Through the interdisciplinary lens of the journal Passerelles SHS, there is an opportunity for quasi-general questioning in SHS, as well as the possibility of enriching the practice repertoires of each discipline. These questions are all the more welcome here as interdisciplinarity is increasingly promoted by funding institutions when it comes to fostering the application of knowledge to practical problems. This issue thus aims to report on the non-academic uses of the current work of researchers in SHS. To do so, it will be organized around three axes: (I) Axis 1: Use by stakeholders involved in the production of research; (II) Uses by stakeholders and institutions in the reception of research; and (III) Reactions and adaptations of the researcher in relation to extra-academic uses.

"The progress of knowledge, in the case of social science, requires a progress of knowledge of the conditions of knowledge" (Bourdieu, 1994) 

Presentation

For more than twenty years, public authorities in European countries have been aware of the fact that the academic research world and the socio-economic world seem to evolve in a parallel, hermetic and isolated manner. This observation, which is considered problematic, has given rise to reformist calls for better synergy between these two "worlds" (Heilbron and Duval, 2006). The reforms that follow one another should make research more useful and usable by the stakeholders, whether public or private. While researchers are often opposed to seeing their research subordinated to imperatives of utilitarianism, they are constantly questioning the different forms of their usefulness in the humanities and social sciences (Hirschhorn, 2014).

However, since the question of the utility of research traditionally suffers from a creeping normativity, the question of the "social uses" of research gains from further study. By "social uses", we mean the diversity of ways in which different social actors appropriate or position themselves in relation to the research process, the actors themselves, and the results of scientific work. These "uses" in the plural are as diverse as those who embody them, and involve individual, collective and often contradictory interests. In this panorama, it is a question of questioning the production, the reception and the appropriation of research by the actors of the "extra-academic" world (journalists, sponsors, institutions, respondents or citizens for example), that is to say, all the stakeholders brought in, In other words, all the stakeholders who, in one way or another, have an interest in research outside the "paradigm of disinterested and relatively autonomous research" (Bedouret, Dupleix, 2019), which aims to establish knowledge of the social world as an end in itself.

How does the researcher navigate in this space connoted by interests as well as multiple motivations revolving around his research? How can the researcher control the public use that can be made of his work (Gérard Noiriel, 2009)? Moreover, is the researcher himself certain to remain completely neutral throughout of his research without directly investing extra-scientific motivations (biographical, social, political, economic, etc.)? For a long time, researchers were under the illusion that they could drape themselves in a presumption of independence because of the public origin of their funding. However, scientific rigor would rather require recognizing that all researchers, regardless of their funding, their discipline or their problematic, are personally and implicitly involved throughout their research. On the subject of this involvement, the historian Gérard Nioriel even mentioned the existence of two "profiles" of historians: "those who never ask themselves questions about what they do, and those who do" (Gérard Noiriel, 2019). The same reasoning applies to all the stakeholders who will intervene during the data production process. In a context of opening up the scientific field to more varied sources of funding and to new categories of researchers (Gingras and Gemme, 2006), the relationship between researchers and their research objects is affected, and even acutely questioned. It is therefore no longer possible to ignore this question: how does society use the research produced in SHS, from data collection to publication, dissemination and reception of results?

Questioning the reception and appropriation of research by non-academic actors also allows us to advance our knowledge of the objects specifically studied, since the motivations invested by these actors - from the beginning of the research to its conclusion - shape and orient the data to which the researcher has access in a certain way. Indeed, whether it is a question of an institution legitimizing its policy and its measures, or of respondents making themselves heard (Ross, 2003), gaining recognition (Girola, 1996), ensuring their domination (Pinçon and Pinçon-Charlot, 2007) or arming themselves with critical knowledge to denounce the existing world (Masson, 2005), the attitudes and expectations addressed to the research by the funding bodies, the sources mobilized and the respondents necessarily affect the production of its results.

