Search

Dans son sens courant, la notion de discipline sert à classifier les aires de connaissance qui découpent le monde et son étude. Ainsi conçues, les disciplines forment des corpus de connaissances fondés sur un classement de la nature et une division du travail scientifique. Cette représentation des divisions disciplinaires, qui repose sur des configurations abstraites et par ailleurs incertaines, ignore toutefois souvent la matérialité et l’historicité de ces unités d’organisation des sciences...

Vaccination, OGM, épidémies, contraception, changements climatiques: voilà des sujets portant à controverse où la science semble autant juge que partie. Mais que sait-on vraiment du fonctionnement de la science et de la technologie ? Louées ou honnies, elles font intimement partie de notre vie, sans que nous ne comprenions toujours comment, ou pourquoi. Ce dictionnaire unique en son genre cartographie nos liens complexes avec la science et la technologie envisagées comme phénomènes humains. Il détaille le vocabulaire et les questions de la « STS » (Sciences, technologies et sociétés), champ des sciences humaines voué à la compréhension critique des savoirs et de leurs usages. Chaque entrée présente l'état des recherches sur un aspect précis des sciences et des technologies et rend compte des acquis théoriques, des méthodes d'enquête et des débats en cours. Fruit du réseau d'expertise du Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologie (CIRST), ce livre mobilise plusieurs disciplines - sociologie, philosophie, management, communication, science politique, histoire, économie et scientométrie -, tout en mettant à l'avant des concepts communs. Le grand public, les étudiants, les décideurs et les chercheurs y trouveront un outil de référence nécessaire pour réfléchir autrement à ces questions qui nourrissent nos inquiétudes et nos plus grands espoirs.

Inspirée par les débats portant sur la typologie de la recherche proposée par Michael Burawoy (2005b) et fondée sur une analyse qualitative de vingt-cinq entrevues auprès de professeurs en histoire, en économie et en sociologie, notre investigation a comme but d’identifier et de décrire l’organisation sociale du sens de la recherche en fonction de ses auditoires et ses visées cognitives. À partir d’une analyse sémantique du langage et des repères construits par les acteurs dans leurs expériences de production et de diffusion de connaissances, nous étudions premièrement l’organisation des pratiques de recherche dans l’espace académique, puis l’extension de ces pratiques vers d’autres champs d’activités sociales. Cette analyse nous permet de revenir sur la typologie de Burawoy et d’apporter quelques corrections quant aux distinctions entre les connaissances professionnelle, critique, appliquée et publique. À cet égard, nous proposons que ces « types » de recherche doivent être décomposés en de multiples postures qui s’inscrivent d’une part dans une différenciation des espaces discursifs académiques et d’autre part à l’interface de différents modes d’intervention extra-académique., Our study of the orientation of research in the social sciences and humanities is a response to Micheal Burawoy’s typology of knowledge production. The objective of this investigation is to identify and describe the social organisation of the meaning of research as scholars attempt to reach different audiences and as their investigations are routed towards particular cognitive aims. Having conducted twenty-five in-depth interviews with historians, sociologists and economists, we analysed their interpretations of research practices in relation to the social space of academia and in regards to the extension of academic activities towards other social spaces. This analysis is then mobilised to comment on Michael Burawoy’s typology of research as we attempt to correct some of the distinctions he makes between professional, critical, policy and public knowledge. Notably, we suggest that these “types” should be broken down into multiple postures understood in relation to a segmentation of academic discursive fields and a differentiation of extra-academic modes of intervention., Réalisé en association avec le Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologie (CIRST).

