Abstract
The article argues that citizen engagement can reconnect science with society and improve related policymaking. This matters most for the challenges that defy purely technocratic solutions and call for changes in lifestyles and behaviour, the transition to climate neutrality and greater circularity being a prime example. To be effective, citizen engagement has to be inclusive, deliberative and influential; other forms of societal outreach fail this triple test. Participatory action research and citizen science can provide inspiration, as well as tools and techniques. Citizen engagement requires specific entry points—such as research and innovation “missions” or transition “super-labs”—which are most likely to emerge at the intersection between science on the one hand and markets and societies on the other. Policymakers need to design clear, predictable and enduring mechanisms but otherwise not interfere, to ensure that citizen engagement remains authentic and legitimate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_budgeting (accessed 16 March 2020).
These terms will be used interchangeably here, given that they both imply a proactive role for citizens, emphasizing human agency. See the discussion below on what citizen engagement is not.
According to the US-based Pew Center (Public Trust in Government: 1958–2019), “trust in government remains near historic lows” at 17%. The OECD (Trust in Government) reports that in its member countries “only 43% of citizens trust their government”. EUROSTAT (Autumn 2019 Standard Eurobarometer) finds that “more than four in ten Europeans (43%) tend to trust the European Union”—itself not an impressive number—but only 34% have trust in their national governments and parliaments.
As evidenced, for example, by the emphasis on “societal challenges” in the EU’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation framework programme (an emphasis that continues in the future Horizon Europe programme).
It would go too far to spell out these differences in more detail here. Suffice it to say that the integration of the SSH with the STEM disciplines (or vice versa, although this is less typical) is first and foremost about bringing a greater variety of potentially diverse views and approaches to the analysis of complex problems. This may, but does not have to, imply involving citizens in the research process as such. Furthermore, SSH “integration”—or interdisciplinary work more generally speaking—does not have to be driven by normative concerns, whereas citizen engagement/involvement always is (given that it is meant to improve the “societal relevance” of research and innovation, which itself is a normative concept). This despite the obviously normative lens of some social science and especially humanities disciplines, such as philosophy, and notwithstanding the overarching goal of all research and innovation to be “useful to society”.
See EC Communication on The European Green Deal (https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/european-green-deal-communication_en.pdf) and EC Communication on A new Circular Economy Action Plan (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:9903b325-6388-11ea-b735-01aa75ed71a1.0017.02/DOC_1&format=PDF), both accessed 16 March 2020.
Video presentation at an internal European Commission workshop, Brussels, 10 February 2020.
Populists insist that their programmes are quintessentially democratic since they express the “will of the people”. But they count only their own supporters as such, excluding not just the “elites” but everyone else [hence the frequent references to the “real” or the “true” people; see Judis (2016), Mudde and Kaltwasser (2017) or Müller (2017)]. The ease with which populist politicians can contort the democratic discourse and appropriate it for their own purposes puts a special obligation on democratic politicians to be clear in the terminology they use and to leave no doubt about their intentions, so as not to be accused of political obfuscation themselves.
Citizens can of course call hotlines, contact media spokespersons, write letters to politicians and so forth, but politicians and public institutions are under no obligation to respond.
Such as “drop-boxes” in science libraries where visitors can leave comments and suggestions, or “open booths” like those at the first European Research and Innovation Days in September 2019, where participants could stop by to discuss the planned Horizon Europe framework programme with European Commission officials.
Aside from the responses to the questionnaire, public consultations often allow for the submission of detailed position papers.
Such as in the context of the citizens’ dialogues and citizens’ consultations in the run-up to the EU’s Sibiu Summit in 2019. See, however, the critical evaluation by Stratulat and Butcher (2018).
This is largely because participants self-select as opposed to being chosen by “sortition” (selection by lot).
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_science (accessed 18 March 2020).
See https://ecsa.citizen-science.net/engage-us/10-principles-citizen-science (accessed 18 March 2020).
A good example for such collaboration is CurieuseNeuzen Vlaanderen, a citizen science project in which 20,000 citizens of Flanders (Belgium) measured the air quality near their houses during May 2018. See https://curieuzeneuzen.be/in-english/ (accessed 18 March 2020). At the same time, there are of course examples where citizen scientists do much more, producing insights and contributions on a par with those of professional researchers.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_action_research (accessed 22 March 2020) .
