Multilingualism
for diversity and inclusion in science
Ismael Rafols
UNESCO Chair on Diversity and Inclusion in Global ScienceCentre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden Univ, NL

UNESCO Chair on Diversity and Inclusion in Global Scienceat CWTS, Leiden Univ.

Misalignmentof research priorities

Cancer Diseases
35

Three main lines:• Investigate epistemic/topic

inclusion, inequalities: e.g. healthpriorities – esp. in evalation• Infrastructures on research

information infras- / databases

30
25

Percentage

With Rodrigo Costas, Louise
Bezuidenhout and André Brasil

20151050WorldHigh IncomeUpper Middle% of Disease burden

India

Low Income% of Publications

Invisibility of researchfrom Global South• Supporting UNESCO in developing
monitoring for (countries)
commitments to science (OS)2

The argument: Why science needs multilingualism
Three imperatives of public engagement / participation (Fiorino, 1990; Stirling, 2005)•Instrumental imperative (pragmatic):• because it helps in sharing scientific knowledge with populations•Normative imperative (democratic):• because (participating and benefiting of) science is a human right•

Substantive imperative (‘better’ knowledge):• because constructing science with various languages leads to more robust
knowledge• mobilises more ways of knowing• facilitates participation of citizens and stakeholders, with associated expertise3

Instrumental imperative
Language for reaching out
users and beneficiaries

4Communicating scientific knowledge for beneficiaries• Using the national language and writing-formats of users /beneficiaries• To reach out relevant knowledge to practitioners (e.g. in medicine)• Briefs for policy makers• History and social science books to reach out to citizens• Educational resources for High School in local language• Documents for agricultural extension• Scientific literacy against ‘fake news’ (trust in science)“All the communication purposesin all different areas of research,
and all the languages needed tofulfil these purposes.”Gunnar Sivertsen (2018)(article in English and Catalan)

The vision of research assessment reform by CoARA:
qualitative assessment informed by indicators•“Our vision is that the evaluation:• (…) recognize the VARIOUS results, practices and activities [not justpublications]• that maximize the quality and [scientific AND SOCIAL] IMPACT of research• This requires basing the evaluation mainly in qualitative judgment, for whichpeer review is central,• supported by the responsible use of quantitative indicators.”

Need to:• diversify assessment criteria and indicators,• change assessment process to allow contextualisation
6

Normative imperative
Languages for
democratisation:
The right to science as ahuman right7

The right to science as a human right
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in thisDeclaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour,sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, property, birth or other status. (…)
Article 27aEveryone has the right to freely to participate in the cultural life of
the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientificadvancement and its benefits.
à The right to participate in scienceà The rights to benefit from scientific advancement
à …without distinction of any kind – NOT language

10th December 20238

The right to science as a human right: implications
Today access to knowledge and benefits of science isextremely unequal.
In multiple dimensions: gender, class, neighbourhood,cities, countries, ethnic groups…
… and language is a factor in intersectionality, one ofthe dimensions of identity compounded by others.
Democratisation of science through language:• …means for citizens to participate••... means for citizens to benefit from science… to include more socially diverse citizens andworkforce

10th December 2023
9

UNESCO Recommendation 2021:‘…open science is defined as an inclusive
construct that combines various movements
and practices aiming to make multilingual
scientific knowledge openly available,accessible and reusable for everyone, toincrease scientific collaborations and sharing
of information for the benefits of scienceand society, and to open the processes ofscientific knowledge creation, evaluation andcommunication to societal actors beyond thetraditional scientific community.’

10

Open Science Recommendation UNESCO, 2021:
Core Values and Guiding Principles
Academic freedom
Policies on ethics

Engagement

Assess according toresources

Gender, ethnic, class,language.
Topic diversity
Biblio- diversity
Linguistic diversity

Collaborativepractices

What is Open Science?
2021 UNESCO Recommendation

Dialogue with otherknowledge•

Local communities•

Professional expertise•

Marginalised scholars

Engagement of Societal Actors•

Citizen and Participatory Science•

Scientific Volunteering•

Crowdsourcing•

Crowdfunding

Open Scientific Knowledge•••

OA Publications••

Op Source Software

Op Research Data

Op Educational
Resources

Open Hardware

Open ScienceInfrastructure•

Physical•

Virtual12Substantive imperative:
Language for ‘better’ sciencelearning from stakeholders
and citizens

13Rethinking the local vs. global, tradition vs. modernity
Previous narrative sets opposition
between tradition vs. modernity(Sandra Harding, 2008)

Modernity• Global (imperial language): new,modern, white, male,cosmopolitan, scientific• Local (including language): old –conservative, female, non-whiteethnic, ignorant• Science was part of empire• Science IS part of current
globalisation

New narrative towards inclusive,
diverse, non-colonial

Tradition

Decolonisingknowledge• “Decolonising knowledge”
Bruno Latour (2018): Down to earth

14Three frames of innovation policy (Schot and Steinmueller, 2018)
1. Linear model (postwar until 1980s)••Science à Technology à Innovation à Well-being
Input ($, people) and output (pubs, pats) indicators of STI.