Following its electoral victory in the Plateau-Mont-Royal in November 2009, the Projet Montréal political party has been experimenting with a new model of participatory governance based on the work of expert advisory committees, or Comité aviseurs. These committees are made up of volunteer residents, experts and professionals, and are mandated to develop project and policy proposals based on main issues and actions contained in the party’s electoral platform. Even though the experience is relatively short (approximately 8 months), implementing this model of municipal governance and decision-making has already brought both benefits and challenges. Indications of improved efficiency and collaboration with the public service have been met with some challenges in process and structure. This raises the questions of how to institutionalize participatory governance in the present context, how to do so sustainably, and how to monitor the process to ensure that it will lead to desired outcomes. This report seeks to answer these questions and provides a set of recommendations from which Projet Montréal may draw as they move forward with the implementation of Comités aviseurs. The report is based on a collaborative evaluation research methodology, which was developed and revisited in partnership with Projet Montréal officials. The research relies on data gathered in May and June of 2010 through focus groups, interviews, participant observation and a survey of committee members. A majority of members (59.3%) responded to the survey and provided the following responses: a) On the Comités’ Roles and Functioning: the levels of satisfaction and clarity about members’ roles and about the Comités’ functioning differ from one Comité to the next. Although there is no consensus, the most important role of Comités aviseurs is that of developing proposals. There is a high level (73.9%) of satisfaction with the process so far. b) On the Nature of Participation: motivated by an opportunity to effect change in their borough, most respondents feel they actively participate in, or have an influence on decision-making. Members are learning a significant amount of information, knowledge and skills about municipal governance. It remains unclear what the role of the general public is or ought to be in this process. c) On Strengths, Weaknesses, Best Practices and Main Challenges: strengths included efficiency, innovation, creativity, and collaboration between a diversity of residents and experts; weaknesses related to the balance between expert and non-expert citizens, unclear roles and information flow and lack of follow-up; best practices included involving public servants, sharing knowledge, fostering diversity and meeting regularly; and the challenges related to the bureaucratic environment, to monitoring the process, to ensuring clear communication and leadership. d) On Recommendations: Key recommendations included reaching out to a broader audience, establishing clearer criteria in member recruitment, as well as improving communication and follow-up. Complementary to the survey results, other findings were synthesized and presented as needs to be addressed in fostering the long-term viability of Comités aviseurs: a) Need for more clarity and follow-up in the process; b) Need for more formal meeting structure and process; c) Need for documenting and managing information; d) Need for more clearly-defined roles and responsibilities; e) Need for increased communication and coordination between Comités aviseurs; f) Need to incorporate public opinion (this may include framing the Comités aviseurs as public representation, increasing public access to the process, combining the Comités with public broader public consultation or inviting the public to participate directly in the process); g) Need for budget and resources; and h) Need to acknowledge and foster members’ motivation. These needs are currently being met and addressed to varying degrees. They represent Projet Montréal’s main considerations as they explore the sustainability of Comités aviseurs. These findings point to some of the common advantages and challenges of participatory governance. In support of institutionalizing this model of governance, the findings are analyzed within a good governance framework that uses efficiency, transparency and participation as its key indicators. The Comité aviseur model is found thus far to be quite efficient. Although the timeline is still rather short to properly assess efficiency, the impressive number and high quality of projects submitted to the public service are good indicators. With respect to transparency, the model performs very well with the citizens directly involved – that is, Comité members. There is some room for improvement with respect to transparency and accountability to the general public. The case is similar with regards to participation. Members are highly engaged in a participatory governance model while the public at large does not have much opportunity to contribute. There are many factors to consider in institutionalizing the Comité aviseur model. According to indicators developed by Irwin and Stanbury (2004), the Plateau-Mont- Royal is a fairly favorable context for participatory models of governance. This is also visible in analyzing the Comité aviseur’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT): the strengths and opportunities are obvious and many of the weaknesses and threats can be addressed with more participation and better monitoring. Motsi’s evaluation framework for citizen engagement is presented as a basic starting point for monitoring the Comités aviseurs. It focuses on five components of a participatory exercise: a) Purpose b) Process c) People d) Context e) Outcomes The report concludes by acknowledging Projet Montréal’s willingness to be critical about its work. On the one hand, initial success, efficient work and the submission of high-quality proposals are encouraging. On the other hand, there remain the challenges of communication and coordination, clarity of roles and responsibilities, information management and the public’s role. According to a good governance framework, the model is faring very well for people who are directly involved. The recommendations provided below seek in part to extend access and benefits to the general population. Projet Montréal is doing commendable work in attempting to govern innovatively. In doing so, it will be important to be responsive to the evolving context and reality of the Comités aviseurs so that the model may be institutionalized, monitored and sustained for the duration of the electoral term. The following recommendations (with rationale and potential actions) are proposed to Projet Montréal as it embarks on its second year of working with Comités aviseurs: 1. Ensure clarity of process and regular follow-up with Comité aviseur members. 2. Formalize Comité aviseur meetings. 3. Clarify roles and responsibilities. 4. Centralize and manage information for transparency and accountability. 5. Ensure coordination and communication between Comités aviseurs. 6. Allocate appropriate resources to improve the governance model. 7. Integrate the Comités aviseurs within a broader public participation framework. 8. Establish norms for future Comités aviseur formation. 9. Monitor and evaluate Comités aviseurs.

This chapter examines the interplays of economic and epistemic power through a historical reconstruction of entrepreneurship ideas in management and economics and a historical social network analysis linking intellectuals and think tanks to foundations and corporations. With a focus on ideas, concepts and storylines, this study helps shed light on the intellectual and ideological origins of modes of thinking - and the ways of life based on them - that have become invisible or taken for granted. Although the continuing relevance and even the existence of neoliberalism are doubted by many, entrepreneurship discourses have become increasingly influential in contemporary society. This chapter illustrates how the original conception, or rather revision, of entrepreneurship ideas and their promotion by neoliberal intellectuals and think tanks preceded the diffusion of entrepreneurship ideas via business schools and consulting companies. This was followed by the subsequent universalization of entrepreneurship discourses and related arrangements in media and society, respectively: from social security regimes (activation, self-responsibility, and so on) to entrepreneurial universities on to charity and philanthropy (social entrepreneurship, eco-entrepreneurship).