UMR Pacte 5194

Cet article s'inscrit dans la lignée des travaux qui analysent l'encastrement organisationnel des pratiques scientifiques. Il s'intéresse à une dimension organisationnelle peu explorée jusqu'alors, les règles qui définissent la coopération financière entre les équipes des laboratoires français. À partir d'une étude ethnographique sur les trajectoires de deux laboratoires de chimie et de biologie, il montre que ces règles financières ne découlent pas des profils des laboratoires (en termes de taille, d'activités ou des budgets). Elles s'expliquent à l'inverse par le projet collectif, indissociablement scientifique et organisationnel, qui structure l'évolution de chaque laboratoire. L'article compare les choix que font les deux laboratoires étudiés pour mutualiser une partie des contrats de leurs équipes. Il les associe alors à deux projets distincts, à deux conceptions de la performance collective à l'échelle du laboratoire et finalement à deux systèmes d'échange entre les équipes pour la promouvoir.

Pour citer cet article : Louvel, S. (2009) « Organiser les incertitudes locales dans le contexte d'une nouvelle recherche-technologie : le cas d'un laboratoire de protéomique », in Chalas, Y., Gilbert, C., Vinck, V. (ed.) Comment les acteurs s'arrangent avec l'incertitude, Paris : Editions des archives contemporaines, pp. 43-68.

There is growing concern that academic work is becoming more and more 'industrialized' in various disciplinary and institutional settings -that the work practices, professional identities and values of academia are becoming similar to those of the private sector. While most studies discuss this topic in the context of senior scientists, this paper considers doctoral training in the life-sciences in France, and, more specifi cally, analyzes changes in the doctoral experiences over the last four decades. Interviews with doctoral students and supervisors allow for tracking shifts in how French life-scientists defi ne the values of doctoral training in their daily activities. Our results challenge the idea of some univocal and radical 'industrialization' of doctoral training, instead showing a strong interplay between continuity and change.

The engagement of academics in organizational change in higher education institutions is generally understood as involving a wide range of behaviors, and previous studies have situated academics' actions at various points along a continuum between passivity and pro-activity. This article complements this approach by asking how-rather than in which contexts-academics act as central agents for change in higher education. Rather than trying to assess their global level of proactivity in a given change situation, we aim at identifying the actions which show them behaving more or less strategically. We argue that the notion of 'bricolage'-widely used in organization theory-can be useful in this respect. Based on a qualitative study of the creation of 20 post-graduate nanotechnology programs on French university campuses, the article shows that academics participating in curriculum change engage in three distinct forms of bricolage. We suggest that the bricolage lens can identify two types of actions via which academics implement more or less pro-active strategies-identifying a repertoire of resources, and assembling those resources-and so allows us to reflect more deeply on how these actions may demonstrate several forms of agency, as well as several different relationships with norms, in each organizational change situation.

ScIence and technology Studies usually consider social practices and their environments as dynamic socio-material relations where the stabilising processes of establishing facts, measures, rules, labels and/or standards are at stake. This sociological perspective bears a special interest to the deployment of actions. It considers them without referring to global structures, or to predetermined constraints (either cognitive, socio-political, etc.). These new sociologies take into account the proc-. These new sociologies take into account the proc-These new sociologies take into account the process of understanding and agreement between people, but also their adjustments to things, technical objects and natural beings. They are based on the idea of a common world, which is permanently reshaped by complexity, diversity and conflict. As shown by Susan Leigh , any infrastructure relies on a particular ontological solidarism between socio-material entities. 1 Following this approach, we define the 'social' as ontologically interdependent entities, which are constantly reshaped by controversies, demonstrations, shocks and attachments. Hence, we suggest describing the state preceding the shaping Virginie Tournay, CNRS 5194. PACTE at Sciences