El compromiso del sector privado con la ciencia: abriendo la caja negra de la percepción de la ciencia en la empresa
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2022.1.1832Palabras clave:
percepción de la ciencia, empresa, encuesta, I D, compromiso con la cienciaResumen
La industria ha desempeñado un papel relevante en las recientes políticas científicas europeas. Sin embargo, el conocimiento de la relación entre ciencia y empresa es aun deficiente. El objetivo de este estudio es comprobar la relación entre la percepción de la ciencia de los directivos y la propensión (o no) a desarrollar proyectos de investigación en sus empresas. Este trabajo está basado en los resultados de la encuesta Cultura Científica Empresarial 2016, la primera realizada específicamente para estudiar la percepción de la ciencia en el sector empresarial. Los resultados muestran que las empresas proactivas en I+D se distinguen, principalmente, por el conocimiento institucional de sus directivos acerca del ecosistema científico y la variedad de fuentes de información científica consultadas. Este estudio contribuye a abrir la “caja negra” de la percepción de la ciencia en el sector empresarial, con el fin de mejorar el diseño de las políticas públicas dirigidas a este actor.
Descargas
Citas
Alam, A.; Uddin, M.; Yazdifar, H. (2019). Institutional DETERMINANTS of R&D INVESTMENT: Evidence from Emerging Markets. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 138, 34-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.08.007
Allum, N.; Sturgis, P; Tabourazi, D.; Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science Knowledge and Attitudes Across Cultures: A Meta-Analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17 (1), 35-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506070159
Arvanitis, S.; Woerter, M. (2014). Firm Characteristics and the Cyclicality of R&D Investments. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23 (5), 1141-1169. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtt013
Bates, S. R.; Faulkner, W.; Parry, S.; and Cunningham-Burley, S. (2010). 'How do we Know it's not been done yet?!' Trust, Trust Building and Regulation in Stem Cell Research. Science and Public Policy, 37 (9), 703-718. https://doi.org/10.1093/spp/37.9.703
Bauer, M. W; Durant, J. (1999). Trends in Public Understanding in Britain 1988-1996. London: LSE/Science Museum.
Bauer, M. W.; Durant, J.; Evans, G. (1994). European Public Perceptions of Science. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 6 (2), 163-186. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/6.2.163
Bauer, M. W. (2009). The Evolution of Public Understanding of Science. Discourse and Comparative Evidence. Science, Technology & Society, 14 (2), 221-240. https://doi.org/10.1177/097172180901400202
Bauer, M. W. (2012). Science Culture and its Indicators. In: Schiele, B.; Claessens, M.; Shi, S. (eds.), Science Communication in the World. Dordrecht: Springer, 295-312. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4279-6_20
Bauer, M. W. (2014). A Word from the Editor on the Special Issue on 'Public Engagement'. Public Understanding of Science, 23 (1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513518149 PMid:24434704
Bauer, M. W.; Allum, N.; Miller, S. (2007). What can we Learn from 25 Years of PUS Survey Research? Liberating and Expanding the Agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16 (1), 79-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506071287
Bauer, M. W.; Petkova, K.; Boyadjieva, P. (2000). Public Knowledge of and Attitudes to Science: Alternative Measures that may End the "Science War". Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25 (1), 30-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390002500102
Bauer, M. W.; Shukla, R.; Allum, N. (2012). The Culture of Science: How the Public Relates to Science Across the Globe. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203813621
BBVA Foundation (2012). Estudio internacional de cultura científica de la Fundación BBVA [International study about scientific culture by BBVA Foundation]. Available at: https://www.fbbva.es/TLFU/dat/comprension.pdf [accessed 14 December 2020].
Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
Besley, J. C. (2018). The National Science Foundation's Science and Technology Survey and Support for Science Funding, 2006-2014. Public Understanding of Science, 27 (1), 94-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516649803 PMid:27233295
Block, E. S.; Erskine, L. (2012) Interviewing by Telephone: Specific Considerations, Opportunities, and Challenges. The International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11 (4), 428-445. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691201100409
Bodmer, W. (1985). The Public Understanding of Science. London: The Royal Society. https://doi.org/10.2307/2981942
Bogardus, E. S. (1933). A social distance scale. Sociology & Social Research, 17, 265-271.
Bolsen, T.; Palm, R.; Kingsland, J. T. (2019). The Impact of Message Source on the Effectiveness of Communications About Climate Change. Science Communication, 41 (4), 464-487. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019863154
Brossard, D.; Lewenstein, B. V. (2009). A Critical Appraisal of Models Of Public Understanding of Science: Using Practice to Inform Theory. In: Kahlor, L. A.; and Stout, P. (eds.) Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication, 25-53. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203867631-9
Cámara, M.; Muñoz van den Eynde, A.; López Cerezo, J. A. (2017). Attitudes Towards Science Among Spanish Citizens: The Case of Critical Engagers. Public Understanding of Science, 27 (6), 690-707. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517719172 PMid:28816092
Cea D'Ancona, M.A. (1996). Metodología cuantitativa. Estrategias y técnicas de investigación. Madrid: Síntesis Sociología.
Collins, H. (1985). Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Collins, H. (2010). Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226113821.001.0001
Couto, J. P. A.; Vieira, J. C. (2004). National Culture and Research and Development Activities. Multinational Business Review 12(1), 19-35. https://doi.org/10.1108/1525383X200400002
Davies, S. (2011). Regional Resilience in the 2008-2010 Downturn: Comparative Evidence from European Countries. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 4(3), 369-382. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsr019
Den Hertog, R. G. (1993). Determinants of Internal and External R&D: some Dutch Evidence. De Economist, 141 (2), 279-289. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01717384
Díaz-Catalán, C.; López-Navarro, I.; Rey-Rocha, J.; Cabrera, P. (2019). Influence of Individual and Group Variables on the Attitude of Spanish Researchers towards the Transfer of Knowledge and Cooperation with Private and Public Actors. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 42 (2), e232. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2019.2.1576
Dierkes, M.; Von Grote, C. (2005). Between Understanding and Trust: the Public, Science and Technology. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203988978
Doloreux, D.; Shearmur, R.; Rodríguez, M. (2016). Determinants of R&D in Knowledge-Intensive Business Services Firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 25 (4), 391-405. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2015.1067001
Dosi, G.; Llerena, P.; Labini, M. S. (2006). The Relationships Between Science, Technologies and their Industrial Exploitation: an Illustration Through ihe Myths and Realities of the So-Called 'European Paradox'. Research Policy, 35 (10), 1450-1464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.012
Durant, J. R.; Evans, G. A.; Thomas, G. P. (1989). The Public Understanding of Science. Nature, 340, 11-14. https://doi.org/10.1038/340011a0 PMid:2739718
Einsiedel, E. F. (2000). Understanding ́Publics ́ in the Public Understanding of Science. In: Dierkes, M.; and von Grote, C. (eds.) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology, 205-216. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic.
Einsiedel, E. F. (1994). Mental Maps Of Science: Knowledge and Attitudes Among Canadian Adults. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 6 (1), 35-44. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/6.1.35
Elzinga, A.; Jamison, A. (1995). Changing Policy Agendas in Science and Technology. In: Jasanoff, S. et al. (eds.) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 572-597. London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412990127.n25
European Commission (1995). Green Paper on Innovation. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
European Commission (1977). Science and European Public Opinion. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission (2013). Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), Science and Technology. Brussels: European Commission.
Eurostat (2020). Science, Technology and Innovation Database. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/science-technology-innovation/data/database [accessed 14 December 2020].
