Lamsade – Université Paris IX Dauphine
Indexes socially "understandable"
4th December 2008
Context : AIDHY project
• Deployment of hydrogen technology policy
• Assessment of social acceptability of this technology
• Actors :
• industrials
• legislators
• civil society
Indexes socially "understandable"
General research question
• How to built indexes :
• understandable and acceptable by the different actors of
the process,
• taking in account the different aspects of a public policy,
stakes of each actors ?
Indexes socially "understandable"
Goals of such indexes
• Assessment of public policy
• throughout of its different phases :
• Conception
• Construction
• Implementation
• Monitoring
• Revision
Indexes socially "understandable"
Bibliography
• Habermas J., 1987, “Théorie de l’agir communicationnel”
• Keeney R.L., 1992, “Value Focused Thinking”
• Mazri C., 2007, “Apports méthodologiques pour la construction de
processus de décision publique en contexte participatif”
• Rousval B., 2005, “Aide multicritère à l’évaluation de l’impact des
transports sur l’environnement”
• Roy B., 2006, Conf. “Les outils pour décider ensemble : nouveaux
territoires, nouveaux paradigmes”
• Toulmin S.E., 2003, “The uses of arguments”
• Tsoukiàs A., 2007, “On the concept of decision aiding process”
Indexes socially "understandable"
Plan
• An assessment aiding process
• Specificities of public policies assessment process
• Other elements of reflection
• Proposal
Indexes socially "understandable"
Situation
Define values systems
Using objectives structure
Expertise
Data
AggregationConsultationResults Criteria
Decision maker
Objectives hierarchy
Indexes socially "understandable"
Indexes
Assessment aiding process
Plan
• An assessment aiding process
• Specificities of public policies assessment process
• Other elements of reflection
• Proposal
Indexes socially "understandable"
Specificity of public policies assessment process• Repartition of power between actors of the process:
• economic and social
=> power of resources
• administrative or juridical
=> legitimacy power
Indexes socially "understandable"
Implications
More constraining in public policies decision process than in
assessment process
• Differences of rationality of actors
• objectives
• knowledge
• values system
• stakes
Indexes socially "understandable"
Specificity of public policies assessment process
Implications
It looks very difficult to summarize objectives, values and
stakes in a unique hierarchy
It is necessary to increase the level of knowledge of actors
• Complexity and uncertainty
• contingencies of public objects, interdependences
• incomplete available knowledge
• natural variability of systems, evolution
Indexes socially "understandable"
Specificity of public policies assessment process
Implications
The assessment context has to be define precisely (limits…)
The model has to take in account uncertainties
Evolution of the model is necessary during the different phases
of the life of the public policy
• Analysis phases
• reproducible and rigorous frame
• consensus among experts
• technical assessment
Indexes socially "understandable"
Specificity of public policies assessment process
Implications
Those analysis phases look to correspond to the experts phases
of criteria definitions
• Deliberation phases
• interaction among actors based frame
• better understanding of the problem and opinions
Indexes socially "understandable"
Specificity of public policies assessment process
Implications
Those phases look to correspond to:
• the definition of objectives of each other
• the understanding of objectives of the others
• the understanding of the result of assessment
Plan
• An assessment aiding process
• Specificities of public policies assessment process
• Other elements of reflection
• Proposal
Indexes socially "understandable"
• Approach based on communicative rationality of Habermas
• Using concepts concerning the pretending to validity of an
argument :
• intelligibility
• scientific truth
• normative accuracy
• sincerity
Elements of reflection
Indexes socially "understandable"
• Intelligibility :
• using a understandable language
• seen as a precondition
=> Such indexes have to be interpretable in a univocal
language and to be understandable by all actors.
Pretending to validity of an argument, as an index :
Indexes socially "understandable"
• Scientific truth:
• based on admitted scientific arguments
• conforming to current scientific theories
• (=> such a truth can change as scientific theories do
change)
Indexes socially "understandable"
Pretending to validity of an argument, as an index :
=> Such indexes have to integrate part of scientific
expertise when it is necessary and possible
• Normative accuracy
• argument is valid if it uses norms or values that
individuals join
• => confrontation of norms or values
• => confrontation of different interpretations of those
norms or values
=> As possible, indexes need to be built on a set of values
shared by the different actors
Indexes socially "understandable"
Pretending to validity of an argument, as an index :
• Sincerity
• correspondence among what says the argument and what
the person who give the argument thinks
• part of subjective
• => challenging the validity of the argument is equivalent
to challenging sincerity of the person who give the argument
=> Difficulty : how to test the sincerity of actors when they
speaking about their own values ?
Indexes socially "understandable"
Pretending to validity of an argument, as an index :
Four levels of expectations of a consultation process (Roy):
1. increase the level of information of the different actors
2. increase the actors’ understanding of stakes, motivation and
expectation of the other actors
3. reach agreement on certain types of reasoning, progress
towards the recognition of priorities, even to fragments of
solution,
4. according legitimacy of decisions (faithfully to the results of
the consultation)
Indexes socially "understandable"
Elements of reflection
Plan
• An assessment aiding process
• Specificities of public policies assessment process
• Other elements of reflection
• Proposal
Indexes socially "understandable"
Proposal
Indexes socially "understandable"
Shared objectivesActors Group 1 Actors Group 3Actors Group 2
• Structure a set of shared objectives
• For each group of actors :
• Structure a set of specific objectives in a common language
• Understanding the objectives of the other groups of actors
(check their sincerity?)
Proposal
Indexes socially "understandable"
Shared Index
IndexIndustrials
IndexLegislators
IndexCivil
Society
• Result of assessment: is the deployment of
hydrogen technology:
• fully acceptable
• acceptable
• controversial
• non acceptable ?
Proposal
Indexes socially "understandable"
• To establish a global conclusion :
• MCDA
• “Argumentation theory” can be useful to
explain for example the reason of a
controversial situation
Define the assessment context
Definition - Consultation
Deliberation
Expertise - Analyze
Take in account uncertainties
Aggregation
Argumentation
ConsultationDeliberation Criteria
Actorsgroups
Objectives hierarchies
Indexes socially "understandable"
Indexes
Conclusion
Knowledge