Summer Science Programmes for Students|2006
at the Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Portugal
Ten years ago, the Portuguese agency ‘Ciência Viva’ created the Summer Science Programmes for Students. The main aim of the programmes is the promotion of scientific culture, enabling students from secondary schools to interact with teams in research centres.
For the first time in 2006, the Centre for Social Studies (CES) – a member of the ‘Ciência Viva’ Assembly – hosted four students attending secondary schools in two programmes that were specially designed for the occasion: ‘Diversity in the University’ and ‘Raising Conscience, Living with Science’. These programmes are related to research areas at CES, and they were coordinated by Marta Araújo and Tiago Santos Pereira. The four participants are from several areas of Portugal, namely Coimbra (1), Santarém (1) and Guarda (2). Their field of studies is: natural sciences (2) and social sciences and humanities (2).
The two programmes took place from 17 to 21 July. The students engaged with several activities related to research in social sciences, such as: review of the literature, preparation of fieldwork, administering and analysing questionnaires. The students also attended seminars included in the regular activities promoted by CES, and participated in a session on methods and techniques in social sciences. The latter was especially organised for them, and included presentations by José Manuel Mendes and Paula Meneses (CES). In the last day, the students presented the results of their research experience during their stay to the community of researchers at CES. This seminar helped students to understand how crucial is the sharing and confronting of ideas in the identification of new approaches, both to specific areas of research and to ways of producing knowledge.
In the evaluation of the Summer Programme, the fact that two of the participants had previously been involved in similar programmes in chemistry and geology labs proved interesting. This contributed to their understanding of the differences and similarities in the research practices taking place in various contexts. More specifically, this enabled the students to acknowledge the existing diversity in knowledge production.
Considering that the aims of the programmes were clearly achieved, namely promoting awareness about research in the social sciences and specific knowledge in the subject areas addressed, this initiative will be continued in the future. CES sees initiatives such as this, which involve the promotion of knowledge to no-academic publics, of particular relevance.
Diversity in the University
Diversidade na Universidade
Supervisors: Marta Araújo, Marisa Matias, Hugo Dias and Ricardo Cabrita
Every year, the University of Coimbra hosts foreign students, coming mainly from African Countries with Portuguese as an Official Language (PALOP). However, not much information is known about this community.
The project ‘Diversity in the University’ provided the participants with the opportunity to explore and deepen their knowledge about the cultural diversity of the university students in Coimbra. In particular, within the project they were able to look at questions such as: where do these students come from? Which are the main difficulties they face both at the University and in the city? What do they think about Coimbra? And what does the population from Coimbra know and think about them?
Summary of results
The students administered two small questionnaires: one to people living in Coimbra (in the city centre) and the other to PALOP students (in the university area). The questionnaires were partially similar in order to allow comparisons between the two groups. To administer the questionnaire, the population of Coimbra was divided in two age groups (under 32 and over 45), in order to compare eventual differences between people who experienced the dictatorial period and those who did not. 48 questionnaires were administered, with a balanced gender distribution. 20 PALOP students were enquired. This group was constituted by all those in the selected area who showed their availability to participate in the study.
The analysis of data suggested that the population of Coimbra tends to underrate the presence of PALOP students at the University of Coimbra amongst those with foreign nationality. Indeed, European countries were mentioned by around 70 per cent of those enquired as the place of origin of foreign students. This suggests that people do not tend to think of people from the PALOP as part of the University of Coimbra’s student community. Additionally, there was a discrepancy between the population of Coimbra and PALOP students regarding the motives leading to their choice of the University. The former tends to overstate characteristics associated with the University and the city, such as its prestige, history, tranquillity, and absence of violence. On the other hand, most students referred that they cannot choose the University they wish to attend, due to the universities quota system in place.
Regarding the difficulties experienced by PALOP students, whilst they themselves tend to refer the climate as the most important issue, the population tends to overrate financial problems. This indicates that they ignore the fact that, according to University data, many of those students have a higher socio-economic status than their Portuguese counterparts. Both groups pointed out racism as being the second most important difficulty faced by Black students.
Finally, people were enquired regarding the impact that these students can have in the city. Some of the answers were very negative, including racist remarks. Other people referred that these students can contribute to promote knowledge about different cultures. A few went further, considering that their presence in the city can facilitate social and cultural change. That is, they suggested that having contact with other ways of seeing and knowing can help the Portuguese society in rethinking what is usually considered ‘normality’, which tends to exclude the ‘other’.
