Final Report Summary - PLACES (Platform of Local Authorities and Cities Engaged in Science)
Executive Summary:
PLACES Networks partners developed a common platform for a wide and diverse community of actors to promote the cooperation in their science communication activities, and to develop science communication policies at city/regional level. Over four years, 67 science communication institutions (science centres, museums, festivals) were supported to work with their local authority administrators, policy makers, research institutions and citizen associations to plan and implement their long-term co-operation for the “city of scientific culture”. PLACES promoted the City of Scientific Culture at regional levels via the ERRIN network, whose regional members host the most advanced “science cities” and at city level where ECSITE/EUSCEA science communicators have engaged their local authorities and other local stakeholders in the project, by creating a formal City Partnership (CP). The 3 PLACES partner networks (ECSITE/EUSCEA/ERRIN) created a cyber-platform (www.openplaces.eu) and organized many meetings merging the various types of actors and producing thematic reports and concrete recommendations. At the city level, members of ECSITE and EUSCEA received support to produce a City Action Plan, a Local Survey a Pilot Activity. Local and regional authority administrators received training and support via the expertise of science communicators. The PLACES community of actors worked in 5 Thematic Working Groups, using their professional expertise to analyse and produce recommendations in relation to five topics within the European Societal Challenges. An independent European team of academic researchers assessed the impact of activities in 10 science centres, 10 events and 10 cities, by selecting with neutrality among the PLACES participants (around 70 cities), and produced an Impact Assessment Toolkit for science communication initiatives and policies. The numerous operational links stimulated by PLACES generated new knowledge which will be used to define, at a European level, models and recommendations toward various political levels.
Project Context and Objectives:
The overall goal of PLACES is to offer to a wide and diverse community of actors a common platform to structure their science communication activities, at city/regional level. Over four years, science communicators are encouraged to meet local authority administrators and policymakers to imagine and plan their long-term co-operation for the city of scientific culture.
Operational objectives :
- Analyze the diversity of local contexts at the EU level in order to generate new knowledge
- Build a community of interest that will share tools, knowledge and practices and promote cooperation
- Support local authority administrators in order to engage cities and regions in scientific culture Policy objectives
- Guarantee long term engagement of actors and build a permanent resource centre
- Build a common framework for the city of scientific culture, identifying the EU added-value
- Deliver appropriate recommendations to various actors by analyzing various opinions
The project brings together three networks: science centres and museums from ECSITE are gathered with science events and festival organizers from Eusea and with research and Innovation actors at city and regional levels, represented by the ERRIN members, which are Regions of Europe engaged in the Knowledge Society vision. These networks engage formally their cities and regions in science communication through key-concepts and activities designed for PLACES.
City Partnerships arise from science communication institutions forming alliances with local policymakers and other local stakeholders to develop effective science communication policies.
Local Action Plans (LAPs) are led by City Partnerships and address science and technology-related issues relevant to their respective city or region. LAPs are strategic visions that will inform science communication policy at the local level for many years to come. Citizen consultation is a key step in drafting LAPs.
Pilot Activities test innovative approaches to communicate science-based solutions in cities. They are developed in connection with the LAPs, to test innovative practices on how to address controversial or problematic local issues in a way that actively involves citizens.
Science Cities Workshops are meetings used for discussing the development of local science communication policies that will lead to Training workshops aimed at civil servants explore how to incorporate science communication into their work.
Thematic Working Groups foster high-level discussion about how science communication policies and activities dealing with Science in Society topics connect to the Europe 2020 targets.
Impact Assessment : a fourth partner, the Observatori dela Comunicació Científica of the University Pompeu Fabra, in Barcelona, is responsible for developing and testing tools for Impact Assessment of science communication policies and activities. These tools are applied to the PLACES community to analyze the impact on society of science communication activities in three contexts: science centres, festivals and cities.
PLACES also sets up an external and specialized voice in PLACES composed of non-governmental organizations, journalists, universities, research centres, and others: the Stakeholders Assembly.
The project provides a powerful platform for all the actors in PLACES: the PLACES OPEN web platform is a meeting place for people working on PLACES as well as a “science in society” resource centre. It is accessible to any number of projects or networks who want to contribute to PLACES.
Surveys, reports and assessments document European realities of how local actors and science interact and yield recommendations for future policies. These reports contain recommendations for building effective science communication policies in European cities.
PLACES concluded in 2014 with local and EU-level blueprints for how to build European Cities of Scientific Culture.
Project Results:
PLACES produced three main types of foreground:
- A toolkit for accessing impact of science communication initiatives and policies.
- Collections of examples and best practices concerning science communication policy development, in the form of Local Action Plans for more than 54 cities, and also of best practices regarding activities for citizen engagement.
- Recommendations derived from the work of the diverse community of actors working in PLACES.
What follows is the summary description of the documents corresponding to the foreground. The complete documents can be accessed on the searchable section of PLACES resources:
http://www.openplaces.eu/resources/places
IMPACT ASSESSMENT TOOLKIT
In the last decades several instruments have been developed to evaluate the impact of the various activities that go under the definition of “Science and Society initiatives” (which in this document refers specifically to “Science events”, “Science centres” and “Science Cities”). The proliferation of such type of instruments went together with a parallel development of a considerable amount of indicators.
The existence of such a variety of indicators facilitates interesting findings when applied to very specific cases. However, at a comparative level, there still lacks a general model for measuring the impact. In particular, there is still no model that obtains the highest possible level of consensus between the members of the vast community that nowadays works in this area (including both the academic community and the people who are responsible for and promote this type of activities). Such a manual can be found for example in the field of evaluation of basic scientific research (R&D). It is the case of the Frascati Manual, which has gained amongst scientists a very high level of consensus as a standardized reference point (even if it remains clear that specific indicators need to be adapted to analyse elements of every specific case). The case of the Oslo Manual (to evaluate innovation) is also very similar.
PLACES produced the “Impact Assessment Toolkit for the City of Scientific Culture”, as the result of the collective effort of the several experts working presently in this field.
The group of experts producing the toolkit was composed of 29 experts from 21 countries (1 from Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden and United Kingdom; 2 from Austria and Denmark, 3 from Switzerland and 5 from Spain).
The committee was also very representative of different members’ backgrounds working in the field of SCIP impact assessment (12 social researchers, 11 from the field of communication field, 5 from the educational field and 1 from the field of economics).
There was also a good balance of age and gender (12 women and 15 men ranging from under 30 to 70+ years old).
The toolkit has been created for the purpose of serving as an instrument for the measure of the impact of initiatives and policies within the area of science communication and scientific culture in general (SCIP: Science Communication Initiatives and Policies).
The toolkit is composed of two parts. The first is centred around a reflection on the necessity to make collective instruments available for the analysis of the impact of SCIP in Europe. It also raises some of the main limitations and challenges that these types of studies are subject to, as well as a literature review on the topic.
The second part summarizes the structure and methodology used for the purposes of the Impact Assessment tasks of the PLACES project. Rational for the chosen methodology is also given with the aim of guaranteeing maximum data quality, representativeness, and efficiency. This section also includes the questionnaires that were used, the key questions used in the semi-structured interviews, and the guides for the focus groups.
The questionnaires and instruments presented in this toolkit are not strictly intended to evaluate the results and / or effects of SCIPs in participants, or organisations, but are instead intended for broader application in the study of the collective effects of SCIPs. This toolkit is also designed to be used both by specialists and non-specialists.
The toolkit takes an operational look at the impact of SCIPs within three dimensions: impact on the public (citizens), impact on the political sphere (the local and regional dimension), and the impact on the actors involved in the SCIPs themselves. Each of these three dimensions is divided into three levels based on the agent that is responsible for the SCIP: the level of museums and science centres, the level of science events, and the level of cities of scientific culture (or science cities).
This triple dimension/level (3x3) approach has helped to design instruments that are better suited to each case. Fundamentally, the instruments include surveys /questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, focus groups as well as analyses of institutional sources. Observational studies have been ruled out for the purposes of the PLACES project. Aside from their advantages in social science, their use in the project was unfeasible due to the extensive nature of the project (the large number of case studies and participating countries).
Once a consensus was reached for the design of the operational scheme, instruments, and concrete questions, the specific cases to be studied were selected. One or more instruments were then selected for each case.
The toolkit contains detailed resources, including instructions for use of the main instruments for the study of the impact on Public, Political sphere and Actors.
It also contains a detailed literature review.
The toolkit can be downloaded from these sources:
http://www.openplaces.eu/resources/places/80649
An online version for easier access and use is available here:
http://formasnaturales.com/places/
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM IMPACT ASSESSORS
The PLACES Toolkit for the Impact Assessment of Science Communication Initiatives and Policies (SCIP) was used to produce recommendations based on the results of the study of 26 cases representing different European SCIP. This list includes examples of science centers, science events and cities in their quality of “Cities of Scientific Culture”.
The cases analysed represent as a whole a wide geographic representation of Europe. Every researcher analyzed one or more cases from his/her own country. In big countries, selected cases were placed in cities close to the researcher’s residence, as the destined budget to field work did not allow movements to far cities or long stays (generally, work required more than one person for its realization).
Cases were proportionally distributed between “science center”, “science event” and “city of scientific culture or science city”
The group of cases represents a good sample of the different SCIP models existent currently in Europe. (For example science centers with a long career and others more recent; big, small and medium cities; events focused in different issues...).
Cases belong to one of the main networks from PLACES consortium (ECSITE, EUSEA and ERRIN). Exceptionally, some SCIP cases that did not belong to PLACES network were included but they fitted perfectly the rest of criterion.
Based on this analysis, a document was produced based solely on the recommendations arisen from 26 case studies about the impact of different European SCIP.
The following steps have been followed to elaborate this document:
From the results of 26 case studies which analyzed the social impact of SCIP, the authors of these research produced individual reports in which they included a section of recommendations.
A team from the Science Communication Observatory of the Universitat Pompeu Fabra has grouped and summarized all recommendations mentioned above. Categories had not been established previously, but they have emerged from a bottom-up approach from the analysis of the cases’ recommendations. The aspects or categories in which these recommendations have been grouped are: Objectives, Target, Venues, Areas / issues, Timing, Formats and ways, Local dimension, Promotion / Advertisement / Communication, Financing and Evaluation
This document intends to be useful and practical, and because of that we deliberately avoid technical words or large explanations, trying to be as much informative as possible.
Some of the recommendations could seem very basic or well-known by most part of the people involved in SCIP. However, we have included them in this document because some case studies have shown that there is still a lack of knowledge about them.
REPORT ON SCIENTIFIC CULTURE IN EUROPE
The main objective of this document is to have an overview of different contexts of scientific culture that are present around Europe with a particular focus on the local dimension of the initiatives and policies in science communication.
The report is based on the analysis done by the experts that designed the Impact assessment Toolkit of PLACES and gives an overview of the following countries:
Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom.
Each country is analysed according to the following aspects: National context, the place of science in society, Science centres and museums, Science events, and Scientific culture in local policies
The document provides a very brief synopsis of the main political, cultural or socioeconomic changes the country during the last 20-30 years that may have been decisive in the development of science and the relationship between science & society.
A second part gives a general overview of where science stands in the country’s society (historically, politically, culturally, etc.). This section also discusses S&T indicators and the public’s perception of S&T. Regional differences through out the country and how the media portrays science may also be mentioned in relevant cases.
The third section provides some general information on the science centres and museums located in the country
The fourth section provides information on science events held in the country. This may include examples of: Festivals, fairs, open doors, film festivals, etc.
The fifth section is focused on policies. Information on particular laws or formal initiatives related with the promotion of science or the public participation in S&T is included here. Regions in the nation that use SCIENCE as a “brand” or cities of of scientific culture and the like may also be discussed here.
