Managing Dialogue

Nowadays, it is uncontroversial in Portugal to say that science requires excellence in the management of science.  This is not the result of having been put through a crisis – the real understanding of this statement is finally assumed by many actors.

We must recognise that this has not been a straightforward process. People risk always recurring back to ancient, ill-quenched addictions.  It is thus necessary to closely nurture this new attitude.

The organisation, the classical and academic vision of the scientific activity is PI-centred (principal investigator or project leader). As if being a good scientist would be enough to magically guarantee all the necessary management skills.   As if organisations, institutions were irrelevant. As if there were no projects in consortium, in collaboration, and everything was based on the group under the scientific leader.

This is a petty vision and, in all truthfulness, it is completely based on an unawareness, on ignorance, on a lack of ambition – because if it is enough for small activities, it is ineffective and insufficient for large projects.

Unfortunately, in some places and in recent times, we've witnessed a regression to a primary vision in the formulation of science governance policies – and among some of the damaging factors, we certainly count in the  bibliometromaniac obsessions.

Therefore, it is important to unlock the discussion, cultivate knowledge, promote the acquisition of competences and guarantee that the model that the future demands is rightly understood:  institutions matter, and managing science is not the same as science – it is also a science.

The institutes and research units owe to the country the improvement of their management models.  They must share methods and processes, and recognise good practices that are often unknown to so many agents. It is important to broaden their perception – and the only way to do that is by cultivating the dialogue. It's lacking, in the necesary amount.

We welcome it.