Evans, G.; Durant, J. (1995). The Relationship Between Knowledge and Attitudes in the Public Understanding of Science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science, 4 (1), 57-74. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/4/1/004
Fernández-Esquinas, M.; Iturrate, D. (2015). La población española ante el papel de las administraciones públicas en la ciencia y la tecnología [Spanish Population into the Role of Public Administrations in Science and Technology]. In: FECYT (ed.) Percepción Social de la Ciencia y la Tecnología 2014, 277-316. [Social Perception of Science and Technology 2014] Madrid: FECYT.
Frenz, M.; Ietto-Gillies, G. (2009). The Impact on Innovation Performance of Different Sources of Knowledge: Evidence from the UK Community Innovation Survey. Research Policy, 38 (7), 1125-1135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.05.002
Godin, B.; Gingras, Y. (2000). What is Scientific and Technological Culture and How is it Measured? A Multidimensional Model. Public Understanding of Science, 9 (1), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/1/303
Gonçalves, M. E.; Patrício, M. T.; da Costa, A. F. (1996). Political Images of Science in Portugal. Public Understanding of Science, 5 (4), 395-410. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/5/4/006
González-Bravo, M. I., López-Navarro, I.; Rey-Rocha, J. (2020). Is Corporate R&D Simply a Matter of Money? The Combined Effect of a Firm's Economic Characteristics and its Perception Of Science. Industry and Innovation, 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2020.1792273
Groot, S. P. T.; Möhlmann, J. L.; Garretsen, J. H.; de Groot, H. L. F. (2011). The Crisis Sensitivity of European Countries and Regions: Stylized Facts and Spatial Heterogeneity. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 4 (3), 437-456. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsr024
Guenther, L.; Weingart, P.; Meyer, C. (2018). "Science is Everywhere, but no One Knows it": Assessing the Cultural Cistance to Science of Rural South African Publics. Environmental Communication, 12 (8), 1046-1061. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1455724
Ho, S. S.; Scheufele, D. A.; Corley, E. A. (2010). Making Sense of Policy Choices: Understanding the Roles of Value Predispositions, Mass Media, and Cognitive Processing in Public Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 12 (8), 2703-2715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-010-0038-8 PMid:21170125 PMCid:PMC2988209
Ho, S. S.; Scheufele, D. A.; Corley, E. A. (2011). Factors influencing public risk-benefit considerations of nanotechnology: Assessing the effects of mass media, interpersonal communication, and elaborative processing. Public Understanding of Science, 22 (5), 606-623. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511417936 PMid:23833174
Hurtado, M. C.; Cerezo, J. A. L. (2012). Political Dimensions of Scientific Culture: Highlights from the Ibero-American Survey on the Social Perception of Science and Scientific Culture. Public Understanding of Science, 21 (3), 369-384. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510373871
Industry, Economy and Competitiveness Ministry (2017). I+D+i en las empresas españolas. [R&D and Innovation in Spanish Companies]. Madrid: Industry, Economy and Competitiveness Ministry. Available at: www.ipyme.org/Publicaciones/Informe-ID-2017.pdf [accessed 14 December 2020].
INE, Instituto Nacional de Estadística (2009) National Classification of Economic Activities. CNAE-2009. Available at: https://www.ine.es/daco/daco42/clasificaciones/cnae09/estructura_en.pdf [accessed 14 December 2020].
Lee, C. Y. (2003). A Simple Theory and Evidence on the Determinants of Firm R&D. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 12(5), 385-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/1043859022000003418
López Cerezo, J. A.; Cámara Hurtado, M. (2007). Scientific Culture and Social Appropriation of the Science. Social Epistemology, 21 (1), 69-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691720601125522
López-Navarro, I.; Garzón-García, B; Rey-Rocha, J. (2011). Percepción de la Ciencia y la Tecnología en el Sector Privado. La Visión de Empresarios y Trabajadores Autónomos [Perception of Science and Technology in the Private Sector. The Vision of Entrepreneurs and Self-Employed Workers]. In FECYT (ed.) Percepción Social de la Ciencia y la Tecnología en España 2010, 67-92. [Social Perception of Science and Technology in Spain 2010], Madrid: FECYT.
