Researchers and stakeholders cooperation in scientific dissemination: Fostering Innovative Challenges, between static and dynamic dissemination

Full text

CHAPTER 1.
Researcher and Stakeholder Cooperation in Scientific
Dissemination: Fostering Innovative Challenges,
Between Static and Dynamic Dissemination
Armando MONTANARI,
Department of European, American and Intercultural Studies,
Sapienza University of Rome, Italy

SECOA, Vol. 7. Mitigating Conflicts in Coastal Areas Through Science Dissemination
- 30 -
1. Introduction
The word “dissemination” derives from the verb to disseminate which, according to the Oxford
Dictionary, means “to distribute or spread widely ideas, doctrines, etc.“. Its equivalent in Italian
is divulgazione; in French diffusion; in Spanish diseminación; in Portuguese disseminação and; in
German Verbreitung. Most of these translations make reference to the Latin dissemināre in its
meaning of spreading the seed on all sides, or to the Latin divulgāre in its meaning of “spreading
through the crowd”. These etymological references help us to go back over the evolution of the
term. It now finds itself having to take on ever more sophisticated meanings whilst still
struggling to lose its former values, which are limited to a process that relates an individual as
“subject” who disseminates to another individual as “object” who receives that which is
disseminated.
The concept of dissemination is not new to science, but there is no question that ICT has
changed its terms, which are not technological as may have been thought, but are exclusively
concerned with the political dimension. Technological tools may have made it possible to reduce
distances, but now it is time for other tools, of culture and politics, to do likewise. That is why, in
this publication, the word “dissemination” is not considered as only a technical phenomenon but
above all as a component of a process giving access to information, activated first through
partnership and then through governance. Where environmental issues are concerned, initially
both concepts were applied because of a need to ensure the whole of society of its right to a
healthy, uncontaminated environment. For that reason there was a need to identify a democratic
right to information about the environment. In terms of policy, the need to integrate
environmental concerns into all sectoral policies has been recognised; when Europe recognised
the need to innovate by diffusing the results of research, particularly in the case of research
supported by public funding, it was also reiterating a basic right.
The concept of dissemination, as it is understood today, evolved from the concept of
partnership, which went on to become governance. But research has, intentionally, not always been
considered as something that can be explicitly subjected to partnership. Although it should not
be forgotten that there do exist EU research programmes which finance systems, methods, and
topics that are defined a priori as part of the responsibilities of the European Council, the
European Commission, and the European Parliament. Whilst that may be an inherently
democratic arrangement, it could certainly be improved by introducing the idea of greater shared
responsibilities and cutting back the role of the Directorates General, which currently have

A. Montanari, Researcher and Stakeholder Cooperation in Scientific Dissemination
- 31 -
absolute decision-making power in determining the geographic locations, time-frames, roles, and
methods of research.
For some time the idea of partnership has already been applied to other areas of
responsibility of the Commission, for example the environment, where it was fundamentally
important to try to introduce partnership into sectors that traditionally came within the
competence of the European Union. For that reason, more far-reaching integration should be
attempted in all sectors of EU operation – including research, which has its own transversal
validity – and including the greatest possible numbers of stakeholders. By these means the word
“dissemination” would become understood not as a limited top-down process, but as a process
verified by society itself, as the ultimate recipient of the disseminated outcomes from research.
2. Partnership as a basic principle of science dissemination
Science dissemination cannot be considered as an act of cognitive generosity, but should be
understood more comprehensively to mean partnership. For that reason it has to be a
collaboration that goes from identifying the research sectors to which priority financing should
be awarded, to how that research should be conducted, and finally for making the outcomes
available to civil society and the other stakeholders. This is especially the case when the
knowledge to be disseminated concerns the outcomes of scientific research on environmental
issues.
Ever since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit the word partnership, which until then was taken in
its dictionary meaning of association and society, has acquired new significance and is now
understood as one of the instruments that must be used to enable sustainable development to be
achieved. But its meaning is sometimes still abused and even now is thought to be “ambiguous”
in that its practical application refers to methods and experiences that are very different and even
contradictory. So far as the European Union is concerned the idea of shared responsibilities,
consultation, and partnership derive their cultural and regulatory reference from Article 2 of the
Maastricht Treaty (1992) where the promotion of sustainable growth that respects the
environment was set out as a priority objective of the EU and the Member States. Article 174 of
the Treaty of Amsterdam (1999) further states that Community environmental policies should
pursue the objectives of preserving, safeguarding, and improving the quality of the environment,
protecting human health, using natural resources prudently and rationally, and promoting
international measures to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems. Science

SECOA, Vol. 7. Mitigating Conflicts in Coastal Areas Through Science Dissemination
- 32 -
must therefore also make its contribution to sustainable development via the instrument of
partnership.
In the agreements signed by the national governments at the United Nations Conference
on Environment and Development (UNCED) at Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, one of the first
applications of those principles was entitled “Towards sustainability: A European Community
programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development” (the Fifth
Environmental Action Programme or 5th EAP), which was approved by the European Council
in February 1993. The 5th EAP indicated some instruments which, from then onwards, were
intended to facilitate the attainment of two objectives: (1) the integration of environmental
considerations into the formulation and implementation of economic and sectoral policies, into
the decisions of public authorities, into the design and development of manufacturing processes,
and finally into the behaviour and decisions of the individual citizen; (2) dialogue and concerted
action involving the various partners (public administrations, public and private companies, and
the public, represented by the NGOs dealing with the environment, by consumers, trade unions,
and by trade associations): a dialogue that would only be fruitful if it was able to refer to objective,
reliable information about the state of the environment, based on better data than what had been
available until then.
Therefore partnership provides tools for overcoming the weaknesses of a fragmented,
overly competitive, conflictual form of short-term management that is not able to take the longer
view, although to be successful, it must
a) correctly identify the actors needed for the success of the initiative;
b) assist the partners to recognise their own strengths and weaknesses, identifying the
opportunities open to them, and the objectives they set for themselves;
c) make the most of the differing resources and strengths of the partners;
d) provide an institutional meeting point as a forum where priorities can be defined;
e) provide a mechanism that makes it possible to identify the critical points for attaining the
objectives;
f) integrate differing points of view to reduce the risks of conflict between the potential
partners.
Nevertheless there is no absolutely fail-safe formula that could ensure the success of a
partnership process, which will vary in relation to local characteristics and changes in how
partnership processes are perceived at the global level, and may also vary in relation to the main
scenarios to which it refers.

A. Montanari, Researcher and Stakeholder Cooperation in Scientific Dissemination
- 33 -
The Consultative Forum on the Environment, set up by the European Commission in 1997,
set out the following scenarios for attaining the goal of a sustainable Europe: (a) a partnership
model that is voluntary, pragmatic, orientated towards carrying out specific interventions, and
aims to promote new ideas and helps to implement new solutions (the Opening Opportunities
scenario); (b) a partnership model whose processes are managed and optimised from the top-down:
partnership that aims to improve the quality, timeliness, efficiency, and effectiveness of the
decision-making processes (the Managing the Transition scenario); (c) a partnership model that
identifies risks and preoccupations in advance, takes the necessary precautions, and helps to
rebalance the equity deficit (the Transforming Communities scenario). As examples of these top-
down or bottom-up processes two European partnership experiences can be adduced: the
European Consultative Forum on the Environment and Sustainable Development (ECFESD) (top-
down), and European Partners for the Environment (EPE) (bottom-up).
At the request of the European Commission the EU set up ECFESD (the top-down version
of partnership) in 1993 along with other innovative instruments designed to encourage concrete
implementation of the principles set out in the Fifth Environmental Action Programme (the 5th
EAP), and as a forum for consultation and information exchange between the manufacturing
sector, the business world, regional and local authorities, trade associations, trade unions,
environmental and consumer protection organisations, and the Directorates General of the
European Commission. The task of identifying the most suitable instruments and methods for
moving towards the common goal of sustainability, and for reaching a high degree of awareness
and consensus for the application of the principle of shared responsibilities, was assigned to
ECFESD, which from 1994-96 and then for four more years 1997-2001, issued guidance on
environmental and sustainable development issues.
Whilst it is likely that establishing such meeting places at the European and national level,
in which the research world could play a part, would have helped to refine the instruments of
science dissemination, the ECFESD operated under the aegis of the European Commissioner for
the Environment; this is a questionable type of arrangement that is not impartial and has at least
the appearance of having an excessively pro-environmental bias, which means that it is not
always able to provide the guarantees necessary for correct integration and may thus find it
difficult to act effectively. What is more an environmentally-biased administrative body of that
kind which, for purely political reasons, may have to commit too strongly to seek a balanced
position, may in the end lose sight of its own founding aims and interests.

