155 research outputs found
Social Scientist On Board In Long-Term Management Of High Level And/Or Long-Lived Radioactive Waste In Belgium
In Belgium, the long-term management of radioactive waste is under the exclusive competence of the Belgian Agency for Radioactive Waste and Enriched Fissile Materials (knew as ONDRAF/NIRAS). Unlike low-level waste, no institutional policy has yet been formally approved for the long-term management of high level and/or long-lived radioactive waste (knew as B&C waste). In this context, ONDRAF/NIRAS considers the public and stakeholdersâ participation as an essential factor in the formulation of an effective and legitimate policy. This is why it has decided to integrate them in different ways during the elaboration of the Waste Plan (ONDRAF/NIRAS-document containing guidelines to make a principled policy decision about nuclear waste management). To do so, social scientists have been regularly mobilized either as external evaluators, follow-up committee members, or participatory observants. Hence, the Waste Plan is only the first step in a long decision-making process.
For a PhD student under contract with ONDRAF/NIRAS, this mandate consists of thinking out a way to construct an inter-organizational innovative communication system that would be participative, transparent and embedded in a long- term perspective, thus integrating all the further legal steps to take throughout the decision-making process. In this regard, two paradoxical constraints must be taken into account: on the one hand, my own influence on the legal decision-making process should remain limited, because of a series of constraints, lock-ins and previous decisions which have to be
respected; on the other hand, ONDRAF/NIRAS expects the research conclusions to be policy relevant and useful.
In this paper, the purpose is twofold. Firstly, the issues raised by this policy mandate is an opportunity to question the performative dimensions of the social scientist in the decision- making process and, more specifically, to have a reflexive view on our position as PhD Student. Secondly, assuming the role of âembarkedâ social scientist, numerous of answers will discuss to face the different dilemmas of the researcher âin actionâ. Those reflections follow on, among others, those from previous papers discussed in Quimper in April 2013 [1] and in Leuven in June 2013 [2].Peer reviewe
Gestion à long terme des déchets nucléaires belges moyennement et hautement radioactifs: Construire un dispositif communicationnel mais comment?
Aujourdâhui, personne ne remet plus en cause lâintĂ©gration dâune approche participative dans le processus de gestion des dĂ©chets moyennement et hautement radioactifs belges (de catĂ©gorie B&C). Cette dimension apparaĂźt indispensable compte tenu, dâune part, du consensus international et europĂ©en en la matiĂšre, et dâautre part, des Ă©cueils quâa dĂ©jĂ connu le programme belge de gestion des dĂ©chets faiblement radioactifs. Ce constat dâune nĂ©cessaire intĂ©gration de la dimension sociĂ©tale dans la problĂ©matique a nĂ©cessitĂ© la mobilisation dâun nouveau champ dâexpertise dans le champ des dĂ©chets radioactifs : celui des sciences sociales.
Mais comment le chercheur en sciences sociales a-t-il Ă©tĂ© mobilisĂ© ? Cette communication propose de retracer lâĂ©volution de lâengagement du chercheur en sciences sociales depuis le lancement des activitĂ©s participatives mises en place lors de lâĂ©laboration du programme de gestion jusquâĂ aujourdâhui. Dâune situation initiale qui attribuait un rĂŽle prĂ©dĂ©fini au chercheur, celui dâĂ©valuateur externe rĂ©agissant Ă la demande du commanditaire public, on est passĂ© Ă une relation plus Ă©troite, mais aussi plus ambivalente, de co-construction de connaissance entre le chercheur et lâONDRAF, devenu Ă la fois sujet et objet dâĂ©tude. Pour analyser ce changement de configuration, lâauteure adopte une dĂ©marche principalement inductive et pragmatique en partant de ses expĂ©riences empiriques menĂ©es au sein de lâorganisme de gestion des dĂ©chets radioactifs.
