Communication intention > Conference theme

Conference theme

«Knowledge and Intelligences of Public Action in Times of Transition»

At a time when societal uncertainties (environmental, health-related, technological, economic, etc.) are proliferating on all sides (Bartoli, 2024), raising the question of the knowledge and intelligences of public action, in an academic context, could appear as a form of mistrust toward the role traditionally assigned to universities. Yet, is not a healthy stance of rational doubt—as a scientific method—precisely the very essence to be cultivated in such an environment? This generic posture of doubt calls for a fundamental inquiry into what and how to construct, mobilize, and transmit in terms of knowledge and intelligences within a “society of uncertainty” (Hansson, 2002). Within this framework, public management must broaden its focus by integrating a political analysis (Arendt, 1961), in order to question how to mobilize, protect, and organize the knowledge and intelligences of society itself, with the aim of revitalizing democratic debate and supporting public action. 

The prospect of a post-truth era implies that knowledge must be debated, compared, invalidated, or contested through processes that are not only scientific but also involve legitimation, and at times, manipulation. Knowledge—whether in the fields of public action, productive or democratic processes, or more broadly in the social sphere—is now being challenged from its very production to its dissemination, implementation, and evaluation. This invites us not to overlook the question of the stakeholders, actors, and intelligences that enable such knowledge to be assembled, assessed, and mobilized in action, with a view toward adaptation and anticipation (March, 2006). These actors extend beyond conventional understandings to encompass animate and inanimate, individual and collective entities (Horvath & Dechamp, 2016).

 A wide range of questions is therefore opening up for the public management community.

 The first concerns the different facets of knowledge. Its expression as data, information, and knowledge—although it sparks debates at the crossroads of scientific disciplines (Bolisani & Bratianu, 2017)—raises many issues. How will the massification of data influence information and, in turn, public decision-making? To what extent are public organizations currently prepared to collect, process, and use increasingly diverse forms of data? What accelerators and barriers shape the path of Big Data in the public sector? Taking smart cities as an example, we may ask how these new systems affect both public and democratic innovation (Côme et al., 2018). Do the resulting flows of information foster the cross-sector collaboration required between public actors, private stakeholders, and civil society, while still respecting General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) safeguards? How will organizations overcome barriers to the use of data so that it becomes information capable of enlightening public action? Finally, how can scientific and non-scientific knowledge be integrated and brought into dialogue in the formulation of public policies and in broader societal debates (Hernandez & Turc, 2021)? This will likely involve rethinking the governance of non-political institutions that underpin and nourish public debate (Du Boys & Soldo, 2024). How can innovative mechanisms be designed to support renewed collaborative governance with citizens (Nabatchi et al., 2017)?

 The second area relates to the processes of elaborating, reshaping, and using knowledge by the active intelligences that mobilize it in decision-making and the production of public action. Given the complexity of current situations, actors’ reflexivity appears essential to putting knowledge into practice (Mériade & Mainetti, 2013). Should public sector organizations focus more on recruiting and cultivating intelligences and talents capable of creativity, or on mobilizing scientific and technological expertise? Should these intelligences be structured as collective competences (Brulhart et al., 2019), or as a form of collective intelligence? Does the latter operate only at the organizational level, or is it also effective at the scale of territories and their governance (Janin, 2024)? What about non-human intelligences (Dejoux & Gréselle-Zaïbet, 2021)? What ethical questions do they raise within organizations and in relation to users? Does the relationship between AI and public data meet the accountability requirements to which public services and action must adhere? Furthermore, in line with actor-network theory, can AI be integrated into the collective intelligence developed by a service or organization?

More broadly, public management is concerned with the creation of knowledge for all forms of collective or more loosely organized action (Bartoli & Hermel, 2024), as long as the general or collective interest demands it. Building on the previous lines of questioning, researchers and public decision-makers must reflect on the training and preparation of future public sector actors. In light of crises, transitions, and recent technological developments, does the training of public managers require a paradigm shift? Since every paradigm shift entails a migration of knowledge, how can the dialectic of unlearning and relearning be orchestrated? How should we deal with the discomfort of temporary or transitional knowledge? The integration of AI into public organizations is disrupting modes of reasoning, creating risks of fragmented thinking (Bertolucci, 2023), and placing additional burdens on both individual and collective responsibility. How will public actors interact with these tools that are supposed to “augment” them? Given their rapid evolution, how can continuous adaptation of competences be ensured? These questions in turn raise issues regarding our modes of teaching and training. How should learning processes be adapted to these technological evolutions?

