There is a general trend toward more active, broader, and more inclusive participation of different stakeholders in science. Civil society organizations’ inclusion in the scientific process is being promoted. However, there are few attempts to understand the role of civil society organizations in research. This study is based on the analysis of 31 semi-structured interviews with Spanish civil society organization managers and representatives. Our main results regarding the current relationship between civil society organizations and the research system are (a) civil society organizations mainly participate in science within one single research moment and they are unaware of their potential. (b) We identify a lack of resources, mutual knowledge (among civil society organizations and academia), and capabilities as barriers for civil society organizations’ participation. (c) There is a need to strengthen links between civil society organizations and research by training in collaborative methodologies and communication skills, promoting participatory research, increasing mutual understanding about the research system and the third sector, and aligning research and civil society organizations’ objectives.
AhrweilerPGilbertNSchrempfBGrimpeBJirotkaM (2019) The role of civil society organisations in European responsible research and innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation6(1): 25–49.
2.
ArnsteinSR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners35(4): 216–224.
3.
BergMLidskogR (2018) Deliberative democracy meets democratised science: A deliberative systems approach to global environmental governance. Environmental Politics27(1): 1–20.
4.
BernauerTGampferR (2013) Effects of civil society involvement on popular legitimacy of global environmental governance. Global Environmental Change23(2): 439–449.
5.
BonneyRCooperCBDickinsonJKellingSPhillipsTRosenbergKV, et al. (2009) Citizen science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience59(11): 977–984.
6.
BuiattiMChristouPPastoreG (2013) The application of GMOs in agriculture and in food production for a better nutrition: Two different scientific points of view. Genes & Nutrition8(3): 255–270.
7.
CalderI (2002) Forests and hydrological services: Reconciling public and science perceptions. Land Use and Water Resources Research2(2): 1–12.
8.
ChakrabortyGGiuffrediR (2020) Science and technology for the people? On the framing ofinnovation in policy discourses in India and in EU. Journal of Science Communication2011(2865): 1–9.
9.
Chaves-AvilaRAlguacil-MariPFajardo-GarciaIGSavall-MoreraT (2016) National report on third sector barriers in Spain. TSI National Report Series No. 8, Seventh Framework Programme (Grant Agreement 613034). Brussels: European Union.
10.
CornellSBerkhoutFTuinstraWTàbaraJDJägerJChabayI, et al. (2013) Opening up knowledge systems for better responses to global environmental change. Environmental Science and Policy28: 60–70.
11.
Corral-LageJMaguregui-UrionabarrenecheaLElechiguerra-ArrizabalagaC (2019) Estudio empírico del Tercer Sector en España: hacia una re-conceptualización unificada [Empirical study of the Third Sector in Spain: towards a unified re-conceptualization]. Revista de Contabilidad22(2): 145–155.
12.
De SailleS (2015) Innovating innovation policy: The emergence of “responsible research and innovation.”Journal of Responsible Innovation2(2): 152–168.
13.
DefournyJ (2013) The third sector. In: BruniLZamagniS (eds) Handbook on the Economics of Reciprocity and Social Enterprise. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 400–410.
14.
DohJPGuayTR (2006) Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in Europe and the United States: An institutional-stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management Studies43(1): 47–74.
15.
ElzenBGeelsFLeeuwisCvan MierloB (2011) Normative contestation in transitions “in the making”: Animal welfare concerns and system innovation in pig husbandry. Research Policy40(2): 263–275.
16.
European Commission (2014) Horizon 2020 “science with and for society” providing advice on potential priorities for research and innovation in the work programme 2016–2017 consultation paper. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/swafs/background.pdf
17.
European Science Foundation (2013) Science in society: Caring for our futures in turbulent times. Science Policy Briefing No. 50. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation.
18.
FisherDR (2019) The broader importance of #FridaysForFuture. Nature Climate Change9(6): 430–431.
19.
FrickelSGibbonSHowardJKempnerJOttingerGHessDJ (2010) Undone science: Charting social movement and civil society challenges to research agenda setting. Science, Technology, & Human Values35(4): 444–473.
20.
Fundación Luis Vives (2012) Anuario del Tercer Sector de Acción Social en España, Fundación Luis Vives, Madrid [Yearbook of the Third Sector of Social Action in Spain].
21.
Gómez CrespoMCoboA (2019) Informe de elaboración del Directorio del Tercer Sector de Acción Social [Report on the preparation of the Directory of the Third Sector of Social Action]. Plataforma ONG de Acción Social. Madrid.
22.
HaklayM (2013) Citizen science and volunteered geographic information overview and typology of participation. In: SuiDElwoodSGoodchildM (eds) Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 105–122.
23.
HalpinD (2012) Pressure groups and lobbying. In: SmithRVromenACookI (eds) Contemporary Politics in Australia: Theories, Practices and Issues. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Cambridge University Press, pp. 177–187.
24.
HessDJColeyJS (2012) Wireless smart meters and public acceptance: The environment, limited choices, and precautionary politics. Public Understanding of Science23(6): 688–702.
HojnackiM (1999) The conspicuous corporation: Business, public policy, and representative democracy by Neil J. Mitchell. The Journal of Politics61(1): 269–271.