COLLECTIONS OF EXAMPLES AND BEST PRACTICES:
Local Action Plans (Laps)
The LAPs are long-term strategic vision that the cities participating in PLACES participants have produced. The participants in the PLACES project developed 68 partnerships in as many European cities. These partnerships are defined as being composed of at least one member of the Ecsite or Eusea networks together with the relevant local authority. This was the minimum criterion for a City Partnership but in many cases the composition of these partnerships was enlarged to encompass other actors and stakeholders, considering the goals of the LAP to be developed. Also, for the development of the LAP, each City Partnership organized one citizens’ consultation procedure. This ensured that the activities to be taken up at a local level are firmly rooted in the needs and values of the local community
The basic structure for the development of a Local Action Plan is as follows:
- Local impact
Our societies are firmly rooted and dependent on science and technology. However, citizens usually regard science and technology as a field outside their scope of action, that doesn’t concern their everyday lives, that deals with matters they don’t understand and produces outcomes leading to decisions they cannot influence. Obviously, this is not, or should not be, true.
An essential feature of the LAP was, therefore, a clear local focus. This means that it relates to the local issues, needs, projects and other local realities. A Local Action Plan should strive to effectively bring science and technology into the local dimension, linking it to the social issues and discussions in such a way that enables the citizens to see the interplay between science, technology and their social reality, allowing them to exert citizenship in policy making and decision implementation regarding scientifically and technologically themed issues.
Obviously, global scientific issues such as social health, environment or sustainability are tackled by some of the LAPs. However, this is done in such a way that the local perspective on these issues is strongly emphasized, grounding these topics on concrete projects and actions to be implemented at local level. The “glocal” concept (think globally and act locally) was useful in this context.
- Call for Action
Many science communication institutions participating in this project already have fruitful working relations with the local authorities. For instance, the municipality may provide the logistics and financial support for the annual science festival, or is a sponsor of the science centre or museum. The Local Action Plans went beyond this stage and provided the plans for these connections to develop in to practical approaches, addressing concrete issues, objectives and actions. Many of these actions were embodied and developed in Pilot Activities.
- Long-term Plan
The Local Actions defined according to the above guidelines resulted in plans that will be further developed and implemented during the next 5-10 years, in other words, going well beyond the lifetime of the PLACES Project. The viability and concrete development of LAPs is, therefore, to be ensured by the local actors – municipalities, companies, foundations, science communication institutions, research and educational institutions, ONG’s.
57 Local Action Plans were developed. Their overall structure and scope are the subject of an analysis that constitutes an independent document.
- Citizen Input
During the development of the Local Action Plan, the City Partnerships developed different strategies and activities to achieve two purposes:
• To disseminate the City Partnership and its objectives to the citizens, at local level
• To gather the input of citizens in order to adjust the Local Action Plan to the aspirations, concerns and demands of the citizens.
The citizen consultation ended up being so intimately connected with the Local Action Plan development that it is actually part of the LAP description that can be found in Deliverable 4.4 and accessed online on
http://www.openplaces.eu/resources/lap
or
http://www.openplaces.eu/resources/places/81833
Also, the Pilot Activities were developed as innovative activities to develop the engagement of citizens and the two-way dialogue in science communication policies development. Therefore, most of the Pilot Activities are, in fact, the Citizen Consultation process, and reflect the initiatives done in that direction.
They can be found online on
http://www.openplaces.eu/resources/pilot_activities
The format for citizen consultation was diverse:
- Activities to highlight a local issue followed by debates
- Polls or questionnaires, live and online
- Debates
- Interviews and focus groups
- Word cafés
- Stakeholders consultation
A few cities chose to develop provocative activities that would stimulate the citizens into thinking and expressing about specific topics that were part of their local action plan. These activities were followed either by public debates or one to one conversations, or by focus groups. Most carried surveys to find the opinions of citizens about the overall science communication panorama at local level, or about a specific topic, such as environment, education or the urgent needs of the city renovation; some surveys included an online component.
Other cities opted to make specific consultations to groups of stakeholders. Therefore, they invited specific groups such as municipal departments, citizen associations, companies, and other groups.
Analysis Of The Local Action Plans
LAPs are core elements of the PLACES project as they are the concrete manifestation of the local-level cooperation between the city administration and the science communicators, which PLACES targets and has been encouraging for four years and they are the interface where the joint actions reach and engage citizens.
The theoretical analysis is complemented by a more practical qualitative approach based on personal interviews and a workshop where information was collected from partner cities on their stakeholder involvement, process, target groups and the impact of their initiative.
In this analysis, it is sought to complete the thematic classification of LAPs with another typology. ERRIN has come up with another report in the same work package: the report on the proto-models of cities of scientific culture. In this report, the authors identified six types of proto-models according to the role of science in the city. These six categories identified a ‘city of scientific culture’ as one which could identify itself as using science policy in strategic terms:
• as an economic driver
• as a smart city
• as supporting high-quality research
• as society - encouraging citizens to engage in science
• as education – encouraging citizens to take a greater interest in science
• as a model of participatory democracy – aware that a modern-day democracy requires access to scientific knowledge by the governors and the governed.
In this analysis, LAPs are categorised against these six typologies. As one can see, some of the typologies are more general – research and economy, while others are more “personal”, in other words, involve more citizens’ participation or target citizens, like science in society, education, participatory democracy. The starting hypothesis was that most of the LAPs would belong to the categories that involved citizens.
From the two approaches, the following conclusions have been drawn that are supported by statements of partner cities in the last section of the report:
- LAPs helped to change the perception of the science communication institutions. PLACES enabled the science actors to be considered as trustworthy partners to reach citizens an to communicate on behalf of authorities, not only as a place of entertainment for children and families;
- PLACES, as a European brand, facilitated the creation of partnership with local stakeholders and got them engaged in activities with a common objective;
- LAPs contributed to the empowerment of citizens as they could get their voice heard and managed to convey their messages to the city administration which would not have happened or would have been more difficult without PLACES.
From the different sources of this analysis (ERRIN regional meetings, expert analysis, interviews, workshop), the following main conclusions were drawn and supported by actual examples.
- The CP and LAP have helped change the perception that institutions and citizens have of Science Communication institutions. For instance, municipalities and other policymaking institutions realized that Science Centres and Museums have the instruments, methodologies and know-how to promote citizen engagement, realize citizen consultation and promote participation. Also, they have the trust from citizens and are good facilitators.
- The European dimension was crucial for the development of City Partnerships and the LAPs. Resources developed by the project (the PLACES Declaration, the Toolkit) and the four well-attended conferences attracting diverse participants from all across Europe and beyond indicated that often cities and regions shared common problems and encouraged the sharing of ideas and the credibility of the topic.
- The LAP contributed to empower citizens by providing instruments and occasions for the exercise of citizenship and by providing the connection between citizens and policymakers, or by providing access to information and resources that stimulated citizen engagement and participation.
Pilot Activities
An extensive series of Pilot Activities tested innovative approaches to communicate science-based solutions in cities. The Pilot Activities were developed in connection with the Local Action Plans, to test best practices on how to address controversial or problematic local issues in a way that actively involves citizens.
The basic idea of these Pilot Activities was to initiate, develop and carry out creative ideas for events and activities to foster the City of Scientific culture.
59 proposals were received and approved for implementation. They may be distributed into 22 key categories grouped in four meta categories:
Urban Issues: Access to knowledge, ICT and e-cities; City / Regional development; Eco cities, green cities, sustainable cities; Gender; Policymaking; Science and business; Urban mobility; Waste management; Water management.
Scientific Fields: Astro science; Climate; Energy; Food/ nutrition; Health; Nature and ecology.
Education: Adressing non-academic target groups; Working with the formal education system; Youth and scientific careers.
Varieties of Dialogue: Citizen dialogue; Creative innovation – links wth arts and other fields of culture; Implementation / advancement of science centre; Science festival / exhibition.
The Pilot Activities have been compiled on a report with their contents, fields of science and formats, and also containing information about the dissemination.
SURVEY OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION ACTORS AND TRENDS IN SCIENCE COMMUNICATION.
Survey
In order to gather an overview of the different actors in science communication that are active throughout Europe, PLACES asked the City Partnership leaders to identify in their territory the groups, organizations, associations and other actors that carry out science communication activities locally, on a continuous or sporadic basis. This survey provided a wealth of data from the cities / regions of PLACES.
No doubt, a huge diversity of actors comes was to be expected in this survey: diversity in the type of actor (individuals, associations, NGOs, research institutions, museums and science centres…), in the means of communication (permanent or not, exhibitions, media…), and so on. Therefore, in order to do a systematization of the types of actors, and to allow a better understanding of the dynamics of science communication in this community, a first overview of the types of actors was done.
It must be emphasized that this list constitutes a database of all types of actors in the different regions that do science communication; the actors listed here do not necessarily participate in the project PLACES.
By the end of the project, a total of 390 actors that develop some kind of science communication activities were listed. These actors are distributed in main categories, including Museums/science centres/ festivals, universities, research institutions, municipalities, schools, media, NGOs, individuals, and other types. The main criteria for their selection is that they develop actual communication to the general public: for instance, if a municipality is mentioned, it is because it has a municipal museum that does such activities, or it includes specific departments (such as environment) that promotes dissemination and communication activities related with science and technology. Similarly, schools are mentioned if they promote exhibitions, or field trips, or other activities that have a wider impact than only their students. Similar concepts apply for the other types of actors.
The database is searchable also by country, by city, or using keywords.
Trends in science communication:
In connection with the survey of actors, and in order to have a more global idea of the panorama of science communication at European level, a study was commissioned to analyze the trends in science communication. This study analyzed the characteristics and changes in science communication as it is reflected by the communications in international conferences, namely Ecsite Annual Conferences and PCST Public Communication of Science and Technology) meetings.
The contents of the communications for these conferences were coded by three categories: Dissemination, Engagement, Conversation. (Engagement was preferred to Dialogue, as Engagement is commonly used as a catch-all term for a range of practices in science communication that are considered different and distinct from the inherited top-down methods.) For this study, these three categories are elaborated as follows:
Dissemination - science has information that it organises to pass to publics; within this category are included approaches to communication that may be more specifically targeted such as promotion (or marketing), defence and outreach; also within this category may be information-transfer approaches that use artistic means, where these are seen as most effective (a common key word in this category); the topics of communication of this type are typically research findings and finished knowledge;
Engagement – science and publics are in two-exchange of information and views, generally initiated from science; within this category are included variants such as consultation and dialogue, but also the contextual model, which pays particular attention to the circumstances of the publics in a science communication setting, for example, their prior beliefs, attitudes and understandings; the topics of communication of this type are typically applications and acceptance of scientific knowledge;
Conversation – publics and science take part as equals in diverse exchanges of information and views, that may be initiated by either science or publics; included in this category is communication in public-cultural (e.g. science café), artistic-cultural (e.g. science theatre) and online (e.g. blog) settings where scientific information and research agendas are presented as open to question and critique; occasionally-referenced models such as deliberation and cultural models are covered in this category; the topics of communication of this type are typically implications of scientific knowledge and agendas of research.
PROTO MODELS FOR CITIES OF SCIENTIFIC CULTURE:
The PLACES project’s principal objective was to identify and promote dynamic models of cities of scientific culture. Explaining science to the citizens and involving them actively in the application of science and research is the responsibility of the whole society, including local and national authorities, ministries and governments, scientists and researchers and science communicators. The role of science communicators and the institutions and organisations around them are of key importance as they have the necessary skills, the mandate and position in society to provide credible and first-hand information on research results, scientific innovations or technological developments
The European Regions Research and Innovation Network (ERRIN), as a consortium partner of this project, involved nine regions in the implementation of Work Package 3 whose objective is to come up with the models of cities of scientific culture. Nine ERRIN regions (West Midlands, Bremen, Galicia, Eszak-Alfold, Scotland, Ljubljana, Piemonte, South Denmark and Murcia) organised ten local discussions (two in Scotland) between January 2011 and March 2012 with local stakeholders and invited speakers from the other two network consortium partners, Eusea (European Science Events Association) and the coordinator Ecsite (European Network of Science Centres and Museums) network to showcase their good practices in one particular theme. Each region, bottom-up, could identify a topic that was important locally to explore and where partner support was needed to address the challenge.
