From Closed Models of Authoritive Governance to Open Systems of Collaborative Engagement

From Closed Models of Authoritive Governance to Open Systems of Collaborative Engagement: Progressing Science Policy

Patricia McHugh

PhD Candidate

CISC and Marketing Discipline,

J.E. Cairnes School of Business and Economics,

National University of Ireland, Galway.

IRELAND

Email:

Dr. Christine Domegan

Senior Lecturer

CISC and Marketing Discipline,

J.E. Cairnes School of Business and Economics,

National University of Ireland, Galway.

IRELAND

Email:

Conference Theme:Policy Environment

Method: Theoretical Work

Introduction

Science surrounds our daily lives and is an integral component to the development of sustainable communities and societies. Science also contributes to the competitiveness and advancement of economies and nations through their governing policies. Historical approaches to science policy formulation have been indoctrinated by an authoritarian process of oversimplification(Bradshaw and Borchers, 2000). Consequently, global science and policy co-ordination processes have become afflicted by the dominance of a closed model of autocratic governance(Swyngedouw, 2000;McGuire and Olson, 1996). As identified by Jones (2010) the process of science is now changing; and governments have a responsibility to move beyond top-down approachesto science policy formulation (Lefebvre, 2009), to the lateral integration of top-down and bottom-up structures in an open model of collaborative empowerment. This paper will outline the redundancyof the closed governance structure of science ‘and’ society andwill embrace the extending role of social marketing in policy co-ordination, as Felt and Fochler (2008:489) believe that “engaging the public in the governance of science has become a kind of gold standard”.The paper also delineates how social marketing can embrace a collaborative structure for science ‘in’ society through the collective empowerment of up, mid and downstream stakeholders in open policy co-ordination processes.

AClosed Policy Structure ofScience ‘and’ Society

The current policy interfaces between science ‘and’ society embrace the classic rhetoric of a linear or vertical model of top-down didactic decision making (See Figure 1). The ability of science and innovation systems to deliver requires a paradigm shift from the traditional system of authoritive governance to an open policy networked system of collaborative empowerment (Lyall, 2007). Societies need to “move away from the somewhat fragmented introspective and reactive preoccupations of science ‘and’ society to a more integrated, open and proactive understanding of the inescapable place of science ‘in’ society” (Stirling, 2006:9). Complex social problems such as the disconnect between science and society requires holistic rather than linear thinking (APSC, 2007). Policy makers and scientific experts need to migrate from single-centred autocratic systems to polycentric value systems (Juttner and Wehrli, 1994).

Social Marketing

Social marketing has proven a successful instrument in engaging citizens for the greater good of the individual and society in areas such as obesity, drink driving, smoking cessation and global warming. Likewise, it can prove instrumental in guiding and progressing science policy. In social marketing, the employment of collaborative value networkscan reduce the dominance of the top-down structure in science and society throughinter-system co-operation and engagement (Lusch, Vargo and Tanniru, 2010). Value network structures require action, such as communication and knowledge transfer, at every level, from international to national and local, as well as action by the private and community sectors, in addition to the involvement of individuals themselves (Darnton, 2008; APSC, 2007). Collaborative value networks also go beyond utilitarian forms of citizen engagement, involvement and consultation to the adoption of symbiotic, equal partnerships (Boyle and Harris, 2009). Collaborative partnerships, value networks and this social marketing ‘network of networks’ and ‘community of practices’ approach moves away from the centralised top-down authoritarian structure and pays much more attention to reciprocal dialogue (Inzelt, 2008). The collaborative co-configuration of inter-system, inter-institutional and inter-organisational relationships changes the roles of resource integrators from being isolated, passive and unaware to strategically connected, active and informed, promoting an all inclusive approach to effective policy formulation (APSC, 2007; Prahalad and Venkat, 2004).

The Proposed Open PolicyStructure for Science ‘in’ Society

Social marketing encourages stakeholders at individual, community and population levels to become effective agents of change in co-sensing, co-producing and co-creating meaningful solutions to the escalating divide between science ‘and’ society (See Figure 2). The formulation of scientific policy can no longer rely on myopic solutions from linear decision making processes. The traditional structure of top-down policy co-ordination needs to be replaced with a lateral model of cross functional integration and collaboration (European Commission, 2009; Esper et al., 2010). Collaboration integrates up, mid and downstream stakeholders in a process of knowledge generation, sharing, transfer and collective learning (Cotic-Svetina, Jaklic and Prodan, 2008). The transference of knowledge in a total market system embraces trust and openness. Openness allows the participants to contribute to, and become, resource integrators of the interactive value process (Chesbrough and Appleyard, 2007). The co-creation of scientific policy revolves around a process of co-integration, where knowledge transfer depends on exchange and dialogical interaction (Ballantyne, 2004). Reciprocal and asymmetrical dialogue processes are crucial to the embeddedness of science ‘in’ society, as stakeholders focus on equal collaboration instead of hierarchical ownership. The removal of hierarchical boundaries from an integrative social marketing perspective allows the co-creation of social value to emanate from the empowerment of mutual interests, rather than focusing on individual silos of knowledge, resulting in a win-win situation for both science policy and for society. Finland has become a co-creationalambassador amongst OECD countries as it currently ranks at number one in science performance (OECD, 2010). Finland upholds the values of an open collaborative structure as itsscientific processes actively integrate vertical and horizontal policy co-ordination strategies (Pelkonen, Teravainen and Waltari, 2008). Finland, as opposed to the majority of European countries such as France, Ireland and Greece, have decentralised their science system, focusing “on the interplay between national and local efforts and policies to strengthen innovation capacity” (Sotarauta and Kautonen, 2007:1086).