Rather than denying this sum of influences on the pretext that it makes knowledge in SHS lose or even remove its scientific character, the only scientific movement that seems to be worthwhile is the one related to the analysis of extra-scientific implications in research. The strength of including this theme in an issue of Passerelles SHS, an interdisciplinary journal for young researchers in SHS, is that it allows a pooling of disciplinary knowledge - methodological tools, problems and lines of questioning, and the answers provided - on the ways of dealing scientifically with the behaviours and motivations that influence the collection, analysis and processing of data. Without claiming to be exhaustive, this call is an opportunity to raise multiple questions that may find an echo within the community of young researchers who are publicly or privately funded, or self-funded. Do institutions have a preference for certain disciplines over others when it comes to using academic knowledge to serve their interests? What specific social functions does this knowledge serve, depending on whether the research is in geography, history, language sciences, information and communication sciences, education sciences, sociology, etc.? What does the use of the so-called “open sciences” contribute to the evolution of the social place of academic research today? When it concerns more specifically the work of young researchers in social sciences and humanities, are they mobilized as "little hands" capable of collecting data, as intellectual "apprentices" willing to synthesize a wealth of information allowing for a reflexivity on behalf of the funding organization, or to guarantee "intellectual guarantees" aiming at legitimizing a set of practices such as a public policy? Finally, would subscribing to the idea of a manifest and immediate utility of research mean sacrificing any progress in fundamental research?

Through the interdisciplinary lens of the journal Passerelles SHS, there is an opportunity for quasi-general questioning in SHS, as well as the possibility of enriching the practice repertoires of each discipline. These questions are all the more welcome here as interdisciplinarity is increasingly promoted by funding institutions when it comes to fostering the application of knowledge to practical problems (Gibbons et al, 1994).

This issue thus aims to report on the non-academic uses of the current work of researchers in SHS. To do so, it will be organized around three axes: (I) Axis 1: Use by stakeholders involved in the production of research; (II) Uses by stakeholders and institutions in the reception of research; and (III) Reactions and adaptations of the researcher in relation to extra-academic uses.

Axis 1: Use by stakeholders involved in the production of research

Throughout the research production process, from the development of the subject with a funding agency, to the restitution and publication of research work, including the negotiation of the fieldwork and its release, researchers are required to interact and deal with a multiplicity of actors of various kinds. These actors, who may be the sponsors, the respondents, the institutions studied, those who authorize access to the field, etc., may be in constant interaction with the researcher and his or her research object. However, each of these actors may have a plethora of expectations that condition access to data at each stage of the research. The researcher may therefore have to take into account the uses of the data and the results of the investigation that the different actors are about to make of it. How does each discipline manage to integrate these uses and expectations without losing sight of the heuristic dimension of its object? This line of research therefore proposes to take "head on" the problem of the social uses invested by the actors involved, in one way or another, in the production of the survey, the location, the selection of archives, maps, sources, the various types of documentary collection, the conduct of semi-directive interviews, ethnographic observations, etc. These uses can both constrain the research and help it to be more effective. These uses can both constrain the progress of the research and shed new light on the subject. Proposals for articles wishing to follow this line of research can, for example, develop the problematic by following the analysis of the different sequences governing this initial stage of research production.

During the negotiation phase necessary for data collection, is it possible to analyze the respondent’s participation in the survey, or the sponsors, or all the actors involved in the survey? How can access to the field, to sources, be negotiated when the stakeholders show little interest in the subject of the research or consider themselves to be of little relevance in answering the questions put to them? Conversely, when the stakeholders solicit the researcher, do they show a renewed curiosity for the investigation, a pronounced interest in discussing the research object, in presenting sources? For what reasons do they do so? How can we avoid setting ourselves up as "expert-arbiter", in the name of THE academic truth, and extract ourselves from the quarrels of position taking place in the public square (Gérard Noiriel, 2006)?