Following the workshops and conferences, six descriptions of activities that would define a city of scientific culture are proposed. These six types were presented to the PLACES Tartu Conference in October 2012 and also by phone interviews to a wide range of science communication experts across Europe for their comments. All interviewees responded that they found the six types reasonable and useful. However, they should not be seen as exclusive but more a heuristic device to encourage debate around the topic. For example, science might be more linked with social and cultural goods or linked with creativity and art. Cities are encouraged to use these six typologies as a way of engendering discussion and debate around their own contexts and histories.
- Science as/in society
In a knowledge-based society, democratic governance must ensure that citizens are able to make an informed choice from the options made available to them by responsible scientific and technological progress.
- Science as/in democracy
The public is engaged in science so citizens can be actively involved in decision-making processes. In doing so governments and other organisations can directly address problems such as lack of trust and weak legitimacy in decision making. Involving citizens in this way is a two-way relationship between government and citizens in which citizens actively engage in the decision and policy making.
- Science as education
Cities focus on formal and informal science education through new forms of pedagogy, development of educational networks, with an awareness of participation of girls and boys, as recommended in the Rocard Report.
- Science as research
Cities focus on their research sector which often links with economic spin-offs, inward migration of talent and profile raising. High-ranking universities in terms of research and innovation can therefore provide a strong marketing and economic tool for the city.
- Science as ‘smart cities’
‘Smart cities’ is a new term used for cities that are innovation-led predominantly in the fields of ICT, energy and transport. The smart city movement is now supported by the EU’s Smart Cities and Communities European Innovation Partnership, industry-led innovation acts as a key driver to achieve economic and social change in urban areas, fostering social progress and environmental regeneration. Energy, transport and ICT converge, forging strong partnerships with local leaders and municipal authorities to engage and empower citizens and local stakeholders.
The following typology of cities was developed:
- Existing cities designated as science cities and attempting to revive economies and improve the well being of citizens. These are the typical third wave of science cities in the Charles typology.
- Science cities in progression. These are not necessarily designated science cities, but which are developing a strategy to become a city/region of science often to overcome problems specific to the locality.
- Cities pursuing science activities without any strategic vision or political priority to become a designated city of science. These cities demonstrate how citizens can participate in science engagement activities to improve the democratisation and understanding of science, even where there is no over-riding strategy to create cities of science.
EXPECTATIONS AND OBSTACLES
This report is closely linked to another report on the obstacles to cities of scientific culture within the same work package of PLACES, deliverable D7.2. Obstacles can only be perceived and identified if there is an initial objective and thus obstacles must be linked implicitly with aims and expectations. Expectations are therefore important and give a sense of direction for policy and resource use.
Thus this report on expectations needs to be read in conjunction with the report on obstacles and also on earlier surveys that took place at the beginning of the PLACES project which helped the project to develop the criteria to frame the debate around expectations.
In order to gain information on expectations a structured discussion took place at the second PLACES Conference in Tartu. The objectives of the discussion and this report is not just to collect a list of expectations but to establish a hierarchy of importance which will enable policy makers to structure future policy and devote resource use to where it is considered most important.
The five expectation areas were:
• Infrastructure system
• Political ownership
• Citizens
• Resources
• Knowledge hubs
It seems possible to differentiate between three larger groups within these five expectations.
- Citizens stand alone as an absolute priority.
- Political ownership and Resources belong more together as the average priority level difference is minor between them. Logically, it can be easily explained by the fact that funding and human resources should be allocated and distributed following a well defined strategy.
- A building and the closely linked infrastructure should be provided to concentrate the knowledge.
These core ‘criteria’ and their ‘ranking’ by participants of the 2nd annual conference of PLACES must be considered as indicators of expectations. The criteria and ranking indicate, however, that just building the infrastructure linked to an existing knowledge hub may not be the best direction to build a city of scientific culture and that a bottom up approach with citizens, political support and guaranteed resources that leads then to infrastructure may be the best route to follow.
This ‘soft’ approach from the citizen perspective is backed up by other pieces of work of PLACES (Report on the proto-models of city of scientific culture; LAP analysis) which also arrive at the same conclusion that the human side, citizens, involvement and engagement of people is the first requirement for a city of scientific culture. This result corresponds to one of the major objectives of PLACES: engagement of adult citizens in scientific issues and that science communication addresses adult citizens.
Obstacles
This report takes a look at Science and technology in Europe using surveys and interviews covering a wide range of stakeholders, city contexts, and highlights information on the concept of scientific cities. Why some cities have developed clear policies and activities and others have not, as well as the key obstacles that may hinder science communication policies and the criteria for a good science communication. The identification of these obstacles and how they might be overcome played a major part in the final PLACES recommendations to the European Commission.
The report is divided into four sections:
1. Science and technology in Europe
2. Obstacles to science communication policies
3. Science communication policy making
4. Science communication policymaking process: what are the obstacles?
Findings include a list of important obstacles, which rank in the following order:
A lack of funding for all resources
A lack of local representatives interest
A lack of collaboration between your local authority and local stakeholders
A lack of good coordination
A lack of a formalised national framework policy
THEMATIC WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS
The individual actors working in the project PLACES are quite diverse, as they belong to very different professional groups such as professionals in science communication, public administrators, teachers, researchers, cultural officers. Also, they represent a wide range of geographical and social realities, since PLACES includes members from 23 countries in Europe.
The wealth of professional expertise that the PLACES community therefore constitutes was structured into “thematic working groups” (TWG) with the following objectives:
• To exchange knowledge and best practices among City Partnerships and with other stakeholders.
• To provide members of the PLACES community with opportunities to join high-level discussion on themes which are particularly relevant to science communication at the local level.
• To produce recommendations and observations about specific topics related with the role of science communication policies in society, innovation, and education.
As part of PLACES, each Thematic Working Group had the potential to use the networks and the wider PLACES community, as well as a wealth of other stakeholders, projects and institutions that were linked to PLACES.
Each TWG had its own group space on the OPEN Platform (www.openplaces.eu) and an administrator was assigned to each. This enabled the collaborative work to continue in between the meetings that took place back to back with each of the first three PLACES Conferences.
During the 1st PLACES Conference (Paris, 2011), the delegates from City Partnerships and Regions met in dedicated sessions to define the Thematic Working Groups. The themes were chosen according to the “Science in Society” work program priorities.
The following five Thematic Working Groups developed the work during the whole of the project.
• Working with the formal education system
• Creative innovation: links with other fields of culture
• Access to knowledge, ICT and e-cities
• Eco cities, green cities ad sustainable cities
• Youth and scientific careers
Between 10 to 25 people from the PLACES community, with one representative from each of the three Networks (Ecsite, ERRIN and Eusea), was part of each TWG. At least five different science communication institutions was represented in each TWG during the meetings that took place in each of the three first PLACES Conferences, contributing to the discussion and the setting up of the main issues to be tackled.
A report was produced containing recommendations from the five TWG.
Final Recommendations and PLACES Declaration (Deliverable…)
ERRIN is one of the partners in the PLACES consortia and has had a good overview of the activities of the project through the various work packages and deliverables demanded by the project. ERRIN was specifically involved in the organisation of the first and third PLACES conferences and organised over 20 regional workshops with the regions involved in the project. ERRIN also undertook an analysis of the Local Action Plans and produced a report on Obstacles and Proto-models of the City of Scientific Culture.
These activities and analysis have provided insights into current thinking on cities of scientific culture and possible recommendations for future activities and policies. The objective of this report is to provide both policy makers and science communicators with recommendations on the role and to build the future path towards the cities of scientific culture. These recommendations are explicitly aimed at both communities as one of the weaknesses identified in many of the activities within PLACES was the possible ‘comfort zone’ for science communicators working with the ‘usual suspects’. The objective of PLACES was very much to build a community of actors dealing in science and society issues (see Local Action Plans developed by over 60 cities) and to develop a stronger relationship between science communication and policy making at the local and regional level. Too often there is a division between the policy makers and science communicators and science institutions. This division has not helped science communicators integrate into city and regional policies which are currently dominated from a European angle with smart specialisation, smart cities and a broad-based approach to innovation.
As mentioned above, ERRIN has been responsible for several tasks, event organisations and report writing in PLACES (State of the Art Study on Existing Science Culture Policies, Report on the Obstacles to City of Scientific Culture, Report on Policy Expectations, Proto-Models of the City of Scientific Culture, 1st and 3rd Annual Conference reports, science cities workshops reports, capacity building sessions reports, Local Action Plan Analysis). The recommendations are therefore concerns or ideas that have emanated from several sources, a wide range of stakeholders in different configurations and in different localities.
Recommendations cited here by ERRIN are also in line with recommendations produced by the Thematic Working groups and with the PLACES Declaration endorsed by the signature of over forty cities from all over Europe.
Recommendation #1: The PLACES Declaration should be publicised and the important role of science in developing strong cities and regions in Europe should be acknowledged by the European Commission. Although a European City of Scientific Culture involves bottom-up thinking and actions, it must also be supported by top-down policies and thinking from a European perspective.
Recommendation #2: All cities that strive to be Cities of Scientific Culture should involve citizens in the design and implementation of their City of Scientific Culture project. A City of Scientific Culture should strive to retain talents. To this end, a City of Scientific Culture creates a favourable political, democratic, economic and social environment to its citizens and invests in research, innovation and welfare that will encourage talents to stay or move there.
Recommendation #3: Science communication institutions should investigate what kind of unique and best fitting service they could offer to the city administration that could make the collaboration between the science communication institution and the municipality more solid and longer-lasting and also raise the profile of the institution in the eyes of the citizens.
Recommendation #4: Local/regional administrations should take the political lead of strategy design towards the City of Scientific Culture and should develop strong partnerships to advise on strategy design but also be able to implement the strategy. Without a solid political support, the city cannot achieve this goal.
Recommendation #5: Future European programmes should build on the PLACES project to support the implementation of SWAFS and RRI through cities and region s that have identified themselves as ‘science friendly’ via their engagement in the PLACES project.
PLACES DECLARATION
Cities are acknowledged as the focal points of civilization and for many centuries they have contributed to economic, social, cultural and political life both within the city and in surrounding regions. The idea of a European City of Scientific Culture sheds light on one important facet of the city - the ability to stimulate scientific thinking which benefits the lives of its citizens and the world. A city of scientific culture is one that pro-actively cultivates scientific understanding to facilitate economic competitiveness and an improved educational system which encourages innovation and scientific discovery. A city of scientific culture is a place where social and cultural development requires an understanding of science just as much as the humanities and where science supports democratic processes through evidence-based policy making.
Science is not a secondary priority, but the basis of an enhanced civilization for Europe and the world. The diversity of Europe’s cities means that cities follow different trajectories, histories and meanings with regard to scientific culture.
The sciences and humanities are most valuable to economic growth, job creation, innovation, and are essential for structural and cultural changes. They are of utmost importance for the future of our society and urban development since both soft and hard locational factors contribute to cities’ identity and image. Modern, future-oriented city governments in Europe respond to the In a European City of Scientific Culture, scientific evidence and advice, as well as demands and input from citizens, should be strongly considered in political decisions. Policies should reflect outcomes of dialogues between citizens, researchers and other stakeholders. These cities should promote science education and literacy with the belief that informed citizens enhance decision-making on topics related to science and technology.
A European City of Scientific Culture provides one or more different access points to scientific knowledge where information and interactions between the political world and science, the humanities, business and the general public are facilitated. Relevant infrastructures are scientific institutions or knowledge hubs in research and education which have regional, national or international reputations for facilitating science engagement and societal dialogue on varying topics and developments. Science centres, science museums and science festivals are considered central points in the participation of society in, with and for science.
A European City of Scientific Culture is able to learn and unlearn in order to prepare the ground for innovation. Only a city that overcomes best practices of the past can keep up with the times and win competitions of the future.
To maximize its potential, a European City of Scientific Culture needs to achieve European and international visibility.
Modern, future-oriented city governments in Europe respond to the increasing importance of science and the demands of citizens by involving local scientific institutions in their social, political, urban and cultural development strategies. Acknowledging that the globalized world is highly competitive, these cities invest in science, humanities, research, innovation and education on principle in order to attract and retain talent.