SECOA, Vol. 7. Mitigating Conflicts in Coastal Areas Through Science Dissemination
- 34 -
Moreove, EPE exemplifies the alternative bottom-up version of partnership. EPE is a not-for-
profit private association established at the initiative of the European Environmental Bureau (EEB)
and of a number of large private companies, which were later combined with public authorities,
environmental organisations, private companies, trade unions, and professional and consumer
protection bodies: exactly the types of actors called upon by the EU to be part of these processes. The
EPE was set up not only to facilitate social dialogue on questions of principle or methodological
approach, but also to achieve concrete results; the expectation is that in a setting of this type, which
balances the needs expressed by the economy, society, and the environment in various places at
various times, the outcome should be a change of attitude to the possibilities of a sustainable form of
development. The EPE sees this change as interaction: a frank exchange of views and constructive
confrontation between positions that do not always converge.
In general, the partners in EPE are intensely rooted in the economic and social fabric and their
efforts are thus focussed on anticipating the aspirations of society. Companies are keen to learn more
about consumers so that they can keep track of their tastes in a timely way and if possible, anticipate
trends. In the same way, governments and administrations (for example) keep track of their electors, or
environmental associations and trade unions keep themselves attuned to the expectations of their
members. In EPE, all these actors agreed to come together and construct a concrete, ongoing point of
reference in which each can construct its own wider network of knowledge and relationships and
compare itself with other social and economic entities whose experiences, attitudes, and perspectives
may differ widely from their own and may frequently even be alternative to them or in conflict with
them. To put this all more briefly, EPE could be described as a reciprocal learning instrument whose
focus is sustainability.
The point of reference that originally led to the setting up of ECFESD and the EPE was in
the United States, where the former President Clinton established the President’s Council on
Sustainable Development (PCSD) in 1993. The PCSD was based on collaborative partnership
between local authorities, private entrepreneurs, and citizens who since 1984 had already been
working on the environmental and social recovery of the industrial area of Chattanooga on the
Tennessee River, which at that time was one of the most degraded areas in the country. The PCSD
Chattanooga project, which aimed to reach completion by the year 2000, identified the most
suitable methodologies and technologies to reduce the production and storage of waste, toxic
substances, and pesticides, to purify and protect the air, the water, and the land, and to identify
new jobs and economic opportunities. It proved to be an environmental success story that
reinstated the environment’s quality and brought about a recovery of the economy, leading to

A. Montanari, Researcher and Stakeholder Cooperation in Scientific Dissemination
- 35 -
more widespread andequitably distributed social well-being, not because of some top-down
development plan imposed from outside but, thanks to concerted bottom-up collaboration
between various actors in the local community.
For some years a number of European countries have already begun attempting to protect
the landscape using the instrument of shared responsibilities, which is seen as necessary to fully
implement regulatory instruments which on their own are often ineffective, as well as financial
and economic instruments which if applied without broad social control, can sometimes lead to
abuses. The EPE has analysed the practical application of the principle of partnership in the sector
of tourism, recreation and leisure, beginning from the assumptions that these sectors: i) are
distributed in all regions and all countries; ii) specifically relate to environmental resources; iii)
require a journey to take place in order to be consumed; iv) are particularly differentiated and
fragmented and are therefore particularly difficult to manage and; v) generate spatial and
temporal polarisation that increases pressure on the environment (Williams and Shaw, 1996).
In recent decades the social sciences have been devoting a great deal of attention to
studying and analysing the local and regional consequences of the economic restructuring
processes brought about by the passage from Fordist to post-Fordist forms of manufacturing
(Amin, 1994). These studies have been supplemented by regulationist theory, according to which
there is a correspondence between regimes of accumulation and the modes of regulation that are
required to maintain the stability of social systems (Dunford, 1990). The fundamental problem
has been to verify whether there is a logical nexus between the concept of sustainability and the
need for regulation, in a context in which the use of landscape is becoming more fragmented and
dispersed. Some scholars (Welford and Gouldson, 1993) claim that distributing manufacturing
more widely, and keeping it at a smaller scale, is better for the environment because this gives
local communities more control over it. Furthermore, local control presupposes that there will be
less consumption of natural resources and that less pollution will be generated, than in large-
scale situations where environmental, economic and social policy-making, as well as monitoring
its implementation, are exercised from afar by administrations that have no local roots. Based on
that assumption, it is possible to envisage the emergence of a new system of local economies that
are locally controlled and have less of an impact on the environment (Gibbs, 1996). However since
small firms and local systems of this type would be more likely to respond positively to the
challenges of environmental management, they would need a greater degree of managerial
autonomy so that they are directly accountable for their own actions, rather than being required

SECOA, Vol. 7. Mitigating Conflicts in Coastal Areas Through Science Dissemination
- 36 -
to operate in accordance with rigid regulations imposed from outside, which in any case may not
be suitable for dealing with the problems at hand.
Consequently we find ourselves in a transitional phase as we move away from the direct,
dominant involvement of central and local administrations, towards a much more complex
system of territorial management, in which programmes are defined and prioritised on a case-
by-case basis and run for a set time on a basis of partnership and collaboration between different
local actors (Goodwin and Painter, 1996). The emergence of this new approach can be attributed
to various factors:
a) a reduction of economic resources;
b) the need to avoid duplication in policy planning and management;
c) the benefits that can be derived from collaborating to seek external funding;
d) the synergies that are activated by combining knowledge, experience and enthusiasm;
e) the numerous contacts and collaborations that are activated;
f) the greater freedom and incentives for innovation that can form by operating outside the
control of public agencies;
g) the possibility of establishing better contact with individual localities (Charlton, 1998).
These kinds of partnership find further legitimation in the concept of self-regulation,
which makes individuals, firms, and administrations responsible for managing their own
environment as a resource (Williams and Montanari, 1999).
Thus self-regulation becomes the antithesis of regulations imposed by public
administrations (i.e. state regulation) and gets its impulse instead from a neo-liberalist approach,
which assumes that individual decisions are more efficient at attaining predetermined objectives,
including consumer satisfaction and protecting the environment, in that they maximise the
positive effects of free decision-making by individuals who can operate without interference from
public administrations; and this is said to make the market more effective at serving the interests
of the individual (Hayek, 1988).
In Western countries, self-regulation finds further justification in the limits that state
regulation has been encountering in recent decades, when rather than encouraging a positive
attitude on the part of consumers and producers, has come to be associated with the imposition
of negative, punitive controls and regulations. Both of these justifications can be successfully
brought together to develop self-regulation policies that create the conditions for pressure and
stimulus in forms of state intervention that are still possible, but hopefully are never needed.

A. Montanari, Researcher and Stakeholder Cooperation in Scientific Dissemination
- 37 -
3. Governance as an instrument for managing science dissemination
Governance is the outline of the different ways in which individuals and institutions, both public
and private, manage their affairs: a continuous process in which different or even conflicting
interests can be accommodated and initiatives can be jointly undertaken. The concept includes
formal institutions and regimes to which full powers are granted to enforce compliance, but can
also refer to informal agreements between individuals and institutions or potential agreements
which they believe might be in their common interest (The Commission on Global Governance,
1995). Examples of governance at the local level could include neighbourhood work to organise
and operate a service; a municipality that sets up a waste recycling system; an inter-municipal
transport plan coordinated by the administrations and user groups; or a regional initiative taken
by public administrations, industry groups, and residents' associations working together to
control deforestation.
Translated into Italian the word governance might mean something along the lines of
“organising the decision-making process” and its first meaning was in fact taken to be “organised
intergovernmental relations”. Today it is also assumed to include the activities of NGOs, citizen
movements, multinational corporations, and even the global capital market; its former meaning as
a partnership between governments has now extended to encompass other forms of shared
responsibility. So far, concerning sustainable development, the word “governance” has become the
metaphorical expression of a need for changed relationships between the actors involved in it.
The world’s economy is undergoing profound transformation; as a result of the new
information and communication technologies, the nature of work itself has changed, and will
force nation-states to rethink the nature of their political systems. In coming decades the civil
sector will be integrated into the traditional bipolar system of market plus government, replacing
it with a tri-polar relationship in which each component will control and balance the other two:
a new political paradigm that will then find itself compelled to reorganise the very idea of
citizenship. And in fact, in May 1999 in his speech to the General Assembly of the European
Parliament, the former EEB Secretary-General Raymond Van Ermen stated that the operational
objective for Europe was to be “European Governance”: a model of partnership for the 21st
century that would be based on a three-way relationship between public authorities
(infrastructure capital), the market (market capital), and civil society (social capital, i.e. social
actors, associations, churches, humanitarian movements, consumer organisations, and
institutions for education and lifelong learning). Each component of this triangle operates in
accordance with its own time-frames which in the case of civil society could be anything from the
short life-spans of NIMBY concerns to the thousand-year-old religions; in the case of the market

