1 / 23

EBP BIOSOC

Pluralité des connaissances scientifiques et intervention publique: agriculture, environnement, et développement durable. EBP BIOSOC. Paris Seminar, June, 5 th , 2009. EBP BIOSOC report W orking P ackage n° 3 (ET3). Version 1. Results of field work in France

annick
Download Presentation

EBP BIOSOC

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pluralité des connaissances scientifiques et intervention publique: agriculture, environnement, et développement durable. EBP BIOSOC Paris Seminar, June, 5th, 2009. EBP BIOSOC report Working Package n°3 (ET3). Version 1. Results of field work in France Access to scientific knowledge and its role in political debate. The case of public policies about agriculture and biodiversity. Trouvé / P. Labarthe / C. Laurent / M. Berriet-Solliec / P. Bonnafous / M. Kirsch / P. Corroyer / C. Rambaud

  2. Outlines of the presentation • 1. Research question, theoretical framework and method • Research question and links to results from WP1 and WP2 • Method: Over 43 interviews carried on at national and department level about three regulation agriculture/biodiversity • Theoretical frameworks: categories of knowledge, and types or level of evidences • 2. Main findings • Importance and difficulties in the use of scientific knowledge • A diversity of access and use of scientific knowledge - A typology of the use of scientific knowledge by different actors • New spotlights on the role of scientific knowledge within the debates and arrangements / contradiction between groups of interest (environment, agriculture, rural development) • 3. Discussion • Limits • Research agenda

  3. Pluralité des connaissances scientifiques et intervention publique: agriculture, environnement, et développement durable. EBP BIOSOC Paris Seminar, June, 5th, 2009. Section 1. Research question, theoretical framework and method.

  4. Research question • ET1 = use of scientific knowledge by policy makers  policy makers actually seek scientific knowledge but face lots of difficulties • ET2 = use of scientific knowledge by researchers  researcher also experience difficulties to carry on systemic states of the art of scientific knowledge with explicit criteria because of number of papers, etc. • ET3 = use of scientific knowledge by stakeholder • Main hypothesis : like for policy makers, stakeholders have difficulties for access to scientific knowledge and hardly use any in debates • Secondary hypotheses • If scientific knowledge is used, then it is hardly evaluated • There are no hierarchy between different categories of knowledge • Knowledge is a resource for which stakeholders have unequal access • But access to this resource play a new role in conflicts, arrangement and networks between stakeholders

  5. Analytical framework • The framework is based on four main distinctions • i) Between the types of knowledge • scientific / management / traditional • ii) Between the types of evidences • effectiveness / causality / existence / harmlessness • iii) Between the levels of evidences • Opinion of experts / historical and geographical comparisons / study with controlled parameters / ... • iv) Between the canals used for access to knowledge • direct access / expertise / co-production, etc.

  6. Method (1/4): the case studies

  7. Method (2/4): the interviews performed so far

  8. Method (3/4): the national network

  9. Method (4/4): the network in Ardèche

  10. Pluralité des connaissances scientifiques et intervention publique: agriculture, environnement, et développement durable. EBP BIOSOC Paris Seminar, June, 5th, 2009. Section 2. Main findings.

  11. Result 1. (1/3) Yes : 6/21 Content evaluation? Yes : 21/30 No : 15/21 Yes : 30/42 Easy access? No : 9/30 Read articles? No : 12/42 • Result 1 = access to scientific knowledge play a key role but stakeholders face strong difficulties

  12. Result 1. (2/3) • Difficulties are external… • Competences • Material problems • Human resources • … but also internal to scientific knowledge • Too many publications • Lack of knowledge on specific topic (multidisciplinarity, etc.) • Lack of codification (which theory? Which domain of validity?) Number of interviews 81% People reading articles 46% 50% People reading English articles 19%

  13. Result 1. (3/3)

  14. Result 2. (1/4) • Result 2 = a diversity of modalities of access and use of scientific knowledge • But a lack of formalization of these procedures What is the most important type of knowledge to support your decision? No hierarchy Scientific articles Expertise Field observations

  15. Result 2. (2/4) • A lack of formalization in the use of scientific knowledge?

  16. Result 2. (3/4) • Questions about the practices of stakeholders for access to and use of scientific knowledge • Only few direct access to scientific knowledge, with very unequal situations • Many more access to experts' demands • Other important access : production of knowledge by the actors themselves (participation of research programs, and above all, experiments and building of data base) • Differences between stakeholders • Fewer knowledge used by agricultural group through direct access • Toward a typology

  17. Ad- hoc Res. pg Posit° Based on SK? Exp. Net- work Read Sci Art. Positions of the interviewed stakeholders CREN 07 CNPNE 41 BV 35 E&R 35 LPO 85 LPO 00 CG 07 CRPF 07 CRPF 41 CRPF 00 FDC 07 FDC 35 FDC 00 Civam RAD Civam 00 CA 35 CA 00 YES YES NC 41 CG 35 CG 85 NO YES Scientific interventions Civam 07 CP 85 YES NO Civam 35 Civam 85 NO YES Frapna 07 Cnbnc 07 Cora 07 YES YES NO NO YES NO NO Expert intervention CRPF 35 CP 00 CA 07 CA 85 YES YES CRPF 85 FDC 85 NO YES CA 41 FDC 41 YES NO NO NO YES YES Political intervention Fdsea 41 NO NO YES NO Civam 41 Adasea 41 Fdsea 85 Fdsea 35 Fdsea 07 Conf 41 NO

  18. Result 3. (1/3) • A diversity of scientific knowledge, with consequences on the political debate (in terms of difficulties and alliances) • According to actors, diversity of questions, research objects, disciplines, date, types and degree of evidence

  19. Result 3. (2/3) • Consequences of this diversity on the political debate • Ignorance of the evidences supported by others • But some actors are useful for crossing these different evidences and knowledge (cf. environmental/economic knowledge by CIVAM or hunters)

  20. Result 3. (3/3) • Building of actors networks and alliances for mobilizing specific knowledge : • Alternative agricultural practices • Ecological conservation face to economic interests • Economic interests face to ecological interests • Scientific knowledge with different influence according the the actor which mobilizes it ? • Ex : lack of means of the Confédération paysanne for supporting the question of social cohesion

  21. Pluralité des connaissances scientifiques et intervention publique: agriculture, environnement, et développement durable. EBP BIOSOC Paris Seminar, June, 5th, 2009. Section 3. Discussion.

  22. Limits and research Agenda • Complexity of the questionnaire • Weighting the effects of different variables on the access and use of scientific knowledge by various stakeholders • Competences, Scale and local context, Effects of internal characteristics of scientific knowledge... • Still to be done // research agenda • Investments and costs / acquisition of scientific knowledge • Assessing the content and validity of the scientific knowledge actually used by stakeholders • Integrating the question of plurality of disciplines or research programs mobilized by actors • Following WP3 for renewing institutional analyzes of agriculture/biodiversity contradictions • Studies of scientific knowledge used by actors in precise spaces of debates / what about hybrid forums ? • Scientific knowledge as a resource

  23. Discussion. • To be discussed together !

More Related