Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Jan Verlin
(Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3 - Triangle)
David DUMOULIN KERVRAN (Sorbonne Nouvelle Unversity -)
Jérôme Lamy (CNRS)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Traditional Open Panel
Short Abstract:
Scientific outposts in (post)colonial contexts raise questions about the epistemological pressures on data production and circulation. This panel explores how to extract knowledge by collective and experimental practices, filtering and disseminating data from these remote locations.
Long Abstract:
Scientific outposts, ranging from biological stations to astronomical observatories or polar stations, occupy a unique space within the scientific landscape. Situated on the fringes of (post)colonial empires, these outposts establish a significant center-periphery relationship with the metropolitan 'calculation centers,' resulting in a gradual dissociation of knowledge from their distinct local environments.
Amidst these dynamics, the panel endeavors to explore the epistemological pressures influencing data production and dissemination within these outposts. Central to this inquiry is an examination of the concrete organization of procedures involved in extracting, filtering, and distributing scientific information. Questions will revolve around the criteria guiding choices between on-site or metropolis-based analyses, whether favoring prepared data, experimental results, or raw data. Additionally, the discussion will probe the classification of scientific practices as belonging to 'collecting sciences' or 'experimental sciences,' and the significance of interdisciplinary or hybrid scientific and non-scientific knowledge in shaping production protocols.
The pivotal role of instrumentation within these remote scientific infrastructures will be addressed. Moreover, the panel will explore the inclusion of data production locations and conditions in experiment reports, and the mechanisms facilitating knowledge circulation between these poles. The examination extends to scrutinizing the homogeneity of knowledge produced in these remote scientific settings, its translation, and movement within transmission chains, especially considering the escalating conflicts surrounding these sites.
With a focus on how Science and Technology Studies (STS) can contribute, the discussion aims to enrich ongoing debates on the management of these remote scientific infrastructures. Ultimately, the panel seeks to outline a distinct epistemological framework characterizing the knowledge derived from these scientific outposts shaped by their postcolonial context.
Accepted papers:
Session 1Justine Berthod (CREDA (Sorbonne NouvelleCNRS))
Short abstract:
How were agronomy stations developed in the FWI? Focusing on their scientific work around chlordecone, this paper examines data and human circulations, stations' specific relations with agroindustrial sector and French scientific policies, and what it does to center/periphery dynamics.
Long abstract:
Chlordecone was used during the XXth century in the French West Indies (FWI) against banana weevils. It is now at the center of a nationally recognised scandal. However, in the 1970s, its was praised as the last chemical solution against banana weevils.
Synthesized in 1954 in the USA, it was then tested by French colonial agronomists in Cameroon. After decolonization, the center of French banana production moved to the FWI (Cornu et al 2018; Charpentier et al, 1995). "Tropical" agronomists trained in African colonies had to move across the Atlantic and build agronomy stations (today's CIRAD) to boost banana production through chemical means, which led to chlordecone use. French departments since 1946, Martinique and Guadeloupe also became these new national territories that "general" agronomists solely trained in metropolitan soils were asked to invest (through today's INRAEs).
This presentation will explore how both these infrastructures were developed in the FWI. It will then analyze their scientific work around chlordecone [1950s-1990s], focusing on both data and human circulations, and their specific relations with agroindustrial sector and French scientific policies.
I argue that with scientific outposts, these agronomy stations share : (1) materiality (as scientific infrastructures resulting from difficult installation process); (2) geography (as isolated, difficult to access - at least at first); (2) politicization (inserted in center/periphery and (post)colonial geopolitics). However, I shall question their epistemology(ies), and whether it relies - like scientific outposts seem to - on extracting local data that travel to the center in order to become universalized knowledge.
Anne-Gaëlle Beurier (Sorbonne Nouvelle University) Ines Calvo Laplaige (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle)
Short abstract:
Human-Environment Observatories differ from scientific outposts as their location isn't solely determined by non-human presence but by human-environment interactions. How does this produce a distinct epistemological framework in the relationship between sciences and places ?
Long abstract:
Scientific outposts are scientific infrastructures (field stations, laboratories, etc.) located in peripheral territories, away from conventional networks. The choice of their location is guided by the scientific interest of the ecosystems to study, presenting themselves as separate from local human societies and their history (Kervran, Lamy, Verlin, 2021).
The International Human-Environment Observatories (OHM-I), a territorialized scientific policy tool of the CNRS (France), distribute small research funding through project calls. Five OHM-I are located in the Americas. Their epistemological framework is partly similar to the knowledge derived from the scientific outposts: they are situated on the margins of (post-)colonial empires; scientific work is constrained by geopolitical issues of strong circulation with a distant center, difficulty of the fieldwork, tension between producing circulable and standardized datas (characteristics of experimental ex-situ sciences) and their extremely situated nature (characteristics of in situ collecting sciences) (Kohler, 2002). However, unlike scientific outposts, OHM-I don't have physical infrastructures and focus on human-environment interactions.
Based on a socio-history made of interviews with the founders of these OHM-I, ethnography of scientific seminars and documentary analysis, this proposal explores the criterias that guided the choice of locations to establish these OHM-I, as well as the controversies and boundary-work (Gieryn, 1993) engaged in the tension between constructing transversal knowledge from a diversity of places and disciplines. We will characterize their knowledge production regime related to this hybrid definition of ecosystem that involve an interdisciplinary work between nature and social sciences and its consequences on the relationship between sciences and places.
Jan Verlin (Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3 - Triangle) David DUMOULIN KERVRAN (Sorbonne Nouvelle Unversity -) Jérôme Lamy (CNRS)
Short abstract:
The socio-historical understanding of scientific outposts necessitates scrutiny of their epistemological impacts, especially in (post)colonial contexts and their dynamic with metropolitan centers. This paper explores data constitution, collegiality, and friction with labs.
Long abstract:
In understanding the socio-historical context of scientific outposts, it becomes imperative to delve into the web of epistemological effects stemming from their isolated implantation, the nuances of data extraction in (post)colonial settings, and the intricate dynamics they share with the metropolitan center.
This introduction serves as a gateway to a deeper exploration of the epistemological implications inherent in scientific outposts. Firstly, it seeks to illuminate the process of data constitution within these outposts, questioning whether the inherent pressures of a constrained environment might inadvertently relax the stringent epistemological requirements typically associated with data collection and analysis. Secondly, the degree of collegiality in the formation of this data comes under scrutiny, considering how the concrete conditions of knowledge production in these settings might necessitate a different approach to evaluating data validity compared to more conventional laboratory settings.
Furthermore, the discussion extends to the frictions that arise between the data established in outpost settings and those derived from more traditional sites or metropolitan laboratories. Understanding these tensions is crucial in comprehending the potential biases or limitations inherent in data extracted from these highly localized and contextualized science bubbles.
Ultimately, this exploration into the epistemology of scientific outposts offers an opportunity for a comprehensive reconsideration of the entire process of proof administration. From the social dynamics of trust within scientific communities to the concrete modalities of value harmonization in data interpretation, there exists a wide spectrum of avenues for research plan adjustments that merit further exploration and consideration.