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 directors or professors in charge of Moreover, it would have meant a focus laboratories – although we also met several on lab personnel, while doing interviews young researchers and a number of retirees allowed us to interview a diversifi ed panel – and belonged to various institutions of researchers as regards their scientifi c (universities and public research institutes). domain and their institution. Th is broad Th ese interviews were backed up through panel of interviewees made it possible to the exploration of web pages presenting refute the hypothesis that the institution of individuals and teams and reading some belonging (devoted more or less to applied

7 Science & Technology Studies 2/2012 or fundamental research) is the most We presented our survey as dealing with important parameter in explaining the type their approach to the idea of biodiversity and extent of scholars’ expert and advisory in their work, and we specifi ed that it support activities. We noticed that in any would be part of a collective social science given lab, expert activities were substantial research project funded by the National for some researchers and marginal for Research Agency3. Th e Agency’s reputation others. throughout the academic community may Moreover, addressing the question have helped us to obtain appointments and of how expert activities and academic be considered as “real” researchers by some work are co-produced and articulated of the interviewees. During the interviews, demanded an approach on the scale of and especially with our colleagues from individual trajectories and careers. Carrying CEMAGREF who we generally met at the out interviews to reconstitute scholars’ beginning of the survey, we stressed the fact biographies was the best method to address that we were not specialists in biodiversity this scale. In fact, we needed to understand studies and that we needed a great deal the researchers’ questions, instrumental of explanation about their approaches, approaches, and expert activities quite well, questions, positions and so on. We preferred but without having an excessively detailed to be accepted as outsiders learning to description of each of these aspects. know the fi eld, rather than “intellectuals” Interviews were an appropriate method with fi xed opinions. Th at is why some for that level of understanding, because researchers were quite disappointed when they made it possible to reconstruct the they asked us to specify the main research main characteristics of the scientists’ work hypothesis on which our survey was based. during their career (i.e. research questions Most of the researchers spoke quite easily of since the PhD, types and locations of fi eld their expert and advisory activities, perhaps work, changes in institutional affi liation because these activities were subjects that and charges, network, expert activities) the interviewees thought to be more relevant without going into too much detail in for a sociological survey than their research the description. Furthermore, interviews questions and approaches. Moreover, for allowed us to collect not only facts and some of the interviewees, expert activities events, but also individual meanings. And are an important aspect of their work, which it was also important for us to understand can take up a lot of time; however, they do not what it meant for scholars to work on the have many opportunities to mention these topic of biodiversity, when and why they activities, as they are often considered to be used that word rather than another, and unimportant in relation to the usual criteria fi nally why they engaged in expert and of academic excellence. Some researchers, advisory activities based on this topic. broadly involved in expert activities, are on Lastly, conducting interviews with their own and isolated from the rest of their researchers while being ourselves team in the lab. researchers from another fi eld (sociology) In the following, we present our analysis is a situation that deserves further on the co-production of academic work explanation. A few of the interviewees were and expert activities. Understanding why colleagues, working in the same institution and how biodiversity scientists invest in (CEMAGREF) and sharing the same expert and advisory activities fi rst requires facilities. We did not face any major problems examining what it means for them to work when asking scientists for an interview. on biodiversity; let us begin by briefl y

8 Céline Granjou and Isabelle Mauz documenting how biodiversity studies have and constitutes the foundation of French been set up in France4. public policy with respect to biodiversity. Th e overall sums allocated to the institute’s The Emergence of calls for projects quickly grew, rising from “Biodiversity studies” a little over one million Euros in 2000 to twelve million in 2007. Th e creation of Examining the historical background the new Foundation for Research into of the scientifi c community working on Biodiversity in 2008, replacing the IFB, biodiversity would require an in-depth ensured the sustainable development and socio-historical approach. Th is is not institutionalization of biodiversity. Th e goal our purpose here: we simply want to of the new FRB is to focus on biodiversity- understand what it means for researchers related challenges, pertaining to civil society to become involved in biodiversity studies. but also companies. Th e FRB also initiated a Like studies on global change (cf. Kwa, new project to identify and interview teams 2005), biodiversity studies have not resulted and individuals working on biodiversity in standardized research agendas. Instead, in order to update this list. Th is concern biodiversity has been taken up diff erently can partly be explained by the creation of by diff erent specialists in their own working the IPBES (Intergovernmental Platform on agendas, ranging from modelling to fi eld Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services), which collection work. However, it is especially is the biodiversity equivalent of the IPCC important to note that, for all researchers, (International Panel on Climate Change): the theme of biodiversity entails a strong the FRB aims to identify biodiversity experts injunction for scientifi c work to be socially in France who could potentially participate and environmentally relevant. in expert studies to be carried out within the framework of the IPBES. Hence, biodiversity Collectives and disciplines was included in both scientifi c and political In the 1990s, temporary collectives were agendas at the same time. brought together to work on research Mullins (1972) describes several projects based on biodiversity issues. successive stages in the scientifi c Th ese collectives were fi nanced through community institutionalization movement. calls for projects, which depended on the It starts with a paradigmatic phase French Ministry of the Environment, on (informal links between researchers), the one hand, and the CNRS on the other. followed by a dogmatic phase (formalized Th ese programmes were themselves communication and co-publication linked to the Man and Biosphere (MAB) network), and, fi nally, an academic phase international programme: the French (the setting up of reviews and degree leader of this programme (Robert Barbault) courses). According to this typology, it was also in charge of the CNRS biodiversity would seem that today biodiversity studies programmes and became president of are in the middle of the dogmatic phase: the IFB (French Biodiversity Institute). relatively informal collectives have been Established in 2000, the IFB consolidated created to work on short-term projects, while and maintained existing programmes a more sustainable drive to institutionalize aiming to promote and organize biodiversity can also be seen with the biodiversity research. Its fi rst mission was creation of teams, labs, reviews and research to prepare the draft of the national strategy stations dedicated to “biodiversity”. Indeed, for biodiversity, which was released in 2004 several research laboratories or departments

