Science shops in Europe: the public as stakeholder

Science and Public Policy June 2004 0302-3427/04/030199-13 US$08.00 Beech Tree Publishing 2004 199

Science and Public Policy, volume 31, number 3, June 2004, pages 199–211, Beech Tree Publishing, 10 Watford Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 2EP, England

Science shops

Science shops in Europe: the public as stakeholder

Corinna Fischer, Loet Leydesdorff and Malte Schophaus

After two decades of relative silence, science shops seem to be back on the agenda of science policy-making. In this article, country-specific and country-independent factors for their success and failure and their co-operation with civil society are discussed in terms of different traditions in politi-cal culture. Science shops seem to be at a cross-roads, where their work focus and their coalitions may have to change. On the one hand, they are still connected to their roots, the social move-ments. On the other hand, a general trend towards business co-operation in science policy can be ob-served. The increasing debate about science and society interfaces lends importance to the science shop concept, as is especially visible in the recent support given them by the European Commission. Corinna Fischer is at the Environmental Policy Research Centre, Freie Universität Berlin, Ihnestr 22, D-14195 Berlin, Germany;

Tel.: +49 30 83 85 44 94; Fax : +49 30 83 85 66 85; E-mail:

[email protected]. Loet Leydesdorff is at the Amsterdam

School of Communications Research, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Tel: +31 20 525 6598; Fax: +31 20 525 3681; E-mail: [email protected]. Malte Schophaus is at the Institute for Science and Technology Studies (IWT), University of Bielefeld, PO Box 10 01 31, D-33501 Bielefeld, Germany; Tel: +49 521 106 4676; Fax: +49 521 106 6418; E-mail: [email protected].

This article is based on results of EU-funded project ‘Improving

Interaction among NGOs, Universities and Science Shops: exper-iences and expectations’ (INTERACT) (http://members.chello.at/ wilawien/interacts/main.html). The authors acknowledge the

discussion with their partners in this project and the preceding

SCIPAS project. They especially thank Annette Wallentin for her

major contributions, Mark Brown, Arlena Jung, Henk Mulder, Wolfgang Endler and anonymous referees for helpful comments.

HE SCIENCE SHOP MODEL seems to be back on the agenda of science policy-making in Europe (Hellemans, 2001; Farkas, 2002).

New science shops are being founded, like the Brunel University Science Shop (BUSS) in London (August 2002), which is funded by the Higher Edu-cation Active Community Fund, and two new ones in Belgium (at the University of Antwerp and the University of Brussels, 2003).1

The European Commission in its Science and So-ciety Action Plan of 4 December 2001, stated that more than 60 science shops exist in Europe, mainly in the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, the United Kingdom, and France. The Commission proposed an action plan to enhance the networking of science shops and the creation of a structure for the inven-tory and dissemination of “work carried out on be-half of citizens and associations” (European Commission, 2002, page 15).2

The idea of science shops can be considered as an offspring of the political movements from the 1960s onwards. Science shops were conceptualised for the purpose of moderating between academic scientists and organisations that cannot afford to fund their own research. The SCIPAS project, an association of 13 partners from nine countries, described them as providing “independent, participatory research sup-port in response to concerns experienced by civil society” (Gnaiger and Martin, 2001).

They offer citizens, non-governmental organisa-tions (NGOs), municipalities, and sometimes small and medium enterprises free or very low-cost access to scientific and technological knowledge and re-search in a wide range of disciplines. The term ‘sci-ence’ is used in its broadest sense, incorporating social sciences and the humanities as well as natural

T


200 Science and Public Policy June 2004

sciences (Gnaiger and Martin, 2001). In practice, science shops deal mainly with questions related to environmental issues, health, education, labour, law, housing, and developmental issues.

Since the founding of the first science shops in the Netherlands in the 1970s, the concept spread throughout Western Europe and to Israel, Romania, South Africa, the USA and Canada during the 1980s and 1990s. Science shops are, or were, active in at least nine European countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Romania, and the United Kingdom. Mulder et al (2001) also mentioned that initiatives have been re-ported in Finland, Sweden, Italy, Switzerland, and Norway. The concept of science shops has been picked up in other countries such as the ‘new’ South Africa and South Korea.

In this paper, we assess the future of the model in the light of its historical development and the current state of affairs in Europe. We compare the develop-ment of science shops in several European countries and try to link the variety of patterns of science shop activities to differences in the social and political environment. First, we discuss the history and cur-rent situation of science shops in Europe. Then we compare the developments in six European countries (Austria, Denmark, Germany, Romania, Spain, and the United Kingdom) in more detail based on a re-cent survey (Fischer and Wallentin, 2002). In the

final sections, we draw conclusions and specify pol-icy implications.

History and current status

In the establishment process of science shops in Europe, four ‘waves’ can be distinguished.

First wave

The oldest shops were set up in the Netherlands in the 1970s, following the students’ movement (Leydes-dorff and van den Besselaar, 1987a; Farkas, 1999; 2002). The institutionalisation of the Dutch science shops can be considered a result of the political pro-gramme of a left-wing coalition that had won the elec-tions of 1973 under the motto of “equal distribution of income, wealth, and knowledge”. The Minister for Science Policy at that time, Fokele Trip, actively stimulated what became known as ‘the democratisa-tion of science’ both internally and externally. He welcomed proposals such as the science shops.

The first science shop was established in 1973 at the chemistry faculty in Utrecht. In 1978, the Uni-versity of Amsterdam decided to organise a science shop at university level both as a service to the lar-ger community and as an instrument for further developing its science policy in discussion with relevant NGOs (Zaal and Leydesdorff, 1987). The Dutch Federation of Trade Unions supported this development to the degree that a representative par-ticipated in the meetings of the daily board of this science shop (Leydesdorff et al, 1984).

Other universities followed to a variable extent with differences in relative emphasis on a service component, an activist component, and the use of the shop as an instrument of research policy. The science shops of this first period can be considered in relation to similar attempts in other countries to democratise science and technology policies, for example, industrial workers’ plans in the UK (Coo-ley, 1980), the research programme for the ‘humani-sation of labour’ in the Federal Republic of Germany, and alternative product designs in Scandi-navia (LO, 1982; Leydesdorff and van den Besse-laar, 1987b).

Second wave

In the 1980s, science shops of a second wave evolved in Germany, France and Denmark, as well as two shops in Belgium. These shops can be con-sidered as by-products of alternative movements such as Bürgerinitiativen (citizens’ initiatives) in Germany. The environmental movement of that time had a strong impact on these developments, which were mainly based on collaborations with emerging university departments in environmental sciences. Some of these science shops still focus exclusively on environmental issues.