SECOA, Vol. 7. Mitigating Conflicts in Coastal Areas Through Science Dissemination
- 38 -
it could refer to the week-by-week deadlines of the financial markets, and in the case of public
authorities, to the need for new elections every few years.
In Europe a new balance of power is coming about between these three main components;
new prospects are deriving from the concept of European citizenship and from the rights
associated with it. Even though so far the three components have not been accorded equal dignity
and in some cases the idea of partnership between them has become confused with the idea of
consensus-building, which may at times include forms of manipulation that further devalue it.
Nevertheless partnership is necessary since there are, at least, two trust crises that must be
overcome: (a) the lack of trust between society and the public authorities and; (b) the risk that
business may lose the trust of the public if public opinion sees it as part of a system that does not
respond positively to their demands and needs and is directed against them.
So far as the EU is concerned, to complete the institutional and procedural reforms that
are expected by the new Commission and the new Parliament it is therefore necessary to define
new forms of governance based on complete information, on dialogue with public opinion, and
involving all the actors. Thus, rather than prescriptive measures, the basis for a culture of
sustainable development in this new multilevel system of governance should be partnership,
participation, and the involvement of civil society. As Italy is concerned, the instruments and
methods of governance in relation to sustainable development, indicated in a document that the
Consultative Forum on the Environment and Sustainable Development has submitted to the new
European Commission, make reference to the need to reorganise such tried and tested social
sectors as wage bargaining, the standardisation of products (via CEN and CENELEC) and of best
professional practices, and the system of education and training (Commission of the European
Communities, 1999).
Taking a similar approach, in recent years the government of the Netherlands has
developed its own policy of cooperative environmental management, based on five elements: 1)
making the whole of society responsible for the environment; 2) providing clear, comprehensible
information that is acceptable to all; 3) recognising that the policy is only one element of a process
in which many actors have a critical role to play; 4) configuring the political debate in terms that
are acceptable to all its participants; 5) committing to the long-term continuity of the policy, of
which there are numerous significant examples (de Jongh, 1999). This decision was motivated by
the fact that a drastic policy shift is now required, since interventions so far have been confined
only to the most badly degraded situations and there has been reluctance to address the root
causes, since this would in turn require economic structures and manufacturing processes to be
completely rethought.

A. Montanari, Researcher and Stakeholder Cooperation in Scientific Dissemination
- 39 -
Technology and economy are in fact continuing to expand much more quickly than the
speed with which public administrations are able to draw up the necessary regulatory measures:
an acceleration that is posing problems which can no longer be dealt with using the traditional
instruments that regulate manufacturing processes, because those instruments can only intervene
at the end. That being so, it is expectedthat a new, more advanced form of “science dissemination
governance” can come into being.
Figure.1.1. SECOA phases of knowledge and information flows.
Fig. 1.1. shows the phases of knowledge as these were configured within SECOA, where
an initial version of science dissemination governance became necessary so that the disciplines
responsible for each level could communicate in the best way possible. For each of these levels a
connection with stakeholders was established for collecting, selecting, and interpreting the data
and identifying qualitative priorities. This first phase, which can be described as an early form of
science dissemination governance, served to establish reciprocal trust and knowledge among the
stakeholders in relation to the essential data to be collected. In the third phase of SECOA, the
results of the scientific elaborations are made available to the stakeholders in a form that is
already very familiar to them.

SECOA, Vol. 7. Mitigating Conflicts in Coastal Areas Through Science Dissemination
- 40 -
4. The relevance of science dissemination
Above and beyond the principles written into the constitution of the EU, science dissemination
is much more important today than it may have been in the past. Partly because scientific
progress is having a significant impact on society, and partly in relation to progress in the
development of new information and communication tools. Whatever the reasons, if scientific
information (which may or may not be genuinely “scientific”) is not correctly managed, it can
reach the general public in ways that may generate only uncertainty and panic, exacerbating
the public's perception that scientific innovation is associated with risk.
Hence as Păcurar (2012) suggests, researchers ought to think more carefully about
making the structure of their research and its outcomes more comprehensible so that the whole
process can be understood; indeed, a distorted form of dissemination might be worse than no
dissemination at all. Păcurar (2012) also suggests that if we want to ensure that all the
components of a research process are more completely understood, we need to be aware of who
is transmitting scientific knowledge to civil society today, and why it is now so important that
public opinion should be correctly informed. For that reason many institutions have decided to
promote the results of their scientific work as part of a wider process of mass communication.
However as demonstrated by the numerous publications which scattered technical and
scientific information in the past, science dissemination is not exclusively a consequence of ICT,
nor is it a topic that has only recently emerged. According to Lancaster (1977), “scientific and
technical information is transmitted in two ways through formal and informal channels. The
formal channels mainly involve the use of printed documents of various kinds, while the
informal channels are more concerned with oral information transfer. Printed documents may
be disseminated through ‘invisible colleges’ and similar manifestations of informal
communication, while professional conferences combine formal presentations with the
opportunity for informal communication. Both types of communication are important for
scientific and technological progress”. He drew a diagram, which depicted the technical and
scientific disseminations that take place via primary and secondary sources as a continuous
cycle. This cycle can be summarised as a series of steps: (i) the production and processing of
ideas; (ii) codifying the outcomes, (iii) primary publication, (iv) refining and comparing the
consequences of publication. This process is necessary to create the particularly complex
product which is to be transmitted to society. Lancaster (1977) also tried to develop a hypothesis

A. Montanari, Researcher and Stakeholder Cooperation in Scientific Dissemination
- 41 -
by way of how the process might be transformed by computer technology, which already since
the early 1960s had begun to be applied to the processes of dissemination. Depending on its
ability to apply the new technology, he surmised that the dissemination process would remain
the same but would accumulate more information and process it more quickly. But in the event,
ICT significantly changed the process itself by reducing the distance between the producer of
scientific results and the user, de facto abolishing most cultural intermediaries and filters.
Today and since some time ago, there has no longer been any difference between
primary distribution and secondary publication; as soon as a text is published on the Internet
it is immediately automatically catalogued, although printed documents can still be distributed
through formal communication channels and formal presentations are still made at
conferences, which continue to present opportunities for informal verbal communication. In
terms of disseminating the results of research, for many years libraries used to play a very
important role by cataloguing and indexing printed works and enabling them to be circulated,
and the publishers of secondary services played an important role by publishing abstracts,
indices, and synopses of the literature published in primary sources.
Lancaster (1977) also offered a glimpse of what he though was likely to come with the
spread of ICT. We can understand how quickly that happened by considering the costs of access
to publications. Between 1965 and 1975 in the U.S. a year’s subscription to a typical scientific
review increased by 250% but a researcher’s salary did not increase by anything like the same
amount, which put secondary sources beyond the means of the individual researcher. Lancaster
(1977) predicted that something similar would soon happen in the case of primary sources as
well. He was thinking about the situation as he knew it, attempting to construct future scenarios
for the year 2000, when ICT tools became as widely used as the telephone was in his time in the
1970s.

SECOA, Vol. 7. Mitigating Conflicts in Coastal Areas Through Science Dissemination
- 42 -
5. Early examples of dissemination in the study of urban settlements:
From the CURB project to the Turin project
While the concept of dissemination in practical terms referred to in this volume is relatively new,
there have been forms of dissemination of the results of scientific research in previous decades.
One such case is the CURB (Costs of Urban Growth) project, co-ordinated by the International
Social Science Council (ISSC)’s European Coordination Centre for Research and Documentation
in Social Sciences (Vienna Centre), from 1971–1982 (Montanari, 2012; 2013b). The results of the
CURB project were transferred to the Turin project, which had been initiated and co-ordinated
by local authorities with the participation of other stakeholders. The Turin project was formally
approved at the United Nations Habitat Conference in Vancouver, in 1976. Subsequently, at the
7th Conference of Mayors of the World’s Major Cities, organised by the Centre for Co-operation
Among the Cities of the World and held in Turin and in Milan in 1978. Turin was asked to
commission research into the problems of an industrial city. There were many factors pointing to
the crisis that industrial cities were experiencing and the need to identify urban policies aimed at
the economic regeneration of large cities. In fact, there was obvious signs of crisis: fewer industrial
jobs, above-average unemployment levels in various countries, and a growing number of people
employed by the service sector. For this reason, at the 1978 conference, the CURB project
researchers were asked to transmit the results of their research, which had identified a turning
point in the growth of metropolitan areas (Berg v.d., Drewett, Klaassen, Rossi, Vijverberg, 1982).
A similar phenomenon had previously been noted in the U.S. by Berry (1976).
Vladimir-Braco Mušič, the CURB researchers’ representative at the conference, made a
speech in which he pointed out that the city is both a community of people and an opportunity
for a learning experience. Therefore, social and economic relationships must be changed in order
to efficiently change the city’s structure. Civil society must be involved to the greatest possible
extent in the process of change, and superficial utopias must be avoided. The former Mayor of
Turin, Diego Novelli, criticised researchers and urban planners for being out of touch with
society. Mušič replied that research on urban issues could not merely be considered a technical
activity. It had to be seen first and foremost as a social sciences endeavour aimed at policy
implementation. Therefore, the individual phases of a process comprising research, consultation,
university teaching and political work had to be combined.
The conference gave Turin the task of initiating and managing the International Turin
Project following a proposal by Mr Novelli to use the city as a living laboratory in which to study
and acquire a clearer understanding of urban processes. Turin was a good base for in-depth study

