Abstract
This article explores literatures from various sources to highlight and understand differences among key players surrounding the perceived nature and role of civil society in research from different literature streams. Including Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) in research activities is an integral part of a broad drive towards integration of science and society. Interest in CSO inclusion in research is widespread, but lacks a coherent focus and clarity on what CSOs are. Without this clarity, CSO-inclusive research, or policy, may be ineffective. This article addresses this gap in knowledge by presenting findings from an exploration of academic, policy and research project literature in order to come to a view on CSOs in research. This culminates in a typology of CSOs and provides a means of identifying types of CSOs. The typology shows four main types of CSO (common cause, shared voice, research-oriented, commercially oriented) and provides a definition for each type, along with a basis for the definition; an example of each; some typical terminology; typical area of activity; properties; typical mission; key areas of interest and their ‘action logic’ in research.
Résumé
Le présent article explore de la documentation de sources variées pour relever et comprendre les différences entre les acteurs clés entourant la nature et le rôle perçus de la société civile dans les recherches de différents courants littéraires. L’inclusion des organisations de la société civile (OSC) dans les activités de recherche est un élément intrinsèque d’un mouvement plus large visant l’intégration de la science et de la société. L’intérêt envers l’inclusion des OSC dans la recherche est répandu, mais ces dernières ne sont pas clairement ni efficacement définies. Sans une définition claire, les recherches ou politiques incluant les OSC pourraient être inefficaces. Le présent article traite de ce manque de connaissances en présentant les résultats d’un examen de projets académiques, politiques et de recherche, pour dresser un portrait du positionnement des OSC dans la recherche. Ce travail culmine en une typologie des OSC et offre un moyen d’identifier ces dernières par type. La typologie présente quatre principaux types d’OSC (cause commune, voix mobilisées, orientées sur la recherche, à orientation commerciale) et offre une définition de chacun, en plus de ses fondements. Elle présente aussi un exemple de chaque type; des termes typiques; les domaines d’activités typiques; leurs propriétés; leur mission typique, les principaux domaines d’intérêts et leur « logique d’action » en recherche.
Zusammenfassung
Diese Abhandlung untersucht Literaturbeiträge von verschiedenen Quellen, um die Unterschiede zwischen wichtigen Akteuren im Zusammenhang mit der wahrgenommenen Beschaffenheit und Rolle der Bürgergesellschaft in Forschungen aus verschiedenen Literaturströmungen hervorzuheben und zu verstehen. Die Berücksichtigung der Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen in Forschungsarbeiten ist ein wichtiger Bestandteil weitreichender Anstrengungen zur Integration von Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft. Das Interesse, Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen in die Forschung einzuschließen, ist groß; doch fehlt es an einem übereinstimmenden Fokus und Klarheit darüber, was Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen sind. Ohne diese Klarheit können Forschungen oder Politik, die Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen berücksichtigen, unter Umständen ineffektiv sein. Der Beitrag geht diese Wissenslücke an und präsentiert die Ergebnisse einer Untersuchung der akademischen, politischen und forschungsbezogenen Literatur, um zu Erkenntnissen über Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen in der Forschung zu gelangen. Es ergibt sich eine Typologie der Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen und ein Instrument zur Identifizierung der Typen von Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen. Die Typologie stellt vier Haupttypen von Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen heraus (gemeinsames Anliegen, gemeinsame Stimme, forschungsorientiert, kommerzorientiert) und präsentiert eine Definition für jeden Typen sowie eine Definitionsbasis, ein Beispiel für jeden Typ, gewisse typische Terminologie, den typischen Tätigkeitsbereich, die Eigenschaften, die typische Mission, wichtige Interessenbereiche und ihre „Handlungslogik“in der Forschung.
