Delivery to policy and practice

Draft Proposal for a Programme Bid to ESRC

SCIENCE, GOVERNANCE AND SOCIAL CHANGE

Peter Healey (SPSG) and Alan Irwin (Brunel University).

(16^th November, 1999)

The new challenge to scientific and social governance

Just when discussions over the ‘knowledge economy’ are emphasising the centrality of science to economic performance and quality of life, relations between science and wider society have become more problematic. Indeed, recent debates and controversies in the UK over a range of technical issues –and, notably, food risks and the biotechnologies - suggest a changing relationship between science, public policy and citizenship (whether expressed in economic, political or social terms). Previous assumptions about, for example, ‘sound science’ as a basis for policy-making – and about the equation of science with social progress – are being called into question and processes of decision-making undercut.

Amongst the challenges to our earlier assumptions about the science-society relationship, there can be identified a number of contested debates and evolving themes:

The emergence, and increased significance, of wider stakeholders for science-related policy;

An acknowledgement of the fundamental uncertainties confronting decision-making processes;

A recognition of the relationship between science, ethical concerns and publicly-identified interests;

An emphasis on the trust and credibility of institutional actors and procedures;

A recognition of the plural sources of knowledge and expertise relevant to specific issues and the need to expose the assumptions of policy to debate;

A focus on science, democracy and new mechanisms of science communication, consultation and accountability.

The challenge to public policy is to design and introduce a fresh ‘social contract’ based upon an improved understanding of this more complex and multi-dimensional relationship between science, democracy and social change. Indeed, there are already signs of such an approach. Recent initiatives from OST – including the Public Consultation on Developments in the Biosciences and the current review of science communication – serve as one marker of this new orientation. However, the changing relationship between science, public policy and wider stakeholders also raises a series of difficult questions and problems:

How to maintain and enhance the quality of scientific decision-making (and expertise more broadly) within the context of ‘extended peer review’?;

How to maintain the flexibility and effectiveness of policy processes given the requirement for greater transparency and openness?;

How to ensure that policy decisions are robust but also responsive in the face of public demands and concerns?

The emerging agenda for science and public policy therefore represents a major challenge for the governance of social and scientific change. Certainly, the new context represents a crucial test for society’s ability to handle technical issues in both an effective and democratic fashion – including the balancing of economic opportunities against social risks in an environment characterised by fundamental uncertainties.

In social scientific terms, this represents both an area where a major contribution can be made to policy-related understanding but also an important focus for (and stimulus to) empirical investigation and theoretical reflection. In terms of the latter, this proposed programme relates closely to – and will enhance - wider academic debates over changing relations of knowledge and expertise, over our understanding of citizenship and democratic engagement, over governance and institutional change, and over the character of communication within late-modern societies (including, very importantly, moves away from traditional, top-down approaches to the communication of science).

A new agenda for research and practice

This description of current patterns of social and scientific change draws substantially upon previous social science research into the public understanding of science, and science and public policy. The contribution of the social sciences to the contemporary understanding of these issues has been acknowledged by a number of opinion leaders and decision makers. The challenge now is to enhance the social scientific capacity in this area and in a manner which is broadly commensurate with the needs of governmental, industrial, consumer, environmental and public groups.

Given the salience and urgency of these issues, it is important for the programme to offer a continuing input to policy discussions during its life, and provide a means for all those interested in the work of the programme to participate. To achieve this, the programme will comprise three activities: research, review and support for action and evaluation. These activities will be brought together and monitored through a Programme Forum comprising the major stakeholders in the programme and its output.

Within the research component, the programme will draw upon a number of areas of social science – including science and technology studies, sociology, politics, law, economics, educational research, and social anthropology – in order to further practical and theoretical understanding. Central to the programme will be the processes (and consequences) of widening public engagement with scientific and technological change – whether as citizens and activists, consumers of goods and services, through career and professional development, or within domestic settings.

Presented under four overlapping headings, the programme content will cover:

a) Changing Relations of Knowledge and Expertise

The emerging conditions of scientific practice – and especially the responsiveness of scientific institutions to public concerns, pressures and demands (for example, over risk management or the ethical evaluation of scientific research);

The study of knowledge transfer and knowledge intermediaries – to include the role of various scientific and ‘non-scientific’ organisations in the mediation and construction of scientific messages and concerns (for example, environmentalist, consumer and medical self-help groups);

New interpretations of the relationship between science and public policy – including the operation of the precautionary principle and the burden of proof;

The role of new groups and organisations within ‘extended peer review’.

b) Science, Citizenship and Public Engagement

Current ‘social experiments’ in science and democracy – to include consensus conferences, new forms of deliberative and inclusionary democracy, public consultation exercises, stakeholder engagement;

Investigation into the changing character of ‘scientific citizenship’ within contemporary society – including the relationship between current citizen concerns and more traditional forms of democratic citizenship.