A. Montanari, Researcher and Stakeholder Cooperation in Scientific Dissemination
- 43 -
because it had a wide range of problems, some of which had become particularly acute. A
working group was set up by the Turin City Council, comprising technicians and city politicians
as well as researchers from four faculties at the University of Turin, who worked on seven
research themes together known as the Turin Project, with the sub-heading “The urban economy
and its territorial and social aspects”:
1. An analysis of the economic structure of metropolitan areas with a view to identifying the
most important features and providing an explanatory model of the way in which the
economy functions;
2. A study on population dynamics and structure including the demographic characteristics
of the city;
3. An analysis of the labour market in a metropolitan area and trends in the demand and
supply of labour;
4. Instruments for the management of spatial aspects of change in the urban economy at the
local government level;
5. Tools for governing the local economy, a review of the practical experiences of the
involvement of local authorities in the field of economic policy;
6. An investigation of the problems of a specific production sector which is of particular
importance to the economy of the city;
7. An analysis of the time patterns which govern the every day life of the city and its citizens
and how this information might be used in social services provision.
At the 9th Conference of Mayors of the World’s Major Cities held in Turin in April 1980,
the Turin working group presented a report on its research activity titled “The city: critical
dimension – community of citizens” that was debated by the mayors present. The discussion was
dominated by the speeches of three people who represented significant aspects of the
international debate at the time: Diego Novelli, Mayor of Turin (1975-1985) and President of the
World Federation of United Cities (1979–1982), Aurelio Peccei, President of the Club of Rome
(1968–1984), and Adam Schaff, President of the Board of Directors of the Vienna Centre (1969–
1989). These three eminent politicians and intellectuals proposed that the Vienna Centre, which
had previously been responsible for the CURB project, was given the task of organising and co-
ordinating the new project. The cities that took part in the Turin International Project were
Cologne (BDR), Cracow (P), Dresden (DDR), Lille (F) and of course Turin – because they all had
significant problems, and because they offered a sample which comprised cities in countries with
market economies as well as cities in countries with planned economies. In 1980, Lille opted to

SECOA, Vol. 7. Mitigating Conflicts in Coastal Areas Through Science Dissemination
- 44 -
go out of the project and was replaced by Tallin (Estonia, USSR). To ensure continuity with the
CURB project, from 1980 to 1983 the co-ordinator of the Turin International project at the Vienna
Centre was Armando Montanari. Christiane Villain-Gandossi subsequently held the position
until the project’s conclusion in 1987.
Hence,the innovative factor was not only a new process of dissemination, but also, and
above all, a new way to encourage the twinning of cities. Zelinsky (1991) retraces the history of
these twinning’s, the first of which dates, in Europe, to 1918, i.e. after the First World War,
between a Swiss and a German town. But the Organisation for Sister Cities International was
founded in 1967 following what the American President Dwight D. Eisenhower had called
“people-to-people diplomacy”, which was needed to overcome the divisions and brutality of the
Second World War. Although this policy developed fast in the 1970s and 1980s, it was
implemented exclusively between Western European cities. The Turin International Project
indicated possible changes and the inevitable problems that would result:
1. Western and Eastern European cities, which were separated at the time by the Iron
Curtain, could attempt to co-operate, even if any such co-operation was to be strictly
controlled;
2. The scope of twinning until then had been to organise events and shows and exchange
gifts, and mainly to organise big lunches and dinners. While all of this had certainly
helped to thaw the icy relations between West and East in the wake of the Second World
War, twinning could no longer continue unless it managed to tackle the concrete problems
of each community;
3. With towns beginning to tackle concrete problems and potentially involve citizens in this
process, it was absolutely necessary to supply information and encourage discussion and
debate. This is how an early, basic form of dissemination came to be tested;
4. Local administrations’ vision of their participation and involvement were limited to their
own electoral terms. These periods did not coincide and did not provide enough time to
carry out the required research;
5. Comparative research can be restrictive when it comes to selecting the data to be
examined, and the comparison of results can lead to conclusions that are not always fully
in line with the expectations of each administration;
6. The Turin International Project was undoubtedly an interesting example of dissemination,
but it is unlikely to be remembered for its scientific results and publications (Allan, 1982;
Lever, 1989).

A. Montanari, Researcher and Stakeholder Cooperation in Scientific Dissemination
- 45 -
Each of the municipalities that made up the Turin International Project had a research
group involving researchers from that particular city. While this ensured optimal dissemination,
it also made the research problematic in some ways. The project was built on two methodological
references that were not entirely compatible with international comparative research. Firstly, the
cities made it clear that they did not intend to follow a common research programme based on a
single methodology, with identical data being collected and analysed. They decided on research
that would be analogous to the greatest possible extent and that, while based on independent
criteria, would supply results useful for some form of comparative analysis. A joint co-ordination
meeting was to be held at least once a year. Secondly, the participating administrations wished
to be free to exchange information on the policies adopted with regard to themes of immediate
interest to each city. Any city could organise a meeting to discuss themes of interest to itself.
6. Multidisciplinarity and dissemination: Two aspects of the same process
Previous reference has been made (Montanari, 2013b) to Charles Percy Snow’s work (1959) to
attract the attention of intellectuals to the barrier that had come up between two cultures, science
and the humanities. It was a subject Snow was well placed to discuss, being a man of letters as
well as a scientist. Snow’s concern, and that of the people who have discussed his work over the
past half-century, was centred on two main objectives. The environment and the people who use
it to survive on an everyday basis, are inter-related in complex ways that cannot be understood
unless scientists, social scientists and humanities scholars work together. But the other problem
is that, over time, the lack of collaboration has created a barrier; the lack of communication has
given rise to languages understood only by the initiated, which slow down any form of
communication.
The Internet has made it possible to increase possibilities for collaboration in previously
unthinkable ways, and to extract significant information from the huge quantity of data produced
in laboratories. Using this opportunity means being able to improve the way in which research is
done and speed up the diffusion of discoveries while making the most of opportunities offered
by a kind of programmed serendipity. More widespread diffusion of the results of knowledge
will also make it possible to modify the role of scientific research in society. The EC requires EU-
funded research projects to make their results openly accessible and to maintain constant contact
with the end users that each project identifies beforehand. While processes are already fully
shareable, procedures need to be opened up more completely.

SECOA, Vol. 7. Mitigating Conflicts in Coastal Areas Through Science Dissemination
- 46 -
7. Multidisciplinarity and dissemination:
Italo Calvino’s contribution to the study of urban settlements
All the world’s cities have a shared development model because the economic and cultural
impetus behind the growth of these cities has a common matrix, which is stimulated by
communication and information exchange. This has been a topic of discussion within the
International Geographical Union (IGU)’s commissions for the past forty years. Berry (1976)
mentions that the main topic at a meeting of the Committee on Urbanisation of the Social Science
Research Council, in the early 1970s, was that of reviewing research on urban settlements so as
to identify structures, processes and growth phases that could contribute to a general theory on
the phenomenon of urbanisation, irrespective of time- and space-related criteria in specific cases.
Without a general reference theory, the social sciences could not be defined as sciences in their
own right. The idea of finding a shared reference for urban development processes caused a great
deal of controversy for at least a decade, as it was thought that this could contribute to possible
conflicts of interpretation between Western countries with market economies and Eastern
European countries with planned economies, and also globally, between ‘North’ countries with
mature economies and the developing ‘South’.
In a book that was greeted with more criticism than approval, Berry (1973) wrote: “What
I do in this book is to disavow the view that urbanisation is a universal process.” When the
Commission on Processes and Patterns of Urbanization of the IGU (Jones, 1975) took a stance
(including for ideological reasons) on the subject, it did so very clearly, explaining that the
phenomenon of urbanisation - which had spread to all seven continents - was the result of quite
different situations and factors. So it would not be possible – or even wise – to attempt to reduce
the phenomenon to a model. Meanwhile, the writer Italo Calvino (1923–1885) had published
Invisible Cities (Calvino, 1974) in which, in a poetic interpretation, he said that every city derives
from a common model, and that therefore, despite their differences, all cities have a reference
model.

A. Montanari, Researcher and Stakeholder Cooperation in Scientific Dissemination
- 47 -
Figure 1.2. the invisible cities published in English (Calvino, 1974).
Figure 1.3. the invisible cities published in Chinese (Calvino, 2001).