Lorca, P.; de Andrés, J. (2019). The Importance of Cultural Factors in R&D Intensity. Cross-Cultural Research, 53 (5), 483-507. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397118813546
Máñez, J. A., Rochina-Barrachina, M. E.; Sanchis-Llopis, A.; Sanchez-Llopis, J. A. (2015). The Determinants of R&D Persistence in SMEs. Small Business Economics, 44 (3), 505-528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9611-3
Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual and Empirical Review. Daedalus, 29-48.
Miller, J. D. (1998). The Measurement of Civic Scientific Literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 203-223. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/7/3/001
Miller, J. D. (2004). Public Understanding of, and Attitudes Toward, Scientific Research: What we Know and What we Need to Know. Public Understanding of Science, 13 (3), 273-294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662504044908
Möllering, G. (2006). Trust: Reason, Routine, Reflexivity. Oxford: Elsevier.
Noy, S.; O'Brien, T. L. (2019). Science for Good? The Effects of Education and National Context on Perceptions Of Science. Public Understanding of Science, 28 (8), 897-916. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519863575 PMid:31354045
OST; Wellcome Trust (2001). Science and the Public: a Review of Science Communication and Public Attitudes Toward Science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science 10, 315-330. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/10/3/305
Pardo, R.; Calvo, F. (2004). The Cognitive Dimension of Public Perceptions of Science: Methodological Issues. Public Understanding of Science, 13 (3), 203-227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662504045002
Prpić, K. (2011). Science, the Public, And Social Elites: How the General Public, Scientists, Top Politicians and Managers Perceive Science. Public Understanding of Science, 20 (6), 733-750. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510366363 PMid:22397082
Qin, W.; Brown, J. L. (2007). Public Reactions to Information about Genetically Engineered Foods: Effects of Information Formats and Male/Female Differences. Public Understanding of Science, 16 (4), 471-488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506065336
Quintanilla, M. A. (2004). Cultura tecnológica e innovación [Technological Culture and Innovation]. In: Quintanilla, M.A. (ed.) Tecnología: un enfoque filosófico y otros ensayos de filosofía de la tecnología, 247-261. [Technology: A philosophical approach and other essays on the philosophy of technology]. Mexico: FCE.
Raza, G.; Singh, S. (2012). Defining Cultural distance. In: Bauer, M. W.; Shukla, R.; Allum, N. (eds.) The Culture of Science: how the Public Relates to Science Across the Globe. London: Routledge, 282-300.
Raza, G.; Dutt, B.; Singh, S. (1997). Kaleidoscoping Public Understanding of Science on Hygiene, Health and Plague: A Survey in the Aftermath of a Plague Epidemic in India. Public Understanding of Science, 6 (3), 247-268. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/6/3/004 PMid:11619415
Raza, G.; Singh, S.; Dutt, B. (2002). Public, Science, and Cultural Distance. Science Communication, 23 (3), 293-309. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554700202300305
Rey-Rocha, J.; López-Navarro, I. (2016). The SCe Questionnaire: Scientific Culture, Perception and Attitudes towards Science and Innovation in the Spanish Business Sector. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/171841. [Accessed: June 23, 2020].