When the researcher's presence in the field lasts longer, new uses and expectations may emerge from the stakeholders in the survey, since they have become more familiar with the object, but also with the researcher and the survey itself. It is also during this phase that the analysis of uses is the most important, since they structure the reciprocal relationships that the researcher must implement in order to move forward with the collection of data. Should we systematically provide feedback to our respondents when the research is not completed? How do we mobilize these unfinished returns to "bring out" the results? Do the reactions to these returns constitute data to be analyzed, with a view to confirming the first results obtained, for the purpose of extending the survey or even opening up post-survey perspectives? The following articles can analyze the give-and-take relationship between the researcher and the stakeholders (respondents, funders, practitioners, etc.). In the framework of action research, the construction of the research device is negotiated between the research team and the extra-academic actors involved. This last issue is shared by all the disciplines that use it (Faure et al, 2010; Giust-Desprairies, 2001; Jouison-Laffitte, 2009; Dupriez and Cornet, 2005). Contributions questioning the exchanges between academic and extra-academic actors in the context of partnership research (Gillet and Tremblay, 2017) or action research are welcome in the context of this call for papers.

Finally, once the research fieldwork has been completed, the question arises as to the conditions under which the data from the research conducted is returned to the actors involved and/or beneficiaries. What feedback should be given to respondents and sponsors when their expectations and uses differ from academic logic? What choices should be made to meet their demands when the feedback is perceived as an evaluation of the actor's action, which may be in some cases the very object of the research? This is the question that Carolina Kobelinsky asks, for example, about a survey carried out among the agents of a reception center for asylum seekers (CADA). She analyzes the instrumentalization of the research by the respondents, in order to support their claims to their hierarchy, and their criticism of the results whose content or vocabulary they contest, revealing the difficulties of appropriating the results and the effects of competition and contestation of the researcher's position (Kobelinsky, 2009).

Axis 2: The reception of research: what uses of the results of research in SHS?

Has any young researcher in the social sciences and humanities never wondered about the usefulness of his or her research outside the academic field? This reflexivity of the researcher seems to be omnipresent in the daily life of less "seasoned" scientists. Moreover, in a context where applicability is demanded, the use of research in SHS has directly raised interest in the reception and assimilation of research, especially once it has been completed. What is the societal impact? What arguments are being made about the potential social benefits of research?

To question the usefulness of research in the social sciences and humanities, one must first ask the following question: who benefits from this research and in what way? Whether they are actors, journalists, teachers, business leaders, elected officials or agents of public organizations, citizens, beneficiaries of institutional mechanisms, etc., the use related to the reception of research differs considerably. Are there disciplines and preferred uses depending on the institution that uses academic knowledge? The scientific literature reveals several social uses of research advocated by these extra-academic actors. For example, teachers can indeed mobilize sociological knowledge to open up the social recruitment of the institutions in which they work (Coquard, 2012); different actors (company directors and executives, name designers, lawyers, film and series directors, salespeople, etc.) return to the language sciences in order to improve the quality of their work and are returning to the sciences of language, in order to better understand how their professional actions and behaviors can be better analyzed and evaluated, enabling them to act, transform, persuade and convince in the social sphere (Hudelot and Jacques-Pfau, 2009); journalists are increasingly in demand of "expert" knowledge on social phenomena (Charrier-Vozel and Damian-Gaillard, 2005); large companies may rely on the research of historians as an element of legitimization of the group (Marty, 2010); operators may call upon geographers to provide tools to control their space (Lussault, 2010). What about these uses when the research is not carried out by recognized researchers but rather by young researchers?

However, before seeing his work reappropriated by the social world, an effort to disseminate the results to extra-academic actors must necessarily be made by the researcher or other mediators. How can this be done? Various and varied methodological tools, scientific mediation efforts, and clear and accessible discourse for the various actors concerned by the uses of research seem to be favored a priori. But are there other methods and other types of mediators undertaking this work? This axis leads to a reflection on the way in which institutional actors, field actors of various statuses (museums, cultural centers, associations, etc.), as well as social actors (non-governmental organizations, media, trade unions, firms, ethnic minorities, etc.) manage to appropriate research in SHS, by soliciting or embodying mediators of the scientific knowledge produced. In this regard, to what extent do extra-academic actors take over the dissemination of knowledge emanating from SHS research when the latter are not at the origin of a call for funding? This axis can also be an opportunity to question the reliability of these procedures by proposing articles that would argue against the relevance of popularizing researchand by always suspecting of "bringing [science] down to the level of the indifferent, light-hearted or mocking vulgar" (Bensaude-Vincent, 2010).

