Social acceptability: a matter of participatory democracy? - ripco-online.com
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Call for papers
Social acceptability: a matter of participatory democracy?
Alice Friser
Université du Québec en Outaouais
Stéphanie Yates
Université du Québec à Montréal
In recent years, whether at the local, national or even international level, projects and decisions, both
private and public, seem to be increasingly contested (Gendron, 2014). In response to this
observation, the debate on social acceptability has emerged. Resulting from controversy, social
acceptability reflects people's judgments about policies or projects proposed by decision-makers and
promoters. Widely used by the latter without being proven, and at the same time very little stabilized
in the scientific field, the notion has caused much embarrassment (Boissonade et al., 2016). Several
researchers have since contributed to better defining it and making it a real management issue (Baba
and Raufflet, 2015; Batelier, 2015; Caron-Malenfant and Conraud, 2009; Gendron, 2014; Fortin and
Fournis, 2012 and 2013; Fortin, Fournis and Beaudry, 2013; Friser, 2019; Raufflet, 2014; Yates and
Caron 2012).
Today, it is considered that the popular judgment reflected in social acceptability depends on a
process of social construction through which alternatives are formulated in response to a given
situation (Gendron, 2014). But also that this judgment is dynamic and can be transformed according
to societal debates, issues and the evolution of the values it embodies (Gendron, 2014). From this
perspective, it becomes difficult to reduce social acceptability to the judicious management of a
project or the implementation of a policy at the time of its promotion or launch. For their projects to
be well received by societal actors, entrepreneurs must also acknowledge how they view progress.
Governments, for their part, can no longer simply mobilize the process of representative democracy.
Many decision-makers have understood this: for some time now, several of them have chosen, in
order to encourage greater community support, to use forums for societal dialogue in an increasingly
participatory democracy (Legros, 2019; INM, 2013; 2018). But these bodies, which we call
participatory bodies of intermediary democracy, have difficulty playing the role of peacemaker,
because they become places of debate where visions of the world confront each other, which will
ultimately have to be the subject of arbitration. To what extent can societal actors (State, promoters,
citizens and pressure groups) therefore build social acceptability in these dialogue forums with
opposing dynamics? Curiously, research on the subject is still limited.
The analysis of social acceptability remains fragmented between a territorial governance perspective
(Saucier et al., 2009; Fortin and Fournis, 2013; Fortin, Fournis and Beaudry, 2013; Raufflet, 2014),
and a more critical analysis of technoscientific controversies (Chateauraynaud, 2011; Raufflet and
Mailhot, 2016). The work developed in this context seeks either to circumscribe the concept of social
acceptability and its scope, or to understand which actors are involved and why in the issues of socialacceptability in times of controversy. The works in this second category seek to demystify the tension
between controversy (presented as the willingness of the groups concerned to participate in decision-
making) and social acceptability (understood as the management of "making acceptable"). But they
focus either on the roles that can be played in the trajectories of social acceptability by private actors
(large companies) or by public actors (governments).
To take the analysis of the dynamics of social acceptability further, we wish, in this special issue, to
stimulate discussions on the modalities of participatory democracy, the action of societal movements
and the vision of progress and the collective.
Our starting point is the idea that the social dynamic covered by the theme of social acceptability
concerns the new modalities of participation or control of projects and decisions of a public nature.
It involves transcending the traditional opposition between the private and the public to highlight
that both public and private actors take decisions that impact people's lives and have structuring
effects on social organization. They are therefore both public in nature. From this point of view, the
phenomena of opposition and conflict that the dynamics of social acceptability encompass can be
seen as new ways of taking part in public decisions, while the State's legislative body leaves little
space to discuss economic orientations and the concrete projects that result from them, and while the
executive power is invested with an economic rationalization that tends to disconnect it from the
aspirations of the populations that hope to be taken into account (Rosanvallon, 2006).
We invite articles adopting various theoretical and methodological approaches, both conceptual and
empirical, that will contribute to a better understanding of how societal debates and conflicts are
articulated when industrial projects and public policies are launched, and to assess the potential and
challenges of intermediary democratic bodies to build compromises that are projected in a vision of
the future of development.
Contributions that answer this description may, but are not limited to, address one or more of the
following questions:
What are the modalities of intermediary democracy bodies? And those of participatory democracy?
How does the public participation industry work? What social dynamics can be observed in public
debates? How to situate participatory democracy in relation to representative democracy? How do
intermediary democracy bodies present themselves in the field of participatory democracy? To what
extent does a multi-inter-trans-disciplinary approach lead to a better understanding of the instances
of intermediary democracy? What is the future of participatory democracy like? What is the potential
and what are the challenges for intermediary democratic bodies to build socially acceptable
compromises in the long term?
What is the role of past, present or future conflict, in building social acceptability? What are the
strategies and arguments used by promoters and decision-makers (science, social responsibility, etc.)
to build the social acceptability of their projects and decisions and with what results? How do
interactions between stakeholders evolve as decision-makers' debates and strategies are deployed?
How are societal debates and conflicts articulated when launching industrial projects and public
policies and what lessons can be learned to better understand social acceptability?
This special issue targets a very wide audience: researchers, social movements, citizens, companies
and public authorities. Questions of social acceptability are indeed attracting increasing interest from
2all these actors. Citizens, social movements and many researchers are concerned about the use of the
concept of social acceptability by companies and public authorities for commercial purposes.
Decision-makers, on the other hand, seek to carry out projects that will generate as little opposition
as possible and avoid controversy, which can harm them on several levels. In this sense, this issue
seeks to offer a contribution to the scholarly debate as well as a reflection that can enhance the
perspectives of civil society and the practices of decision-makers. Our objective is to highlight the
role of societal dialogue in building acceptable projects in order to help decision-makers include
societal expectations in their projects before they are even developed.
