Seas of South and East Asia
Lourdes J. Cruz, Mohd. Nordin Hasan, Toshio Yamagata, Annadel Cabanban, Marie Antonette Menez, and Fadzilah Binti Abdul Majid
pages 127-132, doi : 10.17184/eac.2084
http://eac.ac/articles/2084

New trends in knowledge generation lift research cooperation in Africa
Margaret Wanjiku
pages 133-138, doi : 10.17184/eac.2085
http://eac.ac/articles/2085

When the South comes to the North: Brazil’s and Argentina’s international collaboration in agricultural and environmental research in France
Bernard Hubert, Roberto Cittadini and Claudio Carvalho
pages 139-142, doi : 10.17184/eac.2086
http://eac.ac/articles/2086

 

Conference – “Corporate Interests and Public Health. Knowledge, Expertise, Markets” – 9-11 december – Campus Condorcet

Corporate Interests and Public Health Knowledge, Expertise, Markets

9-10-11 December 2019
EHESS – Campus Condorcet Centre de colloques
Métro Front Populaire
Conference presentation. Over the recent decades, the influence of corporate interests – most notably from the cigarette, chemical, pharmaceutical, and food industries – on public health has attracted growing concerns and public attention. Within this context, one notion, that of ‘conflict of interest’ (CoI), has become widespread and used as the main lens through which this influence and its problematic consequences on the construction of scientific knowledge, on the decisions taken by public authorities, and on heath practices is approached. The MEDICI research project has, over the last three years, explored how conflict of interest has been understood and used in the field of medicine with what kinds of responses. It has also aimed at understanding the effects of this problematization on the ways in which the various actors involved in the sector perform an organize their activities. This final conference will gather presentations laying out the main results of the MEDICI project as well as invited talks from leading scholars studying corporate influence on science and regulation.
Organizing Committee: Boris Hauray (Inserm), Henri Boullier (Inserm), Jean-Paul Gaudillière (Inserm, EHESS) & Hélène Michel (Université de Strasbourg).
DAY 1 – 9 DECEMBER 2019
13h30-14h – Introduction by Boris Hauray (Inserm), scientific coordinator of the MEDICI project
14h-15h – Sergio Sismondo (Queen’s University) “Big Pharma’s Invisible Hands”
15h15-17h15 – Panel #1 – Corporate Influence on the Production of Scientific Knowledge
Chair: Catherine Bourgain (Inserm)
  • Jill Fisher (UNC-Chapel Hill) “Investigating the Inherent Conflicts of Interest in Commercial Phase I Trials”.
  • David Demortain (INRA) “The Pharmaceutical Industry and the Production of Regulatory Knowledge. Exploring the Systemic Determinants of Conflicts of Interests”.
  • Melanie Jeske (UCSF) Conflict of Interest’ or Simply ‘Interest’? Shifting Values in Translational Medicine.
  • Boris Hauray (Inserm) “Publishing Impure Science. The Politics of Conflict of Interest in Medical Journals”.

 

