How to engage with QH – Step 3 and 4

By SalM on August 16, 2020 in News Articles

What is Stakeholder Engagement?

Stakeholder engagement is a highly relevant activity, an ongoing process, that builds relationships between parties enabling information exchange. This process allows stakeholder affected by decisions of organisation in question to contribute to the decision-making process.

The process of stakeholder engagement is voluntary, open and active dialog, that identifies current position of all parties included, outlines objectives and outcomes, and identifies how to achieve them. Parties that are included in the engagement can change but the process of engagement is continues.

For stakeholder engagement to be effective there are some requirements: willingness and motivation of stakeholders to participate (Gunton et al., 2010); inclusivity of all possible interests (Reed, 2008); equal access to information and knowledge (Gunton et al., 2010; Gopnik et al., 2017). Some barriers in the process of engagement can be identified as well such as: the participation is more tokenistic (cosmetic) rather than active (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008; Echler et al., 2009; Gopnik et al., 2017; Flannery et al., 2018); unfamiliarity with the processes and activities of the organisation in question (Water, 2018); public can have deeply rooted value and belief system (local fisherman for e.g.) affecting the trust level in organisation in question (Jentoft and Knol, 2013).

The main value of engagement with stakeholders lies in understanding of dialogue dynamics and enabled participation (Luoma-Aho, 2015). Generally, engagement is referred as interaction between stakeholders and organisation where interaction influences stakeholder thoughts, actions and emotions toward organisation (Broodie et al., 2011). The benefits of quadruple helix stakeholder engagement by development of collaborative network are evident through access to knowledge, development of scientific competence, obtaining competitive advantage through acceleration of ideas, but significant challenges still remain: how to manage such relationships.

Stakeholder engagement – role of QH in GRRIP

Quadruple helix stakeholders for GRRIP project represent a group of all stakeholders in one place with function of reflecting societal needs. They are expected to participate in development (co-create) action plan for RRI interventions within demo sites. They will serve as a reflection group where sites will demonstrate openness with QH. Through mutual learning and interaction QH will support demo sites in development of sustainable inclusion of QH involvement.  Role of QH in GRRIP project is to co and includes several points.

Throughout QH engagement this reflexive working group will support institutionalising RRI and ensure that it is reflective to societal needs throughout the process

Step 3: Build trust

Third step of stakeholder engagement is trust building process as a fundamental part of this process. In order to build trust, you need to consider different aspects of QH platform such as inequity of the relationship, differential power of different stakeholders, language and cultural barriers (in QH platforms that include international stakeholders), ways of operating etc. To build trust, information must be shared both ways followed by willingness of both parties to understand others’ viewpoint (Jeffery, 2009).

The crucial part of trust building is good alignment of the interests and objectives of your organisation with stakeholders that you intend to engage. For the trust building process you need to consider common obstacles (consult previous step), identify the ones that you anticipate to encounter when engaging with your QH stakeholders and work on gaining trust of stakeholders by addressing the identified obstacles/issues.

Step 4: Co-creation

Communication with your stakeholder is a first level of engagement aiming to raise awareness by allowing participating stakeholders to explore, transform and build their opinions and perspective (Fung, 2006; Akhmouch and Clavreul, 2016). Process of consultation with stakeholders should be (Jeffery, 2009):

• Representative – QH list of stakeholders comprised of full range of stakeholders affected by organisation. Do not think only on big, vocal and sympathetic stakeholders, consider also small stakeholders, they can be a valuable asset in stakeholder engagement. Pay attention to inclusive representation: When choosing stakeholders, it is important to include all four types of stakeholders in the cohort.
• Responsive – by doing work in preparation phase you should be able to present information, proposals, ideas to stakeholders that correspond to their expectations and interests. Previous steps should provide inputs for responsive consultations.
• Context focused – stakeholders need to get detailed and complete picture of organisations motivation. It is important to keep QH interested and motivated work within the step two should provide information how to keep motivated different QH for the QH engagement process and RRI.
• Complete – appropriate background information, provided by internal knowledge management system (stakeholder management group) will allow stakeholders to form conclusions. For engagement to be complete in preparatory work in step 2 will provide you with QH specific data to tailor approaches for each QH category.
• Realistic – in consultation with stakeholders there is expected percentage of trade off of expectations, needs and objectives, which can be positive and strengthening the process of trust building. It is very important to accurately present your intentions and expectations.

Organisation needs to know expectations of QH stakeholders and communication with QH is the key. A structured approach built upon your understanding about importance and expectations of your stakeholders will result in effective communication (Bourne, 2010). Several techniques can be used in process of consultation with stakeholders (Jeffery, 2009):

• Personal interviews
• Workshops
• Focus groups
• Public or “town hall” meetings
• Surveys
• Participatory tools
• Stakeholder panels
• Online tools

Prior to consultation organisation must decide which stakeholder to consult and the appropriate mechanism that will be utilised having in mind local conditions and characteristics of the stakeholder. This could mean that different techniques will be used for different stakeholders. GRRIP chose to trail workshops as a method of engagement, but due to COVID-19 online tools are also valid option for the engagement. Further we will discuss how different stakeholders can be engaged using workshops and how can on line tools be used for inclusive interactive engagement of all QH types.

Considering current feedback, during Planning for Change workshop in June (2020), from the case study demo sites, physical meetings supplemented with online tools are the preferred way of engagement.

Workshops

Industry stakeholders can require development of industry specific tools for top management commitment and leadership, context analysis, materiality analysis, experiment and engagement, validation and AP design/implementation and monitoring/evaluation. Also as indicated industry is oriented toward their commercial objectives and can be difficult to engage them without establishing a sort of „paid relationship“. For GRRIP industry stakeholders could be engaged through workshops.

