A Bridge between Society and Universities: A Documentary Analysis of Science Shops

publications Article A Bridge between Society and Universities: A Documentary Analysis of Science Shops Daniela De Filippo * ID , Nuria Bautista-Puig, Elba Mauleón and Elías Sanz-Casado Research Institute for Higher Education and Science (INAECU), University Carlos III of Madrid, 28903 Madrid, Spain; [email protected] (N.B.-P.); [email protected] (E.M.); [email protected] (E.S.-C.) *Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-916-248-468 Received: 30 June 2018; Accepted: 30 July 2018; Published: 1 August 2018   Abstract: Citizen science surfaced as a new way of conducting research and science shops are one of the initiatives in which citizen collaboration with scientists has been most visible. These organisations provide independent and participatory support for research in response to civil society’s problems/needs. Although science shops have pioneered the furthering of citizen participation, the general public is still scantly aware of their existence. This study aimed to explore that matter, identifying and analysing the literature on science shops with bibliometric techniques. Different sources of information have been consulted; namely, Web of Science and SCOPUS database; Google Scholar; CORDIS European Projects Database; and My News. The information collected from 158 documents was analysed and their main characteristics identified. A map of science shops was constructed to show existing initiatives and those mentioned in the texts. We also offer a chronology of the main milestones on the subject mentioned in the texts. The results show the importance that countries like those in Europe, especially The Netherlands, attach to these activities and it is evident that the content can be very varied, although the environmental issues are highlighted. Keywords: science shops; citizen science; bibliometric analysis 1. Introduction 1.1. Citizen Science, Backdrop for Science Shops References to new scientific and technological knowledge are associated ever more closely with terms such as transparency, collaboration, and participation. That reveals a substantial change in how science is conducted today, in which the lead part is not played by scientists alone. Rather, the stage is being filled with a number of social actors who participate in all phases of research, from prelude to finale. The Open Science movement weighed heavily in this new approach to science, furthering developments such as Open Access (to scientific publications, repositories, and databases), Open Data (freely available data), participatory research (to share infrastructure and facilities), Open Innovation (corporate participation with organisations and other agents in innovative procedures), and citizen science (non-scientists who collaborate in scientific and technological projects) [1]. Citizen science surfaced as a new way of conducting research. The conceit is defined as public engagement in scientific research activities with citizens actively contributing to science with their intellectual effort, surrounding knowledge, or tools and resources. The main aim is to co-create a scientific culture and an exchange of understanding [ 2 ]. One of the features that differentiates citizen science from the traditional variety is that it is open to all citizens, not only the most ‘privileged’ [ 3 ]. Citizens participate throughout the process, from inception and choice of the lines of research to the performance of the tasks that might be deemed ‘typical’ of researchers. The scientific literature has Publications 2018,6, 0036; doi:10.3390/publications6030036 www.mdpi.com/journal/publications Publications 2018,6, 0036 2 of 15 defined several levels of citizen participation, such as Arnstein’s ‘ladder of citizen participation’ [ 4 , 5 ]. Such collaboration includes not only communication-related activities, but citizens’ direct participation in the scientific endeavour [6]. The origin of the term can be traced back to Alan Irwin who, in the mid-nineteen-nineties, defined a ‘form of science developed and enacted by citizens themselves’ [ 7 ]. Years later, in 2009, Bonney envisaged public participation, engagement, and science communication projects [ 8 ]. Today the term has a dual focus: one closer to natural and the other to social science [ 9 ]. In the former, citizen participation consists of recording observations and classifying and collecting data that are subsequently used by researchers in their projects. In the latter, they adopt a more active role, participating in decision making, for such projects that stem from their own needs and concerns. The international organisations that foster and fund citizen science activities have identified the primary advantages of this approach. It