The reflections that structure this axis aim to explore the way in which actors and institutions make social uses of research in social sciences and humanities, in relation to the issues that surround the latter, particularly outside of the academic subjection.

Axis 3: Reactions and adaptations of the researcher in relation to these extra-academic uses

Faced with the evolution of research in SHS towards research "in close proximity" to the extra-academic sphere, the use of which was questioned in the previous axis, it is now a matter of questioning the place, the role, the work and the adaptation of the researcher in this precise context. The researcher in SHS assumes the "ethical obligation" to be attentive to the ideological context in which he is situated, which insidiously conditions him (Bautes and Marie dit Chirot, 2012). This ideological context is observed here through the prism of this recent evolution of research in SHS. It is necessary to understand whether the researcher develops scientific mechanisms that allow him to face or simply adapt to this evolution, while maintaining his posture and his ethical, deontological and epistemological obligations. In other words, how does the researcher adapt to the evolution of research and to the new ethical, epistemological and methodological issues that arise from it? How do they manage this evolving relationship between their work and the extra-academic sphere?

In the specific context of research financed by a private third party, does the researcher develop a methodological self-analysis upstream of his scientific work? If this is the case, does the construction of this method or this posture allow the researcher to consider using a method based on data triangulation or to grant himself a greater margin of empirical freedom in his work? More broadly, it is a question of knowing in detail the scientific and ethical precautionary work that the researcher puts in place in order to free himself from the sponsors of the research.

Could the increasing reduction in the temporality of research, added to the increase in privately funded research, represent an obstacle to understanding the complexity of social phenomena (Hunsmann and Kapp, 2013)? Assuming that these obstacles exist, and even that methodological biases emanate from them, to what extent do researchers develop scientific methods that can help them circumvent them?

Finally, we wish to question the relationship between the researcher and the future extra-academic uses of his or her research, whether it is in progress or in the process of being finalized. Does the researcher direct his work in a certain way to reach target users? Or, on the contrary, does he cultivate a "vigilance" regarding the public uses of his results (Gérard Noiriel, 2006)? Is the accessibility of SHS research for the different social classes in the academic sphere defined before the publication of the work? Is the accessibility of research to the greatest number of people a real issue that the researcher cannot disregard or abandon? And finally, could we generalize to all SHS disciplines the following statement made by the geographer David Harvey: "geography is too important a thing to be left to the geographer" (Harvey, 1984)?

Submission guidelines

The journal Passerelles SHS offers two types of submission: articles and methodological notes.

Although they may come from various disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, article proposals must focus on the theme of this call for proposals and be based on an empirical approach. The scientific committee will make a double-blind decision on the basis of an abstract (about 4000 characters, including spaces, notes and bibliography) describing the subject of the paper, the methodology, the empirical materials used and the main results.

The methodological notes (between 5,000 and 6,000 characters including spaces, excluding the bibliography) are intended to encourage transfers between disciplines. The research notes presented in this section present original methodological tools or apparatus. In the perspective of Open Science, these contributions aim to promote the transparency of research approaches and mutual enrichment between disciplines.

The proposals will include at the beginning of the document the following elements: author(s), discipline, status, institution(s) and laboratory(ies) of affiliation, e-mail address, proposed axis(es) of affiliation.

Paper proposals should be sent before September 5th 2022 to the following email address passerellesshs@gmail.com

Responses will be sent after evaluation of the article proposals by the members of the scientific committee

by October 5th 2022.

Once the article proposals have been validated, the first versions of the articles must be sent before January 5th 2023.

Editorial committee

The editorial committee is composed of doctoral students from the Doctoral Societies, Times, Territories (STT).

