Abstract :
[en] It is widely acknowledged that scientific research and science, technology and innovation (STI) policies within the US and the EU have gone through deep changes for about 30 years. Many scholars from science and technology studies and innovation studies have investigated these policy changes, and the publication of “The New Production of Knowledge” (Gibbons et al., 1994) paved the way for vigorous debates on regimes of knowledge production (Hessels & Van Lente, 2008). While different general models were proposed to describe a transition (see, e.g. “mode 2 production of knowledge”, “post normal science”, “strategic science”, “academic capitalism”), these models often posit a dichotomous history, stating that a new regime simply succeeded the previous one (Rip, 2000). In a nutshell, the old regime characterized by strong public intervention and a linear conception of innovation is replaced by a new regime where research and innovation are conceived in systemic terms, regarding their strategic interest for the economy and their societal relevance.
This dichotomous conception of STI policy change has been criticized regarding its historical accuracy, e.g. with Pestre (2003), showing that the autonomy of research that characterizes the old regime, or “mode 1” is
While the diagnosis of these various science and technology policy studies is not to be dispraised concerning the different effects they emphasize, These macro-perspectives are of little use when it comes to study a local situation
they lack acuteness to properly describe and compare empirical observation of such policy changes. This issue is even more salient for empirical work to be conducted in states where multi-level policies are crafted on different, sometimes overlapping national and regional polities. In Belgium, the case in point in my PhD researches, the above-mentioned studies are of little use to characterize the actual state and interplay of Walloon and Flemish STI systems. Hence, there is a need to develop theoretical approaches paying greater attention to local specificities and nuances. My proposal builds on an analysis of STI policies based on coexisting, and sometimes competing “narratives”. In the vein of Stone (1989) and Radaelli (2000), this paper aims at comparing the different policy narratives that circulates as rationale for STI policies in Wallonia, to identify their variants and to study their interplay. Policy narratives give meaning to complex realities, they help making sense of things, but they also contain a plot; they are articulating elements in a logical sequence (with, e.g., causalities, cf. Stone, 1989). As such, they are resources for action: they are descriptive and prescriptive.
The broad literature of innovation studies, and its diffusion through the EU or the OECD already provides the Walloon STI stakeholders with different master-narratives (Sum & Jessop, 2013). So far, I could distinguish four different master-narratives in the literature as well as in Walloon stakeholders ‘discourses:
• “The Knowledge-based economy” (KBE). KBE seems to be the “dominant” master-narrative today. In a nutshell, this narrative runs as follow (see OECD, 1996): knowledge is the source of economic growth. Since innovation and market success are better encountered through network management and the intertwinement of industry and university, STI institutions must be organized accordingly, in order to achieve a sustained growth and a “better competitiveness”
o Variants of this narrative are, e.g. the triple-helix model (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000), or National innovation system (Freeman, 1987, Lundvall, 1988).
• Grand societal challenges: This recent master-narrative is being promoted by the OECD and the EU (see, e.g., Lund Declaration, 2009). It states that scientific research should benefit of high (public) funding in certain areas, or regarding certain issues. High means for strategic research should help to solve major problems such as climate change, ageing population, energy supply and consumption, cancer, etc. This narrative calls for mission oriented STI policy, so the concern here is not (solely/primarily) economic (Kallerud et al 2013).
• “Science, the endless frontier” - continued: famously reported by V. Bush (1945), this master-narrative is still of common use among STI stakeholders. With this narrative, science is considered a public good, the state has to fund it because the linear conception of innovation and serendipity assure technological and economic progress in the end – the rationale is based on economic aspects (the state must fund research because it is a special kind of good and the market efficiency will not work, and basic research is the source of marketable innovation).
• “Science for the sake of science”: in this narrative, science is considered as common good regardless of the potential economic impacts (and usefulness to address other societal issues) – we can make a parallel with the idea that artistic creation is worth it: for the beauty, for the critique, science here is considered as a superior activity that brings rationality and knowledge to the society as long as it is independent from “external influences” (Bonneuil & Joly, 2013) – cf. “mertonian Ethos” of Communalism, Universalism, Disinterestedness, Originality and Skepticism. Other examples / variants of this narrative include the idea that science contributes to the greatness of Nation, that science fights obscurantism, and so on and so forth. (examples : peer review, excellence, Copernican revolution are compatible storylines with science for the sake of science : a self-supporting system)
While these master-narratives are present in international, academic literature, this paper focuses on their local manifestations. This study compares three critical moments: in different situations, various STI stakeholders (government, researchers, administrative staff, journalists, academic authorities, etc.) publicly expressed their views on the organization and funding of scientific research and innovation activities, and the role of STI within the region. I analyzed the discourses in press articles, policy documents, public statements, allocutions and opinion paper, blogs, etc. I intentionally sampled for heterogeneity since I’m looking for variations and multiple use of narratives.
The analysis of the Walloon case permits to overcome the double dichotomy of dominant vs. counter narrative and old vs. new regime. The different narratives, in context, are concurrent but they are not mutually exclusive: while the narratives purport different ideologies, different visions of the role of science and of the state intervention, one is not being erased by the advent of another. Rather, I could find out that narratives “overlap”, and one narrative does not constitute the only resource of a (group of) actors. In situation, the actors use one or multiple narratives, regarding the context, the public, the goal of a policy, etc., in a dynamic of conflict or compromise. This description of the transition is more accurate than the one provided with a sequence of two regimes, since the flexible use of multiple narratives accounts for the continuity of certain institutions (justified by, e.g., a version of “science for the sake of science”) as well as for certain reforms in STI policy (that are inspired by the KBE narrative, for example).