In a world in transition, research on the mechanisms and governance of knowledge must be encouraged in order to foster resilient public action and the creation of public value. The 2026 edition of the AIRMAP Conference will aim to shed light on these different lines of inquiry.

SELECTIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arendt, H. (1961). Condition de l’homme moderne. Calmann-Lévy.

Bartoli, A. (2024). Quelles adaptations du management public face aux défis sanitaires, environnemen-taux et psychosociaux ? Gestion et Management Public. 12(1) : 6-8. https://doi.org/10.3917/gmp.121.0006

Bartoli, A., & Hermel, P. (2024). La discipline des sciences de gestion et du management : autonomie, identité et ancrages. Gestion et Management Public. 12(HS1) : 13-22. https://doi.org/10.3917/gmp.hs1.0013

Bertolucci, M. (2023). L’Homme diminué par l’IA. Hermann. https://shs-cairn-info.lama.univ-amu.fr/l-homme-diminue-par-l-ia--9791037031570?lang=fr 

Bolisani, E., & Bratianu, C. (2017). The elusive definition of knowledge. In Emergent knowledge strategies: Strategic thinking in knowledge management (pp. 1-22). Cham: Springer International Publis-hing.

Brulhart, F., Favoreu, C. & Loufrani-Fedida, S. (2019). L’influence de la compétence collective sur la performance d’équipe : analyse du rôle modérateur du leadership partagé et du coaching. Management International. 23(4): 149-164. https://doi.org/10.7202/1066076ar

Côme, T., Magne, S. & Steyer, A. (2018). Être ou ne pas être une smart city : une étude empirique des innovations valorisées sur le site web des villes. Gestion et Management Public. 7(2): 73-101. https://doi.org/10.3917/gmp.072.0073

Dejoux, C. & Gréselle-Zaïbet, O. (2021). Introduction au Cahier « Intelligence Artificielle et Intelligence Collective : quels nouveaux cadres, défis et pratiques pour la fonction RH et le DRH ? ». Revue Management & Avenir. 122: 115-119. https://doi.org/10.3917/mav.122.0115 

Du Boys, C., & Soldo, E. (2024). Le Budget Participatif : Analyse des facteurs organisationnels de l’effectivité d’un dispositif à la mode. Management International, Publication anticipée :1-34. https://doi.org/10.59876/a-rjjp-1c0n 

Hansson, S.-O. (2002). Les incertitudes de la société du savoir. Revue Internationale des Sciences So-ciales. 171(1): 43-51. https://doi.org/10.3917/riss.171.0043 

Hernandez, S. & Turc, E. (2021). Charles Lindblom. L’aspiration démocratique d’un iconoclaste. In Chatelain-Ponroy S., Gibert P., Rival M. & Burlaud A., Les grands auteurs en management public. Éditions EMS, Paris, 95-103.

Horvath, I. & Dechamp, G. (2016). Quand les pouvoirs publics favorisent la proximité pour stimuler la créativité du territoire. Gestion et Management Public. 4(2): 139-157. https://doi.org/10.3917/gmp.044.0139 

Janin, C. (2024). Intelligence collective : Enseignements de sa mise à l’épreuve dans des territoires de Rhône-Alpes. Revue d’Économie Régionale & Urbaine. Publication anticipée : 5n-23n. https://doi.org/10.3917/reru.pr1.0065 

March, J. G. (2006). Rationality, foolishness, and adaptive intelligence. Strategic Management Journal. 27(3), 201-214. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.515 

Mériade, L., & Mainetti, N. (2013). La réflexivité des acteurs face à la complexité des organisations pu-bliques : un levier interactif de contrôle de la performance universitaire ? Gestion et Management Public, 13(1) : 3-23. https://doi.org/10.3917/gmp.003.0003 

Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A., & Sicilia., M. (2017). Varieties of Participation in Public Services: The Who, When, and What of Coproduction. Public Administration Review. 77(5): 766-776. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12765 

 SUBMISSION TERMS AND CONDITIONS