Malte Schophaus, born in 1972, studied psychology andsociology at the Freie Universität Berlin and the University ofCalifornia, Irvine, USA. Currently he is a doctoral researchfellow at the Institute for Science and Technology Studies(IWT) within the graduate programme ‘Entering the Knowl-edge Society’ at the University of Bielefeld. His main re-search interest focuses on science advice, interdisciplinaryco-operation, citizen participation and environmentalpsychology. In his dissertation he investigates the role ofscientific knowledge in the social-justice movement. Corinna Fischer, born in 1971, studied political science andpsychology, graduated in political science and holds a PhD insociology. Her main areas of interest are environmental con-sciousness and behaviour, sustainable consumption, politicalactivism and political socialisation. Besides her research inthese areas, she also works as a policy consultant, counsellorand facilitator for NGOs, as well as in political education. Atthe moment, she works at the Environmental Research Cen-tre, Free University of Berlin, in an interdisciplinary juniorresearch group “Transformation and Innovation in PowerSystems (TIPS)”. Her topic is the consumers’ role in achiev-ing a more sustainable electricity system. Loet Leydesdorff reads science, technology, and innovationstudies at the Amsterdam School of Communications Re-search (ASCoR) of the University of Amsterdam. He haspublished extensively in scientometrics, the sociology ofinnovation, and about university-industry-government rela-tions (the Triple Helix). His main research interest focuseson measuring and simulating the knowledge base of aneconomy using models of complex systems theory likeautopoiesis. A recent monograph entitled "A SociologicalTheory of Communication: The Self-Organization of theKnowledge-Based Society" can be retrieved from his homepage at http://www.leydesdorff.net .


Science and Public Policy June 2004 201

Third wave

During the 1990s, a ‘revival’ of the science shop idea can be diagnosed and traced back to a change in the discourse about science and society. The inform-ation and communications technology (ICT) revolu-tion has turned the tables in the relations between science and the public to such an extent that a call for a new social contract for science is sometimes voiced (for instance, Nowotny et al, 2001). The in-creasing awareness of the gradual replacement of the industrial economy by a knowledge-based economy led to reflections about the strategic importance of communication about science at the social level. Different models have been proposed to understand “science in action” (Latour, 1987) or to make “sci-ence meet the public” (Wynne, 1995).

In the course of this debate, the concept of science shops received renewed interest by policy-makers. The model is special because of its partisan position for public demand. Thus, the public is not considered as a receiver of the scientific knowledge or as an interactive conversation partner, but as a stakeholder with their own knowledge interests. These consid-erations resonated especially at the European level and led to the action plan by the European Commis-sion to enhance the networking of science shops.

In this context, the European Union (EU) decided to fund several projects on science shops; most recently a network of science shops (ISSNET) has been established with EU subsidy to facilitate ex-changes among science shoppers and science policy-makers at the European level.

In this favourable atmosphere, it was possible to initiate a third wave of science shops in Austria and the UK during the 1990s. The Austrian shops were at least partly triggered by the Dutch example (Steinhaus, 1999). The British initiatives, however, were launched by Government agencies and the Nuffield Foundation. In Spain, the term ‘science shop’ is relatively unknown, but institutions pursu-ing similar tasks were put up more or less independ-ently from one another.

Fourth wave

Finally, in a fourth wave, science shops were started in the Central and East European accession countries in the period from 1995 to 2000, modelled after the Dutch example and realised in co-operation with Dutch science shops. Although this eventually failed in the Czech Republic, eight science shops have been successfully established in Romania (Mulder, 2000; INTERACTS, 2003).

However, the story of science shops in Europe is not a continuous success story. During the 1990s, as a counter-tendency to the establishment of new science shops, those in some of the early founding countries faced a decline. Of about 25 German shops only three are still operating today. In France, where there were about 15 science shops operating by the end of

the 1980s, none are left. Also the Belgian science shops at Leuven and Gent have been closed down.

Science shops as a policy instrument have tended to fade away because of the increased focus on en-trepreneurship, privatisation, and commercialisation during the period from 1985 to 1995 (Irwin, 1995; Sclove, 1995; Clark, 1998). In a study on Dutch sci-ence shops, Wachelder (2003) sees reasons for their closure in the decline of state funding, a change of the political climate, a stricter academic regime for students that makes it harder for them to participate, and more pressure on academic staff to publish, which makes them more reluctant to engage in sci-ence shop projects (pages 255 and following).

Science shops today

It remains difficult to assess the exact number of sci-ence shops in Europe today. The figures given in dif-ferent sources (for instance, Steinhaus, 1999; Mulder et al, 2001, Fischer and Wallentin, 2002) vary. One reason is the difficulty of empirically keeping track of science shops and following up on current devel-opments such as close-down or the generation of new shops. Furthermore, shops may still exist ‘on paper’, but no longer be active. Finally, the term ‘science shop’ is not generally known in Europe, therefore not every institution or programme that might fit the description calls itself a science shop.

As noted, the European Commission says that more than 60 science shops exist in Europe. Follow-ing our investigations in the project INTERACTS, and from the comparison of different sources and the Internet presentation of science shops, there are about three to five in most of the countries men-tioned above, with the exception of the Netherlands, which still hosts more than a dozen, including some specialised and faculty-based shops (Ree, 1996; Wa-chelder, 2003).

Additionally, some countries possess similar insti-tutions or programmes that do not operate under the heading ‘science shop’. For example, in Denmark there are ‘project agencies’ at three universities, which can be considered similar to science shops. In Germany, 18 ‘co-operation offices’ are active, which deal with trade unions as their client group and, in

In a fourth wave, science shops were started in the Central and East European accession countries from 1995 to 2000; however, during the 1990s, as a counter-tendency, those in some of the early founding countries faced a decline



the UK, there are a number of ‘community exchange programmes’ (Hall and Hall, 2002, page 25).

Table 1 summarises the rise and fall of science shops in different European countries, revealing three different patterns: one group of countries with a constantly high number of science shops (includ-ing Denmark, whose five shops mean one at each major university), one group characterised by a ‘rise and fall’ pattern, and one group of ‘latecomers’.

In a project ‘Study and conference on improving public access to science through science shops’ with the acronym SCIPAS (1999–2001), the European Commission commissioned an inventory of science shop activities both within the European Union and abroad (Gnaiger and Martin, 2001; Mulder et al, 2001). The six reports from this project (available at <http://www.bio.uu.nl/living-knowledge>) provide the impression of a large variety of activities ac-commodated to local circumstances.

Basically, there are two types of organisational model (university-based and non-university-based) performing three types of function: services deliv-ered directly to the client (by all shops); influencing research policies in universities (by university-based shops); and engaging in university education (also by university-based shops). Most science shops are mainly service oriented. Many of the university-based science shops also rely heavily on their func-tion in higher education, for example, by providing students with interesting topics for thesis work and research projects.

In contrast, the shops consider their function in setting the agenda for research policies at the univer-sity level as only secondary. Only one university —Tilburg in the Netherlands — systematically uses science shop questions as input in university re-search programming at the level of the board of the

university. However, in dealing with environmental questions, a broad involvement of scientific staff and even departments in science shop projects is not un-common (Teodosiu and Caliman, 2002).

Comparison of science shops in Europe

Research methods and materials

Earlier studies have primarily tried to explain differ-ences among science shops with respect to their inter-nal organisation. This has mostly been done at the

national level. In this article, we aim to explain differ-ent national patterns of science shop development. We

draw strongly on the recent INTERACTS project

(2001–2003), which conducted in-depth case studies

with detailed qualitative descriptions in a compara-tive mode.3 The project focused on the co-operation

between science shops and organisations of the

non-profit sector — citizen initiatives, NGOs, and

public administration — in six European countries:

Austria, Denmark, Germany, Romania, Spain and the United Kingdom.

Each of the national partners has interviewed cli-ent groups, researchers, and mediators in three cases of ‘best practice’. Also, next-level policy-makers in the relevant NGOs, university departments, and so on, were interviewed to obtain their assessment of the quality and policy relevance of the co-operative projects from their respective perspectives.

