Macq, Hadrien ; Tancoigne, Élise ; Strasser, Bruno From Deliberation to Production: Public Participation in Science and Technology Policies of the European Commission (1998–2019) Journal Article Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy, 2020. Abstract | Links | BibTeX @article{Macq2020,
title = {From Deliberation to Production: Public Participation in Science and Technology Policies of the European Commission (1998–2019)},
author = {Macq, Hadrien and Tancoigne, Élise and Strasser, Bruno},
editor = {Springer},
url = {http://hdl.handle.net/2268/246902},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-020-09405-6},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-04-22},
journal = {Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy},
abstract = {This article investigates how a discourse about the role and value of public participation in science, technology, and innovation emerged and evolved in the research policies of the European Commission. At the beginning of the twenty- first century, two main discourses have been successively institutionalized: the first focused on participation in policy-making, while the second aimed at participation in the production of knowledge and innovation. This paper distinguishes three main institutional phases: (i) a phase dedicated to public participation in the governance of science and technology (2000–2010); (ii) a reframing period of science and tech- nology policies by the Commission to integrate the growing emphasis on innova- tion (2010–2014); (iii) a period focusing on co-creation and citizen science as new ways to involve the public in science and technology (2014-today). Factors such as individual commitments of key policy actors, specific epistemic communities and institutional dynamics within the Commission played a crucial role in shaping the policies of participation. But broader factors are also essential to account for these changes. In this respect, the economic crisis of the late 2000s appears fundamental to understanding how the conception and promotion of public participation in the European science and technology policies have evolved over time. This paper thus offers new insights to the analysis of the political economy of public participation.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This article investigates how a discourse about the role and value of public participation in science, technology, and innovation emerged and evolved in the research policies of the European Commission. At the beginning of the twenty- first century, two main discourses have been successively institutionalized: the first focused on participation in policy-making, while the second aimed at participation in the production of knowledge and innovation. This paper distinguishes three main institutional phases: (i) a phase dedicated to public participation in the governance of science and technology (2000–2010); (ii) a reframing period of science and tech- nology policies by the Commission to integrate the growing emphasis on innova- tion (2010–2014); (iii) a period focusing on co-creation and citizen science as new ways to involve the public in science and technology (2014-today). Factors such as individual commitments of key policy actors, specific epistemic communities and institutional dynamics within the Commission played a crucial role in shaping the policies of participation. But broader factors are also essential to account for these changes. In this respect, the economic crisis of the late 2000s appears fundamental to understanding how the conception and promotion of public participation in the European science and technology policies have evolved over time. This paper thus offers new insights to the analysis of the political economy of public participation. |
Marvuglia, Antonino; Havinga, Lisanne; Heidrich, Oliver; Fonseca, Jimeno; Gaitanie, Niki; Reckien, Diana Advances and challenges in assessing urban sustainability: an advanced bibliometric review Journal Article Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2020. Abstract | Links | BibTeX @article{Marvuglia2020,
title = {Advances and challenges in assessing urban sustainability: an advanced bibliometric review},
author = {Antonino Marvuglia and Lisanne Havinga and Oliver Heidrich and Jimeno Fonseca and Niki Gaitanie and Diana Reckien},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109788},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-03-06},
journal = {Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews},
abstract = {With nearly 70% of the world population expected to live in cities by 2050, assessing the sustainability of urban systems, both existing and future ones, is becoming increasingly relevant. Making cities more sustainable is a global priority, which is highlighted by ‘Sustainable Cities and Communities’ being listed as one of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) adopted by United Nations Member States in 2015. This Virtual Special Issue (VSI) explores the implementation and assessment of policies and technologies that contribute to the transition to a sustainable, energy efficient and regenerative society. We organized the issue according to four main research themes: 1) Renewable Energy Systems (i.e., different types of systems, qualitative assessments and public acceptance); 2) Sustainable Built Environment (which includes construction, operation and refurbishment); 3) Multi-Scale Models (considering urban sustainability transition from building to districts, or cities and regions to multi-country comparisons and their scaling across different countries); and 4) Governance and Policy (climate change mitigation and adaptation plans/policies that are reported across countries, urban services and infrastructures).
