Simon Pfersdorf, Martine Revel, Bernd Stahl and Kutoma Wakunuma
Abstract
The idea of bringing public interest to the core of research projects strengthens the role of civil society for science. However, the involvement of such organizations in research poses problems and challenges to the governance and structure of science projects. It is the nature of research projects (particularly European ones) to be complex both on the content side and on the social side, especially if you involve interdisciplinary groups from different cultural backgrounds.
This paper introduces the current state of the CONSIDER (Civil Society Organisations in Designing Research Governance, www.consider-project.eu) European research project. The first section shows insights from a quantitative study on FP7 research experience with CSOs.
Section 2 presents three examples of CSO participation and synthesizes main drivers influencing the governance of research projects. From this we can draw preliminary recommendations for CSOs, researchers and funders for improving the conditions of CSO participation in research.
Our findings from the FP7 surveys and the initial case studies support the different motivations for using CSOs in research to varying degrees. The argument that they can improve scientific efficiency seems to be strongly reflected. This is achieved by using the knowledge of the CSOs for improving research design, methodology and analysis.
Introduction1
The growing social relevance of research and innovation that affect all aspects of personal and public life has led to a debate about research governance that explores novel ways of ensuring that the outcomes of such activities are acceptable and desirable for society.
In Europe, this discussion currently focusses on the concept of responsible research and innovation (RRI) (Owen Richard et al. 2013; Schomberg 2011). One crucial aspect of this debate is the assumption that broader societal engagement with research and innovation will lead to scientifically superior and societally desirable outcomes. An additional hope is that
Participation in Technology Assessment such engagement will lead to an increased level of legitimacy for both research processes and research outcomes.
The typical Technology-Assessment (TA) experience with social engagement is lay participation and with it a consensus conference, scenario workshops, world café or focus groups. These engagement experiences share common factors in that they are organized by scientists following a predefined method. The participants are randomly selected citizens who do not have any function in politics, economics or science. At the end of such events, the results are symbolically passed to responsible politicians and representatives of the relevant administration, science and the economy. However, most studies show that these procedures rarely affect political decision-making or scientific projects (Bogner 2010). The idea of bringing public interest to the core of research projects strengthens the role of civil society for science (Stirling 2006). Including Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) is one approach to make this happen. For the purpose of our empirical work, we found the following definition:
CSOs are not-for-profit organizations that do not represent commercial or governmental interests and pursue a purpose in the public interest (for example NGOs, cooperatives, associations, grass-roots, mutuals, foundations, think tanks and umbrella organizations).2 However, the involvement of such organizations in research poses problems and challenges to the governance and structure of scientific projects. It is the nature of research projects (particularly European ones) to be complex both on the content side and on the social side, especially if you involve interdisciplinary groups from different cultural backgrounds. Adding non-scientific groups to a research project further increases the complexity. Then you have to bring together groups orienting their work at disciplinary scientific discourses as well as others who are guided by social or policy debates. What we know so far from literature is that the complexity of CSO participation is reduced if research projects are structured by one of four main social functions. These are (1) influencing the scientific efficiency in research projects, (2) solving CSO-related problems, (3) providing social legitimacy to projects and outcomes and (4) improving development in technology:
1. In his famous study, Steven Epstein found out how patient organizations influenced the course of HIV research. These organizations mainly consisted of gay men who, before HIV was discovered, were fighting for their social recognition and identity. Beyond protests and demonstrations for cures and therapies, the groups gained credibility among experts in HIV research by participating in scientific discussions. Having gained scientific credibility and having been acknowledged politically, the patient organizations could participate in the expert talk. They were able to contribute to scientific discussions on the construction of research problems, to the setting of research agendas, to the application or non-application of specific research methods and the evaluation of results (Epstein 1995).3
2. Science shops embody another functional type of the interaction between science and civil society. They work as intermediary organizations that pass CSOs’ problems to scientists. In exchange between the scientist and the organization questions, methods and efforts might need to be adapted. This research process results in reports contributing to
Civil Society Organisationsin Research Governance current policy discourses, public-relation strategies or instructions for the application of the produced knowledge so as to solve an existing real-life problem (Farkas, 1999, p. 44).4 3. If CSOs participate in a research project, then this could also have political implications.
In science and technology, it is deemed necessary to make the complicated research fields accessible to others. Therefore, workshops at the end of research projects present research results. On the one hand, CSOs do not play any role in the production of new scientific knowledge but become engaged in the dissemination of project results. On the other hand, researchers can claim that CSOs have participated in their project as an attempt to increase the project’s social legitimacy (Saretzki 2003).
4. Similarly, but in another societal field, CSOs can become engaged within the innovation process. Projects driven by industrial needs are known to profit from the participation of end-consumer groups. Experiences have been made with assistive technologies for disabled people. Concepts like Design for All, Universal Design, User-centred Design or Inclusive Design offer solutions. Their common approach is that either a product is adapted in cooperation with other users after it has been developed or the product is developed bottom-up (Hippel 2006; Plos et al. 2012).
While we are aware of these recognized functions of CSO participation, it is still unclear what influences the institutional embedding of CSOs in research projects, and how these projects are governed.
