The arrival of the Science Shop community’s annual conference at our university had been in the air, we as lecturers and researchers of Corvinus were anticipating it. We knew that this research community and the intellectual current represented by them was centred on inspiration and reflection, the combination of the two being always very exciting. The event matured into one of the key moments of the research work of the local organizing team that was mainly composed of colleagues from the Decision Theory Department of the Institute of Business Economics.

Science can only be authentic and successful in the long run if it works with and for society,
said Philippe Galiay, one of the forefathers of the community revolving around the Science Shops in his plenary opening address. Let us invest in the European future that we envisage, let us mobilize and involve European citizens in research. Let us build relationships between researchers and civil society that are based on reciprocity, let us not only approach the actors of broader society as observers, but as co-creators in advancing science, in exploiting the findings within and beyond our professional lives.

“I was actually born as a citizen”
this could also have been the title of the presentation in the plenary session given by Tessza Udvarhelyi, iconic advocate of the Hungarian scientific community who told how her mind was enlightened at the age of 25. She was taking a tram and noticed several signs of poverty and inequality around her, then she suddenly saw herself as if in a mirror, realized how privileged she was and how little she had done for the welfare of others. She asked herself what her responsibility was in shaping the destinies around her, what she could do against inequalities in the interest of deprived people. “Enlightenment is a nice thing, but what is it good for?” was the second question she asked herself, then having been revitalized as a researcher she decided to react by doing research only with a desire for real change. That is how she discovered participatory action research, her personal goal being to enable people through knowledge to live as fully-fledged citizens and to overcome their social limitations or the ones stemming from their health problems. The speaker concluded by saying that it was not necessary for everyone to become an activist, but let us assume responsibility in order to bring about change with scholarly and political consciousness rather than by just observing nearby events. Let us act against the economic conditions that dehumanize our communities.

The rich offer of the conference accommodated several “dilemma sections”.
An activist of one of the invited grassroots organizations (Vera Kovács from the “City is For All”) which aims to improve the situation of homeless people and if possible, to provide them with a home, mentioned a concrete initiative. Together with university lecturers and business consultants, they took part in a participatory action research to build on the knowledge and assistance of researchers and advisers. Around 20 very active contributors to the session tried to interpret the results and the relative failures resulting from the project. In fact, business consultants had joined the work as possessors of knowledge and not as equal partners as international best practices would have required them to in this particular situation. One of the outcomes of the pro bono (or simply anti-burnout) work of advisers was that at the conclusion of the project one of the most experienced of them recognized that however valuable their knowledge was in the world of business, they were not to change the identity of activists when working with grassroots organizations: neither efficiency nor financial objectives could justify that.

How can university students be persuaded to work on the projects of non-profit organizations?
A number of lecturers (from both Hungary and abroad) shared their experience with each other on the above in parallel sessions. It seems practical to combine problem-focused learning with research for the community and to leave the choice of the preferred project to the students. One of the critical points of the process is when the outcome of the project is handed over to the community partner for what happens with the subjects after the students’ departure is crucial from the viewpoint of social impact. It was also said that the inclusion of social communities in classroom activities increased the social exposure of students, the diversity of their environment, which does not contradict their career plans in business. Diversity may become a source of original ideas, it puts increased pressure on the development of the students’ competences and may ultimately open doors to their innovation potential. Their world view, the environment of their future employer will not be restricted to the business and economic terminology or interpretation of business actors in general, but they will be able to process events happening around them in numerous ways, to rely on a richer toolbox to find solutions to the problems.

Why is the conference and the intellectual community behind it called Living Knowledge?
was the question I addressed to Norbert Steinhaus coordinator of the German Science Shop community during an interview that served as an opportunity for me to try to interpret what I saw and heard at the conference. Norbert Steinhaus said that they viewed their research activities as a shared creative process in which knowledge is not static but should be provided to their community partners on a continuous basis. Knowledge is living if during the work both the researcher and the community partner are part of a conscious growth and development process. One of the declared aims is to involve new subjects in the common reflection each time, to update, develop, increase the knowledge base through constant human interactions in order to bring tangible benefits. What could be the role of profit-oriented enterprises in all this? Norbert Steinhaus stated that it was the mission of the Science Shop community to work with people who could not afford to pay for the knowledge that is so important for them. The financing of the operation of Science Shop is therefore a task to be solved in which enterprises have or may have a significant role. If a company gets involved only for the sake of increasing its profits, that would clearly run counter to the spirit of the initiative. If, however, a company happens to realize a profit owing to its social engagement through the Science Shop (e.g. its employees don’t burn out, the company will be more attractive in the eyes of future employees or consumers), that is naturally all right. In fact, this is something on which successful co-operation can be based.

Who is then the Homo Corvinus?
All in all, there was hardly any participant at the conference who did not get impulses for rethinking their activities as lecturers and researchers or did not make insights with regard to further work or citizenship. Let us ask ourselves whether our colleagues at Corvinus are Homines Oeconomici. Does it mean more to be a Homo Corvinus? What does this exactly imply? Whoever attended the conference might have come closer to answering the question and thereby we together have already made an important step towards achieving social impact through our activities as lecturers and researchers.

Miklós Kozma
Department of Business Studies