Raising Conscience, Living with Science
Nascer Consciência, Viver com Ciência
Supervisors: António Farinhas Rodrigues, Tiago Santos Pereira and Marisa Matias
‘Raising Conscience, Living with Science’ was developed in association with the on-going research project ‘Science at the Parliament: a study of the boundary between science and policy’, funded by the Portuguese Agency FCT.
Science and technology often enter and influence our everyday lives. In particular, issues such as science and innovation, medically assisted procreation, nuclear power, stem cells or waste co-incineration are prominent in the media and have been the focus of much heated political debate in the last few years.
Summary of results
Students were engaged in a set of activities that enabled them to address the main concerns raised by the research project mentioned above. In particular, they dealt with some debates on the articulation between science, policy and citizenship, as well as on the role of science in citizens’ political awareness.
The research activities develop as part of this project were divided in two parts. Firstly, students searched the Parliament’s database regarding the legislative process (available online at http://www.parlamento.pt). Students then chose particular themes related to science and technology that they were interested in exploring, namely, medically assisted procreation, stem cells and pregnancy termination, after which they analysed debates and parliamentary initiatives on these subjects. The students considered that MPs are increasingly aware of these issues, in spite of the scarce discussion registered.
Secondly, questionnaires were constructed to enquire the population of Coimbra about these issues. The group of lay people enquired was divided in three age groups.
The questionnaire was structured in four different sections: the level of information of those enquired on several science-related themes that featured in recent debates; regarding the same themes, their opinion about the role that several political actors (including citizens) should play in decision-making processes; their opinion on the level of information that MPs show about those themes; and, finally, their positioning on a number of selected topics.
Data analysis confirmed that lay people have a deficit of trust regarding the capacity of MPs to decide on the issues related to science and technology. Considering that they are not sufficiently informed, people tend to agree that the decision-making on these subjects should be delegated to scientists and experts.
Additionally, the participants had the opportunity to test the hypotheses previously formulated by crossing the results (lack of information of MPs, different perspectives on actors that should be involved in the decision-making processes, the level of (dis)agreement on selected topics) with different variables (namely, sex, age, political orientation).
Students’ evaluation
Marisa Figueiredo
Coimbra, 17 years old
One day, at the Comprehensive School D. Duarte (Coimbra), I came across a poster advertising ‘Ciência Viva’ and decided to apply. I wanted to experience doing research. I checked their website and looked for available summer programmes in Coimbra. In the midst of many, I found one entitled ‘Raising Conscience, Living with Science’ which attracted me for enabling us to discuss interesting political and social issues.
So, I applied and longed for a positive reply. One day, someone called me saying that I had been short-listed. I was very happy, excited and looking forward to it. I waited for (a few) weeks, which was enough to feel impatient about the beginning of the activities. As this was my first experience of the kind, I wished it to be special and interesting.
In the first day, I woke up feeling anxious: I wanted to meet the other participants, the supervisors, to know what kind of things they do and the type of activities we would be engaged with. As I met our supervisors, I immediately thought they were very friendly, easygoing and smile-ish. I also met the other three participants who now I consider very sweet, interesting and funny. Since the first moments together we started creating strong bonds.
During the first day of the programme, we were introduced to the research activities developed at the Centre. We had a guided tour, stopping by every office where each researcher gave us some insight about the research work they were carrying out. Everyone was extremely friendly, warm and empathetic. This was very important because it made us feel welcome. In the afternoon, we attended a seminar in English on Peace Studies, which was actually a bit difficult to me as my English standards are poor. Nonetheless, the topic was very interesting. We also attended a seminar on research methods in social sciences, which was specially designed for us. This would be very useful for the following days.
During the second day, we visited the North-South Library, where we met two other very friendly people (the librarians). They taught us to use good search engines and tools. After this visit, the ‘real’ work started: we analysed the literature on the issues we would work on. We also looked for information related to the topics we selected (stem cells, medically assisted procreation and pregnancy termination) on the Parliament’s database. Then, we worked on the data to produce some graphs. This was a very interesting day, and I found some (considerable) information about the Parliament’s activities.
On the third day, we started fieldwork. We went downtown to the city centre to apply the questionnaires that we had prepared the previous day. This practical side of the programme was really fascinating. Besides, some curious and awkward situations happened whilst we were enquiring people.
The fourth day was the busiest of all. We analysed the data and prepared our next-day presentations. Even though it was a bit tiring (so many sheets and numbers), it was very illustrative and absorbing.
Today, unfortunately the last one 
, we presented the seminar on the work that we carried out throughout the week. We were really nervous and a bit insecure. Finally, it came out quite well. Now, that I am writing this mega ‘historical’ evaluation, I think that it was a great experience. I have learned a lot of new stuff, felt easily integrated and loved the other participants. The only thing I can say about the supervisors is that they are outstanding. And I finish here wishing that we can meet again some other time!