furthers scientific literacy and critical faculties among the public at large, renders science more democratic, motivates young people to pursue scientific careers, generates new knowledge and encourages new forms of research, and expands researchers’ skills [ 10 ]. It is based on the conventional research model, but differs by who collects data or how knowledge is exchanged. Many citizen science projects, particularly those done by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), do not explicitly test scientific theory, but rather focus on ‘surveillance’ monitoring [ 11 ]. The difficulties most often cited in citizen science activities include funding, assessment, and the sustainability of this initiatives. The researchers involved also mention the lack of personal and institutional acknowledgement inherent in this type of research [ 12 ], which induces discouragement and discontinuity. Citizens’ lack of motivation and engagement in the process are likewise criticised, while the literature defines as problematic scientists’ tendency to view laypersons as mere data furnishers or information compilers. Perhaps the best known participatory research project is the CERN’s Large Hadron Collider, although other inspiring examples have been implemented, such as Foldit 1 , in which several social actors became involved. Other initiatives are geared to solving local problems, calling on the respective communities to collect data on rainfall, severe pollution, or animal migration, for instance. Although much of the citizen science movement has been associated with initiatives undertaken in less economically and technologically advantaged societies, more developed countries are no strangers to such participation. This new approach is attracting increasingly wider political, institutional, and public attention. The European Union’s framework programmes constitute an example, under which funding has been provided for a number of citizen projects, including Foster+, with 13 partner institutions in eight countries, and the Eighth Framework Programme’s Socientize and Citi-sense schemes. The latest H2020 Programme included several calls focusing on these issues, of which the work programme ‘Science with and for Society’ is an emblematic example. The growing number of conferences and events across Europe is another. Open and citizen science initiatives in disciplines as diverse as health [ 13 ], the environment [ 14 , 15 ], astronomy [ 16 ], or the social sciences [ 17 ] have shown the benefits of a practice in which science extends beyond open access, reaching out to social actors and feeding back into the production of new knowledge. 1.2. Science Shops Science shops are one of the initiatives in which citizen collaboration with scientists has been most visible. These organisations provide independent and participatory support for research in response to civil society’s problems/needs. First instituted in The Netherlands in the seventies on an initiative of a group of students seeking to solve problems in their own community, these centres have been instrumental in steering research onto a new pathway. 1 The Foldit Project, implemented at the University of Washington in 2008, sought a fuller understanding of the structure of synthetic proteins based on the experience of players participating in a cost-free on-line videogame. Publications 2018,6, 0036 3 of 15 They were also associated with the nineteen-sixties social movements that called for more open and effective contact between academia and society. The first science shop, founded in the Utrecht University’s Faculty of Chemistry in 1973, was followed in 1978 by another that opened at the University of Amsterdam [ 18 ]. In the nineteen-eighties, a so-called ‘second wave’ of institutions began to mushroom in Belgium, Denmark, France, and Germany, although their roll-out was not very tightly coordinated [ 19 ]. A third wave in the nineteen-nineties reached as far as Austria and United Kingdom, and in a fourth between 1995 and 2000, shops were set up in Central and Eastern European countries. Today, interest in their institution has spread as far as Asia, to countries such as China and Japan. In the two-thousands, the European Union also expressed an interest in such initiatives, seen as a way to link science and society. The ISSNET, INTERACTS, SCIPAS, and PERARES projects were funded in those years, which also witnessed the advent of the Europe-wide Living Knowledge (The International Science Shop) Network and its association with the Community-based Research Network in the United States and Canada. Nonetheless, a survey conducted by the SciShops Project showed that the awareness of science shops among actors such as researchers, policy makers, and organisations is relatively low [20]. The idea