Resumen
El presente artículo explora el material publicado de diversas fuentes para destacar y comprender las diferencias entre los actores claves que rodean la naturaleza y el papel percibidos de la sociedad civil en la investigación a partir de diferentes corrientes de material publicado. Incluir a las organizaciones de la sociedad civil (CSO, por sus siglas en inglés) en las actividades de investigación es una parte integral de un amplio impulso hacia la integración de ciencia y sociedad. El interés en la inclusión de las CSO en la investigación está extendido, pero falta un enfoque coherente y claridad sobre qué son las CSO. Sin esta claridad, la investigación que incluye a las CSO, puede ser ineficaz. El presente artículo aborda este vacío en el conocimiento presentando hallazgos de una exploración de material publicado de proyectos académicos, políticos y de investigación con el fin de llegar a una opinión sobre las CSO en la investigación. Esto culmina en una tipología de las CSO y proporciona un medio de identificar tipos de CSO. La tipología muestra cuatro tipos principales de CSO (causa común, voz compartida, orientada a la investigación, orientada al comercio) y proporciona una definición para cada tipo, junto con una base para la definición; un ejemplo de cada una; alguna terminología típica; área típica de actividad; propiedades; misión típica; áreas claves de interés y su “lógica de acción” en la investigación.
摘要
本文解释了来自各种来源的文献,以强调和了解感知本质的关键玩家以及民间团体在对不同文献流研究中扮演的角色。为研究活动包含民间团体组织(CSO)是集成科学和社会的广泛推动力不可或缺的部分。对为研究包含CSO的兴趣非常广泛,但缺少对CSO是什么连续关注和明确性。没有这一明确性,包含CSO的研究或政策可能低效。通过展示对学术、政策和研究项目文献解释的研究,本文将填补这一知识差距,以了解研究中的CSO。这在CSO类型学中达到顶点,并提供确定CSO类型的方式。该类型学展示四种主要的CSO类型(通用原因、共享声音、以研究为主、以商业为主)并提供每种类型的定义,以及定义基础;每种类型的示例;一些典型术语;典型活动领域;特性;典型使命;关键兴趣领域及其在研究中的“行动逻辑”。
ملخص
يستطلع هذا المقال الآداب من مصادر مختلفة لتسليط الضوء وفهم الإختلافات بين الأشخاص الرئيسية المحيطة بتصور طبيعة ودور منظمة المجتمع المدني(CSOs) في مجال البحوث من تيارات الأدب المختلفة. بما في ذلك منظمات المجتمع المدني(CSOs) في الأنشطة البحثية هي جزء لا يتجزأ من حملة واسعة نحو التكامل بين العلم والمجتمع. الفائدة في إدراج منظمات المجتمع المدني(CSOs) في مجال البحوث على نطاق واسع، لكن تفتقر إلى التركيز المتماسك والوضوح على ما هي منظمات المجتمع المدني (CSOs). بدون هذا الوضوح، بحوث منظمات المجتمع المدني (CSOs) الشاملة، أو السياسة، قد تكون غير فعالة. تتناول هذه المقالة هذه الفجوة في المعرفة من خلال تقديم النتائج من الإكشاف الأكاديمي ، السياسة وأدب المشروع البحثي من أجل التوصل إلى وجهة نظر حول منظمات المجتمع المدني(CSOs) في مجال البحوث. هذا يتوج في تصنيف لمنظمات المجتمع المدني (CSOs)، يقدم وسيلة لتحديد أنواع منظمات المجتمع المدني (CSOs) . يبين تصنيف أربعة أنواع رئيسية من منظمات المجتمع المدني(CSOs) (السبب المشترك، صوت مشترك، بحث موجه، الموجة تجاريا”)، ويقدم تعريف لكل نوع، جنبا” إلى جنب مع الأساس للتعريف . مثال لكل منهما؛ بعض المصطلحات النموذجية؛ منطقة نموذجية للنشاط؛ الخصائص؛ مهمة نموذجية؛ المجالات الرئيسية ذات الأهمية والتي “منطق العمل” في مجال البحوث.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anichini, G., & de Cheveigné, S. (2012). Overview of research related to science in society in Europe. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 701–709. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs088.
Bailey, C. (2010). The European Discourse in Germany, 1939–1950: Three case studies. German History, 28(4). Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=aph&AN=55370438&site=ehost-live.
Bernauer, T., & Gampfer, R. (2013a). Effects of civil society involvement on popular legitimacy of global environmental governance. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 439–449. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.01.001.
Bernauer, T., & Gampfer, R. (2013b). Effects of civil society involvement on popular legitimacy of global environmental governance. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 439–449. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.01.001.