This paper introduces the current state of the European research project CONSIDER (Civil Society Organisations in Designing Research Governance, www.consider-project.
eu), which is working on closing these knowledge gaps. The following section shows insights from a quantitative study on the FP7 research experience with CSOs. Section 2 presents three examples of CSO participation and synthesizes main drivers influencing the governance of a research project. From this we can draw preliminary recommendations for CSOs, researchers and funders for improving the conditions of CSO participation in research. At the end of the paper, we draw a conclusion from our current empirical insights with regard to good practices of CSO involvement and its notable problems.
The Meaning of CSO Participation in FP7
As shown above, CSO participation in research can take varying forms and functions. Each participatory or research practice might lead to governance problems. In order to explore the field and identify the main patterns of CSOs participation, CONSIDER ran two surveys on the 14 000 existing FP7 projects. The first one was very short (up to five questions) and was sent to all of the 14 000 FP7-project coordinators. A second more detailed questionnaire was given to project coordinators who acknowledged CSOs participation in their research project. Further CSOs that we were introduced to projects also received the second questionnaire.5
Participation in Technology Assessment The Concept of CSOs
Considering the personal reactions of the survey respondents and their answers, it is clear that the concept of CSOs lends itself to a number of different interpretations. Public research institutes or universities often described themselves as CSOs because they reasoned that they were not for profit organizations. However, they did not recognize the fact that they were scientific and public entities largely funded by the government. In addition, some private research institutes considered themselves to be a part of Civil Society. Furthermore, the survey results show a difference among cultural settings. In the south of Europe, where democratic regimes are well established and combined with a centralized vision of the state – e.g. Greece, France, Italy, Spain – CSOs are typically seen as a counter power. By contrast, in Nordic countries, where a federalist vision of the state is more dominant, CSOs are mostly seen in a communitarian tradition.
CSOs’ Roles Inside Research Projects
The share of CSO projects in the sample, according to the project coordinators’ responses, is at least 22 %. The first two questions of our questionnaire were the following: are there any CSOs included in research? And: What roles were dedicated to CSOs participating in research projects?
Figure 10: Consider Survey 1 CERAPS, Lille 2 University: “Was there any CSO participation in your research project?”
The roles of CSOs in projects are diverse, according to responses to the initial survey (multiple choices answer), as figure 2 shows. Their main functions are to provide expertise, to be a member of the team, to discuss results or to contribute to publications. According to the responses by project coordinators (questionnaire 2), CSO roles are more focussed on knowledge activities (local knowledge, facilitating information, contribution to publications) than in the more participative research projects. The second questionnaire gives further insights about the role of CSOs.
The multiple-choice question clearly shows that CSO roles are perceived as being fundamental when they give their expertise, and when they disseminate project results and guidelines. In the case of CSOs, expertise does not come from lay people. As underlined
Yes No I don't know
Civil Society Organisationsin Research Governance in our sample description, the CSO members who answered our questionnaire were well educated and skilled in research projects. The value added by CSO members seems to help research projects to get more context-relevant for policy needs or for the needs of other beneficiaries (patient, children etc.).
The traditional model of role distribution between researchers and stakeholders usually implies that CSOs should disseminate project results. CSOs are perceived as intermediaries who are going to translate and pass on the produced knowledge or test the results of R&D.
Figure 11: Consider Survey 1 CERAPS, Lille 2 University: Role definition of participation
Most interestingly, the representation of CSO roles differs when considering CSO involvement in projects. According to CSO members’ responses, CSOs are the initiators of projects more often than what PCs acknowledge (50 % / 19 % responses), and CSO members also claim to be advisory board members more often than PCs mention they are (50 % / 29 %).
This tends to indicate a tendency for project coordinators to assign a more passive role in projects to CSOs members, which does not seem to suit CSO members’ perspective. These different perceptions of CSO involvement in research activities may indicate a normative framing conflict about what ought to be the CSO role inside the research team.
This conflict is not about their skills; we refer to the fact that the first role attributed to CSO members is their expertise. They also seem to be seen as researchers (39 % of PCs agreed with that / 33 % of CSOs). The tasks reserved for other members of the team, according to both categories of respondents, are: setting the research method and policy development.
This is more of a governance conception discussion: should the project coordinator take the leadership, or should the project governance be more participative? The CSO-role attribution also indicates that CSOs are scarcely able to discuss research project designs from the start. Only 30 % of project coordinators indicate that CSOs are involved from the start of the project. The majority report that they are involved at the planning stage only, which is confirmed by CSOs member responses to the questionnaire.