9 Science & Technology Studies 2/2012 have been created (or renamed) to work on “herbarium” approach, trying to relegate biodiversity: the “Biodiversity, Systematics the taxonomic approach to something and Evolution” department (Paris Sud- that has become out of date. Biodiversity Orsay University); the “Ecology and can thus be defi ned either as a question of Biodiversity Management” department at species quantity or a quality of interactions. the French Natural History Museum; the Hence it is grasped by diff erent epistemic “Biodiversity and Ecosystems Functioning” cultures (Knorr-Cetina, 1999), leading to team (Bioemco laboratory) or the Master’s diff erent tools and concepts for measuring degree course in “Ecology, Evolution and and assessing the environmental situation. Biodiversity” in Paris. Th is “dogmatic” phase Nevertheless biodiversity also fosters the is refl ected in the expression biodiversity development of these disciplines by giving studies, which is sometimes referred to researchers the opportunity to develop a directly in English by French researchers. new rhetoric, stating the relevance of their Nevertheless, the fi eld of biodiversity work in a context of environmental crisis. sciences remains especially diverse. Compared with the climate science A promise of social relevance and community which has become structured environmental usefulness around a number of instruments like climate Biodiversity constitutes a powerful promise simulation models and large databases of social relevance and environmental (even if this community remains divided, for usefulness. Here, we do not mean that instance between diff erent styles of climate researchers are opportunistic and have taken modelling, see Shackley, 2001), biodiversity advantage of the popularity of biodiversity studies are characterized by an important to get funds or an audience. Biodiversity disciplinary diversity. Not surprisingly, leads to real changes in scientifi c questions, biodiversity off ers an opportunity for both approaches and instruments. Yet, for the ecology and systematics to be defi nitely researchers interviewed, biodiversity did not considered as scientifi c disciplines in so much constitute a new scientifi c object France. Not surprisingly, biodiversity has as a promise of social and environmental helped to strengthen the development of relevance. a “Big Science” in ecology5 that now relies Examining how researchers used the word on the new instrumentation, developments ‘biodiversity’ in their web pages provided in mathematical modelling and statistics as useful insights into their apprehension of well as molecular biology. But at the same this topic. It clearly shows that their use of time, the rise of biodiversity concerns has the word relates to a social context rather helped to give taxonomy a new impetus. Th is than a research topic. In fact, addressing trend similarly relies on the modernization biodiversity referred to a perspective of species identifi cation equipment (for of environmental usefulness, namely instance barcoding, see Waterton et al., biodiversity conservation. Th erefore, they 2010). Actually, biodiversity has revived the very often used the word in the introductions divide between a scientifi c approach based of papers, theses or communications to on species – which is classically developed point to a political context and a social by taxonomists, and a scientifi c approach demand. Th ey referred all the more to based on interactions and communities – biodiversity when they intended to secure which is classically argued by ecologists6. funding for their work, for instance when Ecologists often refer to taxonomy as the submitting research proposals. Th ey also “fauna fl ora approach” or the “beasty” or referred to biodiversity when they had to

10 Céline Granjou and Isabelle Mauz explain their work to non-scientists; on the when answering: they spoke of precautions other hand, as an interviewee explains, “if and scruples. Th ey were indeed sceptical you speak to someone who works in your about the eff ective relevance of their own fi eld, the word ‘biodiversity’ doesn’t mean work, but at the same time shared a general anything at all!” Th is feature suggests how expectation of relevance for biodiversity diffi cult generalising knowledge beyond the studies. lab or specifi c fi elds can be for “biodiversity Of course, this promise of social relevance scientists”. We will see below that conviction is not specifi c to the topic of biodiversity in the possibility of generalising knowledge alone: this type of promise is crucial to on biodiversity is indeed a crucial issue in scientifi c rhetoric (cf. Gieryn, 1983; Hessels order to grasp the way scientists invest in et al., 2009). But the issue of biodiversity, like expert activities. other environmental or sanitary issues, has Interestingly, the scientists themselves specifi cally raised signifi cant expectations were well aware of the risk of opportunistic in the scientifi c capacity to solve use of the biodiversity slogan. Th ey were important and urgent problems; it has also rather critical of their own practices and strengthened the injunction for scientists to vocabulary – or those of their colleagues. Our be concerned about social relevance issues survey highlighted how they endeavoured to and to engage in social and political arenas, defi ne, case by case, when it was legitimate as stated by Larigauderie and Mooney to use the word and when it was not – i.e. (2010): “We strongly believe, thus echoing when the title of the research included the […] the conclusions of the 700 scientists who word biodiversity while the content was recently met at the Diversitas7 Open science actually much narrower. conference […], that the time has come Th erefore, for scientists, working on for scientists to educate themselves about biodiversity meant striving to produce policy work in order to become ‘responsive results that were to some extent relevant to to the knowledge needs of society’. Scientists managing current pressing environmental can no longer hope that their work will problems. Th is is also another reason why somehow be used by policy makers”. many people quickly and readily agreed to participate in our study, and why they The Co-production of Academic were particularly talkative when we came Work and Expert Activities to questions concerning the way a scientifi c community devoted to biodiversity had In accordance with this promise and hope developed. Some of them used highlighting for social relevance, scientists working on expressions in their answers to our questions biodiversity develop expert and advisory (i.e. ‘spectacular progress’, ‘enormous activities commissioned by managers, problem’), suggesting that they had much policy-makers and stakeholders. Our to say on this issue. We may suppose that survey made it possible to specify how an interview with sociologists was, for some this range of activities was co-produced of them, an opportunity to address social and co-developed with other features concerns on the environment. However, of the scientists’ work and careers: their as we shall see, many of them expressed epistemological approach, their mobility, doubts about the direct usefulness of their networks and partnerships, their products, work. Generally, when we asked them to and – last but not least – their fi eld-work. what extent they worked on biodiversity, We identifi ed two types of researchers who most of them carefully chose their words depend not on the amount of time or work