Long lasting and effective behavioural, societal and political change predicates that resource integrators become co-producers and co-designers of policy(Guston, 2001). Social marketing accentuates the relational dimensions of co-intelligence, co-listening, co-interacting, and co-learning. The reciprocal nature of social marketing facilitates a synergistic approach to scientific policy co-ordination, creating a society that is confident in the use of, excited by, and values science. The co-integration of multiple stakeholders from up, mid and downstream levels in an open policy structure empowers substantive commitment and involvement from participants, ensuring the effective implementation of the collaborative vision for science ‘in’ society.

Conclusion

This paper has illustrated through a collaborative social marketing perspective, how science policy co-ordination processes need to transcend the boundaries of an authoritarian top-down structure, to the implementation of a total market approach of inter-institutional and inter-system collaboration. The paper also illustrates how science policy structures requireopen systems of active and empowered partnerships, alongside social marketing network formations at every level; from national to individual, to ensure consensus rather than dissensus for policy development and social change. Furthermore, open and collaborative policy structures manage the complexity of oversimplifying political and social issues, as they increase the public awareness of, support for, and engagement with science, thus, illustrating their appropriateness as the recommended way forward to ensure continued success in scientific research, development and policy formulation.

Figure 1Closed Policy Structure of Science ‘and’ Society

Adapted from Lusch and Vargo (2009)

Figure 2Open Policy Structure for Science ‘in’Society

Adapted from Lusch and Vargo (2009)

References:

Australian Public Service Commission (2007) Tackling Wicked Problems - A Public Policy Perspective. Contemporary Government Challenges, Commonwealth of Australia.

Ballantyne, D. (2004) Dialogue and its role in the development of relationship specific knowledge. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 19 (2), pp. 114 – 123.

Boyle, D., and Harris, M. (2009). The Challenges of Co-Production - How Equal Partnerships between Professionals and the Public are Crucial to Improving Public Services.NESTA Discussion Paper, London, UK.

Bradshaw, G.A. and Borchers, J.G. (2000) Uncertainty as information: narrowing the science-policy gap. Ecology and Society, 4 (1), pp. 7– 17.

Chesbrough, H.W. and Appleyard, M.M. (2007) Open innovation and strategy. California Management Review, 50 (1), pp. 57 – 76.

Cotic-Svetina, A., Jaklic, M. and Prodan, I, (2008) Does collective learning in clusters contribute to innovation. Science and Public Policy, 35 (5), pp. 335 – 345.

Darnton, A. (2008) GSR Behaviour Change Knowledge Review: Overview of Behaviour Change Models and their Uses - Briefing Note for Policy Makers. Available at: [Accessed 29/09/2009].

Esper, T.L., Ellinger, A.E., Stank, T.P., Flint, D.J. and Moon, M. (2010) Demand and supply integration: a conceptual framework of value creation through knowledge management. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38, pp. 5 – 18.

European Commission (2009) Challenging Futures of Science in Society: Emerging Trends and Cutting-Edge Issues – The Masis Report. European Directorate General for Research.

Felt, U. and Fochler, M. (2008) The bottom-up meanings of the concept of public participation in science and technology. Science and Public Policy, 35 (7), pp. 489 – 499.

Guston, D.H. (2001)Boundary organisations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Science, Technology and Human Values, 26 (4), pp. 399 – 408.

Inzelt, A. (2008) Private sector involvement in science and innovation policy-making in Hungary. Science and Public Policy, 35 (2), pp. 81 – 94.

Jones, B.F. (2010) As science evolves, how can science policy? Innovation Policy and the Economy, 11, 1–31.

Juttner, U. and Wehrli, H.P. (1994) Relationship marketing from a value system perspective. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5(5), pp. 54 – 73.

McGuire, M.C. and Olson, M. (1996) the economics of autocracy and majority rule; the invisible hand and the use of force. Journal of Economic Literature, 34 (1), pp. 72 – 96.

Lefebvre, C. (2009) ‘Educate to Innovate: Another Top-Down Approach to STEM Education’ Social Marketing Blog, weblog post, November 2009. Available at: [Accessed 02/12/2009].

Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (2009) Service-dominant logic – a guiding framework for inbound marketing. Marketing Review St. Gallen, 26 (6), pp. 6 – 10.

Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L. and Tanniru, M. (2010) Service, value networks and learning. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38 (1), pp. 19 – 31.

Lyall, C. (2007) Changing boundaries: the role of policy networks in the multi-level governance of science and innovation in Scotland. Science and Public Policy, 34 (1), pp. 3 – 14.

OECD (2010) PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do – Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science. Retrieved February 07, 2010 from

Pelkonen, A., Teravainen, T. and Waltari, S.T. (2008) Assessing policy coordination capacity: higher education, science, and technology policies in Finland. Science and Public Policy, 35 (4), pp. 241 – 252.

Prahalad, C.K. and Venkat, R. (2004) Co-creating unique value with customers. Strategy and Leadership, 32 (3), pp. 4 - 9.

Sotarauta, M. and Kautonen, M. (2007) Co-evolution of the Finnish national and local innovation and science arenas: towards a dynamic understanding of multi-level governance. Regional Studies, 41 (8), pp. 1085 – 1098.

Stirling, A. (2006) From Science and Society to Science in Society: Towards a Framework for Co-Operative Research. Directorate General Research and Technology Development, European Commission Workshop - Brussels, November 24- 25, 2005.

Swyngedouw, E. 2000) Authoritarian governance, power, and the politics of rescaling. Environment and Planning, 18, pp. 63 – 76.