In the first phase of this project, a state-of-the-art report was compiled with one of the current authors contributing (Fischer and Wallentin, 2002). The in-formation for this report was collected by the differ-ent national project partners. For this purpose, a common research framework was defined, guiding

Table 1. Rise and fall of science shops in Europe

Country Number of science shops during the Pattern

1970s 1980s 1990s/2000s

Netherlands 19 >20 10–20 Denmark 0 5 5 plus 3 project agencies

Constantly high

Belgium 0 2 0 France 0 15 0a

Germany 0 25 3 plus 18 co-operation offices

Rise and fall

Austria 0 0 4 UK 0 0 3-4b plus 8 community

exchange programmes and similar institutions

Romania 0 0 8

Latecomers

Spain Number is unclear, because the term ‘science shops’ is not used widely in Spain. Science shop tasks are being carried out by NGOs and private research institutes (for instance, <www.paxmediterranea.com>), trade unions, and projects at university faculties. A few specialised university institutions also describe themselves as ‘science shops’, for instance, Bazar de las Ciencias, University of Léon,c and the Department Social Projects of the Business Transfer Office (OTRI) at the University Ramón Llull, Barcelona

Notes: a European Commission (2001) speaks of science shops in France, but Mulder et al (2001) state that all have been closed down b Two shops have already been operating for some time: in August 2002, a science shop at Brunel University in London was founded and there is also discussion about founding one in Glasgow c Compare with <www3.unileon.es/bazardelasciencias/index.shtml>



parallel investigations in the participating countries. It covered the following areas: overview of science shops in the respective country (history, number, activities); description of the discourse on science and society in the respective country; and political and legal framework, providing support or barriers to co-operation among science shops, science and NGOs (structure of NGO sector, funding opportuni-ties, trends in science policy).

The information collected by the partners is based

on expert interviews with science shop staff and pol-icy-makers, literature reviews, and the analysis of sci-ence policy documents. However, this data is

organised quite differently in the various countries. The difficulties in data collection can already be seen

as a relevant insight into the informality of the work of

science shops. The work is in many cases not very well

documented, or difficult to access. Results of projects

are often published as grey literature. Results show that the development of science

shops and the conditions for co-operation with civil society organisations vary considerably across countries. The variations relate to the different peri-ods in which the respective science shops were cre-ated and to differences in the social and political conditions, which are country-specific. We were able to identify four interconnected factors influenc-ing the degree and the form of co-operation between science shops and civil society organisations:

• The condition of civil society and the NGO com-munity: Is there a mature and differentiated civil society in the respective country? What are the needs and aims of non-profit organisations, and in what respect do they need scientific support? To what degree are such organisations capable of voicing their demands?

• Political culture and public discourse: Is there a political culture that is supportive of NGOs and civil society, and of the idea of fulfilling their research needs? Is there a public discourse about the relations between science and society? What traditions can the concept of science shops build on? To what extent is the concept of the science shops as intermediary institutions recognised and promoted?

• Resources: How do science shops mobilise the necessary human and financial resources for their work? What resources does public policy offer them and under what conditions?

• Science policy: Is the need for a dialogue between science and society recognised at the level of national science policy formulation? What is the form of the dialogue aimed at, what are its topics, and which institutions are considered for promot-ing that dialogue? How does the science shop model fit with these conceptions?

These four factors are crucial for the success or failure of the science shop model, and therefore, comparative analysis among countries along these

terms will enable us to draw some conclusions about the future prospects of science shops.

The results of this comparison are presented in the following section. The patterns of the development of civil society and political culture are country-specific. They can be linked to the country-specific developmental patterns of science shops introduced previously and used to explain the current perform-ance of science shops. With respect to resources and science policy, however, we find patterns that are common to all these countries. We first discuss the specificities and then return to the commonalities.

Country-specific patterns

In Denmark, science shops are not only continually

active, but also report an ongoing and strong co-operation with NGOs and civil associations. This

‘constantly high’ pattern of activities can be explained

by a lively and active civil society in combination with

a political culture that widely recognises the need for

public participation in science and technology. Denmark has a tradition of more than 150 years of

“associationalism” (Bo Kaspersen and Ottesen, 2001). Beginning with the constitution of 1849, the Danish state has always regarded a lively civil soci-ety, and, more precisely, a rich associational life, as a means of integrating society, enhancing patriotism and performing functions of the welfare state. Co-operatives of peasants and workers have helped to improve the social situation of these groups and to transform Denmark into a modern economy.

Today, associations run free schools, provide adult education, and offer a multitude of services in education, sports, leisure, and culture. The state sup-ports these activities by funding the associations as long as their structure and purpose follows basic democratic principles. As a consequence, we find that associational membership is as high as 3.4 per adult and both membership and activity have even risen since 1979. This translates also in political par-ticipation and interest (Torpe, 2003).

A second important source for science shop sup-port is Denmark’s strong participatory tradition in technology assessment and environmental decision making. For example, the ‘consensus conferences’ about new technologies and their social implications have been developed in Denmark (Joss and Durant, 1995). The Danish Board of Technology, an advi-sory body to the Danish Parliament, considers the involvement of the public in debates about technol-ogy using consensus conferences and scenario work-shops as one of its tasks (Sclove, 1996; Joss, 1998).

In the 1970s and 1980s, Denmark like other West European countries was shaken by protest move-ments tabling the issues of peace, women’s libera-tion and youth self-determination (for instance, the squatter movements) (Gundelach, 1991; Mikkelsen, 1999). One core area of contentious politics was nuclear energy. Movement activity helped to achieve the abandonment of the Government’s plans for



nuclear power plants in 1985. In the course of these conflicts, the anti-nuclear movement OOA (Organisation for Information on Nuclear Power) managed to politicise the public and raise demand for participation and information in technological decision-making.

Academics were active in these movements, bridg-ing the gap between universities and the public. They

answered the demands for information with a concept

of democratisation of academia and access to scien-tific knowledge for the public. The Danish science

shops, as outcomes of the alternative movements, are

not ‘neutral’ intermediaries, but follow a political

programme for democratisation and equality. Because of this ‘associational’ tradition and the

practice of participation, the idea of science shops found resonance in the general political culture. Sci-ence shops in Denmark are an established institution at universities and an accepted tool for the public participation in science. They are considered as an asset for generating social capital in the knowledge-based economy.

In Germany, science shops show instead a ‘rise and fall’ pattern. Furthermore, in spite of a strong civil society, they report difficulties in co-operating with NGOs. On the one hand, NGOs are sceptical to-wards scientific institutions, on the other hand, university personnel are often not very interested in co-operation (Block-Künzler and Graf, 1993; Stein-haus, 1999). These patterns can be explained by changes in political culture and in the structure of the NGO sector in Germany.

During the 1980s, as in Denmark, science shops were one of the outcomes of the ‘new social move-ments’ including the environmental, peace, and women’s movements. However, in contrast to Den-mark, an academic and policy tradition that could generate ‘official’ support for the science shop idea had been lacking. There was also no stable civil society tradition.

Already in the Weimar Republic, German civil society had been “pillarized” (Zimmer et al, 2004). On the one hand, there was a lively ‘Vereinskultur’ (associational culture) with small, local associations in the areas of sport, leisure and religion. They were

often associated with political or ideological groups and thus socialised their members into specific po-litical milieus.

On the other hand, there were the huge welfare organisations, which, according to the German ‘principle of subsidiarity’ co-operated closely with the state in providing social services and fulfilling social policy goals. Run by the churches and funded and regulated by the Ministry of Labour, they can hardly be seen as self-governed associations of citi-zens (Zimmer et al, 2004).