11 Science & Technology Studies 2/2012 they spend on this range of activities, but was evident between researchers whose on the type of expert and advisory activities career was oriented towards technical they get involved in. We qualify these two support and advice to rural actors about types of researchers as “globally-focused” the relationships between biodiversity and “locally-focused” because they share conservation and agricultural practices – be a broad or, on the contrary, narrow trust it farmers or managers of protected areas in the possibility of generalizing scientifi c – and researchers whose career was paved ecological knowledge beyond the specifi c with numerous publications on biodiversity fi elds and areas in which it was fi rst in prestigious scientifi c journals. Some of produced8: globally-focused researchers the researchers in the fi rst category were believe that it is possible (to a certain extent our own colleagues at CEMAGREF, while and under certain conditions) to produce many of the others were members of the universal knowledge out of situated research CNRS. Th us initially we were tempted to whereas locally-focused researchers are distinguish between scientists characterised much warier of this possibility and prefer by academic success in biodiversity and to develop acute knowledge of the specifi c scientists focusing on expert and advice fi elds and areas in which they usually carry activities on the best way to maintain out their experiments and observations. biodiversity in natural areas. But this divide A key result is that the kind of expert and was unsatisfactory for several reasons. First advisory activities researchers involve in of all, the “experts” were also researchers is closely related to the way in which they who had written peer-reviewed articles or consider it possible to generalize ecological developed innovative research programs knowledge to various fi elds and networks. in order to produce new knowledge about We shall then show how scientists articulate biodiversity conservation. Furthermore, expert and advisory activities with some of researchers who had published many the requirements weighing on academic papers in prestigious journals were also work (i.e. securing funds and access to the involved in expert and advisory committees fi eld, showing social relevance). and sometimes had a more activist profi le than the others: for instance, they were Globally-focused and locally-focused members of associations for environmental researchers protection and spread alarming theories On analysing the interviews we had about biodiversity loss. Th ey weren’t conducted, we were fi rst struck by therefore “independent” scientists working the diversity of the research agendas: in an ivory tower, isolated from general biodiversity was surprisingly far from being environmental issues, while others are a deterministic orientation making research heavily involved in socio-economic or programs and approaches uniform. Some political matters. Moreover, these two scholars were old enough to have started ideal-types suggested that the fundamental their work during a period when the word or applied orientation of the researchers’ ‘biodiversity’ was not yet used or even institution was the decisive diff erence. But coined: they seemed to have partly recycled the panel of interviewees showed widely their previous research to start working on diff ering profi les and trajectories within the this topic (for instance using older data same institution or lab – for instance, some for new research questions and trying to researchers at CEMAGREF had mainly adapt older instruments to the question of developed expert activities commissioned assessing biodiversity). However, a divide by nature managers, while others had

12 Céline Granjou and Isabelle Mauz chiefl y carried out academic work. Previous Th ey sought to produce empirical evidence work has shown that the policies of so- showing that grazed mountain areas were called fi nalized and fundamental research more diverse (composed of more numerous institutions are increasingly convergent, plant species) than ungrazed mountain requesting all environmental scientists areas. Drawing on their older data on to write papers in peer-reviewed journals mountain vegetation to assess its food and prove their relevance regarding value for livestock, and trying to make new environmental management (Hessels et experiments to assess the eff ects of grazing al., 2009; Tetart & Torny, 2009). Th is is why on the diversity of plant species, they re- it was necessary to better qualify these oriented their main research questions two contrasted categories of researchers towards the assessment of plant diversity. to obtain an accurate view of their For them, agricultural bodies and protected resemblances and diff erences. areas were potential fi nancial backers. Closer examination suggested that Th ese institutions were interested in expert most researchers conducted expert and assessment of the stakes underpinning advice activities to diff erent extents, yet biodiversity; moreover, they acted as land not in the same arenas: while a fi rst type of purveyors for fi eld-work (cf. infra). Th ese researcher was involved in local or national researchers had produced a certain number management arenas (those we call “locally- of guides and methods for diagnosing and focused”), the second one was involved assessing alpine plants, which were highly more in international expert committees appreciated by environmental management (those we call “globally-focused”). And it authorities and were also used as a reference appeared that these two types of researchers in professional agricultural environments. also diff ered in the type of epistemological Some of these researchers belonged to thinking they favoured (contextualised and CEMAGREF and INRA9 and were more than sometimes monographic in the fi rst case; 50 years old. But there were also CNRS10 general and abstract in the second), in researchers, at diff erent stages of their their professional mobility (international or careers, who had woven close relationships anchored in a place) and their fi eld relations. with diff erent types of local, public and Let us take a closer look at the results. private institutions involved in biodiversity Some of the researchers interviewed management – in particular environmental were characterized by their close proximity protection associations. For instance, some to the management authorities of of them participated in initiatives taken by natural areas (national or regional nature associations, such as producing a regional parks), regional or local authorities or fl ora atlas or setting up a biodiversity local government offi ces (e.g. regional observatory. One researcher from CNRS scientifi c committees in charge of natural worked on developing methods to assess heritage). Th ey had adopted the position and monitor the state of conservation of of being providers of technical support plant species impacted by construction for these local management authorities projects (e.g. roads or industrial facilities). and established enduring relations with He had become a very popular adviser to them. Several researchers, fi rstly trained a number of national parks and regional in agronomy and working on mountain and local authorities seeking to develop agriculture, explained that, from the early environmental strategies and programs. At 1990s onwards, they had re-oriented their the time of the interview, he was fi nishing work to address the issue of biodiversity. an 80 page booklet for managers and was