Erica Mascarenhas
Entroncamento, 14 years old
Looking back, I found this experience very enriching in several ways. It allowed me to get to know the daily life of researchers in social sciences, and it also enabled me to spend time with other secondary school students.
It was also very positive to realise that many syllabus contents from different subject areas that we study in secondary school are really useful when we are involved in research.
However, I think that the programme was a bit too short. In order to carry out the amount of tasks planned, a tight schedule and coordination was required. I thus suggest that, in the future, the length of the programmes should be extended (to about two weeks).
In short, despite the busy schedule, this summer programme was an unforgettable experience, both in terms of acquiring and deepening knowledge in the field, and for meeting and mingling with the other students.
Sara Rodrigues
Guarda, 17 years old
Honestly, I think that the summer programme was very well organised. The fact that so many researchers got involved in the activities with ‘simple’ students from secondary schools surprised me and was really flattering.
I think that the programme should be continued in coming years, since this is a great chance for young people (who are still deciding upon their future) to meet researchers and ‘walk in their shoes’. This programme allowed us to experience their research routines, and eventually might lead us to choose the same path one day.
Patrícia Rodrigues
Guarda, 20 years old
If we mix both positive and negative aspects, shake them well… The result is: grand!
Since this is an evaluation exercise, I would say that the organisation, activities and hosting were just excellent!
I really appreciate the fact of having all the data, pictures and videos gathered in a DVD-ROM. Our ‘memory chip’ is selective and has a limited storage capacity. Thus, even though too many pictures were taken, I commit to that in the name of the preservation of our troubled memory!
To conclude, though this might be commonplace, I wish most sincerely to thank you once again (and again). Who knows, may be we meet again next year!…
First Announcement and Call for Papers
More details can be found at: www.itas.fzk.de/v/nta2/cfp_e.htm
Aims and issues of the conference
If these assumptions are (completely or partially) correct, this must have an effect on the way how TA is able to fulfil its tasks in research and consultancy in such a changed and still changing world society. Against this background, the following questions are addressed:
Section 1: “Global” technology
To what extent have the genesis and use of technology changed? What is special about “global” TA? How does the group of actors in the development and production of technology expand? How is it possible to consider the differing social adaptation in different cultural contexts? What other criteria for “good” technology and appropriate processes of technology design can be formulated against the background of the diversity of standards?
Section 2: “Global” politics
What are the resulting consequences for the question of the addressees of TA? Who shall be advised in an increasingly globally organised world? What decision-making processes have to be considered by TA to ensure effective work? Who is able to design technology at the global level, and what governance models are related to this? Or do the “classic” addressees of TA like national parliaments and governments still remain important and perhaps only need “another form of” advice?
Section 3: TA in the “global” world
How will the traditional methodological fields of TA be influenced by the development towards a world society? If world society involves new addressees or generates new paths of technology development, this can lead to changes in the “TA toolbox”. Are there any new (global) cooperation patterns and forms of work that allow TA to operate in a globalised world? How can participatory procedures be implemented at a European or global level, particularly in view of the fact that civil society actors and NGOs have gained increasing influence and must be considered stronger in the opinion forming process. Does the global perspective lead to a strengthening of expert TA because it becomes easier to make statements of “international validity”, or does the diversity of scientific cultures involved have the opposite effect?
At the conference, these questions shall be addressed at the conceptual level, on the one hand, and on the basis of real case studies, on the other hand. The case studies shall be both “best” or “good practices” and shall also provide examples of how known TA concepts are coming under pressure of change through the development towards a world society.
Call for Papers
The conference consists of invited papers, submitted papers, and a poster session. The languages of the conference will be German and English.
Abstracts (max. 500 words) with indication of the address of the speaker and the intended section (technical sections 1 to 3 as listed above, or [junior] poster session) can be sent electronically to the organisers
Deadline for the submission of proposals is 9. June 2006.
Deadline for submissions has been extended till 7th of July 2006.
Notification about acceptance by the end of July.
Promotion of junior TA scientists
The conference particularly aims at promoting junior scientists and therefore will hold a poster session with young scientists (graduands, doctoral candidates) working in the field of technology assessment or on the conference theme.
Conference scholarships (travel and accommodation expenses) are available for doctoral candidates and young scientists (up to 5 postdoctoral years). To apply for such a scholarship, please send a short motivation letter and a CV together with the abstract (see: Call for papers).
