Revision as of 14:24, 8 April 2019

Resumen

Se analiza cómo la ciencia excelente usa las aplicaciones web 2.0 para fomentar la participación del público en el proceso de investigación. Se entiende participación desde la perspectiva de la investigación e innovación responsables, no sólo como la comunicación de los resultados científicos, sino también como la implicación de la sociedad en el desarrollo científico. Para el análisis se ha diseñado y validado una encuesta ad hoc mediante el método Delphi. La muestra de estudio está constituida por los proyectos españoles financiados por el European Research Council en 2015. Entre los resultados obtenidos destaca el reducido uso de las herramientas digitales. De hecho, sólo el 23,9% de los proyectos tiene web y menos de un 15% perfiles sociales. En cuanto a los mecanismos de participación, un limitado 3% utiliza la web 2.0 para implicar a los ciudadanos. Sobre las características de la comunicación se puede concluir que es unidireccional desde la institución-responsable del proyecto hacia la sociedad –97% de los casos– y presenta un alto nivel de especialización –en más del 80% de los casos se utiliza un lenguaje técnico y los mensajes publicados están dirigidos a expertos–.

Texto completo

Referencias

Acord, Sophia-Krzys; Harley, Diane (2013). “Credit, time and personality: The human challenges to sharing scholarly”. New media & society, v. 15, n. 3, pp. 379-397. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812465140

Bauer, Martin W.; Jensen, Pablo (2011). “The mobilization of scientists for public engagement”. Public understanding of science, v. 20, n. 1, pp. 3-11 https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510394457

Betsch, Cornelia; Renkewitz, Frank; Betsch, Tilmann; Ulshöfer, Corina (2010). “The influence of vaccine-critical websites on perceiving vaccination risks”. Journal of health psicology, n. 15, v. 3, pp. 446-455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105309353647

Blair, Shirley; Uhl, Norman P. (1993). “Using the Delphi method to improve the curriculum”. The Canadian journal of higher education, v. 23, n. 3, pp. 107-128. http://journals.sfu.ca/cjhe/index.php/cjhe/article/view/183175

Bonney, Rick; Ballard, Heidi; Jordan, Rebecca; McCallie, Ellen; Phillips, Tina; Shirk, Jennifer; Wilderman, Candie C. (2009). Public participation in scientific research: Defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. A Caise Inquiry Group Report. Washington, D.C., EUA: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (Caise). http://www.birds.cornell.edu/citscitoolkit/publications/CAISE-PPSR-report-2009.pdf

Brossard, Dominique; Scheufele, Dietram (2013). “Science, new media, and the public”. Science, v. 339, n. 6115, pp. 40-41. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1232329

Brown, David J. (2016). Access to scientific research. Challenges facing communications in STM. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ISBN: 978 3 110376 16 9 https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23764

Castells, Manuel (2001). La galaxia de internet. Barcelona: Areté. ISBN: 978 8 401386 06 0

Castells, Manuel (2011). Comunicación y poder. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. ISBN: 978 84 20684 99 4

Clayton, Mark (1997). “Delphi: a technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision-making tasks in education”. Educational psychology, n. 17, v. 4, pp. 373-386. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341970170401

Coleman, Stephen (2001). “The transformation of citizenship?” In: Axford, Barrie; Huggins, Richard (eds.). New media and politics. London: SAGE, pp. 109-126. ISBN: 978 0 761962007 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446218846.n5

Comisión Europea (2014). Responsible research and innovation — Europe’s ability to respond to societal challenges. https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_rri/KI0214595ENC.pdf

Comisión Europea (2015). Indicators for promoting and monitoring responsible research and innovation. http://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_rri/rri_indicators_final_version.pdf

Comisión Europea (2018). Monitoring the evolution and benefits of responsible research and innovation. https://www.rri-tools.eu/-/morri-monitoring-the-evolution-and-benefits-of-responsible-research-and-innovation

Flores-Vivar, Jesús-Miguel (2009). “Nuevos modelos de comunicación, perfiles y tendencias en las redes sociales”. Comunicar, v. 17, n. 33, pp. 73-81. https://doi.org/10.3916/c33-2009-02-007

Grand, Ann; Holliman, Richard; Collins, Trevor; Adams, Anne (2016). “‘We muddle our way through’: Shared and distributed expertise in digital engagement with research”. JCOM, v. 15, n. 4, A05. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15040205

Ke, Quing; Ahn, Yong-Yeol; Sugimoto, Cassidy R. (2017). “A systematic identification and analysis of scientists on Twitter”. PLoS one, v. 12, n. 4. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175368

Könneker, Carsten; Lugger, Beatrice (2013). “Public science 2.0 - back to the future”. Science, v. 342, n. 6154, pp. 49-50. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1245848

López-Goñi, Ignacio; Sánchez-Angulo, Manuel (2018). “Social networks as a tool for science communication and public engagement: focus on Twitter”. FEMS Microbiology letters, v. 365, n. 2. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnx246