First Appraisal of the Governance of CSO Participation
The standard model of science is dominant in the responses we received in survey 1. It is
“a traditional top-down approach, which is based on the knowledge of experts. With this
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 0
yes CSO yes PC
Dissemination Setting the research methodsGiving feedback on progressInitiatots of the projectsEvaluation of the resultsLinking to communitiesInformed of the resultsPolicy developmentApplying the resultsAgenda settingAdvisory BoardAs researchersExpertise
Participation in Technology Assessment approach, normativity comes from the knowledge and opinions of the experts involved in decision-making” (Rainey, Goujon, 2012). CSOs involvement in research is still embedded in a rather classical normative setting of research when considering their role and attribution. FP7 projects have certain characteristics (length, international collaboration, funding scheme, evaluation etc) that frame the working and communication context of each research team. The CSOs here are very specific CSOs whose members hold PhDs and have research experience. CSOs do not bring in lay people’s views, and they also do not always represent public interest. They are more policy-oriented. Project coordinators seem to see CSOs more as end-user representatives than as equal partners. CSOs scarcely define the research method and agenda and are perceived as experts. There might be a norm-construction process here about what a CSO’s role and a researcher’s role ought to be, and what implicit power relations should exist. CSOs are valued for their expertise and their networks, which will facilitate the dissemination of results as well as the testing of developments. Researchers usually master project-research methodology and agenda setting of the particular research problem. Project governance is mostly a functional one:
task division and specialization among partners, which is supported by an implicit definition of science. Interactions between partners are more aggregative than deliberative.
Patterns of CSO Participation on the Project Level
This section describes the initial steps and preliminary findings of the in-depth case studies undertaken as a part of the second major empirical step of the project. The idea behind the case studies was that a deeper understanding of the factors that influence the success or failure of CSO engagement in research would require an in-depth investigation of research in real projects. The consortium therefore decided to undertake 30 detailed case studies, which were selected on the basis of hypotheses concerning the role of CSOs in research.
A part of the sample of research projects was determined on the basis of the outcomes of the survey of FP 7 projects which led the consortium to choose some of the FP7 projects that took part in the survey. Given the structured and very specific frame of the European Framework Programme, it was decided that a number of non-FP7 projects should be included as well. The consortium developed a case-study protocol that determined the data requirements and analysis structure of the research. This paper does not offer the space to describe the methodology of the case studies in any detail. The focus of this section is less on describing the approach and more on outlining some of the initial findings. We therefore highlight some of the main aspects that emerged from the grounded analysis of the initial set of case studies undertaken by the four partners involved in the empirical research.
Before we come to the more detailed discussion of the initial cases, it is important to stress that the snapshot provided in this paper represents provisional findings that require further discussion and reflection within the consortium, and that they may be superseded by findings arising from further research. The consortium decided that the analysis, following the principles of grounded theory, would initially be done on a case by case basis. Each case is to be written up following a template that reflects research interests and the hypotheses
Civil Society Organisationsin Research Governance
DMU Case C KIT Case J
Consortium size and membership
Partners from 4 countries, of which were
• 2 universities
• 2 companies
• 1 research organization
• 1 NGO
• 1 not-for-profit hospital
• Participatory research unit of a research organization
• Social Science Institute as the interface between the project and the CSOs as well as participating disabled people
• Research Institute for electronics
• Private Hospital
• Company experienced in services for disabled people
• Software company
Funding source EU FP7 ICT German governmental fund
Budget €3M, Funding €2.3M Unknown
Duration 3 years 3 years
Disciplines ICT, neuroscience, assistive technologies Product Design, Economics, Electrical Engineering, Informatics, Medicine
Content Brain and Neural Computer Interfaces Product Development, Methodological knowledge on user participation in product development Basic / applied
research Application oriented, but not yet close to market Applied
Beneficiaries Severely disabled users Disabled users/ Companies /Research Project
management structure
• Own organizational unit within a research organization as the coordinator / Regular General Assemblies consisting of all partners as the main decision-making body
• Meetings twice a year and regular telephone conferences
• Own organizational unit within a research organization as the coordinator / Regular General Assemblies consisting of all partners as the main decision-making body
• Technological results and applications/ maybe patents
Conflict
resolution • Formal conflict-resolution mechanisms in line with FP7 project expectations
• Informal project management as experienced approach to disagreements
• Mutual agreement or consent when it comes to general decisions on the project
• Specific questions of product development need to be answered by CSOs
• external project participants alone or in cooperation with the scientific /technical developer at the different steps of the development
Ethics • Shared view that project is ethically positive because it aims to facilitate autonomy for disabled users.
• Project raised human-research ethics issues.
The technology was classed as a medical device which triggered a full national ethics review. The CSO members were able to partner up with a local university, which was not a part of the consortium, to use their experience and facilities to gain ethics approval. This proved to be a major effort for the CSO that they were unlikely to have been successful in if they had not had the support of the local university.
• Strict interpretation of personality rights
• Double check of media and PR by relevant CSO(s)
• The university partner served as the main organizational link to the disabled. Its staff was experienced in their treatment and was aware of their needs and limits.
Table 6: Overview of two initial CONSIDER case studies
Participation in Technology Assessment that motivated the choice of case studies. The following table gives an insight into the cases that inform the present document.
As was to be expected, the findings arising from the case studies were rich and provided interesting insights into current practices of CSO participation. During further progress of the project, this data will provide the basis for the development of models that represent important aspects of CSO participation in research. As the present paper does not provide
As was to be expected, the findings arising from the case studies were rich and provided interesting insights into current practices of CSO participation. During further progress of the project, this data will provide the basis for the development of models that represent important aspects of CSO participation in research. As the present paper does not provide