Rey-Rocha, J.; Muñoz-van den Eynde, A.; López-Navarro, I. (2019). Exploring the Image of Science in the Business Sector: Surveying and Modeling Scientific Culture, Perception and Attitudes Towards Science. Social Epistemology, 33 (2), 137-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2019.1587543
Saisana, M.; Munda, G. (2008). Knowledge economy: Measures and Drivers. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Sanz-Menéndez, L.; Van Ryzin, G. G.; Del Pino, E. (2014). Citizens' Support for Government Spending on Science and Technology. Science and Public Policy, 41 (5), 611-624. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct091
Shefer, D.; Frenkel, F.; renkel, A. (2005). R&D, Firm Size and Innovation: An Empirical Analysis. Technovation 25(1), 25-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00152-4
Shukla, R. (2005). India Science Report: Science Education, Human Resources and Public Attitude Towards Science and Technology. Australia: East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
Simis, M. J.; Madden, H.; Cacciatore, M. A.; Yeo, S. K. (2016). The Lure of Rationality: Why does the Deficit Model Persist in Science Communication?. Public Understanding of Science 25(4), 400-414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749 PMid:27117768
Sinn, J. S. (2019). Mapping Ideology: Combining the Schwartz Value Circumplex with Evolutionary Theory to Explain Ideological Differences. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5 (1), 44-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-018-0165-5
Sorensen, G.; Emmons, K.; Hunt, M. K.; Barbeau, E.; Goldman, R.; Peterson, K.; Kuntz, K.; Stoddard, A.; Berkman, L. (2003). Model for Incorporating Social Context in Health Behaviour Interventions: Applications for Canprevention for Working Class, Multiethnic Populations. Preventive Medicine, 37, 188-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0091-7435(03)00111-7
Sorensen, K. H.; Aune, M.; and Hatling, M. (2000). Against Linearity- On the Cultural Appropriation of Science and Technology. In: Dierkes, M.; von Grote, C. (eds.) Between Understanding and Trust: the Public, Science and Technology, 237-257. London: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Stocking, S. H.; Holstein, L. W. (2009). Manufacturing Doubt: Journalists' Roles and the Construction of Ignorance in a Scientific Controversy. Public Understanding of Science 18(1), 23-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507079373 PMid:19579533
Sturgis, P.; Allum, N. (2004). Science in Society: re-Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes. Public Understanding of Science 13(1), 55-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662504042690
Takahashi, B.; Tandoc, E. C. Jr. (2016). Media Sources, Credibility, and Perceptions of Science: Learning about how People Learn about Science. Public Understanding of Science 25(6), 674-690. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515574986 PMid:25792288
Thomas, G.; Durant, J. (1987). Why should we Promote the Public Understanding of Science. Scientific Literacy Papers 1, 1-14.
Turney, J. (1996). Public Understanding of Science. The Lancet, 347 (9008), 1087-1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(96)90283-4
Van Dijk, B.; Den Hertog, R.; Menkveld, B.; Thurik, R. (1997). Some New Evidence on the Determinants of Large- and Small-Firm Innovation. Small Business Economics, 9 (4), 335-343. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007995919950
Vraga, E. K.; Bode, L. (2017). Using expert Sources to Correct Health Misinformation in Social Media. Science Communication, 39 (5), 621-645. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017731776
Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science. Public Understanding of Science, 1 (3), 281-304. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/3/004
Wynne, B. (1993). Public Uptake of Science: a Case for Institutional Reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science, 2 (4), 321-337. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/2/4/003
Wynne, B. (2001). Creating public Alienation: Expert Cultures of Risk and Ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture, 10 (4), 445-481. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430120093586 PMid:15971363
Wynne, B.; Irwin, A. (1996). Misunderstanding Science?: the Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511563737
Xu, J.; Sim, J. W. (2018). Characteristics of Corporate R&D Investment in Emerging Markets: Evidence from Manufacturing Industry in China and South Korea. Sustainability 10(9), 3002. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093002
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2022 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
© CSIC. Los originales publicados en las ediciones impresa y electrónica de esta Revista son propiedad del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, siendo necesario citar la procedencia en cualquier reproducción parcial o total.Salvo indicación contraria, todos los contenidos de la edición electrónica se distribuyen bajo una licencia de uso y distribución “Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional ” (CC BY 4.0). Puede consultar desde aquí la versión informativa y el texto legal de la licencia. Esta circunstancia ha de hacerse constar expresamente de esta forma cuando sea necesario.
No se autoriza el depósito en repositorios, páginas web personales o similares de cualquier otra versión distinta a la publicada por el editor.
Datos de los fondos
Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad, Gobierno de España
Números de la subvención CSO2014-53293-R
Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología
Números de la subvención FCT-16-10889