Workshops are main envisioned engagement tool for QH stakeholder engagement. For industry to be meaningfully engaged it is necessary to develop workshop theme in correspondence with industry goals and objectives. As stated, one way of making RRI exciting for industry stakeholders is connecting specific RRI keys to ISO and CEN standards regarding management systems in the areas of social responsibility, sustainability, innovation, quality and risks- such as ISO 26000, ISO 31000, ISO 9001 and ISO 56000 (trust building). When designing the workshop time could be one of the crucial determining factors weather QH stakeholder will engage, bear in mind the availability of the stakeholder and deliver clear timelines for the workshop. Short agenda with clear indication of expected contribution will facilitate the trust building. Facilitator will be the main moving force of the workshop, make sure that they are well trained and have the skills to initiate fruitful discussion

For the policy makers key aspect of meaningful engagement within GRRIP project can be aligning demo site RRI processes with policy instruments. One way to do this is to choose RRI keys that can align with their interest, e.g. concerning funding policies, RRI assessment and indicators as a pre-requisite for national calls participation, etc. Similarly, in interaction with Academia by selecting RRI researcher specific pillars (Ethics, Open Access, gender) you can ensure their participation.

Best practices from other projects analysed in indicated that having a Citizen’s office: a series of citizens’ meeting in which social needs can be put forth to science, can be useful for engagement with this stakeholder. Second tool was a public debate with actors from academia and civil society on a topic of high public attention. The citizen´s office and debates were considered as very effective by the project officer

If we are organising a workshop for all stakeholders together, specific interests but also a common interest should be identified and interactive engagement should be facilitated. Since COVID-19 enforced virtual meetings inclusion of interactive tools (e.g. mentimeter) that could be used in physical, virtual and even hybrid type of meetings (physical and virtual) should be considered.

Online tools

Recent events with Covid-19 have proved that a society is very adaptable and there is a huge increase of online interaction driven by “virtual by necessity”. Online stakeholder engagement can now be seen as a crucial mechanism for long-term dynamic stakeholder relationships. The most important lesson learned from past few month is that web can overcome limitations of time and distance and it can be a good tool in allowing anonymity to encourage greater stakeholder involvement (Jeffery, 2009).

By switching to online, organisation is no longer restricted to mass communication campaigns, presented information if organised well in easily searchable format can be appealing to large number of individual stakeholders in different times. On-line communities can serve for members to share information and a way of engaging with external stakeholders (Barrett et al., 2016; Wilkin et al., 2018).

Organisations can have multi-stakeholder dialog using online tools such as engagement hubs or portals. Recent example is the Waveney Pathfinder project, led by Waveney District Council in partnership with Suffolk County Council and the Suffolk Coastal Futures project, focusing on coastal frontages at Corton and Easton Bavents. The Coastal Change Hub is an important tool used in the project to engage with local communities in managing the effects of coastal erosion. The hub works as a focal point for the provision of information such as fact sheets, video clips and technical reports, communication from the project team and feedback from local communities through forums and online surveys. The outputs of the project will be the production of reports identifying short- to long-term options for how coastal change can be managed. While offline stakeholder engagement in such a project is important, online communication tools enhance the effectiveness of offline two-way dialogue with multiple stakeholders.

Social media can provide new opportunity for societal actors to be informed, they can easily use such platforms to identify common interests and express their opinions and in this way internet can be powerful tool in stakeholder engagement (Lutz and Hoffmann, 2013).

Using online tools organisation can engage much wider group of stakeholders with no limitations of geographic location, travel options, time and resource consuming issues associated to offline engagement. Online toolkits can be an effective in minimisation of risks associated with consumer rejection, help building trust in an organisation and improve the quality of decision making process.

To read the first two steps recommended by the GRRIP Project follow the links below:

First step

Second step

How to engage with QH – Step 2

By SalM on August 13, 2020 in News Articles

What is Stakeholder Engagement?

Stakeholder engagement is a highly relevant activity, an ongoing process, that builds relationships between parties enabling information exchange. This process allows stakeholder affected by decisions of organisation in question to contribute to the decision-making process.

The process of stakeholder engagement is voluntary, open and active dialog, that identifies current position of all parties included, outlines objectives and outcomes, and identifies how to achieve them. Parties that are included in the engagement can change but the process of engagement is continues.

For stakeholder engagement to be effective there are some requirements: willingness and motivation of stakeholders to participate (Gunton et al., 2010); inclusivity of all possible interests (Reed, 2008); equal access to information and knowledge (Gunton et al., 2010; Gopnik et al., 2017). Some barriers in the process of engagement can be identified as well such as: the participation is more tokenistic (cosmetic) rather than active (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008; Echler et al., 2009; Gopnik et al., 2017; Flannery et al., 2018); unfamiliarity with the processes and activities of the organisation in question (Water, 2018); public can have deeply rooted value and belief system (local fisherman for e.g.) affecting the trust level in organisation in question (Jentoft and Knol, 2013).

The main value of engagement with stakeholders lies in understanding of dialogue dynamics and enabled participation (Luoma-Aho, 2015). Generally, engagement is referred as interaction between stakeholders and organisation where interaction influences stakeholder thoughts, actions and emotions toward organisation (Broodie et al., 2011). The benefits of quadruple helix stakeholder engagement by development of collaborative network are evident through access to knowledge, development of scientific competence, obtaining competitive advantage through acceleration of ideas, but significant challenges still remain: how to manage such relationships.

Stakeholder engagement – role of QH in GRRIP

Quadruple helix stakeholders for GRRIP project represent a group of all stakeholders in one place with function of reflecting societal needs. They are expected to participate in development (co-create) action plan for RRI interventions within demo sites. They will serve as a reflection group where sites will demonstrate openness with QH. Through mutual learning and interaction QH will support demo sites in development of sustainable inclusion of QH involvement.  Role of QH in GRRIP project is to co and includes several points.

Throughout QH engagement this reflexive working group will support institutionalising RRI and ensure that it is reflective to societal needs throughout the process

Step 2: Internal preparation and alignment

Next stage of engagement includes internal alignment with stakeholders, recognition of commonalities between you and stakeholders. The success of engagement with stakeholders is much dependent on ability to align the interests and objectives of your organisation with stakeholders. This does not mean that your objectives and interests must be identical. For coordinated approach some good practices indicate involvement of internal stakeholder management team to support coordination with stakeholder platform, regular communication and feedback and to connect stakeholder engagement process to processes within the company (Jeffery, 2009).  At least one person from case study demo sites should be included in coordination/support of QH stakeholder engagement in order to maintain regular communication and collect feedback from QH. Coordinator/stakeholder management team would serve as a broker/mediator bringing across expectations/reflections of stakeholders/societal needs back to site and vice versa.

