Prix de la recherche étudiante sur l'environnement - Prize for graduate research on the environment
Décembre 2022
L’Atelier interdisciplinaire de recherche sur l’environnement [AIRE] a, pour la première fois cette année, lancé le Prix de la recherche étudiante sur l’environnement. Cette initiative vise à saluer et à diffuser les meilleurs travaux de recherche sur l’environnement conduits en 2022 au niveau Master dans l’ensemble des écoles de Sciences Po, et à encourager les étudiants à s’engager dans cette voie au cours de leur formation.
18 étudiants ont déposé une candidature, toutes de très bon niveau dont le jury* tient à en souligner la variété et la créativité. Tous méritent d'être salués pour leur dynamisme et pour leur engagement dans la recherche en sciences humaines et sociales sur l'environnement.
Les candidatures ont été évaluées selon les critères suivants : 1/ excellence académique (telle qu'évaluée par le cursus des étudiants) ; 2/ innovation et créativité de la thèse ; 3/ intérêt de la thèse pour l'interdisciplinarité en sciences humaines et sociales, voire au-delà ; 4/ implications politiques pour les transitions écologiques.
Suite à une pré-sélection, 6 candidats ont été appelés à présenter leur recherche au cours du séminaire de AIRE.
Quatre d'entre eux ont été sélectionnés pour être primés. Félicitations à ces lauréats!
1er prix
Le premier prix est attribué à Rebecca Fenn, École des Affaires Internationales (PSIA) pour son mémoire "The Indirect Effects of Strategic Climate Change Litigation. A case study on the role of winning or losing strategic climate change litigation cases based on cases in the Netherlands, Ireland, Germany, and the United Kingdom."
The aim of this thesis is to analyse the role of winning or losing a strategic climate change litigation case at court for the indirect effects (social mobilisation and media attention) attained by that case. Possible effects of winning or losing range from winning being decisive for the indirect effects, over indirect effects being largely independent of whether a case is lost or won, to NGOs being able to profit from litigation loss. To develop an understanding of the role which winning or losing may play for social mobilisation and media attention, a qualitative comparative case study approach focusing on four cases was chosen. The case studies are based on expert interviews, document analysis, and an analysis of newspaper articles. The results suggest that, in all cases, climate change litigation leads to some increased media attention and social mobilisation. NGOs have strategies to make use of both litigation loss and judicial success, and social mobilisation and media attention may complement each other. However, the success of those strategies and the intensity of social mobilisation and media reporting also depend on interactions with other factors, which may include suitable opportunities for mobilisation and media reporting, social and political conditions, or the general characteristics of the NGOs, cases, and the campaigns. This thesis may offer starting points for further research on factors influencing media attention and social mobilisation, mechanisms and strategies through which cases may enhance social mobilisation and media attention, as well as cases’ broader societal and political impacts.
Le jury a particulièrement apprécié la dimension comparative de la recherche, sa précision méthodologique et analytique, et ses implications politiques et civiques au carrefour du droit de l’environnement, de la sociologie des mouvements sociaux et de l’action publique climatique.
2èmes prix ex æquo
Le deuxième prix est attribué à égalité à :
Hugo d'Assenza David, École Urbaine et École de la Recherche pour son mémoire "From Idea to Action. Instrumenting the limits to growth. A study of policy change and advocacy coalitions interplay towards the City Doughnut in Amsterdam urban governance".
This research establishes the policy change process behind the City Doughnut, that emerged in Amsterdam from the development of the municipal circular economy strategy in 2020, and explicitly questions the essence of the city as a growth machine. Drawing upon an analytical framework applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework to urban governance, we decentred this topic from urban studies and environmental science considerations, and proposed a reflection embedded in the sociology of public action field, leaning on a framework that recently regained attention and is particularly suitable to analyse policy innovation.
With this research, we assessed the condensation process between the Kate Raworth’s theory and the implementation of the City Doughnut as a policy instrument. With a qualitative research method combining secondary data analysis and semi-structured interviews, the study of this unique case highlights how circular economy became a field of conflict between advocacy coalitions opposed on the definition of what it means to ‘grow’ for urban governance. The first dominant ‘urban growth coalition’ puts forward capital accumulation as the core matrix, and economic growth as a pre- requisite for prosperity. The alternative ‘urban thrive coalition’ opposes to it an ecosystem growth, a more holistic vision of prosperity: they consequently argue that socio-environmental components should take precedence over, and even cap, capital accumulation practices. Circular economy is then a multifaceted and debated development: while it puts forward a technological fix to perpetuate economic growth, by decoupling it from resource consumption, for the first, circularity is one of the sine qua non conditions to cap capital accumulation practices and achieve a socio-ecological transition for the latter.
