Les appuis conventionnels de l'action. Eléments de pragmatique sociologique

Dodier, Nicolas

doi:10.3406/reso.1993.2574

Cited by 230 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A crucial difference between TA and RRI, however, is that RRI posits innovation as a good in itself (Dodier 1993), meaning that it is a goal worth pursuing as such. The underlying logic is that it would be immoral to oppose or contest the development of innovations, especially when it is expected from them to fix a set of epochal crises and grand challenges (Tyfield 2012).…”

Section: Forget Your Perfect Offeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsible research and innovation as a travesty of technology assessment?

Delvenne

2017

Journal of Responsible Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relation between technology assessment (TA) and responsible research and innovation (RRI) is a very topical (and controversial) issue, as TA is clearly enveloped in AQ2 ¶ broader science, technology and innovation (STI) processes, such as the EU-wide shift towards RRI. In this short response to van Lente et al AQ3 ¶.'s essay, I first stress that this contribution has several merits; for example, it points to pervasive challenges for TA communities, such as the issue of including normative concerns when assessing innovations, it opens these challenges to debate, without shying away from engaging TA communities. However, I disagree with the authors' claim that RRI would be 'a next step of TA' or even a 'form of TA'. In my essay, I explain why I believe RRI is different from TA and why, rather than a critique of TA, RRI could instead lead to a travesty of TA, threatening the vitality and the uniqueness of TA institutions in the long-term. Under the spell of RRI, TA risks being reduced to a role of mere provider of ex-ante impact assessments. I conclude that following the money attached to RRI has a price that TA institutions should carefully, critically and reflexively consider before they pay. In the early nineteenth century, the English author Mary Shelley published a novel entitled 'Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus' that tells the story of Victor Frankenstein, a young scientist who creates a grotesque but intelligent monster in a scientific experiment. Two centuries later, both the nature and the space of experiments have changed drastically. While experiments are still generally thought of as actions or operations undertaken to test a scientific hypothesis in settings detached from the rest of society (e.g. in scientific laboratories), I suggest situating responsible research and innovation (RRI) in a more macro-sociological understanding of 'experiment', one that implies a process of societal self-experimentation (Gross and Krohn 2005), and with social scientists and technology assessment (TA) practitioners partaking in the experiment as observing participants. 1 RRI's origins are often attributed to René Von Schomberg, 2 a Dutch philosopher with a background in science and technology studies (STS) and TA. Rather than in a scientific lab, it is from within the European Commission that Von Schomberg imagined the world of RRI (2011aRRI ( , 2011b. Like a modern Victor Frankenstein, the inventor now has to follow his conceptual creature and to face its intended and unintended consequences, ' (Van Oudheusden 2014, 2). It is also a label 'that may intuitively feel right, but which exhibits a lack of clarity in terms of definition, practice and, at a policy level, motivation ' (Owen, Macnaghten, and Stilgoe 2012, 752). In spite of its indistinctness, RRI's 'impressive' 'career through the realms of national and European policy' (Van Lente, Swierstra, and Joly 2017) and in academia deserves due attention, especially when it meets older traditions, philosophies and practices purportedly in line wi...

show abstract

Section: Forget Your Perfect Offeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsible research and innovation as a travesty of technology assessment?

Delvenne

2017

Journal of Responsible Innovation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dans cette perspective, les acteurs n'obéis-sent pas à une logique d'action: dans leurs opérations d'appréciation et de jugement sur « l'action qui convient » (Thévenot, 1990), ils agissent « dans plusieurs mondes » (Dodier, 1991), entre lesquels ils basculent ou qu'ils composent les uns avec les autres. Ils le font en trouvant des appuis pragmatiques (Dodier, 1993) dans leurs environnements afin d'agir de façon pertinente, cohérente et conséquente. Corcuff (1991) avait appliqué cette perspective à une enquête sur le syndicalisme cheminot.…”

Section: éTudier Différentes Modalités D'engagement Situéunclassified

Comment se mobilise-t-on ?

Céfaï

2010

socsoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cette notion de « configuration » s'entend comme un alignement de situations liant une série d'entités avec des formats d'actions et de jugement (Boltanski et Thévenot, 1991 ;Dodier, 1993) dans lesquelles sont prises en compte les séries antérieures pertinentes, les ouvertures d'avenir et les contraintes présentes. Cette notion de configuration située dans « le temps des acteurs » (Duval, 1991) offre l'opportunité de déplacer le regard porté sur l'objet en se départant d'une approche centrée sur les trajectoires.…”

Section: Drogues Santé Et Société Vol 7 N O 1 Juin 2008unclassified

Sportifs et produits dopants : prise, emprise, déprise

Noé

Trabal

2009

dss

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cet article recèle un triple objet : la récusation en doute de conceptions du dopage homologuées par des regards juridiques et médicaux, la reconsidération critique de la place des analyses des sciences sociales par rapport à l’hégémonie biomédicale en matière de dopage, un essai de modélisation du pouvoir fondé sur la relation d’emprise sportifs-produits.Pour ce faire, un matériau empirique recueilli au cours d’enquêtes précédentes (entretiens de sportifs dopés, témoignages publiés) est mobilisé et analysé systématiquement.L’étude de cas variés de recours aux produits dopants met à mal des conceptions ordinaires du dopage et révèle la présence d’actes où la dimension relationnelle est déterminante, où l’unanimité et la simplicité des frontières entre le dopage et une préparation médicalement assistée est brouillée, dont l’enchaînement est réversible, où s’observe enfin un continuum dans les usages possibles des produits.Est alors proposé un modèle qui vise la compréhension des relations de pouvoir dans le dopage au travers de mécanismes d’emprise impliquant des personnes, des situations et des produits, agencés en différentes configurations : « lâcher prise in situ », « agir en confiance et subir une emprise », « éprouver ses prises ».This article has a triple objective: to challenge concepts of doping sanctioned by legal and medical authorities and to critically reconsider the place of social science analyses in relation to biomedical hegemony in regard to doping, an attempt to model the power founded on the relation of the products’ hold over the athletes.To this end, empirical material gathered during preceding investigations (interviews of athletes involved in doping, published testimonies) is mobilized and systematically analysed.The study of various cases involving recourse to doping products questions ordinary concepts of doping and reveals the presence of acts in which the relational dimension is determining, where the unanimity and simplicity of the boundaries between doping and a medically assisted preparation become blurred, in which the process is reversible, and finally a continuum is observed in the possible uses of the products.A model is then proposed that seeks to understand the relations of power in doping through the mechanisms of the hold over persons, situations and products, combined in different configurations.Este artículo tiene un triple objetivo: la puesta en duda de las concepciones sobre el dopaje aprobadas por la visión jurídica y médica, la reconsideración crítica del papel de los análisis de las ciencias sociales con respecto a la hegemonía biomédica en materia de dopaje y un ensayo de modelización del poder fundado en la relación de dominación deportistas-productos.Para llevarlo a cabo, se ha recurrido a un material empírico reunido durante una encuesta precedente (entrevistas con deportistas dopados, testimonios publicados), que ha sido sistemáticamente analizado.El estudio de diversos casos de recursos a los productos dopantes sacude las concepciones ordinarias del dopaje y reve...

show abstract

Les appuis conventionnels de l'action. Eléments de pragmatique sociologique

Cited by 230 publications

References 1 publication

Responsible research and innovation as a travesty of technology assessment?

Responsible research and innovation as a travesty of technology assessment?

Comment se mobilise-t-on ?

Sportifs et produits dopants : prise, emprise, déprise

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About