In a discussion as rich, complex and wide-ranging as that taking place at the ‘Gover’Science’ Seminar, it is difficult to extract any single definitive ‘bottom line’ conclusion.

The multiple issues for reflection and practical implications that have been discussed thus far illustrate the diversity of experiences and contexts that were addressed.

However, it is possible to encapsulate much of the thrust of the shared momentum in this deliberation by means of a single concept that arose repeatedly in discussion.

The Rapporteur will refer to this concept here with the term ‘co-operative research’: a form of research process, which involves both researchers and non-researchers in close co-operative engagement [S].

Although actually referred to in discussion in the Seminar with terms like ‘collaborative research’ [S] and ‘participatory science’ [G], the broad interdisciplinary nature of science governance discourse and the usage of language within the European Commission itself impose a series of unhelpful established connotations to these terms.

Accordingly, the concept of ‘co-operative research’ emerging at the Seminar refers to a range of different procedures, situated at different levels, for engaging divergent social values and interests in the processes of ‘science in governance’ and the ‘governance of science’.

Where circumstances do not warrant this, then the notion of co-operative research need not necessarily be taken to imply the extensive grass-roots implications that might be associated (perhaps by reference to Arnsteins’ ladder discussed earlier in Section 2.1.1) with ‘participatory research’.

On the other hand, this concept of ‘co-operative research’ extends well beyond relatively narrow established notions of ‘collaborative research’, simply involving multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary teams from specialist institutions.

Co-operative research, by contrast, requires constant attention to ‘transdisciplinary’ engagement with stakeholders and public constituencies in order to explore the driving aims and purposes, the alternative orientations, and the wider social and environmental implications of research and innovation [S].

Drawing in particular on the conclusions of the Seminar working group on ‘Key Outputs for Collaborative Research’ [S] and building especially on the experience gained in the longstanding field of science shops [L], the imperatives for the general adoption of a ‘co-operative research’ position in wider science governance take a number of forms.

They arise from an increasing understanding of mutual co-dependence in society of different interests and value communities. This leads on to an enhanced willingness on the part of all actors in the science governance process to recognize the value of different forms of knowledge held by others.

As a consequence, co-operative research encompasses the whole suite of processes through which science governance can achieve a high degree of social integration of the many different salient forms of knowledge.

In these terms, co-operative research represents full recognition of the implications discussed earlier in relation to Arnstein’s ladder – representing a move away from conventional consultation – through the wide range of currently existing procedures discussed at this Seminar for fostering participation, inclusion, engagement, deliberation and negotiation – and on towards the overall aim of what might be referred to as a more effective general social process for the ‘co-building’ of knowledge [S].

Despite the diversity of contexts and examples, there arise a series of seven more detailed features, which together help characterize and distinguish this newly emerging process of co-operative research.

The process of co-operative research is as important as the outcomes. It is through the experience of co-operation – or of seeing authentic co-operation on the part of others – that contending social interests come to develop greater confidence in the governance of the research process as a whole [S]. ii. The ‘framing’ of co-operative research is autonomous.

This extends more restrictive notions of the autonomy of the professional science community alone, to include communities of interested and affected social actors.

It recognises the important lesson discussed earlier, to the effect that public engagement in science is not just about participation within a pre-ordained structure, but also implies the freedom to re-structure the framing and focus of deliberation (Section 3.2.2) [S].

As such, the extended autonomy of co-operative research allows an ‘opening up’ of processes of science and innovation to reveal (and allow exploration of) a wider range of social purposes, conditionalities and implications [P]. iii.

Co-operative research embodies at its core an intrinsically symmetrical understanding of therelationship between different bodies of knowledge.

Although knowledges may differ in their salience from case to case and issue to issue, co-operative research avoids generalised or systematic assignments of privilege to one form of knowledge over another [S]. iv.

Co-operative research integrates and addresses equally, processes of design, implementation and dissemination. As a consequence of this, co-operative research displays an important benefit in relation to more fragmented approaches, in that it provides inherently for the more effective transfer of productive knowledge and outcomes between different social communities.

In this way, it helps address the often prohibitive challenge of moving from scientific or social research to technological or organisational innovation [S]. v.

Accordingly, co-operative research includes a wide variety of specific approaches to inclusive engagement at different levels in science governance. These extend across the full range of procedures discussed at this workshop (such as consensus conferences, participatory modelling, science shops, citizen’s panels, stakeholder commissions, transdisciplinary teamwork, focus groups and deliberative committees and polls).

The key point here is one of flexibility in configuring the process to the purpose of autonomously-defined ‘useful outputs’ [S]. vi.

Co-operative research highlights and clarifies the essential role of science. As part of this more pluralistic process, the role of natural science itself moves from being the single most highly valued output (as a particular body of knowledge) towards recognition as a crucial process.