Findings highlight that the City Doughnut is the product of the strategy of ‘urban thrive coalition’ actors. Their collective action not only mobilised pre-existing attention drawn to circular economy to institute unbounded capital accumulation as a public problem, but also endorsed the Doughnut theory as a relevant response. Through this, we have seen the importance of experts, and in particular the theoretical leadership of Kate Raworth, in this policy learning process, but also the importance of shifting political balance in favour of Greenleft in the municipal coalition. Even if this marks a secondary change in Amsterdam urban governance, it carries with it the seeds of further transformations. Both because of its post-capitalistic theoretical charge and the policy perspectives it opens, this instrument admits itself a performative potential on actors’ activities, and for the conduct of public policies in urban governance, and beyond.
Le jury a apprécié la mobilisation et la critique d’un cadre théorique opportun appliqué à une enquête de terrain approfondie pour explorer la dynamique des coalitions à l’œuvre dans les transitions environnementales urbaines.
Jan Philipp Schmidt, École des Affaires Internationales (PSIA) pour son mémoire "Conservation versus Development? Use of Economic Valuation in Biodiversity-related decision-making processes. The case of the hydropower projects Kalivac and Pocem and the Vjosa National Park".
In recent years different methodologies of economic valuations of ecosystem services have been developed to tackle the ongoing degradation of ecosystems and loss of biodiversity. Despite high expectations, the tools’ role in integrating environmental costs and benefits into the decision-making process is heavily debated, as evidence on the actual use of ecosystem service valuations (UESV) is scarce. This thesis examines the contribution of economic valuations and ecosystem service valuations to the decision-making process over the planned construction of two major hydropower projects and the creation of a protected area at the Vjosa River in southern Albania.
To analyse the case, a negotiation analysis following the framework of Faure (1991) was conducted. This encompassed the systemic study of five main elements of the negotiation: actors, structure, strategy, process and results. A questionnaire was developed based on the framework and 18 semi-structured interviews were conducted both online and physically in Albania with actors from the government, national and international NGOs, local administrations and scientists.
Actors involved in the negotiation used economic valuations of ecosystem services or economic arguments linked to ecosystem services as strategic resource of advocacy and justification to challenge conventions and strengthen their argumentation within a process of deliberation.
Leaving the purely “rationalist” view of decision-making, the location of the case study within a 3D-space of decision-making highlights how interconnected organizational and political factors such as low government budgets, a sizeable influence of international stakeholders and changes in the government’s political agenda have directed the outcome of the negotiation process.
Finally, the analysed role of economic valuations of ecosystem services points to interesting future research avenues. To investigate how economic valuations can be used more effectively to prevent loss of biodiversity in early stages, research could look at economic valuation’s contribution to standards of investments for infrastructure projects. Following research on bottom-up governance it will be interesting to explore how economic valuations could be embedded more deeply in open participatory approaches (e.g., in gathering data on ecosystem services with local populations) providing a higher degree of transparency to the decision-making process.
Le jury a salué le caractère original et novateur de cette recherche sur le sujet important de la valorisation des services écosystémiques. La mobilisation d’une méthodologie de cartographie tri-dimensionnelle précise l’interaction complexe entre les différents facteurs et processus à l’œuvre dans la décision.
Prix spécial du jury:
Le prix spécial du jury est attribué à Anna Panizzoli, École des Affaires Internationales (PSIA) pour son mémoire "Investigating Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Technoscience to understand the co-production of Covid19 in France".
After the outbreak of COVID-19, many initiatives emerged in France. They developed a tool to detect SARS-CoV-2 traces in sewage. They proposed to use Wastewater-Based Epidemiology (WBE) to tackle COVID-19. Authorities in charge of managing the disease opposed the development of the initiatives. They refused to resort to WBE to address the disease. In my thesis, I build on Science and Technologies Studies (STS) to investigate the disagreements that pitted initiatives against each other and against authorities. They concerned the production of knowledge on WBE and the choice to use WBE for COVID-19. I use disagreements over WBE as an entry point to understand the way COVID19 was managed in France, including how science on the disease was co-produced and technical choice on its management were made.
The thesis starts with delineating the empirical background of my research. It identifies the main actors engaged in WBE. It contextualizes their activities within the strategy adopted in France to tackle COVID-19. Relevant actors included Obépine, the BMBM, WaterCov, Veolia, and Suez, i.e., the WBE initiatives. They also included authorities such as the French Ministry of Health and that of Research.
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the state of art. It considers contributions on WBE for COVID-19, France’s response to COVID-19, and COVID-19 management. It addresses their limitations. It clarifies my ambition to tackle them by considering science and technology as socially constructed, and state and non-state actors as knowledgeable agents.
