Gouvernance responsable de projets d’innovation technologique : proposition d’un cadre interdisciplinaire pour les technologies émergentes
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.59228/rcst.026.v5.i4.365Mots-clés :
gouvernance responsable, technologies émergentes, innovation durable, responsabilité technologique, gouvernance adaptative, AfriqueRésumé
L’accélération des technologies émergentes révèle les limites des dispositifs institutionnels traditionnels de régulation. Dans ce contexte, leur gouvernance devient un enjeu stratégique majeur, marqué par des tensions entre l’innovation, la responsabilité, la légitimité et la capacité d’adaptation. Cette recherche propose un cadre conceptuel intégratif, le Modèle de gouvernance responsable des technologies émergentes (MGRTE), fondé sur l’articulation de la responsabilité technologique distribuée, du néo-institutionnalisme et des principes de l’innovation durable. La recherche adopte un design mixte séquentiel combinant trois étapes complémentaires : une revue systématique de la littérature selon le protocole PRISMA (2020–2026), une analyse comparative de douze initiatives internationales de gouvernance technologique et une validation Delphi modifiée en deux tours auprès de 34 experts internationaux. Le consensus a été évalué à l’aide du coefficient de concordance de Kendall (W ≥ 0,70) et d’un seuil minimal de convergence de 80 %. Les résultats identifient quatre dimensions constitutives de la gouvernance responsable : l’anticipation techno-éthique, la responsabilité institutionnelle distribuée, l’apprentissage adaptatif et l’inclusivité délibérative. Ces dimensions sont reliées par un mécanisme de tension-régulation dynamique qui transforme les tensions sociotechniques en leviers d’apprentissage, de coordination et de résilience institutionnelle. Les analyses montrent que la gouvernance responsable ne constitue pas un état stable, mais un processus continu de co-construction entre acteurs, institutions et technologies. Le MGRTE enrichit les travaux sur la gouvernance des technologies émergentes en proposant un cadre à la fois explicatif et opérationnel. Il offre des orientations utiles aux décideurs et aux gestionnaires, en particulier dans les contextes africains caractérisés par des capacités institutionnelles asymétriques. L’étude ouvre enfin des perspectives de validation empirique dans divers environnements technologiques et géographiques.
Comment citer
APA
Mignenan, Victor, Meddeb, Brahim (2026). Gouvernance responsable de projets d’innovation technologique : proposition d’un cadre interdisciplinaire pour les technologies émergentes. Revue Congolaise des Sciences et Technologies, 5(4), 1817-1840. https://doi.org/
Vancouver
Mignenan V, Meddeb B. Gouvernance responsable de projets d’innovation technologique : proposition d’un cadre interdisciplinaire pour les technologies émergentes. RCST. 2026;5(4):1817-1840. doi:10.59228/rcst.026.v5.i4.365
BibTeX
@article{rcst1030,
author = {Mignenan, Victor and Meddeb, Brahim},
title = {Gouvernance responsable de projets d’innovation technologique : proposition d’un cadre interdisciplinaire pour les technologies émergentes},
journal = {Revue Congolaise des Sciences et Technologies},
year = {2026},
volume = {5},
number = {4},
pages = {1817--1840},
doi = {10.59228/rcst.026.v5.i4.365},
url = {https://rcst.cd/index.php/rcst/fr/article/view/1030}
}
RIS
TY - JOUR AU - Mignenan, Victor AU - Meddeb, Brahim TI - Gouvernance responsable de projets d’innovation technologique : proposition d’un cadre interdisciplinaire pour les technologies émergentes JO - Revue Congolaise des Sciences et Technologies PY - 2026 VL - 5 IS - 4 SP - 1817 EP - 1840 DO - 10.59228/rcst.026.v5.i4.365 UR - https://rcst.cd/index.php/rcst/fr/article/view/1030 ER -
Téléchargements
Références
Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Business.
Asongu, S. A., & Nwachukwu, J. C. (2016). The role of governance in mobile phones for inclusive human development in Sub-Saharan Africa. Technovation, 55–56, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2016.04.002
Burget, M., Bardone, E., & Pedaste, M. (2017). Definitions and conceptual dimensions of responsible research and innovation: A literature review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9782-1
Coeckelbergh, M. (2020). AI ethics. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12549.001.0001
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dafoe, A. (2018). AI governance: A research agenda. Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford. https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/GovAI-Agenda.pdf
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Dryzek, J. S., Bächtiger, A., Chambers, S., Cohen, J., Druckman, J. N., Felicetti, A., Fishkin, J. S., Farrell, D. M., Fung, A., Gutmann, A., Landemore, H., Mansbridge, J., Marien, S., Neblo, M. A., Niemeyer, S., Setälä, M., Slothuus, R., Suiter, J., Thompson, D. F., & Warren, M. E. (2019). The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science, 363(6432), 1144–1146. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2694
Edquist, C. (2005). Systems of innovation: Perspectives and challenges. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 181–208). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.003.0007
European Commission. (2021). Horizon Europe strategic plan 2021–2024. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2777/083753
Felt, U., Fouché, R., Miller, C. A., & Smith-Doerr, L. (Eds.). (2017). The handbook of science and technology studies (4th ed.). MIT Press.