Brandsen, T., & Simsa, R. (2016). Civil society, nonprofit organizations, and citizenship in China: An editorial introduction to the China Issue. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(5), 2011–2020. doi:10.1007/s11266-016-9774-4.
Broerse, J. E. W., Lynch, D. H. L., & van der Ham, L. (2013). Country report Bulgaria: Views, Opinions and ideas of citizens in Europe on Science. Retrieved from http://www.voicesforinnovation.eu/files/Contry_Report_x_web/CountryReport_Bulgaria.pdf.
Chonkova, B., Kozarev, V., Matschoss, K., Kaarakainen, M., Repo, P., & Tregner-Mlinaric, A. (2014). CASI policy brief: The eco-innovation action plan in an environmental policy context—Insights from and for Bulgaria. Retrieved from http://www.casi2020.eu/app/web1/files/download/casi-pb-national2-bulgaria-final.pdf.
Council of the European Union. (2010). Commission Staff Working Document: Europe 2020—public consultation overview of responses.
Dekker, P. (2009). Civicness: From civil society to civic services. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 20(3), 220–238. doi:10.1007/s11266-009-9089-9.
Dröll, P. (2014). Horizon 2020 “science with and for society” providing advice on potential priorities for research and innovation in the work programme 2016–2017 consultation paper. European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/swafs/background.pdf.
Engage2020 Consortium. (n.d.). Active societal engagement in research and innovation: Exploring what is happening today and inspiring tomorrow’s practice (Poster). Retrieved January 13, 2015, from http://engage2020.eu/media/Engage2020-Poster.pdf.
European Commission. (2011a). Horizon 2020—The framework programme for research and innovation (No. SEC(2011) 1427 final). Brussels. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/proposals/communication_from_the_commission_-_horizon_2020_-_the_framework_programme_for_research_and_innovation.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none.
European Commission. (2011b). Horizon 2020—The framework programme for research and innovation. Brussels. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/proposals/communication_from_the_commission_-_horizon_2020_-_the_framework_programme_for_research_and_innovation.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none.
European Commission. (2012). Monitoring Policy and research activities on science in society in Europe (MASIS)—Final synthesis report. Brussels: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/monitoring-policy-research-activities-on-sis_en.pdf.
European Science Foundation. (2013). Science in Society: Caring for our futures in turbulent times (science policy briefing No. 50). European Science Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.esf.org/fileadmin/Public_documents/Publications/spb50_ScienceInSociety.pdf.
Finke, B. (2007). Civil society participation in EU governance. Retrieved from http://edoc.vifapol.de/opus/volltexte/2011/2479/pdf/lreg_2007_2Color.pdf.
Gall, E., Millot, G., & Neubauer, C. (2009). Participation of Civil Society Organisations in research. Retrieved from http://www.livingknowledge.org/livingknowledge/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/STACS_Final_Report-Partic.research.pdf.
Gall, É., Neubauer, C., Millot, G., & Piasecki, F. (2011). STACS handbook for CSOs. Retrieved from http://sciencescitoyennes.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/STACS_HandbookForCSOs.pdf.
Gecas, K., Matschoss, K., Kaarakainen, M., Repo, P., & Tregner-Mlinaric, A. (2014). CASI policy brief: The eco-innovation action plan in an environmental policy context, insights from and for Lithuania. Retrieved from http://www.casi2020.eu/app/web1/files/download/casi-pb-national2-lithuania-final.pdf.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Gómez-Jauregui, J. (2004). The feasibility of government partnerships with NGOs in the reproductive health field in Mexico. Reproductive Health Matters, 12(24), 42–55. doi:10.1016/S0968-8080(04)24146-5.
Kerlin, J. A. (2012). Defining social enterprise across different contexts: A conceptual framework based on institutional factors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(1), 84–108.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kupper, F., Den Oudendammer, W. M., van der Ham, L., & Cummings, L. (2013). Country report Cyprus: Views, opinions and ideas of citizens in Europe on science. Retrieved from http://www.voicesforinnovation.eu/files/Contry_Report_x_web/CountryReport_Cyprus.pdf.
