CIST members, who are you?

Results of the survey directed to people who registered to the CIST scientific areas (2017)

The CIST wants to thank all those who accepted to dedicate some of their time to respond to its survey!

Survey context: transforming from a Scientific Interest Group to a Research Federation

This document synthesises the survey realised by the CIST from the 12th of January to the 17th of March 2017 among people who registered to one or more of the CIST’s 9 scientific areas (1), at the time the CIST changed statutes from Scientific Interest Group (GIS, since 2010) to Research Federation (FR, as of 1st January 2017). This survey aimed at better know the members of the CIST and their expectations, and was divided in three parts: the first concerning the respondents’ contribution within the CIST, the second his/her position towards territorial sciences, the third his/her professional occupation. After an invitation to contribute, there had been a number of reminders until the beginning of March.
Out of the 813 sent invitations, 418 people responded, among which 354 fully, representing 43,5%.
(1) L’inscription aux axes du CIST ne préjuge pas d’une activité réelle dans les axes ; elle correspond à une déclaration d’intérêt au travers d’un formulaire d’inscription en ligne.

Profile of CIST members

Respondents largely define themselves as university researcher, employed in a university, within a research unit member of the CIST, feeling close to social sciences, declaring geography as their working discipline and wanting to interact with sociology.

Mostly university researchers

The majority of respondents declare a statute of university researcher (158); globally, higher education and research represents over 3/4 of the answers (grouping together the following categories: university researcher, researcher, postdoc and PhD).

Statute of the respondents
(one answer)

How would you define yourself? (one answer)

The French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) as main employer together with numerous universities

For those who did precise this, universities are globally the main employer (192, among which 145 in France); separately, the main employer is the CNRS and pretty logically universities that are already CIST partners (left-hand group on the graph, which underlines the main employers).

Employing institution of the respondents
(one answer)

What is your employing institution? (one answer within the list of CIST partners + free field for “other”)

The main research units in the CIST

Les laboratoires membres du CIST concernent moins de la moitié  (44,8 %) des réponses. Il s’agit assez logiquement des plus gros laboratoires et/ou des franciliens (groupe de gauche sur le graphique, qui ne présente que les principaux : LADYSS, Géographie-cités, CITERES, IDEES, PRODIG).
For those who specified the entity when selecting “other”, we can find research units that are currently in the process of becoming CIST members (especially AE&CC and ESO).

Unit where respondents work
(one answer)

What unit do you work in? (one answer within the list of CIST partners + free field for “other”)

Distribution of the 158 respondents who are members of CIST units

The predominance of social sciences

Out of the 4 fields defined in the debate paper (Le territoire comme résultante lisible de processus complexes et comme ressource pour l’action) produced at the time of the 1st CIST international conference in 2011, respondents mainly feel closer to social sciences (291).

Territories interdisciplinarity
Research field respondents feel closer to
(one answer)

Territorial sciences lie at the crossroads of several fields of research.

Which of these four fields do you feel closer to? (one answer)

Social sciences disciplines account for the majority of answers about the respondents’ working discipline (72,6%) and the disciplines they want to interact with (63,3%).

Respondents’ disciplinary distribution
(at most 3 working disciplines + 3 disciplines with which to interact)

And, from a disciplinary point of view, could you specify:

  • on the one side, what are your working disciplines (3 at most)
  • on the other, what disciplines would you like to interact with (3 at most)
Interactions between disciplines cited by the respondents

Disciplines and interactions

Multidisciplinarity remains very relative in the CIST, which is largely dominated by

  • geography (266 answers, either as working discipline [199] or a discipline with which to interact [67]),
  • urban planning & development (171/103-68),
  • sociology (151/64-87),
  • environmental sciences (129/62-67).

Apart from the last one, interactions with the other three scientific fields are still stuttering. Among the 10 most cited disciplines (working discipline + interaction): Public health & epidemiology (82 citations), Ecology & environment (70) and Statistics (69).

Implication in CIST activities

Given that the subscription rather shows an interest than a real commitment in the life of CIST scientific areas, it is no surprise that only 54,2% of respondents declare their implication in CIST activities, mostly in events organised by within its scientific areas (71,4%) and in its international conferences and internal seminars (61,5%).
The limited involvement in the 10 research projects (past or in progress) of the CIST (11 respondents at most concerned by one project) can be explained by this type of actions which is not so open.

Respondents’ involvement in the CIST activities
(multiple answers possible)

Have you ever participated in CIST activities?
If so, what activities? (multiple answers possible)

Number of participation in international conferences and/or internal seminars

Number of participation in international conferences and/or internal seminars

Among those who declare having participated in international conferences and internal seminars, most actually participated in a unique event, 24% in 3 or more.

Getting involved in the CIST

In the 4 suggested priorities, the respondents mostly chose “Analysing” and “Theorising”.

Respondents’ interest for CIST priorities
(2 answers at most)

What CIST priorities interest you most?
(2 answers at most)

Activities in which respondents want to contribute to
(multiple answers possible)

As part of these four priorities, what types of activities would you like to contribute to? (multiple answers possible)

Number of activities respondents want to contribute to

Most respondents are interested in two activities.

Et apparemment aussi par les activités les plus ponctuelles, demandant moins d’investissement dans le temps.
Note: It is worth mentioning that 268 respondents declare they are willing to participate in CIST next international conference -Representing territories- which will take place in Rouen (France) on 22&23 March 2018.
[Appel à communications ouvert jusqu’au 14 septembre 2017]

Respondents’ interest for CIST scientific areas
(up to 3 answers)

What CIST scientific areas interest you most?
(jusqu’à 3 réponses)

The two main selected areas are Mobilities, identities and territories (46,3%) and Actions and territorialisations (42,4%).

Respondents’ interest for CIST international dimension
(open field)

Is the CIST international dimension important for you? If so, what countries or regions would you be interested in?
(open field)

85% of respondents value CIST international dimension… in a very European-centered way!

Suggestions of new scientific areas (open field).
The word cloud only represents the first 75 words.
Only 4 respondents cited /développement/

53 suggestions of other scientific areas!

15 % des répondant·e·s ont proposé la création de nouveaux axes scientifiques (pour la moitié il s’agit de personnes n’étant pas actives dans le CIST). Il semble impossible d’en tirer des conclusions, d’autant plus que les propositions apparaissent plus comme des projets individuels que réellement formulées dans l’intérêt scientifique d’une fédération comme le CIST.

In short…

This survey underlines the existence of weak links between the CIST and people who subscribed to its scientific areas, who are mostly scattered outside of the perimeter of its scientific units and in the end only lightly involved in its activities.
Les contributions libres apportent des orientations pour les missions qui ont été assignées aux membres du bureau (interdisciplinaire, international, acteurs), qui devraient s’affiner dans les mois à venir.
At last, within a stuttering interdisciplinarity (geography-urban planning), it nevertheless underlines promising perspectives as to the respondents’ commitment both on the types of actions and scientific areas, and on the fields of research.