Month: January 2025

POIESIS partners have conducted 7 Roundtable Workshops over the Autumn (one in each country) involving more than 84 institutional stakeholders across the 7 consortium countries (Denmark, Germany, United Kingdom, Portugal, Spain, France and Greece), some of them already involved in previous phases of the project, most notably on the Focus Groups study.

 The roundtables were designed to bring together institutional stakeholders in order 1) to assess the relevance and feasibility of the priorities identified in the focus group study (see D.3.2: Focus Groups – Findings. Exploring Institutional Roles in Fostering Public Trust in Science), 2) to explore the potential for translating these overarching priorities into concrete policy recommendations, while anticipating and addressing potential challenges to their implementation; and 3) to discuss the organizational tensions or forms of ambivalence inherent to scientific organizations.

Each roundtable highlighted the main priorities of the participants and the challenges they face. Beyond individual national examples, these priorities and insights reflect the diverse concerns of participants and the multifaceted nature of the challenges ahead.

Several cross-cutting insights emerged, which are crucial to informing and shaping the work that lies ahead:

• Consensus is not given: There was still a degree of heterogeneity in the way the priorities were received, both between participants at the same roundtables and between the different roundtables. A priority that appeared to be important in one case was not always considered as such in another context.
• Translating priorities into recommendations: while participants were invited to discuss the implementation of the priorities and the institutional difficulties likely to be encountered, a significant part of the discussions focused on the intrinsic value of the various priorities and how they could be formulated as recommendations.
• Double-edge argument: anticipating both the potential use and misuse of the priorities emerged as a central theme in the roundtable discussions. Participants highlighted that translating each priority into a policy recommendation carries the risk of different interpretations and applications. The final wording of any recommendation will require careful consideration of such ambivalence, ensuring a nuanced formulation that avoids oversimplification and takes full account of its wider implications.
• Expected qualities: discussions among participants helped to identify several key qualities that any recommendations should illustrate: a) they should be clearly linked to specific objectives; b) they should avoid merely paraphrasing existing recommendations; c) they should be targeted at easily identifiable groups; d) they should be actionable, leading to tangible and concrete results; and e) they should be realistic and adaptable, in line with available resources and the context in which they are to be implemented.

The roundtable discussions have highlighted the complexity and nuance required to translate identified priorities into actionable policy recommendations. While the common insights and goals identified with the focus groups were frequently, but not always, confirmed by the roundtables, the diversity of perspectives and contexts underscores the need for a flexible and context-sensitive approach.

The completion of the Roundtable Workshops marks the conclusion of the POIESIS engagement events and research activities. Their main findings and recommendations will be used as an input for the POIESIS final event, a Scenario Workshop which will be conducted in May in Brussels and will co-create with stakeholders, with a focus on policy makers, the final POIESIS policy recommendations for tackling societal mistrust in science and for strengthening the co-creation of R&I contents by society.

You can download and read the full results of the POIESIS Roundtables (D3.3) here.

A large survey was conducted over the Autumn involving 2847 respondents, a minimum of 400 in each of the projects’ Consortium countries (Denmark, Germany, United Kingdom, Portugal, Spain, France and Greece).

The aim of the study was to experimentally investigate the effects of institutional commitment to research integrity and societal integration on public trust in science. To do so, we fielded a conjoint survey experiment in which levels of commitment to integrity and integration were randomly assigned to fictional university profiles. These were then evaluated by the survey respondents, who were asked how trustworthy they found the fictional universities.  

The key conclusions of the study are that:

• Consistent with the assumptions outlined in the POIESIS model, institutional commitment towards both research integrity and societal integration produces higher trustworthiness ratings.
• However, participants are not particularly sensitive to the level of commitment but rather whether commitment is present at all. That is, participants rate institutional commitment to national recommendations as highly as commitment to strict procedures, but both of these higher than lack of commitment.
• While all included forms of research integrity and societal integration positively affect trustworthiness ratings in all included countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Portugal, Spain, and UK), patterns of magnitude vary. This indicates that while integrity and integration matter cross-contextually the specificities of their influence are sensitive to local and cultural factors.
• The effect of institutional commitment to research integrity and societal integration is generally not diminished by cues on the reputation of organizations, neither regarding their prestige nor achievements in specific fields of research. This implies that effects of commitment towards integrity and integration is not merely used as a proxy for institutional reputation but plays an independent role in shaping trust.
• The effects of institutional commitment to research integrity and societal integration are only sensitive to sociodemographic and attitudinal differences to a minor degree. However, one notable exception is prior trust in science which is highly related to the effectiveness of institutional commitment to research integrity and societal integration. Specifically, the effect of institutional commitment is confined to participants who indicate to trust science prior to the experiment (above 5 on a 0-10 scale), whereas respondents who have low levels of prior trust in science (5 or below) exhibit no differences in trustworthiness ratings across levels of institutional commitment.

To read the full results of the Survey Experiment download the Deliverable D2.4 here