Lâauteure sâinscrit dans le cadre dâanalyse proposĂ© par Laurent and Van Oudheusden (2013 Ă paraitre) pour rendre compte du rĂŽle du chercheur dans le cadre des nanotechnologies. LâĂ©volution de la situation de chercheure en sciences sociales dĂ©crite ici sera ainsi dĂ©clinĂ©e sur les trois dimensions mises en Ă©vidence par les auteurs: la relation du chercheur en sciences sociales aux acteurs quâil Ă©tudie ; la pertinence politique de son travail ; enfin, les problĂšmes auxquels le chercheur doit faire face
No time to waste: Exploring timeprints of radioactive waste management options in Belgium
Following the work of Barbara Adam (1998) and Ulrike Felt (2016), we draw particular attention to 'timeprints' in the assessment and selection of radioactive waste management (RWM) options. Using the example of Belgium, we identify four different timeprints mobilized (un)consciously by stakeholders when assessing RWM options, namely trajectorism, promise economy, radioactive waste identity, and multi-situated timeprints. We show that each of these timeprints has a significant impact on the RWM option to be considered and actively determines future radioactive waste management pathways in the form of 'tacit governance'.In Anlehnung an die Arbeiten von Barbara Adam (1998) und Ulrike Felt (2016) legen wir besonderes Augenmerk auf die zeitlichen AblĂ€ufe bei der Bewertung und Auswahl von Optionen fĂŒr die Entsorgung radioaktiver AbfĂ€lle (radioactive waste management - RWM). Anhand des Beispiels Belgien identifizieren wir vier verschiedene 'timeprints', die von den Interessenvertretern bei der Bewertung von RWM-Optionen (un)bewusst eingesetzt werden, nĂ€mlich 'trajectorism', wirtschaftliche Versprechen, IdentitĂ€t radioaktiver AbfĂ€lle und 'multi-situated timeprints'. Wir zeigen auf, dass jede dieser 'timeprints' einen wesentlichen Einfluss auf die in Betracht zu ziehenden RWM-Optionen hat und die zukĂŒnftigen Entsorgungswege fĂŒr solche AbfĂ€lle in Form einer 'tacit governance' aktiv mitbestimmt
Citizens in the Wasteland: the Trouble with Radioactive Waste Management in Belgium
In Belgium, the long-term management of radioactive waste falls under the exclusive competence of the Belgian federal Agency for Radioactive Waste and Enriched Fissile Materials (ONDRAF). Contrary to the existing situation for low-level waste, no institutional policy has yet been formally approved for the long-term management of long-lived and high level waste. In this context, ONDRAF considers the public and stakeholdersâ participation and engagement as essential in the formulation of an effective and legitimate policy. This is why, over the past few years, it has decided to engage them in different ways (public dialogues, interdisciplinary conference, consensus conference, legal public consultation) to elaborate the âWaste Planâ, an ONDRAF-document containing guidelines to make a principled policy decision about nuclear waste management. To achieve âsuccessfulâ public participation exercises, social scientists have been regularly mobilized either as external evaluators, follow-up committee members, or participative observers. Our previous research on such public participation processes showed that little had been said as to how stakeholders and the âpublicâ have been mobilized by the Belgian Agency during the elaboration of the Waste Plan. How has the wider public opinion been integrated in the Waste Plan so far? To what extent could public participation and engagement redefine the internal debate within ONDRAF on the relevance and usefulness of such exercises for the long-term management of long-lived and high level waste? Based on official document analysis, semi-structured interviews and participatory observation, this paper explores how ONDRAF actually assesses the quality of public/stakeholders participation and how it makes use of it in its communication and management strategies
Gérer l'indésirable sur le long terme: déchets hautement radioactifs comme "expérimentation à ciel ouvert"
Exploring the maintenance of multiple infrastructural lives: the Nuclear Power Plant in Austria
peer reviewedEASST 2022 â Politics of technoscientific futures, Madrid July 6-9. Panel 069. The Times of Maintenance. Austria is a country well known for its strong opposition to nuclear energy, the political turning point of which came in 1978 with the national referendum that prevented the operation of the then newly built Zwentendorf nuclear power plant (NPP). Today the facility stands as a material symbol of a nuclear future that never materialized. Yet, this building complex composed of 1,000 rooms that were built up with up to three meters of steel-reinforced concrete is still maintained for several uses that accumulate over time (EVN 2022). In 2005, engineers transformed the plant and turbine halls into a training center for nuclear operation and prevention process and decommissioning practices. In 2009, the cables and the electricity distribution system were adapted to the production of solar energy. Some other parts of the plant have recently been converted into âanimal-friendly infrastructureâ (e.g., birds nest atop the exhaust stacks). Last but not least, Zwentendorf can also be rented out for artistic (filming, photography, music festivals) and private uses.