Chapter 3 presents the research’s theoretical framework. It depicts the STS concepts and theories that I harnessed and how I refined them to fit my research and its findings. STS contributions included these on controversies, co-production, and discourses. I built on them to develop the concept of Networked Civic Epistemology. I integrated them with Discursive Analysis à la Française. Chapter 4 clarifies the research’s design and methodology. It illustrates the qualitative methods that I triangulated and explores my positionality as a researcher. Participant observation functioned as the main research technique during the three months of field research. Both a battle-field logic and a high degree of politicization marked my investigating “science in action”. Chapter 5 lays out the research’s findings and discusses them. It starts with exploring the five co-productions and sociotechnical imaginaries that I identified during my research. They corresponded to each WBE actors. It shows how their interactions unfolded within a war of position, the outcome of which was the imposition of a hegemonic discourse on COVID-19 and its management. Authorities marginalized alternative sociotechnical solutions that the initiatives promoted. Chapter 5 then illustrates the two types of trials of strength that I identified during the research, i.e., trials within Science and trials within science. It shows how trials of the second type predominated among WBE actors. Initiatives mainly competed for state funding and the maximization of individual utility. It describes the strategies and narratives that WBE actors deployed, thus providing insights into related technoscience. Chapter 5 concludes with examining the state’s evolving behavior towards WBE and its civic epistemology.
Le jury a souhaité saluer l’originalité et la grande qualité de cette recherche, dont l’utilisation de l’approche STS (Science and Technology Studies) est exemplaire pour la recherche environnementale.
* Le jury était composé de Joost De Moor (Sciences Po, Centre d'Études Européennes et de Politique Comparée), Jean-Noël Jouzel ( CNRS, Centre de Sociologie des Organisations), Guillaume Lachenal (professeur des universités, médialab), Sandrine Revet (Sciences Po, CERI), Meriem Hamdi-Cherif (Sciences Po, Observatoire Français des Conjonctures Economiques), Bernard Reber (CNRS, Centre d’Etudes Politiques de Sciences Po CEVIPOF), et Richard Balme (professeur des universités, Centre d'Études Européennes et de Politique Comparée, président du jury), tous membres de la faculté permanente de Sciences Po.
----------------------------
Présentation du prix
27 juin 2022
Cette année, l'atelier interdisciplinaire de recherches sur l'environnement (AIRE) a lancé le Prix de la recherche étudiante sur l’environnement. Cette initiative vise à saluer et à diffuser les meilleurs travaux conduits dans l’ensemble des écoles de Sciences Po, et à encourager les étudiants à s’engager dans cette voie au cours de leur formation. Le ou les lauréats seront distingués par l’attribution d’un prix, la publication de leur travail ce site et d'une large diffusion via les actualités de la recherche et sur les réseaux sociaux.
Suite à l'annonce du Prix, le jury constitué de 7 professeurs permanents: Florence Faucher (Centre d'études européennes et de politique comparée, science politique) ; Jean-Noël Jouzel (Centre de sociologie des organisations, sociologie) ; Guillaume Lachenal (médialab, Histoire) ; Paul Malliet (OFCE, économie), Bernard Reber (Cevipof, philosophie) ; Sandrine Revet (CERI, anthropologie) et Richard Balme (Centre d'études européennes et de politique comparée, science politique) a reçu 18 candidatures d’étudiants de l'École de recherche, de l'École d'affaires publiques, de l'École des affaires internationales de Paris et de l’ École urbaine.
Dans les semaines à venir, le comité vérifiera et évaluera les candidatures selon les critères suivants : 1/ l'excellence académique (telle qu'évaluée par le cursus des étudiants) ; 2/ Innovation et créativité de la thèse ; 3/ intérêt de la thèse pour l'interdisciplinarité en sciences humaines et sociales ; 4/ implications politiques pour les transitions écologiques.
Sur la base de ces évaluations, le comité sélectionnera une liste restreinte de 6 à 8 thèses à présenter au séminaire AIRE. La liste restreinte sera établie d'ici la mi-septembre. Les présentations seront programmées en deux sessions différentes, en octobre et en novembre. Le prix sera attribué début décembre 2022.
June 27th,2022
This year, the interdisciplinary environmental research workshop (AIRE) launched the Student Research Prize on the Environment. This initiative aims to recognize and disseminate the best work carried out in all Sciences Po schools, and to encourage students to embark on this path during their training. The winner(s) will be distinguished by the awarding of a prize, the publication of their work on this site and wide dissemination via research news and on social networks.
Following the announcement of the Prize, the committee constituted by 7 permanent faculty members: Florence Faucher (Centre for European Studies and Comparative Politics, political science); Jean-Noel Jouzel (Centre for the Sociology of Organizations, sociology); Guillaume Lachenal (médialab, History); Paul Malliet (OFCE, Economics), Bernard Reber (Cevipof, philosophy); Sandrine Revet (CERI, anthropology) and Richard Balme (Centre for European Studies and Comparative Politics, political science) has received a total of 18 applications from the School of Research, the School of Public Affairs, the Paris School of International Affairs, and the Urban School.
In the coming weeks, the committee will check and evaluate applications using the following criteria: 1/ academic excellence (as evaluated by the students curriculum); 2/ Innovation and creativity of the thesis; 3/ interest of the thesis for interdisciplinarity in social sciences and humanities; 4/ policy implications for ecological transitions. Based on these evaluations, the committee will select a shortlist of 6 to 8 thesis to be presented in the AIRE seminar. The shortlist will be established by mid-september. Presentations will be scheduled in two different sessions, in October and November. The prize will be attributed early December 2022.