• Edison CONTRERAS (PREFICS / Bretagne-Sud University)
• Claire CRUBLET (VIPS / Rennes University)
• Laura JANNOT (ESO / Angers University)
• Elsa KOERNER (ESO / Rennes 2 University)
• Jonathan MICHEL (CENS / Nantes University)
• Salima SALHI (ESO / Angers University)
• Lorraine STRAVENS (CRHIA / Nantes University)
• Thibaud SZPYRKA (ESO / Angers University)

Scientific Committee

• Yassine AABBAR – University Professor of Anthropology and Sociology, Cadi Ayyad University of Marrakech
• Chadia ARAB – Research Fellow in Geography, Angers University
• Estelle BERTRAND – Lecturer in Roman history, Le Mans University
• Didier BOISSON – University Professor of Modern History, Angers University
• Emmanuel BIOTEAU – Lecturer in geography, Angers University
• Said BOUJROUF – University Professor of Geography, Cadi Ayyad University of Marrakech
• Yves COATIVY - Professor of Medieval History, Brest University Yann LIGNEREUX - Professor of Modern History, Nantes University Samuel CORGNE – University Professor of Geography, Rennes 2 University
• Marie-Madeleine DE CEVINS – University Professor of Medieval History, Rennes 2 University Mustapha EL HANNANI – Lecturer in geography, Angers University
• Nathalie GARRIC – University Professor of Language Sciences, Nantes University
• Johan HEILBRON - Emeritus research director at the CNRS, member of the CESSP and associate professor of sociology at the Uppsala University
• Stanislas JEANNESSON – University Professor of Contemporary History,Nantes University Françoise LE BORGNE-UGUEN – University Professor in Sociology, Brest University
• Patrice MARCILLOUX – University Professor of Archival Studies, Angers University
• Clément MARIE DIT CHIROT – Lecturer in geography, Angers University
• Frédérique MATONTI - Professor of Political Science, Paris I University - Panthéon-Sorbonne Philip MILBURN – University Professor of Sociology, Rennes 2 University
• François PLOUX – University Professor of Contemporary History, Bretagne-Sud University Frédéric PUGNIERE-SAAVEDRA – Lecturer in language sciences, Bretagne-Sud University
• Nelly QUEMENER – HDR Lecturer in information and communication sciences at the Sorbonne Nouvelle University
• Aude Nuscia TAÏBI – Lecturer in geography, Angers University
• Pierre TESSIER – Lecturer in the history of science and technology, Nantes University Moïse TSAYEM-DEMAZE – Lecturer in Geography, Le Mans University

Bibliographic references

Akrich, M. 1993. Les formes de la médiation technique. Réseaux, 60. pp. 87-98.

Baudouin, J. 1969. Vulgarisation scientifique et idéologie. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in

Communications, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. 14, pp.150 - 161.

Bautes, N & Dit Chirot, C-M. 2012. Pour une géographie sociale de l'action. Carnets de géographes, 4. Mis en ligne le 01 septembre 2012, consulté le 29 mars 2022. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/cdg/982 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/cdg.982

Bensaude-Vincent B., 2010. Splendeur etdécadence de la vulgarisation scientifique. Questions de communication, 17. pp. 19-32.

Blumenthal, P. 2007. Sciences de l’homme vs sciences exactes : combinatoire des mots dans la vulgarisation scientifique. Revue française de linguistique appliquée. Vol. XII. pp.15 - 28.

Bourdieu, P. 1994. Raisons pratiques : sur la théorie de l'action. Paris. Seuil.

Callon  M.  1999.  Ni  intellectuel  engagé,  ni  intellectuel  dégagé  :  la  double  stratégie  de l’attachement et du détachement. Sociologie du travail, 41. pp. 65-78. DOI : 10.1016/S0038-0296(99)80005-3

Charrier-Volzel & Damian-Gaillard. 2005. Des voix de l’intime au regard de l’expertise dans la presse féminine. Le journalisme en invention. Nouvelles pratiques, nouveaux acteurs, R. Ringoot et J.-M. Utard éd., Rennes, Presses universitaires de Rennes. pp. 125-159.

Coquard O. 2014. L’histoire dans la classe préparatoire aux études supérieures : retour sur une expérience. Tracés. Revue de Sciences Humaines #12. Mis en ligne le 29 octobre 2014.

Dupriez, V. & Cornet, J. 2005. La rénovation de l'école primaire : Comprendre les enjeux du changement pédagogique. Louvain-la-Neuve : De Boeck Supérieur.

Duval, J. & Heilbron, J. 2006. Les enjeux des transformations de la recherche. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, n°164. pp.5-10.

