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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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”.

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 €


Bon de commande PASS

Demande d’hébergement

Info: 05 59 64 44 54 ou

[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”,, 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:


Henri Boullier

Baptiste Kotras

Ignacio Siles

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

[Publication] La Voix du web – Nouveaux régimes de l’opinion sur Internet by Baptiste Kotras

Every day, millions of publications are posted on social networks, about anything and everything: fashion, sports, cooking, politics, showbiz. In addition to its abundance and accessibility, the online conversation takes place in the absence of any external solicitation: it seems to offer a direct and authentic access to our most varied opinions. Since the 2000s, a group of start-ups and agencies have invested this unique material: their algorithms allow to capture and analyze these opinions, in order to monetize them with major brands and political parties. These instruments implement a “seismography” of the Internet, drawing a new regime of knowledge and government. A fundamental book to understand what happens to our digital footprints, that is, how the web reinvents the measure of opinion.

Baptiste Kotras holds a doctorate in sociology from Paris-Est University, a researcher at LISIS. He is interested in how digital traces upset the knowledge of citizens and merchants

[Publication] Fabriquer des actes d’Etat – Une ethnographie du travail bureaucratique by Jean-Marc Weller

This book deals with one of the emblematic modalities of the capacity of public intervention: the production of “acts of state”, that is to say of administrative decisions (notification, order, judgment, license, certificate, etc.). which, as soon as they are taken, are endowed with an authority which obliges us. The ethnographic survey that this book proposes in several administrations (Justice, Agriculture, Social Security) invites to be interested in the concrete modalities by which the State can act. The answer seems known: beyond making decisions legitimized by law, he produces writings.

But how are the documents, without which these decisions would not exist, be made up? And by what mysteries do these papers cover themselves with a force that makes it right, through them, the State that acts? To answer these questions, it is necessary to open the office door, survey their linear, flip through the files, follow the paperwork, and get into the thick of writing activities, computing operations, computer manipulations that we shed light on the importance of documentary organization, the diversity of possible bureaucratic arrangements, the intelligence and the contradictions of the work that is done there.

Empowering civil society through participatory investigation? – 1 & 2 février 2019

Empowering civil society through participatory investigation ?

1-2 February 2019
LISIS, Université Paris Est Marne-la-Vallée (RER Noisy-Champs), France


This 2-day workshop is dedicated to exploring new types of interactions between science and society, which we call participatory investigation, and howsuch interactions can contribute to the empowerment of civil society. We want to discuss such interactions from the perspective of civil society organisations (NGOs), a point of view that has so far been largely neglected.

The workshop is organised in collaboration by European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) within the H2020 project Doing it Together Science (DITOs), Pour une alliance sciences en société (ALLISS), Institut francilien recherche, innovation, société (IFRIS), Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Sciences Innovations Sociétés (LISIS) and the Living Knowledge Network (LKN).

There is a preliminary agenda here.

If you would like to participate, please register by Sunday 9th December 2018 (see section “How to take part”).

Plus d’infos et inscriptions :


CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT Eu-SPRI 2019 Science Technology and Innovation Policies for Sustainable Development Goals. Actors, Instruments and Evaluation Roma, 5-7-June 2019 Hosted by CNR-IRCRES Research Institute for Sustainable Economic Growth



 Eu-SPRI 2019

Science Technology and Innovation Policies for Sustainable Development Goals.

Actors, Instruments and Evaluation

Roma, 5-7-June 2019

Hosted by CNR-IRCRES Research Institute for Sustainable Economic Growth

The Conference builds on the directions proposed by the 2017 Vienna and the 2018 Paris EUSPRI conferences, and focuses on new actors, instruments, practices, and policies for research and innovation to pursuing sustainable development goals using the problem-solving approach.

The Conference wants to deepen the concepts of ‘missions’ and ‘transformative policies’, and how R&I studies can address them, trying to figure out existing or potential linkages between missions and sustainable development goals, and what is the contribution that STI policy studies can provide in this respect.

The Conference should also discuss the problem of measurements related to missions and the existing gap between missions and social challenges, policy objectives, policy instruments, and research projects, including the understanding of issues such as regulations, public funding and public procurement toward reaching specific goals.

The Conference will be organized around seven key themes.

  • R&I policies toward mission-oriented sustainable research: rethinking policy design, implementation and evaluation.
  • New governance of STI policies: actors, networks and instruments
  • Social innovation: enabling factors and existing practices for sustainable social needs
  • RRI and the responsiveness of science and technology developments, institutions and policies
  • Disruptive emerging technologies, digital platforms and associated business model innovations and the rise of new innovation ecosystems
  • Research infrastructure for STI studies: open data, big data, and new research avenues
  • Globalization and the geography of knowledge and innovation

Call for presentations, posters and special sessions

Only one call will be made for both individual proposals (abstracts) collective answers (sessions) and posters. Abstracts should be extensive abstracts (up to 3000 words) indicating if the proponent(s) submit an oral presentation or a poster presentation. Sessions should present the topic addressed and the relevance for the Conference.

The members of the Scientific Committee will be mobilized for the abstract peer review. Papers will be accepted for oral presentation on the base of the results of peer review; the organizers retain the right to assign a paper for a poster even if the authors submitted for oral presentation.

Poster sessions will be given equal time that usual sessions because we consider them as important as oral presentations. The call also foresees proposals for specific sessions or special tracks beyond the key themes, which address the topic under the general Conference theme.

CNR, the organizer of the conference, is dedicated to open access. All colleagues that submit an abstract at the same time engage to make their abstract and presentations accessible on the website of the conference.

Important dates:

– Pre-announcement of the Call: December 2018

– Opening of Submissions: January 10, 2019

– Closing of Submissions: February 15, 2019

– Announcement of selected papers and posters: March 30, 2019

– Registration open: April the 1st, 2019

Local organizing committee:

Emanuela Reale, Giovanni Cerulli, Serena Fabrizio, Lucio Morettini, Bianca Potì, Antonio Zinilli.


Scientific committee: to be determined.

Secretariat: Marco De Biase,



CNR Headquarter for the morning of Wednesday the 5th and Centro Congresso Frentani, which are very close to Termini Station (the main train station of Roma).

Conference website announcement: