Magicians at Work: Modellers as Institutional Entrepreneurs in the Global Governance of Agriculture and Food Security

IF 1.9 4区 社会学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Lise Cornilleau
{"title":"Magicians at Work: Modellers as Institutional Entrepreneurs in the Global Governance of Agriculture and Food Security","authors":"Lise Cornilleau","doi":"10.23987/sts.65187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Global models of agriculture act as the epistemic basis for quantitative foresight, which guides international policymaking and research on agriculture. With the new political sociology of science as a backdrop, this article studies the actors who develop and use these models through the lens of field theory. Contributing to the dialogue between the neo-institutionalist field theory and its Bourdieusian version, it describes the structure and the dynamics of the strategic action field of modelling organizations, using the Bourdieusian notions of “succession” and “subversion” to refine the characterization of challengers. It also discusses the insights of the Bourdieusian concept of “homology” to analyse the relations between the field of model producers and the field of model users. Whereas Bourdieu provides a primarily descriptive account of homologies, which are close to a “social magic without magicians” for Roueff, the present text describes magicians doing the work of producing homologies. Some modellers use intercomparison to reduce competition and to have their models used in the field of global governance, thus strategically producing homologies, while resolving the main modelling conflict of the field. These actors benefit from the recent change in the modelling field under the influence of climate change, to behave as what Fligstein and McAdam have called “institutional entrepreneurs”. The article concludes that this amended version of field theory makes it possible to describe the co-construction of a range of models developed by competing organizations and the controversial making of global agricultural governance. Doing so, it complements the co-production framework, which often focuses on a given site of expertise production and a site of global governance.","PeriodicalId":45119,"journal":{"name":"Science and Technology Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Technology Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.65187","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Global models of agriculture act as the epistemic basis for quantitative foresight, which guides international policymaking and research on agriculture. With the new political sociology of science as a backdrop, this article studies the actors who develop and use these models through the lens of field theory. Contributing to the dialogue between the neo-institutionalist field theory and its Bourdieusian version, it describes the structure and the dynamics of the strategic action field of modelling organizations, using the Bourdieusian notions of “succession” and “subversion” to refine the characterization of challengers. It also discusses the insights of the Bourdieusian concept of “homology” to analyse the relations between the field of model producers and the field of model users. Whereas Bourdieu provides a primarily descriptive account of homologies, which are close to a “social magic without magicians” for Roueff, the present text describes magicians doing the work of producing homologies. Some modellers use intercomparison to reduce competition and to have their models used in the field of global governance, thus strategically producing homologies, while resolving the main modelling conflict of the field. These actors benefit from the recent change in the modelling field under the influence of climate change, to behave as what Fligstein and McAdam have called “institutional entrepreneurs”. The article concludes that this amended version of field theory makes it possible to describe the co-construction of a range of models developed by competing organizations and the controversial making of global agricultural governance. Doing so, it complements the co-production framework, which often focuses on a given site of expertise production and a site of global governance.
魔术师在工作:全球农业和粮食安全治理中的制度企业家
全球农业模型是定量前瞻的认识基础,指导国际农业政策制定和研究。本文以新的科学政治社会学为背景,通过场论的视角来研究这些模型的制定者和使用者。它为新制度主义领域理论与其布迪厄版本之间的对话做出了贡献,描述了建模组织战略行动领域的结构和动态,使用布迪厄的“继承”和“颠覆”概念来完善挑战者的特征。本文还讨论了布迪厄“同源性”概念的见解,以分析模型生产者领域和模型使用者领域之间的关系。布迪厄对同源性进行了主要的描述性描述,对鲁埃夫来说,同源性接近于“没有魔术师的社会魔法”,而本文描述了魔术师从事产生同源性的工作。一些建模者利用相互比较来减少竞争,并将其模型用于全球治理领域,从而在战略上产生同源性,同时解决该领域的主要建模冲突。这些参与者受益于最近在气候变化影响下建模领域的变化,表现得像Fligstein和McAdam所说的“机构企业家”。文章的结论是,这一修正版的领域理论使我们有可能描述竞争组织开发的一系列模型的共同构建和全球农业治理的争议性制定。这样做,它补充了共同生产框架,该框架通常侧重于特定的专业知识生产场所和全球治理场所。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Science and Technology Studies
Science and Technology Studies HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
23
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信