13 Science & Technology Studies 2/2012 also in charge of a section in a journal for soil biodiversity – that is to say: the genetic nature managers. But he also wrote articles diversity of microbes living underground in international scientifi c journals. He – was impacted by diff erent factors (such explained: as the quantity of nitrogen). At the time of writing, he was involved at the highest level My research is really involved, it is not in the French Foundation for Research into only applied research11 where one pub- Biodiversity. Such scientists published in lishes results in a report and it’s fi nished prestigious scientifi c reviews, some of them and one goes on to something else! We in Nature or Science. Most of them did not try to follow up, to assess, to go further… write technical guides and were less familiar than the previous category of researchers Other researchers, rather belonging to with local management authorities and the fundamental research institutions, had also areas they manage14. Some management developed expert activities but in diff erent authorities did not see what use they could conditions and arenas. Th ey moved around make of work that appeared to them to be at in national assessment arenas, taking once theoretical and disconnected from the part in permanent ministerial groups specifi c issues they had to face locally. or spot initiatives such as the national Certain researchers were also impossible report coordinated by INRA focusing to classify because they were deeply on “Agriculture and Biodiversity”, or by involved in both local and very global expert participating in groups of international and advice arenas. For instance, an insect experts (e.g. the IPCC)12. One of them tried specialist working on the eff ects of livestock to trace the evolution of many plant and drugs on coprophagic insects was very often animal populations according to various sought after by French nature parks which climate scenarios. Having worked, since wanted to produce charts on the use of his PhD, on data concerning many species agricultural chemicals in their territories in many ecosystems – which is rather (which turned him into a “locally-focused uncommon for an ecologist – he was largely researcher”). But he was also a participant, considered by colleagues and the media and one of the founders, of an international as a “biodiversity specialist”. As a member expert committee on this subject, the Dung of one of the IPCC working groups and a Organism Toxicity Testing Standardisation ministerial working group, this researcher group, which aims to publish standards was also regularly interviewed by journalists and norms meant for governments or fi rms because of his contribution to modelling (which turned him into a “globally-focused and predicting the evolution of species researcher”). distribution. Another researcher worked Th ese two categories of researchers, on the relationships between agricultural who could be distinguished by the type practices and biodiversity conservation and scale of their expert activities and trying to assess plant diversity in terms of the main products of their work, also functional diversity13 rather than species diff ered in terms of their epistemological diversity: in so doing, she developed an approaches. Th e “locally-focused experts” innovative scientifi c approach that local had mostly acquired in-depth knowledge managers were less interested in. She of the areas they worked in as well as the participated in the national “Agriculture specifi c practices applied to them – but had and Biodiversity” report. A third researcher, experienced relatively limited mobility at a microbial ecologist, analysed the way international level. Th eir studies concerned