This paper serves two purposes. The first is to provide an analysis about patterns, correlations and synergies found across the different topics that have been addressed over the last 20 years in the literature about cities’ sustainability paths. A bibliometric analysis and a contingency matrix show the degree of correlation between scientific journals and main topics addressed by published articles. Secondly, the paper acts as an Editorial to the VSI, introducing the wealth of research articles and topics included in it. Both the bibliometric analysis and the papers published in this VSI demonstrate the interconnectedness of energy consumption, pollutant emissions and the competition for finite resources. The aim is to present advances and challenges of this exciting and ever-evolving research field to inform and guide future studies of urban sustainability.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
With nearly 70% of the world population expected to live in cities by 2050, assessing the sustainability of urban systems, both existing and future ones, is becoming increasingly relevant. Making cities more sustainable is a global priority, which is highlighted by ‘Sustainable Cities and Communities’ being listed as one of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) adopted by United Nations Member States in 2015. This Virtual Special Issue (VSI) explores the implementation and assessment of policies and technologies that contribute to the transition to a sustainable, energy efficient and regenerative society. We organized the issue according to four main research themes: 1) Renewable Energy Systems (i.e., different types of systems, qualitative assessments and public acceptance); 2) Sustainable Built Environment (which includes construction, operation and refurbishment); 3) Multi-Scale Models (considering urban sustainability transition from building to districts, or cities and regions to multi-country comparisons and their scaling across different countries); and 4) Governance and Policy (climate change mitigation and adaptation plans/policies that are reported across countries, urban services and infrastructures).
This paper serves two purposes. The first is to provide an analysis about patterns, correlations and synergies found across the different topics that have been addressed over the last 20 years in the literature about cities’ sustainability paths. A bibliometric analysis and a contingency matrix show the degree of correlation between scientific journals and main topics addressed by published articles. Secondly, the paper acts as an Editorial to the VSI, introducing the wealth of research articles and topics included in it. Both the bibliometric analysis and the papers published in this VSI demonstrate the interconnectedness of energy consumption, pollutant emissions and the competition for finite resources. The aim is to present advances and challenges of this exciting and ever-evolving research field to inform and guide future studies of urban sustainability. |
Cardon, Vincent Bounded Futures: Growing a Boundary Foreknowledge Infrastructure in Food Security Research Journal Article Science, Technology and Society, 25 (1), pp. 38-66, 2020. Abstract | Links | BibTeX @article{Cardon2020,
title = {Bounded Futures: Growing a Boundary Foreknowledge Infrastructure in Food Security Research},
author = {Vincent Cardon},
doi = {10.1177/0971721819889918},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-03-03},
journal = {Science, Technology and Society},
volume = {25},
number = {1},
pages = {38-66},
abstract = {One preferred way of coping with the openness or indeterminacy of future is to elaborate ‘fictional expectations’ that enable action by defining possible outcomes. In this article, I propose to focus on the career of the impact foresight model to analyse how agro-economists combine imaginaries, narratives, data and calculative technologies addressing the long-term future of agriculture. Impact is a partial equilibrium model, which has become increasingly comprehensive. Its modular structure now enables it to interweave scenarios produced by other legitimate institutions, and to run simulations for a number of configurations of climate change and socio-economic evolutions.In this article, foresight models are taken to be material discursive devices. My argument is that their evolutions as technologies and the framing of the future they operate should not be analysed separately. Transforming radical uncertainty into controlled variability – magnitude of change, they explicitly endeavour to ‘bound’ uncertainty. But it is ‘bounded’ in a way that is highly dependent on the knowledge infrastructure upon which the models rely. Quantified modelling also makes it possible for economists to compare rival models and create alignments or negotiate zones of consensus, that is, a certain form of knowledge on the future. In the case under scrutiny, technological choices and data processing work contribute to reinforce a certain point of view – market, production and technology-oriented – on food security. Studying infrastructure and model design therefore allows a better understanding of path dependency and cognitive lock-in effects regarding the way the future is envisaged and narrated.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
One preferred way of coping with the openness or indeterminacy of future is to elaborate ‘fictional expectations’ that enable action by defining possible outcomes. In this article, I propose to focus on the career of the impact foresight model to analyse how agro-economists combine imaginaries, narratives, data and calculative technologies addressing the long-term future of agriculture. Impact is a partial equilibrium model, which has become increasingly comprehensive. Its modular structure now enables it to interweave scenarios produced by other legitimate institutions, and to run simulations for a number of configurations of climate change and socio-economic evolutions.In this article, foresight models are taken to be material discursive devices. My argument is that their evolutions as technologies and the framing of the future they operate should not be analysed separately. Transforming radical uncertainty into controlled variability – magnitude of change, they explicitly endeavour to ‘bound’ uncertainty. But it is ‘bounded’ in a way that is highly dependent on the knowledge infrastructure upon which the models rely. Quantified modelling also makes it possible for economists to compare rival models and create alignments or negotiate zones of consensus, that is, a certain form of knowledge on the future. In the case under scrutiny, technological choices and data processing work contribute to reinforce a certain point of view – market, production and technology-oriented – on food security. Studying infrastructure and model design therefore allows a better understanding of path dependency and cognitive lock-in effects regarding the way the future is envisaged and narrated. |
Louvel, Séverine What’s in a name? The three genealogies of the social insocial epigenetics Journal Article Social Science Information, 2020. Abstract | Links | BibTeX @article{Louvel2020,
title = {What’s in a name? The three genealogies of the social insocial epigenetics},
author = {Séverine Louvel},
editor = {SAGE Publications},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018419897001},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-22},
journal = {Social Science Information},
abstract = {Social epigenetics – the study of the epigenetic mechanisms through which social environments become biologically embodied – epitomizes recent claims that the boundaries between the natural and the social sciences should be reduced. Relying on a bibliometric study and on a qualitative analysis of publications in social epigenetics, this paper investigates how this research area defines and operationalizes the social dimensions that may have an impact on health status and disease risk. The paper also addresses how the social sciences engage with social epigenetics. First, the paper traces social epigenetics back to five epistemic backgrounds – two in animal research (on social defeat and early-life adversity) and three in human studies (on trauma, early-life nutrition and social adversity over the life-course). Second, it outlines the quest for epigenetic markers of social environments, and the associated expectations and controversies. Third, it analyses the three modes of engagement of the social sciences with human studies in social epigenetics: rejection (social epigenetics trapped in the quest for a ‘social brain’); warning and call for responsibility (social epigenetics has shifted from socioeconomic contexts to individual behaviors); and support and active contribution (social epigenetics may strengthen social studies of health). This paper argues that recent developments in social epigenetics could strengthen this third mode of engagement and expand the scope of interdisciplinary collaboration between the natural and the social sciences.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Social epigenetics – the study of the epigenetic mechanisms through which social environments become biologically embodied – epitomizes recent claims that the boundaries between the natural and the social sciences should be reduced. Relying on a bibliometric study and on a qualitative analysis of publications in social epigenetics, this paper investigates how this research area defines and operationalizes the social dimensions that may have an impact on health status and disease risk. The paper also addresses how the social sciences engage with social epigenetics. First, the paper traces social epigenetics back to five epistemic backgrounds – two in animal research (on social defeat and early-life adversity) and three in human studies (on trauma, early-life nutrition and social adversity over the life-course). Second, it outlines the quest for epigenetic markers of social environments, and the associated expectations and controversies. Third, it analyses the three modes of engagement of the social sciences with human studies in social epigenetics: rejection (social epigenetics trapped in the quest for a ‘social brain’); warning and call for responsibility (social epigenetics has shifted from socioeconomic contexts to individual behaviors); and support and active contribution (social epigenetics may strengthen social studies of health). This paper argues that recent developments in social epigenetics could strengthen this third mode of engagement and expand the scope of interdisciplinary collaboration between the natural and the social sciences. |