Having been destroyed by the Nazi Regime, asso-ciational life only gradually recovered in the Federal Republic of the 1950s and 1960s. There were almost no independent organisations with political or broader social goals. Apart from sports and leisure associations, the German non-profit sector was dominated by the huge, service- and state-oriented welfare associations. The student movement and the ‘new social movements’ in the 1970s and 1980s were the first articulation of contentious politics for almost three decades.

The science shops emerging from them therefore found little resonance in the broader society and were dependent on the fate of the new social move-ments. However, the relationship with these move-ments has never been an easy one. In particular, small and grassroots protest groups have remained suspicious about academic science, and did not ex-pect the sciences to contribute to the solution of practical problems. Academic science was heavily associated with political control by the ruling class (“Herrschaftswissen”, see Dehler, 1989; Steinhaus, 1991; Steinhaus, 1999).

During the late 1980s and the 1990s, the move-ments declined while many of the supporting NGOs institutionalised and professionalised. Organisations such as the Green Party and Greenpeace developed their own resources for knowledge-production or developed extensive networks with scientific institu-tions, so they no longer needed intermediaries like science shops. Thus, science shops lost a strong cli-ent and advocate during the 1990s. A new potential client group could have been the charitable sector, encompassing the huge welfare organisations. How-ever, apart from the one in Bonn, science shops in Germany have not yet fully explored the potential of this possible ally.

In Austria, the UK, and Romania, we find what we have

called the ‘latecomer’ pattern. In spite of the com-parably late science shop start-up, today there is quite

successful co-operation between science shops and

NGOs in these countries, albeit for different reasons. In Austria, civil societal organisations have a long

history. Many NGOs were founded at the beginning of the 20th century either by the social-democratic movement, the conservative Christian Democrats or the churches, to tie their clients to their ideologies. After the world wars, new NGOs often functioned as ‘bridges’ between the Left and the Right.

Because of the tradition and of participation, the idea of science shops found resonance in the general political culture in Denmark and are an established institution at universities and an accepted tool for public participation in science



With the exception of the labour movement, NGOs always were part of the establishment in Austria (Heitzmann and Simsa, 2004, page 715). Nevertheless, they have maintained their potential for inducing social change.

Not until the beginning of the 1980s did new NGOs arise that were neither linked to the political parties nor to the church. These organisations have been mainly active in women’s liberation, ecological or human rights, development aid and international relations. They have been important for Austria’s political culture and for shaping public attitudes, but, because of their distance from the establishment, they have never received much public funding; thus their importance has not been reflected in statistical data. This late development of independent NGOs explains the latecomer pattern of science shops in Austria. These small, independent NGOs were in need of their own knowledge production, and were at the same time independent from ideologies of lar-ger societal partners (such as the church or political parties).

Furthermore, the Austrian NGO culture is shaped by the country’s federalism and corporatism. There are many local, independent and self-organised civil societal groups. Also the umbrella organisations are normally not organised at a national level, but within one of the nine federal provinces. This structure also favours knowledge production at a local level, for instance, in co-operation with science shops, rather than centralised in large NGOs.

Austria has a strong tradition of co-operatives and social economy. Even though many of these organi-sations have by now become large for-profit organi-sations or governmental agencies, the basic idea of self-organisation has influenced the NGO sector (compare with Heitzmann and Simsa, 2004, page 723), thus also making it compatible with the con-cept of the science shop. In Austria, as in all Ger-man-speaking countries, NGOs are oriented more towards the state than business (much more so than in Anglo-Saxon countries). Solidarity, ideology, and values influence the activities and structures of the NGOs in the Germanic countries.

The NGOs are mainly run by volunteers. As a result of financial pressures since the 1990s, re-quirements for higher efficiency have influenced some areas of their organisation, though. Decreasing public funds also push NGOs to develop new finan-cing schemes, such as fundraising or sponsorship. These developments also have an impact on science shops and their co-operation with NGOs.

The late development of science shops in the UK goes hand-in-hand with the neglect of the third sec-tor (services) during the long Conservative Govern-ment. Only in 1997, with the election of Tony Blair and New Labour, did the development of civic org-anisations come back on the political agenda. Dur-ing the Thatcher era and that of her successor John Major, civil society, especially ‘volunteerism’, was often mentioned as a crucial pillar of society, but

this engagement was mainly limited to rhetoric (compare with Kendall, 2001, page 140 and follow-ing). In fact, private businesses were the main object of policy. During this time, science shops had a hard time getting started.

The opposition to the Conservative Government

was for a long time dominated by the strong tradition

of the labour movement in Britain rather than by new

social movements and NGOs. The new social move-ments in the UK have remained modest in size and

often had strong links to ‘patrons’ in the established

Left (for instance, the Labour Party) (Koopmans, 1996, page 44). The Labour Party only paid more at-tention to new concepts of civil society once Tony

Blair became its Chairman in 1994. He introduced the

idea of ‘communitarianism’ to the party, which he

later formulated as “the third way” (Blair, 1998). New Labour introduced three reforms between

1997 and 1999 that gave the development of the third

sector a push forward: the Charity Tax Review of

1997; the ‘Compact’ agreement of 1998 for closer re-lations between Government and the third sector, which, for instance, had an impact on funding NGOs;

and the increase of financial and personnel resources

of the Active Community Unit, which is the govern-mental unit dealing with the third sector (Kendall, 2001). Such reforms led to a co-operative rather than

an oppositional approach to the movements. Currently, civil society in the UK is flourishing.

Thus, there is a sufficient range of potential clients for science shops. However, the cultural context is different from, for instance, Germany. The later founding date of the science shops guaranteed some distance from the heated political controversies of the new social movements in the early 1980s. There-fore in the UK, science shops are rooted in social rather than political activism, leading to a co-operative approach. Thus, establishing links between science and society is publicly acknowledged as a method of strengthening and empowering the com-munity, that is, building “social capital” (Putnam, 2000). This is based on a strong tradition of volun-tary work, from which the concept of ‘community-based learning’ stems, linking students’ voluntary work in the community to a university course, or training community leaders in universities (Buck-ingham, 2000).

The science shops in Austria and the UK could profit from experiences elsewhere (especially in the Netherlands) and start out more professionally. In short, the founding of the science shop in the 1990s was linked to a positive discourse about civil soci-ety’s contributions to public welfare that gained the shops support and recognition.

In Romania, in contrast, the NGO society is not yet well developed, because of the transition situation. Remaining largely a rural and economically less de-veloped society far into the 20th century, Romania had a particularly oppressive and stringent dictator-ship during the Communist era. After the fall of the



Ceausescu regime in 1989, civil society re-emerged, but remained hampered economically by a lack of domestic resources and an insufficient legal frame-work (Saulean et al, 1999, pages 337 and following). The Romanian NGO sector thus has not yet been able to fully reach the level of its Central European counterparts.

Romanians have become relatively willing to get involved in civic activities, which is a good founda-tion for the future development of the civil society. However, opinion surveys point out the lack of le-gitimacy of civic organisations, which mainly goes back to a number of highly publicised scandals and questionable transactions relating to the transforma-tion of the assets of former Government or Party agencies and social organisations in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Communism (CSDF, 1997).

With the election of a former NGO leader as President in 1996, the initial ‘cold’ period in the Government and NGO relationship has come to an end, though. Nevertheless, much remains to be done to enhance the growing maturation of civil society (Saulean et al, 1999, page 354).

