No document available.
Abstract :
[en] With the underlying hypothesis of a shift toward neoliberal science regimes, much work has been done to analyze the multiple transformations of science institutions and policies over the last decades (e.g. Mirowski and Sent 2008; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004; Bruno, 2008). The trends towards privatization and commodification of science are undisputable but we argue that little attention has been paid so far to the various political conceptions of research and innovation (R&I) coexisting within neoliberal science regimes. Cognitive approaches to public policy already stressed the circular relationship between meaning and power (e.g. Muller and Surel, 1998; Roe, 1994), but neoliberal science has remained out of the scope of such analyses. Regarding R&I policies, this leads to different ways to conceive of the “value” of science, some related to preexisting institutions and narratives, and some branching out toward new cognitive resources to achieve politico-economic aims. In our proposal, we hypothesize the coexistence of at least four policy narratives which help structuring the representations and actions of scientists and policymakers when they address science as a political object: ‘science for the sake of science’, ‘science, the endless frontier (continued)’, ‘knowledge-based economy’ and ‘grand societal challenges’. Each one attributes a different value to science, proposes a specific organization for the R&I system, and addresses the relation between economy and society differently. In order to understand how these policy narratives are locally articulated, and thereby grounded in R&I policymaking, we analyze the political discourses on science at three different institutional levels (biotechnology labs, university management, science policy advisory boards) in Belgium. Our data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with key members of the institutions studied. By analyzing the interplay of policy narratives for R&I in a context of neoliberal science, we aim to contribute to a better understanding of the ways science is valued at different levels.