pp 1–24 | Cite as

European Action Plans for Science–Society Relations: Changing Buzzwords, Changing the Agenda

  • Cristina Palma ConceiçãoEmail author
  • Patrícia Ávila
  • Ana Rita Coelho
  • António Firmino Costa


This project began with the changes in the names of the European Commission’s action plans for the relationship between science and society. Analysing the main relevant documents in the last four European science policy framework programmes (FP5, FP6, FP7, H2020), we asked how much terminologies, meanings, and foci of attention have changed. A more detailed look confirms the growing importance attached to this area of intervention and the transformation in the priorities and conceptions orienting these policies. This gradual change not only largely reflects the academic debates on the need for more participatory and dialogical ways of bringing science and society closer together, but also poses new challenges when interpreting the ultimate goals and potential implications of the plans. Issues of governance of science and the transformation of scientific institutions are gaining ground compared to those of science education and public communication of science. Equally clear is the progressive incorporation of the questions of innovation and the markets into this area of political action, in a way reconfiguring the balance between aims related with democracy and participation, on the one hand, and economic competitiveness on the other. The range of social actors involved in these actions has also changed. Employing a discourse that is often vague, these plans tend to call for a certain de-differentiation of the roles traditionally attributed to the various institutions (scientific, political, business, media), valuing some, omitting others, and repositioning several.


Science and society European Framework Programmes Responsible research Innovation Science governance 



This research received no specific funding. However, it largely arose from the team’s participation in Cátedra Ibérica CTS+I — a networking initiative coordinated by the University of Oviedo (Spain) and the University Institute of Lisbon (Portugal), and sponsored by the Organisation of Ibero-American States (OEI). The revision of the text was provided by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia through the Strategic Financing of the R&D Unit UID/SOC/03126/2013.

Supplementary material

11024_2019_9380_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 kb)
11024_2019_9380_MOESM2_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 15 kb)