Elements of a European City of Scientific Culture
Though capacities and priorities may differ from one city to the next, a European City of Scientific Culture meets many of the following criteria: a European City of Scientific Culture invests in science, research and innovation to pursue a future of economic competitiveness which creates jobs, stimulates growth and safeguards social welfare. Furthermore, it recognizes that economic competitiveness requires informed and engaged citizens.
In order to develop and flourish, a European City of Scientific Culture has a strategic and sustainable action plan developed in dialogue with politicians, policy makers, scientists, entrepreneurs, cultural agents and citizens. Such an action plan must continuously evolve and adapt to social and cultural change.
A European City of Scientific Culture aims for a spirit that generates an anticipatory, inclusive, reflective and responsive interaction in the political decision-making process and an improved participation in democracy. Such a city supports and implements the economic and societal goals of the European Union as expressed in EU policies for science and innovation strategy.
A European City of Scientific Culture encourages science in, with and for society. A permanent interdisciplinary exchange between scientists, policy makers and the public will facilitate trust and confidence in science and the humanities – a prerequisite for scientific development which will help to attract and foster young talent, scientists and investors needs to achieve European and international visibility.
The European City of Scientific Culture and Europe
Cities are complex structures and no two cities can be the same. They are often in competition for resources, talent and economic and cultural investment. This does not mean that cities cannot cooperate in many ways. Cities can share knowledge and exchange ideas in a spirit which benefits all cities and regions. In this way, a European City of Scientific Culture adds value to the European ideal of a smart, sustainable and inclusive society. This Declaration calls for political representatives of European Cities of Scientific Culture to acknowledge the important role of science in developing strong cities and regions in Europe. This is a bottom-up process in which political representatives have an important and decisive role to play. A city can only flourish and be developed to its best when the local scientific culture concept is a sustainable part of a city’s development. Although a European City of Scientific Culture involves bottom-up thinking and actions, it must also be supported by top-down policies and thinking from a European perspective. European Cities of Scientific Culture therefore depend on long-term regional, national and European support in order to maintain platforms and networks to exchange best practice and exploit fully the potential of mutual learning and societal dialogue which will move forward the European integration process and shape the European identity at the local level. To this end, and in order to foster the European dimension of scientific culture, outstanding examples need to be acknowledged through European awards and networking and exchange should be funded amongst these cities.
Potential Impact:
The strategic impact of PLACES is mainly connected with four aspects:
1. The number of institutions and participants in the project
2. The networks engaged in the project and their potential for impact through their network meetings, dissemination instruments such as newsletters and websites, and peer-to-peer connections;
3. The novelty and quality of the partnerships that were established; namely, places brought together actors that usually don’t cooperate on a consistent and permanent basis. This created the potential for many innovative synergies.
4. Its connection with Responsible Research and Innovation: The issues and scope of innovation; in PLACES this connects with the topics and expected impact of the Local Action Plans that were set up and continue being developed, namely through the establishment of concrete polices;
It is also important to mention in this regard the rooting of innovative practices in society: the local action plans and many pilot activities developed in the project became true innovation as opposed to a temporary change; this was achieved by concrete top-down/bottom-up approaches used in developing and implementing the Local Action Plans.
1. The number of institutions and participants in the project:
PLACES has a high impact due to the sheer number of participants, to their institutional diversity, and to their geographical distribution: the project engaged participants from more than 60 cities and 23 European countries. In total, 290 institutions ranging from science communication institutions (museums, science centres, science festivals) to universities, municipalities, regional development agencies, private companies, NGOs and many others, worked together in the project.
PLACES also developed many networking opportunities:
18 regional workshops fostered the connection between local and regional actors and stakeholders such as economic agencies, companies, science communicators, research institutions, policymaking institutions, and many others that usually don’t connect, engaging them in the development of policies in science and technology communication.
Four international meetings brought together science communicators and policymakers from the cities belonging to the project, but managed to attract also many other cities (more than 60 cities outside of the project participated in these conferences) to the debate on how these two fields can and must cooperate.
PLACES produced several resources and instruments capable of a wide impact in many aspects: the Impact Assessment Toolkit is now widely used for the evaluation of science communication initiatives and policies; examples of action plans and innovative activities for citizen engagement, databases of science communicators in Europe and other resources are freely available to a large community of actors. Based on discussions and learning throughout the course of the project, the project presently provides concrete recommendations and examples of best practices concerning scientific culture and cities. These are aimed at:
Policymakers, at the EU level (European Commission, DG Research, Science in Society program); Policymakers at the Regional levels; Policymakers at the local level (local authorities particularly engaged in City Partnerships with science communication actors); Experts and practitioners in science communication, in the form of network associations, single entities, universities, science shops, museums, etc., in order to develop multi-level policy initiatives at a local level; other European actors having special or thematic expertise in science communication.
2. The networks engaged in the project
The PLACES project drew together four networks: two networks related with science communication (Ecsite and Eusea), one network of European Regions (ERRIN), and one network, established by the project itself, of researchers in science communication led by University Pompeo Fabra
Ecsite – The European network of science centres and museums (www.ecsite.eu) links science communication professionals in more than 400 institutions in 50 countries. Founded 20 ears ago, Ecsite connects member institutions through projects and activities and facilitates the exchange of ideas and best practice on current issues. Members include science centres and museums, science festivals, natural history museums, zoos, aquariums, universities, research organisations and companies communicating and engaging the public in science through accessible, interactive exhibits and programmes.
42 science communication institutions, members of the Ecsite network, participated in the project and have disseminated its outcomes to the remaining of the network.
Eusea - European Science Events Association (www.euscea.org) with 99 member from 37countries, is a network of organisers of informal learning events in Europe and a platform on science communication, of dialogue between citizens and science. The institutions member of the Eusea network develop activities with various formats like science parliaments, citizen conferences, science cafés, children university, etc.
19 Eusea science communication institutions participated in the project and took the main experiences to the remaining of the network.
ERRIN - European Regions Research and Innovation Network (www.errin.eu) is a Brussels-based platform of Research and Innovation Organisations and Stakeholders in Regions. ERRIN aims to strengthen regional Research and Innovation capacities by exchanging information, sharing best practice, supporting European project development, policy shaping and profile raising by working together with a partnership approach. Through its 115 members of 25 European countries, and 13 Working Groups, ERRIN facilitates contacts between regional offices and regions so that they can enhance their knowledge of European policy in Research and Innovation and develop strategic European projects to strengthen regional competitiveness. A total of 10 members of the Science in Society working group of ERRIN were involved in PLACES and are responsible for the mobilization and promotion of knowledge exchange between regions of Europe concerning the debate and development of strategies in science communication policies.
A fourth network of researchers in science communication was established on purpose for the project PLACES. This network of 23 researchers, from as many European countries, worked under the leadership of the Science Communication Observatory, from University Pompeo Fabra, in Barcelona, and developed activities as independent impact assessors; this included the development of the PLACES Impact Assessment toolkit, and conducting 30 impact assessments of cities, science centres and science festivals.
This wide group of researchers is now actively promoting the use of the Impact Assessment Toolkit, implementing a coherent set off analytical assessment instruments and increasing its potential.
3. The novelty and quality of the partnerships that were established
The establishment of partnerships at city level was the core functional aspect in PLACES. The City Partnership in each city was initially established between a science communication institution (science centre, science museum, or science festival organizer) and the municipality or a local organism responsible for the development and implementation of policies at local level. This CP committed to developing a plan to tackle issues of science and technology that have an impact on the citizens and on the overall city or region.
The CP is further developed and enriched with other local actors such as research institutions, universities, NGOs, companies, foundations, and local media.
Several aspects should be emphasized that reveal the potential strategic impact of the city partnerships:
- It has an impact on the diversity of actors engaged in science communication: the PLACES City Partnerships brought together many different actors, other than the ones that normally deal with science and technology issues: all CPs included institutions that are responsible for policymaking, and some also brought in actors such as institutions and organizations dedicated to arts, or to industry, or architecture, and many others.
- It has a lasting impact translated in the public formalization of long-term cooperation between organizations that are usually limited to sporadic, ad hoc connections, such as the ones usually established between museums, NGOs and municipalities or regional agencies.
- It changes the role of the science communication institution: they are usually perceived by the citizens as a providers of services connected with education, directed at the younger strata of society. PLACES clearly changed this perception and presented these institutions as actors in policymaking and other aspects related with the exercise of citizenship. This aspect is common to all CPs, since in this project the science communication institutions established themselves as main drivers for change and as a forums for innovation and active citizenship at local level.
- The long-term character of the partnerships has clear impacts at local level: Rather that aiming at a particular plan with short-term existence, the CPs is established for a period of 5 to 10 years. This enables them to become long-lived actors with local intervention and dynamism, with a continuing work that may push the scope of intervention well beyond the original topic(s) of the partnership and impact major plans and developments at local level.
4. Its connection with Responsible Research and Innovation
a) The Local Action Plan (LAP)
City Partnerships developed – and continue to develop - Local Action Plans about issues and aspects related with science and technology; these will impact the everyday life of citizens, and as such they will be consulted and will be able to manifest themselves before or during these projects implementation; the LAPs concern citizens, policymakers, scientist, technicians, companies, cultural institutions, and several other local stakeholders.
Some examples of LAPs that will have a foreseeable impact in changing a city/region:
- Some cities are aiming at physically transforming their urban landscape and incorporate science and technology in the city future developments. Examples are Trento and Lugano, in Italy, and Essen, in Germany.
- Other cities are aiming at changing the perception citizens have of their own cities physical and social environment, and both the CP and LAP are boldly aiming at a redefinition of the city as a smart city. A good example is Naples (Italy).
- Economic redefinition and growth based on industrial innovation is the aim of cities such as Jerusalem (Israel) and Newcatsle (UK), where the focus in new industries linked with health is based on a dynamic reciprocity between scientific research, industrial development and the citizens.
Another example is Stenungsund (Sweden), a city that is seeking the development of the region through renovation and innovation of the local chemical industries, including a change of the perception and engagement of the public towards this kind of industry, and addressing notions such as environmental sustainability and safety by design.
- Innovation in governance is being tackled in concrete issues, namely in relation with environmental governance: Brussels (Belgium) is developing the citizens contribution and influence in decision making concerning water management; Genoa (Italy) is aiming at establishing a permanent Scientific Advisory Board for the city.
- Many other specific aspects are the subject of LAPs and are expected to produce innovative approaches: incorporating science and technology in the cultural and touristic offer of the city (Lisbon, Portugal, and Teruel, Spain), achieving total sustainable mobility (Mechelen, Belgium), and aiming at a city with zero carbon emissions (Sonderborg, Denmark) are just a few examples.
b) Top-down and bottom-up approaches: the engagement of citizens
One of the crucial aspects of the PLACES is the involvement and input of citizens in the LAP development. The project required actions and concrete opportunities to allow the input and effectively account for the citizens’ expression in the LAP development. Also, many LAPs have as a crucial component the bottom-up approach to innovative developments at regional level.
The necessity of citizens’ engagement in the LAP development considers and addresses the following aspects:
- Innovations are effective if citizens are ready and willing to incorporate them in their everyday life.
- Innovation in itself can become a social positive drive, but only if it is more than a factor for economic development and becomes embedded in the cultural landscape and is an integral part of active citizenship.
In this respect, science communication institutions are essential elements: they perceived as trustworthy, neutral, and reach a diversity of citizens few other organizations are able to reach. This pivotal role of science communication in innovation, and the inclusion of institutions that promote science communication as forums for active citizenship and for the innovation of cities, is a landmark of PLACES.
Finally, PLACES established a framework for the European City of Scientific Culture, embodied in the PLACES Declaration. This declaration was signed already by representatives of the mayors of 47 cities, and continues to be signed even after the end of the project, showing the continued impact of PLACES.
