2018 RESIPROC International Colloquium

What “practice” does to research in organizational communication

June 11 and 12, 2018

CNAM - Paris

In the field of organizational communication, researcher-practitioner relationships have been described by some as limited and difficult (Jeanneret & Ollivier, 2004 ; Brulois & Charpentier 2009). Indeed, Gryspeerdt (2004) goes so far as to describe these relationships using the terms “break,” “split,” “divide” and “tension.” A number of factors can be put forward to explain this situation, including institutional and societal legacies, differentiated spaces of legitimization, and distinct representations and postures. And yet, whether at the initiative of one side or the other, communicators and researchers do interact directly during gatherings, collaborative initiatives, observations and various actions. They also interact through the mediation of documents (academic journals and books, specialized press, textbooks, etc.), dedicated organizations (for example Anvie and Resiproc), and training or research structures (joint laboratories, industrial agreements geared toward research-based training, involved and action research, etc.), or events (colloquia, conferences, professional gatherings, etc.). These two sets of actors have distinct motivations. For practitioners, in many realms (ICT, change initiatives, decision-making processes, strategic communication, etc.), research can help achieve critical distance from everyday work, step outside immediate short-term demands, gain perspective on productions, or, from a performance standpoint, transform theories and analysis into operational knowledge in order to ultimately “construct” activities. For researchers, access to the field can be necessary in order to survey practices, to test out theories and concepts, to confront theory with practical knowledge, or to conduct experiments. Beyond bringing recognition to researchers’ work, initiatives undertaken in the context of professional associations or professionalizing sectors can support the development and recognition of occupations. Finally, over and beyond the securing of remuneration to meet the financial needs of laboratories and researchers, efforts in the context of applied and action research can lead to the production of academic texts, ultimately contributing to the recognition of their authors.

In a globalized environment where innovation is presented as one of the keys to economic success, various structures are being implemented in most industrialized countries in order to place greater economic value on the results of public research and technology transfer. Given that laboratory funding now largely relies on calls to tender and projects that draw on a mix of private and public resources, partnership-based research is on the rise. Communicator-researcher interactions are therefore likely to continue to intensify. Importantly, these interactions appear both as birthplaces of new knowledge and potential problem areas for science, including reductionism, confusion, instrumentalization, commodification and the temptation of economism. Hence, examining the links between theory and practice is more than ever indispensable (Morillon, 2016). The next international colloquium of Resiproc—an international network that gathers together researchers and communicators to study their professionalization and the evolution of associated practices—will put special emphasis on these interactions by addressing four topical areas.

Area 1 – From epistemological tensions to agreements

Interactions are first and foremost an encounter between different worldviews. Whereas researchers in organizational communication seem to favour interactionism and constructivism by adopting comprehensive, distanced and even critical approaches (Aldebert, Morillon, 2012), communicators instead opt for technical-practical models that fall under a positivist epistemology. This area calls for an examination of the epistemological postures that are adopted and the associated phenomena involved when researchers and practitioners interact. It also provides an occasion to reflect on the opportunity of an epistemological mix that might help develop complex thinking in order to characterize the many patterns of postmodern organization (Morin, 1990). Models, which inherently hold the potential to play a mediating role between theories and social practices (Le Moigne, 1987), may offer a common basis for the researchers who produce them and the practitioners who wish to conceptualize rationales (Le Moënne, 2006).

Which epistemological postures are adopted, and what associated phenomena are involved, when researchers and practitioners interact? How do these postures (potentially or actually) evolve during or subsequent to these interactions? Do some practices, models or concepts exist that might address the preoccupations of research and practice? Is it possible to envision a nomadism of models or concepts—i.e., their potential mobility between disciplines, fields and worlds—and if so, under what conditions? Does the application of research, with the goal of transforming organizations, escape neo-functionalism?

Area 2 - When science is mobilized by communicators

Generally speaking, communicators orient their actions from the standpoint of the ideas that drive their practice, and seek to optimize the efficiency of their actions. To develop new systems that would enable them to better contain the uncertainties of real-life conditions, some turn to the research and findings of various sciences. Psychology, psychosociology, neurophysiology, management science and information and communication sciences may all be called upon or used to help communicators create new operant conditioning within environments characterized by causal constraints. In this instrumental quest, scientific findings and models may be “poached” (De Certeau, 1980), simplified, “patched together” (Lévi-Strauss, 1962) and in some cases hijacked (Carayol, Gramaccia, 2006). Jeanneret and Patrin-Leclère (2004), for example, point to the instrumentalization of Ghiglione’s metaphor of the communicative contract.