underlying such movements is that rather than scientists and their interests, the starting point is society itself as it endeavours to meet its needs and demands through research. The essential change is that communities such as researchers, local organisations, politicians, and others form part of the various stages of research and all participate actively in the process and the pursuit of solutions. Moreover, the findings of all the activities undertaken in this context are openly shared with society as a whole and made available to all for future use. One of the particularities of this type of initiatives is that no single model has been established. Science shop structures and areas of interest consequently vary from country to country and shop to shop. They may have research institutes, or more commonly universities, as parent organisations, although many are the fruit of community or independent organisational action. Their existence is also in keeping with the ‘third mission’ entrusted to universities. The questions that give rise to scientific developments may vary, as may the expertise available in each shop; whereas in the United States, they focus more on health issues [ 13 ], and in Central and Eastern Europe, they tend to address environmental matters as well as Scandinavia social problems [ 11 ]. Another factor that affects the type of issues dealt with by science shops is the degree of citizen development and participation in scientific activities. Some studies have shown that in countries where science–society communication is ‘weaker’ (such as Central and Eastern Europe), few research questions are raised. In those cases, science shops develop differently than in Western Europe. Although science shops have pioneered the furtherance of citizen participation, the general public is still scantly aware of their existence. This study aimed to explore that matter. Its objectives were to identify and analyse the literature on science shops with bibliometric techniques. Bibliometrics, which studies academic publications, has developed useful tools for analysing scientific activity in a given subject area, institution, or country. It assesses the impact and visibility of scientific fields, journals, and researchers and has proven to be very effective in detecting new lines of research [21]. This study was consequently designed to do the following: • Locate documents disseminating information on science shops and analyse the fluctuation in output over time; •Identify the countries where these initiatives have proliferated most; • Analyse the content of these publications to ascertain the particulars addressed. The documentary analysis also intended to yield two specific results to establish an overview of the origin and development of science shops. 1. The first was to map science shops. That entailed identifying the science shops in place and determining the ones cited in the analysed documents. The idea was to gain insight Publications 2018,6, 0036 4 of 15 into which initiatives have gained visibility in the academic world and which have not. Findings in this respect are significant for, as science shops often engage in university knowledge transfer, their scope, limitations, and impact have not generally been analysed from a conceptual or methodological perspective. 2. The second was to create a timeline of science shop dynamics, using the documentary analysis as a tool to record and observe science shop activity over time. 2. Materials and Methods As science shops are seldom a target of scientific analysis, a variety of information sources was used to compile the most extensive and varied amount of documents possible on the subject. The main sources analysed are listed below. • Web of Science (WoS): this international, multi-disciplinary database indexes mainstream science publications, providing information from which to determine the papers of highest academic prestige in each field. It lists over 12,000 journals. • SCOPUS: like WoS, it is one of the primary sources for analysing quality scientific output. Less restrictive than WoS, it indexes double the number of social science and humanities journals, as well as periodicals not published in core countries. • Google Scholar: this open source search engine lists academic documents of different types, including whole books, chapters, scientific papers, and working documents. It has a far wider reach than the preceding two and is much more visible, although the quality of the documents listed does not always meet the same standards as in WoS and SCOPUS. • CORDIS: this is a database containing information on the calls announced by European framework programmes and detailed data on science shop-related projects. • MyNews: this is a resource providing access to media information on the