List of Websites:
www.openplaces.eu
Ecsite Office
Avenue Louise, 89/7
B-1050 Brussels
Belgium
www.ecsite.eu
PLACES Networks partners developed a common platform for a wide and diverse community of actors to promote the cooperation in their science communication activities, and to develop science communication policies at city/regional level. Over four years, 67 science communication institutions (science centres, museums, festivals) were supported to work with their local authority administrators, policy makers, research institutions and citizen associations to plan and implement their long-term co-operation for the “city of scientific culture”. PLACES promoted the City of Scientific Culture at regional levels via the ERRIN network, whose regional members host the most advanced “science cities” and at city level where ECSITE/EUSCEA science communicators have engaged their local authorities and other local stakeholders in the project, by creating a formal City Partnership (CP). The 3 PLACES partner networks (ECSITE/EUSCEA/ERRIN) created a cyber-platform (www.openplaces.eu) and organized many meetings merging the various types of actors and producing thematic reports and concrete recommendations. At the city level, members of ECSITE and EUSCEA received support to produce a City Action Plan, a Local Survey a Pilot Activity. Local and regional authority administrators received training and support via the expertise of science communicators. The PLACES community of actors worked in 5 Thematic Working Groups, using their professional expertise to analyse and produce recommendations in relation to five topics within the European Societal Challenges. An independent European team of academic researchers assessed the impact of activities in 10 science centres, 10 events and 10 cities, by selecting with neutrality among the PLACES participants (around 70 cities), and produced an Impact Assessment Toolkit for science communication initiatives and policies. The numerous operational links stimulated by PLACES generated new knowledge which will be used to define, at a European level, models and recommendations toward various political levels.
Project Context and Objectives:
The overall goal of PLACES is to offer to a wide and diverse community of actors a common platform to structure their science communication activities, at city/regional level. Over four years, science communicators are encouraged to meet local authority administrators and policymakers to imagine and plan their long-term co-operation for the city of scientific culture.
Operational objectives :
- Analyze the diversity of local contexts at the EU level in order to generate new knowledge
- Build a community of interest that will share tools, knowledge and practices and promote cooperation
- Support local authority administrators in order to engage cities and regions in scientific culture Policy objectives
- Guarantee long term engagement of actors and build a permanent resource centre
- Build a common framework for the city of scientific culture, identifying the EU added-value
- Deliver appropriate recommendations to various actors by analyzing various opinions
The project brings together three networks: science centres and museums from ECSITE are gathered with science events and festival organizers from Eusea and with research and Innovation actors at city and regional levels, represented by the ERRIN members, which are Regions of Europe engaged in the Knowledge Society vision. These networks engage formally their cities and regions in science communication through key-concepts and activities designed for PLACES.
City Partnerships arise from science communication institutions forming alliances with local policymakers and other local stakeholders to develop effective science communication policies.
Local Action Plans (LAPs) are led by City Partnerships and address science and technology-related issues relevant to their respective city or region. LAPs are strategic visions that will inform science communication policy at the local level for many years to come. Citizen consultation is a key step in drafting LAPs.
Pilot Activities test innovative approaches to communicate science-based solutions in cities. They are developed in connection with the LAPs, to test innovative practices on how to address controversial or problematic local issues in a way that actively involves citizens.
Science Cities Workshops are meetings used for discussing the development of local science communication policies that will lead to Training workshops aimed at civil servants explore how to incorporate science communication into their work.
Thematic Working Groups foster high-level discussion about how science communication policies and activities dealing with Science in Society topics connect to the Europe 2020 targets.
Impact Assessment : a fourth partner, the Observatori dela Comunicació Científica of the University Pompeu Fabra, in Barcelona, is responsible for developing and testing tools for Impact Assessment of science communication policies and activities. These tools are applied to the PLACES community to analyze the impact on society of science communication activities in three contexts: science centres, festivals and cities.
PLACES also sets up an external and specialized voice in PLACES composed of non-governmental organizations, journalists, universities, research centres, and others: the Stakeholders Assembly.
The project provides a powerful platform for all the actors in PLACES: the PLACES OPEN web platform is a meeting place for people working on PLACES as well as a “science in society” resource centre. It is accessible to any number of projects or networks who want to contribute to PLACES.
Surveys, reports and assessments document European realities of how local actors and science interact and yield recommendations for future policies. These reports contain recommendations for building effective science communication policies in European cities.
PLACES concluded in 2014 with local and EU-level blueprints for how to build European Cities of Scientific Culture.
Project Results:
PLACES produced three main types of foreground:
- A toolkit for accessing impact of science communication initiatives and policies.
- Collections of examples and best practices concerning science communication policy development, in the form of Local Action Plans for more than 54 cities, and also of best practices regarding activities for citizen engagement.
- Recommendations derived from the work of the diverse community of actors working in PLACES.
What follows is the summary description of the documents corresponding to the foreground. The complete documents can be accessed on the searchable section of PLACES resources:
http://www.openplaces.eu/resources/places
IMPACT ASSESSMENT TOOLKIT
In the last decades several instruments have been developed to evaluate the impact of the various activities that go under the definition of “Science and Society initiatives” (which in this document refers specifically to “Science events”, “Science centres” and “Science Cities”). The proliferation of such type of instruments went together with a parallel development of a considerable amount of indicators.
The existence of such a variety of indicators facilitates interesting findings when applied to very specific cases. However, at a comparative level, there still lacks a general model for measuring the impact. In particular, there is still no model that obtains the highest possible level of consensus between the members of the vast community that nowadays works in this area (including both the academic community and the people who are responsible for and promote this type of activities). Such a manual can be found for example in the field of evaluation of basic scientific research (R&D). It is the case of the Frascati Manual, which has gained amongst scientists a very high level of consensus as a standardized reference point (even if it remains clear that specific indicators need to be adapted to analyse elements of every specific case). The case of the Oslo Manual (to evaluate innovation) is also very similar.
PLACES produced the “Impact Assessment Toolkit for the City of Scientific Culture”, as the result of the collective effort of the several experts working presently in this field.
The group of experts producing the toolkit was composed of 29 experts from 21 countries (1 from Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden and United Kingdom; 2 from Austria and Denmark, 3 from Switzerland and 5 from Spain).
The committee was also very representative of different members’ backgrounds working in the field of SCIP impact assessment (12 social researchers, 11 from the field of communication field, 5 from the educational field and 1 from the field of economics).
There was also a good balance of age and gender (12 women and 15 men ranging from under 30 to 70+ years old).
The toolkit has been created for the purpose of serving as an instrument for the measure of the impact of initiatives and policies within the area of science communication and scientific culture in general (SCIP: Science Communication Initiatives and Policies).
The toolkit is composed of two parts. The first is centred around a reflection on the necessity to make collective instruments available for the analysis of the impact of SCIP in Europe. It also raises some of the main limitations and challenges that these types of studies are subject to, as well as a literature review on the topic.
The second part summarizes the structure and methodology used for the purposes of the Impact Assessment tasks of the PLACES project. Rational for the chosen methodology is also given with the aim of guaranteeing maximum data quality, representativeness, and efficiency. This section also includes the questionnaires that were used, the key questions used in the semi-structured interviews, and the guides for the focus groups.
The questionnaires and instruments presented in this toolkit are not strictly intended to evaluate the results and / or effects of SCIPs in participants, or organisations, but are instead intended for broader application in the study of the collective effects of SCIPs. This toolkit is also designed to be used both by specialists and non-specialists.
The toolkit takes an operational look at the impact of SCIPs within three dimensions: impact on the public (citizens), impact on the political sphere (the local and regional dimension), and the impact on the actors involved in the SCIPs themselves. Each of these three dimensions is divided into three levels based on the agent that is responsible for the SCIP: the level of museums and science centres, the level of science events, and the level of cities of scientific culture (or science cities).
This triple dimension/level (3x3) approach has helped to design instruments that are better suited to each case. Fundamentally, the instruments include surveys /questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, focus groups as well as analyses of institutional sources. Observational studies have been ruled out for the purposes of the PLACES project. Aside from their advantages in social science, their use in the project was unfeasible due to the extensive nature of the project (the large number of case studies and participating countries).
Once a consensus was reached for the design of the operational scheme, instruments, and concrete questions, the specific cases to be studied were selected. One or more instruments were then selected for each case.
The toolkit contains detailed resources, including instructions for use of the main instruments for the study of the impact on Public, Political sphere and Actors.
It also contains a detailed literature review.
The toolkit can be downloaded from these sources:
http://www.openplaces.eu/resources/places/80649
An online version for easier access and use is available here:
http://formasnaturales.com/places/
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM IMPACT ASSESSORS
The PLACES Toolkit for the Impact Assessment of Science Communication Initiatives and Policies (SCIP) was used to produce recommendations based on the results of the study of 26 cases representing different European SCIP. This list includes examples of science centers, science events and cities in their quality of “Cities of Scientific Culture”.
The cases analysed represent as a whole a wide geographic representation of Europe. Every researcher analyzed one or more cases from his/her own country. In big countries, selected cases were placed in cities close to the researcher’s residence, as the destined budget to field work did not allow movements to far cities or long stays (generally, work required more than one person for its realization).
Cases were proportionally distributed between “science center”, “science event” and “city of scientific culture or science city”
The group of cases represents a good sample of the different SCIP models existent currently in Europe. (For example science centers with a long career and others more recent; big, small and medium cities; events focused in different issues...).
Cases belong to one of the main networks from PLACES consortium (ECSITE, EUSEA and ERRIN). Exceptionally, some SCIP cases that did not belong to PLACES network were included but they fitted perfectly the rest of criterion.
Based on this analysis, a document was produced based solely on the recommendations arisen from 26 case studies about the impact of different European SCIP.
The following steps have been followed to elaborate this document:
From the results of 26 case studies which analyzed the social impact of SCIP, the authors of these research produced individual reports in which they included a section of recommendations.
A team from the Science Communication Observatory of the Universitat Pompeu Fabra has grouped and summarized all recommendations mentioned above. Categories had not been established previously, but they have emerged from a bottom-up approach from the analysis of the cases’ recommendations. The aspects or categories in which these recommendations have been grouped are: Objectives, Target, Venues, Areas / issues, Timing, Formats and ways, Local dimension, Promotion / Advertisement / Communication, Financing and Evaluation
This document intends to be useful and practical, and because of that we deliberately avoid technical words or large explanations, trying to be as much informative as possible.
Some of the recommendations could seem very basic or well-known by most part of the people involved in SCIP. However, we have included them in this document because some case studies have shown that there is still a lack of knowledge about them.
REPORT ON SCIENTIFIC CULTURE IN EUROPE
The main objective of this document is to have an overview of different contexts of scientific culture that are present around Europe with a particular focus on the local dimension of the initiatives and policies in science communication.
The report is based on the analysis done by the experts that designed the Impact assessment Toolkit of PLACES and gives an overview of the following countries:
Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom.
Each country is analysed according to the following aspects: National context, the place of science in society, Science centres and museums, Science events, and Scientific culture in local policies
The document provides a very brief synopsis of the main political, cultural or socioeconomic changes the country during the last 20-30 years that may have been decisive in the development of science and the relationship between science & society.
A second part gives a general overview of where science stands in the country’s society (historically, politically, culturally, etc.). This section also discusses S&T indicators and the public’s perception of S&T. Regional differences through out the country and how the media portrays science may also be mentioned in relevant cases.
The third section provides some general information on the science centres and museums located in the country
The fourth section provides information on science events held in the country. This may include examples of: Festivals, fairs, open doors, film festivals, etc.
The fifth section is focused on policies. Information on particular laws or formal initiatives related with the promotion of science or the public participation in S&T is included here. Regions in the nation that use SCIENCE as a “brand” or cities of of scientific culture and the like may also be discussed here.