Tentative schedule
Authors are invited to submit an extended abstract of 1500 words by December 15.
Authors will receive feedback on their abstracts by January 15.
If their abstract is accepted, authors will have to submit their manuscript by March 15, 2020.
The manuscript is to be submitted on the RIPCO website: www.manuscriptmanager.net/ripco.
When submitting, do not forget to specify that the manuscript is intended for the special issue
« Special issue - L'acceptabilité sociale : une question de démocratie participative (Social
acceptability: a matter of participatory democracy) » in the drop-down menu « If the manuscript
is destinated to a Special Issue, please make a choice » on the page « Details ».
Authors will receive a feedback on their manuscript around May 15 2020 and notification of final
acceptance or refusal.
Based on comments received by mid-April, authors will be required to submit an improved
version of their manuscript by July 1st, 2020.
Authors will receive comments on the improved version of their manuscript around July 15,
2020.
Guest editors will submit the final version of the special issue to RIPCO on August 1st, 2020.
Authors with questions or preliminary proposals are encouraged to contact the guest editor by e-mail
(alice.friser@uqo.ca) indicating the title of the special issue in the subject line of their message.
Manuscripts must be between 6000 and 10,000 words and comply with the rules for presentation,
citations and references of the RIPCO journal, accessible from the website: http://www.ripco-
online.com/FR/soumission.asp
REFERENCES
Baba, S. & Raufflet, E. (2015). L’acceptabilité sociale : une notion en consolidation. Management
international / International Management / Gestiòn Internacional, 19(3), 98–114.
Batellier, P. (2015). « Acceptabilité sociale : cartographie d’une notion et de ses usages ». Cahier
de recherche. Montréal : Les Publications du Centr’ERE (Centre de recherche en éducation et
formation relatives à l’environnement et à l’écocitoyenneté), Université du Québec à Montréal.
3Boissonade, J. et al. (2016). Mettre à l’épreuve l’acceptabilité sociale, VertigO - la revue
électronique en sciences de l'environnement, 16(1-2),
Retrieved from: http://journals.openedition.org/vertigo/17163
Caron-Malenfant, J., & Conraud, T. (2009). Guide pratique de l’acceptabilité sociale: pistes de
réflexion et d’action. Montréal : Éditions D.P.R.M.
Chateauraynaud, F. (2011). Argumenter dans un champ de forces. Essai de balistique
sociologique. Paris : Editions Pétra.
Fortin, M.-J. (2012). L’acceptabilité sociale, qu’en savons-nous en 2012 ?, Forum sur
l’acceptabilité sociale, UQAT, Rouyn-Noranda.
Fortin, M. J., & Fournis, Y. (2013). Facteurs pour une analyse intégrée de l’acceptabilité sociale
selon une perspective de développement territorial: l’industrie du gaz de schiste au Québec. Etude
pour le comité d’évaluation environnementale stratégique, Rimouski, UQAR.
Fortin, M.-J., Fournis, Y., & Beaudry, R. (2013). Acceptabilité sociale, énergies et territoires : De
quelques exigences fortes pour l’action publique. Mémoire soumis à la Commission sur les enjeux
énergétiques du Québec, Rimouski, UQAR. Retrieved from:
http://consultationenergie.gouv.qc.ca/memoires/20131011417MarieJoseFortinM.pdf
Friser, A. (2019). « Éviter la controverse : un regard institutionnaliste sur les habiletés d’une
industrie proactive au Canada ». Doctoral dissertation, Université du Québec à Montréal.
Gendron, C. (2014). « Penser l’acceptabilité sociale : au-delà de l’intérêt, les
valeurs ». Communiquer, 11, 117-129.
Institut du Nouveau Monde (INM). (October, 2018). « La participation citoyenne renforce la
démocratie ». Le Devoir. Retrieved from:
https://www.ledevoir.com/societe/539230/texte-2-6-la-participation-citoyenne-renforce-la-
democratie
Institut du Nouveau Monde (INM). (2013). Étude sommaire sur les processus et les facteurs
d’acceptabilité sociale pour le secteur industriel.
Retrieved from: http://inm.qc.ca/blog/acceptabilite-sociale/ (Consulted on April, 15, 2016).
Legros. C. (2019, June 17). « La démocratie participative, un marché convoité ». Le Monde,
Retrieved from: https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2019/06/07/la-democratie-participative-
un-marche-convoite_5473030_3234.html
Raufflet, E. (2014). « De l’acceptabilité sociale au développement local résilient », VertigO - la
revue électronique en sciences de l'environnement [Online], 14(2). Retrieved from:
http://journals.openedition.org/vertigo/15139
Raufflet, E., & Mailhot, C. (dir). (2016). Controverse et acceptabilité sociale des projets de
développement économique. Éthique publique, 18(1) | Retrieved from:
https://journals.openedition.org/ethiquepublique/2368
4Rosanvallon, P. (2006). La contre-démocratie. La politique à l’âge de la défiance. Paris : Seuil.
Saucier, C. et al. (2009). Développement territorial et filière éolienne. Des installations éoliennes
socialement acceptables : élaboration d'un modèle d'évaluation des projets dans une perspective
de développement territorial durable, Unité de recherche sur le développement territorial durable
et la filière éolienne, rattachée au Centre de recherche sur le développement territorial (CRDT).
Rimouski : Université du Québec à Rimouski.
Yates, S., & Caron, M. (2012). La communication comme vecteur de l’acceptabilité sociale des
grands projets, Journal of Professional Communication, 2(2), 93-10.
5You can also read
