Research focus 1: Social mechanisms and rationality of the actor

Responsable
Gianluca Manzo

Over the course of the last twenty or so years, an abundant literature has emerged on the concept of mechanism within the philosophy of science, political science, and sociology. Debates have taken place around several concepts: first, around epistemology (what is the nature of explanation by mechanisms?); second, around theory (which theory of action brings us the furthest in understanding social mechanisms?); and last, around methodology (what are the most appropriate methods for applying explanations framed in terms of mechanisms?).

These debates are also striking due to the variety of theoretical views that interest the researchers active in this literature, who deliberate together on the definition of the word “mechanism”: pragmatists, cultural sociologists, rational choice theorists, and analytical sociologists are all present in the discussion. The same goes for methods: promoters of computer simulation, defenders of the experimental approach, and, on the qualitative side, researchers working in the perspective known as “process tracing,” all try to make the notion of mechanism operational for empirical research.

Starting from an open definition—according to which a mechanism is a structured set of constrained actions and interactions which, under specific conditions, regularly generates a given macroscopic result— the work carried out by GEMASS aims to contribute to these debates around the concept of mechanism simultaneously on the levels of epistemology, theory, and methodology. On the epistemological level, the question of causality and models is at the heart of our concerns; on the theoretical level, we give a central place to reflection on the theory of action and social interactions; and with reference to methodology, the use of advanced statistical methods as well as innovative approaches such as computer simulation and big data analysis techniques are of particular interest to us. One unique characteristic of the laboratory is to couple theoretical reflection with empirical research, often from an interdisciplinary perspective, by collaborating in particular with physicists, computer scientists, and economists, so as to advance the perspective of generating mechanisms by applying it to targeted research objects rather than being confined to metatheoretical reflexivity.

---

Note : The Seminar on the analysis of Social Processes and Structures (SPS) is related to this research focus.
2018–2019 syllabus and description
2017–2018 syllabus and description
2016–2017 syllabus

Research focus area 2: Science and cognition

Supervisor
Michel Dubois

Many recent—and often spectacular—scientific and technological developments have a connection to the social sciences in general, and sociology in particular, on the level of at least three topics of research in the “Sciences and cognition” focus area.

First, these developments call for renewed sociological analysis of the logics which currently govern their organization, their financing, the production of their discourse, as well as the mechanisms of their reception in the “general public” and their connection to common knowledge. On a theoretical and methodological level, the work carried out around this topic adopts a “medium range” approach to the sociological analysis of science, which is distinguished from micro-centered approaches as well as from global visions in the study of science.

Second, this spectacular development of science and technology also has direct social consequences—particularly where nuclear power and biotechnology are concerned. The work carried out on this topic is therefore intended to be extended into research on environmental questions (for example, the effects of nuclear power, the theory of eco-cultural systems, and the future of threatened forests) as well as on the question of risk.

Third, the development of the life sciences—more specifically, of the cognitive sciences and their stated ambitions (often considered “hegemonic”) with regard to social sciences—constitute a major challenge for the social sciences. It is a question here of showing, beyond sharp epistemological oppositions, that it is possible to articulate views developed in the social sciences with certain views developed in cognitive sciences without mutual reductions, provided that sufficient attention is paid to a crucial mechanism largely neglected by the social sciences, as a result of their often internal and decontextualized conception of cognition: “social interaction.” The objective here, as before, is to conduct this research by closely combining empirical inquiry—in particular on human/animal interaction, cultural evolution, and collective beliefs—with theoretical reflection, while striving to implement effective interdisciplinarity.

Research focus area 3: Norms and economic sociology

Supervisor
Pierre-Marie Chauvin

The “Norms and economic sociology” focus area endeavors to deepen the analysis of contemporary economic functioning in three main areas: the role of norms in the functioning of economic life, the functioning of markets, and non-market exchanges.

Both economic sociology and institutional economics have insisted on the importance of the rules of organization of economic life. The justification of these rules remains, to a large extent, unexamined. We explore it from two points of view: one, based on the economic literature, is to study the normative positions of economists vis-à-vis the rules governing economic life, beyond the notion of Pareto optimality (and its variants). The problem of negative externalities is also addressed in order to show that it goes beyond strictly economic considerations. The other point of view is interested in more “ordinary” judgments on the norms to be adopted with regard to economic life (in particular from surveys on the subject).

The functioning of markets is an important point in current economic sociology. A book on the sociology of reputation is underway, seeking to identify the forms that reputations take in contemporary markets, as well as their causes and effects. The objective is to compare the economic literature on reputation with other fields for which reputation is relevant (in particular the worlds of art, politics, and education). Do the reputations of banks, brands, or individuals follow the same logic of formation, preservation, and possibly “crisis”? Is the question of “e-reputation” in the process of renewing traditional issues of “offline” reputation? The sociology of markets is also applied to digital media through the issues of handling (personal) data and the conditions of its economic valuation.

Lastly, the functioning of markets is examined on the basis of the methods of matching supply and demand. Reflection on this question is organized around a “sociology of matching” research group, aimed at pooling expertise on a wide range of matching methods (centralized or decentralized, algorithmic or by human decision), in various markets (particularly the labor market) and various non-market areas (organ transplants, prisons, healthcare, schools, dating sites, etc.). The project is planned for a period of three years and is expected to lead to a joint publication. In addition, first contacts have been made with Brazilian colleagues from the University of São Paulo to initiate an international research project on matching practices that goes beyond the market/non-market distinction.