Orlando Fals Borda and Paulo Freire pioneered PAR in Columbia and Brazil, respectively.
For example, the EU’s Horizon Europe programme foresees a role for citizens in the so-called strategic planning process, helping to translate the general principles and priorities of the legal acts into actionable work programmes containing specific funding calls.
This is not to say that in highly stratified and unequal environments—typical of, but not exclusive to, the developing world—such a stance would not be more adequate.
See footnote 4.
See https://www.citizensassembly.ie/ga/ and https://granddebat.fr/, respectively. A non-comprehensive listing of such experiments—often less well known than the two just mentioned—can be found at https://participedia.net/ (all links accessed 27 March 2020).
See Bürgerdialog; Doing democracy better; The Ostbelgien Model (all accessed 27 March 2020), as well as Reuchamps (2019).
One such example is the CIMULACT project financed by the EU’s Horizon 2020 programme under its Science with and for Society (SwafS) programming line (links accessed 27 March 2020). Over a period of close to 3 years between 2015 and 2018, CIMULACT ran national “vision workshops” with more than 1000 participants all over Europe, resulting in 23 suggestions for future research topics along with policy recommendations.
See Missions in Horizon Europe (accessed 28 March 2020).
For details, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_lab (accessed 29 March 2020).
There is much potential for cross-learning and for adopting tools and techniques across different contexts. For example, citizen engagement “modules” moulded on the citizen assembly in the Ostbelgien Model could be inserted into the research and innovation missions. These “modules” would co-exist with the advisory and decision-making bodies of the respective missions, for as long as the missions exist themselves. Their members would be chosen at random (by “sortition”), to ensure that they reflect diversity of the target populations, and they would have sufficient time and resources at their disposal to deliberate, examine issues in some depth and make solid, evidence-based proposals. Those making the decisions would commit to consider these proposals and explain—formally and in writing—what they intend to do as a result.
References
Fisher E (2020) Reinventing responsible research and innovation. J Responsible Res Innov 7(1):1–5
Geels FW (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res Policy 31:1257–1274
Geels FW (2019) Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: a review of criticisms and elaborations of the multi-level perspective. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 39(August):187–201
Gerber A, Forsberg E-M, Shelley-Egan C, Arias R, Daimer S, Dalton G, Cristóbal AB, Dreyer M, Griessler E, Lindner R, Revuelta G, Riccio A, Steinhaus N (2020) Joint declaration on mainstreaming RRI across Horizon Europe. J Responsible Innov. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1764837
High-Level Panel of the European Decarbonisation Pathways Initiative (2018) Final report. European Commission, Directorate-General Research and Innovation, Brussels
Judis JB (2016) The populist explosion. Columbia Global Reports, New York City
Mazzucato M (2018) Mission-oriented research in the European Union. A problem-solving approach to fuel innovation-led growth. European Commission, Directorate-General Research and Innovation, Brussels
Mazzucato M (2019) Governing missions in the European Union. European Commission, Directorate-General Research and Innovation, Brussels
Mudde C, Kaltwasser CR (2017) Populism: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York City
Müller J-W (2017) What is populism?. Penguin Books, New York
Quittkat C (2011) The European Commission’s online consultations: a success story? J Common Mark Stud 49(3):653–674
Reuchamps M (2019) Designing permanent deliberative democracy: the Ostbelgien Modell in Belgium. Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance Seminar (University of Canberra, Canberra, 18/06/2019). https://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/218347. Accessed 27 Mar 2020
Ribeiro BE, Smith RDJ, Millar K (2017) A mobilising concept? Unpacking academic representations of responsible research and innovation. Sci Eng Ethics 23:81–103
Ryghaug M, Skjølsvold TM, Heidenreich S (2018) Creating energy citizenship through material participation. Soc Stud Sci 48(2):283–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312718770286
Stephens JC (2019) Energy democracy: redistributing power to the people through renewable transformation. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 61(2):4–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2019.1564212
Stratulat C, Butcher P (2018) The European citizens’ consultations. The European Policy Centre and The Democratic Society, Brussels
Acknowledgements
The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of his employer, the European Commission.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schönwälder, G. Engaging citizens to boost climate neutrality and greater circularity: opportunities and challenges for research and innovation. Clean Techn Environ Policy 23, 483–489 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-020-01902-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-020-01902-2