Altogether, civil society in Romania already plays an important role in the political and cultural transi-tions. At the same time, this sector remains a fragile organism, struggling to meet the overwhelming humanitarian, cultural, environmental, and develop-ment needs of Romanian society without yet having a firm domestic support structure in place. This im-plies a need for inexpensive ways of knowledge production, as through the co-operation of NGOs and universities.

As in the other eastern European countries, uni-versity reform is an ongoing process. Organisational structures and methodologies are being tested, dis-cussion about the goals of the system of science and education are continuous (König, 1992; Ionescu-Sisesti, 1994). In this context, the work of science shops seems satisfactory so far and receives positive feedback.

In this rather open transition situation, there is room for ideas of dialogue between science and soci-ety, being promoted mostly from within the scientific community. Reformers conceptualise universities as part of, and promoter of, an open participatory

society, expecting them to react to the needs of indi-viduals, organisations, and institutions from the pub-lic sector, business, and NGOs (Neculau, 1997; Romanian Ministry for Education, 2000; Caliman and Teodosiu, 2002).

There is also a public discussion going on with a similar focus. The dialogue between science and society is pursued in connection with increasing en-vironmental awareness, educating the public on en-vironmental and social issues, and developing and supporting NGOs.

The developing civil society in Romania can count much less on national public funding and pri-vate donations than in Western European countries, but international support has played a major role since 1989. In this context, the Dutch example of science shops received considerable interest at an early stage. The idea of founding a science shop dealing with environmental issues at the Technical University of Iasi was well received as a possibility to connect better to the socio-economic environment and to offer students the chance to deal with pro-jects, to apply creative solutions, to develop skills related to teamwork and communication or transmit their scientific knowledge to the public (Caliman and Teodosiu, 2002).

In Spain, it remains difficult to determine how many science shops exist, when they were founded, and how they operate. This lack of information points to a low level of institutionalisation and networking among the various activities that can be recognised as science shops. Two factors have been important.

First, civil society, in terms of new social move-ments and of membership in associations, is rather weak in Spain. Political participation and protest is characterised by the traditional Left and by uncon-ventional forms of participation (such as strikes) but not by an associational culture (Koopmans, 1996; Kousis, 1999). Organisational membership is among the lowest in Europe: only one third of the adult population belongs to any association (Encarnación, 2002). The same applies to political interest: while, in 1999, 21% of all Danes reported that they discuss politics “frequently” and 62% “occasionally”, the respective figures for Spaniards were 7% and 43%, putting them at the bottom of all the 15 EU countries (Eurobarometer 51, 1999).

During the Franco dictatorship, civil society could not flourish. In the transition phase to democracy, there was a short boom of both trade unions and neighbourhood associations. However, after the transition, union membership dropped sharply while neighbourhood associations dissolved completely. Reasons for this are, on the one hand, the successful accomplishment of the transition, which seemed to make activism obsolete, on the other hand, the disil-lusionment with the new system and the resurfacing of everyday problems, exacerbated by a high rate of unemployment (Encarnación, 2002).

Today, the NGO landscape is dominated by the

Romanian civil society remains fragile, struggling to meet the overwhelming needs of the society without having a firm domestic support structure: this implies a need for inexpensive ways of knowledge production, as through the co-operation of NGOs and universities



large unions, which often have developed their own resources for research, and only a few smaller org-anisations, which lack access to funding. Science shops are facing a difficult situation in co-operating with citizens, since there are few organised citizen groups and NGOs to relate to.

Secondly, the idea of intermediaries between sci-ence and society is not intensively discussed. The term ‘science shop’ itself is largely unheard of. Sci-entists complain about the lack of public interest in scientific work. Political actors are preoccupied with developing an active science policy at the national level, and with laying the necessary foundations for a quality R&D system, such as appropriate funding, clear priorities, and transparent and efficient organ-isational structures.

Although science policy has developed a stronger emphasis on the applicability of science and on co-operation with other societal actors during the 1990s, this focus has been almost exclusively on private business (Otero Hidalgo, 1997; Ballart and Subirats, 1997; Bellavista et al, 1998). For this latter purpose, a network of so-called Oficinas de Trans-ferencia de Resultados de Investigación (‘OTRIs’, that is, Offices for the Transfer of Research Find-ings) has been created.

To sum up, there are different cultural and social roots to the science shop idea in the six countries, ranging from protest movements and institutional interests (as in the Netherlands) via social volunteer-ing (UK) to the construction of a civil society in a transformation country (Romania). To find success-ful strategies for promoting the science shop ideas at the European level, we should take these differences in context into account.

Funding science shop activities

Across all the countries under study, successful sci-ence shop work and satisfying co-operation with NGOs is dependent on the available resources. Se-cure funding is an important prerequisite for con-tinuous science shop work. It allows long-term planning and the use of qualified personnel. The less time and energy has to be invested in fundraising, the more a science shop can concentrate on its core tasks.

A number of different funding mechanisms are available. University funding is available to many shops attached to universities, as in the Dutch, Danish, British, Austrian, Romanian, and one of the German cases. Its importance ranges from addi-tional funding (in Austria) or free use of infrastruc-ture (in Romania) via a substantial part of the funding (as in Denmark) to complete funding (as in the case of the Kooperations- und Beratungsstelle für Umweltfragen in Berlin). University funding, however, makes science shops susceptible to univer-sity budget cuts, as seen in the case of the science shop at the Natural Science Faculty at the University

of Copenhagen, which was closed as part of a major budget reduction some years ago.

Other public funding is in most cases only avail-able in a pilot phase, as in the Austrian and Roma-nian cases. In the UK, Denmark, Germany, and Spain no continuous state funding for science shops exists.

Project-based funding is very common for most of the shops. Sometimes customers are charged, some-times the shops apply for project-based support from grant-giving bodies, and sometimes the shops react to public tenders. Project-based funding plays a sub-stantial role in Denmark, Austria, Germany and the UK, and an essential one in Spain and Romania. Finally, a little additional income is sometimes gen-erated by donations and membership fees.

A common problem is the lack of infrastructural funding. Only the Dutch, the Danish, and one of the German shops receive basic infrastructure support. Consequently, a considerable amount of time has to be spent on fundraising, and science shops some-times have to compromise with regard to their goals in order to receive funding. Science shops often do not meet the requirements of funding programmes, because they do not neatly fit into any of the given categories, such as science, education, NGO or so-cial work.

Science policy and the ‘knowledge society’

The six European countries examined converge re-markably in their future perspectives on science and society. In all these countries, discourse about the ‘knowledge society’ is prominent. This new perspec-tive can greatly influence science shop work. The importance of generating and distributing knowledge is stressed, along with a call for co-operation between science and society.

However, the awareness of ongoing changes does not automatically mean that the science shop idea is supported. The dominant discourse differs from the discourse about science shops in two important re-spects. First, the range of possible knowledge pro-ducers is severely restricted in the official discourse. In addition to academic institutions, private business is usually considered to be the most important knowledge producer. Citizens, NGOs, and other so-cial groups are often ignored.

Secondly, the purpose of knowledge production is

often reduced to commercial competitiveness. There

is still little discussion about knowledge being used to

improve the quality of life, boost human emancipation

or support equal opportunities. In short, dialogue be-tween science and society usually means dialogue

between science and business (for instance, Danish

Parliament, 2000; House of Lords Select Committee

on Science and Technology, 2000; Bundesministe-rium für Bildung und Forschung und Bundesministe-rium für Wirtschaft und Technologie, 2001).

