La Participación de los públicos, inclusión social, innovación y Gobernanza de los Centros de Ciencia en Colombia
Participation of the public, social inclusion and innovation in the Governance of Science Centers in Colombia
Participação cidadã, inclusão social e inovação na governança dos centros de ciência na Colômbia
Resumen (es)
El objetivo de este artículo es evaluar las prácticas tácitas y explícitas
relacionadas con la gobernanza de los Centros de Ciencia de Colombia
(ccc) desde la participación de los públicos, la inclusión social, y la
innovación, con el fin de proponer mecanismos y estrategias que
fortalezcan las capacidades de los diferentes actores, para tener una
ciudadanía cada vez más participativa, científica y democrática. Para
la identificación de la muestra teórica nos basamos en los aportes de
Strauss y Corbin (1998). En una muestra teórica, los casos se eligen
para rellenar categorías teóricas y para proporcionar ejemplos de
situaciones extremas y tipos polares (Eisenhardt, 1989). Se llevaron
a cabo entrevistas presenciales hechas en profundidad mediante un
cuestionario de preguntas específicas seleccionadas en función de
las variables. Los datos fueron analizados con técnicas destinadas al desarrollo de la teoría basada en los aportes de (Strauss y Corbin,
1998), conceptualizando y reduciendo los resultados de las entrevistas
en categorías comunes, y encontrando relaciones a través de ellas.
Los resultados de este estudio están en concordancia con Bandelli et
al. (2009), Freeman (2010) y Quick y Bryson (2016), cuando afirman
que la participación implica la contribución directa o indirecta hecha
por personas o grupos con capacidad para influir en el desarrollo de
proyectos y programas. Concluimos que los ciudadanos no participan
de la toma de decisiones con respecto a la gestión, y ello es debido
fundamentalmente a que las estructuras internas concebidas son
rígidas y están administradas por los miembros de la junta y los
directivos. El artículo es original producto de la investigación.
Resumen (en)
This paper aims to evaluate both tacit and explicit practices related to the governance of the Science Centers in Colombia (ccc) based on public participation, social inclusion, and innovation, in order to propose mechanisms and strategies that strengthen the capacities of different actors, in order to have more participatory, scientific and
democratic citizens. To identify the theoretical sample of the CCCs, we rely on the contributions of Strauss and Corbin (1998). In a theoretical
sample, cases are chosen to fill in theoretical categories and to provide examples of extreme situations and polar types (Eisenhardt, 1989). Face-to-face interviews were conducted in depth through a questionnaire of specific questions selected according to the variables.
The data were analyzed with techniques aimed at the development of theory based on the contributions of Strauss and Corbin (1998),
conceptualizing and reducing the results of the interviews in common categories, and finding relationships through them. The results of this
study agree with Bandelli et al. (2009), Freeman (2010) and Quick and Bryson (2016), when they affirm that participation implies the
direct or indirect contribution made by individuals or groups with the capacity to influence the development of projects and programs.
We conclude that citizens do not participate in decision-making with regard to management, and this happens mainly because rigid internal
structures that are managed by board members and managers. The article is original product of the research.
Resumen (pt)
O objetivo deste artigo é avaliar as práticas tácitas e explícitas relacionadas à governança dos Centros de Ciência da Colômbia (ccc) a partir da participação do público, inclusão social e inovação, a fim de propor mecanismos e estratégias que fortaleçam as capacidades dos
diferentes atores, tenham uma cidadania cada vez mais participativa, científica e democrática. Para a identificação da amostra teórica dos CCCs contamos com as contribuições de Strauss e Corbin (1998). Em uma amostra teórica, os casos são escolhidos para preencher categorias teóricas e fornecer exemplos de situações extremas e tipos polares (Eisenhardt, 1989). As entrevistas presenciais foram realizadas em profundidade por meio de questionário de perguntas específicas
selecionadas de acordo com as variáveis. Os dados foram analisados com técnicas voltadas para o desenvolvimento da teoria a partir das
contribuições de (Strauss e Corbin, 1998), conceituando e reduzindo os resultados das entrevistas em categorias comuns, e encontrando
relações por meio delas. Os resultados deste estudo estão de acordo com Bandelli et al. (2009), Freeman (2010) e Quick e Bryson (2016),
quando afirmam que a participação implica a contribuição direta ou indireta feita por indivíduos ou grupos com capacidade de influenciar
o desenvolvimento de projetos e programas. Concluímos que os cidadãos não participam da toma de decisão em relação à gestão, e
isso acontece principalmente porque as estruturas internas projetadas são rígidas e gerenciadas por conselheiros e administradores. O artigo é produto original da pesquisa.
Referencias
Association of Science-Technology Centers. (2008). Association of Science-Technology Centers web site. Retrieved April 10, 2008, from http://www.astc.org/resource/access/index.htm.
Bandelli, A. (2014). Assessing scientific citizenship through science centre visitor studies. Journal of Science Communication.
Bandelli, Konijn y Willems. (2009). The need for public participation in the governance of science centers, Museum Management and Curatorship, 24:2, pp.89-104.
Barnes, C. (2003). What a difference a decade makes: Reflections on doing ”emancipatory“ disability research. Disability and Society, 18(1), 3-18.
Bauer M. (2009). The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science--Discourse and Comparative Evidence. Science Technology Society, pp.14: 221
Bevir, M. (2013). Governance: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bryson, John M., Kathryn S. Quick, Carissa Schively Slotterback and Barbara C. (2013). Designing public participation processes“, Public Administration Review, 73 (1),23–34.