  1. Anichini, Giulia, and Suzanne de Cheveigné. 2012. Overview of research related to science in society in Europe. Science and Public Policy 39: 701–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archibugi, Daniele (coord.). 2015. The Contribution of Science and Society (FP6) and Science in Society (FP7) to Responsible Research and Innovation. A Review. European Commission.Google Scholar
  3. Bardin, Laurence. 2011 [1977]. Análise de Conteúdo [Content Analysis]. Lisboa: Edições 70.Google Scholar
  4. Bauer, Martin W., Nick Allum, and Steve Miller. 2007. What can we learn from 25-years of PUS research? Liberating and widening the agenda. Public Understanding of Science 16(1): 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. 2014. The politics of buzzwords at the interface of technoscience, market and society: The case of ‘public engagement in science’. Public Understanding of Science 23(3): 238–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, Pierre. 2004. Science of Science and Reflexivity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, Mark B. 2014. Politicizing science: Conceptions of politics in science and technology studies. Social Studies of Science 45(1): 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bryman, Alan. 2012. Social Research Methods, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bucchi, Massimiano, and Brian Trench (orgs.). 2008. Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Burget, Mirjam, Emanuele Bardone, and Margus Pedaste. 2017. Definitions and Conceptual Dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Literature Review. Science and Engineering Ethics 23: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins, Harry M., and Robert Evans. 2002. The Third Wave of Science Studies. Studies of Expertise and Experience. Social Studies of Science 32(2): 235–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collins, Harry, Robert Evans, and Martin Weinel. 2017. STS as science or politics? Social Studies of Science 47(4): 580–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Costa, António Firmino da. 1996. Ciência e reflexividade social [Science and social reflexivity]. In Ciência e Democracia, ed. Maria Eduarda Gonçalves, 199–221. Venda Nova: Bertrand.Google Scholar
  14. Costa, António Firmino da, Cristina Palma Conceicao, and Patrícia Ávila. 2009. Scientific culture and modes of relating to science. In Knowledge and Society (Portugal in the European Context, vol. II), eds. António Firmino da Costa, Fernando Luís Machado, and Patrícia Ávila, 61–84. Lisboa: ISCTE-IUL/Celta Editora.Google Scholar
  15. Costa, António Gomes. 2017. From Ear Candling to Trump: Science Communication in the Post-Truth World. Spokes 27: 1–12.Google Scholar
  16. Davis, Michael, and Kelly Laas. 2014. ‘Broader impacts’ or ‘responsible research and innovation’? A comparison of two criteria for funding research in science and engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics 20(4): 963–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Delgado, Ana, Kamilla Lein Kjolberg, and Fern Wickson. 2011. Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 20(6): 826–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and ‘mode 2’ to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy 29: 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. European Commission. 2011. From Challenges to Opportunities: Towards a Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation Funding (Green Paper). Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  20. Felt, Ulrike (Rapporteur). 2007. Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously. Luxembourg: European Communities.Google Scholar
  21. Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Gregory, Jane, and Steven Miller. 1998. Science in Public: Communication, Culture and Credibility. London/New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  23. Guston, David H. 2014. Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’. Social Studies of Science 44(2): 218–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hagendijk, Rob, and Alan Irwin. 2006. Public deliberation and governance: Engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva 44(2): 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hartley, Sarah, Warren Pearce, and Alasdair Taylor. 2017. Against the tide of depoliticisation: The politics of research governance. Policy & Politics 45(3): 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Holbrook, J. Britt. 2005. Assessing the science–society relation: The case of the US National Science Foundation’s second merit review criterion. Technology in Society 27(4): 437–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Irwin, Alan. 2008. STS perspectives on scientific governance. In The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, eds. Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and Judy Wajcman, 583–607. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jacob, Klaus (Rapporteur). 2013. Options for Strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation. Luxembourg: European Union.Google Scholar
  29. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2003. Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41(3): 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jasanoff, Sheila. 2004. Science and citizenship: A new synergy. Science and Public Policy 31(2): 90–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Levidow, Les, and Claudia Neubauer. 2014. EU research agendas: Embedding what future? Science as Culture 23: 397–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lewenstein, Bruce V. 1992. The meaning of ‘public understanding of science’ in the United States after World War II. Public Understanding of Science 1(1): 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Markus, Eszter (Rapporteur). 2009. Challenging Futures of Science in Society. Emerging Trends and Cutting-Edge Issues (MASIS report). Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  35. Mejlgaard, Niels, Carter Bloch, Lise Degn, Tine Ravn, and Mathias W. Nielsen. 2012. Monitoring Policy and Research Activities on Science in Society in Europe (MASIS). Final Synthesis Report. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  36. Miller, Jon D. 1998. The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science 7(3): 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2003. ‘Mode 2’ revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva 41(3): 179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nowotny, Helga. 2014. Engaging with the political imaginaries of science: Near misses and future targets. Public Understanding of Science 23(1): 16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Owen, Richard, Phil Macnaghten, and Jack Stilgoe. 2012. Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy 39: 751–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peter, Viola, and Frederic Maier (eds.). 2018. Monitoring the Evolution and Benefits of Responsible Research and Innovation in Europe. Summarising insights from the MoRRI project. Luxembourg: European Union.Google Scholar
  41. Pielke Jr., Roger. 2012. Basic Research as a Political Symbol. Minerva 50(3): 339–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ragin, Charles C. 2014. The Comparative Method. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  43. Rip, Arie. 2015. The past and future of RRI. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10: 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ribeiro, Barbara, Robert D. J. Smith, and Kate Millar. 2017. A Mobilising Concept? Unpacking Academic Representations of Responsible Research and Innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics 23(1): 81–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rodríguez, Hannot, Erik Fisher, and Daan Schuurbiers. 2013. Integrating Science and Society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in Project-level Solicitations. Research Policy 42: 1126–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Saille, de Stevienna. 2015. Innovating Innovation Policy: The Emergence of ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’. Journal of Responsible Innovation 2(2): 152–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scanlon, Eileen, Elizabeth Whitelegg, and Simeon Yates (orgs.). 1999. Communicating Science: Contexts and Channels. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Stilgoe, Jack, Simon J. Lock, and James Wilsdon. 2014. Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Understanding of Science 23(1): 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smallman, Melanie. 2016. Public understanding of science in turbulent times III: Deficit to dialogue, champions to critics. Public Understanding of Science 25(2): 186–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smallman, Melanie. 2018. Science to the rescue or contingent progress? Comparing 10 years of public, expert and policy discourses on new and emerging science and technology in the United Kingdom. Public Understanding of Science 27(6): 655–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thorpe, Charles, and Jane Gregory. 2010. Producing the Post-Fordist Public: The Political Economy of Public Engagement with Science. Science as Culture 19(3): 273–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Trench, Brian. 2008. Towards an Analytical Framework of Science Communication Models. In Communicating Science in Social Contexts. New Models, New Practices, eds. Donghong Cheng, Michel Claessens, Toss Gascoigne, Jenni Metcalfe, Bernard Schiele, and Shunke Shi, 119–135. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. von Schomberg, Rene. 2013. A Vision of Responsible Innovation. In Responsible Innovation. Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, eds. Richard Owen, John B. Bessant, and Maggy Heintz, 51–74. London: John Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wynne, Brian. 2007. Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political–conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society 1: 99–110.Google Scholar
  55. Ziman, John. 2000. Real Science: What It Is, and What It Means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zwart, Hub, Laurens Landeweerd, and Arjan van Rooij. 2014. Adapt or perish? Assessing the recent shift in the European research funding arena from ELSA to RRI. Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10: 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research and Studies in Sociology (CIES-IUL)University Institute of Lisbon (ISCTE-IUL)LisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Estoril Higher Institute for Tourism and Hotel Studies (ESHTE)EstorilPortugal

Personalised recommendations