When you identify who are your key players and who you want to engage with, it is important to motivate your stakeholder to participate. The motivation of QH can be achieved firstly through training, providing necessary information regarding RRI as a concept and making RRI terminology understandable and familiar to different QH categories. It is noted by the survey and indicated in the 4.2.3. document that over 50% of respondents to the survey that they have low familiarity with RRI. Having this in mind each demo site should consider if adaptation of the terminology to the local context/language is necessary as indicated in T4.2.3. QH stakeholder perspective document.

One of the barriers identified by the SoA (3.2. and 4.2.1.) is lack of time and resources, by motivating your stakeholder you are emphasising that benefits from the engagement will be worth “sacrificed” time and resources.

Industry

Most common barriers to RRI industrial uptake that can be extrapolated to resistance of industry in engaging with GRRIP sites in RRI-embedding processes. These include lack of RRI expertise, limited resources, the challenges of fulfilling all RRI functions (pillars) within the company and the project partners and value chain actors, unclear added value of RRI approaches and the lack of long-term vision among others.

Examples from other projects suggest some lessons learned in overcoming these barriers

• Link RRI with ISO and CEN standards regarding management systems in the areas of social responsibility, sustainability, innovation, quality and risks- such as ISO 26000, ISO 31000, ISO 9001 and ISO 56000
• RRI provides a complementary approach compared to existing Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices, adding a specific focus on the R&I process and based on three key actions:

1. Integrate analysis of ethical, legal and social impacts from the early stages of product development (reflection and anticipation)
2. Perform stakeholder engagement to inform all phases of product development (inclusiveness)
3. Integrate monitoring, learning and adaptive mechanisms to address public and social values and normative principles in product development (responsiveness)

• There is need to provide specific industry tools for top management commitment and leadership, context analysis, materiality analysis, experiment and engagement, validation and AP design/implementation and monitoring/evaluation
• Use good practices and case study dissemination to raise RRI awareness in industry
• Develop systems and processes to protect key intellectual property rights, data and personnel
• Assess the obstacles that result in academia working at a slower pace than industry.

All these lessons learned should be considered while aligning the interests and objectives of your organisation with industry stakeholders. Aligning interests with SDGs could also be useful way to bridge conversation across many sectors

Academia

Type of stakeholder can be very bureaucratic and opposing general resistance to change, RRI aspects shall be of direct interest to its researchers: mutual learning, access to know how on tools (i.e. JERRI self-assessment toolkit on ethical aspects), processes (interdisciplinary by nature) and the imperative requirement to adapt for a better and more responsible way of doing science as to better serve societal needs.

In engaging with academia, GRRIP sites are generally advised to use RRI most attractive specific RRI keys for researchers: ethics, Open access, gender and diversity to open a more holistic discussion on how to strengthen RPOs social role in the site territory of action. Ethics and Open Access is something that most researchers are very familiar with. By including these pillars when engaging with academia, discussions will be more easily facilitated due to researcher’s familiarity with specific RRI pillar. Even such approach has its benefits, we need to consider the benefits of more holistic approach to embedding RRI. By sticking to specific “more familiar” RRI keys we are retaining “status quo” with no chance of growth, by including other RRI keys through more holistic approach we are offering a way QH to grow. Considering other, not so “attractive”, RRI keys we offer openness and inclusiveness and a way to facilitate dialogue between different QH categories rather than choosing exclusively one RRI key that could be interesting to one QH category.

Reflection workshops with focus groups can be organised to reflect on joint challenges/lessons/processes and create trust for sustained alliances with other RPOs, university and multi-spheres institutions. Identify regional and national champions to be brought forward and benchmarking on science quality as gender equality, transdisciplinary or open access. GRRIP sites can propose to join forces among themselves as i.e establish a new role (i.e. Ethics adviser) co-founded and serving a network of institutions or organise joint training courses

Policy makers

The close involvement of policy makers at different levels in the site RRI process, can help in identifying explicit (i.e. migration policies, work permits, statistics laws, etc.) and implicit policy instruments (i.e. funding programs, tax incentives, RRI assessment and indicators as a pre-requisite for national calls participation, etc.) that need to be strengthened or redefine to support the sites- use as pilots – for RRI structural change.

The involvement of policy makers at national level is important and sites can attract their participation by justifying their need of data and experiences/expertise to support the monitoring of the UNESCO RS/SR recommendation on a 4-year basis, and in particular the gender equality issues that has a special organisational structure and priority in many European Member states. The promotion of success stories, at the national and local level, can also inspire change in other stakeholders and shall be done in cooperation with policy-makers covering the different territorial levels. Policymakers can participate in special focus groups discussion or/and be part of the Advisory board for the project/sites.

Civil society

QH platforms can facilitate engagement and openness to QH. Case study demo sites should identify value areas and actions that might be of mutual benefit; consider:

• How institution supports community in area of innovation;
• Be careful of hidden stakeholders (e.g. fishermen and their wives; wives doing a lot of administration for fishermen);
• Finding opportunities for inclusion of QH around community and innovation.

GRRIP institutions cannot be expected to produce stakeholder engagement solely through their specific efforts, but depend also on the existence of a broader engagement ecosystem that reduces transaction costs and stabilises expectations across categories of stakeholders.

How to engage with QH – Step 1

By SalM on August 13, 2020 in News Articles

What is Stakeholder Engagement?

Stakeholder engagement is a highly relevant activity, an ongoing process, that builds relationships between parties enabling information exchange. This process allows stakeholder affected by decisions of organisation in question to contribute to the decision-making process.

The process of stakeholder engagement is voluntary, open and active dialog, that identifies current position of all parties included, outlines objectives and outcomes, and identifies how to achieve them. Parties that are included in the engagement can change but the process of engagement is continues.

For stakeholder engagement to be effective there are some requirements: willingness and motivation of stakeholders to participate (Gunton et al., 2010); inclusivity of all possible interests (Reed, 2008); equal access to information and knowledge (Gunton et al., 2010; Gopnik et al., 2017). Some barriers in the process of engagement can be identified as well such as: the participation is more tokenistic (cosmetic) rather than active (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008; Echler et al., 2009; Gopnik et al., 2017; Flannery et al., 2018); unfamiliarity with the processes and activities of the organisation in question (Water, 2018); public can have deeply rooted value and belief system (local fisherman for e.g.) affecting the trust level in organisation in question (Jentoft and Knol, 2013).

