Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Hyper Article en Lig...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Hyper Article en Ligne
Other literature type . 2018
versions View all 13 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Numérique et régime français des savoirs en~action : l'open en sciences. Le cas de la consultation République numérique (2015)

Authors: Gruson-Daniel, Célya;

Numérique et régime français des savoirs en~action : l'open en sciences. Le cas de la consultation République numérique (2015)

Abstract

Cette recherche prend la forme d’une enquête au sein des milieux de production des savoirs français contemporainset vise à comprendre les différentes significations du terme open en sciences. J’ai considéré le qualificatif open comme une formule. L’analyse de ses traductions en français (ouvert, libre, gratuit), tout autant que des noms qui lui sont associés (science, data, access), constitue le fil directeur de mon étude. Cette enquête, qui a débuté en 2013, s’est surtout centrée sur un évènement particulier, la consultation sur le projet de loi pour une République numérique (septembre octobre 2015), en particulier l’article 9 sur « le libre accès aux publications scientifiques de la recherche publique ».Cette consultation en ligne a donné une envergure nationale et publique aux problématiques d’accès aux savoirs. Entant qu’épreuve de réalité « équipée » d’un dispositif numérique participatif, elle a été l’occasion d’observer presque« en direct » la défense de différentes conceptions de « ce que devrait être » le régime contemporain des savoirs enFrance.M’inscrivant dans une démarche par théorisation ancrée, j’ai constitué progressivement, à propos de ce momentparticulier de cristallisation des débats sur l’open en sciences, un corpus de documents reflétant le déploiement deséchanges sur des espaces/dispositifs numériques distincts : site web de la consultation, blogs scientifiques, revuesacadémiques, médias « grand public », rapports. Les mouvements itératifs de cette enquête, alliant méthodesnumériques (réalisation d’une cartographie de similarité des votes) et analyse qualitative du corpus, tout autant que les concepts théoriques mobilisés à la croisée entre sciences de l’information et de la communication et sociologiepragmatique de la critique, ont donné lieu à une modélisation.Cette dernière expose les perspectives argumentatives et les stratégies dans l’épreuve mises en oeuvre par diversesparties prenantes pour faire valoir leurs conceptions. Elle montre qu’elles sont sous-tendues par des logiques que j’airattachées à des esprits successifs du régime français des savoirs. Par la suite, en passant de la modélisation à unethéorisation transposable à d’autres terrains de recherche, je montre comment, derrière les discours sur l’open, ladistinction entre deux logiques (technoindustrielle ou processuelle) peut être pertinente pour analyser lesreconfigurations actuelles d’autres agencements sociétaux. Les stratégies dans l’épreuve employées lors de laconsultation illustrent dans ce sens la coexistence de deux conceptions « numériques » de la démocratie (représentative étendue ou contributive), présentes dans le design même de la plateforme consultative.Dans la dernière partie, je propose d’expliquer les dynamiques de reconfiguration d’un esprit et d’un agencementsociétal dans une interprétation énactive en considérant les couplages permanents entre cognition, actions médiées par les technologies et environnement sociotechnique. L’expérience même du doctorat narrée tout au long de ce récitconstitue aussi l’exemple d’un processus d’énaction sur mes propres conceptions de l’open. En ce sens, elle ouvre une piste de réflexion sur la nature située et incarnée de toute production de savoirs, qui n'échappe pas aux limites tout autant qu’aux potentialités de la métacognition.

