Réalisé en association avec le Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologie (CIRST). / Inspirée par les débats portant sur la typologie de la recherche proposée par Michael Burawoy (2005b) et fondée sur une analyse qualitative de vingt-cinq entrevues auprès de professeurs en histoire, en économie et en sociologie, notre investigation a comme but d’identifier et de décrire l’organisation sociale du sens de la recherche en fonction de ses auditoires et ses visées cognitives. À partir d’une analyse sémantique du langage et des repères construits par les acteurs dans leurs expériences de production et de diffusion de connaissances, nous étudions premièrement l’organisation des pratiques de recherche dans l’espace académique, puis l’extension de ces pratiques vers d’autres champs d’activités sociales. Cette analyse nous permet de revenir sur la typologie de Burawoy et d’apporter quelques corrections quant aux distinctions entre les connaissances professionnelle, critique, appliquée et publique. À cet égard, nous proposons que ces « types » de recherche doivent être décomposés en de multiples postures qui s’inscrivent d’une part dans une différenciation des espaces discursifs académiques et d’autre part à l’interface de différents modes d’intervention extra-académique. / Our study of the orientation of research in the social sciences and humanities is a response to Micheal Burawoy’s typology of knowledge production. The objective of this investigation is to identify and describe the social organisation of the meaning of research as scholars attempt to reach different audiences and as their investigations are routed towards particular cognitive aims. Having conducted twenty-five in-depth interviews with historians, sociologists and economists, we analysed their interpretations of research practices in relation to the social space of academia and in regards to the extension of academic activities towards other social spaces. This analysis is then mobilised to comment on Michael Burawoy’s typology of research as we attempt to correct some of the distinctions he makes between professional, critical, policy and public knowledge. Notably, we suggest that these “types” should be broken down into multiple postures understood in relation to a segmentation of academic discursive fields and a differentiation of extra-academic modes of intervention.

Inspirée par les débats portant sur la typologie de la recherche proposée par Michael Burawoy (2005b) et fondée sur une analyse qualitative de vingt-cinq entrevues auprès de professeurs en histoire, en économie et en sociologie, notre investigation a comme but d’identifier et de décrire l’organisation sociale du sens de la recherche en fonction de ses auditoires et ses visées cognitives. À partir d’une analyse sémantique du langage et des repères construits par les acteurs dans leurs expériences de production et de diffusion de connaissances, nous étudions premièrement l’organisation des pratiques de recherche dans l’espace académique, puis l’extension de ces pratiques vers d’autres champs d’activités sociales. Cette analyse nous permet de revenir sur la typologie de Burawoy et d’apporter quelques corrections quant aux distinctions entre les connaissances professionnelle, critique, appliquée et publique. À cet égard, nous proposons que ces « types » de recherche doivent être décomposés en de multiples postures qui s’inscrivent d’une part dans une différenciation des espaces discursifs académiques et d’autre part à l’interface de différents modes d’intervention extra-académique. / Our study of the orientation of research in the social sciences and humanities is a response to Micheal Burawoy’s typology of knowledge production. The objective of this investigation is to identify and describe the social organisation of the meaning of research as scholars attempt to reach different audiences and as their investigations are routed towards particular cognitive aims. Having conducted twenty-five in-depth interviews with historians, sociologists and economists, we analysed their interpretations of research practices in relation to the social space of academia and in regards to the extension of academic activities towards other social spaces. This analysis is then mobilised to comment on Michael Burawoy’s typology of research as we attempt to correct some of the distinctions he makes between professional, critical, policy and public knowledge. Notably, we suggest that these “types” should be broken down into multiple postures understood in relation to a segmentation of academic discursive fields and a differentiation of extra-academic modes of intervention. / Réalisé en association avec le Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologie (CIRST).

This thesis proposes elements for a cognitive anthropology of visual art. Most works of art are human-made objects that cannot be approached in purely functional terms, and as such they frustrate important cognitive expectations that people have about artefacts. For this reason, it is hypothesised that art triggers speculation about the artist’s intention, and that it is intuitively approached as a form of communication. By application of Bloom’s (1996) theory of artefact categorisation, and Sperber and Wilson’s (1986/1995) relevance theory of communication, a series of predictions are generated for art categorisation (or definition), art appreciation, and art cultural distribution. Two empirical studies involving more than 1,000 participants tested the most important of these predictions. In study 1, a relationship was found between how much a series of works of art were liked and how easy they were to understand. Study 2 comprised four experiments. In experiment 1, a series of hyperrealistic paintings were preferred when they were labelled as paintings than when they were labelled as photographs. In experiments 2a and 2b, a series of paintings were considered easier to understand and, under some conditions, were preferred, when they were accompanied by titles that made it easier to understand the artist’s intention. In experiment 3, a series of artefacts were more likely to be considered “art” when they were thought to have been created intentionally than when they were thought to have been created accidentally. The results of studies 1 and 2 confirmed the predictions tested, and are interpreted in the framework of relevance theory. The art experience involves speculation about the artist’s intention, and it is partly assessed as a form of communication that is constrained by relevance dynamics. Implications for anthropology of art, psychology of art, and the art world are discussed.