DAY 2 – 10 DECEMBER 2019

9h15-10h15 – Marc Rodwin (Suffolk University) “Conflicts of Interest in Medicine-Causes and Cures”
10h30-12h30 – Panel #2 – Regulatory Expertise and Agencies
Chair: Daniel Benamouzig (CNRS)
  • Nathalie Jas (INRA) “Industry Quiet Power. Shaping WHO/FAO Food Additives and Contaminants Expert Committees’ Work in the Post-WWII period”.
  • Annie Martin (CNRS) “Conflict of Interest and European Law. The European Medicines Agency’s case”.
  • Jérôme Greffion (Université Paris 10) & Hélène Michel (Université de Strasbourg) “Medical Experts at work in a Committee of the French National Authority for Health”.
14h-17h – Panel #3 – Physicians and Medical Practices
Chair: Maurice Cassier (CNRS)
  • Volker Hess (Charité) “Clinical research and the Nylon Curtain. The case of the GDR, 1960-1990”.
  • Jean-Paul Gaudillière (Inserm/EHESS) “Scientific Marketing and Conflict of Interest. Lessons from the Hormone Replacement Therapies Crisis”.
  • Etienne Nouguez (CNRS) “Fighting over Generic Medicines. Struggles between Pharmaceutical Companies to Influence the Prescriptions of French Doctors and Pharmacists”.
  • Henri Boullier (Inserm) & Jérôme Greffion (Université Paris 10) “The Materiality of Transparency. Constructing a Database on Physicians Funding”.
DAY 3 – 11 DECEMBER 2019
9h15-10h15 – Lisa Cosgrove (University of Massachusetts Boston) “Institutional Corruption in Psychiatry and Solutions for Reform”
10h30-12h – Panel #4 – Critiques, mobilizations and affairs
Chair: Sezin Topçu (CNRS)
  • Christian Bonah & Solène Lellinger (Université de Strasbourg) “‘This Corporation has ‘Anaesthetized’ the Actors in the Drug Chain’. Influence Peddling and the Normality of Conflict of Interest in the Benfluorex Case”.
  • Giovanni Prete (Université Paris 13), François Dedieu (INRA) & Jean-Noël Jouzel (CNRS) “Denouncing Pesticides in France: Conflict of Interest as a Protest Repertoire”.
  • Sébastien Dalgalarrondo (CNRS) “Patient Mobilizations and Industry Influence: from AIDS to Alzheimer”.
Conclusion.

2nd Edition of the Festival du cinéma des Utopies réelles – 4 and 5 October 2019 in Hendaye

With a series of documentaries, short films and feature films, this 2nd edition of the Utopies Réelles Film Festival invites you to get to know and discuss some of the innovative initiatives around the theme “Living differently in the territories”.

Hosted by the Cinéma Les Variétés d’Hendaye, the Festival will present and analyse a series of questions and proposals relating to social innovation in this theme. Each question will be introduced by a documentary selected by a scientific and artistic committee, which will serve as a support for a debate, led by a researcher, the director and a field actor.

PASS Day 1 (+ lunch included): 30 €
PASS Day 2 (+lunch included): 35 €
PASS 2 Days (+ lunch included): 60 €

Programme

Bon de commande PASS

Demande d’hébergement

Info: 05 59 64 44 54 ou contact@cbe-seignanx.fr

[Call for papers] Studying information deviances. “Truth” and “conspiracy” in the digital age

Special issue edited by Henri Boullier (IRIS, INSERM), Baptiste Kotras (LISIS, Université Paris-Est) and Ignacio Siles (CICOM, Université du Costa Rica).

Deadline for abstract submissions: septembre 10th 2019.

It has become common to state that the internet increases the circulation and reach of “conspiracy theories”. As shown by the many alarmist reports on “fake news” dissemination, or the recent moral panic triggered in France by IFOP’s study, “Investigating conspiracy theories” , questions about certification and circulation of online information seem to have reached a new and important kind of acuity. The massification of the internet, by reducing the role of traditional gatekeepers of the public space, and by allowing great numbers of users to publish online (Cardon, 2010), has indeed made more visible stories, positions or ideologies that until now had little or no access to the public sphere. Meanwhile, social and algorithmic dynamics of news hierarchization (Beer, 2017; Gillespie, 2014) may have participated in the production of “information bubbles”, i.e. ideologically homogeneous and relatively hermetic spaces, which tend to reinforce one’s beliefs rather than expose him to contradictory opinions.

However, this issue aims to go beyond these fairly consensual observations, by proposing both theoretical and empirical perspectives to understand the new tensions that currently arise about the social fabric of truth. Up to now, contributions on “conspiracy theories” have shown an obvious lack of empirical research. For the most part, they are openly normative (Bronner, 2011; Ho & Jin, 2011). They tend to put forward psychologizing and deterministic visions that explain the dissemination of these stories through subjective biases, and the “anonymity” allowed by social media (Tingley & Wagner, 2017).

