For a Focused GERPISA-Agora

The last workshop of GERPISA's Fourth Colloquium in June 1996 focused on a debate relative to the very reason for GERPISA's existence, the expectations of its members, as well as on organizational forms. Giuseppe Volpato put forth the concept of GERPSIA-Agora to define the network's character, an international exchange forum wherein members receive as much as they give.

I agree with the concept of GERPISA-Agora, however I believe that members will obtain even more satisfaction from the network if it contributes and produces information which is unavailable elsewhere. In order for this to be the case, the network should set forth theoretical objectives (scientific objectives, problematics, theoretical fields), discussed and shared by its members. This convergence of efforts - which in this case could be the re-problematization or the re-writing of results from research carried out in another setting - is the major condition for efficient functioning of the network.

Hence, we may rediscover in our practice the efficiency of complex cooperation, a concept proposed by Marx relative to workers' labor and which can be observed in teamwork, in activities linked to product conception and procedures, or in relations between carmakers and suppliers. However, there is a trap which must be avoided : that of imprisoning members within a theoretical framework, in other words, to set them out on a path that they could not waver from without undergoing sanctions. This was not the case with the first program, and little points to it being the case during the second program : if, however, it should become so, I would be the first person to withdraw!

From a pragmatic standpoint, the functioning of GERPISA during the second program should take its inspiration from what went well in the first program, and possibly schematize this success. For reasons due to both analytical procedure and organizational functioning, the network should be built around three or four work groups; because of the complexity and multidimensionality of scientific objects, each group could divide itself into two to four sub-groups wherein most of the essential work will be carried out.

Each sub-group could have two exchange and encounter periods : an annual session (except in June) where all papers would be presented and discussed (the most difficult, as we all know, is to have the participation of researchers who live in the most far away places of Europe) and a permanent forum on Internet with a discussion around the most advanced papers.

Each group, in parallel, would dispose of four work sessions in June in Paris (out of the ten or twelve sessions), where necessarily selected papers would be discussed so as not to embark upon the traditional frantic chase. A general assembly devoted to each group would allow for a global exchange over its scientific object, and would inform the other GERPISA members of obtained results. An annual reunion of the International Secretary open to sub-group heads would allow for an evaluation on the state of progress of research and how to invigorate them.

In my opinion, this double activity - privileging the bottom up process and guaranteeing the network's cohesion by a top down coordination - contributes to maintaining the spirit of GERPISA-Agora all the while increasing scientific efficiency.

Index of number 105 ;
All the Debates in La Lettre du GERPISA ;
Available numbers ;
Information on this server.