SECOA, Vol. 7. Mitigating Conflicts in Coastal Areas Through Science Dissemination
- 48 -
This particular novel is situated in what critics define as the period in which Calvino (fig.
1. 2 and fig.1.3) was seeking a closer relationship between literature and science, and assimilating
structuralism and combinatorial logic. The general model contains all the standard features of a
city; so, as a good public administrator, Kublai Khan, the Tartar emperor who is conversing with
Calvino’s fictitious Marco Polo, merely had to envisage exceptions to the rule and calculate the
most probable combinations.
In opposing the official stance of geographers at the time, Berry (1976) included a page
from Invisible Cities in the introduction to his book; the page where Calvino (1974) writes “and
yet I have constructed in my mind a model city from which all possible cities can be deduced… -
Kublai said - …it contains everything corresponding to the norm”, followed by “I have also
thought of a model city from which I can deduce all the others … - Marco answered - ... It is a
model city made only of exceptions, exclusions, incongruities, contradictions”. Calvino’s book
(1974) became extremely well-known in the U.S. (fig. 1.4 and fig.1.5), not least because it was a
finalist for the Nebula Prize awarded by the Science Fiction Writers of America (SFWA) in the
Best Novel category.
Figure 1.4. Calvino in New York (1959), photography published in Mondello (1990, p.93).

A. Montanari, Researcher and Stakeholder Cooperation in Scientific Dissemination
- 49 -
Figure 1.5. Calvino in a drawing by David Levine (1974).
Berry was undoubtedly fascinated by the way Calvino indicated, in his poetic
interpretation, that every city derives from a common model. And since the general model
contains all the standard features of a city, Kublai Khan, who is conversing with Calvino’s
fictitious Marco Polo, merely had to envisage exceptions to the rule and calculate the most
probable combinations. Kublai Khan obviously represents what any modern individual, public
administrator or private sector entrepreneur who has to take a decision about urban development
should be.
Calvino’s theory, which Berry (1976) used as a reference point, in marked contrast to the
position adopted at the time by the International Geographical Union, has served as a conceptual
starting point for comparative research in the social sciences over the past thirty years. Cities will
continue to grow and to spread the impact of the changes they are undergoing to the surrounding
territories in a number of different ways that will, however, always derive from a common model.
Therefore, identifying a benchmark urban model – however complex the task – must
continue to be the objective of social science research so as to better understand processes, create
a framework for policy intervention and continue to anticipate possible future scenarios. Based
on the identification of a reference model, Berry (1976) was able to affirm that “a turning point
has been reached in the American urban experience. Counter urbanization has replaced
urbanization as the dominant force shaping the nation’s settlement patterns”. Research has since
been carried out in a number of countries on every continent on the basis of this assumption.
Drewett, Goddard and Spence (1976) applied these theories in the UK and concluded that “it can
be postulated that centralization and decentralization in both the Standard Metropolitan Labour
Area (SMLA) and Metropolitan Economic Labour Area (MELA) systems are dependent upon the

SECOA, Vol. 7. Mitigating Conflicts in Coastal Areas Through Science Dissemination
- 50 -
stage in the ‘life cycle’ of individual cities, which in turn may be related to their location relative
to other cities in the urban system”.
In the second half of the 1970s, Roy Drewett and some other colleagues approached the
ISSC-Vienna Centre with the proposed European CURB project to study the growth and decline
of urban areas in European countries with market economies as well as planned economies
(Montanari, 2013b). When the results of the CURB project were published (Berg v.d., Drewett,
Klaassen, Rossi, and Vijverberg, 1982), some representatives of Socialist countries once again
mooted, for ideological reasons – as had been the case within the IGU a decade earlier – that it
was impossible to use a single model to explain urban changes. At the end of a prolonged debate
that lasted well into the night on the last day of meetings held at the headquarters of the Polish
Academy of Sciences on 23-26 November 1979, a compromise was found: the two-page summary
specified, among other things, that “the form, scope and rate of urbanization depends on the level
of socio-economic development attained, the geographic conditions, and the institutional
structures of the given country, and on the preferences of individual population groups,
authorities, enterprises, and other factors participating in the processes of socio-economic
development… (Herman and Regulski, 1982)”.
8. Multidisciplinarity and dissemination:
Italo Calvino’s contribution to the study of food and the landscape
Calvino’s interest then spread to other subjects. On 30 March 1983, he gave the James Lecture at
the New York Institute for the Humanities, subsequently published (Calvino, 1983) in the New
York Review of Books, during which he disclosed that he was considering writing a book on the
five senses. The unfinished book would subsequently be published after his death (Calvino,
1988). In the introductory part of his lecture, Calvino discussed the relationship between the
written and the spoken word, which lead to a further element of discussion (often pondered
within the social sciences) about the instrument of oral expression, and the language in which it
is expressed. All these elements profoundly influence the relationship between the person
producing communication and those receiving it: “For a lecture, on the contrary,” Calvino said,
“I must face not only the audience but also the question within me: What is the audience
expecting from my words? When I must lecture in a language that isn’t my own language, a
supplementary question arises: Are the words I’m thinking the same as the ones I’m saying and
the same the listener will receive?” (Calvino, 1983).

A. Montanari, Researcher and Stakeholder Cooperation in Scientific Dissemination
- 51 -
Further, the subject is developed when we go from individuals who can choose between
the written and the spoken word, depending on the circumstances to civilisations dominated by
the written word and others in which the written word is totally inexistent. “Through the
centuries, the habit of reading has changed Homo sapiens into Homo legens. But this Homo
legens is no more sapiens than his ancestors. The non-reading man could see and hear many
things we aren’t able to perceive now: the tracks of the beasts he was hunting, the signs of the
approaching rain or win. He could tell the hours of the day from the shadow of a tree or those of
the night from the position of stars upon the horizon. And as to hearing, smell, taste, and touch,
his superiority over us is undeniable. (Calvino, 1983)” Calvino referred to taste in a story
originally published with the title “Sapore sapere” (“Learning to taste”), in which he explains
that a true journey is one that forces us to experiment with a different reality to the one to which
we are used (Calvino, 1988).
As with every form of human mobility, travel forces us to meet, confront and even clash
with all that is different. When it comes to food, travel forces us into a complete change of diet
that Calvino expresses as the need to ‘swallow’ the country we are visiting – its flora, its fauna
and its culture. He specifies that he is referring not only to the composition of raw materials, but
also to their treatment and use. He manages to express a seemingly contradictory concept: the
food to which he refers is a complex cultural object, more intangible than intangible, which the
traveller must, however, physically swallow, “making it go through the lips and oesophagus”.
The idea that the country the traveller is visiting has to be ‘swallowed’ like any other food,
leads us to a few similarities with the science of nutrition, particularly the Mediterranean diet.
According to the dietician Donini (2012), “the Mediterranean diet is a collection of food-related
traditions, artisanal know-how and techniques, imagery and landscapes that people living
around the Mediterranean Sea recognise as being an integral part of their cultural heritage”. The
reference is to the work of Keys and Keys (1975), who published the results of a study initiated
in the 1940s concerning the diet of ordinary people in Naples in the early 1950s: large quantities
of fresh fruit and vegetables, pasta and bread, with small portions of meat and fish eaten only
twice a week. The biologist and physiologist Ancel Benjamin Keys (1904-2004), who became well
known to the general public after Time magazine put him on the cover of Issue LXXVII n.3 dated
13 January 1961, suggested imbibing the Neapolitan culture and landscape as a way to prevent
cardio-vascular diseases (fig. 1.6).

SECOA, Vol. 7. Mitigating Conflicts in Coastal Areas Through Science Dissemination
- 52 -
Figure 1.6. Ancel Keys on the Time magazine cover (1961).
Donini (2012) maintains that “the duration and quality of life stems from balanced
consumption of foods rich in fibre, antioxidants and unsaturated fats. Mostly plant-based foods,
therefore: olive oil and olives, fruits, vegetables, cereals (preferably unrefined), pulses, dried fruit
and fish; moderate amounts of milk and dairy products (mainly cheese and yogurt); occasional
consumption of meat and cold cuts, and wine, if desired, with the main meals.” However, Donini
adds that “the evolution of our lifestyles and agricultural production methods, as well as
scientific knowledge, mean that the model has to be constantly adapted – while maintaining the
key points – to society’s changing needs.”
With regard to the need to constantly adapt the model, the scientist Carlo Cannella (1943-
2011), then president of the Italian institute for food and diet research (Istituto Nazionale di
Ricerca per gli Alimenti e la Nutrizione – INRAN), presented the New Pyramid of the
Mediterranean Diet (NPDM) at the end of the third international conference organised by the
Inter-university International Centre for Mediterranean Food Culture (CIISCAM, Sapienza
University of Rome) in Parma on 3 November 2009. At the base of the NPDM are plant-based
foods such as cereals, vegetables and fruits, which make up the main meal, with other foods
needed to complete the meal depicted in descending order, depending on the recommended
daily or weekly intake (Cannella, Giusti, Pinto, 2007). The conference drew on social sciences
research to conclude that other key elements are physical activity, sitting down with friends and