This becomes clear when we look at the specific tools applied to implement the ‘knowledge-based



society’. In Denmark and Germany, ‘science parks’ are heavily stimulated in order to establish better links between educational institutions and private business. Communication is encouraged by special funds or by information dissemination policies, and the arrangement of events, exhibitions and fairs. Students receive support for founding their own business.

In a similar way, ‘technology transfer centres’ have been established at Romanian, Spanish, Dutch, and German universities. Like science shops, their task is to communicate to society, but their target groups are mostly private enterprises and business organisations. Sometimes they work together or co-exist with science shops (as in the Dutch cases), but in general, the upward trend in technology transfer seems to displace science shops.

These processes go hand-in-hand with university reforms on a structural and curriculum level in several countries. In Germany and Denmark, the autonomy of universities is strengthened in the finan-cial domain, while at the same time democratic self-governance principles are replaced by hierarchical management principles. In Germany and Austria, cur-ricula have been streamlined, straightened and short-ened. Students have less freedom of choice and there is a tighter system of quality control. Internationally compatible BA and MA programmes are introduced, which are usually shorter and more practically oriented than the previous programmes. These devel-opments deprive students of the free time and energy for working in community-oriented projects.

An important counterweight is nowadays pro-vided by EU policies. A major goal of the EU White Paper on Governance is to bridge the gap between the EU and its citizens. Therefore, the Commission commits itself to enhancing openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence (Euro-pean Commission, 2001, page 10). Part of this effort is directed towards science.

A working group was appointed by the Commis-sion, which conducted a workshop and wrote a re-port “Democratising expertise”. The stated goal is to “improve the interactions between expertise, policy making and public debate” (Liberatore, 2001, page i). The Commission aims to promote participatory

procedures to include civil society, and to broaden the notion of expertise to include stakeholders’ prac-tical knowledge. It recognises the importance of in-termediaries for “translating scientific findings into policy issues … or translating policy and social issues into ‘researchable’ questions” (Liberatore, 2001, page 22).

Such ideas were further developed through the conference “Science and governance in a knowledge society” in Brussels in October 2000 (<www.jrc.es/ sci-gov/>; European Commission, 2000). The activi-ties of the Commission culminated in its recent Science and Society Action Plan (European Commis-sion, 2002). A “dialogue with the citizen” is recom-mended, for example by conference, fora, and also via “developing the European network of science shops” (European Commission, 2002, Action 21, page 15).

The impact on science shops of the general com-mercialisation trend described above is, on the one hand, negative. Resources for knowledge transfer are used in other projects instead of science shops. Pressure on science shops to open up for commercial clients is growing. Students are busy coping with their straight study efforts and can no longer afford to spend time on ‘alternative’ projects.

However, on the other hand, this trend marks a general interest in the issue of knowledge transfer into society. Activities aimed towards bridging the gap between different societal spheres (such as sci-ence and business) and investing resources in co-operation and networking might in some respects also be useful for science shops. In the course of higher education reform, serious attempts are being made to foster practical experience and the applica-tion of results. Students are called to work in pro-jects and co-operate with external partners. Although these ideas originally came up to serve the needs and interests of business, they could also indirectly support science shops’ work.

Conclusions

Changing coalitions

While the early science shops of the 1970s and 1980s relied on protest movements, during the 1990s and at the turn of the century, the coalitions have changed. Science shops have little support from lo-cal citizens or movements in making claims on the budgets of local policy makers. Their clients are mainly small associations and organisations that do not have political power. Without a public lobby, the decline of public funding, trends toward privatisa-tion and business orientation make science shops one of the first institutions to be victimised in budget cuts within the university system.

However, while on the local level tighter budgets and the trend to business orientation dominate science policy, on a supra-regional level the public attitude towards science and technology seems to

A major goal of the EU White Paper on Governance is to bridge the gap between the EU and its citizens: therefore, the Commission commits itself to enhancing openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence



have gained a stronger effect on policy. Distrust in science and technology has moved from social movements (in the 1970s) into the general public consciousness, for example, in the case of geneti-cally modified food.

Tighter public budgets also generate pressure on science-policy making to open up to public scrutiny. The costs and benefits of science have to be ac-counted for and to be legitimated in the public do-main. The discourse on the ‘knowledge society’ emphasises the need for usable scientific knowledge — visible, for example, in the career of concepts such as transdisciplinarity and ‘Mode 2’ in science policy-making (Shinn, 2002). This makes the sci-ence–society dialogue an important topic.

These tendencies partly explain why, at the EU level, we observe a rediscovery of, and an increasing support for, science shops. It remains open to what extent the EU will be a partner for a longer-term coalition. Critics suspect that the em-phasis on participation in science is a strategic re-sponse to a temporary fashion and may not play a long-term role in EU-policy (for instance, Abels, 2002).

Policy implications: science shops at a crossroads

Science shops today seem to be at a crossroads. On the one hand, the concept of the science shop as an intermediating agency without a financial threshold is more up to date and relevant than ever before. Most research programmes nowadays demand an inter- or transdisciplinary orientation and the appli-cability of research results. Furthermore, steps are taken towards fostering intermediary organisations like science shops on the actual policy level in Europe.

On the other hand, science shops will remain con-tinuously under pressure because of the marginality implied in the very concept. In addition to budget cuts and a general commercialisation tendency, a further hindering factor is that the science shop movement is no longer connected to larger social movements. Developments in civil society are dif-ferent and asynchronous among European nations. There remains little public pressure at the European and national levels in favour of science shops when it comes to funding and policy-making.

From this diagnosis, some conclusions can be drawn for universities and for the science shops themselves. First, it needs to be stated that the science shop model is potentially an interface insti-tution providing options at various levels:

• At the level of the community, a science shop can provide a point of entrance to the knowledge pro-duction system with a relatively low threshold. This point of entrance can be used, for example, as a follow-up and concretisation by a client group after a more encyclopaedic orientation about one’s research questions in the Internet.

• At the level of the university, a science shop pro-vides a window on the surrounding society and can thus strengthen the commitment and public legiti-misation of the academic institution. Universities today are increasingly embedded in networks of university–industry–government relations. Their public function can easily become associated with industrial interests and bureaucratic practices. However, they can partially reclaim their critical function by making themselves relevant to their city, their region, citizens, environmental groups, trade-unions, and so on (Leydesdorff and Etzko-witz, 2003). This can be organised in the form of science shops and similar mechanisms of commu-nity-based research and learning.

• In terms of innovation policies, science shop questions can be systematically assessed on whether they provide options for new lines of re-search and social support.

• At a generalised level, science shops may provide a science policy instrument for raising awareness of, and commitment to, the increasing knowledge intensity of ongoing transformations in a knowl-edge-based economy.

However, science shops need to deal with the fact that the general idea of ‘citizen science’, somewhat analogous to a number of other claims of the 1970s movements, has moved from the periphery towards the centre of the political discourse. It therefore fol-lows that science shops have different options in choosing their future strategies.

First, science shops may want to reconsider their coalitions. To profit from EU policies, they may have to establish a more professional and visible appearance and a homogeneous profile to fit into programmes and function as ‘one’ partner in Euro-pean research, technology and development. This does not mean that the activities of the science shops should no longer exhibit a wide variety, but the sci-ence shops have to be recognisable as one form of institution with a clear common goal and common identity. This change in coalition is first of all a po-litical decision: do science shops support the step from grassroots orientation towards ‘established’ policy-making?

