Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

European Action Plans for Science–Society Relations: Changing Buzzwords, Changing the Agenda

  • Published:
Minerva Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This project began with the changes in the names of the European Commission’s action plans for the relationship between science and society. Analysing the main relevant documents in the last four European science policy framework programmes (FP5, FP6, FP7, H2020), we asked how much terminologies, meanings, and foci of attention have changed. A more detailed look confirms the growing importance attached to this area of intervention and the transformation in the priorities and conceptions orienting these policies. This gradual change not only largely reflects the academic debates on the need for more participatory and dialogical ways of bringing science and society closer together, but also poses new challenges when interpreting the ultimate goals and potential implications of the plans. Issues of governance of science and the transformation of scientific institutions are gaining ground compared to those of science education and public communication of science. Equally clear is the progressive incorporation of the questions of innovation and the markets into this area of political action, in a way reconfiguring the balance between aims related with democracy and participation, on the one hand, and economic competitiveness on the other. The range of social actors involved in these actions has also changed. Employing a discourse that is often vague, these plans tend to call for a certain de-differentiation of the roles traditionally attributed to the various institutions (scientific, political, business, media), valuing some, omitting others, and repositioning several.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This meant compiling relevant excerpts from general documents such as “The Sixth Framework Program in Brief” (https://ec.europa.eu/research/fp6/pdf/fp6-in-brief_en.pdf), “FP7 Tomorrow's Answers Start Today” (https://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/pdf/fp7-factsheets_en.pdf) and “H2020 in Brief” (https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/horizon-2020-brief-eu-framework-programme-research-innovation) and complementing them with text excerpts from the programmes’ homepages whenever those excerpts were not found in the general documents.

  2. As regards the annual work programmes - see, for example, the Work Program 2013 Capacities - Science in Society (https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/doc/call/fp7/common/1537552-update_sis_wp2013_en.pdf) - we started by (2) selecting the text excerpts aimed at the general presentation of the programme (under titles such as “objectives”, “rational”, “political context” or “approach for year X”). Finally (3), all excerpts that name “activities” and “calls” foreseen in these work programmes were also copied (i.e. statements such as “Action line 2: Strengthening potential, broadening horizons; Activity 5.2.1. Gender and research; Area 5.2.1.1 Strengthening the role of women in scientific research and in scientific decision-making bodies; SiS.2013.2.1.1-1: Supporting changes in the organisation of research institutions to promote Gender Equality). Information on the calls was also checked on the “participant portals”, at the time still available online for FP6, FP7 and H2020.

  3. More details and the MAXQDA software are available from https://www.maxqda.com/

References

  • Anichini, Giulia, and Suzanne de Cheveigné. 2012. Overview of research related to science in society in Europe. Science and Public Policy 39: 701–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, Daniele (coord.). 2015. The Contribution of Science and Society (FP6) and Science in Society (FP7) to Responsible Research and Innovation. A Review. European Commission.

  • Bardin, Laurence. 2011 [1977]. Análise de Conteúdo [Content Analysis]. Lisboa: Edições 70.

  • Bauer, Martin W., Nick Allum, and Steve Miller. 2007. What can we learn from 25-years of PUS research? Liberating and widening the agenda. Public Understanding of Science 16(1): 79–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. 2014. The politics of buzzwords at the interface of technoscience, market and society: The case of ‘public engagement in science’. Public Understanding of Science 23(3): 238–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, Pierre. 2004. Science of Science and Reflexivity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Mark B. 2014. Politicizing science: Conceptions of politics in science and technology studies. Social Studies of Science 45(1): 3–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, Alan. 2012. Social Research Methods, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi, Massimiano, and Brian Trench (orgs.). 2008. Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. New York: Routledge.

  • Burget, Mirjam, Emanuele Bardone, and Margus Pedaste. 2017. Definitions and Conceptual Dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Literature Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 23: 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Harry M., and Robert Evans. 2002. The Third Wave of Science Studies. Studies of Expertise and Experience. Social Studies of Science 32(2): 235–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Harry, Robert Evans, and Martin Weinel. 2017. STS as science or politics? Social Studies of Science 47(4): 580–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, António Firmino da. 1996. Ciência e reflexividade social [Science and social reflexivity]. In Ciência e Democracia, ed. Maria Eduarda Gonçalves, 199–221. Venda Nova: Bertrand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, António Firmino da, Cristina Palma Conceicao, and Patrícia Ávila. 2009. Scientific culture and modes of relating to science. In Knowledge and Society (Portugal in the European Context, vol. II), eds. António Firmino da Costa, Fernando Luís Machado, and Patrícia Ávila, 61–84. Lisboa: ISCTE-IUL/Celta Editora.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, António Gomes. 2017. From Ear Candling to Trump: Science Communication in the Post-Truth World. Spokes 27: 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, Michael, and Kelly Laas. 2014. ‘Broader impacts’ or ‘responsible research and innovation’? A comparison of two criteria for funding research in science and engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics 20(4): 963–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, Ana, Kamilla Lein Kjolberg, and Fern Wickson. 2011. Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 20(6): 826–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and ‘mode 2’ to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy 29: 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2011. From Challenges to Opportunities: Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation Funding (Green Paper). Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felt, Ulrike (Rapporteur). 2007. Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously. Luxembourg: European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, Jane, and Steven Miller. 1998. Science in Public: Communication, Culture and Credibility. London/New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston, David H. 2014. Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’. Social Studies of Science 44(2): 218–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagendijk, Rob, and Alan Irwin. 2006. Public deliberation and governance: Engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva 44(2): 167–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, Sarah, Warren Pearce, and Alasdair Taylor. 2017. Against the tide of depoliticisation: The politics of research governance. Policy & Politics 45(3): 361–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, J. Britt. 2005. Assessing the science–society relation: The case of the US National Science Foundation’s second merit review criterion. Technology in Society 27(4): 437–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, Alan. 2008. STS perspectives on scientific governance. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, eds. Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and Judy Wajcman, 583–607. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, Klaus (Rapporteur). 2013. Options for Strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation. Luxembourg: European Union.