Lipnik, A., Matschoss, K., Kaarakainen, M., Repo, P., & Tregner-Mlinaric, A. (2014). CASI policy brief: The eco-innovation action plan in an environmental policy context—insights from and for Slovenia. Retrieved from http://www.casi2020.eu/app/web1/files/download/casi-pb-national2-slovenia-final.pdf.
Mercer, C., & Green, M. (2013). Making civil society work: Contracting, cosmopolitanism and community development in Tanzania. Geoforum, 45, 106–115. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.10.008.
Muukkonen, M. (2009). Framing the field civil society and related concepts. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 684–700.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction: `Mode 2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41(3), 179–194. doi:10.1023/A:1025505528250.
Piotrowicz, M., Matschoss, K., Kaarakainen, M., Repo, P., & Tregner-Mlinaric, A. (2014). CASI policy brief: The eco-innovation action plan in an environmental policy context, insights from and for Poland. Retrieved from http://www.casi2020.eu/app/web1/files/download/casi-pb-national2-poland-final.pdf.
Popper, M., Martin, F., Matschoss, K., Kaarakainen, M., Repo, P., & Tregner-Mlinaric, A. (2014). CASI policy brief: The eco-innovation action plan in an environmental policy context—Insights from and for Czech Republic. Retrieved from http://www.casi2020.eu/app/web1/files/download/casi-pb-national2-czech-republic-final.pdf.
Revel, M., Spruyt, E., & Soubiran, T. (2012). FP7 survey report: Consider. Deliverable 2.2. Retrieved from http://www.consider-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/D2.2-FP7-Survey-report-final.pdf.
Salamon, L. M., & Sokolowski, S. W. (2016). Beyond nonprofits: Re-conceptualizing the third sector. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(4), 1515–1545. doi:10.1007/s11266-016-9726-z.
Scholz, I. (2005). Environmental policy cooperation among organised civil society, national public actors and international actors in the Brazilian Amazon. European Journal of Development Research, 17(4), 681–705. doi:10.1080/09578810500367466.
Smismans, S. (2008). New modes of governance and the participatory Myth. West European Politics, 31(5), 874–895. doi:10.1080/01402380802234540.
Srinivas, N. (2009). Against NGOs? A critical perspective on nongovernmental action. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 614–626.
Steen-Johnsen, K., Eynaud, P., & Wijkström, F. (2011). On civil society governance: An emergent research field. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(4), 555–565. doi:10.1007/s11266-011-9211-7.
TACSO. (2010, September). A glossary of terms for Civil Society Organisations. Retrieved from http://tacso.org/doc/TACSO%20Glossary%20for%20CSOs.pdf.
Tomlinson, B. (2013). Working with civil society in foreign aid possibilities for south-south cooperation? United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved from http://www.cn.undp.org/content/dam/china/docs/Publications/UNDP-CH03%20Annexes.pdf.
Tranfield, D. R., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207–222.
Tsipouri, L. (2012a). Comparing innovation performance and science in society in the European member states. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 732–740. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs091.
Tsipouri, L. (2012b). Comparing innovation performance and science in society in the European member states. Science and Public Policy. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs091.
Wilesdon, J. (2014, November 13). Juncker axes Europe’s chief scientific adviser. The Guardian. London. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2014/nov/13/juncker-axes-europes-chief-scientific-adviser.
UNDP. (n.d.). NGOs and CSOs: A note on terminology. United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved from http://www.cn.undp.org/content/dam/china/docs/Publications/UNDP-CH03%20Annexes.pdf.
Acknowledgements
This research is a development from work carried out in the research project, “Network Analysis of Civil Society Organisations’ Participation in Research Framework Programmes”, led by The Institute for Managing Sustainability at the University of Vienna, and funded by the European Commission. The authors would like to acknowledge the important contribution made by Dr. Brent Mittelstadt in the design of the literature review approach and Mr. Shingirayi Kandi in doing the initial coding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rainey, S., Wakunuma, K. & Stahl, B. Civil Society Organisations in Research: A Literature-Based Typology. Voluntas 28, 1988–2010 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9816-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9816-y