Expert Activities As Part of Research Work: the Example of Biodiversity Studies Céline Granjou and Isabelle Mauz
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Science & Technology Studies 2/2012 Expert Activities as Part of Research Work: The Example of Biodiversity Studies Céline Granjou and Isabelle Mauz In a fast-growing body of literature on the science-policy interface, surprisingly few studies have examined the way researchers’ expert and advisory activities are embedded in scientifi c practice and academic careers. Little attention has been paid to scientists’ points of view on their own expert and advisory activities. Drawing on an empirical survey of biodiversity studies, we focus on scholars’ choices and trajectories in order to document why and how they become involved in this range of activities. Our results show how expert activities and scientifi c work are co-produced and articulated. A key result is that the nature of expert and advisory activities researchers are involved in, is closely related to the way they consider it possible to generalize ecological knowledge to various fi elds and networks. We also show that expert and advisory activities can help biodiversity scientists meet some of the requirements weighing on academic work (i.e. securing funds, showing social relevance or obtaining access to the fi eld). Keywords: scientists, expert and advisory activities, biodiversity Introduction (Takacs, 1996). However, such studies tell us almost nothing of the scientifi c In the fi eld of environmental studies, programs and research work performed by scientists are often suspected of, or the scholars. Th erefore, according to this praised for, being political activists in study, we might expect that there would be favour of nature conservation. Th is kind of no links between the scientists’ research commitment is considered to be either a bias activities and their other commitments. weighing on their work, or a praiseworthy What is considered to be the researchers’ and heroic investment. Nevertheless, very political or public commitment (i.e. giving little attention has been paid to the actual conferences or writing books for the general relationships between environmental public) and their scientifi c work would be at scientists’ political or public commitment best two distinct and impermeable fi elds: and their daily scientifi c work. For instance, otherwise scientists are suspected of being literature has documented how the word partial and their results of depending on ‘biodiversity’ was coined by a group of ideological preferences. Other previous famous biologists who were political work showed how researchers’ epistemic activists in favour of nature conservation culture could infl uence their opinions about Science & Technology Studies, Vol. 25 (2012) No. 2, 5-22 5 Science & Technology Studies 2/2012 the risks of GMOs (Bonneuil, 2006). Once of “tinkering” implemented by researchers again, this work draws on an unaddressed to construct do-able problems while border between the scientists’ “public complying with various levels of requirement involvement” and their scientifi c culture. On (pertaining to experimentation, the the other hand, Frickel (2004) suggests that laboratory and the social world, including a culture of activism among environmental distant colleagues and fi nancial backers) research professionals is emerging, and that (Fujimura, 1987): “Articulating consists in this new environmental activism involving creating strategies by which researchers scientists could aff ect what is considered juggle, balance and meet multiple, to be credible research: however, he deals simultaneous demands at many levels with the institutional and organizational of work organization” (Fujimura, 1987: conditions of scientist activism rather than 275). Th e concept of articulation has then with scholars’ individual trajectories and been further developed to underline the commitments. absence of conceptual determinism in the More specifi cally, in a fast-growing body defi nition and pursuit of research problems; of literature on the science policy interface1, it highlights the fact that problem defi nition surprisingly few studies have examined requires a contingent co-construction and the way scientists’ expert and advisory alignment of instrumental and conceptual activities, addressing managers, decision- aspects (Griesemer, 1992). We show here makers or stakeholders, are embedded in that, as part of their work, scholars also the rest of their scientifi c practice. Much articulate advisory and expert activities attention has been paid to the relationships supporting managers and policy-makers, between experts and deciders or between and that these investments are co-produced experts and citizens or lay-people; recent with other aspects of their research activity. debates in science studies have focused Using the notion of ‘articulation work’, on the experts’ role in decision-making we do not only want to highlight the fact in a technical democracy (Millstone & that expert and academic activities are Zwanenberg, 2001; Collins & Evans, 2002; interdependent and in co-evolution in Jasanoff , 2003; Rip, 2003; Wynne, 2003). But scholars’ careers. Th e notion of articula- few studies scrutinize this range of activities tion, as defi ned by previous work, also to show what it has to do with researchers’ stresses that scholars do not always fol- agendas, networks and fi eld-work. Focusing low well-defi ned strategies serving generic on scholars’ choices and trajectories and plans and theoretical purposes (Clarke paying attention to the individuals’ point and Fujimura, 1992). In other words, the of view in their own expert and advisory notion of articulation is a very interesting activities, we aim to take a pragmatic and heuristic notion because it is closely look at this range of activities in order to related to the notion of ‘tinkering’, which document why and how scientists engage suggests that scholars’ activities do not fol- in these activities. Our goal is to contribute low directly from theoretical programs or to documenting how expert activities “real” scientifi c questions: instead, schol- and scientifi c work are co-produced and ars progressively construct their work by articulated. tinkering between diff erent aspects in We propose to use the notion of somehow contingent and unpredictable ‘articulation’ to outline the diff erent ways. Scientifi c knowledge is created in dimensions of scientifi c work. Th is notion unforeseeable and open ways that were was fi rst developed to identify all the forms described by Pickering (1995) as a “man- 6 Céline Granjou and Isabelle Mauz gle” of theories, experiments, machines of their papers. Some of these institutions and social organization. Of course, there – such as the French National Centre for are important diff erences between the Scientifi c Research (CNRS) – are traditionally context in which the notion of articula- dedicated to fundamental research, while tion was fi rst used by Fujimura to analyze others – such as the French National scientists’ work in the lab, and the context Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), we want to describe, where we address the or the French Institute of Agricultural and issue of academic trajectories and careers. Environmental Engineering Research Crucially, we do not address the same scale (CEMAGREF2) – are devoted to so-called of scientifi c work, so we did not directly fi nalized research, focusing on agricultural observe scientists’ work: instead, we drew issues and rural or environmental problems. on their oral statements (see below). And We retraced the careers of these researchers verbally, researchers could have stressed and invited them to look back at changes ex post logic rather than real hesitation and in terms of their research topics, fi elds tinkering. Yet, we always encouraged inter- and instrumental systems as well as their viewees to give concrete examples instead expert and advisory activities. Th is meant of only general and abstract answers. We that we sometimes had to specify that our chose to use the notion of articulation in goal was to understand their participation this context because we found that the in ministerial scientifi c committees, their stories they told us were very diverse and contribution to the drafting of reports for accorded an important position to con- policy-makers as well as their activities in tingent reorientations and opportunities feeding back information to management that emerged during the course of action: authorities. the ways in which they engaged in expert Conducting interviews was a relevant activities did not conform to a predefi ned method for us for discussing how expert plan but were indeed performed as part activities and academic work mutually of an ongoing process of co-construction feed into each other. Of course, we could with other dimensions of their work. have observed scientists’ activities in situ over quite a long period of time: it might Methods have given us a slightly diff erent view of the place occupied by expert activities We carried out an interview-based survey in their daily agendas, highlighting the (qualitative semi-directed interviews) on practical comings and goings between roughly 30 French researchers representing these activities and the rest of their work. various specialties in biodiversity studies But such a method would take quite a long (i.e. population ecology, microbial and time, depending on the frequency of these functional ecology, systematics). Most activities in the researchers’ daily work, of these researchers held positions as before demonstrating its signifi cance. research