The “TA network”
The German-language “Netzwerk TA” (TA Network) is an association of scientists and experts in the field of “technology assessment”. The aims of the network are to exchange information, to identify common research and advisory tasks, to initiate and support methodological developments, as well as to strengthen the role of TA in science and society. The network also serves as a platform for cooperations and joint actions. The “Netzwerk TA” website is available at http://www.netzwerk-ta.net
Meeting of minds
July 10, 2006
European Citizen’s Deliberation on Brain Science
‘European Citizens’ Deliberation on Brain Science is a two-year pilot project led by a European panel of 126 citizens. A partner consortium of technology assessment bodies, science museums, academic institutions and public foundations from nine European countries launched this initiative in 2004 with the support of the European Commission.
The initiative will give European citizens a unique opportunity to learn more about the impact of brain research on their daily lives and society as a whole, to discuss their questions and ideas with leading European researchers, experts and policy-makers, put them in touch with fellow citizens from other European countries and make a personal contribution to a report detailing what the people of Europe believe to be possible and desirable in the area of brain science and what they recommend policy-makers and researchers to be aware of for future developments in this field.
Through this approach, the Meeting of Minds initiative wishes to meet EU calls for greater public involvement in the debate on future research, technological decision-making and governance.’
I suggest that it is another fine initiative coordinated by the King Baudouin Foundation, with no portuguese participation in the event.
Nevertheless, this project was presented to me in the Cipast summit as a EU marketing-like flyer, with the presupposition of trying to reach a large number of countries and its institutions, as well as involving lay people as much as they could. In my opinion, I thought they overemphasized the process and disregarded the content, paying little attention of what it really was at stake – brain sciences.
The second European Citizens’ Convention that took place from 20 to 23 January 2006 in Brussels, can be watched in a streaming video format sample by clicking here.
EPTA Network
July 9, 2006
EPTA - European Parliamentary Technology Assessment – is a network involving 18 European organisations which carry out TA (technology assessment) studies on behalf of parliaments, including mostly national parliaments, but also at the regional and European level. The Portuguese parliament, object of our study, does not have a similar organisation
From its objectives:
“The EPTA Partners advise parliaments on the possible social, economic and environmental impact of new sciences and technologies.
The common aim is to provide impartial and high quality accounts and reports of developments in issues such as bioethics and biotechnology, public health, environment and energy, ICTs, and R&D policy.
Such work is seen as an aid to the democratic control of scientific and technological innovations, and was pioneered in the 1970s by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) of the US Congress.
EPTA aims to advance the establishment of technology assessment as an integral part of policy consulting in parliamentary decision making processes in Europe, and to strengthen the links between TA units in Europe.”
Through its site (www.eptanetwork.org) it is possible to access a database of parliamentary technology assessment projects, focusing on topics as wide ranging as nanotechnology, brain research, road pricing, future energy systems and the future of education.
Are we all experts?
July 4, 2006
An interesting piece of (implicit) reflexivity by Pedro Magalhães, political scientist (expert?) and regular collaborator in the media, questioning the expertise of experts and lay people in political matters, following the work of Philip Tetlock (Expert Political Judgment, Princeton University Press, 1984) and others based on surveys to experts and non-experts.
“Somos todos especialistas
Pedro Magalhães
O enorme diferencial de sofisticação entre especialistas e leigos parece não fazer diferença na sua capacidade para prever o mundo. Como explicação deste intrigante fenómeno, os psicólogos tendem a invocar o papel daquilo a que chamam “atalhos cognitivos”
ouco antes do Mundial de Futebol de 2002, pediu-se a meia centena de “especialistas de futebol” (entre os quais jornalistas desportivos, treinadores de futebol e membros de claques), que dessem os seus melhores palpites sobre quais as dezasseis selecções que passariam à segunda fase. De seguida, fizeram-se as mesmas perguntas a estudantes universitários, incluindo norte-americanos, sendo que a estes foram colocadas outras questões para avaliar os seus conhecimentos sobre futebol. Todos os inquiridos acertaram numa proporção de resultados superior àquela que resultaria de escolher as dezasseis equipas completamente ao acaso, apesar de, como seria de prever, os conhecimentos futebolísticos demonstrados pelos estudantes americanos serem tão baixos como aqueles que qualquer estudante português médio demonstraria sobre o hóquei no gelo. Mas a pergunta que importa é outra: quem deu mais palpites certos?