A. Montanari, Researcher and Stakeholder Cooperation in Scientific Dissemination
- 53 -
family to eat a meal, and eating locally-grown, seasonal food (del Balzo, Diolordi, Pinto, Giusti,
Vitiello, Cannella, Dernini, Donini, Berry, 2012).
The diet and behavioural recommendations were easily illustrated in the form of a
pyramid chart that has become a self-standing tool of scientific dissemination using infographics.
Each food item shown in the NPDM is the result of a chain that has developed in the territory
where it is produced; it is the conceptual representation of the area’s natural and cultural
resources. In other words, it is an instance of the relationship between food, its production, the
place of production and the culture of the place’s inhabitants, which is summed up in the
definition ‘Geography of Taste’ (Montanari, Costa, Staniscia, 2007).
The experience of visitors and consumers who ‘swallow’ the landscape to gain a better
understanding of the culture of the countries they are visiting has been summarised as ‘Taste of
Geography’ (Montanari, 2009; Montanari and Staniscia, 2009). The latter concept, developed
within the field of geography, was introduced by a historian, Massimo Montanari (2002; 2004),
who – repudiating history, paradoxically enough – used it to explain that historical archetypes
have never existed, in that “the taste of geography does not belong to the past”. Indeed, interest
in so-called ‘regional’ cuisine only really began to grow after the early stages of industrialisation.
He admits that regional differences have always existed, and therefore glorifies geography by
saying that the concept of territory as a positive factor is a “new invention” (Montanari M., 2004).
If there were any surviving doubt about Calvino’s innovative interpretation, it is enough to recall
that he urges consumers not to eat foods that are “exotic”, and hence without a territory, because
by doing so, they will restrict their experience to what they could just as well watch on television.
The transition from the Geography of Taste to the Taste of Geography has taken place
through the interpretation of the concept of the “gaze”. Several fields including medicine,
psychology, philosophy, sociology and geography have contributed to giving the “gaze” a
meaning relevant for human mobility. Shaw and Williams (2002) remind us that the tourist gaze
is built on the basis of significant signs and elements of the landscape. Tourists are great collectors
of these signs, which are filtered through to them by a dense network of information – in part
exclusively cultural, but also messages aimed at creating and marketing touristic places. Together
with other geographers, Shaw and Williams (2002) introduce the concept of the “gaze” as applied
to tourism, using the work of the sociologist John Urry (1990) as their benchmark. Urry had based
his own concept on the work of the philosopher and social theorist Michel Focault (1926-1984),
who had introduced the concept of the “medical gaze”. There are tourist resources that are the

SECOA, Vol. 7. Mitigating Conflicts in Coastal Areas Through Science Dissemination
- 54 -
result of a romantic or collective gaze, but they can also be historical or contemporary, or simply
true or false resources, hence built from nothing.
The creation of unreal images charged with signs and meanings are the instruments that
many tourists create for themselves, the better to escape their daily routine. Tourism that is
attracted by cultural heritage prevalently uses the attraction in itself as a resource. Nor can one
underestimate the powerful social metaphor of the cultural attraction as a means to represent the
relationship of the visitor to his own history and the history of other cultures.
We can go back in time and trace the origin of the “gaze” concept to the work of the
neurologist and psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) and that of the psychoanalyst and
psychiatrist Jacques Lacan (1901-1981), which in turn leads back to the Roman philosopher Lucius
Annaeus Seneca (4 B.C.–65 A.D.), as seen in Fig. 1.7 and explained in greater detail in a recent
article (Montanari, 2013a).
Figure 1.7. The gaze, the powerful social metaphor of the cultural attraction as a means to represent the
relationship of the visitor to his own history and the history of other cultures.

A. Montanari, Researcher and Stakeholder Cooperation in Scientific Dissemination
- 55 -
The latest version of the NPDM was produced during the World Forum for Nutrition
Research, held in Reus, Spain, from 20-21 May 2013, with a reference territory proposed for each
food item so as to go from the geography of taste to the taste of geography. This latest version of
the Mediterranean diet pyramid not only refers to healthy eating and individual well-being, it
also makes it possible to contribute to the development of the territory by setting up networks of
small and medium businesses operating in the production and services sectors.
9. Science dissemination: Functional illiteracy and national prosperity
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the term
“functional illiteracy” applies to an individual who cannot engage in all those activities in which
literacy is required for effective functioning of his group and community. This means that even
people who can use reading, writing and calculation may have knowledge gaps if their skills are
not adequately shored up by the spread of innovations introduced by scientific research.
The Human Development Report 2013 (UNDP, 2013) points out that when developed
economies stopped growing because of the 2008-2009 financial crisis, the emerging economies
continued to grow. Justification for this growth was provided by GDP figures and international
trade growth figures. The UNDP (2013) also points out other factors such as social equality and
democratic management of public administrations, continuous investments in human
development and the creation of opportunities for greater human progress.
The results of the most recent Programme for International Students Assessment (PISA)
conducted in 63 countries in the course of the year 2009 reveals that many countries have made
considerable progress in the quality of learning outcomes. Students in Shanghai, China,
outscored students in 62 other countries in reading, maths and science. Students in the Republic
of Korea, Finland and Hong Kong SAR (China) topped the scale in reading; Singapore, Hong
Kong SAR (China) and the Republic of Korea in mathematics, and Finland, Hong Kong SAR
(China) and Singapore in science. In the agricultural sector, China, with 1,100 research institutions
at universities and academies of science, has taken over leadership in South-South co-operation
with African countries. In countries that have sustained growth in the long term, governments
have generally invested both money and energy to educate their citizens and enhance the
cognitive skills of their human capital, and the results of this can been seen in the performance of
the science and mathematics students who took the test (UNDP, 2013).
In the early 1980s, the Royal Society had already pointed to the fact that public awareness
of science is lacking; and it subsequently published a report titled “Public Understanding of

SECOA, Vol. 7. Mitigating Conflicts in Coastal Areas Through Science Dissemination
- 56 -
Science”, which was put together by a working group headed by Dr W.F. Bodmer, and is hence
also known as the Bodmer Report (Royal Society, 1985). The report examines the relationship that
individuals, civil society and industry have with science and technology, starting from the
premise of a system in which individuals communicating science are addressing other
individuals whose cultural level is adequate to receive what is being communicated to them. The
report emphasises the importance of this fundamental relationship in contemporary society, but
can only deplore the continuing deterioration of the public perception of science.
An enhanced understanding of scientific issues could help individuals to take better
decisions about the right diet to follow, the vaccinations to get, personal hygiene, and safety at
home and in the workplace. The report also sets forth the importance that science should be given
in the school syllabus, in the work of Parliament, in the day-to-day work of journalists and in
industrial production. Scientists, for their part, should learn to communicate better with
everyone, particularly with the media. Scientists must be prepared to communicate personally,
not delegate the task to others; they must learn to consider dissemination a duty and an integral
part of research. In actual fact, the best scientists see research as their only objective; this “culture”
is “imposed” on them from the moment they enter university. As a result, they try to avoid jobs
in the administration and the government, preferring to stay in their laboratories and carry out
research, even if this means giving up the possibility of better pay.
The Bodmer Report notes that, for these reasons, there are few scientists in important
posts in government, public administrations and industry. While this attitude is hard to change,
people in key positions should at least be required to have some ability to understand scientific
issues, even if they do not have a scientific background. This can be achieved by making scientific
education more widespread, at school and subsequently in society. Antonio Ruberti (1927-2000),
Italian minister for research and technology from 1987 to 1992 and commissioner (1993-1995) for
research, training and education when Jacques Delors was President of the European
Commission, acted in keeping with the recommendations of the Bodmer Report. During his time
in the Italian government, he introduced Law 113 (1990), subsequently extended with Law 6
(2000), for the diffusion of scientific culture through a commission that would coordinate the
organisation of the Scientific Culture Week and provide financing to promote the historical
scientific heritage as well as scientific dissemination.
As European Commissioner, Ruberti introduced the first European Week for Scientific
Culture from 22 to 27 November 1993; the press-release for the event stated that its objective was
“Making science, and in particular science in the Community, more accessible to the man in the