COLLECTIONS OF EXAMPLES AND BEST PRACTICES:
Local Action Plans (Laps)
The LAPs are long-term strategic vision that the cities participating in PLACES participants have produced. The participants in the PLACES project developed 68 partnerships in as many European cities. These partnerships are defined as being composed of at least one member of the Ecsite or Eusea networks together with the relevant local authority. This was the minimum criterion for a City Partnership but in many cases the composition of these partnerships was enlarged to encompass other actors and stakeholders, considering the goals of the LAP to be developed. Also, for the development of the LAP, each City Partnership organized one citizens’ consultation procedure. This ensured that the activities to be taken up at a local level are firmly rooted in the needs and values of the local community
The basic structure for the development of a Local Action Plan is as follows:
- Local impact
Our societies are firmly rooted and dependent on science and technology. However, citizens usually regard science and technology as a field outside their scope of action, that doesn’t concern their everyday lives, that deals with matters they don’t understand and produces outcomes leading to decisions they cannot influence. Obviously, this is not, or should not be, true.
An essential feature of the LAP was, therefore, a clear local focus. This means that it relates to the local issues, needs, projects and other local realities. A Local Action Plan should strive to effectively bring science and technology into the local dimension, linking it to the social issues and discussions in such a way that enables the citizens to see the interplay between science, technology and their social reality, allowing them to exert citizenship in policy making and decision implementation regarding scientifically and technologically themed issues.
Obviously, global scientific issues such as social health, environment or sustainability are tackled by some of the LAPs. However, this is done in such a way that the local perspective on these issues is strongly emphasized, grounding these topics on concrete projects and actions to be implemented at local level. The “glocal” concept (think globally and act locally) was useful in this context.
- Call for Action
Many science communication institutions participating in this project already have fruitful working relations with the local authorities. For instance, the municipality may provide the logistics and financial support for the annual science festival, or is a sponsor of the science centre or museum. The Local Action Plans went beyond this stage and provided the plans for these connections to develop in to practical approaches, addressing concrete issues, objectives and actions. Many of these actions were embodied and developed in Pilot Activities.
- Long-term Plan
The Local Actions defined according to the above guidelines resulted in plans that will be further developed and implemented during the next 5-10 years, in other words, going well beyond the lifetime of the PLACES Project. The viability and concrete development of LAPs is, therefore, to be ensured by the local actors – municipalities, companies, foundations, science communication institutions, research and educational institutions, ONG’s.
57 Local Action Plans were developed. Their overall structure and scope are the subject of an analysis that constitutes an independent document.
- Citizen Input
During the development of the Local Action Plan, the City Partnerships developed different strategies and activities to achieve two purposes:
• To disseminate the City Partnership and its objectives to the citizens, at local level
• To gather the input of citizens in order to adjust the Local Action Plan to the aspirations, concerns and demands of the citizens.
The citizen consultation ended up being so intimately connected with the Local Action Plan development that it is actually part of the LAP description that can be found in Deliverable 4.4 and accessed online on
http://www.openplaces.eu/resources/lap
or
http://www.openplaces.eu/resources/places/81833
Also, the Pilot Activities were developed as innovative activities to develop the engagement of citizens and the two-way dialogue in science communication policies development. Therefore, most of the Pilot Activities are, in fact, the Citizen Consultation process, and reflect the initiatives done in that direction.
They can be found online on
http://www.openplaces.eu/resources/pilot_activities
The format for citizen consultation was diverse:
- Activities to highlight a local issue followed by debates
- Polls or questionnaires, live and online
- Debates
- Interviews and focus groups
- Word cafés
- Stakeholders consultation
A few cities chose to develop provocative activities that would stimulate the citizens into thinking and expressing about specific topics that were part of their local action plan. These activities were followed either by public debates or one to one conversations, or by focus groups. Most carried surveys to find the opinions of citizens about the overall science communication panorama at local level, or about a specific topic, such as environment, education or the urgent needs of the city renovation; some surveys included an online component.
Other cities opted to make specific consultations to groups of stakeholders. Therefore, they invited specific groups such as municipal departments, citizen associations, companies, and other groups.
Analysis Of The Local Action Plans
LAPs are core elements of the PLACES project as they are the concrete manifestation of the local-level cooperation between the city administration and the science communicators, which PLACES targets and has been encouraging for four years and they are the interface where the joint actions reach and engage citizens.
The theoretical analysis is complemented by a more practical qualitative approach based on personal interviews and a workshop where information was collected from partner cities on their stakeholder involvement, process, target groups and the impact of their initiative.
In this analysis, it is sought to complete the thematic classification of LAPs with another typology. ERRIN has come up with another report in the same work package: the report on the proto-models of cities of scientific culture. In this report, the authors identified six types of proto-models according to the role of science in the city. These six categories identified a ‘city of scientific culture’ as one which could identify itself as using science policy in strategic terms:
• as an economic driver
• as a smart city
• as supporting high-quality research
• as society - encouraging citizens to engage in science
• as education – encouraging citizens to take a greater interest in science
• as a model of participatory democracy – aware that a modern-day democracy requires access to scientific knowledge by the governors and the governed.
In this analysis, LAPs are categorised against these six typologies. As one can see, some of the typologies are more general – research and economy, while others are more “personal”, in other words, involve more citizens’ participation or target citizens, like science in society, education, participatory democracy. The starting hypothesis was that most of the LAPs would belong to the categories that involved citizens.
From the two approaches, the following conclusions have been drawn that are supported by statements of partner cities in the last section of the report:
- LAPs helped to change the perception of the science communication institutions. PLACES enabled the science actors to be considered as trustworthy partners to reach citizens an to communicate on behalf of authorities, not only as a place of entertainment for children and families;
- PLACES, as a European brand, facilitated the creation of partnership with local stakeholders and got them engaged in activities with a common objective;
- LAPs contributed to the empowerment of citizens as they could get their voice heard and managed to convey their messages to the city administration which would not have happened or would have been more difficult without PLACES.
From the different sources of this analysis (ERRIN regional meetings, expert analysis, interviews, workshop), the following main conclusions were drawn and supported by actual examples.
- The CP and LAP have helped change the perception that institutions and citizens have of Science Communication institutions. For instance, municipalities and other policymaking institutions realized that Science Centres and Museums have the instruments, methodologies and know-how to promote citizen engagement, realize citizen consultation and promote participation. Also, they have the trust from citizens and are good facilitators.
- The European dimension was crucial for the development of City Partnerships and the LAPs. Resources developed by the project (the PLACES Declaration, the Toolkit) and the four well-attended conferences attracting diverse participants from all across Europe and beyond indicated that often cities and regions shared common problems and encouraged the sharing of ideas and the credibility of the topic.
- The LAP contributed to empower citizens by providing instruments and occasions for the exercise of citizenship and by providing the connection between citizens and policymakers, or by providing access to information and resources that stimulated citizen engagement and participation.
Pilot Activities
An extensive series of Pilot Activities tested innovative approaches to communicate science-based solutions in cities. The Pilot Activities were developed in connection with the Local Action Plans, to test best practices on how to address controversial or problematic local issues in a way that actively involves citizens.
The basic idea of these Pilot Activities was to initiate, develop and carry out creative ideas for events and activities to foster the City of Scientific culture.
59 proposals were received and approved for implementation. They may be distributed into 22 key categories grouped in four meta categories:
Urban Issues: Access to knowledge, ICT and e-cities; City / Regional development; Eco cities, green cities, sustainable cities; Gender; Policymaking; Science and business; Urban mobility; Waste management; Water management.
Scientific Fields: Astro science; Climate; Energy; Food/ nutrition; Health; Nature and ecology.
Education: Adressing non-academic target groups; Working with the formal education system; Youth and scientific careers.
Varieties of Dialogue: Citizen dialogue; Creative innovation – links wth arts and other fields of culture; Implementation / advancement of science centre; Science festival / exhibition.
The Pilot Activities have been compiled on a report with their contents, fields of science and formats, and also containing information about the dissemination.
SURVEY OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION ACTORS AND TRENDS IN SCIENCE COMMUNICATION.
Survey
In order to gather an overview of the different actors in science communication that are active throughout Europe, PLACES asked the City Partnership leaders to identify in their territory the groups, organizations, associations and other actors that carry out science communication activities locally, on a continuous or sporadic basis. This survey provided a wealth of data from the cities / regions of PLACES.
No doubt, a huge diversity of actors comes was to be expected in this survey: diversity in the type of actor (individuals, associations, NGOs, research institutions, museums and science centres…), in the means of communication (permanent or not, exhibitions, media…), and so on. Therefore, in order to do a systematization of the types of actors, and to allow a better understanding of the dynamics of science communication in this community, a first overview of the types of actors was done.
It must be emphasized that this list constitutes a database of all types of actors in the different regions that do science communication; the actors listed here do not necessarily participate in the project PLACES.
By the end of the project, a total of 390 actors that develop some kind of science communication activities were listed. These actors are distributed in main categories, including Museums/science centres/ festivals, universities, research institutions, municipalities, schools, media, NGOs, individuals, and other types. The main criteria for their selection is that they develop actual communication to the general public: for instance, if a municipality is mentioned, it is because it has a municipal museum that does such activities, or it includes specific departments (such as environment) that promotes dissemination and communication activities related with science and technology. Similarly, schools are mentioned if they promote exhibitions, or field trips, or other activities that have a wider impact than only their students. Similar concepts apply for the other types of actors.
The database is searchable also by country, by city, or using keywords.
Trends in science communication:
In connection with the survey of actors, and in order to have a more global idea of the panorama of science communication at European level, a study was commissioned to analyze the trends in science communication. This study analyzed the characteristics and changes in science communication as it is reflected by the communications in international conferences, namely Ecsite Annual Conferences and PCST Public Communication of Science and Technology) meetings.
The contents of the communications for these conferences were coded by three categories: Dissemination, Engagement, Conversation. (Engagement was preferred to Dialogue, as Engagement is commonly used as a catch-all term for a range of practices in science communication that are considered different and distinct from the inherited top-down methods.) For this study, these three categories are elaborated as follows:
Dissemination - science has information that it organises to pass to publics; within this category are included approaches to communication that may be more specifically targeted such as promotion (or marketing), defence and outreach; also within this category may be information-transfer approaches that use artistic means, where these are seen as most effective (a common key word in this category); the topics of communication of this type are typically research findings and finished knowledge;
Engagement – science and publics are in two-exchange of information and views, generally initiated from science; within this category are included variants such as consultation and dialogue, but also the contextual model, which pays particular attention to the circumstances of the publics in a science communication setting, for example, their prior beliefs, attitudes and understandings; the topics of communication of this type are typically applications and acceptance of scientific knowledge;
Conversation – publics and science take part as equals in diverse exchanges of information and views, that may be initiated by either science or publics; included in this category is communication in public-cultural (e.g. science café), artistic-cultural (e.g. science theatre) and online (e.g. blog) settings where scientific information and research agendas are presented as open to question and critique; occasionally-referenced models such as deliberation and cultural models are covered in this category; the topics of communication of this type are typically implications of scientific knowledge and agendas of research.
PROTO MODELS FOR CITIES OF SCIENTIFIC CULTURE:
The PLACES project’s principal objective was to identify and promote dynamic models of cities of scientific culture. Explaining science to the citizens and involving them actively in the application of science and research is the responsibility of the whole society, including local and national authorities, ministries and governments, scientists and researchers and science communicators. The role of science communicators and the institutions and organisations around them are of key importance as they have the necessary skills, the mandate and position in society to provide credible and first-hand information on research results, scientific innovations or technological developments
The European Regions Research and Innovation Network (ERRIN), as a consortium partner of this project, involved nine regions in the implementation of Work Package 3 whose objective is to come up with the models of cities of scientific culture. Nine ERRIN regions (West Midlands, Bremen, Galicia, Eszak-Alfold, Scotland, Ljubljana, Piemonte, South Denmark and Murcia) organised ten local discussions (two in Scotland) between January 2011 and March 2012 with local stakeholders and invited speakers from the other two network consortium partners, Eusea (European Science Events Association) and the coordinator Ecsite (European Network of Science Centres and Museums) network to showcase their good practices in one particular theme. Each region, bottom-up, could identify a topic that was important locally to explore and where partner support was needed to address the challenge.