The main value of engagement with stakeholders lies in understanding of dialogue dynamics and enabled participation (Luoma-Aho, 2015). Generally, engagement is referred as interaction between stakeholders and organisation where interaction influences stakeholder thoughts, actions and emotions toward organisation (Broodie et al., 2011). The benefits of quadruple helix stakeholder engagement by development of collaborative network are evident through access to knowledge, development of scientific competence, obtaining competitive advantage through acceleration of ideas, but significant challenges still remain: how to manage such relationships. 

Stakeholder engagement – role of QH in GRRIP

Quadruple helix stakeholders for GRRIP project represent a group of all stakeholders in one place with function of reflecting societal needs. They are expected to participate in development (co-create) action plan for RRI interventions within demo sites. They will serve as a reflection group where sites will demonstrate openness with QH. Through mutual learning and interaction QH will support demo sites in development of sustainable inclusion of QH involvement.  Role of QH in GRRIP project is to co and includes several points.

Throughout QH engagement this reflexive working group will support institutionalising RRI and ensure that it is reflective to societal needs throughout the process

Step 1: Identify, plan and understand

First step to effectively engage with stakeholders is to identify who they are (Akhmouch and Clavreul, 2016). Identification of stakeholders includes several activities. Firstly, you need to develop a list of stakeholders, categorise them according to mutuality (how important is the stakeholder to the project) and what they expect. You need to document each stakeholder’s influence and relationship to the organisation (Bourne, 2010).

In order to establish meaningful relationship with stakeholders you need to identify basic objectives that you as an organisation want to achieve, issues you want to address and stakeholders that you want to engage. In order to understand your stakeholders, you have to “dig deeper” to understand their decision making process, their expectation from you, what objectives are they seeking and how did they influenced you previously (Jeffery, 2009). 

As a first step toward QH stakeholder engagement you need to define your stakeholders within all QH categories, the mapping of QH should be based on current and ideal collaborations. (Figure 1.)

During the mapping of stakeholders for the QH platform all four stakeholder groups should be included. The stakeholders will engage in defining of future stakeholder engagement strategy and action plan creation for RRI “interventions” within site. Table 1 gives an overview of the perceived contribution of different QH categories in the engagement with demo sites. Throughout consultation process why and how QH contributes can be refined remaining fluidity of the engagement process.

QH Stakeholder Engagement in the GRRIP Project

By SalM on August 12, 2020 in News Articles

What is Stakeholder Engagement?

Stakeholder engagement is a highly relevant activity, an ongoing process, that builds relationships between parties enabling information exchange. This process allows stakeholder affected by decisions of organisation in question to contribute to the decision-making process.  

The process of stakeholder engagement is voluntary, open and active dialog, that identifies current position of all parties included, outlines objectives and outcomes, and identifies how to achieve them. Parties that are included in the engagement can change but the process of engagement is continues. The process of stakeholder engagement is multi-faceted process including (APGA Guideline for stakeholder engagement, 2015):

• Providing information;
• Capacity building to equip communities and stakeholders to effectively engage;
• Listening and responding to community and stakeholder concerns;
• Including communities and stakeholders in relevant decision making-processes;
• Developing goodwill and an understanding of objectives and priorities which will lead to confidence in decisions;
• Establishing a realistic understanding of potential outcomes; and
• Building an understanding of the decision-making process.

For stakeholder engagement to be effective there are some requirements: willingness and motivation of stakeholders to participate (Gunton et al., 2010); inclusivity of all possible interests (Reed, 2008); equal access to information and knowledge (Gunton et al., 2010; Gopnik et al., 2017). Some barriers in the process of engagement can be identified as well such as: the participation is more tokenistic (cosmetic) rather than active (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008; Echler et al., 2009; Gopnik et al., 2017; Flannery et al., 2018); unfamiliarity with the processes and activities of the organisation in question (Water, 2018); public can have deeply rooted value and belief system (local fisherman for e.g.) affecting the trust level in organisation in question (Jentoft and Knol, 2013).

The main value of engagement with stakeholders lies in understanding of dialogue dynamics and enabled participation (Luoma-Aho, 2015). Generally, engagement is referred as interaction between stakeholders and organisation where interaction influences stakeholder thoughts, actions and emotions toward organisation (Broodie et al., 2011). The benefits of quadruple helix stakeholder engagement by development of collaborative network are evident through access to knowledge, development of scientific competence, obtaining competitive advantage through acceleration of ideas, but significant challenges still remain: how to manage such relationships. 

Engagement of stakeholders could be summarised as a six step process (adaptation of Jeffery, 2009; Figure 1.1.)

Stakeholder engagement – role of QH in GRRIP

Quadruple helix stakeholders for GRRIP project represent a group of all stakeholders in one place with function of reflecting societal needs. They are expected to participate in development (co-create) action plan for RRI interventions within demo sites. They will serve as a reflection group where sites will demonstrate openness with QH. Through mutual learning and interaction QH will support demo sites in development of sustainable inclusion of QH involvement.  Role of QH in GRRIP project is to co and includes several points.

Throughout QH engagement this reflexive working group will support institutionalising RRI and ensure that it is reflective to societal needs throughout the process

Evolution of the Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers

By SalM on August 3, 2020 in News Articles

First mentioning of Recommendations on the Status of Scientific Researches

In 1974, the Recommendation on the Status of Scientific Researchers was adopted by UNESCO’s 18th General Conference as a standard-setting instrument. The Recommendation addresses, inter alia, scientists’ freedom of expression, responsible science, and access to science

• Read 18 C/Resolution 40, found in the records of the General Conference

Since 1974, developments relating to the governance of science and science-society relationship were also addressed, inter alia, by the

• Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005)
• Declaration on the Responsibilities of Present Generations towards Future Generations (1997)
• Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge (1999)

In order to reflect contemporary ethical and regulatory challenges relating to the governance of science and the science-society relationship, a thorough revision of the Recommendation was initiated in 2013.