14 Céline Granjou and Isabelle Mauz a specifi c territory (for instance an area in After having worked in Canada and in the Alps, or even a specifi c environment Britain during his studies and PhD, he had in this area) and could be monographs. been working in the South of France for 22 For instance, some of these researchers years. developed approaches stemming from the Unlike these locally-focused experts, recognition of plant species and borrowed researchers developing expert activities methods from systematics (the science of at a more global level were characterized species identifi cation and classifi cation) and by signifi cant mobility over the course phytosociology (a science that analyzes how of their career (often carrying out post- plants form communities). With the aim doctoral studies abroad). Th ey manipulated of understanding the infl uences between knowledge stemming from observations the type of plant life existing on a given and experiments carried out in highly site and the human practices applied to it, diverse places and countries. For example, they had developed a sharp focus on local one interviewee had done a post-doc vegetation and the specifi c characteristics in Australia and another (the modeller of agricultural practices and places. Th at mentioned above) in South Africa. Th e is why a number of these “locally-focused latter was in touch with a number of experts” were very often reluctant to provide colleagues abroad who sent him their data general statements on factors explaining so that he could model future changes in biodiversity. One agricultural ecologist in species distribution depending on climate the team we described above underlined change. Unlike the “locally-focused the diffi culty in formulating answers that experts” who stressed the diffi culties they made it possible to isolate human factors had in producing general hypotheses about from physical factors, as well as in predicting biodiversity outside specifi c contexts, these changes when attempting to understand the “globally-focused experts” (especially the eff ects of farming practice on biodiversity: modellers) believed available knowledge to be suffi ciently robust – albeit peppered Th ere’s nothing trickier than trying with uncertainties – to announce the to understand the dynamics of these results of their diagnoses: for instance, mountain environments, their eff ects highly probable migrations or extinctions on the conditions of use […] So if you of certain species caused by climate change take the 30 years of work done here (for the modeller); the damaging eff ect […] we’ve never been able to establish of certain chemical molecules on insects a prognosis of evolution, of these ... (for the specialist of coprophagic insects). For example, these thirty or so facies, Modelling (with or without bioinformatics) umm... unless there’s a specifi c case … seems to have greatly contributed to the rise […] It’s really complicated because.... in general hypotheses on future biodiversity scientifi cally nobody is capable of draw- changes, whatever the geographic area and ing up hypotheses beyond a certain type type of life is being considered. Another of evolution lasting several decades. modeller, an ecosystem functional theorist, has contributed to demonstrating the One researcher who claimed to do “involved relationship between the diversity of an research” believed that being settled in a ecosystem and its successful functioning place where one has been personally living (e.g. its stability). Th is researcher was also for a long time is a precondition to having a very good example of a “globally-focused real knowledge of the area and its actors. expert”: he had worked in three diff erent

15 Science & Technology Studies 2/2012 countries (in Europe and in Canada); developed – and on an epistemological level his collaboration was very often sought – what did the fi eld really represent for the out by fi eld ecologists in many countries process of knowledge production and their that asked him to model the interactions argument – appeared to be crucially related inside diff erent ecosystems; lastly, he was to the type of expert and advisory activities involved in international arenas promoting they deployed. biodiversity studies and seeking to make them useful for stakeholders (such as the Articulating expert activities and international scientifi c program Diversitas academic requirements and the International mechanism of Finally, we want to suggest how researchers scientifi c expertise on biodiversity IMoSEB). can articulate their investments in expert Th ese two types of researchers eventually activities with some of the requirements diff ered in terms of their relationship with the weighing on academic work. In the case of fi eld. Researchers operating in local arenas the “locally-focused researchers”, helping studied the fi eld for its own sake, employing managers and stakeholders had sometimes a highly contextualized, monographic mode been the initial goal for some of them, of reasoning. Conversely, those operating in particular at a time when research in the national and international arenas organisations’ requirements were not so related to the fi eld as if it were a laboratory high in terms of academic publications. But or a model in order to understand more today all researchers must demonstrate their general mechanisms linked to more general ability to publish in international journals, so research. Th e fi eld was considered to be a that it is more diffi cult to spend a great deal research area in the fi rst case and a research of time developing long-term relationships laboratory in the second. In the second with managers. Some researchers felt that case, scientists sought out “the right kind it was really diffi cult to bridge the gap and of framework to answer [their] questions”. do both very good academic research and As explained by the microbial ecologist useful research for managers or stake- (see above), their problem was in fi nding holders (whatever the scale); while others sites providing all the right conditions for explained that it was only a question of carrying out observations and experiments. time and organisation. Conducting expert Th ey were not so much interested in the and advisory activities might even help sites themselves: researchers to meet a certain number of professional requirements which weigh In fact, the important thing for us is to on academic work – i.e. to secure funds or have the right level of manipulation and access to fi eld-sites and to demonstrate control over the environment, the quan- social relevance. tity of nitrogen that’s in it... the distur- bance, and all that […]. Because if we’ve Firstly, of course, researchers set up only got the fi eld... the fi eld, we end up links and networks with the world of having X sources of variability... environmental management and action in order to fi nance research. In this context, In both cases, the ways in which researchers current changes in research funding can be conducted their fi eld-work, both on a seen to incite even fundamental research pragmatic level – how they managed access laboratories to authorize, or even encourage, to the fi eld, what kind of partnerships some of their researchers to develop special and relationships with local actors they relationships with local partners, notably