Following the workshops and conferences, six descriptions of activities that would define a city of scientific culture are proposed. These six types were presented to the PLACES Tartu Conference in October 2012 and also by phone interviews to a wide range of science communication experts across Europe for their comments. All interviewees responded that they found the six types reasonable and useful. However, they should not be seen as exclusive but more a heuristic device to encourage debate around the topic. For example, science might be more linked with social and cultural goods or linked with creativity and art. Cities are encouraged to use these six typologies as a way of engendering discussion and debate around their own contexts and histories.
- Science as/in society
In a knowledge-based society, democratic governance must ensure that citizens are able to make an informed choice from the options made available to them by responsible scientific and technological progress.
- Science as/in democracy
The public is engaged in science so citizens can be actively involved in decision-making processes. In doing so governments and other organisations can directly address problems such as lack of trust and weak legitimacy in decision making. Involving citizens in this way is a two-way relationship between government and citizens in which citizens actively engage in the decision and policy making.
- Science as education
Cities focus on formal and informal science education through new forms of pedagogy, development of educational networks, with an awareness of participation of girls and boys, as recommended in the Rocard Report.
- Science as research
Cities focus on their research sector which often links with economic spin-offs, inward migration of talent and profile raising. High-ranking universities in terms of research and innovation can therefore provide a strong marketing and economic tool for the city.
- Science as ‘smart cities’
‘Smart cities’ is a new term used for cities that are innovation-led predominantly in the fields of ICT, energy and transport. The smart city movement is now supported by the EU’s Smart Cities and Communities European Innovation Partnership, industry-led innovation acts as a key driver to achieve economic and social change in urban areas, fostering social progress and environmental regeneration. Energy, transport and ICT converge, forging strong partnerships with local leaders and municipal authorities to engage and empower citizens and local stakeholders.
The following typology of cities was developed:
- Existing cities designated as science cities and attempting to revive economies and improve the well being of citizens. These are the typical third wave of science cities in the Charles typology.
- Science cities in progression. These are not necessarily designated science cities, but which are developing a strategy to become a city/region of science often to overcome problems specific to the locality.
- Cities pursuing science activities without any strategic vision or political priority to become a designated city of science. These cities demonstrate how citizens can participate in science engagement activities to improve the democratisation and understanding of science, even where there is no over-riding strategy to create cities of science.
EXPECTATIONS AND OBSTACLES
This report is closely linked to another report on the obstacles to cities of scientific culture within the same work package of PLACES, deliverable D7.2. Obstacles can only be perceived and identified if there is an initial objective and thus obstacles must be linked implicitly with aims and expectations. Expectations are therefore important and give a sense of direction for policy and resource use.
Thus this report on expectations needs to be read in conjunction with the report on obstacles and also on earlier surveys that took place at the beginning of the PLACES project which helped the project to develop the criteria to frame the debate around expectations.
In order to gain information on expectations a structured discussion took place at the second PLACES Conference in Tartu. The objectives of the discussion and this report is not just to collect a list of expectations but to establish a hierarchy of importance which will enable policy makers to structure future policy and devote resource use to where it is considered most important.
The five expectation areas were:
• Infrastructure system
• Political ownership
• Citizens
• Resources
• Knowledge hubs
It seems possible to differentiate between three larger groups within these five expectations.
- Citizens stand alone as an absolute priority.
- Political ownership and Resources belong more together as the average priority level difference is minor between them. Logically, it can be easily explained by the fact that funding and human resources should be allocated and distributed following a well defined strategy.
- A building and the closely linked infrastructure should be provided to concentrate the knowledge.
These core ‘criteria’ and their ‘ranking’ by participants of the 2nd annual conference of PLACES must be considered as indicators of expectations. The criteria and ranking indicate, however, that just building the infrastructure linked to an existing knowledge hub may not be the best direction to build a city of scientific culture and that a bottom up approach with citizens, political support and guaranteed resources that leads then to infrastructure may be the best route to follow.
This ‘soft’ approach from the citizen perspective is backed up by other pieces of work of PLACES (Report on the proto-models of city of scientific culture; LAP analysis) which also arrive at the same conclusion that the human side, citizens, involvement and engagement of people is the first requirement for a city of scientific culture. This result corresponds to one of the major objectives of PLACES: engagement of adult citizens in scientific issues and that science communication addresses adult citizens.
Obstacles
This report takes a look at Science and technology in Europe using surveys and interviews covering a wide range of stakeholders, city contexts, and highlights information on the concept of scientific cities. Why some cities have developed clear policies and activities and others have not, as well as the key obstacles that may hinder science communication policies and the criteria for a good science communication. The identification of these obstacles and how they might be overcome played a major part in the final PLACES recommendations to the European Commission.
The report is divided into four sections:
1. Science and technology in Europe
2. Obstacles to science communication policies
3. Science communication policy making
4. Science communication policymaking process: what are the obstacles?
Findings include a list of important obstacles, which rank in the following order:
A lack of funding for all resources
A lack of local representatives interest
A lack of collaboration between your local authority and local stakeholders
A lack of good coordination
A lack of a formalised national framework policy
THEMATIC WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS
The individual actors working in the project PLACES are quite diverse, as they belong to very different professional groups such as professionals in science communication, public administrators, teachers, researchers, cultural officers. Also, they represent a wide range of geographical and social realities, since PLACES includes members from 23 countries in Europe.
The wealth of professional expertise that the PLACES community therefore constitutes was structured into “thematic working groups” (TWG) with the following objectives:
• To exchange knowledge and best practices among City Partnerships and with other stakeholders.
• To provide members of the PLACES community with opportunities to join high-level discussion on themes which are particularly relevant to science communication at the local level.
• To produce recommendations and observations about specific topics related with the role of science communication policies in society, innovation, and education.
As part of PLACES, each Thematic Working Group had the potential to use the networks and the wider PLACES community, as well as a wealth of other stakeholders, projects and institutions that were linked to PLACES.
Each TWG had its own group space on the OPEN Platform (www.openplaces.eu) and an administrator was assigned to each. This enabled the collaborative work to continue in between the meetings that took place back to back with each of the first three PLACES Conferences.
During the 1st PLACES Conference (Paris, 2011), the delegates from City Partnerships and Regions met in dedicated sessions to define the Thematic Working Groups. The themes were chosen according to the “Science in Society” work program priorities.
The following five Thematic Working Groups developed the work during the whole of the project.
• Working with the formal education system
• Creative innovation: links with other fields of culture
• Access to knowledge, ICT and e-cities
• Eco cities, green cities ad sustainable cities
• Youth and scientific careers
Between 10 to 25 people from the PLACES community, with one representative from each of the three Networks (Ecsite, ERRIN and Eusea), was part of each TWG. At least five different science communication institutions was represented in each TWG during the meetings that took place in each of the three first PLACES Conferences, contributing to the discussion and the setting up of the main issues to be tackled.
A report was produced containing recommendations from the five TWG.
Final Recommendations and PLACES Declaration (Deliverable…)
ERRIN is one of the partners in the PLACES consortia and has had a good overview of the activities of the project through the various work packages and deliverables demanded by the project. ERRIN was specifically involved in the organisation of the first and third PLACES conferences and organised over 20 regional workshops with the regions involved in the project. ERRIN also undertook an analysis of the Local Action Plans and produced a report on Obstacles and Proto-models of the City of Scientific Culture.
These activities and analysis have provided insights into current thinking on cities of scientific culture and possible recommendations for future activities and policies. The objective of this report is to provide both policy makers and science communicators with recommendations on the role and to build the future path towards the cities of scientific culture. These recommendations are explicitly aimed at both communities as one of the weaknesses identified in many of the activities within PLACES was the possible ‘comfort zone’ for science communicators working with the ‘usual suspects’. The objective of PLACES was very much to build a community of actors dealing in science and society issues (see Local Action Plans developed by over 60 cities) and to develop a stronger relationship between science communication and policy making at the local and regional level. Too often there is a division between the policy makers and science communicators and science institutions. This division has not helped science communicators integrate into city and regional policies which are currently dominated from a European angle with smart specialisation, smart cities and a broad-based approach to innovation.
As mentioned above, ERRIN has been responsible for several tasks, event organisations and report writing in PLACES (State of the Art Study on Existing Science Culture Policies, Report on the Obstacles to City of Scientific Culture, Report on Policy Expectations, Proto-Models of the City of Scientific Culture, 1st and 3rd Annual Conference reports, science cities workshops reports, capacity building sessions reports, Local Action Plan Analysis). The recommendations are therefore concerns or ideas that have emanated from several sources, a wide range of stakeholders in different configurations and in different localities.
Recommendations cited here by ERRIN are also in line with recommendations produced by the Thematic Working groups and with the PLACES Declaration endorsed by the signature of over forty cities from all over Europe.
Recommendation #1: The PLACES Declaration should be publicised and the important role of science in developing strong cities and regions in Europe should be acknowledged by the European Commission. Although a European City of Scientific Culture involves bottom-up thinking and actions, it must also be supported by top-down policies and thinking from a European perspective.
Recommendation #2: All cities that strive to be Cities of Scientific Culture should involve citizens in the design and implementation of their City of Scientific Culture project. A City of Scientific Culture should strive to retain talents. To this end, a City of Scientific Culture creates a favourable political, democratic, economic and social environment to its citizens and invests in research, innovation and welfare that will encourage talents to stay or move there.
Recommendation #3: Science communication institutions should investigate what kind of unique and best fitting service they could offer to the city administration that could make the collaboration between the science communication institution and the municipality more solid and longer-lasting and also raise the profile of the institution in the eyes of the citizens.
Recommendation #4: Local/regional administrations should take the political lead of strategy design towards the City of Scientific Culture and should develop strong partnerships to advise on strategy design but also be able to implement the strategy. Without a solid political support, the city cannot achieve this goal.
Recommendation #5: Future European programmes should build on the PLACES project to support the implementation of SWAFS and RRI through cities and region s that have identified themselves as ‘science friendly’ via their engagement in the PLACES project.
PLACES DECLARATION
Cities are acknowledged as the focal points of civilization and for many centuries they have contributed to economic, social, cultural and political life both within the city and in surrounding regions. The idea of a European City of Scientific Culture sheds light on one important facet of the city - the ability to stimulate scientific thinking which benefits the lives of its citizens and the world. A city of scientific culture is one that pro-actively cultivates scientific understanding to facilitate economic competitiveness and an improved educational system which encourages innovation and scientific discovery. A city of scientific culture is a place where social and cultural development requires an understanding of science just as much as the humanities and where science supports democratic processes through evidence-based policy making.
Science is not a secondary priority, but the basis of an enhanced civilization for Europe and the world. The diversity of Europe’s cities means that cities follow different trajectories, histories and meanings with regard to scientific culture.
The sciences and humanities are most valuable to economic growth, job creation, innovation, and are essential for structural and cultural changes. They are of utmost importance for the future of our society and urban development since both soft and hard locational factors contribute to cities’ identity and image. Modern, future-oriented city governments in Europe respond to the In a European City of Scientific Culture, scientific evidence and advice, as well as demands and input from citizens, should be strongly considered in political decisions. Policies should reflect outcomes of dialogues between citizens, researchers and other stakeholders. These cities should promote science education and literacy with the belief that informed citizens enhance decision-making on topics related to science and technology.
A European City of Scientific Culture provides one or more different access points to scientific knowledge where information and interactions between the political world and science, the humanities, business and the general public are facilitated. Relevant infrastructures are scientific institutions or knowledge hubs in research and education which have regional, national or international reputations for facilitating science engagement and societal dialogue on varying topics and developments. Science centres, science museums and science festivals are considered central points in the participation of society in, with and for science.
A European City of Scientific Culture is able to learn and unlearn in order to prepare the ground for innovation. Only a city that overcomes best practices of the past can keep up with the times and win competitions of the future.
To maximize its potential, a European City of Scientific Culture needs to achieve European and international visibility.
Modern, future-oriented city governments in Europe respond to the increasing importance of science and the demands of citizens by involving local scientific institutions in their social, political, urban and cultural development strategies. Acknowledging that the globalized world is highly competitive, these cities invest in science, humanities, research, innovation and education on principle in order to attract and retain talent.