Flipse, S. M., van der Sanden, M. C. A., & Osseweijer, P. (2014). Improving industrial R&D practices with social and ethical aspects: Aligning key performance indicators with social and ethical aspects in food technology R&D. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 85, 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.009
Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511
Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., Jr., & Borning, A. (2013). Value sensitive design and information systems. In N. Doorn, D. Schuurbiers, I. van de Poel, & M. E. Gorman (Eds.), Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory (pp. 55–95). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_4
Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1257–1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8
Genus, A., & Coles, A.-M. (2008). Rethinking the multi-level perspective of technological transitions. Research Policy, 37(9), 1436–1445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.05.006
Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (Eds.). (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199247757.001.0001
Hasson, F., & Keeney, S. (2011). Enhancing rigour in the Delphi technique research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1695–1704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.04.005
Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203413845
Jasanoff, S. (2016). The ethics of invention: Technology and the human future. W. W. Norton.
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
Kalaian, S. A., & Kasim, R. M. (2012). Terminating sequential Delphi survey data collection. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(5), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.7275/b45q-rv29
Lundvall, B.-Å. (Ed.). (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter.
Macnaghten, P., Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Wynne, B., Azevedo, A., de Campos, A., Chilvers, J., Dagnino, R., di Giulio, G., Frow, E., Garvey, B., Groves, C., Hartley, S., Knobel, M., Kobayashi, E., Lehtonen, M., Lezaun, J., Mello, L., Monteiro, M., . . . Velho, L. (2014). Responsible innovation across borders: Tensions, paradoxes and possibilities. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(2), 191–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.922249
Mawere, M., Ndofirepi, A. P., & Sagiya, M. E. (Eds.). (2021). Technology, society and sustainability: Selected concepts, issues and cases from Africa. Langaa RPCIG.
Mignenan, V. (2025). Responsible innovation project management: Between resilience and sustainability in the African context. In N. R. Vajjhala & K. D. Strang (Eds.), Project management for European, Asian and African practitioners—Theory and technique examples in selected professions (pp. 101–129). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-77806-3
Mignenan, V., & Moussa, M. A. (2026). Management de projet d’innovation responsable : entre résilience et durabilité dans le contexte africain [Responsible innovation project management: Between resilience and sustainability in the African context]. Revue Congolaise de Gestion, 41(1), 113–174. https://doi.org/10.3917/rcg.041.0113
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A. E., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26–45. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0594
Mohamed, S., Png, M.-T., & Isaac, W. (2020). Decolonial AI: Decolonial theory as sociotechnical foresight in artificial intelligence. Philosophy & Technology, 33, 659–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00405-8
Murphy, M. K., Black, N. A., Lamping, D. L., McKee, C. M., Sanderson, C. F. B., Askham, J., & Marteau, T. (1998). Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technology Assessment, 2(3), 1–88. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta2030
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808678
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763
Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641–672. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.3.641
Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093
Owen, R., Pansera, M., Macnaghten, P., & Randles, S. (2021). Organisational institutionalisation of responsible innovation. Research Policy, 50(1), Article 104132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104132
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., . . . Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Pellé, S., & Reber, B. (2022). Responsible innovation: From concept to practice. ISTE/Wiley.
Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. In S. Rayner & E. L. Malone (Eds.), Human choice and climate change (Vol. 2, pp. 327–399). Battelle Press.
Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47(9), 1554–1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011
Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0223
Sovacool, B. K., Turnheim, B., Hook, A., Brock, A., & Martiskainen, M. (2021). Dispossessed by decarbonisation: Reducing vulnerability, injustice, and inequality in the lived experience of low-carbon pathways. World Development, 137, Article 105116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105116
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400828604
van de Poel, I., Asveld, L., Flipse, S., Klaassen, P., Scholten, V., & Yaghmaei, E. (2017). Company strategies for responsible research and innovation (RRI): A conceptual model. Sustainability, 9(11), Article 2045. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9112045
van de Poel, I., Sand, M., & Royakkers, L. (2020). Ethics and engineering. In D. P. Michelfelder & N. Doorn (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of the philosophy of engineering (pp. 431–445). Routledge.
Vayena, E., Blasimme, A., & Cohen, I. G. (2018). Machine learning in medicine: Addressing ethical challenges. PLOS Medicine, 15(11), Article e1002689. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002689
Téléchargements
Publiée
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
(c) Copyright Mignenan & Meddeb 2026
Ce travail est disponible sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale - Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International.