CEPAL. (2014). Inclusión social activa: mejoramiento de las estrategias para superar las condiciones de pobreza. Seminario bi-regional América Latina – Europa:Nápoles, (Italia)
Combe McLean, F. (1994). Marketing in museums: a contextual analysis. In Museum management, ed. K. Moore, 232-48. London: Routledge.
Comisión Europea. (2009). Comunicación de la comisión al parlamento europeo, al consejo, al comité económico y social europeo y al comité de las regiones.Incorporación del desarrollo sostenible en las políticas de la UE: Informe de 2009 sobre la estrategia de la Unión Europea para el desarrollo sostenible. Bruselas.
Davies, A y Simon, J. (2012). The value and role of citizen engagement in social innovation“. A deliverable of the project: “The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe” (TEPSIE), European Commission – 7th Framework Programme, Brussels: European Commission, DG Research
Einsiedel, A.A., and Einsiedel, F. (2004). Museums as agora: Diversifying approaches to engaging publics in research. In Creating connections: Museums and the public understanding of current research, ed. D. Chittenden, G. Farmelo, and B.V. Lewenstein, 73-86. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
European Commission. (2013). Social innovation research in Europe: Approaches, trends and future directions. Brussels: Directorate-General for Research.
Freeman, R. (2010). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance, Public Administration Review, 66 (S1), 66–75.
Geoghegan, H., Dyke, A., Pateman, R., West, S. and Everett, G. (2016). Understanding motivations for citizen science. Available at: http://www.ukeof.org.uk/resources/citizen-science-resources
Gregory, J., and S. M. (1998). Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility. London: Plenum Press.
Grönlund, K., Bächtiger, A., and Setälä, M. (2014). Deliberative mini publics: involving citizens in the democratic process. Cholchester: ECPR Press.
Hecker, S., Haklay, M., Bowser, A., Makuch, Z., Vogel, J. and Bonn, A. (2018), (eds.). In press. Citizen Science – Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy. London: UCL Press
Hinchliffe, S., Levidow, L. and Oreszczyn, S. (2014). Engaging cooperative research. Environment and Planning A, 46(9): 2080–2094.
House of Lords. (2000). Science and society - Science and technology - Third report. London: The Stationery Office.
Innes, Judith E., and David E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century“, Planning Theory and Practice, 5 (4), 419–436.
Kevin C. (2008). Cultural inclusion, exclusion and the formative roles of museums. Museum Management and Curatorship, 23:3, 261-279.
Lévy-Leblond, J.M. (1992). About misunderstandings about misunderstandings. Public Understanding of Science, 1(1), 17-21. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/1/1/004.
Mansbridge, J. (1999). On the idea that participation makes better citizens“, in Stephen L. Elkin and Karol Edward Soltan (eds), Citizen Competence and Democratic Institutions, University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, pp.291–325.
McLean, K., and W. Pollock, eds. (2007). Visitor voices in museum exhibitions. Washington, DC: Association of Science and Technology Centers.
Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science 10: 115-20.
Nabatchi, T. (2010). Addressing the citizenship and democratic deficits: The potential of deliberative democracy for public administration“, American Review of Public Administration, 40 (4), 376–399.
Nyseth, T., Ringholm, T., y Agger, A. (2019). Innovative Forms of Citizen Participation at the Fringe of the Formal Planning System. Urban Planning, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 7–18.
Owen, R., Macnaghten, P. y Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760. doi:10.1093/ scipol/scs093
Quick and Bryson. (2016). Theories of public participation in governance. edited by Jacob Torbing andChris Ansell, Edward Elgar Press.
Rask, M. (2013). The tragedy of citizen deliberation – two cases of participatory technology assessment. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 25(1), pp. 39-55.
Rask et al. (2018). Public Participation, Science and Society: Tools for Dynamic and Responsible Governance of Research and Innovation. Routledge, London and New York.
Regeer, B. (2004). Wetenschapscommunicatie in de agora: Veranderende relaties tussen wetenschap en samenleving [Science communication in the agora: Changing relationships between science and society]. In Interactieve wetenschapscommunicatie, ed. C.J. Hamelink, I. van Veen and J. Willems, 11937. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Coutinho. Reich, Robert B. (ed.) (1990). The Power of Public Ideas, Boston, MA: Harvard University Press
Roberts, N. (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation“, American Review of Public Administration, 34 (4), 315–353.
Sandell, R. (2003). Social, inclusion, the museum and the dynamics of sectoral change. Museum & Society 1: 4562 Turnhout, E., S. Van Bommel, and N. A. (2010). How participation creates citizens: participatory governance as performative practice. Ecology and Society 15(4): 26
Von H. (1994). Sticky Information and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation“ MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper, Published in Management Science 40, no.4, pp. 429-439.
World B. (2013). Inclusion Matters: The Foundation for Shared Prosperity-Overview. Washington, DC: World Bank. Licencia: Creative Commons CC BY 3.0.
Zhao et al. (2015). Public Engagement in the Governance of Science and Technology, Chapter 4, Chinese Academy of Science and Technology for Development (CASTED), Beijing.
Cómo citar
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2023 Revista Interamericana de Investigación Educación y Pedagogía RIIEP
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
Los autores mantienen los derechos sobre los artículos y por tanto son libres de compartir, copiar, distribuir, ejecutar y comunicar públicamente la obra bajo las condiciones siguientes:
Reconocer los créditos de la obra de la manera especificada por el autor o el licenciante (pero no de una manera que sugiera que tiene su apoyo o que apoyan el uso que hace de su obra).
RIIEP está bajo una licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
La Universidad Santo Tomás conserva los derechos patrimoniales de las obras publicadas, y favorece y permite la reutilización de las mismas bajo la licencia anteriormente mencionada.
