Accepted paper:

Highlighting topical Science Shop approaches


Kirsten von der Heiden (Science Shop WTT e.V.)

Paper short abstract:

The findings about online debate processes facilitated by Science Shops are derived by the PERARES EU project ´Public Engagement with Research And Research Engagement with Society´ (FP7 n° 244264 to 2014) and experiences by the autor. Keywords: CBR, CSO, PER, online debate, policy advise

Paper long abstract:

The International Science Shop Network ´living knowledge´ provides several tool kids for efficient interaction between Science and Society. Thus Science Shops in their workface diversity try to effect on education, science and society, to broaden local knowledge and empowerment and to give policy advise by means of Community Based Research - CBR activities.

Science Shops as intermediaries in the CBR processes mostly take over the role as facilitator, free actor in networks, transfer organisation and so forth. While doing so they further co-develop and adapt the tools used in the chosen CBR contexts. Policy advise together with civil society organisations - CSO, researchers and a variety of multi-stakeholder groups mainly is derived by project findings on local up to international level.

Topical examples will be highlighted focussing on the last years´ multi-stakeholder experiences in online debating:

* The Participation at the Global Entrepreneurship week 2012 will be analysed as a f2f and national online-level debate in Germany.

* At international level the PERARES´ (FP7 project 2010 -2014) online debates will be analysed, which aimed to allow multi-stakeholder groups to create research topics and result new CBR projects.

The comparable debate process run in different PERARES partner countries will be exemplified as well as the challenges to include researchers into the debates.

Outlooks will be given on the impact of participated stakeholder groups and individuals into the governance of Science & Technology via online debates facilitated by intermediaries.

panel C3
Stakeholder involvement: An inclusive or exclusive practice?