c) Re-modelling Science Communication

science communication in particular settings embodying uncertainty and divergent stakeholders eg science advice in public policy and in regulation, forensic science, the assessment and communication of the science underpinning tradeable products and services;

new initiatives in science education and science communication – especially those designed to encourage a two-way relationship between public and scientific knowledges;

studies of the media treatment of science and social response – including media constructions of the public and its interests within scientific issues and concerns;

the communication of social science, in relation both to the direct communication of social science findings, and to social science aspects of the management and evaluation of outcomes of science, engineering and technology.

d) Governance and Institutional Change

the study of institutional responsiveness and flexibility within the new context for science-public relations;

the construction and framing of ‘public opinion’ within institutional processes.

Delivery to policy and practice

The organisation and management of the programme needs to serve its aims to support the development, implementation and evaluation of public policy. The programme is designed not only to ensure user engagement with its own work, but to kick-start a continuing cycle of review, research, action and evaluation in which social and natural scientists learn to collaborate in the interests of more evidence-based policy and practice.

Specifically it is proposed to develop an approach to the delivery of the programme which:

Maintains a sustained concentration of effort on programme concerns rather than those of individual projects.

Experience suggests that this is hard to achieve under conventional approaches to programme management. An alternative approach which we believe deserves consideration is:

to follow the practice of the ESRC New Opportunities Programme on PUS, in establishing further short-term fellowships whose responsibility would be to review and synthesise what is known before undertaking new empirical research. We would take the process one step further by inviting natural scientists to work alongside social scientists in undertaking these reviews, thus encouraging each to take on board each others’ perspectives and concerns;

in commissioning stage 1 of empirical research required under the programme (see figure 2) , to call for an initial offer of areas of interest and expertise based on the programme agenda as presented above, together with suggestions of possible research sites, and then formulate projects, through negotiation with selected participants – sometimes on a multidisciplinary or inter-institutional basis.

Proceeding in this way in stage 1 will help tap existing knowledge effectively and ensure that stage 1 projects, taken together, cover an appropriate range of approaches to the full range of research issues which have been identified. This will guard against an early fragmentation of programme objectives, and establish a better basis for the selection of issues, research sites and approaches before decisions are made on substantive new research in stage 2 of the programme. It will also allow, at an early stage of the programme’s life, the fostering of collaborative ways of working between social scientists, natural scientists and practitioners.

Through the review activity, provides a critical awareness of research and practice in selected comparator countries.

A programme of collaboration between the UK and Nordic countries on public understanding of science has shown that to be valuable information exchange with other countries has to be grounded in understanding of their policy cultures, institutional arrangements and processes. It is therefore proposed to focus comparative analysis on a few countries which are of direct policy interest to the UK or show other distinctive features. The programme will continue collaboration with Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland on this basis, and initiate similar activity with France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United States (where NSF has shown in principle interest in collaborative exchanges). The potential of developing similar links with Asian countries, notably Japan, will be explored at a lower level of priority.

The programme will use an initial workshop to establish baseline information between the comparators; establish a sustained flow of information on research and practice with the aid of analysts in each country and the British Library; and select particular issues to be the subject of commissioned reviews or ad hoc workshops.

Maintains through a Programme Forum constructive interaction between all those having a stake in the programme’s results.

It is proposed that consultation over this research specification will form the basis of a Programme Forum - a ‘working space’ in which researchers both in the programme and others with related work, natural scientists, policymakers and practitioners can share insights and concerns. The forum would:

communicate to policymakers and practitioners not only research commissioned under the programme but wider current research from a range of domains (eg risk research, social psychology, political science, evaluation studies and sociology) related to the origins, processes and outcomes of public engagement with science and technology;

communicate to researchers current requirements and initiatives in policy and practice with the aim of informing both the research agenda and the choice of research sites;
make a special input to the programme’s action and evaluation objectives;

report and recommend on specific priorities within the international aspects of the review activity outlined above.