How are communicators actually using scientific concepts and models? Are these scientific elements being enriched or, conversely, simplified? Do they originate from information and communication sciences or primarily from application-focused scientific fields such as marketing and management which fall under management science (Lépine, Martin-Juchat, Fourrier, 2014 ; Brulois, Charpentier, 2013)? Are they actually used in professional practice or they essentially mobilized to help develop arguments for productions? What poaching, patching-together, hijacking and instrumentalization may potentially be taking place?

Area 3 – Compromises during involved, applied and action research

The organization, situated as it is at the heart of structural evolutions and practical and relational challenges, is a constrained and constraining context. Importantly, most involved, applied and action research induces inter-belonging between the scientific process and the entity observed. During research, tension arises between researchers’ engagement with and distancing from the subjects, the research topic, and the sponsors/practitioners involved (Bézille, Vicente, 1996). As such, whether before or during research, and even in terms of the deliverables, scientists must balance sometimes opposed interests and requirements. In their pursuit of a balance between issues specific to research and action, certain compromises may open them up to potential conflicts of interest and risks of censorship and/or instrumentalization. Some scientific and praxeological choices are not without consequences for implementation, results, and scientists’ integrity and their capacity for engaging in collective action.

In the context of involved, applied or action research, to what extent is the researcher genuinely independent? Does economistic temptation limit scientists’ independence and/or the academic legitimacy of their work (Heller, 1998)? What compromises are made and which implicit or explicit conditions negotiated in order to guarantee scientific validity? Which influences shape their working conditions (access to the field, experience, results and economic production)?

Area 4 - The ethics of involved researchers

Finally, the working conditions for research mentioned in the first three areas raise the question of the status and ethics of researchers, the issues raised by and societal use of their research, and their moral responsibility. Research as a social practice indeed introduces scientists into a sometimes contractual relationship that confronts them with ethical choices bringing into play their responsibility and, potentially, the legitimacy of their academic community. During their research, especially when it is applied, researchers are engaged in accordance with their status as researchers as well as practitioners and citizens (Bézille, Vicente, 1996). In the field of organizational communication, although researchers can rarely be accused of deliberate malice, one might ask whether they may at times encroach on the liberties of or “assume power over” others, particularly in the most applied research. From an ideologically and politically critical posture, communication can be considered to be symbolically hijacked in organizations and circumscribed to persuasion (Dacheux, 2001). As an instrument of manipulation, communication would become a means for creating “mass loyalty” (Habermas, 1978) as a way to achieve competitiveness and economic and administrative efficiency.

In a context where research sparks short, medium or long-term changes in practices, should science serve organizational interests? What are the duties of researchers, and what is the real scope of their work? Should research activities be guided by moral and democratic preoccupations, and avoid in any way contributing to a monopolization or spoliation of communication (Jeanneret & Ollivier, 2004)? To what extent can scientists’ engagement condone political choices that do not come under scientific criteria? What should scientists’ values and modes of engagement be at the heart of the action? On the flip side, might researchers and practitioners pursue a joint ethical reflection, leading to evolutions in praxis in each sphere, but also within their interaction modes?

Anticipated papers and the submission procedure

Paper proposals must be presented either as a reflective analysis based on recent and completed empirical research, or as analysis of professional practices in communication (accounts of practices and reflections on the conditions of action, along with associated justifications and influences). In either case, papers must address one of the four above-described areas.

Paper proposals must be submitted to the coordinators before Wednesday, February 28, 2018 electronically, in Word (.docx) or PDF (.pdf) format. Each proposal must contain a maximum of 5,000 characters, including spaces but excluding the bibliography. The proposal must specify the area addressed and, for each author, name, status, organization and contact information (electronic and mailing addresses).

Proposals are to be sent in to the following coordinators:

Laurent Morillon – Université de Toulouse, France: laurent.morillon@univ-tlse3.fr

Marie-Eve Carignan – Université de Sherbrooke, Canada: marie-eve.carignan@usherbrooke.ca

Sylvie Alemanno – CNAM Paris, France: sylvie.alemanno@gmail.com

After the colloquium, the participants will be invited to submit an original article to the journal Communication et Professionnalisation (Presses de l’Université de Louvain). This article will be subject to a double-blind review. An issue discussing the influences of practice on research in organizational communication is planned for the first half of 2019.

