Co-creation and engagement with citizens and experts

Lise Bitsch, PhD Senior Project Manager

The Danish Board of Technology Foundation (DBT) – historical background

• Established in 1985 as an experiment in TA

• Extended 1988-1989, and 1989-1995

• Made into a permanent institution 1995

• Dissolved by law June 19, 2012

• Established as an independent non-profit foundation on June 20, 2012

1989-1995: a new ‘philosophy’

• The Board: • Poses questions and initiate debate, but it does

not come up with final solutions;

• Is not a research board;

• Assessment of interaction between technique, humans and society and the changes they bring up that is the interest – not the assessment of techniques and devices as stand-alone objects;

• Works should lead to greater understanding and develop a sound basis for action

1989-1995: a new ‘philosophy’

• The Board:

• Facilitates dialogue between experts and lay people;

• Assessment should be cross-disciplinary and trans-sectional, and involve lay and professional expertise, and be open to differences in values and opinions

• Assessments should further a constructive debate

• The Board does not carry out assessments, but sets up the process for assessments

• Key targets: Parliament and public enlightenment

Inspirations

Deliberative democracy:

• Legitimacy of a democratic decision hinges on it being based in an authentic process of deliberation

• Authentic deliberation occurs among a group of people free from distortions of power and wealth

Folkeoplysnings tradition: Aim to enlighten and teach the citizen to become an active participants in society

Jürgen Habermas 1929- 1783-1872

And others..

N.F.S. Grundtvig

The conversation among participants is the central aim, conversation based in equality, information and representativeness: Goals are:

• Search for consensus; • Promotion of rational decision-making; • Increase societal engagement of citizens and their ability to

take part in and develop democratic societies

Foundational characteristics

• Pluralistic, consensus-seeking

• Independent from government

• Folkeoplysningstradition (People’s enlightenment) – democracy depends on enlightenment

• Parliamentary TA – or TA as procedures as part of democratic political process

The DBT today

We work to ensure that societal development takes placed in a co-creative and informed deliberative process including citizens, experts, stakeholders and decision-makers

Projects

Example projects

• World Wide Views on Global Warming (2009) - 36 countries • lead-up to COP15 in Copenhagen

• Coordinated by the Danish Board of Technology

• World Wide Views on Biodiversity (2012) – 25 countries • Lead-up to COP11 in Hyderabad

• Coordinated by the Danish Board of Technology

• World Wide Views on Climate and Energy (2015) – 76 countries • Lead-up to COP22 in Paris

• Coordinated by the Danish Board of Technology in collaboration with Missions Publiques and the French National Commission for Public Debate

• Lay citizens – demographic diversity • Informed deliberations – booklet

and videos

Five thematic sessions :

Importance of tackling climate change

Tools to tackle climate change

UN negotiations and national commitments

Fairness and distribution of efforts

Making and keeping climate promises

Result downloaded from http://climateandenergy.wwviews.org/results/

From Citizens Visions To future research and innovation agendas

CIMULACT stands for ‘Citizen and Multi-Actor Consultation on Horizon 2020’

The project has engaged more than 1000 citizens in 30 countries in Europe, along with a variety of other actors, in shaping a desirable sustainable future

In a highly participatory process, the project provides a unique contribution to European research and innovation policies and topics, create dialogue and shared understanding among the actors, and build strong capacities in citizen engagement, thereby enhancing RRI in the EU.

Milano workshop

Prioritising future land-use in Denmark

• In recognition of the need for a sustainable land-use planning strategy in Denmark, The Danish Board of Technology has launched a 2-year project on future land use in Denmark. The project is carried out in cooperation with Aalborg University and is funded by VELUX FONDEN.

• The project focuses on future challenges such as sustainability, biodiversity, co-existence of nature and agriculture and new energy forms, but also on facilitating dialogue between stakeholders, policymakers, experts and citizens about future land-use in Denmark.

Opening up research means more than making research agendas…

#1 Making framework conditions and policy on science, innovation and technology >> “opening up” at this level is for example participatory technology assessment; Citizen engagement on strategies/policies in new developments in technology etc.

#2 Making research agendas: inviting citizens, experts, stakeholders and politicians to have a say on the future research content >> CIMULACT

#3 Steering research institutions and research projects >> stakeholder and citizen engagement in science shops/cafés

#4 Being part of research >> participatory research, crowd science, etc

Facilitation and learning

• Our approach to facilitating deliberative meetings • The preparation phase

• Invitations

• Representative sample

• Picking the venue and equipment

• Training facilitators

• The meetings • Setting

• Rules for good dialogue

• Table moderators

• Follow up • Results online

• Information on where results end up and what happens after

Rules for good dialogue

• Speak openly and speak your mind

• Listen to others

• Be respectful and do not interrupt others

• Keep your comments short and focused

• Focus on the subject matter at hand

• The table moderator determines turn-taking

• The table moderator does not participate in the debate

Why public engagement?

• Re-establish trust – To Science; Institutions; Politics

• Society complex, intensive, challenged – No-one has the overview

• Politics more knowledge-demanding – Many kinds of knowledge needed

• Wicked problems - Uncertainty – Professional + normative judgments

– Demand ownership and distributed action

• Citizens are case-oriented

Political meaning

• PP has many meanings in democracies – Opening institutions to their real owners

– Informing policy-making; Giving citizens a voice

– Transition to collaborative democracy

– Long term development to global democracy

• Adding dialogue to communication – ”Talk society” taken over by media and elite

• It is a positive addendum – not a take-over – To politics; CSOs, to power games; media

Tools for different levels

National

Consensus Conf. (Citizen defined, qualit.)

