necessary” (Brunet 2011, p. 2). From then on, bringing together two worlds that ignore each other requires incentives and, in particular, the creation of an intermediation structure between science and industry.
I.2. The cooperation mechanism in a biocluster context: from concept to reality
Originating in the United States, the cluster concept has become a worldwide phenomenon. In France, it has been supported by public authorities through the creation of intermediation structures in charge of strengthening the relationship between science and industry.
I.2.1. The advent of structures for science and industry intermediation
The literature uses the term “hybrid organization” (Branciard 2009) or “hybrid organism” (Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz 2000)14. Very quickly, within institutional vocabulary, the term “incubator” has become a cornerstone of science–industry rapprochement policies (Shinn 2002, p. 28). Nevertheless, among these different terms and, in a sociological approach, that of “public intermediation structure”, Brunet pertinently evokes the intervention of these structures between (“inter”) two quite distinct worlds (Brunet 2011), in order to facilitate arbitration intended to reconcile them (“mediation”)15. Moreover, this name highlights the public character of these institutions.
These structures, which are generally financed by local and national governments, can be found in various forms (associations, mixed syndicates, mixed economy companies, etc.). Most were created in response to calls for projects from competitiveness clusters. However, some were created before, and in parallel with, these clusters. The latter are anchored in a regional framework, but there are other structures for which territoriality is defined on a conurbation or a department scale. Most operate with an accreditation policy to attract laboratories and companies. Once accreditation is obtained, the new member organization benefits from services offered by the cluster (preferential rents, access to specialized and shared equipment, a computer network, etc.). When local geographic clustering is carried out, most structures rely on the “total network” (Suire and Vicente 2014). The relational density between the three actors of science, industry and training, enabled by geographical proximity, is touted as a major condition for innovation. Nevertheless, many intermediation structures struggle to meet this objective and find themselves confronted with the following organizational difficulty: how to create cooperation when it does not occur spontaneously through geographical proximity. This question echoes sociological literature, which highlights the absence of spontaneous links between spatial proximity and social interaction, notably in the study of the politics of large urban areas (Chamboredon and Lemaire 1970). Work on clusters also emphasizes the relationship or otherwise between, for instance, geographic, organized and cognitive proximity (Talbot and Kirat 2005; Bouba-Olga and Grossetti 2010; Torre and Zuindeau 2012).
This was the problem encountered by Genopole, a life sciences biocluster located in Evry, in the Essonne region of France, the main field of investigation for this book, which is the result of a thesis in sociology funded by Industrial Agreements for Training through Research (Convention industrielle de formation par la recherche, CIFRE) and which reports on the results of an immersion survey conducted over three and a half years, between November 2013 and April 2017. Genopole is a cluster that has already been studied in the literature, particularly on the political, economic and social conditions of its creation and institutionalization, mainly in the work of Anne Branciard (1999a, 1999b, 2002, 2004, 2009), as well as of Ashveen Peerbaye, which sheds light on the instrumental arrangements put in place by the cluster (Peerbaye 2004). Genopole has also been the subject of a comparative analysis of the transformation of science into technoscience, based on the cases of Evry, Laval (Quebec) and San Diego (California) (Heil 2010). There is only one other study that deals with its interactional dimension in a comparative approach. The article in question focuses on the “social capital of entrepreneurs as an index of cluster emergence” in a “comparative analysis of the transformation of two bioparks into bioclusters: Kobe (Kansai, Japan) and Evry (Paris region, France)” (Lanciano-Morandat et al. 2009). In their conclusion, the authors state that, although they have their own national characteristics, neither the Kobe nor the Evry bioparks can be categorized as innovation clusters as defined in literature insofar as:
They are still only aggregates of diverse entities with episodic relationships between them; in short, partial clusters […]. Both parks are struggling to integrate the entire innovation process, which, as Porter suggests, is a condition for their constitution as clusters. In addition, both parks have the weight of the state in their constitutions in common, the role of certain institutions in their creation, and their location on sites that have neither a tradition nor particular resources in terms of innovation (Lanciano-Morandat et al. 2009, p. 200).
In addition to the fact that the authors rely on the definition proposed by Porter to identify, or not, the clustering process, the idea of transformation from biopark (geographical grouping) to biocluster (interactions) is also strongly present in management literature (Hamdouch 2007). These concerns are also at the heart of current biocluster issues. Indeed, considerable space is given to this subject in formal and informal discussions within the cluster, warning about the difficulties of mobilizing companies and laboratories for joint meetings.
I.2.2. From the cluster concept to its realization: between adoption and resistance
This book therefore rightly proposes to observe and report on the application of the cluster concept within a specific field. The aim is to revisit the construction of this public action mechanism, which seems to be unanimously accepted, at least in discourse on innovation policies, and to confront it with the dynamics of cooperation in one of these clusters. The purpose of the book is thus reminiscent of the study of the “editing work” of foreign examples (Sahlin and Wedlin 2008). This work consists, particularly in the field of science policy, of adapting a public action mechanism already implemented abroad to the context of another country, region, city, etc. The authors speak of operations of decontextualization and recontextualization of international policies in order to inscribe them into another national or local framework. The work of editing allows us to focus on the actors who construct and “edit” these foreign examples, and on the importance of the latter in the adoption of funding policies, in particular. Séverine Louvel and Mathieu Hubert have particularly shown the role of foreign examples in the implementation in France of nanoscience and nanotechnology steering (Louvel and Hubert 2016). In the same way, this book proposes to revisit the construction of the cluster concept on an international scale and to find out who the main authors and disseminators are. However, it also proposes to report on the reality experienced by those who work within these geographical clusters.
To do this, the second part of the book draws more on the literature on the sociology of work than the first part, which is mainly based on the sociology of science; effectively, how to impose a cooperation system on individuals who work for different employers (public laboratories, start-ups, SMEs, private laboratories, associations, etc.) and who, what is more, belong to two different social fields: scientific and economic. The field survey shows that these individual affiliations are often in contradiction with the cluster’s objective of promoting synergies. Recourse to the work of sociologists who have already highlighted this type of paradoxical injunction specific to modern management (Linhart 2010, 2015; de Gaulejac and Hanique 2015) or disembodied management (Dujarier 2015) has made it possible to study the effects of the networking system on the experience and practices of individuals in the context of the cluster.
I.2.3. An immersion survey: observing, interviewing and quantifying on a daily basis
This survey, which was carried out as part of a CIFRE sociology thesis, is based on a variety of empirical material and combines qualitative (semi-directive interviews, participant observation, documentary and archival