27.
JacobiJMathez-StiefelS-LGambonHRistSAltieriM (2017) Whose knowledge, whose development? Use and role of local and external knowledge in agroforestry projects in Bolivia. Environmental Management59(3): 464–476.
28.
KrabbenborgLMulderHAJ (2015) Upstream public engagement in nanotechnology: Constraints and opportunities. Science Communication37: 452–484.
29.
LewensteinBV (2004) What does citizen science accomplish? In: Prepared for meeting on citizen science, Paris, 8June, pp. 1–8. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
30.
LidskogR (2008) Scientised citizens and democratised science. Re-assessing the expert-lay divide. Journal of Risk Research11(1): 69–86.
31.
LuceroJWallersteinNDuranBAlegriaMGreene-MotonEIsraelB, et al. (2018) Development of a mixed methods investigation of process and outcomes of community-based participatory research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research12(1): 55–74.
32.
MalyskaABollaRTwardowskiT (2016) The role of public opinion in shaping trajectories of agricultural biotechnology. Trends in Biotechnology34(7): 530–534.
33.
MejlgaardNChristensenMVStrandRBuljanICarrióMGiraltMCI, et al. (2018) Teaching responsible research and innovation: A phronetic perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics. Epub ahead of print 7February. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-018-0029-1.
34.
MercerCGreenM (2013) Making civil society work: Contracting, cosmopolitanism and community development in Tanzania. Geoforum45: 106–115.
35.
MonzónJLChavesR (2012) The Social Economy in the European Union. Brussels: European Social and Economic Committee.
36.
NugrohoY (2011) Opening the black box: The adoption of innovations in the voluntary sector—The case of Indonesian civil society organisations. Research Policy40(5): 761–777.
37.
Price Waterhouse Coopers Foundation (2018) Radiografía del Tercer Sector Social en España: retos y oportunidades en un entorno cambiante [Radiography of the Third Social Sector in Spain: challenges and opportunities in a changing environment]. Price Waterhous Coopers Fundation. Madrid: Fundación PwC.
38.
RabionetSE (2011) How I learned to design and conduct semi-structured interviews: An ongoing and continuous journey. The Qualitative Report16(2): 563–566.
39.
RaineySWakunumaKStahlB (2017) Civil society organisations in research: A literature-based typology. VOLUNTAS28(5): 1988–2010.
40.
RevueltaG (2018) Formación en comunicación en los estudios de grado Análisis en las áreas de ciencias de la salud y la vida, ciencias ambientales y ciencias naturales [Communication training in undergraduate studies Analysis in the areas of health and life sciences, environmental sciences and natural sciences]. In Mediaciones de la Comunicación13(2): 159–182.
41.
RogersKH (2006) The real river management challenge: Integrating scientists, stakeholders and service agencies. River Research and Applications22(2): 269–280.
42.
RoweGFrewerLJ (2004) Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology, & Human Values29(4): 512–556.
43.
Ruiz VilafrancaRRamírez del RíoADelgadoBGarcíaFPérez YruelaJMiménez MarínJ (2015) El tercer sector de acción social en 2015: Impacto de la crisis [The third sector of social action in 2015: Impact of the crisis]. Madrid: Plataforma de Organizaciones de Acción.
44.
Sánchez-HernándezJLGlücklerJ (2019) Alternative economic practices in Spanish cities: From grassroots movements to urban policies? An institutional perspective. European Planning Studies. Epub ahead of print 17July. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2019.1644295.
SchrögelPKolleckA (2018) The many faces of participation in science. Science & Technology Studies32: 77–99.
47.
SchützFHeidingsfelderMLSchraudnerM (2019) Co-shaping the future in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems: Uncovering public preferences toward participatory research and innovation. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation5(2): 128–146.
48.
SmismansS (2008) New modes of governance and the participatory myth. West European Politics31(5): 874–895.
49.
SmithAFressoliMThomasH (2014) Grassroots innovation movements: Challenges and contributions. Journal of Cleaner Production63: 114–124.
50.
Steen-JohnsenKEynaudPWijkströmF (2011) On civil society governance: An emergent research field. VOLUNTAS22(4): 555–565.
51.
StilgoeJLockSJWilsdonJ (2014) Why should we promote public engagement with science?Public Understanding of Science23(1): 4–15.
52.
StilgoeJOwenRMacnaghtenP (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy42(9): 1568–1580.
53.
TaminiauY (2006) Beyond known uncertainties: Interventions at the fuel-engine interface. Research Policy35(2): 247–265.
54.
Värmland County Administrative Board (2018) A Quadruple Helix Guide for Innovations. Värmland County Administrative Board. Sweden.
55.
Vicente-SaezRMartinez-FuentesC (2018) Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition. Journal of Business Research88: 428–436.
56.
Von SchombergR (2013) A vision of responsible research, responsible innovation. In: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. John Wiley. Available at: http://philpapers.org/archive/VONAVO.pdf (accessed 21 September 2016).
57.
WelpMde la Vega-LeinertAStoll-KleemannSJaegerCC (2006) Science-based stakeholder dialogues: Theories and tools. Global Environmental Change16(2): 170–181.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