Este estudo, publicado no International Journal of Forecasting, é apenas um a somar a centenas de experiências do mesmo género conduzidas nos últimos setenta anos. O resultado é quase sempre o mesmo: corretores de bolsa, economistas ou qualquer outro tipo de “peritos”, quando chamados a fazer previsões sobre o mercado de capitais, tendências económicas ou outros domínios, acabam por ser tão bem ou tão mal sucedidos como qualquer leigo. As eleições não constituem excepção. Uma experiência semelhante foi conduzida poucos dias antes das eleições alemãs de Setembro de 2005. Estudantes das universidades de Mannheim e de Estocolmo, assim como meia centena de politólogos, foram questionados dias antes das eleições acerca das suas previsões sobre a taxa de abstenção e a votação dos principais partidos. No fim, apesar dos palpites mais exactos terem sido feitas por alguns dos politólogos, não houve, em média, diferenças significativas entre os “estudiosos” enquanto grupo e os leigos aos quais tinha sido dada alguma informação mínima sobre o contexto das eleições.
Assim, o enorme diferencial de sofisticação entre especialistas e leigos parece não fazer diferença na sua capacidade para prever o mundo. Como explicação deste intrigante fenómeno, os psicólogos tendem a invocar o papel daquilo a que chamam “atalhos cognitivos”. Os estudantes americanos podem ser completamente ignorantes sobre o “soccer” internacional. Mas se escolherem como prováveis vencedores os países dos quais já ouviram falar – maiores, mais importantes, mais desenvolvidos, aliados dos Estados Unidos – quão erradas acabarão por ser as suas previsões sobre o sucesso desportivo? Da mesma maneira, quase todos nós somos incapazes de avaliar objectivamente até que ponto um governo está, de facto, a fazer um “bom” ou um “mau” trabalho. Mas se fizermos essa avaliação na base da nossa situação financeira pessoal ou da forma como decisões concretas afectaram directamente os nossos interesses ou os de pessoas do nosso círculo social, não será isso suficiente para tomar uma decisão informada?
Há também quem procure explicar o fenómeno de outro ponto de vista. Em 1984, Philip Tetlock contactou quase 300 peritos em temas de política e relações internacionais, pedindo-lhes que fizessem previsões sobre o que poderia suceder nas duas décadas seguintes nos mais variados domínios da política internacional. Deste então, confrontou-os com essas previsões e publicou os resultados em livro (Expert Political Judgment, Princeton University Press). A conclusão é avassaladora: um fracasso generalizado, como se fossem “chimpanzés a atirar dardos à sorte a um alvo”. Tetlock discute algumas explicações para este desempenho desastroso. Primeiro, os peritos tendem a usar e processar apenas a informação que vai de encontro às suas elaboradas pressuposições iniciais. Num certo sentido, eles sabem “demais”. Segundo, quando confrontados com factos que obviamente contrariam as suas previsões, os peritos exibem uma espantosa incapacidade para reavaliar as suas posições iniciais na base da nova informação. Os erros acabam por racionalizados como acasos ou desvios imprevisíveis, e o estatuto de “especialista” é usado para mascarar o fracasso com justificações altamente complexas, fenómeno tanto mais acentuado quanto maior a especialização no tema em questão.
Os resultados de estudos como estes têm muitas implicações sociais, económicas e políticas. Mas uma delas tem a ver com a nossa concepção do que é a democracia e sobre como ela deve funcionar. Não faltam no nosso discurso político e mediático queixas sobre a “falta de qualidade” da classe política e, logo, sobre a conveniência em trazer para a política os “mais conhecedores”. Também abundam as queixas piedosas sobre a falta de informação ou de “cultura política” do eleitorado português. Contudo, há dois problemas neste tipo de argumentação. Por um lado, para além do facto de o grau de conhecimento especializado nada nos dizer sobre as qualidades morais e visões do bem público partilhadas pelos políticos, não é sequer garantido que esse conhecimento permita uma leitura mais exacta da realidade do que aquela que é feita pelo cidadão comum. Por outro lado, a desinformação da grande maioria dos eleitores não os parece impedir de ir tomando decisões acertadas ou, pelo menos, decisões consonantes com os seus interesses e não menos avisadas, desse ponto de vista, que as decisões dos “especialistas”.
Implicações futebolísticas? Vejamos: qual dos grupos inquiridos na experiência sobre o Mundial de 2002 acabou por dar palpites mais acertados sobre as equipas que passariam à segunda fase? Os estudantes americanos, claro. É fácil imaginar o palpite que dariam sobre o Portugal-Inglaterra. Escrevo este artigo antes do jogo e espero que, neste caso, esse palpite não se tenha confirmado.”
Published in Público, POL nº 5941 | Segunda, 3 de Julho de 2006