Therefore, this call for papers primarily seeks to overcome some dead ends of current debates on the subject, first and foremost with the process of designating “conspiracy” and “conspiracy theories”. Denouncing the dangerousness of “chemtrails”, mandatory vaccination policies, governmental involvement in the 9-11 attacks, as well as industrial lobbying: all these different kinds of critique have been, at some point, designated as “conspiracy theories”. Consequently, it seems urgent to begin by questioning and deconstructing the concept of conspiracy theory itself: the variety of actors and ideologies to which it is applied shows in fact its weak heuristic potential for social sciences.

In fact, saying that something is a “conspiracy theory” has less to do with describing substantial content than with contradictory processes of moral disqualification, made by antagonistic actors engaged in controversies (Lemieux, 2007). As Luc Boltanski (2012) writes it, “no one ever claims to be the author of a conspiracy theory” (p. 279). In order to put aside the normative – and, in fact, pejorative – dimension of this term, we propose to study information deviances in a broad sense. By doing so, we wish to designate a very heterogeneous set of critiques and adhesion of varying intensities, which support and disseminate controversial political or scientific counter-narratives.

This call for papers seeks to avoid the temptation for social scientists to make a priori distinctions between “truth” and “conspiracy theories”, thus taking part – voluntarily or not – in the social processes of (dis)qualification that we precisely want to analyze as such. This detour invites us to investigate, with a minimum of preconceived notions, on highly conflictual objects, respecting a principle of symmetry in the analysis of narratives and their critiques. Following previous works by Goody (1979), Latour (2005) and Favret-Saada (1994), which aim to go beyond the simplistic dualism between rational and magical thought, we invite contributors to report on these alternative narratives, their material and cognitive support, their political content (Fine & Rosnow, 1976), and their claim to the truth. It seems necessary to go beyond the apparent novelty of “conspiracy theories” by reintegrating them into the long and conflictual history of trust, and the institutions that produce it (Shapin, 2007). This way, we can analyze these unveiling postures of investigation, by giving accounts of their own logic, epistemology and intellectual filiations.

This issue welcomes investigations in social sciences that document narratives and critiques that may be designated as “conspiracy theories”. To this end, contributions may be made in one or several of the following areas.

Areas of research

Investigating spaces of conspiracist sociability

First of all, this issue aims at documenting how affinity-based collectives structure themselves around the discussion and dissemination of narratives sometimes designated as “conspiracy theories”. One objective will be to retrace – in a thorough way –the history of these groups and the narratives they promote. It will also be possible to analyze the ways in which these communities, and their debates, are organized: what are they talking about? According to which rules and argumentative devices? Using traditional or digital methods, the proposed contributions could also document trajectories of notoriety and dominant positions in these spaces (Cardon, Fouetillou, & Roth, 2014), or the boundaries of these communities and their possible relationships: do supporters of “flat Earth” communicate with ufologists? Does the criticism of vaccines overlap with that of pesticides? How porous or hermetic are these spaces? Finally, it may also be interesting to describe, from an ethnographic perspective, the modes of sociability and types of relationships that bind together the members of these communities. Drawing in particular on the extensive work on online communities (Jouët, 1989), contributions could for example study “pyramidology” or chemtrails specialists as subcultures, in which actors are involved, produce theories, mobilize resources which stabilize these narratives and the collectives behind them (Jenkins, 2013; Le Guern, 2009).

As for the entire issue, this axis of research aims at encouraging the submission of articles that combine online and offline investigations, in order not to reduce information deviances to their online occurrences. This issue particularly welcomes contributions that make it possible to portray so-called conspiracy theorists, in social, demographic and biographic terms. Does one believe in conspiracies at all ages, in all social environments? What do they believe in, with whom and when? In this context, it will be useful to consider the different degrees of endorsement to the counter-narratives under study, and the reappropriations (including distanced or ironic ones) they inspire. It also seems necessary to include information deviances in a plurality of commitments (Lahire, 2008): what relationships, and separations, do people construct, between the deviant activity and other aspects of life, whether it be family, professional, friends, politics, etc.? Are information deviances mobilized as identity, individual or collective resources, or are they kept silent? In which social contexts are they accepted and affirmed to varying degrees? This type of contribution would make it possible to go beyond the cliché figure of the “complotist” (male, white, working class, isolated or even psychologically unstable).