A revised Recommendation was adopted by the General Conference at its 39th session, superseding the 1974 text. Its name is also revised, to become the Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers.

The General Conference of UNESCO, when it adopted the new text at its 39th session held in Paris in November 2017, also specifically called for strengthened data collection and reports by Member States focusing on 10 key themes of the Recommendation, and in particular requested government data collection on the conditions of scientists.

• See the 39 C/Resolution 85

190th session of the UNESCO Executive Board, October 2012 (UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, France)

58 Member States of UNESCO invited the Director-General to establish an ad hoc expert group to develop a preliminary study on the technical and legal aspects relating to the desirability of revising the Recommendation

• Read 190 EX/Decision 24, in the decisions of the Executive Board
• Download the Preliminary Study of the Technical and Legal Aspects relating to the Desirability of Revising the Recommendation

192nd session of the UNESCO Executive Board, September-October 2013 (UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, France)

58 UNESCO Member States agreed that regulation at the international level should be further considered, and thus put the item “revision of the Recommendation” on the agenda of the UNESCO General Conference, for all 195 Member States to consider.

• Read 192 EX/Decision 10, in the decisions of the Executive Board

37th session of the UNESCO General Conference, November 2013 (UNESCO headquarters, Paris, France)

195 Member States of UNESCO decided that it was necessary to update existing regulation, by means of a revised recommendation to Member States.

They asked that the new text aim “to provide a powerful and relevant statement of science ethics as the basis for science policies that would favour the creation of an institutional order conducive to the realization of Article 27, paragraph 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”.

They invited the Director-General to prepare such a revision so as to submit a draft to its 39th session in 2017.

• Read 37 C/Resolution 40, found in the records of the 37th General Conference
• Read Article 27, paragraph 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(link is external)

Consultations with partners from June 2014 to September 2015

The World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) provides its views in a report called Ethical Perspective on Science Technology and Society.

The UNESCO Secretariat received hundreds of written comments from partners and others, including national and international scientific academies, unions and associations, governments and international organizations, when it called for comments through a direct mail and online campaign.

• 2015 COMEST Report
• Read an August 2015 progress report on these consultations (38 C/27)

38th session of the UNESCO General Conference, November 2015 (UNESCO headquarters, Paris, France)

195 Member States of UNESCO reaffirmed their request that the Director-General should prepare a revised Recommendation despite that financial constraints prevent deepening consultations by convening an intergovernmental meeting dedicated to drafting a revised text.

UNESCO Recommendations, like Conventions, would normally benefit from such an intergovernmental meeting as part of the process for their preparation.

• Read 38 C/Resolution 45, found in the records of the 38th General Conference

Consultations with Member States from September 2016 to November 2017

The UNESCO Director-General gave a preliminary report to all 195 Member States of UNESCO, setting forth the content and scope of the proposed regulation. Her first proposals for a revised text are presented as an annexed questionnaire to which Member States of UNESCO were invited to reply. 44 Member States of UNESCO replied by 31 December 2016.

Her proposals, revised based on these replies by Member States, are sent to Member States in May 2017, and also submitted to the 39th General Conference.

• Download the Director-General’s May 2017 final report including her proposals revised based on consultations with the 195 Member States

For the full article go to the UNESCO page and read the documents published over the years.

Building a Global Consensus on Open Science

By SalM on July 30, 2020 in News Articles

Why open Science?

In the context of pressing planetary and socio-economic challenges, sustainable and innovative solutions require efficient, transparent and vibrant scientific efforts, not only stemming from the scientific community, but from the whole of society. To ensure that science truly benefits the people and the planet and leaves no one behind, there is need to transform the entire scientific process. Open Science is a movement aiming to make science more open, accessible, efficient, democratic, and transparent.

Driven by unprecedented advances in our digital world, the transition to Open Science allows scientific information, data and outputs to be more widely accessible (Open Access) and more reliably harnessed (Open Data) with the active engagement of all relevant stakeholders (Open to Society). By encouraging science to be more connected to societal needs and by promoting equal opportunities for all (scientists, innovators, policy-makers and citizens), Open Science can be a true game-changer in fulfilling the human right to science and bridging the science, technology and innovation gaps between and within countries.

However, in the fragmented scientific and policy environment, a global understanding of the meaning, opportunities and challenges of Open Science is still missing. UNESCO is therefore taking the lead in building a global consensus on Open Science, including a common definition, a sheared set of values and proposals for action.

Why a global UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science?

The Open Science movement has emerged from the scientific community and has rapidly spread across nations, calling for the opening of the gates of knowledge. Investors, entrepreneurs, policy makers and citizens are joining this call. The question is no longer whether Open Science is happening, but rather how everyone can contribute and benefit from this transition.

UNESCO Recommendations are legal instruments in which “the General Conference formulates principles and norms for the international regulation of any particular question and invites Member States to take whatever legislative or other steps may be required in conformity with the constitutional practice of each State and the nature of the question under consideration to apply the principles and norms aforesaid within their respective territories”. Emanating from the Organization’s supreme governing body, recommendations are intended to influence the development of national laws and practices.

What is the path towards the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science?

The UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science aims to build a global consensus on Open Science through an inclusive, transparent and consultative process involving all countries and all stakeholders. The Recommendation is expected to define shared values and principles for Open Science, and identify concrete measures on Open Access and Open Data, with proposals to bring citizens closer to science and commitments facilitating the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge around the world. The process of drafting the Recommendation is regionally balanced, inclusive and collaborative. It involves multiple stakeholders and is expected to lead to the adoption of the Recommendation by UNESCO Member States in 2021.

If you want to get involved in this process follow this link to the full document written and prepared by UNESCO, and get the necessary informations.

open_science_brochure_en

Science for Sustainable Future

By SalM on July 29, 2020 in News Articles

Recommendation on Science And Scientific Researchers

By SalM on July 28, 2020 in News Articles

Introduction

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers aims to inform science policy and ethics worldwide. Aimed at research institutes, individuals and scientific organizations that practice, regulate and promote science, it calls on member states and their governments to create the conditions that will enable science to flourish and advance, to be practiced ethically and fairly, and to be useful and relevant to society.Adopted in 2017, the Recommendation replaces the 1974 Recommendation on the Status of Scientific Researchers. The update ensures the Recommendation will continue to be relevant to research communities around the world in light of emerging ethical and regulatory challenges related to how science and the science-society relationship are governed. Adopted by all UNESCO member states and endorsed by the international community, the Recommendation has political standing and serves as a reference for conducting science and research and shaping interactions between science and society. Periodic reporting supports the assessment of progress on national and international levels.