Secondly, it is a question of building up an inter-national science shop network, of marketing and lobbying. Since many small science shops do not have the resources to build up and maintain active co-operations on an international level, the funding of an international science shop office by, for in-stance, the EU would be a great support. This would allow the science shops to work in a network, but still remain active near the citizens.

A third possible direction would be the accom-modation of the trend towards profitable science. Science shops may consider diversifying their port-folio, serving small and medium enterprises as well as civil society organisations, and engaging in com-mercially profitable projects. Some science shops



are already successfully working with small enter-prises and entrepreneurs (for example, planning bu-reaus, research institutes and laboratories for environmental analysis). The chemistry shops at some universities have been successful in develop-ing commercial relationships by providing advice in environmental and toxicological issues. By selling career counselling and job-seeking help in the social and ecological field, the science shop in Bonn has developed a commercial pillar. However, science shops are aware of possible conflicts between social and ecological goals on the one hand and business interests on the other. In order not to compromise their original goals, the commercial activities need to be embedded in an overarching vision.

A fourth possible development would be the rec-ollection of their roots. Science shops would then get involved in new social movements and promote a citizens’ science through the pressure of wider pub-lic support. A promising starting point is recent social movements such as anti-globalisation.

If science shops manage to adapt to the changing environment, and if the knowledge society becomes the dominant paradigm for science policy, then without a doubt science shops will offer a promising model for moving participatory science from the level of discourse to the level of practice.

Notes

1. Compare with <www.wetenschapswinkel.be>, last accessed 10 May 2004.

2. See also <http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/science-society/ scientific-awareness/shops_en.html>, last accessed 10 May 2004.

3. Compare with <http://members.chello.at/wilawien/interacts/ main.html>, last accessed 10 May 2004.

References

Abels, G (2002), “Experts, citizens, Eurocrats — towards a policy shift in the governance of biopolitics in the EU”, European In-tegration online Papers (EIoP), 6(19), 3 December, available at <http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2002-019a.htm>, last accessed 10 May 2004.

Ballart, X, and J Subirats (1997), “Science and technology policy for a medium-sized industrial country: the case of Spain”, Sci-ence and Public Policy, 24(3), pages 197–205.

Bellavista, J, T Turpin, St Hill and Jesús M de Miguel (1998), “Cultura organizativa de investigadores y entorno político y social”, Papers: Revista de Sociología, 54, pages 79–109.

Blair, T (1998), The Third Way. New Politics for the New Century, Fabian Pamphlet 588 (Fabian Society, London).

Block-Künzler, G, and D Graf (1993), Wissenschaft von unten. Zwischenbilanz und Perspektiven der Wissenschaftsladen-Bewegung (Vas-Verlag fűr Akademische Schriften, Frankfurt am Main).

Bo Kaspersen, L, and L Ottesen (2001), “Associationalism for 150 years and still alive and kicking: some reflections on Danish Civil Society” Critical Review of International Social and Politi-cal Philosophy, 4(1), Special issue on associative democracy: the real third way, pages 105–130.

Buckingham, S (2000), Student Community Partnerships in Higher Education: Promoting Skills for Life and Work (Com-munity Service Volunteers; 21st Century Community Learning Centres, Department for Education and Skills, London).

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung und Bundesminis-terium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (2001), Wissen schafft Märkte. Aktionsprogramm der Bundesregierung, available at <ftp://www.bmbf.de/pub/aktionsprogramm_wsm.pdf>, last ac-cessed 10 May 2004.

Caliman, A F, and C Teodosiu (2002), “Country Report: Roma-nia”, in Fischer and Wallentin (2002), pages 72–83.

Clark, B R (1998), Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organi-zation Pathways of Transformation. Pergamon, Guildford UK).

Cooley, M (1980), Architect or Bee (Langley Technical Service, Slough).

CSDF, Civil Society Development Foundation (editor) (1997), Romanians’ Philanthropic and Associative Behavior, results of a national opinion survey conducted by the Centre for Urban and Regional Sociology on behalf of the Civil Society Devel-opment Foundation (CSDF, Bucharest).

Danish Parliament (2000), “Political agreement on principles for research in Denmark”, available at <http://www.fsk.dk>, last accessed 10 May 2004.

Dehler, J (1989), Wissenstransfer für die Gesellschaft. Hochschule und sozial-ökologische Praxis. Eine empirische Untersuchung (Deutscher Studien Verlag, Weinheim).

Encarnación, Omar G (2002), “Civil society and the consolidation of democracy in Spain”, Political Science Quarterly, 116(1), pages 53–79.

Eurobarometer (1999), <http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_ opinion/archives/eb/eb51/eb51_en.pdf>, last accessed 10 May 2004.

European Commission, Directorate General Joint Research Cen-tre (2000), “Conclusions”, Conference on Science and govern-ance in a knowledge society: the challenge for Europe, 16–17 October, Brussels, available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/ governance/areas/group2/contribution_en.pdf>, last accessed 10 May 2004.

European Commission (2001), “European governance. A White Paper”, COM (2001) 428 final, available at < http://europa. eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2001/com2001_0428en01.pdf>, last accessed 10 May 2004.

European Commission (2002), Science and Society Action Plan, available at <http://www.cordis.lu/science-society>, last ac-cessed 10 May 2004.

Farkas, N (1999), “Dutch science shops: matching community needs with university R&D”, Science Studies, 12(2), pages 33–47.

Farkas, N (2002), Bread, Cheese, and Expertise: Dutch science shops and democratic institutions, unpublished PhD Thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY.

Fischer, C, and A Wallentin (editors) (2002), INTERACTS: Im-proving interaction between NGOs, universities and Science Shops. Experiences and expectations. State-of-the-art Report (Wissenschaftsladen Wien, Wien) available at <http:// members.chello.at/wilawien/interacts/interacts-sar.pdf>, last accessed 10 May 2004.

Gnaiger, A, and E Martin (2001), Science Shops: Operational Options. Report No. 1 of the EU research project SCIPAS — Study and Conference on Improving Public Access to Science through Science Shops (Science Shop for biology, Utrecht university, Utrecht) available at <http://www.bio.uu.nl/living-knowledge/wp1-so.pdf>, last accessed 10 May 2004.

Gundelach, P (1991), “Research on social movements in Den-mark”, in: D Rucht (editor), Research on Social Movements. The state of the art in western Europe and the USA (Campus, Frankfurt am Main) pages 262–294.

Hall, D, and I Hall (2002), “Country report: United Kingdom”, in Fischer Wallentin (2002), pages 22–31.

Heitzmann, K, and R Simsa (2004), “From corporatist security to civil society creativity: the nonprofit sector in Austria”, in Zimmer and Priller (2004), pages 713–732.

Hellemans, A (2001), “After years of decline, non-profit consultan-cies — science shops — are starting to reinvent themselves”, Naturejobs, 5 July, available at <www.nature.com>, last ac-cessed 10 May 2004.

House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000), Third Report, available at <http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/38/3801. htm>, last accessed 10 May 2004.

INTERACTS (2003), The Final Report. Draft, December, <http://members.chello.at/wilawien/interacts/interacts_report_ draft1.pdf> and <http://members.chello.at/wilawien/interacts/ interacts_report_draft2.pdf>, last accessed 10 May 2004.

