Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Participatory-based technology assessment- general experience -
EX-POST AND ON-GOING EVALUATION OF EU DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES BY THE EUROPEAN
COMMISSION AND THE VISEGRAD COUNTRIES
- Workshop on methodologial issues -
Dr. László Várkonyi
SOTER Research Centre
7 May 2010
Agenda 1. Changing goals of participation
- What do we mean by participation? 2. When should we use participation? 3. Cognitive reasons of participation 4. Methods of participation
- How can we realise the added value of participation? 5. Challenges of participation
I. Changing goals of participation
What do we mean by participation?
Enlightenment?
Involvement?
Engagement?
I. Changing goals of participation
Enlightenment:
Informing the public Bridging the gaps between expert
and lay types of knowledge Priority is given to expert knowledge What lay people should know to
understand what experts do?
I. Changing goals of participation
Involvement:
Dialogue-oriented knowledge-productive process of communication
Targets the establishing of frameworks for the discussions on the risks of the social impacts of technologies
Focuses on co-production of effects and their critism
Preparation of the public for the debate What should public know to be able to
actively participate in the discourse?
I. Changing goals of participation
Engagement:
Dialogues include the goal of the development Includes goal critism Focuses on the trajectories and social visions
of technology development Targets basic questions and values Co-operation in the defining of scenarios Public as a co-evolutionary partner Provide valueable inputs to the policy decision-
making level
I. Changing goals of participation
Changing goles and roles of participation:
From downward communication to upward oriented social debates
Focus shifts from the utilization of technologies to provide possibilities for the greater influencing of the trajectories of technology development (based on the values and intentions of the pluralistic society)
II. When should we use participation?
Model of Scientific Methodology
After Funtowicz és Ravetz (1993)
Decision stakes 0. Core science 1. Applied science 2. Professional consultancy 3. Post-Normal Science
0 1 2 3 Systems uncertainties
II. When should we use participation?
Characterised by high level of uncertainty and decision stakes
In case of high level of uncertainty facts and values are not separable from each other
In order to make rational decisions concerned groups need to be involved
Expanded knowledge- and value-base (expert and local knowledge) for the decision-making process with taking different interests into account
III. Cognitive reasons of public participation
Integration of local knowledge into the decision-making process Knowledge and values (qualitative aspects of risks) Complementer knowledge: Contextualising universal
knowledge in order to enhance its applicability Rising the level of expert knowledge with special factual
experience-based knowledge Approaching problems in a different cognitive way with the
perspective of ‘everyday life’ Providing critical and constructive reflection to the knowledge
production following classical division of labour: asking relevant questions from the context of the big-picture
Integration of different rationalities Possibility for mutual learning Independence from the narrow professional perspectives of
experts Democratising decision-making processes of technology
developments Participation have the possibility to provide a co-operational
framework and to act as a catalyst for socially sustainable technology development
IV. Methods of participation
Participatory-based Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) provides a strategic proactive framework focusing on the dialogue of plural perspectives in a constructive manner.
CTA has two main participatory tools developed in Denmark: Scenario workshops (stakeholder oriented
vision building focus for local issues) Consensus conferences (fostering debate
between expert – public as a starting point for wide social debates)
IV. Methods of participation
The topic of the scenario workshop must be relevant to
society with an emphasised characteristic that local action is a
necessity to solve the problem. The Danish Board of Technology
utilised the methods in the following projects:
New Climate - New Life? (2004), Education of the Future (2001),
The Library of the Future (1994), City Ecology (1993).
IV. Methods of participation The topics that are suited for treatment at consensus conferences
have current social relevance, presupposing expert contribution and contain unclear attitudinal issues.
The main topics of consensus conferences carried out by the Danish Technology Board until recently include the followings:
‘How can we assign value to the environment?’ (2003), ‘Testing our Genes’ (2002), ‘Roadpricing’ (2001), ‘Electronic Surveillance’ (2000), ‘Noise and Technology’ (2000), ‘Genetically modified Food’ (1999), ‘Teleworking’ (1997), ‘The Consumption and Environment of the future’ (1996), ‘The Future of Fishing’ (1996), ‘Gene Therapy’ (1995), ‘Where is the Limit? – chemical substances in food and the environment’ (1995), ‘Information Technology in Transportation’ (1994), ‘A Light-green Agricultural Sector’
(1994), ‘Electronic Identity Cards’ (1994), ‘Infertility’ (1993), ‘The Future of Private Automobiles’ (1993), ‘Technological Animals’ (1992), ‘Educational Technology’ (1991), ‘Air Pollution’ (1990), ‘Food Irradiation’ (1989), ‘Human Genome Mapping’ (1989), ‘The
Citizen and dangerous Production’ (1988), ‘Gene Technology in Industry and Agriculture’ (1987).
IV. Methods of participation
The focus of both methods is to create a framework for the necessary dialogue
among policy-makers, experts, lay people and other possible stakeholders
about technology, policy and society (Andersen and Jæger, 1999).
The main aim is to create a connection between the research and development
activity, and the needs of society. Socio-technical system design (scenario
based)
Stef Steyaert (viWTA - Flemish Institute for Science and Technology Assessment) and Hervé Lisoir (King Baudouin Foundation) eds. 2005: Participatory Methods Toolkit. A practicioner' manual. pg. 27
V. Challenges of participation
Success criteria? (decision-making perspective, rising awareness , etc.)
Results are not guaranteed to be taken into consideration in the decision-making process
Results are not directly traceable Long time interval,
Complexity of certain decision-making processes Recruitment of participants
Concerned, Active,
Silent users? Preparation and provided information
Local context (and also applicability) and transferability of results
Formation of local dialogue can easier lead to local actions
V. Challenges of participation
Stef Steyaert (viWTA - Flemish Institute for Science and Technology Assessment) and Hervé Lisoir (King Baudouin Foundation) eds. 2005: Participatory Methods Toolkit. A practicioner' manual. pg. 27
Active participation: based on partnership in which citizens, stakeholders, experts and/or politicians actively engage in (policy) debate. All parties involved, can frame the issue to a greater or lesser extent.
V. Challenges of participation
Reasoned regular policy feedback to the participation process? The two highlighted methods are mostly used in the design and
planning phase Breakthrough innovation management methods applying CTA can
move forward to apply participation at on-going evaluation phase at decision points of the technology development focusing on continous expectation management of the participants in the
project:for instance:
SOCROBUST methodology (Philippe Laredo), NanoNed concept – CTA (Arie Rip) for managing converging technology
development (NBIC convergence) Managing co-evolutionary interactions of changing heterogeous
networks Emerging technologies and their potential future implications
(double fictious story)
V. Challenges of participation
Public participation as a regular and systematic, full cycle process
Developing methodological toolboxes CIPAST (Citizen Participation in Science and Technology) project
results
Enhance public participation in the management of local issues
Higher level policy feedbacks
Adapted methods to the local context
CTA and participation as a culture