Who is the Recommendation for, and what does it do?

The Recommendation is meant to be used by all research institutes, individuals and scientific organizations that practice, regulate and promote science as well as by anyone concerned with rules, policies and ethics in science. The Recommendation: Recognizes the value of science as a common good

Identifies science as a critical long-term investment for every country

1.  Positions science as a key condition for sustainable development
2.  Calls for a means to address the ethics of science and research integrity
3. Addresses the scientific community at large and individual researchers
4. Affirms the value of scientific researchers and their work to society
5. Argues for the support and recognition of scientific researchers
6. Showcases the women and men who carry out science, emphasizing their integrity and responsibility
7. Condemns the factors that undercut scientific careers and scientific endeavors

Key messages – The Recommendation:

1. Underscores science’s responsibility to develop more humane, just and inclusive societies and advance the United Nations’ ideals of peace and welfare
2. Recognizes the role of science in national policy-making, decision-making and international cooperation and development
3. Stresses the role of UNESCO member states in creating a supportive, stimulating environment for science and research
4. Calls for inclusive, non-discriminatory work conditions and access to education and employment in science
5. Recognizes that human capital is key to a sound and responsible science system
6. Emphasizes that all scientific conduct is subject to universal human rights standards
7. Balances researchers’ freedoms, rights and responsibilities
8. Calls for scientific integrity and ethical codes of conduct for science and research and their applications
9. Emphasizes the need for science and society to interact meaningfully to tackle global challenges
10. Promotes science as a common good and requires us to freely share knowledge and research results through open science systems

Applying and using the Recommendation

The Recommendation provides researchers, scientists and policy-makers with a set of international guidelines and values. As a UN-endorsed reference, it complements existing national and international codes of conduct, principles and guidelines around the ethics of research and development. For example, it addresses issues like open access, open science, knowledge commons building and benefits-sharing. This is in line with article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “the right to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.”The Recommendation also provides common global ground on the ethical principles of conducting science and the rights and responsibilities of scientific researchers. It is a clear statement of how the international community views science and scientific research and how it intends to implement a set of shared values.

The Recommendation can be used:

1. As an international reference when developing research and science policies at all levels in both governments and organizations
2. As an internationally agreed set of norms to inform how research is conducted in various settings (such as universities, governments, non-governmental organizations, clinical research networks and businesses)
3. As an unbiased, neutral, ethical and regulatory framework for international research collaboration agreements, especially in North–South settings
4. To provide international perspective on national or regional codes of conduct and ethical guidelines for science
5. To call for public responsibility to use science and create societal impact
6. To support Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as well as global human development in general
7. As a resource in science diplomacy, particularly to address ethical concerns

Sharing the Recommendation

SCIENCE EDUCATION IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IN RRI DEBATES

By SalM on July 27, 2020 in News Articles

Efforts that are being made to educate citizens and equip them with scientific knowledge so that they can participate in the debate on research and innovation are extremely important.

One of the 10 key areas of the UNESCO Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers (2017) is inclusive and non-discriminatory work conditions and access to education and employment in science. All citizens enjoy equal opportunities for the initial education and training needed for, and equal access to employment in scientific research. Scientific researchers enjoy equitable conditions of work. The participation of women and other underrepresented groups should be actively encouraged in order to remediate inequalities. In the following, we will present recommendations from the UNESCO Researchers on this issue:

1. To assist the emergence of scientific researchers of this high caliber, Member States should take measures to:
   (a) ensure that, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, descent, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, native language, religion, political or other opinion, national origin, ethnic origin, social origin, economic or social condition of birth, or disability, all citizens enjoy equal opportunities for the initial education and training needed to qualify for research and development careers, as well as ensuring that all citizens who succeed in so qualifying enjoy equal access to available employment in scientific research;
   (b) abolish inequalities of opportunities;
   (c) in order to remediate past inequalities and patterns of exclusion, actively encourage women and persons of other under-represented groups to consider careers in sciences, and endeavor to eliminate biases against women and persons of other under-represented groups in work environments and appraisal;
2. Member States should:
   (a) ensure that scientific researchers enjoy equitable conditions of work, recruitment and promotion, appraisal, training and pay without discrimination on the basis of race, color, descent, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, native language, religion, political or other opinion, national origin, ethnic origin, social origin, economic or social condition of birth, or disability;
   (b) support individuals from underrepresented groups entering and developing careers in research and development.
3. Member States should ensure that provision is made for scientific researchers to enjoy (in common with all other workers) adequate and equitable social security arrangements appropriate to their age, sex, family situation, state of health and to the nature of the work they perform.
4. Member States should, as regards scientific researchers in their employ, design and establish appropriate (using international comparisons so as to adopt good practices) appraisal systems for independent, transparent, gender-sensitive and tier-based performance evaluation that:
   (a) transparently account for family-care related interruptions of employment and encourage equitable treatment by means of incentives, so that the careers and research of those who take family related leave, including parental leave, are not negatively impacted as a result;

The role of Member States in creating an enabling environment for science and research

Education is also in the focus of the recommendation about the role of Member States in creating an enabling environment for science and research.
Member States, government and non-government stakeholders alike, should create a stimulating environment for a sound science system with adequate human and institutional capacities, by facilitating satisfactory work conditions, moral support, and public recognition of the successful performance of scientific researchers; by supporting education in science and technology; by promoting publishing and sharing data and results that meet adequate quality standards; and by monitoring the implementation and impact of such efforts. Recommendations for this specific issue made by UNESCO are following:

1. In order to have a sound science, technology and innovation system integrated to their effort, Member States should establish and substantially strengthen human and institutional capacities, including by:
   (a) promoting research and development in all areas of society, funded by public, private and non-profit sources;
   (b) equipping itself with the personnel, institutions and mechanisms necessary for developing and putting into practice national science, technology and innovation policies;
   (c) strengthening scientific culture, public trust and support for sciences throughout society, in particular through a vigorous and informed democratic debate on the and use of scientific knowledge, and a dialogue between the scientific community and society;
   (d) establishing suitable means to address the ethics of science and of the use of scientific knowledge and its applications, specifically through establishing, promoting and supporting independent, multidisciplinary and pluralist ethics committees in order to assess the relevant ethical, legal, scientific and social issues related to research projects involving human beings, to provide ethical advice on ethical questions in research and development, to assess scientific and techno-logical developments and to foster debate, education and public awareness and engagement of ethics related to research and development;
   (e) promoting research and development that may address peace-building, as well as responsible and peaceful application of science and technology;
   (f) giving recognition to the key role of research and development in the acquisition of knowledge, in addressing the root causes and impacts of conflict, and in achieving sustainable development; and
   (g) using scientific and technological knowledge in decision-making and policies
2. With the above ends in view, and with respect for the principle of freedom of movement of scientific researchers, Member States should be concerned to create that general climate, and to provide those specific measures for the moral and material support and encouragement of scientific researchers, as will:
   (a) ensure that people of high caliber find sufficient attraction in the vocation, and sufficient confidence in research and development as a career offering reason-able prospects and a fair degree of security, to maintain a constantly adequate regeneration of the nation’s pool of scientific researchers;
   (b) facilitate the emergence and stimulate the appropriate growth, among its own citizens, of a body of scientific researchers regarding themselves and regarded by their colleagues throughout the world as worthy members of the international scientific and technological community;
   (c) encourage those scientific researchers (or young people who aspire to become scientific researchers) who seek some of their education, training or experience abroad, to return and to work in their country.
3. So far as is compatible with the necessary and proper independence of educators and educational institutions, Member States should lend their support to all educational initiatives designed to:
   (a) strengthen all sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics education, in schools and other formal and informal settings;
4. Member States should establish as a norm for any scientific publishing, including publishing in open access journals, that peer review based on established quality standards for science is essential.
5. Member States should ensure that the scientific and technological results of scientific researchers enjoy appropriate legal protection of their intellectual property, and in particular the protection afforded by patent and copyright law.
6. Member States should recognize that they have, as employers of scientific researchers, a leading responsibility and should attempt to set an example to other employers of scientific researchers, and, in order to ensure that satisfactory working conditions are available to scientific researchers in all settings in which research and development are conducted.
7. Member States should strive to extend and complement their own action in respect of this Recommendation, by cooperating with all national and international organizations whose activities fall within the scope and objectives of this Recommendation, in particular National Commissions for UNESCO; international organizations; organizations representing science and technology educators; employers generally; learned societies, professional associations and trade unions of scientific researchers; associations of science writers; women in science associations; youth and student organizations.
8. Member States should support the work of the bodies mentioned above by the most appropriate means, including relevant policies.
9. Member States should periodically review the conditions of scientific researchers, disaggregating data as much as possible in particular by sex.
10. Member States should enlist the vigilant and active cooperation of all organizations representing scientific researchers, in ensuring that the latter may, in a spirit of community service, effectively assume the responsibilities, enjoy the rights and obtain the recognition of the status described in this Recommendation.

Developing education and training regarding the ethical dimensions of science

Also, education is tackled in the recommendation for scientific integrity and ethical codes of conduct for science and research and their technical applications.
Member States should establish suitable means to address the ethics of science and research integrity, through developing education and training regarding the ethical dimensions of science, establishing and supporting science ethics policies and committees, and stimulating the professional ethics of researchers including their intellectual integrity, sensitivity to conflict of interest and vigilance as to the potential consequences of their research and development activities, including their technical applications. Recommendations for this specific issue are mentioned below:

1. In order to have a sound science, technology and innovation system integrated to their effort, Member States should establish and substantially strengthen human and institutional capacities, including by:
   (a) establishing suitable means to address the ethics of science and of the use of scientific knowledge and its applications, specifically through establishing, promoting and supporting independent, multidisciplinary and pluralist ethics committees in order to assess the relevant ethical, legal, scientific and social issues related to research projects involving human beings, to provide ethical advice on ethical questions in research and development, to assess scientific and techno-logical developments and to foster debate, education and public awareness and engagement of ethics related to research and development
2. So far as is compatible with the necessary and proper independence of educators and educational institutions, Member States should lend their support to all educational initiatives designed to:
   (a) incorporate inter-disciplinary and art and design elements in curricula and courses of all sciences as well as skills such as communication, leadership and management;
   (b) incorporate or develop in each domain’s curricula and courses the ethical dimensions of science and of research
3. Member States should encourage conditions that can deliver high-quality science in a responsible manner. For this purpose, Member States should establish mechanisms and take all appropriate measures aimed to ensure the fullest exercise, respect, protection and promotion of the rights and responsibilities of scientific researchers and others concerned by this Recommendation. For this purpose:
   (a) the following are the recommended responsibilities and rights of scientific researchers:
   (i) to work in a spirit of intellectual freedom to pursue, expound and defend the scientific truth as they see it, an intellectual freedom which should include protection from undue influences on their independent judgement;  at every level peer to peer, scientist to student, etc. helps to ensure students become the next-generation leaders in ocean science.

   (ii) to contribute to the definition of the aims and objectives of the programmes in which they are engaged and to the determination of the methods to be adopted which should be humanely, scientifically, socially and ecologically responsible; in particular, researchers should seek to minimize impacts on living subjects of research and on the natural environment and should be aware of the need to manage resources efficiently and sustainably;
   (iii) to express themselves freely and openly on the ethical, human, scientific, social or ecological value of certain projects, and in those instances where the development of science and technology undermine human welfare, dignity and human rights or is “dual use”, they have the right to withdraw from those projects if their conscience so dictates and the right and responsibility to express themselves freely on and to report these concerns;
   (iv) to contribute constructively to the fabric of science, culture and education, and the promotion of science and innovation in their own country, as well as to the achievement of national goals, the enhancement of their fellow citizens’ well-be-ing, the protection of the environment, and the furtherance of the international ideals and objectives;
   (v) to promote access to research results and engage in the sharing of scientific data between researchers, and to policy-makers, and to the public wherever possible, while being mindful of existing rights;
   (vi) to disclose both perceived and actual conflicts of interest according to a recognized code of ethics that promotes the objectives of scientific research and development;
   (vii) to integrate in their research and development work in an ongoing manner: disclosures to each human research subjects so as to inform their consent, controls to minimize harm to each living subject of research and to the environment, and consultations with communities where the conduct of research may affect community members;
   (viii) to ensure that knowledge derived from sources, including traditional, indigenous, local, and other knowledge sources, is appropriately credited, acknowledged, and compensated as well as to ensure that the resulting knowledge is transferred back to those sources.

   3. Member States should recognize the international dimensions of research and development and, in this regard, should do everything possible to help scientific researchers, including:
   (a) ensuring equal access to science and the knowledge derived from it as not only a social and ethical requirement for human development, but also as essential for realizing the full potential of scientific communities worldwide
   (b) in the context of their intellectual property regime, ensuring that contributions to scientific knowledge are appropriately credited, and balancing between protection of intellectual property rights and the open access and sharing of knowledge, as well as ensuring the protection of sources and products of traditional knowledge;
   (c) taking measures against biopiracy; illicit trafficking of organs, tissues, samples, genetic resources and genetic-related materials; as well as ensuring the protection of the human rights, fundamental freedoms and dignity of the human person, and the confidentiality of personal data.

   4. Member States should endeavor to ensure that research and development under-taken, funded, or otherwise pursued in whole or in part in different States, is consistent with principles of conducting research in a responsible manner that respects human rights. In particular, for transnational research involving human subjects:
   (a) appropriate ethical review should be undertaken both in the host state(s) and the state(s) in which the funder is located, based on internationally agreed ethical frameworks;

   5. Member States should develop policies for the protection and preservation of research objects, scientific infrastructure and scientific archives, including in instances of conflict.

   6. Member States should ensure that scientific researchers may:
   (a) receive without hindrance the questions, criticisms and suggestions addressed to them by their colleagues throughout the world, as well as the intellectual stimulus afforded by such communications and the exchanges to which they give rise;
   (b) enjoy in tranquility international acclaim warranted by their scientific merit.

For more informations on Recommendations given by the UNESCO Researchers follow this link

Need for Science to Meaningfully Interact with Society and Vice Versa

By SalM on July 24, 2020 in News Articles

Introduction

One of the 10 key areas of the UNESCO Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers (2017) is the need for science to meaningfully interact with society and vice versa.

Activities that strengthen the collaboration with societal actors during the research process to align science to society’s values, needs and expectations.

Science is the greatest collective endeavor. It contributes to ensuring a longer and healthier life, monitors our health, provides medicine to cure our diseases, alleviates aches and pains, helps us to provide water for our basic needs – including our food, provides energy and makes life more fun, including sports, music, entertainment and the latest communication technology. Last but not least, it nourishes our spirit.

Science generates solutions for everyday life and helps us to answer the great mysteries of the universe. In other words, science is one of the most important channels of knowledge. It has a specific role, as well as a variety of functions for the benefit of our society: creating new knowledge, improving education, and increasing the quality of our lives.

Science must respond to societal needs and global challenges. Public understanding and engagement with science, and citizen participation including through the popularization of science are essential to equip citizens to make informed personal and professional choices. Governments need to make decisions based on quality scientific information on issues such as health and agriculture, and parliaments need to legislate on societal issues which necessitate the latest scientific knowledge. National governments need to understand the science behind major global challenges such as climate change, ocean health, biodiversity loss and freshwater security.
To face sustainable development challenges, governments and citizens alike must understand the language of science and must become scientifically literate. On the other hand, scientists must understand the problems policy-makers face and endeavor to make the results of their research relevant and comprehensible to society.

Challenges today cut across the traditional boundaries of disciplines and stretch across the life cycle of innovation — from research to knowledge development and its application. Science, technology and innovation must drive our pursuit of more equitable and sustainable development.

Recommendations for Member States

In the following of this article, we will post recommendations on how should science interact with society

1. By the policies they adopt in respect of and touching upon science, technology and innovation; by the way in which they use science and technology in policy-making and more generally; and by their treatment of scientific researchers in particular, Member States should demonstrate and take action such that research and development is not carried on in isolation, but as an explicit part of the nations’ integrated effort to set up a society that will be more humane, just and inclusive, for the protection and enhancement of the cultural and material well-being of its citizens in the present and future generations, and to further the United Nations ideals and internationally-agreed objectives, while giving sufficient place to science per se.
2. In order to have a sound science, technology and innovation system integrated to their effort, Member States should establish and substantially strengthen human and institutional capacities, including:
   – Strengthening scientific culture, public trust and support for sciences throughout society, in particular through a vigorous and informed democratic debate on the production and use of scientific knowledge, and a dialogue between the scientific community and society
3. To assist the emergence of scientific researchers of this high caliber, Member States should take measures to:
   – Encourage the spirit of service both to the advancement of science and to social and ecological responsibilities toward their fellow nationals, humanity in general, future generations, and the earth including all its ecosystems, its sustainable development and its conservation, as an important element in their education and training
4. Considering that any scientific research could improve the understanding of factors involved in the survival and well-being of humankind as a whole, Member States should provide support to these initiatives of scientific researchers, with due regard to:(a) The impact of science on future generations;
   (b) The interconnection between various forms of life;

   (c)  The role and responsibility of human beings in the protection of the environment, the biosphere and biodiversity.
5. Member States should endeavor to ensure that research and development under-taken, funded, or otherwise pursued in whole or in part in different States, is consistent with principles of conducting research in a responsible manner that respects human rights. In particular, for transnational research involving human subjects:
   (a) Appropriate ethical review should be undertaken both in the host state(s) and the state(s) in which the funder is located, based on internationally agreed ethical frameworks;
   (b) Such research should be responsive to the needs of host countries, and the impor-tance of it contributing to the alleviation of urgent global health problems should be recognized;
   (c) When negotiating a research agreement and terms for collaboration, agreement on the benefits of the research and access to the results should be established with full participation of the communities concerned.
6. So as to ensure the human right to health, Member States should take measures so that benefits resulting from any research and its applications are shared with society as a whole and within the international community, in particular with developing countries.

For the complete set of recommendations follow this link to the UNESCO document.