16 Céline Granjou and Isabelle Mauz local authorities, as well as participating in has to be performed on fresh plant mate- national and European calls for projects. rial. Th is means having a fi eld laboratory Furthermore – and probably contrary to next to the sites being studied. However, the links established in other disciplines empirical work also has its share of rela- or fi elds with industrial fi rms – researchers tional requirements: the areas studied are often endeavoured to showcase their occupied and used for farming or nature collaboration with management authorities, conservation. Th e very least requirement e.g. authorities in charge of protected is to obtain the agreement of breeders and areas. Indeed, these networks refl ected the shepherds (or conservationists), although growing demand for partnership, which some farmers are even asked to help with is also refl ected in the calls for projects the fi eld work at times. Th is is not always published by the French National Research very easy, as illustrated in the following Agency (ANR). Some management discussion between an ecologist and the authorities were besieged with requests to interviewer: take part in ANR projects, even to the point of being saturated: Q: Was it easy to fi nd an alpine pasture where you could set up enclosures? We’ve already been through that with A: No, no, we had to jump through the ANR projects. I don’t know how hoops. Th ey even... Well, what year did many ANR requests we’ve answered and we start? It was in 2000... 2001, 2002... so people come to us because they need Th ere were even some breeders who a geographic base. A protected area is a threw them out. So, it wasn’t... it really plus point in ANRs, apparently. So we’ve wasn’t easy to fi nd breeders who agreed had a lot of requests, we’ve answered, I to take part in the protocol. can’t remember, fi ve, six, perhaps seven, anyway, only one came off …15 Researchers spent a considerable amount of time establishing and nurturing good Crucially, developing relations with man- relations with breeders and shepherds who agement authorities also helped to pro- have agreed to an observation site on the vide researchers with the right conditions alpine pasture they use for farming. Deferred for empirical work as well as facilitating grazing areas are a problem for breeders access to the fi eld. Indeed conducting as it means they have to do without those research into biodiversity means work- areas for farming. Even if they accepted the ing in the “open air”, in environments that researchers and their activities, breeders mostly cannot be controlled, unlike the were not willing to increase their work microcosmos of a laboratory (cf. Kohler, load, which is often substantial, in order 2006). Scientists’ manipulation activities to contribute to the research project. Th is involve, for example, putting up fencing or was refl ected in the words of one ecologist enclosures to prevent animals from access- interviewed: ing certain areas. Now this kind of opera- tion can be particularly tricky in moun- For example, spreading diff erent doses tain areas owing to the harsh climate and of liquid manure is no easy matter. And diffi cult site access. Th ese problems may then, not putting any in one corner, well lead to some sites being abandoned as they for the farmer doing the spreading, it’s are considered too remote. Furthermore, complicated. He says to us “so, when are a certain amount of measurement work you going to be done with it all because I’ve had enough!”

17 Science & Technology Studies 2/2012

developed by biodiversity researchers with In this context, investing in a partnership national or international decision-makers with a park – involving some expert and by participating in expert committees and advice activities in return – represented a contributing to expert reports, but also signifi cant opportunity for researchers to the links they wove with nature managers, develop their activities in good conditions, farmers or breeders in negotiating on a sustainable study site possibly equipped collaborative conditions for producing with housing facilities and easily accessible. knowledge that could be both useful for To do this, it is often necessary to establish management purposes and relevant for close contacts with the management academic production. authorities of the areas concerned, and Our results show how expert activities this notably entails some kind of exchange and scientifi c work are co-produced and for the work performed on the sites to help articulated. Th e distinction we proposed with their management. Sometimes, the between “globally-focused” and “locally- management authorities are even involved focused” researchers stresses the fact that in deciding on the angle to be adopted in the range of expert activities scientists the issues explored by the researchers. As are involved in, is closely related to other some management authorities had already dimensions of their work – such as mobility, been collecting samples and data about partnerships, type of products, relationship the fl ora and fauna on their site for some to the fi eld, type of epistemological time, such contacts also aff orded access to thinking. More specifi cally, the kind of long-term data series. Th ese were precious expert and advisory activities researchers for research addressing the eff ects of global develop appears to be closely related to changes on species and communities. the way they consider it possible to upscale Th ese results show that, while one might ecological knowledge. We then suggested expect academic work to provide resources how scientists can articulate their expert to fuel expert advice activities, it is also true and advisory activities with some of the that these activities may provide research requirements weighing on academic work. work with important resources, such as In many cases, this range of activities may access to the fi eld and partnerships. even be an important asset for biodiversity scientists in their attempt to secure funding, Conclusion demonstrate the relevance of their work and last, but not least, obtain access to fi eld-sites For many years now, the image of the enabling them to carry out empirical work. isolated scholar working away in his ivory Th ese results help understand not only why tower has been dropped from thinking scientists spend various amounts of time about scientifi c work and the profession of in expert activities but also the type and researcher. A fast-growing body of literature scale of expertise they develop and how this addresses the science-policy interface, range of activities is embedded in the rest of focusing particularly on the position and their work. role of experts in a technical democracy. Th ese results also suggest that, although Here, we proposed to help highlight they are often overlooked or underestimated scientists’ expert and advisory activities by STS scholars and the scientists by focusing on researchers’ choices themselves, advisory and expert activities and trajectories. We examined the links must be considered to be an integral part

