Participatorybased technology assessment general experience EXPOST AND ONGOING

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 n n n 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? n Enlightenment? n Involvement? n Engagement?

I. Changing goals of participation Enlightenment: n n 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: n n n 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: n n n n 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 decisionmaking level

I. Changing goals of participation Changing goles and roles of participation: n n 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)

II. When should we use participation? n n 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 n n n n Integration of local knowledge into the decision-making process n Knowledge and values (qualitative aspects of risks) n Complementer knowledge: Contextualising universal knowledge in order to enhance its applicability n 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 n n 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: n n 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 n n 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: n n New Climate - New Life? (2004), Education of the Future (2001), The Library of the Future (1994), City Ecology (1993).

IV. Methods of participation n n 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: n n n n n ‘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 n 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 (vi. WTA - 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 n n n 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 n Long time interval, n Complexity of certain decision-making processes Recruitment of participants n Concerned, n Active, n Silent users? Preparation and provided information Local context (and also applicability) and transferability of results n Formation of local dialogue can easier lead to local actions

V. Challenges of participation 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 n 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: n n SOCROBUST methodology (Philippe Laredo), Nano. Ned 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 n Public participation as a regular and systematic, full cycle process n Developing methodological toolboxes n CIPAST (Citizen Participation in Science and Technology) project results n Enhance public participation in the management of local issues n Higher level policy feedbacks n Adapted methods to the local context n CTA and participation as a culture

Thank you for your attention! Dr. László Várkonyi SOTER Research Centre varkonyi. laszlo@kutatasikozpont. hu