2. Innovation Systems (early 1990s until late 2000s)§§§

Interactions between stakeholders are key to produce
innovation.
STI interactions à Innovation à Economic Growth à Wellbeing
OECD Oslo Manual (1992)

Transformative Innovation
Policies Consortium
https://www.tipconsortium.net

Three frames of innovation policy (Schot and Steinmueller, 2018)
1. Linear model (postwar until 1980s)••Science à Technology à Innovation à Well-being
Input ($, people) and output (pubs, pats) indicators of STI.

2. Innovation Systems (early 1990s until late 2000s)§§§

Interactions between stakeholders are key to produce innovation.
STI interactions à Innovation à Economic Growth à Wellbeing
OECD Oslo Manual (1992)

3. Inclusive or transformative innovation (2010s…)
§§
§
§
§

Innovation NOT necessarily positive – climate change, financial crush.
Plural views on directions/goals of research and innovation
Attention to diverse types of knowledge - given uncertainty
Need to situate and contextualise innovation: where? who? for whom?
Public participation and co-creation needed

Transformative Innovation
Policies Consortium
https://www.tipconsortium.net

Local sites (in multiple languages)
as spaces to articulate researchwith societal needs and aspirations
The place for inclusion
is NOT always the nation-stateThe local space as a space for public engagement and citizen
science¿Qué pasa Riachuelo? (What’s happening in Riachualo?)
A platform for engaging local citizens in the cleaning up of a riverin the periphery of Buenos Aires, Argentina)

The groups affected bythe pollution of theriver participate withlocal knowledge,
shaping the agenda,
bringing research dataand interpreting
findings for change.

Valeria Arza (Univ. San Martín)The nested nature of the RIS3CAT (Catalonia)

European Union:
Strategies forSmart
Specialization

17th of June 2023

Source: Secretariat of Economic Affairs and European Funds, Generalitat de Catalunya

INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Boni and Acebillo-Baqué (2023)

Conclusion

20

Argument here: Science needs multilingualism• NOT only because it helps in sharing science with citizens but ALSO
• The democratic values of inclusion and equality: because (participating andbenefiting of) science is a human right• The value of epistemic diversity: because constructing science with various
languages leads to more robust knowledge• mobilises more plural ways of knowing (historical narratives)• on topics that are relevant to citizens

Multilingualism also needs science?
• To keep languages fully alive, it needs to engage with ’science’?
• …because one language that cannot engage with science may not have the social
value to survive (at least in Europe)??
• … because it supports the historical and culturals perspective of the peoples
associated with that language? Crucial in SSHs??
2122

Back up slides

The streetlight effect of indicators••

Use of indicators may have consequences on research system
Incentive structure: indicators signal to stakeholders what is important.
§ Goal displacement: instead of mission, follow indicators

Suppression of diversity§ Shift towards English
publications§ Shift towards more technical/ mainstream§ Diversion of research awayfrom local or national issues§ Bias toward positive
reporting§ Invisible / undone science
Davies et al. (2023) Promoting inclusive metrics of success and impact24Brasilian univ. publications (2013-18, CAPES) coverage in WoS

André Brasil (2023)

25

Contextualised
Openness“…there is no single or universal concept of OS
that is sufficient to encompass the diversity ofknowledge traditions and practices fromaround the world. Hence the term OS and thenotion of “openness” is highly situated,
constantly subjected to negotiation according
to local contexts and historical contingencies.
Our collective observations therefore challenge
the tendency to define Open Science as a setof technical infrastructure, workflow, protocols,
and licensing conditions that can be universallyapplied regardless of context, history, andhuman agency.” Leslie Chan (2020)
UNESCO Open Science Outlook 2023 (in press)

Problems, research, visibility and valuation
Space of problems

Problems, research, visibility and valuation
Space of problems

Space of research

Problems, research, visibility and valuation
Space of problems

Space of research

Space of visible
research andindicators

Problems, research, visibility and valuation
Space of problems

Research spaces not
visibleSpace of visible
research andindicators

Problems, research, visibility and valuation
Multiple types of space:Cognitive: SSH,engineering

Geographical: regional, “South”

Linguistic:
non-English
Sectoral: low-tech,agriculture, creative ind.

Researchwell illuminatedby indicators

Social: gender,minorities
Multiplicative effect: primary health care of poor neighbourghoods inSalvador de Bahia, written in Portuguese (Cog, Geo, Ling, Soc.)

Streetlight effect in indicators: mistaking light with “problems”
Space of problems

Space of research

Space of problems
Space of researchHypothesis: reduced coverage may contract research space
Reduced diversity ofresearch efforts...
…larger spaceof non-studiedof societal needs

Space of non-studied problems
Reduction ofSpace of research
Space of visible
research andvaluation

Demands for expanding role of science in society…
Space of problems

Space of research
Space of visible
research and indicators

Demands for expanding role of science in society…
Space of problems

Space of research

Space of visible
research and indicators

… require an expanded perspective (large datasets) and plural STI indicators
Space of problems

Space of research

Space of STI
indicators