18 Céline Granjou and Isabelle Mauz of scientifi c work. Th ey do not fall beneath important to note that literature has shown or to the side of “real” scientifi c work. that the notion of relevance is an integral Surprisingly, expert and advisory activities part of every kind of research, even if the are not specifi c to institutions or researchers meanings of relevance depend on fi elds who might be qualifi ed as “applied” or and on history in a changing contract “fi nalized”. Th erefore, our study also between science and society (Hessels et al., contributes to questioning the demarcation 2009). We can suggest the hypothesis that between relatively fundamental or fi nalized expert and advice activities take up more types of research as well as between research space and time for scholars in biodiversity modes 1 and 2 (cf. Gibbons and al, 1994; studies than in some other fi elds, but Nowotny and al, 2001). Rather than two we could very probably observe similar diff erent research “modes”, there could be activities and similar co-production and two diff erent styles of work that researchers articulation between expert and academic develop and articulate, depending on activities in other sectors which have been circumstances and purposes. recently defi ned as giving rise to growing Th e choice we made in this study to draw social concern, for instance the climate on an empirical qualitative survey made it community or the community which diffi cult for us to propose very general and works on food safety (Tetart & Torny, transverse statements; instead, it allowed us 2009). However, in the case of biodiversity to obtain an in-depth and detailed view of studies, this co-production also draws on a few biodiversity scientists’ trajectories and the ecologists’ crucial need for access to involvements: in that sense we ourselves the fi eld. In other disciplines where fi eld developed a kind of “locally-focused” work is not so important, we can expect approach. Does it mean that our results are that the articulation between expert and absolutely specifi c to the fi eld of biodiversity academic activities, if there are indeed such studies? Biodiversity studies result from activities, takes other forms and meanings a changing social demand (with growing in researchers’ agendas. In any case, further concerns about global changes) meeting research is needed to consider more closely a changing scientifi c community which how researchers deal with the demand for experiments on new issues of environmental relevance in their fi eld, what it means for relevance. Our results surely have something them, and above all, how this question is to do with the fact that biodiversity studies dealt with in practice in their daily research are a newly institutionalised research fi eld, work. in which researchers share a sharp sense of the social and political demand for scientifi c Acknowledgements knowledge useful for environmental management purposes. While political We would especially like to thank all activism for nature protection is criticized the persons who agreed to take part in both by stake-holders and biodiversity our sociological interviews, particularly scholars themselves, researchers’ our ecologist and agricultural ecologist commitments to expert activities is also colleagues from CEMAGREF. We also thank certainly linked to their investment in the anonymous reviewers for comments on an theme of biodiversity as a promise of, and earlier version of this text. hope for, social relevance. However, it is

19 Science & Technology Studies 2/2012

References Gieryn T. F. (1983) ‘Boundary-work and the Demarcation of Science from Non- Agnarsson, I. & M. Kuntner (2007) ‘Taxon- Science’, American Sociological Review omy in a Changing World: Seeking Solu- 48: 781-795. tions for a Science in Crisis’, Systematic Griesemer, J. R. (1992) ‘Th e Role of Instru- Biology 56: 531-539. ments in the Generative Analysis of Sci- Bocking, S. (2004) Nature’s Experts. Sci- ence’ in A. E. Clarke & J. Fujimura (eds), ence, Politics and the Environment Th e Right Tools for the Job. At Work in (New Jersey: Rutgers University Press). Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princ- Bonneuil, C. (2006) ‘Cultures épistémiques eton: Princeton University Press): 47-76. et engagement des chercheurs dans la Gibbons, M., C. Limoges & H. Nowotny controverse OGM’, Natures Sciences (1994) Th e New Production of Knowl- Société 14 (3): 257-268. edge (London: Sage Publications). Brown, M. B. (2009) Science in Democracy: Hessels, L. K., H. Van Lente & R. Smits Expertise, Institutions, and Represen- (2009) ‘In search of relevance: the tation (Cambridge & London: the MIT changing contract between science and Press). society’, Science and Public Policy 36(5): Callon, M., P. Lascoumes & Y. Barthe (2009 387-401. [2001]) Acting in an Uncertain World. An Jasanoff , S. (1990) Th e Fifth Branch: Sci- Essay on Technical Democracy (Cam- ence Advisers as Policymakers (Har- bridge: the MIT Press). vard: Harvard University Press). CBD (2010) ‘Biodiversity scenarios: projec- Jasanoff , S. (2003) ‘Breaking the waves in tions of 21st century change in biodiver- Science Studies: comment on H.M. Col- sity and associated ecosystem services’, lins and R. Evans, “the third wave of Sci- Technical Series 50, A technical report ence Studies”’ Social Studies of Science for the Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. 33(3): 389-400. Clarke, A. E. & J. H. Fujimura (eds) (1992) Kohler, R. E. (2002) Landscapes and Lab- Th e Right Tools for the Job. At Work in scapes: Exploring the Lab-fi eld Border Twentieth-Century Life Sciences (Princ- in Biology. (Chicago: University of Chi- eton: Princeton University Press). cago Press). Collins, H. & R. Evans (2002) ‘Th e third Kwa, C. (2005) ‘Local ecologies and global wave of Science Studies: Studies of science: discourses and strategies of Expertise and Experience’, Social Stud- the International Geosphere-Biosphere ies of Science 32(2): 235-296. Programme’, Social Studies of Science Fischer, F. (2000) Citizens, Experts, and 35(6): 923-950. the Environment: Th e Politics of Local Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic Culture. Knowledge (Durham: Duke University How the Science Makes Knowledge Press). (Harvard: Harvard University Press). Frickel, S. (2004). ‘Just Science? Organiz- Larigauderie, A. & H. A. Mooney (2010) ing scientist activism in the US environ- ‘Th e intergovernmental science-policy mental justice movement’, Science as platform on biodiversity and ecosys- Culture 13(4): 449-469. tem services: moving a step closer to an Fujimura, J. H. (1987) ‘Constructing “do- IPCC-like mechanism for biodiversity’, able” problems in cancer research: Curr Opin Environ Sustain 1(2): 9-14. articulating alignment’, Social Studies Latour, B. (2004 [1999]) Politics of Nature. of Science 17(2): 257-293. How to Bring the Sciences into Democ-