international, national, and regional scales with broad subject area coverage. In addition to the sources mentioned, the Living Knowledge Network and the International science shop network websites were visited to gather contextual information on the creation and history of all the initiatives in place. Additionally, information of the deliverables from the SciShops.eu project was consulted. Specific downloading strategies adapted to each source were followed to retrieve information on science shops. In WoS and SCOPUS, the topic search focused on variations on the term ‘science shop’ in the title, abstract, and keywords. Papers bearing the words in those three sections were retrieved. Publications were retrieved from Google Scholar with Harzing’s ‘publish or perish’ tool, which identified documents containing the term ‘science shop’ in the title. Searches were not conducted in other document fields because the results comprised an unwieldy number containing incorrect information. The term was searched anywhere in the text in project databases and media portals. None of the searches were filtered by dates to ensure the results would include all the documents published. After the documents were retrieved, scientific activity indicators for particulars such as content and yearly fluctuations in output were obtained. A model template was designed to systematically gather document particulars, such as source, date, content summary, publication objectives, and actors involved in the publication. 3. Results The number of documents retrieved as described in the methodology varied with the source. Table 1lists the number gathered from each. Inter-source overlapping was observed because some Publications 2018,6, 0036 5 of 15 documents were indexed in more than one database. Out of the total 158 documents identified, 67 were found in Google Scholar. Table 1. Number of documents retrieved, by source. GS—Google Scholar; WoS—Web of Science. Source 1st doc. Date No. docs Search Strategy WoS 1979 38 Title, abstract, keywords SCOPUS 1979 39 Title, abstract, keywords WoS + SCOPUS 1979 57 Title, abstract, keywords Google Scholar 1982 67 Title only (Title, abstract, keywords yielded >1000) GS + SCOPUS + WOS 1979 114 My News 2002 34 Content and title Projects 2000 10 Content and title Total documents 158 The results are discussed below in two sub-sections: the first on the findings common to all the sources, that is, output over time, participating countries, and content; and the second on the data specific to each. 3.1. Findings Common to All Sources A time-wise analysis of the documents on science shops showed that the first was published in 1979. Listed in the Web of Science and SCOPUS and carried in Nature, it bore the title ‘Holland’s science shops for made-to-measure research’. The text contained a first-time reference to Dutch scientists’ efforts (deemed by the author to be ‘scantly orthodox’) to adapt science to social needs. Although this pioneering article (at least in mainstream science) dates from nearly 40 years ago, the review showed that most papers on the subject have been published in the last 10 years. Output on science shops in all manners of documents was observed to follow a fairly steady, upward pattern, whereas news items and project listings in databases were much more recent, most dating from 2000 onward (Figure 1). Documents on the subject were published by authors or institutions located in a total of 32 countries (Table 2). The type of source had an impact on distribution by country: in CORDIS, for instance, which focuses on European research, activity in other regions was obviously under-represented. Similarly, the number of items in MyNews was strongly biased toward Spanish output. Despite those limitations, The Netherlands could be readily identified as the country with the most intense activity, followed by Germany and the United States (Figure 2). Holland also headed the list of projects, which included the two aforementioned countries as well as the United Kingdom. By type of institution, universities, particularly in The Netherlands, accounted for the largest number of documents and the most intense participation and leadership in European projects. The type of texts most frequently found included case studies, methodological proposals (approach to participation), science shop impact, and historical and contextual analyses of these initiatives. Content characteristics could be grouped by type of document analysed (Figure 3). Publications 2018,6, 0036 6 of 15 Publications 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15 Table 1. Number of documents retrieved, by source. GS—Google Scholar; WoS—Web of Science. Source 1st doc. Date No. docs Search Strategy WoS 1979 38 Title, abstract, keywords SCOPUS 1979 39 Title, abstract, keywords