This research investigates the worlds of contemporary French knowledge production in order to understand thedifferent meanings of the term ‘open’ in sciences. Specific attention has been drawn to the qualifying adjective ‘open’in relation to the French translations (ouvert, libre gratuit) as well as associated terms (science, data, access) with thisformula. This inquiry began in 2013 and focused mainly on a specific event, the consultation on the bill for a “DigitalRepublic” (September-October 2015), in particular Article 9 on "open access to scientific publications in publicresearch". This online consultation has allowed for a national and public scope to the issue of access to knowledges.As an “equipped” reality test via a participative website, arose the opportunity to observe almost "live" the defense ofdifferent conceptions of "what should be" the contemporary regime of knowledges in France.Through a grounded theory approach around this particular crystallisation moment of the debates on open in scienceshas led me to gradually constitute a corpus of documents, reflecting the deployment of the exchanges on differentdigital spaces/apparatus (consultation website, scientific blogs, academic notebooks, mainstream press, etc.). Withinan iterative research process, I combined digital methods (digital mapping of the similarity of votes) and qualitativeanalysis of the corpus, as well as the theoretical concepts mobilized at the crossroads between information andcommunication sciences and “pragmatic sociology of critique”.This enabled the development of a model which shows that the argumentative perspectives and the strategies in thetest implemented by various stakeholders to promote their own conceptions are underpinned by logics, which I haveattached to “spirits” of the French regime of knowledges. Subsequently, by switching from modeling to transposabletheorization into other fields of research, I show how the distinction between two logics (technoindustrial orprocessual), behind the discourses on open, can be relevant to analyze the current reconfigurations of other “societalarrangements”. The consultation by itself illustrates this point with the coexistence of two "digital" conceptions ofdemocracy (extended representative or contributive), embodied in the design of the consultative platform.In the last part, I propose to explain the dynamics between the reconfiguration of a spirit and its social arrangement,by considering the permanent coupling between cognition, technologically mediated actions and socio-technicalenvironment. Finally, the PhD experience narrated throughout this inquiry is also an example of an enaction processon my own conceptions of open. In this sense, it opens further reflections on the situated and incarnated nature ofany production of knowledges, which escapes neither the limits nor the potentialities of metacognition.

Country
France
Related Organizations
Keywords

debate, democracy, [INFO.INFO-WB] Computer Science [cs]/Web, [SHS.SOCIO] Humanities and Social Sciences/Sociology, [SHS.EDU]Humanities and Social Sciences/Education, [SHS.INFO]Humanities and Social Sciences/Library and information sciences, [SHS.ANTHRO-BIO]Humanities and Social Sciences/Biological anthropology, [SHS.EDU] Humanities and Social Sciences/Education, [INFO.INFO-SI]Computer Science [cs]/Social and Information Networks [cs.SI], [SHS.INFO] Humanities and Social Sciences/Library and information sciences, [SHS.HISPHILSO]Humanities and Social Sciences/History, Philosophy and Sociology of Sciences, [INFO.INFO-CY]Computer Science [cs]/Computers and Society [cs.CY], [SHS.HISPHILSO] Humanities and Social Sciences/History, Philosophy and Sociology of Sciences, open, [SHS.STAT] Humanities and Social Sciences/Methods and statistics, énaction, digital technologies, [INFO.INFO-MM] Computer Science [cs]/Multimedia [cs.MM], [SHS.STAT]Humanities and Social Sciences/Methods and statistics, [SHS.SOCIO]Humanities and Social Sciences/Sociology, regime of knowledge, numérique, démocratie, dispositifs numériques, [INFO.INFO-SI] Computer Science [cs]/Social and Information Networks [cs.SI], [INFO.INFO-WB]Computer Science [cs]/Web, régime des savoirs, [INFO.INFO-MM]Computer Science [cs]/Multimedia [cs.MM], équipement des débats, [SHS.SCIPO]Humanities and Social Sciences/Political science, [SHS.ANTHRO-BIO] Humanities and Social Sciences/Biological anthropology, [INFO.INFO-CY] Computer Science [cs]/Computers and Society [cs.CY], Enaction, [SHS.GESTION]Humanities and Social Sciences/Business administration, Regime of knowledges, [SHS.GESTION] Humanities and Social Sciences/Business administration, [SHS.SCIPO] Humanities and Social Sciences/Political science

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
  • citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    Powered byBIP!BIP!
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
citations
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Related to Research communities