The colloquium will be held on June 11–12, 2018 in Paris immediately preceding the XXIst conference of the Société Française des Sciences de l’Information et de la Communication (FSIC). The event will include plenary sessions, roundtables and presentations featuring the different viewpoints of researchers and communicators.

Members of the Coordinating Committee

Abderrahmane Amsidder, Université d’Agadir Ibn Zohr, Agadir  

Nicolas Bencherki, Université Teluq du Québec

Jean-Luc Bouillon, Université de Rennes 2

Patrice de la Broise, Université Lille 3 Charles de Gaulle

Vincent Brulois, Université Paris 13

Andrea Catellani, Université Catholique de Louvain

Didier Chauvin, Université de Rennes 2

Alexandre Coutant, Université du Québec à Montréal

Jean-Claude Domenget, Université de Franche-Comté

Amaia Errecart, LabSIC, Université Paris 13 – Sorbonne Paris Cité

Olivier Galibert, Université de Dijon

Elizabeth Gardère, Université de Bordeaux

François Lambotte, Université Catholique de Louvain

Valérie Lépine, Université Grenoble Alpes

Elise Maas, IHECS Bruxelles

Fabienne Martin-Juchat, Université Grenoble Alpes

Jean-Luc Moriceau, Institut Mines-Telecom/Telecom École de Management

Bernard Motulsky, Université du Québec à Montréal

Daniel Robichaud, Université de Montréal

Sandrine Roginsky, Université Catholique de Louvain

        Registration and fees:       

        The 2018 RESIPROC colloquium will be hosted at CNAM, in Paris. Registration fees, including coffee breaks and lunches for both days, are 100 EUR for professor-researchers and professionals, and 50 EUR for doctoral students.

        The conference is supported by the  (EA 7339) and  (EA 827) laboratories.

It also benefits from the support of the Société Française des Sciences de l’Information et de la Communication (SFSIC).      

        About RESIPROC

        The purpose of the Réseau International sur la Professionnalisation des Communicateurs (RESIPROC) is to rally together communication professionals, whether from the world of business or teaching and research, around the project of studying professionalization for occupations and the functions of communication. The network was founded in May 2011 at the initiative of Belgian (Louvain), Canadian (Sherbrooke) and French (Grenoble 2, Lille 3 and Paris 13) researchers who shared this common idea. The network proceeded to draw up a work programme (mapping, surveys and seminars) and presented its analyses in the context of university colloquia (Roubaix, 2012) and professional gatherings with practitioners (Afci, 2013), before organizing international colloquia (Sherbrooke, 2011, Quebec City, 2013, Brussels, 2014, Longueuil, 2015, Agadir, 2016, Montreal, 2017, Paris, 2018) and seminars (Grenoble, 2014) in addition to developing a publishing project (the journal Communication & professionnalisation). Over the course of the different colloquia, a thread was woven as the network developed. At the first colloquium, held in 2011 in Sherbrooke, the observation that new fields were emerging in communication practices led the network to focus on the structuring of these fields. The following year, in Roubaix, the ICA and GERIICO colloquia on standards were embraced as an opportunity to examine the positioning and discourse of professional associations in communication. In 2013, in Quebec City, the network’s gaze turned to training and once more raised the question of the fundamental common and specialized skills required in communication occupations. In fall 2014 in Brussels, the debate was on digital technology and how it calls for a rethink of both internal and external communication practices. In spring 2015, in Longueuil, the network analyzed the evolution of information and communication occupations: between breaks and continuities, prescription and liberation. In the spring of 2016, in Agadir, Morocco, the topic was ethics and conduct in communicators’ professions. And finally, in May 2017 in Montreal, attention was brought to the profession’s unusual journeys and pursuit of status.             