WoS + SCOPUS 1979 57 Title, abstract, keywords Google Scholar 1982 67 Title only (Title, abstract, keywords yielded >1000) GS + SCOPUS + WOS 1979 114 My News 2002 34 Content and title Projects 2000 10 Content and title Total documents 158 The results are discussed below in two sub-sections: the first on the findings common to all the sources, that is, output over time, participating countries, and content; and the second on the data specific to each. 3.1. Findings Common to All Sources A time-wise analysis of the documents on science shops showed that the first was published in 1979. Listed in the Web of Science and SCOPUS and carried in Nature, it bore the title ‘Holland’s science shops for made-to-measure research’. The text contained a first-time reference to Dutch scientists’ efforts (deemed by the author to be ‘scantly orthodox’) to adapt science to social needs. Although this pioneering article (at least in mainstream science) dates from nearly 40 years ago, the review showed that most papers on the subject have been published in the last 10 years. Output on science shops in all manners of documents was observed to follow a fairly steady, upward pattern, whereas news items and project listings in databases were much more recent, most dating from 2000 onward (Figure 1). Figure 1. Number of listed publications, projects, and news items on science shops, 1979–2017. WoS—Web of Science. 11000 22112 00010 2 0 3 12 011 32321011100 322 45 1 21 9 4 22 1 4 9 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Nº of documents WoS / SCOPUS News European Projects Google Scholar Figure 1. Number of listed publications, projects, and news items on science shops, 1979–2017. WoS—Web of Science. Publications 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15 Figure 2. Worldwide distribution of publications, projects and news items on science shops. The size of the circles and intensity of the colour are proportional to the intensity of document output on science shops. By type of institution, universities, particularly in The Netherlands, accounted for the largest number of documents and the most intense participation and leadership in European projects. The type of texts most frequently found included case studies, methodological proposals (approach to participation), science shop impact, and historical and contextual analyses of these initiatives. Content characteristics could be grouped by type of document analysed (Figure 3). Figure 3. Content in articles, books, projects, and news items on science shops. Figure 2. Worldwide distribution of publications, projects and news items on science shops. The size of the circles and intensity of the colour are proportional to the intensity of document output on science shops. Publications 2018,6, 0036 7 of 15 Table 2. Document output by country in the sources analysed. COUNTRY WOS SCOPUS Google Scholar Projects Headed Project Participation NEWS Netherlands 8 12 5 6 6 0 USA 5 5 0 0 2 0 France 2 1 0 0 1 0 Ireland 3 0 0 2 0 Australia 1 0 0 0 0 0 Denmark 1 0 3 0 2 0 England 1 1 0 0 7 0 Hungary 1 1 0 0 2 0 Italy 1 2 0 0 3 1 Japan 1 1 0 0 0 0 China 1 0 5 0 0 0 Sweden 1 0 0 0 1 0 Germany 2 4 3 1 6 1 Romania 0 1 0 0 3 0 Russia 0 1 0 0 0 0 Senegal 0 1 0 0 0 0 Spain 0 0 2 0 3 28 Czech republic 0 0 1 0 1 0 Argentina 0 0 1 0 0 0 Canada 0 0 1 0 0 0 Austria 0 0 0 2 3 0 Greece 0 0 0 1 2 0 Cyprus 0 0 0 0 3 0 Belgium 0 0 0 0 3 0 South africa 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lithuania 0 0 0 0 2 0 Turkey 0 0 0 0 1 0 Israel 0 0 0 0 2 0 Latvia 0 0 0 0 1 0 Estonia 0 0 0 0 2 0 Norway 0 0 0 0 1 0 Slovenia 0 0 0 0 1 0 Publications 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15 Figure 2. Worldwide distribution of publications, projects and news items on science shops. The size of the circles and intensity of the colour are proportional to the intensity of document output on science shops. By type of institution, universities, particularly in The Netherlands, accounted for the largest number of documents and the most intense participation and leadership in European projects. The type of texts most frequently found included case studies, methodological proposals (approach to participation), science shop impact, and historical and contextual analyses of these initiatives. Content characteristics could be grouped by type of document analysed (Figure 3). Figure 3. Content in articles, books, projects, and news items on science shops. Figure 3. Content in articles, books, projects, and news items on science shops. Publications 2018,6, 0036 8 of 15 3.2. Results Specific to Each Source The findings not accommodating inter-source comparison are discussed below. 