López-Pérez, Lourdes; Olvera-Lobo, María-Dolores (2018a). “Public engagement in science via web 2.0 technologies. Evaluation criteria validated using the Delphi method”. JCOM, v. 17, n. 2. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.17020208

López-Pérez, Lourdes; Olvera-Lobo, María-Dolores (2018b). “Criterios para la evaluación de la implicación del público en la ciencia a través de la web 2.0”. En: Romero-Frías, Esteban; Bocanegra-Barbecho, Lidia (eds.). Ciencias sociales y humanidades digitales aplicadas. Casos de estudio y perspectivas críticas. Granada: Universidad de Granada; Downhill Publishing (NY), 2018. ISBN: 978 84 338 6318 8 http://digibug.ugr.es/handle/10481/54383

Marschalek, Ilse (2017). Public engagement in responsible research and innovation. A critical reflection from the practitioner’s point of view. Wien: University of Wien. https://www.zsi.at/object/publication/4498/attach/Marschalek_Public_Engagement_in_RRI.pdf

Meijer, Ingeborg; Mejlgaard, Niels; Woolley, Richard; Rafols, Ismael; Wroblewski, Angela (2016). “Monitoring the evolution and benefits of responsible research and innovation (MoRRI) – a preliminary framework for RRI dimensions &ndicators”. In: 21st Intl conf on science and technology indicators: Peripheries, frontiers and beyond. http://hdl.handle.net/10261/161892

Middaugh, Ellen; Kahne, Joseph (2013). “Nuevos medios como herramienta para el aprendizaje cívico”. Comunicar, v. 20, n. 40, pp. 99-108. https://doi.org/10.3916/c40-2013-02-10

Murry, John W.; Hammons, James O. (1995). “Delphi: A versatile methodology for conducting qualitative research”. The review of higher education, v. 18, n. 4, pp. 423-436. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1995.0008

Neresini, Federico; Bucchi, Massimiano (2011). “Which indicators for the new public engagement activities? An exploratory study of European research institutions”. Public understanding of science, v. 20, n. 1, pp 64-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510388363

Osborne, Jonathan; Collins, Sue; Ratcliffe, Mary; Milar, Robin; Duschl, Rick (2003). “What ‘ideas-about-science’ should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community”. Journal of research in science teaching, v. 40, n. 7, pp. 692-720. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10105

Ouariachi, Tania; Olvera-Lobo, María-Dolores; Gutiérrez-Pérez, José (2017). “Analyzing climate change communication through online games”. Science communication, v. 39, n. 1, pp. 10-44 https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016687998

Pacios, Ana-Reyes; Vianello-Osti, Marina; Rodríguez-Bravo, Blanca (2016). “Transparencia y acceso a la información sobre proyectos de investigación en las universidades públicas españolas”. El profesional de la información, v. 25, n. 5, pp. 721-729. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2016.sep.02

Papacharisi, Zizi (2002). “The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere”. New media & society, n. 4, v. 1, pp. 9-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614440222226244

Ravn, Tine; Mejlgaard, Niels (eds.) (2014). Public engagement innovation for Horizon 2020. Catalogue of PE initiatives. University of Helsinky; University of Aarhus; Vilnius University International Business School; Laboratorio di Scienze della Cittadinanza. http://www.vm.vu.lt/uploads/pdf/Public_Engagement_Innovations_H2020-2.pdf

Rowe, Gene; Frewer, Lynn J. (2005). “A typology of public engagement mechanisms”. Science, technology & human values, v. 30, n. 2, pp. 251-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724

Scapolo, Fabiana; Miles, Ian (2006). “Eliciting experts’ knowledge: A comparison of two methods”. Technological forecasting and social change, n. 73, v. 6 pp. 679-704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.001

Seakins, Amy; Dillon, Justin (2013). “Exploring research themes in public engagement within a Natural History Museum: A modified Delphi approach”. International journal of science education, v. 3, n. 1, pp. 52-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2012.753168

Shuai, Xin; Pepe, Alberto; Bolen, Johan (2012). “How the scientific community reacts to newly submitted preprints: Article downloads, Twitter mentions, and citation”. PLoS one, v. 7, n. 11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047523

Smith, Kathleen S.; Simpson, Ronald D. (1995). “Validating teaching competencies for faculty members in higher education: A national study using the Delphi method”. Innovative higher education, v. 19, n. 3, pp. 223-234. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01191221

Weigold, Michael F.; Treise, Debbie (2004). “Attracting teen surfers to science web sites”. Public understanding of science, v. 13, n. 3, pp. 229-248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662504045504

Weitze, Marc-Denis (2017). Social media and digital science communication. Analysis and recommendations for dealing with risks and opportunities in a democracy. Berlin: National Academy of Science and Engineering, German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina and Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities. ISBN: 978 3 804736320 https://www.acatech.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/WOM2_EN_web_final.pdf

Wolf, Julie M. (2017). “The multipurpose tool of social media applications for scientists, science communicators and educators”. Clinical microbiology newsletter, v. 39, n. 10, pp. 75-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinmicnews.2017.04.003