Based on official website analysis, virtual and on-site observations and semi-directive interviews with representatives of Zwentendorf maintainers and users, this article explores how the same infrastructure can live multiple lives incidentally, which are inscribed and overlapped in time and space. It highlights how Zwentendorfâs infrastructure concentrates practices of repair, maintenance, abandonment and repurposing (Schabacher 2021) and how it could be considered as an ânon-monotonicâ transformation process - where the dynamics in question unfold in more undulating (regular or messy) ways, through different episodes or loci of change (Cairns et al. 2021, 15).DĂ©clin banal des infrastructures nuclĂ©aires/ Mundane Decay of Nuclear Infrastructur
MĂ©thode « mobile » pour analyser les politiques dâamĂ©nagement du territoire? Le cas de la marche urbaine exploratoire.
Pour le politologue adepte des mĂ©thodes qualitatives, la mise en place des dispositifs de collecte de donnĂ©es se rĂ©vĂšle gĂ©nĂ©ralement statique, figĂ©e dans un lieu et une temporalitĂ© prĂ©cises. La personne interviewĂ©e de maniĂšre semi-directive ou non directive, individuellement ou collectivement, fait face Ă son facilitateur dans un lieu prompt Ă la discussion ou au dĂ©bat. Elle a acceptĂ© de se prĂȘter au jeu des questions/rĂ©ponses, selon le protocole prĂ©alablement Ă©tabli, pendant une ou plusieurs heures. Loin des rĂ©alitĂ©s Ă©phĂ©mĂšres, chaotiques, complexes, multiples que le chercheur vise Ă analyser et Ă©tudier, cette approche tend Ă©galement Ă figer spatiotemporellement un phĂ©nomĂšne social (Buscher, Urry, Witchger 2009).
Il sâinterroge : comment rendre compte de rĂ©alitĂ©s sociales mouvantes ? Avec quelles mĂ©thodes et pour quels avantages et quelles limites?
Pour ce faire, plus que dâinventer de nouvelles mĂ©thodes, ce papier sâintĂ©resse thĂ©oriquement au courant « mobile method » largement transdisciplinaire qui sâinspire des expĂ©riences mĂ©thodologiques issus de la gĂ©ographie, de lâurbanisme, dâanthropologie, de lâethnographie et des science and technology studies. Nous Ă©mettons lâhypothĂšse que ce courant mĂ©thodologique peut offrir de nouvelles directions aux mĂ©thodologies mobilisĂ©es en sciences politiques, dans lâanalyse de lâaction publique et de ses modalitĂ©s, en intĂ©grant de nouvelles dimensions sous-Ă©tudiĂ©es jusquâalors. Empiriquement, nous reviendrons de maniĂšre critique (voir Merriman 2014) sur un dispositif mĂ©thodologique qualitatif dit « mobile » dĂ©ployĂ© dans le cadre des politiques dâamĂ©nagement du territoire: la marche urbaine exploratoire. ExpĂ©rimentĂ©e Ă trois reprises en 2015, 2017 et 2019 Ă Bruxelles et Ă LiĂšge (Demblon 2017, Lemaire 2015, Parotte 2019) , nous verrons que ces marches proposent une autre forme de connexion au territoire (parfois dĂ©routante pour le chercheur autant que les participants) notamment au travers dâune analyse et dâune Ă©valuation multi-sensorielle de celui-ci
MĂ©thodologie et analyse des politiques publiques (pratique): "chercheurs en herbe"
Cette présentation donnée dans le cadre du cours IFRES a pour objectif de présenter le cours de méthodes et analyse des politiques publiques dispensés aux étudiants de deuxiÚme année de baccalauréat en sciences politiques par les Professeurs Madame François et Madame Fallon
Governing nuclear objects: our five challenges as ancestors
Voici les cinq dĂ©fis que nous autres, en tant qu'ancĂȘtres, nous devons gĂ©rer mais aussi lĂ©guer aux gĂ©nĂ©rations futures. Ces cinq dĂ©fis sont interreliĂ©s et concernent l'ensemble des pays nuclĂ©arisĂ©s et leurs pays limitrophes. Ils renvoient Ă quatre questions: 1. comment prendre en considĂ©ration l'histoire longue du nuclĂ©aire, 2. comment cadrer le problĂšme et l'objet Ă gĂ©rer?, 3. comment crĂ©er une volontĂ© et un intĂ©rĂȘt de se saisir de ces questions?, 4. Quand l'intĂ©rĂȘt est lĂ , qu'est-ce qui rassemble et/ou s'impose aux personnes qui se sentent concernĂ©es
- âŠ