3.2.1. Publications Listed in WoS, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar A total of 43 journals carried papers on science shops. Although articles on the subject appeared only sporadically in many, 10% appeared in such a highly reputed journal as Science. The journals that carried more than one paper on the subject are listed in Table 3. Although some of the same papers were found in all three sources, each journal is shown only once in the table. Table 3. WoSand SCOPUS-listed journals carrying articles on science shops. Journal No. docs % Science 6 10.53 Science and Public Policy 4 7.02 Pharmaceutisch Weekblad 3 5.26 Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 2 3.51 Recherche 2 3.51 The WoS-indexed journals carrying papers on science shops were most frequently classified under the category ‘Multidisciplinary Sciences’, whereas those in SCOPUS with the highest output were found under ‘Social Sciences’, ‘Humanities and Arts’, and ‘Environmental Science’ (Figure 4). Publications 2018, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15 3.2. Results Specific to Each Source The findings not accommodating inter-source comparison are discussed below. 3.2.1. Publications Listed in WoS, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar A total of 43 journals carried papers on science shops. Although articles on the subject appeared only sporadically in many, 10% appeared in such a highly reputed journal as Science. The journals that carried more than one paper on the subject are listed in Table 3. Although some of the same papers were found in all three sources, each journal is shown only once in the table. Table 3. WoSand SCOPUS-listed journals carrying articles on science shops. Journal No. docs % Science 6 10.53 Science and Public Policy 4 7.02 Pharmaceutisch Weekblad 3 5.26 Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 2 3.51 Recherche 2 3.51 The WoS-indexed journals carrying papers on science shops were most frequently classified under the category ‘Multidisciplinary Sciences’, whereas those in SCOPUS with the highest output were found under ‘Social Sciences’, ‘Humanities and Arts’, and ‘Environmental Science’ (Figure 4). Figure 4. Journals carrying articles on science shops: WoS and SCOPUS category listings. Figure 4. Journals carrying articles on science shops: WoS and SCOPUS category listings. Publications 2018,6, 0036 9 of 15 3.2.2. EU Framework Programmes Ten European Union Framework programmes included projects dealing with science shops. The first, SCIPAS, was awarded in 2000 under the FP5. While the number of participating institutions varied, Dutch organisations were often present both as partners and project leaders. To date, the most generous grant, for nearly three million euros, was awarded to a SciShops.eu project entitled ‘Expanding the European science shop ecosystem’ (Table 4). Table 4. Characteristics of European science shop projects. Acronym Programme Duration Coordinator No. Partners Funding (€) COMSCIENCE 7FP (Science and Society) 2009–2012 LUDWIG MAXIMILIAN UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH 8 794,720 SciShops.eu H2020-SwafS 2016-1 2017–2020 SYNYO GmbH (Austria) 18 2,935,887 PERARES 7FP (Science and Society) 2010–2014 UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN (The Netherlands) 28 2,728,041 TRAMS FP6-Society 2005–2008 UTRECHT UNIVERSITY 11 449,250 VECTOR FP6-Society 2007–2009 IVAM RESEARCH AND CONSULTANCY ON SUSTAINABILITY (The Netherlands) 6 314,483 PARCEL FP6-Society 2005–2007 SCIENCE SHOP VIENNA (Austria) 4 175,983 WINDFARMPERCEPTION FP6-Society 2007–2008 UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN (The Netherlands) 3 170,900 NEWCOM FP6-Society 2007–2008 DUBLIN CITY UNIVERSITY (Ireland) 3 66,000 INMOSION FP6-Society 2007–2009 UNIVERSITY OF THESSALY (Greece) 7 395,000 SCIPAS FP5-HUMAN POTENTIAL 2000–2001 UTRECHT UNIVERSITY (The Netherlands) 7 212,630 ISSNET FP5-HUMAN POTENTIAL 2003–2005 UTRECHT UNIVERSITY (The Netherlands) 12 396,220 Network creation, one of the features characterising these projects, attests to the cooperation existing among institutions of different origins. The intense engagement on the part of Dutch and German institutions is visible in the list of participating countries shown in Figure 5. Although this is a primarily European activity, third country partners from the United States, Israel, and South Africa also participated. 3.2.3. Items in MyNews Of the 34 news items identified in MyNews, 30 were related to science shops however four were discarded because there were not linked to this topic. Although this source was initially promising, substantial limitations were detected, in particular in connection with regional coverage. As Figure 6 shows, the vast majority of the items retrieved were drawn from Spanish newspapers. The items on science shops normally appeared in regional or local papers and primarily in their society and current affairs sections.