                        By exploring five angles, namely the structuring of the professional field, associations, training, digital technologies, and tensions and dynamics of evolution, the network has built up a close dialogue between communication professionals from two different yet complementary worlds that are both involved in the dynamics of professionalization. The network helps lay down bridges between the academic and business worlds as well as foster a constructive conversation around the various processes leading to professionalization. To do so, the network seeks to shed light on occupations, representative organizations and training, as well as to take an interest in individuals (profiles, professional paths, visions and expectations). The intent is to ponder standards in communication (what is “successful” communication, and based on which criteria might it be assessed?) and to grasp how forms are being shaken up as a result of constant technological innovations. The network also aims to create a corpus of knowledge and experience, but also to identify expertise and interpersonal skills, understanding how they evolve in step with social and organizational transformations. Underlying this dynamic is the conviction that our knowledge on specialized actors, occupations, the professionalization and institutionalization of occupational positions, and reflective questioning on educational engineering practices must be developed in the context of a collective, international and mutual initiative.                

                        To stay apprised of RESIPROC news: www.resiproc.org                    

                        References cited in the call for paper

Aldebert B., Morillon L. (2012), Communication des organisations : comparaison des approches scientifiques en gestion et en communication, RIHM, Vol. 13, n° 2, (numéro spécial), p. 59-77, en ligne : http://europia.org/RIHM/V13N2/4-RIHM13(2)-Aldebert.pdf

Alemanno S. (dir.) (2015), Communication organisationnelle, Management et Numérique, Paris, L’Harmattan

Alemanno S. (2016), La communication organisationnelle et numérique : formation en mutation, profession en construction, Les Cahiers du Resiproc, Presses Universitaires de Louvain, n°3, p.182-202

Bézille H., Vicente M. (1996), La recherche en train de se faire : entre rigueur et compromis, in Feldman J., Filloux J.-C., Lécuyer B.-P., Selz M., Vicente M., Ethique, épistémologie et sciences de l’homme, Paris, L’Harmattan

Brulois V., Charpentier J.-M. (2009),  La dimension communicationnelle au cœur du social, Colloque Nouvelles tendances en communication organisationnelle, 77^e Congrès de l’ACFAS, Université d’Ottawa, 14-15 mai, en ligne : www.arts.uottawa.ca/grico/fra/Brulois_ACFAS_2009.pdf

Brulois  V. et Charpentier J-M. (2013), Refonder la communication en entreprise, Paris, fyp éditions

Carayol V., Gramaccia G. (2006), Modèles et modélisations, pour quels usages, Communication et organisation, n° 30, p. 7-10

Certeau (de) M. (1980), L’invention du quotidien. 1. Arts de faire, Paris, Gallimard

Dacheux E. (2001), Étudier le marketing à la lumière de la communication, L’année sociologique, 51, n° 2, p. 411-427, en ligne : www.cairn.info/zen.php?ID_ARTICLE=ANSO_012_0412

Gryspeerdt A. (2004), Relations publiques et recherche en communication, Hermès, n° 38, en ligne : www.cairn.info/zen.php?ID_ARTICLE=HERM_038_0148

Habermas J. (1978), L’Espace public, Paris, Payot

Heller T. (1998), Le chercheur face à la communication d’entreprise, in Le Moënne C. (coord.), Communications d’entreprises et d’organisations, Rennes, Presses universitaires de Rennes, p. 13-26

Jeanneret Y., Ollivier B. (2004), Faire des Sic : praxis, méthodes, pratiques, Hermès, n° 38, en ligne : http://hdl.handle.net/2042/9437

Jeanneret Y., Patrin-Leclère V. (2004), La métaphore du contrat, Hermès, n° 38, en ligne : www.cairn.info/revue-hermes-la-revue-2004-1-page-133.htm

Le Moënne C. (2006), Quelques remarques sur la portée et les limites des modèles de communication organisationnelle, Communication et organisation, n° 30, p. 48-76, en ligne : https://communicationorganisation.revues.org/3449

Le Moigne J.-L. (1987), Qu’est-ce qu’un modèle ?, Confrontations psychiatriques, numéro spécial, en ligne : http://archive.mcxapc.org/docs/ateliers/lemoign2.pdf

Lépine V., Martin Juchat F., Fourrier C. (2014) Acteurs de la communication des entreprises et organisations : pratiques et perspectives, Grenoble, Presses universitaires de Grenoble

Lévi-Strauss C., (1962), La Pensée sauvage, Paris, Éditions Plon

Morillon L., (2016), Quand chercheurs et praticiens interagissent. Une mise en rapport dialogique de l’épistémè et de la praxis en communication des organisations-organisationnelle, Habilitation à diriger des recherches en sciences de l’information et de la communication. Université de Toulouse

Morin E. (1990), Introduction à la pensée complexe, Paris, Éditions ESF