Public engagement with research: Citizens’ views on motivations, barriers and support

M. Dreyer, H. Kosow, Anja Bauer, Blagovesta Chonkova, Ventseslav Kozarev, L. Timotijevic
{"title":"Public engagement with research: Citizens’ views on motivations, barriers and support","authors":"M. Dreyer, H. Kosow, Anja Bauer, Blagovesta Chonkova, Ventseslav Kozarev, L. Timotijevic","doi":"10.14324/rfa.05.2.08","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nResponsible research and innovation (RRI) approaches that have emerged in the past ten years point to the importance of engaging the public in dialogues about research. The different variants of RRI share the notion that societal actors, including citizens, need to work together – that is, engage in two-way communication during the research and innovation process – in order to better align both the process and its outcomes with the values, needs and expectations of society. Yet, sponsors and organizers of dialogues about research often face difficulties in recruiting sufficient numbers of participants or ensuring a sufficient level of diversity of participants. This paper asks what motivates or hinders individual citizens as members of the broader public to participate in such dialogues. It presents empirical findings of the European Union-funded project Promoting Societal Engagement Under the Terms of RRI (PROSO), which aimed to foster public engagement with research for RRI. PROSO used a quasi-experimental, qualitative approach directly involving citizens to address this question. The core of the innovative methodology were focus group discussions with European citizens about hypothetical opportunities to take part in dialogues about research. Three hypothetical scenarios of different dialogue formats (varied by whether they seek to inform the participants, consult or enable deeper collaboration on a scientific issue) were used as stimuli to explore the participants’ willingness (motivations and perceived barriers) to engage with scientific research. Our findings show a preference towards dialogue formats that give citizens a more active role and a greater say in research policy or research funding. They further suggest that those who seek to broaden citizen participation in dialogues about research should consider the role of relevance, impact, trust, legitimacy, knowledge, and time and resources as factors that can motivate or discourage citizens to take part. Based on our findings, we discuss possibilities to promote citizen participation in dialogues about research as part of putting RRI into practice.","PeriodicalId":165758,"journal":{"name":"Research for All","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research for All","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14324/rfa.05.2.08","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) approaches that have emerged in the past ten years point to the importance of engaging the public in dialogues about research. The different variants of RRI share the notion that societal actors, including citizens, need to work together – that is, engage in two-way communication during the research and innovation process – in order to better align both the process and its outcomes with the values, needs and expectations of society. Yet, sponsors and organizers of dialogues about research often face difficulties in recruiting sufficient numbers of participants or ensuring a sufficient level of diversity of participants. This paper asks what motivates or hinders individual citizens as members of the broader public to participate in such dialogues. It presents empirical findings of the European Union-funded project Promoting Societal Engagement Under the Terms of RRI (PROSO), which aimed to foster public engagement with research for RRI. PROSO used a quasi-experimental, qualitative approach directly involving citizens to address this question. The core of the innovative methodology were focus group discussions with European citizens about hypothetical opportunities to take part in dialogues about research. Three hypothetical scenarios of different dialogue formats (varied by whether they seek to inform the participants, consult or enable deeper collaboration on a scientific issue) were used as stimuli to explore the participants’ willingness (motivations and perceived barriers) to engage with scientific research. Our findings show a preference towards dialogue formats that give citizens a more active role and a greater say in research policy or research funding. They further suggest that those who seek to broaden citizen participation in dialogues about research should consider the role of relevance, impact, trust, legitimacy, knowledge, and time and resources as factors that can motivate or discourage citizens to take part. Based on our findings, we discuss possibilities to promote citizen participation in dialogues about research as part of putting RRI into practice.
公众参与研究:公民对动机、障碍和支持的看法
过去十年中出现的负责任的研究与创新(RRI)方法指出了让公众参与有关研究的对话的重要性。RRI的不同变体都有一个共同的概念,即包括公民在内的社会行动者需要共同努力,即在研究和创新过程中进行双向沟通,以便更好地使过程及其结果与社会的价值观、需求和期望保持一致。然而,关于研究的对话的发起者和组织者经常在招募足够数量的参与者或确保参与者的充分多样性方面面临困难。本文探讨的是,是什么激励或阻碍了作为更广泛公众成员的公民个人参与这种对话。本文介绍了欧盟资助的促进RRI条款下的社会参与项目(PROSO)的实证结果,该项目旨在促进公众参与RRI研究。PROSO采用了一种准实验的定性方法,直接涉及公民来解决这个问题。创新方法的核心是与欧洲公民就参与研究对话的假想机会进行焦点小组讨论。三种不同对话形式的假设情景(根据他们是否寻求告知参与者,咨询或在科学问题上进行更深层次的合作而有所不同)被用作探索参与者参与科学研究的意愿(动机和感知障碍)的刺激。我们的研究结果表明,人们更倾向于让公民在研究政策或研究资助方面发挥更积极的作用和更大的发言权的对话形式。他们进一步建议,那些寻求扩大公民参与研究对话的人应该考虑相关性、影响、信任、合法性、知识、时间和资源的作用,这些因素可以激励或阻止公民参与。基于我们的发现,我们讨论了促进公民参与研究对话的可能性,作为将RRI付诸实践的一部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信