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 2003. Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41(3): 223–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 2004. Science and citizenship: A new synergy. Science and Public Policy 31(2): 90–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levidow, Les, and Claudia Neubauer. 2014. EU research agendas: Embedding what future? Science as Culture 23: 397–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewenstein, Bruce V. 1992. The meaning of ‘public understanding of science’ in the United States after World War II. Public Understanding of Science 1(1): 45–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, Eszter (Rapporteur). 2009. Challenging Futures of Science in Society. Emerging Trends and Cutting-Edge Issues (MASIS report). Brussels: European Commission.

  • Mejlgaard, Niels, Carter Bloch, Lise Degn, Tine Ravn, and Mathias W. Nielsen. 2012. Monitoring Policy and Research Activities on Science in Society in Europe (MASIS). Final Synthesis Report. Brussels: European Commission.

  • Miller, Jon D. 1998. The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science 7(3): 203–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2003. ‘Mode 2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva 41(3): 179–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, Helga. 2014. Engaging with the political imaginaries of science: Near misses and future targets. Public Understanding of Science 23(1): 16–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, Richard, Phil Macnaghten, and Jack Stilgoe. 2012. Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy 39: 751–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peter, Viola, and Frederic Maier (eds.). 2018. Monitoring the Evolution and Benefits of Responsible Research and Innovation in Europe. Summarising insights from the MoRRI project. Luxembourg: European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pielke Jr., Roger. 2012. Basic Research as a Political Symbol. Minerva 50(3): 339–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, Charles C. 2014. The Comparative Method. Oakland: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, Arie. 2015. The past and future of RRI. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10: 17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro, Barbara, Robert D. J. Smith, and Kate Millar. 2017. A Mobilising Concept? Unpacking Academic Representations of Responsible Research and Innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics 23(1): 81–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez, Hannot, Erik Fisher, and Daan Schuurbiers. 2013. Integrating Science and Society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in Project-level Solicitations. Research Policy 42: 1126–1137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saille, de Stevienna. 2015. Innovating Innovation Policy: The Emergence of ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’. Journal of Responsible Innovation 2(2): 152–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, Eileen, Elizabeth Whitelegg, and Simeon Yates (orgs.). 1999. Communicating Science: Contexts and Channels. London/New York: Routledge.

  • Stilgoe, Jack, Simon J. Lock, and James Wilsdon. 2014. Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science 23(1): 4–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smallman, Melanie. 2016. Public understanding of science in turbulent times III: Deficit to dialogue, champions to critics. Public Understanding of Science 25(2): 186–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smallman, Melanie. 2018. Science to the rescue or contingent progress? Comparing 10 years of public, expert and policy discourses on new and emerging science and technology in the United Kingdom. Public Understanding of Science 27(6): 655–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorpe, Charles, and Jane Gregory. 2010. Producing the Post-Fordist Public: The Political Economy of Public Engagement with Science. Science as Culture 19(3): 273–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trench, Brian. 2008. Towards an Analytical Framework of Science Communication Models. In Communicating Science in Social Contexts. New Models, New Practices, eds. Donghong Cheng, Michel Claessens, Toss Gascoigne, Jenni Metcalfe, Bernard Schiele, and Shunke Shi, 119–135. Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • von Schomberg, Rene. 2013. A Vision of Responsible Innovation. In Responsible Innovation. Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, eds. Richard Owen, John B. Bessant, and Maggy Heintz, 51–74. London: John Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, Brian. 2007. Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political–conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society 1: 99–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, John. 2000. Real Science: What It Is, and What It Means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zwart, Hub, Laurens Landeweerd, and Arjan van Rooij. 2014. Adapt or perish? Assessing the recent shift in the European research funding arena from ELSA to RRI. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10: 11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research received no specific funding. However, it largely arose from the team’s participation in Cátedra Ibérica CTS+I — a networking initiative coordinated by the University of Oviedo (Spain) and the University Institute of Lisbon (Portugal), and sponsored by the Organisation of Ibero-American States (OEI). The revision of the text was provided by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia through the Strategic Financing of the R&D Unit UID/SOC/03126/2013.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Research and Studies in Sociology (CIES-IUL), University Institute of Lisbon (ISCTE-IUL), Edifício ISCTE, Av. das Forças Armadas, 1649-026, Lisbon, Portugal

    Cristina Palma Conceição, Patrícia Ávila, Ana Rita Coelho & António Firmino Costa

  2. Estoril Higher Institute for Tourism and Hotel Studies (ESHTE), Av. Condes de Barcelona, n.° 808, 2769-510, Estoril, Portugal

    Cristina Palma Conceição

Authors
  1. Cristina Palma Conceição
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrícia Ávila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ana Rita Coelho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. António Firmino Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristina Palma Conceição.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 15 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Conceição, C.P., Ávila, P., Coelho, A.R. et al. European Action Plans for Science–Society Relations: Changing Buzzwords, Changing the Agenda. Minerva 58, 1–24 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-019-09380-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-019-09380-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation