[Commlist] CFP: Participatory science: democratic utopia, innovation or social imperative?

Call for papers:“Participatory science: democratic utopia, innovation or 
social imperative?”

Scientific Journal "Études de communication"

https://journals.openedition.org/edc/9101

Thematic issue coordinated by Céline Pascual-Espuny (IMSIC, 
Aix-Marseille University), Andrea Catellani (LASCO, RECOM, Université 
catholique de Louvain), Béatrice Jalenques Vigouroux (LERASS, INSA 
Toulouse).

In recent years, participatory research has expanded considerably in the 
context of renewed interest in forging links between science and 
society. While first centered on issues of research methodology, 
participatory science has evolved towards a comprehensive institutional 
approach. Today, participatory science programs, open science and 
crowdsourcing initiatives, action research, post-normal science and 
citizen science research projects are increasingly widespread. The work 
of John Dewey (1927), Kurt Lewin and Talcott Parsons (1965) and Paolo 
Freire -- through his contribution to the development of community-based 
participatory research -- laid the foundations of participatory science 
as a research paradigm characterized by significant researcher 
engagement, diversity of knowledge sources and a participatory framework 
which itself becomes a source of action.

Over the past twenty years, such research methodologies have posited the 
principle of knowledge symmetry and have sought to foster dialogue 
between so-called "scholarly," scientific or academic knowledge, 
so-called "expert" or analogical knowledge and "experiential" knowledge 
(Gardien, 2017, Amaré, Valran, 2017). This movement, which originated in 
late 19th-century environmental science research (botany, zoology, 
geography) for which citizen-collected data proved to be highly 
valuable, has now become a global phenomenon.

Democratic utopia? innovation? social imperative? Participatory research 
raises questions about the value accorded to different forms of 
knowledge as well as the value ascribed to knowledge co-constructed 
through participatory exchange. Participatory science postulates that 
knowledge arising from the convergence of different cognitive worlds 
transcends division and allows access to a more complete understanding 
of societal phenomena (Le Crosnier et al., 2013, Amaré et al., 2017). 
Some scholars have also pointed out the social usefulness of 
participatory science and its profoundly political and action-oriented 
nature (Billaud et al., 2017).

Beyond these considerations, participatory research practices raise 
questions and issues surrounding scientific methodology, the usefulness 
of science in society, the place of researchers and the role given to 
laymen in the process of knowledge construction (Ravon, 2015, Callon, 
1989, Bacqué, Biewerner 2015). Conversely, participatory research brings 
to the fore the issue of scientific research as anchored in social 
reality and as a response to social demands. Finally, the key notions of 
empowerment and participation, which are directly linked to 
participatory practices, have provided perspectives for research based 
upon citizen engagement.

Such participatory approaches have had a significant impact on 
information and communication sciences. Some scholars have explored the 
processes of popularizing or translating scientific discourse (Yves 
Jeanneret, Joëlle le Marec, Igor Babou). Martin’s research (2007) 
focusses on issues of public participation in environmental 
decision-making involving native communities. By specifically addressing 
questions of transparency, dialogue and spaces for discussion, Martin’s 
work has shed light on the communicative processes used for reaching 
compromise through participatory exchange. Hamilton (2008) has worked on 
issues of convergence and divergence with regard to nuclear weapons and 
their environmental impact. Walker (2004) has studied environmental 
collaboration and conflict resolution. Philippe Roqueplo (1988), using 
the example of acid rain, has addressed the issues of stakeholder 
involvement, controversy and conflict. Nicole d'Almeida and François 
Allard Huver (2014) have developed a reflection on the dramaturgy of 
risk, while Bolin's work deals with the history of meteorology and 
climate change as linked to public opinion (Bolin, 2007). Other studies 
have focused on how communication processes create conditions for 
changing perceptions of climate change (Bostrom and Laschof, 2007; 
Brisse, Oreske and O'Reilly, 2013).

More specifically, with regard to information and communication 
sciences, we seek to address the following issues:

     To what extent does research carried out with lay people rather 
than only with peers call into question principles of scientific rigor, 
veracity or validity?

     How does co-constructed research articulate social needs as 
expressed by public institutions or local authorities with the 
principles of scientific independence?

     To what extent is this type of research a reflection of 
researchers’ commitment, whether it be political or social? Is such 
commitment explicit, or should it be? How do researchers "recruit" 
non-scientific participants? What conditions do researchers impose upon 
participants to ensure that research is carried out successfully?

     What discourses and communication devices are mobilized? What 
semantic and ideological constructs and what justifications can be 
observed? What "ethos" of the citizen (or amateur) researcher is created?

     With regard to implemented methodologies, do the issues of 
transparency and communication become more necessary or more important?

     What approaches have been developed to accompany action research?

Scientific committee (to be completed)

François Allard-Huver (CREM, Université de Lorraine)

Françoise Bernard (IMSIC, Aix-Marseille Université)

Nicole D’Almeida (GRIPIC, Université Paris Sorbonne)

Thierry De Smedt (GREMS-RECOM, UCLouvain, Belgium)

Amaia Errecart (LabSIC, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord)

Daniel Raichvarg (CIMEOS, Université de Bourgogne)

Philippe Verhaegen (GREMS-RECOM, UCLouvain, Belgium)
Review process

All submissions will go through a two-part review process:

     submission of a 1500-2000 word abstract which should include a 
presentation of objectives and principle arguments, explain the 
originality of the paper and provide key bibliographical references;

     for selected abstracts, a second evaluation will be carried on 
completed articles.

Instructions to authors are available on the journal's website: 
https://journals.openedition.org/edc/668

Proposals will be peer-reviewed according a double-blind reviewing 
process. Abstracts should be sent by 15 April 2020 in Word (.docx) or 
OpenDocument (.odt) format to the following addresses:

     (celine.pascual /at/ univ-amu.fr)

     (andrea.catellani /at/ uclouvain.be)

     (beatrice.jalenques-vigouroux /at/ insa-toulouse.fr)

Paper proposals and final papers (35,000 characters including spaces, 
footnotes and bibliography) may be submitted in English or in French. No 
commitment to publication can be made until the full text has been read.
Important Dates

April 15, 2020: abstract submission deadline

May 15, 2020: notification of acceptance or refusal

September 15, 2020: deadline for submission of the complete version of 
articles

December 15, 2020: deadline for receipt of final version

June 2021: publication of articles in Études de Communication thematic 
issue n° 56



---------------
The COMMLIST
---------------
This mailing list is a free service offered by Nico Carpentier. Please use it responsibly and wisely.
--
To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit http://commlist.org/
--
Before sending a posting request, please always read the guidelines at http://commlist.org/
--
To contact the mailing list manager:
Email: (nico.carpentier /at/ vub.ac.be)
URL: http://nicocarpentier.net
---------------