Beyond neutrality: co-creation and the role of researchers

But this way of framing the issue is already misleading. It assumes that, on the one hand, there is a science that is perfectly neutral and detached from the social world, and on the other, researchers who “step outside” their role when they take an interest in contemporary political, ecological, or social issues.

Between maintaining distance and militant activism, we believe there is a third path for the academic world to explore: co-creation.

Feminist Studies: Knowledge Rooted in Society

Beginning in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, feminist studies demonstrated that the issue of sexism in science has not only a social dimension but also an epistemological one. Thus, sexism is not only present in laboratories, where there are fewer female researchers than male ones. Moreover, it influences research findings and conclusions [1].

By highlighting the sexist dimension [2] of much scientific knowledge (in the natural sciences as well as the social sciences), feminist studies have shown that it is impossible to ignore that the producers of scientific knowledge are situated social actors. Researchers belong to a particular context that necessarily influences their way of understanding reality.

“Behind the most mundane, least committed, and most neutral description lies a perspective on reality that is situated and rooted” [3].

In other words: absolute neutrality likely does not exist in the form we sometimes like to imagine it.

Neutrality as an Institutional Myth

Some stakeholders wish to continue defending the absolute objectivity of research findings. To this end, they cite errors, isolated cases, or instances of “bad science.”

“According to a general definition of sound scientific practice, this gender bias should not occur; it is a deviation; [...] if science (with a capital S) were to operate according to its very nature, it would not exhibit such aberrations” [4].

In short, while there are indeed sexist studies, this is not a reason to question research practices. It is individuals who are at fault for misapplying the scientific method.

On the contrary, the work of researchers in the humanities and social sciences shows us that it is “socially constructed differences that lead to inequalities and discrimination—hidden behind a façade of neutrality” [5].

This does not mean that facts become relative. It does mean, however, that the production of knowledge is never entirely separate from the social, cultural, economic, and political structures within which it is embedded.

This is where the question of co-creation becomes interesting.

If we must accept that every actor is inevitably situated, then it becomes essential to allow a wide range of actors involved in the same issue to participate in shaping research findings. Co-creation thus emerges as a new research practice that helps reduce certain biases stemming from individual blind spots.

Can scientists be engaged?

A researcher is a citizen. However, their profession also comes with a code of ethics: it is not the researcher’s opinions, ideas, or beliefs that should dictate the results of their research.

Nevertheless, as sociologist Eric Fassin points out, much research is conducted not out of “a kind of disinterested intellectual curiosity” but because there is behind it “a desire to change the world.”

Moreover, this tension extends far beyond the humanities and social sciences alone. Do researchers working on the next generation of batteries not have a vision of a different world in mind? Are researchers in ecotoxicology or ecology any more disinterested and impervious to societal issues?

The idea that only certain disciplines are “political” while others produce perfectly neutral knowledge is hard to sustain. The era we are living in is, moreover, no small factor in the redefinition of this profession.

“Science and research must increasingly learn to step out of their ivory tower, which means becoming involved in the social environment to which they belong ,” stated Joseph Taradellas, professor of ecotoxicology at the Institute of Environmental Engineering at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL), during the Citizen Science symposium held on April 6, 2018, on the topic of responsibility in scientific research.

Co-creation as a research practice rooted in societal challenges

At SoScience, we advocate for and promote science that is engaged, science that sees itself and positions itself as a stakeholder in society, attentive to societal concerns and capable of taking action.

This stance does not involve turning researchers into activists. It involves recognizing that research directions, the problems deemed legitimate, the uses of developed technologies, and the resulting impacts are already deeply shaped by collective and political choices.

This research must be able to guide and leverage research outcomes to address societal concerns. A number of researchers already adopt this stance, and the research institutes with which we collaborate are also beginning to integrate it at the policy and structural levels.

To achieve research outcomes that are grounded in our current societal challenges and social concerns, we offer methods that enable co-creation with civil society (citizens, NGOs, social entrepreneurs, and scientists).

Specifically, since 2016, our The Future Of open innovation programs have facilitated multi-stakeholder research collaborations with civil society on issues related to social and environmental challenges.

Whether it concerns water in urban environments, soil health, epidemic models at borders, or energy for mobility: all these topics benefit scientifically when approached with diverse stakeholders.

The question, then, is perhaps not whether researchers should be engaged. Rather, the question is: who is authorized to participate in defining scientific problems, technological futures, and the knowledge considered legitimate?

[1] Dominique Pestre (2006), Introduction aux Science Studies, Chapitre 5 Femmes, genre et science : objectivité et parti pris.

[2] « By ‘sexist,’ on the one hand, the fact that this body of knowledge reproduces the most common prejudices regarding relations between men and women, making them the backbone of its discourse and legitimizing them. On the other hand, it means naturalizing the difference and/or inequality between women and men. ».

[3] Florence Piron (2019), Et si la recherche scientifique ne pouvait pas être neutre ?, edited by Laurence Brière, Mélissa Lieutenant-Gosselin and Florence Piron, chapitre 9 « L’amoralité du positivisme institutionnel », pp. 135-168. Québec : Éditions science et bien commun.

[4] Dominique Pestre (2006), Introduction aux Science Studies, op. cit.

[5] Pauline Gandré, « Les sciences : un nouveau champ d'investigation pour les gender studies », Idées économiques et sociales, 2012/1 (N° 167), p. 52-58.