Elements of a European City of Scientific Culture
Though capacities and priorities may differ from one city to the next, a European City of Scientific Culture meets many of the following criteria: a European City of Scientific Culture invests in science, research and innovation to pursue a future of economic competitiveness which creates jobs, stimulates growth and safeguards social welfare. Furthermore, it recognizes that economic competitiveness requires informed and engaged citizens.
In order to develop and flourish, a European City of Scientific Culture has a strategic and sustainable action plan developed in dialogue with politicians, policy makers, scientists, entrepreneurs, cultural agents and citizens. Such an action plan must continuously evolve and adapt to social and cultural change.
A European City of Scientific Culture aims for a spirit that generates an anticipatory, inclusive, reflective and responsive interaction in the political decision-making process and an improved participation in democracy. Such a city supports and implements the economic and societal goals of the European Union as expressed in EU policies for science and innovation strategy.
A European City of Scientific Culture encourages science in, with and for society. A permanent interdisciplinary exchange between scientists, policy makers and the public will facilitate trust and confidence in science and the humanities – a prerequisite for scientific development which will help to attract and foster young talent, scientists and investors needs to achieve European and international visibility.
The European City of Scientific Culture and Europe
Cities are complex structures and no two cities can be the same. They are often in competition for resources, talent and economic and cultural investment. This does not mean that cities cannot cooperate in many ways. Cities can share knowledge and exchange ideas in a spirit which benefits all cities and regions. In this way, a European City of Scientific Culture adds value to the European ideal of a smart, sustainable and inclusive society. This Declaration calls for political representatives of European Cities of Scientific Culture to acknowledge the important role of science in developing strong cities and regions in Europe. This is a bottom-up process in which political representatives have an important and decisive role to play. A city can only flourish and be developed to its best when the local scientific culture concept is a sustainable part of a city’s development. Although a European City of Scientific Culture involves bottom-up thinking and actions, it must also be supported by top-down policies and thinking from a European perspective. European Cities of Scientific Culture therefore depend on long-term regional, national and European support in order to maintain platforms and networks to exchange best practice and exploit fully the potential of mutual learning and societal dialogue which will move forward the European integration process and shape the European identity at the local level. To this end, and in order to foster the European dimension of scientific culture, outstanding examples need to be acknowledged through European awards and networking and exchange should be funded amongst these cities.
Potential Impact:
The strategic impact of PLACES is mainly connected with four aspects:
1. The number of institutions and participants in the project
2. The networks engaged in the project and their potential for impact through their network meetings, dissemination instruments such as newsletters and websites, and peer-to-peer connections;
3. The novelty and quality of the partnerships that were established; namely, places brought together actors that usually don’t cooperate on a consistent and permanent basis. This created the potential for many innovative synergies.
4. Its connection with Responsible Research and Innovation: The issues and scope of innovation; in PLACES this connects with the topics and expected impact of the Local Action Plans that were set up and continue being developed, namely through the establishment of concrete polices;
It is also important to mention in this regard the rooting of innovative practices in society: the local action plans and many pilot activities developed in the project became true innovation as opposed to a temporary change; this was achieved by concrete top-down/bottom-up approaches used in developing and implementing the Local Action Plans.
1. The number of institutions and participants in the project:
PLACES has a high impact due to the sheer number of participants, to their institutional diversity, and to their geographical distribution: the project engaged participants from more than 60 cities and 23 European countries. In total, 290 institutions ranging from science communication institutions (museums, science centres, science festivals) to universities, municipalities, regional development agencies, private companies, NGOs and many others, worked together in the project.
PLACES also developed many networking opportunities:
18 regional workshops fostered the connection between local and regional actors and stakeholders such as economic agencies, companies, science communicators, research institutions, policymaking institutions, and many others that usually don’t connect, engaging them in the development of policies in science and technology communication.
Four international meetings brought together science communicators and policymakers from the cities belonging to the project, but managed to attract also many other cities (more than 60 cities outside of the project participated in these conferences) to the debate on how these two fields can and must cooperate.
PLACES produced several resources and instruments capable of a wide impact in many aspects: the Impact Assessment Toolkit is now widely used for the evaluation of science communication initiatives and policies; examples of action plans and innovative activities for citizen engagement, databases of science communicators in Europe and other resources are freely available to a large community of actors. Based on discussions and learning throughout the course of the project, the project presently provides concrete recommendations and examples of best practices concerning scientific culture and cities. These are aimed at:
Policymakers, at the EU level (European Commission, DG Research, Science in Society program); Policymakers at the Regional levels; Policymakers at the local level (local authorities particularly engaged in City Partnerships with science communication actors); Experts and practitioners in science communication, in the form of network associations, single entities, universities, science shops, museums, etc., in order to develop multi-level policy initiatives at a local level; other European actors having special or thematic expertise in science communication.
2. The networks engaged in the project
The PLACES project drew together four networks: two networks related with science communication (Ecsite and Eusea), one network of European Regions (ERRIN), and one network, established by the project itself, of researchers in science communication led by University Pompeo Fabra
Ecsite – The European network of science centres and museums (www.ecsite.eu) links science communication professionals in more than 400 institutions in 50 countries. Founded 20 ears ago, Ecsite connects member institutions through projects and activities and facilitates the exchange of ideas and best practice on current issues. Members include science centres and museums, science festivals, natural history museums, zoos, aquariums, universities, research organisations and companies communicating and engaging the public in science through accessible, interactive exhibits and programmes.
42 science communication institutions, members of the Ecsite network, participated in the project and have disseminated its outcomes to the remaining of the network.
Eusea - European Science Events Association (www.euscea.org) with 99 member from 37countries, is a network of organisers of informal learning events in Europe and a platform on science communication, of dialogue between citizens and science. The institutions member of the Eusea network develop activities with various formats like science parliaments, citizen conferences, science cafés, children university, etc.
19 Eusea science communication institutions participated in the project and took the main experiences to the remaining of the network.
ERRIN - European Regions Research and Innovation Network (www.errin.eu) is a Brussels-based platform of Research and Innovation Organisations and Stakeholders in Regions. ERRIN aims to strengthen regional Research and Innovation capacities by exchanging information, sharing best practice, supporting European project development, policy shaping and profile raising by working together with a partnership approach. Through its 115 members of 25 European countries, and 13 Working Groups, ERRIN facilitates contacts between regional offices and regions so that they can enhance their knowledge of European policy in Research and Innovation and develop strategic European projects to strengthen regional competitiveness. A total of 10 members of the Science in Society working group of ERRIN were involved in PLACES and are responsible for the mobilization and promotion of knowledge exchange between regions of Europe concerning the debate and development of strategies in science communication policies.
A fourth network of researchers in science communication was established on purpose for the project PLACES. This network of 23 researchers, from as many European countries, worked under the leadership of the Science Communication Observatory, from University Pompeo Fabra, in Barcelona, and developed activities as independent impact assessors; this included the development of the PLACES Impact Assessment toolkit, and conducting 30 impact assessments of cities, science centres and science festivals.
This wide group of researchers is now actively promoting the use of the Impact Assessment Toolkit, implementing a coherent set off analytical assessment instruments and increasing its potential.
3. The novelty and quality of the partnerships that were established
The establishment of partnerships at city level was the core functional aspect in PLACES. The City Partnership in each city was initially established between a science communication institution (science centre, science museum, or science festival organizer) and the municipality or a local organism responsible for the development and implementation of policies at local level. This CP committed to developing a plan to tackle issues of science and technology that have an impact on the citizens and on the overall city or region.
The CP is further developed and enriched with other local actors such as research institutions, universities, NGOs, companies, foundations, and local media.
Several aspects should be emphasized that reveal the potential strategic impact of the city partnerships:
- It has an impact on the diversity of actors engaged in science communication: the PLACES City Partnerships brought together many different actors, other than the ones that normally deal with science and technology issues: all CPs included institutions that are responsible for policymaking, and some also brought in actors such as institutions and organizations dedicated to arts, or to industry, or architecture, and many others.
- It has a lasting impact translated in the public formalization of long-term cooperation between organizations that are usually limited to sporadic, ad hoc connections, such as the ones usually established between museums, NGOs and municipalities or regional agencies.
- It changes the role of the science communication institution: they are usually perceived by the citizens as a providers of services connected with education, directed at the younger strata of society. PLACES clearly changed this perception and presented these institutions as actors in policymaking and other aspects related with the exercise of citizenship. This aspect is common to all CPs, since in this project the science communication institutions established themselves as main drivers for change and as a forums for innovation and active citizenship at local level.
- The long-term character of the partnerships has clear impacts at local level: Rather that aiming at a particular plan with short-term existence, the CPs is established for a period of 5 to 10 years. This enables them to become long-lived actors with local intervention and dynamism, with a continuing work that may push the scope of intervention well beyond the original topic(s) of the partnership and impact major plans and developments at local level.
4. Its connection with Responsible Research and Innovation
a) The Local Action Plan (LAP)
City Partnerships developed – and continue to develop - Local Action Plans about issues and aspects related with science and technology; these will impact the everyday life of citizens, and as such they will be consulted and will be able to manifest themselves before or during these projects implementation; the LAPs concern citizens, policymakers, scientist, technicians, companies, cultural institutions, and several other local stakeholders.
Some examples of LAPs that will have a foreseeable impact in changing a city/region:
- Some cities are aiming at physically transforming their urban landscape and incorporate science and technology in the city future developments. Examples are Trento and Lugano, in Italy, and Essen, in Germany.
- Other cities are aiming at changing the perception citizens have of their own cities physical and social environment, and both the CP and LAP are boldly aiming at a redefinition of the city as a smart city. A good example is Naples (Italy).
- Economic redefinition and growth based on industrial innovation is the aim of cities such as Jerusalem (Israel) and Newcatsle (UK), where the focus in new industries linked with health is based on a dynamic reciprocity between scientific research, industrial development and the citizens.
Another example is Stenungsund (Sweden), a city that is seeking the development of the region through renovation and innovation of the local chemical industries, including a change of the perception and engagement of the public towards this kind of industry, and addressing notions such as environmental sustainability and safety by design.
- Innovation in governance is being tackled in concrete issues, namely in relation with environmental governance: Brussels (Belgium) is developing the citizens contribution and influence in decision making concerning water management; Genoa (Italy) is aiming at establishing a permanent Scientific Advisory Board for the city.
- Many other specific aspects are the subject of LAPs and are expected to produce innovative approaches: incorporating science and technology in the cultural and touristic offer of the city (Lisbon, Portugal, and Teruel, Spain), achieving total sustainable mobility (Mechelen, Belgium), and aiming at a city with zero carbon emissions (Sonderborg, Denmark) are just a few examples.
b) Top-down and bottom-up approaches: the engagement of citizens
One of the crucial aspects of the PLACES is the involvement and input of citizens in the LAP development. The project required actions and concrete opportunities to allow the input and effectively account for the citizens’ expression in the LAP development. Also, many LAPs have as a crucial component the bottom-up approach to innovative developments at regional level.
The necessity of citizens’ engagement in the LAP development considers and addresses the following aspects:
- Innovations are effective if citizens are ready and willing to incorporate them in their everyday life.
- Innovation in itself can become a social positive drive, but only if it is more than a factor for economic development and becomes embedded in the cultural landscape and is an integral part of active citizenship.
In this respect, science communication institutions are essential elements: they perceived as trustworthy, neutral, and reach a diversity of citizens few other organizations are able to reach. This pivotal role of science communication in innovation, and the inclusion of institutions that promote science communication as forums for active citizenship and for the innovation of cities, is a landmark of PLACES.
Finally, PLACES established a framework for the European City of Scientific Culture, embodied in the PLACES Declaration. This declaration was signed already by representatives of the mayors of 47 cities, and continues to be signed even after the end of the project, showing the continued impact of PLACES.
List of Websites:
www.openplaces.eu
Ecsite Office
Avenue Louise, 89/7
B-1050 Brussels
Belgium
www.ecsite.eu