Figure two: programme activities and their delivery

activity	objective	delivery by
research 70% of programme budget	Broad ranging empirical research on the twelve target issues (see page 3) under four themes (stage 1) Focussed research on key issues and institutions under each theme (stage 2) Synthesis, dissemination and review (stage 3)	Three stages of work designed to: break the traditional fragmentation of programmes into individual projects; allow for social science/natural science collaborations build in critical synthesis of existing research ensure that senior academic time is involved ensure flexibility to meet changing needs develop options for policy and practice Stage 1 - 20% of programme funding, 20 months (5 months preparation & decision period; 12 months funding;3 months assessment – overlaps with planning & decision on stage 2). A wide ranging set of projects intended to cover the target issues from a variety of approaches, and thus offer the fullest choice for stage 2. To meet this requirement, bids would be invited and assessed on the basis of research interests and experience – not full project proposals. Projects would be negotiated with successful bidders by programme coordinators who might broker cross-disciplinary and inter-institutional projects as necessary. Natural scientists in institutions under study would be encouraged to take an active role in the research. Stage 2 – 40% of programme funding, 31 months (2 months preparation and decision period; 26 months funding; 3 months assessment - includes planning and decision on stage 3). Stage 2 would allow an opportunity for fuller research to be undertaken on key issues and themes identified under stage 1. Research would be conducted by senior academics who were willing to give a significant fragment of their time to undertaking the work themselves, with small amounts of research assistance. The work will also be expected to include significant elements of overview and synthesis, and to involve collaboration with natural scientists in a variety of forms, which might include ‘visiting project fellowships’. Stage 3 – 10% of programme funding, 9 months (6 months synthesis and dissemination, 3 months final review). Although the whole of the programme would be involved in using the Programme Forum to maximise interaction with policymakers and practitioners, synthesis under broad themes and discussion of options for policy and practice would be the main emphasis of stage 3. Delivery would be by the coordinators and by selected researchers from earlier stages.
Review 20% of programme budget	Critical overview of theory, research, practice and methodology in: - Nordic countries - France - Germany - Netherlands - United States in relation to programme themes, and in collaboration with research funders in those countries Explore the ground for similar exchanges with Asian countries, especially Japan	The timing and overall focus of the Programme’s review activities would follow that under research. The aim would be to provide wider sources of information and analysis relevant to the research themes which can be selectively amplified and drawn on as developing Programme requirements dictate. Delivery would be by networks of researchers and practitioners. The approach will be based on the experience of collaboration with the Nordic countries in 1998-99. Direct contacts would be bolstered by systematic information awareness services through the British Library or alternative systematic information sources. Occasional workshops will be organised on key issues identified by the Programme Forum.
support of action and evaluation 10% of programme budget	Experiments in different modes of ‘open door’ communication in SET public consultation practices In close collaboration with OST and Wellcome, input into the long-term evaluation of Public Understanding of Science, Scientists’ Understanding of the Public, Public Understanding of Social Science and related activity	This element would be driven, both in content and timing, more by its own agenda than the programme requirements as a whole. A common frame for activity would be established through commissioned work and the Programme Forum. Activity drawing on programme resources and by subcontracting particular tasks. Fellowship holders and contracted researchers would be expected to contribute time to this Overseas visiting fellows might be established to contribute to activity under the review or support of action and evaluation elements of the programme

Reviews what training opportunities need to be set up in order to provide a better relationship of social and natural science skills and approaches in the analysis of future developments and in support of policy and practice

Future development of effective and robust public policy on science and society will be the result of effective collaboration across traditional boundaries of discipline and method:

between the social and natural sciences;
within the social sciences, between different disciplinary perspectives and qualitative and quantitative methods.

This is a short term challenge to the programme which we have tried to address elsewhere, but it is also a longer term challenge to the education and training of researchers and practitioners. These are not new issues. In the sixties and seventies there was a strong debate on the social context of science that led to many experiments in broader education, such as the (then) SRC/SSRC Joint Committee, and the (then) SSRC Conversion Fellowships. Current issues require a new approach to the education of scientists and engineers, and it will be part of the programme’s task, working through the Forum, to review training needs in relation to research and practice elsewhere and to make recommendations.

Ensures that the content and approach of the programme allow for flexibility over its full time-period.

The Programme Forum will provide the agenda of new issues to which the programme will need to respond as it develops. Flexibility will be achieved by:

the formulation of an agenda based on longer-term strategic concerns of science, industry, representative public groups and governments of both parties;

the architecture of the programme with its balance between research and support for policy and practice;

the organisation of research projects and fellowships on a ‘staged’ basis, so that capacity can be committed later as the agenda changes;

the use of workshops in particular to highlight new issues and approaches, especially in the selected comparator countries;

the possible use of visiting Fellows to the UK to act as a focal point for the discussion of particular aspects of policy or practice for which overseas experience may be particularly relevant.

Ensures that the approach is complementary to the major efforts in this field from other research funders.

In pursuit of this objective discussions are in progress or will take place with OST, the Wellcome Trust, the Leverhulme Trust, and relevant European Union’s programmes under FP5, especially Improving Human Potential and the Socio-economic Knowledge base.

Tests the legitimacy of the package with researchers and practitioners.

The circulation of this document is part of that process, which will also include a consultative workshop which will take place on 3 December 1999.

************

For further details or to make comments please get in touch with:

Professor Alan Irwin Peter Healey

Department of Human Sciences Science Policy Support Group

Brunel University (SPSG)

Tel: 01895 203322 Tel: 0171 799 3335

E-mail: alan.irwin@brunel.ac.uk
E-mail: Peter.Healey@spsg.org

Back to the Web Page of the Research into European Technology & Science Policy Analyses