Citizen Jury (Qualit.

/ quantit.)

Interview meeting (Informed quantit.+qualit.)

Citizen summit (Deliberation + vote)

WWViews Nation (Multi-site)

Global

WWViews Global (Deliberation & voting)

Informed ePolls (Streaming & polling)

eParticipation systems? (Brainstorms;

Social innovation..)

Local

World Cafe (Co-

creating ideas)

Open space (Self-

organising action)

Citizen hearing (Brainstorm, prioritise, describe options)

Scenario Workshop (Make common future)

Tools for different aims

Policy consultation

• WWViews

• Consensus Conf.

• Citizen Jury

• Interview meeting

• Citizen summit

• Informed ePolls

Ideas, visions

• World Cafe

• Citizen hearing

• CIVISTI (Research

and innovation agenda setting)

• Scenario workshop

Empowerment

• Open space Perspective workshop (Exploring myths, and making action)

• Future Lab (Turning

critique into action)

Impacts of Methods 21 “roles” to play

POLICY ANALYSIS

* Policy objectives

explored

* Existing policies

assessed

SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT

* Technical options

assessed and made visible

* Comprehensive overview

on consequences given

REFRAMING OF DEBATE

* New action plan or

initiative to further

scrutinise the problem

decided

* New orientation in

policies established

AGENDA SETTING

* Setting the agenda in the

political debate

* Stimulating public debate

* Introducing visions or

scenarios

NEW DECISION MAKING

PROCESSES

* New ways of governance

introduced

* Initiative to intensify

public debate taken

MEDIATION

* Self-reflecting among

actors

* Blockade running

* Bridge building

SOCIAL MAPPING

* Structure of conflicts

made transparent

RE-STRUCTURING THE

POLICY DEBATE

* Comprehensiveness in

policies increased

* Policies evaluated

through debate

* Democratic legitimisation

perceived

DECISION TAKEN

* Policy alternatives filtered

* Innovations implemented

* New legislation is passed

Tec

h/S

ci

asp

ects

Raising knowledge Initialising actionForming attitudes

Po

licy

asp

ects

So

ciet

al

asp

ects

When, how and why

Citizen Summit / WWViews

When

Policy decisions need input on informed public opinion

How

100-20.000 persons 1 day, get info, deliberate, vote on questions.

Single-/multi-site.

POLICY ANALYSIS

* Policy objectives

explored

* Existing policies

assessed

SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT

* Technical options

assessed and made visible

* Comprehensive overview

on consequences given

REFRAMING OF DEBATE

* New action plan or

initiative to further

scrutinise the problem

decided

* New orientation in

policies established

AGENDA SETTING

* Setting the agenda in the

political debate

* Stimulating public debate

* Introducing visions or

scenarios

NEW DECISION MAKING

PROCESSES

* New ways of governance

introduced

* Initiative to intensify

public debate taken

MEDIATION

* Self-reflecting among

actors

* Blockade running

* Bridge building

SOCIAL MAPPING

* Structure of conflicts

made transparent

RE-STRUCTURING THE

POLICY DEBATE

* Comprehensiveness in

policies increased

* Policies evaluated

through debate

* Democratic legitimisation

perceived

DECISION TAKEN

* Policy alternatives filtered

* Innovations implemented

* New legislation is passed

Te

ch

/Sc

i

as

pe

cts

Raising knowledge Initialising actionForming attitudes

Po

lic

y

as

pe

cts

So

cie

tal

as

pe

cts

When, how and why

CIVISTI / CIMULACT

When

R&I agenda needs public relevance

How

Citizens make visions; Turned into research items by experts; Prioritised by citizens

POLICY ANALYSIS

* Policy objectives

explored

* Existing policies

assessed

SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT

* Technical options

assessed and made visible

* Comprehensive overview

on consequences given

REFRAMING OF DEBATE

* New action plan or

initiative to further

scrutinise the problem

decided

* New orientation in

policies established

AGENDA SETTING

* Setting the agenda in the

political debate

* Stimulating public debate

* Introducing visions or

scenarios

NEW DECISION MAKING

PROCESSES

* New ways of governance

introduced

* Initiative to intensify

public debate taken

MEDIATION

* Self-reflecting among

actors

* Blockade running

* Bridge building

SOCIAL MAPPING

* Structure of conflicts

made transparent

RE-STRUCTURING THE

POLICY DEBATE

* Comprehensiveness in

policies increased

* Policies evaluated

through debate

* Democratic legitimisation

perceived

DECISION TAKEN

* Policy alternatives filtered

* Innovations implemented

* New legislation is passed

Te

ch

/Sc

i

as

pe

cts

Raising knowledge Initialising actionForming attitudes

Po

lic

y

as

pe

cts

So

cie

tal

as

pe

cts

Thank you for your attention

• www.tekno.dk • Articles about our projects within our field of expertise energy,

climate, it, health, labour market, research

• DBT_Foundation

• teknologiradetDBT (only in Danish)

• The Danish Board of Technology Foundation

Establishment in 1985

• “During the last years it has become still more evident that new technology in many different fields has a decisive influence on society and on the life of individual human beings, without anyone reflecting beforehand on the consequences. Profound technological changes occur without an expressed policy … In order to enhance democratic decision making in this field, a board of technology ought to be set up which is independent of interested parties.” (from the ‘lovforslag nr. L167’)