Conspiracies, controversies and accusations

Saying that something is a conspiracy theory, as has been said, is not a mere description, but rather an accusatory category, through which groups of actors attempt to disqualify each other. Situations of controversy are therefore particularly appropriate moments to analyze the conditions under which the “conspirationism” label is assigned and circulated. In line with the now classical study of controversies (Lemieux, 2007), the aim here will be to examine how disputes involving accusations of conspirationism unfold. First of all, one may wonder under which conditions supporters of a (deviant) counter-narrative are designated as conspirators, and by whom? What are the resources and strategies mobilized by the actors when they try to assign this label, or to get rid of it? It may also be worth examining to what extent these resources and methods differ depending on the types of controversies involved: it the adversarial process the same whether one talks about terrorist attacks or Monsanto’s ability to keep RoundUp on the market?

On the one hand, this issue thus focuses on the actors involved in “fact-checking” or “debunking” narratives described as “conspiracy theories” (PolitiFact’s, “Truth-o-meter”, FactCheck.org, etc.), and on how they prioritize their subjects, and the tools, methods and support they mobilize. The battle against “fake news” can also be studied through the regulatory mechanisms set up by certain platforms (moderation, alerts, etc.). On the other hand, contributors to this special issue may also consider the critical work carried out by groups of actors described as conspiracy theorists. As a matter of fact, these counter-narratives often constitute attempts to subvert the media agenda in order to introduce new issues, new ways of seeing that are currently not represented (Gusfield, 1981; Neveu, 2015). One can therefore analyze, for example, the discourse on electro-sensitivity and the criticism of high-voltage lines, as a way of promoting the recognition of a pathology that is not included in official nomenclatures. Similarly, the anti-vaccine galaxy is defined by, among other things, the accusation of flaws in public health policies. What media strategies do these groups of rival actors adopt? What are their relationships with mainstream media, and how critical and conflictual are they? How do they handle social media? Do they adapt, and how, their speeches according to the media supports on which they work? One may ultimately study how the internet affects the way these disputes unfold, and examine the methods used to bring about, or disqualify, “alternative public problems”?

Forms of profane knowledge and counter-narratives

The goal of this issue is to take complot narratives and their epistemologies seriously. We thus particularly welcome contributions that describe empirically the work of producing theories, their material support, and the forms of knowledge and argumentation apparatuses that they mobilize. An appropriate way to conduct research along this line could be to account for how consensus is built in the spaces where these theories are discussed. What forms of argumentation are deemed to be appropriate (or not)? How are different versions of a complot accepted or rejected? How is dissent managed? More generally, what are the procedures through which an “official version of the conspiracy” is maintained, at the expense of others, and thus endow these narratives with a certain solidity? To this end, content analyses can be conducted of videos on YouTube, blog posts, Facebook pages, online forums or even comment threads in order to seize the collective production of these counter-narratives in action. More generally, this axis invites applying to “complot theories” the same questions that are applied to the analysis of objectivity in the journalistic domain (Schudson, 2001) or in the scientific field (Daston & Galison, 2010). Research could be conducted that examines the tools and instruments mobilized to support counter-narratives: images, maps, diagrams, statistics, etc.

This hybridization between the grammar of objectivity and theories deemed heretical or complotist is currently discussed with intensity in the scientific field. For example, skeptics to climate change create counter-evaluations of scientific articles and data that show an increase in global temperatures; tobacco companies publish studies that have long weakened the consensus on the harmfulness of their products (Oreskes & Conway, 2010; Proctor, 2012); promoters of Intelligent Design abandon the religious arguments of creationism, to favor a vocabulary and codes inspired by the classical grammar of objectivity. These actors thus engage in the construction of alternative forms of expertise, which sometimes are very sophisticated (data analysis, coding and statistical tools), while also multiplying the channels to distribute their counter-narratives (journals, blogs, social media). We therefore invite contributions that examine this issue, which is the strength of these marginalized narratives.