A. Montanari, Researcher and Stakeholder Cooperation in Scientific Dissemination
- 57 -
street”. Ruberti (Ruberti and André, 1995) believed that despite all the technological advances of
the 20th century, science was not being adequately recognised for the key role it had played.
When the media and the government mention culture, they are referring to the arts,
literature, cinema and theatre, certainly not to science and technology. Even people working in
scientific sectors are so focused on the objectives of their research that they disregard the scientific
culture, history and basics of their particular sector. In an article he wrote for the Italian
newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Ruberti (19.11.1996) affirmed that education is the highway to scientific
dissemination, and that the Italian and European weeks for scientific culture have provided a
reference point to stimulate and support public awareness of science. At a speech at Rome Rector
Sapienza University (08.11.1999), of which he was (1976-1987), Ruberti emphasised that “the
research professor must overcome the concept of knowledge accumulation as hoarding and
affirm the importance of the contextual diffusion of research results. It is therefore at the very
roots of the University that the values of the freedom of research and the democratisation of
knowledge are to be found.”
10. New tools and new cultures
The contribution that cinema and television have made, or at least attempted to make, in bringing
science closer to the general public cannot be overlooked. In Italy, since 18 March 1981 Pietro
Angela has hosted the science programme “Quark” on the leading television channel, Rai 1. The
programme has changed over the years, but it has maintained some key elements such as the
presence in the studio of authoritative scholars such as Danilo Mainardi (ethology), Carlo
Cannella (food science), Elisabetta Bernardi (nutrition), Paco Lanciano (physics) and Alessandro
Barbero (history).
Unlike most scientists, Carlo Cannella, who died in 2011 aged only 67, was good at talking
to the general public. He has already been cited in this volume for his ability to use illustrative
tools such as the food pyramid, which create an immediate connection between the supplier of
information and the receiver. His warmth endeared him to people and encouraged them to watch
as he drew on his scientific knowledge to talk to them about food – how to choose, cook, eat and
preserve it, thereby putting one of the principles enumerated in the Bodmer Report into practice.
Cannella also wrote a scientific but accessible book on common misconceptions about food to
debunk myths about what people should or should not eat (Cannella and Carrada,
1997).However, he always made it clear he was first and foremost a scientist – a necessary

SECOA, Vol. 7. Mitigating Conflicts in Coastal Areas Through Science Dissemination
- 58 -
clarification at a time when any number of people with no specific training feel entitled - to talk
about food, nutrition and diet in newspapers and on television.
Other major international television channels had also produced science programmes
made and presented either by scientists or by celebrities, whose fame helps science shows to gain
viewers. Brian Edward Cox, a brilliant physicist and a professor at the University of Manchester,
is better known to the general public as the presenter of many BBC science programmes on
astronomy and physics. The American actor Morgan Freeman hosted “Through the Wormhole”,
a science programme that aired on the Discovery Channel cable and satellite television in 2009.
Since 2006, the American astrophysicist and science communicator Neil deGrasse Tyson has
hosted the popular PBS series “NovaScience Now”. The French oceanographer and filmmaker
and Jacques-Yves Cousteau (1910–1997) brought popular attention to undersea exploration and
the issue of marine conservation with his film “The Silent World”, which won the Palme d’Or at
the Cannes Film Festival (1956). Cousteau spent many years doing undersea research from on
board his ship Calypso, after which John Denver named a song in 1975.
Unfortunately, it cannot be denied that the research world has never encouraged – and in
fact has even obstructed – scientific dissemination. Cattaneo (2013) writes that “we researchers
think that because we are so familiar with the subject of our work, communicating it to the public
is easy, and with this firm conviction, we talk without paying enough attention to the people who
are listening to us.” Carrada (2006), however, points out that the academic world has shown little
appreciation for those who have devoted themselves too assiduously and too successfully to
scientific dissemination. As a result, dissemination is often carried out inappropriately, carelessly
and without sufficient means, or is considered an obstacle to the advancement of one’s scientific
career, and therefore a handicap for anyone who goes about it seriously.
Carl Sagan (1934-1996), the American astronomer and science communicator, featured in
a number of popular TV shows and films such as Cosmos, Contact, Good Morning America and
Horizon. The television series Cosmos, which covered an array of scientific topics starting from the
origin of life, aired for the first time on PBS in 1980. It has been broadcast in more than 60
countries, and watched by more than 500 million people. It was an extraordinary example of
scientific dissemination in which the globalisation of research topics was accompanied by the
globalisation of the tools and methods of dissemination, helped in no small measure by Carl
Sagan’s scientific reputation and authoritative tone. And, as Carrada (2006) points out, “in 1992…
he was denied membership of the National Academy of Sciences….Too many colleagues turned
up their noses at his tireless activity in spreading scientific news, which had made him perhaps

A. Montanari, Researcher and Stakeholder Cooperation in Scientific Dissemination
- 59 -
the most famous scientist in the United States, and one of the most vibrant defenders of science
in the world”.
Giovanni Carrada, who joined Pietro Angela’s team of presenters on “Quark” in 1994, was
commissioned by the Directorate General for Research of the European Commission to write a
manual for scientists to teach them how to communicate their field (Carrada, 2006). There is little
point quoting from his “Scientist’s Survival Kit” here; quotations used out of context would only
take away from the pleasure of actually reading it. However, it is worth singling out the passage
that quotes, tongue-in-cheek, the movie character Indiana Jones saying: “Nothing shocks me. I’m
a scientist”. The quotation takes one aback, not so much because it appears in this otherwise
serious survival kit, but because it instantly brings to mind some of our scientific colleagues –
and indeed reminds us of ourselves, for, like Indiana Jones, we are often unaware of getting
ourselves into ridiculous situations.
Perhaps we should place a mirror at the entrance to every laboratory to allow scientists to
check their appearance and leave their Indiana Jones hat and whip in the cloakroom. There are
many indicators that, for a variety of reasons, the prevailing climate has changed, and that society
will now accept an Indiana Jones type of scientist only in the movies. Carrada (2006) says:
“…English high energy physicists lost out, when a few years ago they received the following
request from Her Majesty’s Minister of Scientific Research: ‘In thirty lines explain why British
taxpayers should invest a substantial part of their resources in Higgs’ Boson research’.” Carrada
berates the scientists concerned: “What those physicists wrote is not known, but they did not
convince the minister.” However, on the same page he cites a more felicitous example of a case
of researchers winning a referendum granting them financing for their research on embryonic
stem cells. The referendum was held in California in 2004; presumably, the scientists managed to
convince public opinion that, “thanks to the people’s voice, California will likely become the most
advanced centre in the world for this type of research too”. Carrada draws on these two incidents
to wisely point out: “Today society no longer signs blank checks for anyone, not even for science.”
This is a principle we can all agree with.
However, on what ground is society capable of judging, appropriating and rationally
evaluating the research sectors it wishes to subscribe to and support? The way in which these
judgements are made are being studied and explored, but they remain somewhat inexplicable.
Carrada says: “”Our mind, however, literally abhors scraps of information, the lack of meaning
and significance, and an image of the world is reconstructed using the scraps available, unifying
them with ties which are often arbitrary and irrational, filling in the blanks with what we have.”

SECOA, Vol. 7. Mitigating Conflicts in Coastal Areas Through Science Dissemination
- 60 -
In the past few decades, all researchers have begun using common rules and codes (with a few
field-specific differences) to communicate with each other; in more recent times, they have even
been using a common language for the purpose. In recent years it has been possible, albeit not
without controversy, to identify a common yardstick to evaluate the importance of the scientific
message, its scientific accuracy and the ease with which it can be transmitted within the scientific
community.
However controversial, this yardstick evaluates the incisiveness of scientific
communication using a concise quantitative value called “Impact Factor”.Whether the Impact
Factor actually manages to supply an objective evaluation as compared to the tools that have so
far been used, remains to be proved. The measurement method may be questionable, but there is
no question that a concise value must be used, one that is simple (but not ordinary), which can
be understood by all at a time when ideas must be able to cross all disciples and cultures.
Nevertheless scientific dissemination must use different parameters and tools. “Public
communication has different requirements; it follows different norms; and above all, it takes
place in a different context. Most of the problems which occur during an exchange of ideas with
society arise when these differences are not taken into consideration.” While it is still hard to
teach a scientist to become a scientific communicator, Carrada (2006) supplies us with his idea of
the way scientists should behave when they leave their laboratories to go and meet the press or
the general public.
The subject of scientific dissemination is a topical one throughout Europe; particularly so
in Italy in 2013 because of the Stamina method – a controversial therapy for neurogenerative
diseases that some illustrious scientists maintained was backed by public support rather than
scientific criteria. The Italian National Research Council (CNR) and Academy of Sciences
therefore decided to organise a debate on “Journalism and scientific culture in Italy” on 12
November 2013, to be coordinated by Gilberto Corbellini, a professor of the history of medicine
at the Sapienza Rome University, and Armando Massarenti, a philosopher and scientific
communicator. The event was organised around three themes: (i) Italian scientists are accusing
scientific journalists of manipulating information and misleading public opinion. How did
scientists manage to get their communication wrong? (ii) In their defence, the journalists say they
used available sources of information and that in any case it is not their job to verify the accuracy
of research. What are the limits of Italian scientific journalism? (iii) Problems arising at the level
of political decision makers are not vetted by the scientific community. What should and can be
done to ensure that policy makers use technical and scientific data when they draw up laws?