20 Céline Granjou and Isabelle Mauz

racy (Harvard: Harvard University Wynne, B. (2003) ‘Seasick on the third Press). wave? Subverting the hegemony of Miller, C. A. & P. N. Edwards (2001) Chang- Propositionalism: response to Collins ing the Atmosphere. Expert Knowledge and Evans (2002)’, Social Studies of Sci- and Environmental Governance (Cam- ence 33(3): 401-417. bridge & London: the MIT Press). Millstone, E. & P. van Zwanenberg, (2000) Notes ‘Beyond sceptical relativism: evaluating the social constructions of experts risks 1 See for instance some of the books which assessments’ Science, Technology and have addressed this issue since the early Human Values 25(3): 265-282. 1990s: Jasanoff (1990); Szerzynski, Lash Nowotny, H., P. Scott & M. Gibbons (2001) and Wynne (1996); Fischer (2000); Miller Rethinking Science (Cambridge: Polity and Edwards (2001); Latour (2004); Press). Bocking (2004); Brown (2009); Callon, Palladino, P. (1996) ‘Review’, Social Studies Lascoumes and Barthe (2009). of Science 24(2): 404-409. 2 CEMAGREF was recently renamed Pickering, A. (1995) Th e Mangle of Practice. IRSTEA (Institute of Research in Science Time, Agency and Science (Chicago: and Technology for Environment and University of Chicago Press). Agriculture) Rip, A. (2003) ‘Constructing expertise: in 3 Th e interviews were conducted during a third wave of Science Studies?’, Social two phases, in 2008 and 2010, within the Studies of Science 33(3): 419-434. context of two diff erent projects funded Shackley, S. (2001) ‘Epistemic lifestyles by the National Agency for Research. in Climate change modeling’, in C. A. In the fi rst phase, we asked researchers Miller and P. N. Edwards (eds), Chang- about their experience and knowledge ing the Atmosphere. Expert Knowl- of the relationships between biodiversity edge and Environmental Governance conservation and farming practices. (Cambridge & London: the MIT Press): In the second phase, after questions 107-134. on their research trajectory, other Szerszynski, B., S. Lash & B. Wynne (1996) questions addressed the constitution of Risk, Environment and Democracy the scientifi c community of biodiversity (London: Sage Publications). studies in France. Takacs, D. (1996) Philosophies of Para- 4 Th is case study was fi rst presented at the dise. Th e Idea of Biodiversity (Baltimore 34th 4S annual meeting, Washington, 28 & London: Johns Hopkins University October‒1 November 2009. Press). 5 Th e setting up of this “Big Science” in Tetart, G. & D. Torny (2009) ‘“Ca tue parfois ecology has been compared with the mais ça n’est pas dangereux”, Injonction exploration of space, matter (atomic) institutionnelle et mobilisation scienti- or the genetic code: ‘We need a major fi que autour d’un pathogène émergent, research eff ort similar in size to space Bacillus cereus’, Revue d’anthropologie exploration programmes in order to des connaissances 3(1): 73-102. explore the Earth’s biodiversity, the Waterton C., R. Ellis & B. Wynne (2010) causes and consequences of its loss, Barcoding Nature: Shifting Taxonomic and the best means to conserve and Practices in an Age of Biodiversity Loss use it.’ (Loreau, 2005). Michel Loreau is (London: Routledge). in charge of the Diversitas programme

21 Science & Technology Studies 2/2012

designed to promote research into 11 Th ere is a play on words in French biodiversity at international level. He between “impliqué” (implicated) and is also the author of the book: Th e “appliqué” (applied). challenges of Biodiversity Science, 12 On the other hand, very few French Excellence in Ecology, book 17). researchers were involved in the MA 6 With the recent notion of “ecosystem (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). services”, which designates the functions 13 Plant functions are characteristics that fulfi lled by living organisms, and which contribute to ecosystem function and are of interest to human societies, such are measurable (i.e. carbon or nitrogen as climate control, the water cycle, content and plant height). fl ower pollination, etc., it is no longer a 14 Although some wished to develop, or question of maintaining species as such had developed, relations with protected but of maintaining services (and possibly areas (especially so that they can develop the specifi c species contributing to such in situ observation and experimentation services). Qualifi ed as utilitarian and work in real environments). anthropocentric by its detractors, this 15 Th is aspect has been further developed in approach poses the problem of knowing Granjou C. and Mauz, I., “L’équipement how to determine which species are de territoires de production et d’échange important for a given type of service de données en écologie. L’exemple (and which species will be important de la constitution de la Zone Atelier in the future). Th e tension thus created Alpes” (Th e Equipping of Ecological is not only epistemological but also Data Production and Exchange Areas. political, since assessing the destruction Th e Example of the Construction of services constitutes an alternative of the Alps Workshop Zone), to be approach to assessing species extinction published in Revue d’anthropologie in order to diagnose biodiversity erosion des connaissances (Anthropology (CBD, 2010). of Knowledge Review), section on 7 Diversitas is an international program “biological resources”. which fosters scientifi c research into biodiversity. Céline Granjou 8 Th ere are of course limits to this IRSTEA dichotomy, notably due to individuals 2 rue de la Papeterie BP76 who are halfway between both models of 38 402 Saint Martin d’Hères Cedex articulation. We give an example of this France case below. [email protected] 9 INRA (French National Institute for Agricultural Research) and CEMAGREF Isabelle Mauz (French Institute for Agricultural and IRSTEA Environmental Engineering Research) 2 rue de la Papeterie BP76 are devoted to so-called fi nalized 38 402 Saint Martin d’Hères Cedex research focussing on agricultural issues France and rural problems. [email protected] 10 Centre for National Scientifi c Research.

22