Rather than being invoked prescriptively as a source of definitive ‘sound scientific’ prescriptions for policy, science is recognised as the set of disciplines through which to ensure rigour, transparency and general responsibility in communicating and substantiating what will inevitably remain multiple, contending and uncertain knowledge claims [G][L]. vii.

Co-operative research embodies a richer and more positive understanding of the role of social science. Rather than serving as a ‘bolt on’ activity to examine implications, assess reactions or ensure compliance or acceptance after research has taken place, social science fulfils a more integrated and formative role in co-operative research [G].

Recognising the distinction between ‘expertise of’, and ‘expertise on’, social actors, social science also moves – like natural science – from being primarily addressed as a substantive repository of knowledge, towards being engaged as a source of expertise and experience on the kinds of processes through which diverse social knowledges can be elicited and integrated into science governance [K].

Taken together, these common characteristics help to communicate and substantiate the key elements of what is meant by a move mentioned at the beginning of this report (Section 1.2), away from the fragmented, introspective and reactive preoccupation with ‘science and society’ and towards a more integrated, outgoing and proactive interest in ‘science in society’.

Strategies and Research Needs

It is hardly surprising that a Seminar involving so many active members of the European science governance research community should draw from these emerging conclusions a wide range of implications for further research! A series of gaps in existing knowledge were recognised and a number of potentially fruitful avenues for enquiry identified.

These might be seen as relevant both to the development of Framework 7 activities in this area [L], as well as forming a possible focus for more short term activities – perhaps under existing initiatives such as the ‘NEST’ Programme [T].
Perhaps most significantly, co-operative research emerges here not just as an object of research in its own right, but also as the most effective means by which such research is itself best conducted – embodying processes of engagement in the framing as well as in the implementation of the research process [M]. The following comprised the main gaps and associated avenues for enquiry identified at various stages in the discussion:

i. There is currently relatively little ‘baseline mapping’ of the kinds of ‘co-operative research’ practices that already exist. Queries here include: What’s happening? What’s needed [M]?

ii. As a prerequisite to direct evaluation of the many different co-operative research practices themselves [M], there are important unanswered prior questions around the differentiation of what constitute the criteria of good and bad practice in different contexts [F]?

ii. The effective use of the Internet in science communication and public engagement presents a further neglected area of interest in its own right [M].

iv. Given the intrinsically pluralistic environment within which co-operative research takes place, efforts at ‘evaluation’ also require more intensive research on the diverse and contested nature of the ‘impacts’ of participatory engagement on wider science governance [I].

v. As part of this, there are important gaps in the researching of contrasting subjective encounters with co-operative research activities, as experienced by policy makers, practitioners, third party stakeholders and participants themselves.

Questions here concern not just the positive and negative impressions, but reflection on the interplay of interests and divergent notions of ‘quality’ and ‘robustness’ in the associated policy decisions and commitments, as well as the wider implications for democratic governance [M].

vi. In particular, there arises in this latter regard a particularly significant gap in research in this area to date: examining the personal attitudes, discursive and behavioural patterns and any covert strategic practices on the part of high level policy makers with regard to exercises in public engagement in science governance [L].

The associated challenges of ‘studying up’ form not just part of the problem in this respect, but also part of the problematique for such research.

vii. Although there exists much high quality research in general fields of science in governance and the governance of science that has already been conducted – not least under the auspices of Framework Programmes 4 – 6 [M], there has been relatively little attention specifically to the role of public engagement in science governance [L].

Likewise, the patterns of attention and relative neglect displayed by science governance research itself might also be a productive focus for meta-analysis [L].

viii. More specific and action-oriented lines of enquiry concerns the potential strategic options facing the Science in Society Unit in EC RTD, as a potential champion of wider dissemination, or as custodian of a ‘ghetto’ of specialist activity [E].

This includes an examination of the actual and potential institutional role of this Unit in promoting experiment activity involving different forms of learning [N].

ix. Likewise, there is scope for considering more ‘consultancy’ style research concerning the different possible strategic functions for this particular Unit within the structure of the European Commission as a whole.

This might focus on the potential modalities by which this Unit might help fulfil needs for monitoring European practice in this field, addressing issues of: inclusion, representation, timing and compliance in public engagement in science governance [M].

x. Finally, and even more instrumentally, there were a series of suggestions concerning the role of the Governance and Scientific Advice Unit in mediating relationships between other European science governance institutions: listening, digesting, communicating, and feedback with engagement community [M].

Queries here concern the wider perceptions of this Unit in sister departments of the European Commission concerning the possible role for this Unit in enabling co-operative research processes under the auspices of other departments [O].

This would involve deliberate attention to the informing the development of networks of high level allies [O].

Ends