A. Montanari, Researcher and Stakeholder Cooperation in Scientific Dissemination
- 61 -
With regard to the last question, the meeting made reference to the OECD and UNDP
(2013) reports, which show that Italy is the developed country with the highest level of functional
illiteracy. Politicians represent this situation, and therefore reflect the scientific ignorance of the
entire community. At a time when Europe’s economic performance is measured in terms of
spreads, e.g. between Italian BTPs and German bunds, it is easy to refer to the spread of scientific
culture between Italy and other developed countries.
Intervention by the European Central Bank (ECB) will not suffice to reduce the spread;
action will have to be taken at the educational stage, in every category and at every level, over at
least two generations. That is effectively a very long period, and therefore attention must
essentially be focused on more suitable short-term policies. In her address at the 12 November
2013 meeting, Elena Cattaneo, the pharmacology professor who was made a senator on 30 August
2013 for scientific merit, emphasised that the most urgent steps are to remedy the poor aptitude
of the Italian political class for scientific culture, and to create adequate space in the media to
popularise scientific culture (Cattaneo, 2013).
11. Conclusions
Numerous studies and experiences on the subject of scientific dissemination have shown that the
sector would appear to have three stakeholders in particular: scientists, scientific communicators
and public administrators. The relationship of these three stakeholders to each other determines
the volume and quality of information provided by those who produce scientific dissemination.
Civil society would appear to be the only target of scientific dissemination.
The relationship between these four components is constantly changing, influenced in
part by the introduction of ICT tools which have accelerated relationships and contributed to
educating a public that is aware of its own rights and therefore wishes to assert its opinion on
how scientific research should be funded.
It is undeniable that training could greatly improve the quality of the debate, and hence
of the solutions proposed. But training is a process that requires time – a few generations, and
people cannot meanwhile suffer the consequences of the serious mistakes that are still being
made.

SECOA, Vol. 7. Mitigating Conflicts in Coastal Areas Through Science Dissemination
- 62 -
12.References
Allan B. (ed.) 1982, Making the city work. Enterprise and democracy in Urban Europe, Glasgow: the
City of Glasgow District Council.
Berg v.d. L., Drewett J.R., Klaassen L.H., Rossi A. and Vijverberg C. 1982, Urban Europe: a study
of growth and decline, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Berry B.J.L. 1973, The human consequences of urbanisation, Basingstoke, Eng.: Macmillan
Berry J.L. (ed.) 1976, Urbanization and counter-urbanization, London: Sage Publications
Calvino, I. 1974, Invisible cities, San Diego, Harcourt: Brace Jovanovich.
Calvino I. 1983, The written and the unwritten word, The New York Review of Books, May 12 issue
Calvino,I. 1988, Under the Jaguar Sun, (first published as “the Jaguar Sun” in The New Yorker in 1983),
San Diego, Harcourt Brace, Jovanovich. Published in Italian as Calvino I. 1986, Sotto il sole
giaguaro, Milano: Garzanti.
Cannella C, Giusti AM, Pinto A 2007, Dal cibo per tutti agli elementi personalizzati . Biologici, tipici o
convenzionali? arricchiti, funzionali o integratori? come sciegliere, possiamo fidarci?, Roma: Il
Pensiero Scientifico Editore.
Carrada G. 2006, Directorate General for Research. Communicating Science. A scientist’s survival kit,
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Cattaneo E. 2013, Al politico fai sapere, Il Sole 24 Ore, n.309, p.31
del Balzo V, Diolordi L, Pinto A, Giusti AM, Vitiello V, Cannella C, Dernini S, Donini LM, Berry
EM, 2012, Mediterranean diet pyramids: towards the Italian model, Annali di Igiene;
Medicina Preventiva e Comunità, 24(5), pp. 443-447.
Donini L.M. 2012, La nuova piramide alimentare mediterranea, Atti della Accademia Lancisiana,
10a seduta scientifica, 13.03.2012. Roma: Accademia Lancisiana.
Grundmann S., Lever W.F. in collaboration with Villain-Gandossi C. 1989, Social and economic
changes in metropolitan areas. Problems and experiences of the participant cities of Project Turin
International, Vienna: European Coordination Centre for Research and Documentation in
Social Sciences.
Herman S. and Regulski J. 1982, Elements of a Theory of Urbanization Processes in Socialist
Countries (WD 3/77) in L. v.d. Berg, R. Drewett, L.H. Klaassen, A. Rossi and C. Vijverberg,
Urban Europe: a study of growth and decline, Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 4 – 5.
Jones R. 1975, Essay on world urbanisation, London: George Philip.

A. Montanari, Researcher and Stakeholder Cooperation in Scientific Dissemination
- 63 -
Keys, A. B. & Keys, M. 1975, How to Eat Well and Stay Well: the Mediterranean Way, New York:
Doubleday.
Lancaster F.W. 1977, The dissemination of scientific and technical information: toward a
paperless system, Occasional Papers n.127, University of Illinois Graduate School of Library
Sciences, p. 27.
Levine D. 1974, Italo Calvino, The New York Review of Books, May 30 issue.
Mondello E. 1990, Italo Calvino, Pordenone, Edizioni Studio Tesi
Montanari A. 2009, Geography of taste and local development in Abruzzo (Italy). Project to
establish a training and research centre for the promotion of enogastronomic culture and
tourism, Journal of Heritage Tourism, 16(02), pp.222-233.
Montanari A. 2012, Cross-national co-operation and human mobility: an introduction,
International Review of Sociology: Revue Internationale de Sociologie, 22(2),pp.175-190.
Montanari A. 2013a, Guidebooks and Travel Stories Interpretations and emotional reactions,
International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities; 5 (1), pp. 123-134.
Montanari, A. 2013b, "Interpreting Local Issues in a Global Context: International Comparative
Analysis and Coastal Urban Areas". In: Armando Montanari (ed.), Urban Coastal Area
Conflicts Analysis Methodology: Human Mobility, Climate Change and Local Sustainable
Development. Cap. 3. SECOA FP7 Research Project, Vol. 5. Rome: Sapienza Università
Editrice, 2013. pp. 77-154.
Montanari A, Belhasen R, Berry EM et al. 2013, Design of a study on adherence to Mediterranean
diet and local foods consumption, Ann Nutr Metab, 2013: 62(suppl), p.36
Montanari A, Costa N, Staniscia B. 2008, Geografia del Gusto. Scenari per l’Abruzzo, Ortona: Menabò.
Montanari A., Staniscia B. 2009, Culinary tourism as a tool for regional re-equilibrium, European
Planning Studies, 17(10), pp. 1463-1483.
Montanari Massimo 2002, From the geography of taste to the taste of geography, in A Montanari
(ed.), Food and environment. Geographies of taste, Rome: SGI-Home of Geography, pp. 29-32.
Montanari Massimo 2004, Il cibo come cultura, Roma-Bari: Laterza, 2004.
Păcurar A. 2012, Science dissemination as a potential form of public relations, Professional
Communication and translation studies, 5 (1-2), pp. 3-9.
Royal Society 1985, The Public Understanding of Science, London: Royal Society

SECOA, Vol. 7. Mitigating Conflicts in Coastal Areas Through Science Dissemination
- 64 -
Ruberti A. and André M. 1995, Uno spazio europeo della Scienza. Riflessioni sulla politica europea della
ricerca, Firenze: Giunti.
UNDP, United Nations Development Programme, 2013, Human Development Report 2013. The rise
of the South: human progress in a diverse world, New York: UNDP.
Urry J. 1990, The Tourist Gaze. Leisure and travel in contemporary societies, London: Sage
Publications.
Zelinsky W. 1991, The twinning of the world: sister cities in geographical and historical
perspective, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 81 (1), pp.1-31.

Annex I.
A. MONTANARI, Department of European, American and Intercultural Studies, Sapienza
University of Rome, Italy.
email: armando.montanari@uniroma1.it
Montanari, Armando, "Researcher and stakeholder cooperation in scientific dissemination:
fostering innovative challenges, between static and dynamic dissemination". In: Armando
Montanari (ed.), Mitigating Conflicts in Coastal Areas through Science Dissemination: Fostering
Dialogue between Researchers and Stakeholders. Cap. 1. SECOA FP7 Research Project, Vol. 7. Rome:
Sapienza Università Editrice, 2014. http://digilab-epub.uniroma1.it. DOI: 10.13133/978-88-98533-
25-1. Web. 14 July 2014.
ABSTRACT: Science dissemination is one of the institutional obligations of all researchers,
particularly those whose work is supported by public funding. Validation for this assertion can
be found in the basic instruments of the European Union, in the principles of partnership and, in
its most advanced forms, in techniques of governance. If the process of science dissemination is
not carried out correctly from the beginning, there is always a risk that the information may be
manipulated. This chapter examines various issues that must be considered in the case of an
appropriate science dissemination. To disseminate properly it is necessary to deal with a civil
society that is able to understand the scientific message. A community that is in a position to
participate in various aspects of administration and public policy is also better prepared to
incorporate the messages of science. Even the media can play a positive mediation when it is
prepared to do so. Researchers are not immune from defects and deficiencies in the work of
scientific dissemination but are only part of a more complex system that should be organised to
operate at its the best.
KEYWORDS: Science dissemination, partnership, governance, Italo Calvino, Ancel Keys,
Antonio Ruberti, Carlo Cannella.
Submitted 24th February 2014
Accepted 06th May 2014
Final Revision: 07th June 2014
Published: 14th July 2014