Public engagement with research: Citizens’ views on motivations, barriers and support

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) approaches that have emerged in the past ten years point to the importance of engaging the public in dialogues about research. The different variants of RRI share the notion that societal actors, including citizens, need to work together – that is, engage in two-way communication during the research and innovation process – in order to better align both the process and its outcomes with the values, needs and expectations of society. Yet, sponsors and organizers of dialogues about research often face difficulties in recruiting sufficient numbers of participants or ensuring a sufficient level of diversity of participants. This paper asks what motivates or hinders individual citizens as members of the broader public to participate in such dialogues. It presents empirical findings of the European Union-funded project Promoting Societal Engagement Under the Terms of RRI (PROSO), which aimed to foster public engagement with research for RRI. PROSO used a quasi-experimental, qualitative approach directly involving citizens to address this question. The core of the innovative methodology were focus group discussions with European citizens about hypothetical opportunities to take part in dialogues about research. Three hypothetical scenarios of different dialogue formats (varied by whether they seek to inform the participants, consult or enable deeper collaboration on a scientific issue) were used as stimuli to explore the participants’ willingness (motivations and perceived barriers) to engage with scientific research. Our findings show a preference towards dialogue formats that give citizens a more active role and a greater say in research policy or research funding. They further suggest that those who seek to broaden citizen participation in dialogues about research should consider the role of relevance, impact, trust, legitimacy, knowledge, and time and resources as factors that can motivate or discourage citizens to take part. Based on our findings, we discuss possibilities to promote citizen participation in dialogues about research as part of putting RRI into practice

Prospects for Payments for Ecosystem Services in the Brazilian Pantanal: A Scenario Analysis

The present study investigates the prospects for a large-scale implementation of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes in the Brazilian Pantanal wetland. Despite increasing environmental threats associated with development pressures and the growing interest of public and private organizations, no PES schemes are currently in place in the Pantanal. Through an exploratory scenario analysis, this article determines the prospects for PES in the area. The findings suggest that a large-scale implementation is unlikely, as this would require much higher levels of environmental awareness among local decision makers and low substitution rates of ecosystem services by technology. Furthermore, strong socioeconomic inequality between inhabitants of the Pantanal lowlands and wealthy farmers of the neighboring uplands means that potential suppliers of ecosystem services would face very high opportunity costs to participate in PES schemes. The research findings are also relevant to other environmentally sensitive regions experiencing rapid economic growth and weak environmental regulation. </jats:p

Social entrepreneurs in challenging places: A Delphi study of experiences and perspectives

Social Enterprises have grown in number and scope in response to reductions in state-provided welfare and increasing ambition to improve social conditions. While a range of issues have been identified in the literature as affecting the ability of Social Enterprises to successfully conduct their activities, there is currently a dearth of research into the relative influence of these factors. This study explores and ranks the challenges faced by social entrepreneurs in South Wales. Based on a Delphi study with 21 social entrepreneurs, government policy-developers and scholars, it presents a hierarchy of 14 factors, useful instruments for informing social entrepreneurs and policy-makers about the way social enterprises are managed, and how national and local policy should be developed. As part of this, the study also identifies four novel factors that affect the sustainability of social enterprises: ‘Professionalisation of Marketing’, ‘Perception of Validity’, ‘Leadership’ and ‘Situatedness’