Approach
Working Principles
My approach combines analytical rigor with operational pragmatism.
My doctoral research is grounded in connected history. It seeks to move beyond compartmentalized national narratives in order to analyze circulation, mobility, and the interconnection of actors, objects, and practices.
This perspective considers every phenomenon as the product of dynamic relational networks rather than as an isolated entity.
As a social and cultural historian shaped by the critical turn in the humanities and social sciences, I do not reason in fixed global categories or abstract generalizations. My analytical stance moves between the collective and the individual: every rule, system, method, or institution is understood as the outcome of intertwined social, institutional, and individual dynamics.
This epistemic position informs how I approach pedagogical and organizational systems: they are viewed as interdependent structures shaped by multiple, sometimes competing logics.
Concretely, this epistemic stance translates into a structured method of analysis, modeling, and decision-making.
1. Systematic Decision-Making
When facing complex situations, I proceed in stages.
In-depth analysis
- Review of relevant scientific or regulatory literature.
- Examination of available reports and documentation.
- Structured discussions with involved stakeholders.
The objective is to:
- Understand general decision principles (institutional values, existing processes, available interfaces).
- Identify concrete performance gaps (current performance vs. expected performance).
Formal modeling
- Identification of action levers.
- Identification of constraints and barriers.
- Mapping of enabling and inhibiting factors.
- Scenario modeling of alternative decisions and their multi-stakeholder consequences.
The decision follows this structured modeling process.
2. Structuring Tools
I rely on:
- Conceptual diagrams and system maps.
- Mind mapping.
- Structured analytical tables.
- Flow and interaction mapping.
This network-based representation of complex situations mirrors how learning and cognition operate.
These representations help objectify tensions, clarify interdependencies, and support well-grounded operational decisions.
Visualization often precedes action.
3. Managing Disagreement
In cases of conflict:
- I analyze each stakeholder’s position and values.
- I identify underlying constraints.
- I clarify implicit and explicit objectives.
I then propose compromise solutions aimed at preserving:
- Institutional coherence.
- Equity between parties.
- Fundamental objectives of the system.
4. Prioritization Under Pressure
When everything appears urgent, I assess:
- Consequences of delay for each stakeholder.
- Real impact of timely execution.
- Possibility of negotiation.
- Legal and regulatory constraints.
Prioritization is therefore impact-based, not pressure-driven.
5. Rigor and Pragmatism
I combine methodological rigor with pragmatic flexibility.
Rules and procedures are not ontological entities;
they exist to ensure equity, coherence, and quality.
- Non-negotiable rules (legal compliance, fairness) must be strictly applied.
- Inefficient or counterproductive rules should be reassessed and rewritten.
The objective remains constant: ensuring systemic coherence and high-quality learning environments.
6. Infrastructure and Tools
My workflow relies on:
- Open formats (Markdown, Quarto).
- LaTeX.
- Zotero.
- Secure and structured documentation systems.
- Reproducible workflows.
Tools are infrastructure: they serve clarity, traceability, and coherence.