Ionescu-Sisesti, I (1994), “Restructuring the R&D system in



Romania”, Science and Public Policy, 21(1), pages 55–60. Irwin, A (1995), Citizen Science: a study of people, expertise and

sustainable development (Routledge, London and New York). Joss, S (1998), “Danish consensus conferences as a model of

participatory technology assessment”, Science and Public Pol-icy, 25(1), pages 2–22.

Joss, S, and J Durant (editors) (1995), Public Participation in Science: the role of consensus conferences in Europe (Sci-ence Museum, London).

Kendall, J (2001), “Dritter Sektor und Dritter Weg in Großbritan-nien”, in A Zimmer and E Priller (editors), Der Dritte Sektor international: Mehr Markt - weniger Staat? (Edition Sigma, Berlin) pages 121–156.

König, W (1992), “Das rumänische Bildungswesen nach der ‘Revolution’”, in Oskar Anweiler (editor), Systemwandel im Bildungs — und Erziehungswesen in Mittel — und Osteuropa (Arno Spitz, Berlin) pages 164–178.

Koopmans, R (1996), “New social movements and changes in political participation in western Europe”, West European Poli-tics, 19(1), pages 28–50.

Kousis, M (1999), “Sustaining local environmental mobilizations: groups, actions and claims in southern Europe”, Environ-mental Politics, 8(1), pages 172–198.

Latour, B (1987), Science in Action (Open University Press, Milton Keynes).

Leydesdorff, L, and H Etzkowitz (2003), “Can ‘the public’ be con-sidered as a fourth helix in university–industry–government relations? Report of the Fourth Triple Helix Conference, 2002”, Science and Public Policy, 30(1), pages 55–61.

Leydesdorff, L, P Ulenbelt and A Teulings (1984), “Trade union participation in university research policies”, International Journal of Institutional Management in Higher Education, 8, pages 135–146.

Leydesdorff, L, and P van den Besselaar (1987a), “What we have learned from the Amsterdam science shop”, in S Blume, J Bunders, L Leydesdorff, and R D Whitley (editors), The Social Direction of the Public Sciences. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, Vol. XI (Reidel, Dordrecht) pages 135–160.

Leydesdorff, L, and P van den Besselaar (1987b), “Squeezed be-tween capital and technology: on the participation of labour in the

knowledge society”, Acta Sociologica, 30, pages 339–353. Liberatore, A (editor) (2001), “Report of the Working Group ‘De-

mocratising Expertise and Establishing Scientific Reference Systems’”, European Commission, Brussels (Pilot: R Gerold), available at <http://europa.eu.int/comm/governance/areas/ group2/report_en.pdf>, last accessed 10 May 2004.

LO, Landsorganisationen i Sverige (1982), Forskning for arbete och demokrati (Tidens Förlag, Stockholm).

Mikkelsen, Fleming (1999), “Contention and social movements in

an international and transnational perspective: Denmark 1914–1995”, Journal of Historical Sociology, 12(2), pages 128–157.

Mulder, H A J (2000), Final Evaluation Report, Science Shops in Romanian Moldavia, Matra Project RO/97/04, 1-9-1998–31-12-2000 (University of Groningen).

Mulder, H A J, T Auf der Heyde, R Goffer and C Teodosiu (2001), Scipas Report No.2. Success and failure in starting Science Shops (Utrecht: Science Shop for Biology, Utrecht University) available at <http://www.scienceshops.org/wp2-so.pdf>, last accessed 10 May 2004.

Neculau, A (1997), “Universitatea — Valorile si actorii sai (Univer-sity — its value and actors)”, in A Neculau (editor), Campul Universitar si Actorii sai (University Field and its Actors) (Polirom Editing House, Iasi, edited with Soros Foundation for Open Society Support) pages 39–54.

Nowotny, H, P Scott and M Gibbons (2001), Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty (Polity Press, Cambridge).

Otero Hidalgo, C (1997), Science and Technology in Southern Europe. Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Italy (Cartermill, Lon-don).

Putnam, R D (2000), Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community (Simon and Schuster, New York).

Ree, K (1996), “Science shops in the Netherlands, success or survival?”, paper presented at the Seminar Democracy and Knowledge, Copenhagen, 7–9 November, available at <http://www.fwn.rug.nl/chemshop/kopen.html>, last accessed 10 May 2004.

Romanian Ministry for Education (2000), Invatamantul superior intr-o societate a invatarii (Higher Education in a Teaching Society), 1998—2000. Phare program for reform in higher education (Tipografia Multiprint, Iasi).

Saulean, D, D Stancu, C Epure, S Constantinescu, S Luca, A Baboi Stroe, O Tiganescu, B Berianu, S Toepler and L M Salamon (1999), “Romania”, in L M Salamon, H K Anheier, R List, S Toepler, S Wojciech Sokolowski, and Associates, Global Civil Society. Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector (The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies, Baltimore MD) pages 337–354, available at <www.jhu.edu/~ccss/pubs/books/ gcs/pdf/romania.pdf>, last accessed 10 May 2004.

Sclove, R E (1995), Democracy and Technology (The Guildford Press, New York and London).

Sclove, R E (1996), “Town meeting technology: the ‘consensus conference’, a recent Danish innovation, gives ordinary citi-zens a real chance to make their voices heard in debates on technology policy”, Technology Review, 99, pages 24–31.

Shinn, T (2002), “The triple helix and new production of knowl-edge : prepackaged thinking on science and technology”, Social Studies of Science, 32(4), pages 599–614.

Steinhaus, N (1991), “Alternative Wissenschaftseinrichtungen — Aufbau und Organisation am Beispiel der Wissenschaft-släden”, in Evangelische Akademie Iserlohn (editor), Tagung-sprotokoll 51/1991. Die Bedeutung alternativer Wissenschaftseinrichtungen — Wissenschaftsläden in Europa (Iserlohn, ??place of publication??) pages 7–18.

Steinhaus, N (1999), “Dialog jenseits von Expertensprachen. Das Konzept der Wissenschaftsläden”, WechselWirkung, 99, avail-able at <http://www.pbosetti.de/ww-print-2/beitraege/s-1/ Steinhaus_99.htm>, last accessed 10 May 2004.

Teodosiu, C, and A F Caliman (2002), “Science shop con-tributions to environmental curriculum development”, Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 1(2), pages 271–282.

Torpe, L (2003), “Social capital in Denmark: a deviant case?”, Scandinavian Political Studies, 26(1), pages 27–48.

Wachelder, J (2003), “Democratizing science: various routes and visions of Dutch science shops”, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 28(2), pages 244–273.

Wynne, B (1995), “Public understanding of science”, in S Jasan-off, G E Markle, J C Petersen and T Pinch (editors), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Sage, London) pages 361–388.

Zaal, R, and L Leydesdorff (1987), “Scientific mediation. Amster-dam science-shops and its influence on university research: the effects of ten years of dealing with non-academic questions”, Science and Public Policy, 14(6), pages 310–316.

Zimmer, Annette, and Eckhard Priller (editors, with the assistance of Matthias Freise) (2004), Future of Civil Society: Making Central-European Nonprofit-Organizations work (Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Opladen).

Zimmer, A, J Gärtner, E Priller, P Rawert, Ch Sachße, R G Strachwitz and R Walz (2004), “The legacy of subsidiarity: the nonprofit sector in Germany”, in Zimmer and Priller (2004), pages 681–712.

Documents

Science shops in Europe: the public as stakeholder