Faure, G., Gasselin, P., Triomphe, B., Hocdé, H. & Temple, L. 2010. Innover avec les acteurs du monde rural : La recherche-action en partenariat. Versailles : Éditions Quæ.

Gibbons. M. et al. 1994. The new Production of Knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Londres. Sage.

Gillet, A., Tremblay, D., & Bonny, Y. 2017. Les recherches partenariales et collaboratives (Des sociétés). Rennes : Presses universitaires de Rennes.

Gingras, Y. & Gemme, B. 2006. L'emprise du champ scientifique sur le champ universitaire et ses effets. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, n°164. pp. 51-60.

Girola, C. 1996. Rencontrer des personnes sans abri. Une anthropologie réflexive. Politix, 34. Paris. pp. 87-98.

Giust-Desprairies, F. 2001. De la recherche-action à l'intervention psychosociale clinique. Revue internationale de psychosociologie VII. pp 33-46.

Godin, B. 1999. Les usages sociaux de la culture scientifique. La Presse de l’Université Laval.

Granjon, F & Denouël, J. 2011. Penser les usages sociaux des technologies numériques d’information et de communication. Paris. 

Grard, J. 2008-7. Devoir se raconter : La mise en récit de soi, toujours recommencée. Dans :

Alban Bensa éd., Les politiques de l'enquête. pp. 143-163. Paris : La Découverte.

Hirschhorn, M. 2014. Est-il vraiment utile de s’interroger sur l’utilité de la sociologie ? Plus de dix ans de débats. Revue européenne des sciences sociales, 52-2. pp. 221-234.

Hudelot, C & Jacques-Pfau, C. 2009. Sciences du Langage et demandes sociales. Actes du colloque 2007 de l’Association des Sciences du Langage. Limoges : Lambert-Lucas.

Hunsmann, M. & Kapp, S. 2013. Devenir chercheur, écrire une thèse en sciences sociales. Éditions EHESS. 

Jouison-Laffitte, E. 2009. La recherche action : oubliée de la recherche dans le domaine de l'entrepreneuriat. Revue de l’Entrepreneuriat, 8. pp. 1-35. 

Labussière, O. & Aldhuy, J. 2012. Le terrain ? C'est ce qui résiste. Réflexion sur la portée cognitive de l'expérience sensible en géographie. Annales de géographie, 687-688, 583-599

Latour, B. (2001). Le métier de chercheur (2e éd. ed., Sciences en questions). Editions Quæ. 

Lemoine-Schonne, Leprince, Lespagnol, Del Sol, Boizard, Mazel, . . . Thély Nicolas ... 2019. Être un chercheur reconnu ? jugement des pairs, regard des publics, estime des proches (Métier de chercheur-e 01). Rennes : Maison des sciences de l'homme en Bretagne, Presses universitaires de Rennes.

Lussault M. 2010. Ce que la géographie fait au(x) monde(s). Tracés. Revue de Sciences humaines #10. Mis en ligne le 30 novembre 2012. 

Marty M. 2010. Enjeux et usages de l’histoire d’entreprise : le cas de la Source Perrier. Tracés.

Revue de Sciences humaines #10. Mis en ligne le 30 novembre 2012.

Masson, P. 2005. Premières réceptions et diffusions des Héritiers (1964-1973). Revue d'Histoire des Sciences Humaines, n°13. pp. 69-98.

Morin, J-F. 2013. Les acteurs sociaux. Dans : Morin, J. La politique étrangère : Théories, méthodes et références. pp. 137-168. Paris: Armand Colin.https://doi.org/10.3917/arco.morin.2013.01.0137" 

Noiriel, G. 2006. Histoire et politique autour d’un débat et de certains usages. Nouvelles Fondations, vol. 2, n°2. pp. 65-75

Noiriel, G. 2009. De quelques usages publics de l’histoire.  Tracés. Revue de Sciences humaines, Hors série. pp. 123 - 132.

Pinçon M. & Pinçon-Charlot M. 2007. Les ghettos du ghotta. Comment la bourgeoisie défend ses espaces. Paris. Seuil.

Ross, F. C. 2003. On having voice and being heard : some after-effects of testifying before the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Anthropological Theory, 3 (3). pp. 325-341.