Sociotechnical supports of “conspiracy theories”

One last way of investigating so-called complot narratives is to question the sociotechnical conditions of their emergence and circulation, which builds on a media regime of “hyper reality” characterized by a “loss of certainty in one’s ability to distinguish clearly and hierarchically between reality and its mediated representation” (Williams & Delli Carpini, 2011). In other words, how does the blurring of the social certification of truth interact with the social and technical structures that characterize the various spaces of the social Web? What sociotechnical features offer favorable conditions—or not—for the spread of so-called complot narratives in these spaces? This research axis seeks to evaluate how technical objects, such as algorithms, software platforms, communication devices or computer codes, enable the formation and circulation of this type of content.

From this point of view, articles could revisit the relationship between community and technology, a classic in the study of digital cultures (Proulx & Latzko-Toth, 2000). Why spaces like Reddit have become places for the proliferation of deviant narratives? What makes Facebook a support for accelerating the spread of complot narratives, controversies or accusations? Which algorithms tend to favor the visibility of certain theories at the expense of others (Vosoughi, Roy, & Aral, 2018)? What role do these platforms play in the production of these contents, in their circulation, and in the construction of “facts” as robust and obvious (Wyatt, Harris, & Kelly, 2016)? Methodologically, online ethnography and discourse analysis could be privileged entry points into these issues. Digital methods associated with data science and the study of big data (network analysis, semantic analysis, etc.) could also be an ideal means to identify practices and patterns of information flow, otherwise not visible. Contributors could focus on case studies that center on a given platform or on a particular theory by following its manifestations throughout various spaces of the Web. A comparative approach is also welcomed to document the successes and failures of certain narratives and the communities that support them. What makes online controversies unique or special? How do media outlets react to these narratives or participate in their diffusion? This line of inquiry seeks to understand how deviant narratives evolve in the context of a large ecology of media and platforms.

Practical information

The abstracts (500 words maximum) are due by September 10th 2019. They should be sent to the following addresses:

Revue RESET reset@openedition.org.

Henri Boullier h.boullier@gmail.com

Baptiste Kotras bkotras@gmail.com

Ignacio Siles isiles@gmail.com

The abstracts will be reviewed anonymously by the issue coordinators and the members of the editorial board. Authors of submissions selected at this stage will be asked to e-mail their full papers by September 10th 2019.

Important dates

Deadline for abstract submission (500 words maximum, plus references): 09/10/2019

Responses to authors: end of September

Deadline for full papers (6 000 to 9 000 words, plus references): 11/30/2019.

[Publication] La casse du siècle – A Propos des réformes de l’hôpital public – Pierre-André Juven, Frédéric Pierru et Fanny Vincent

More information

Eu-SPRI Forum PhD Circulation Award – Call for proposals for doctoral researchers

Eu-SPRI Forum PhD Circulation Award

Call for proposals for doctoral researchers

Twenty Fifth submission deadline: 11th March 2019

The circulation of PhD researchers is an important element of the training activities of the Eu-SPRI Forum network. It is part of the development of the European training platform which Eu-SPRI Forum aims to develop in the area of science and innovation policy studies. It addresses our objective of offering a European pathway to PhD researchers in this field.

 EU-SPRI Forum now invites PhD researchers to apply for the next round of PhD circulation.

This call is open to doctoral researchers in their second year of PhD thesis or beyond

(and early stage researchers, who have completed their PhD within the past 12 months, in exceptional circumstances).

Member organisations and details of how to apply are listed on the eu-spri website

https://www.euspri-forum.eu/news/news/eu-spri-phd-circulation-call-march-2019.pdf

⬆️