Seminar Basque & Iceland Connetion Calzada PhD & Casado PhD University of Iceland Reykjavik 27th Sept 2013

  • 1,977 views
Uploaded on

This is the briefing presentation of the lecture seminar that Dr Calzada from the University of Oxford (UK) Future of Cities & COMPAS and Ikerbasque, Basque Foundation for Science and Dr Casado from …

This is the briefing presentation of the lecture seminar that Dr Calzada from the University of Oxford (UK) Future of Cities & COMPAS and Ikerbasque, Basque Foundation for Science and Dr Casado from the University of the Basque Country, Philosophy Department delivered at the University of Iceland in Reykjavik on the 27th Sept 2013. They presented the #research #project titled #Basque & #Iceland #Connection after one week of full time #fieldwork #research conducting interviews in Reykjavik from 22nd-29th Sept. The procedure will continue in the Basque Country with the same methodology.
This presentation became a paper that will be published shortly.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,977
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
9

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. #Basque  &  #Iceland   #Connec1on         Igor  Calzada,  Ph.D.   PostDoctoral  Research  Fellow  at  the    University  of  Oxford  (UK).    Future  of  Ci?es  FoC  Programme,  COMPAS  &  InSIS.   &    Ikerbasque,  Basque  Founda?on  for  Science.     &     Antonio  Casado,  Ph.D.   Lecturer  &  Researcher  at  the  University  of  the  Basque  Country.   University  of  Iceland,  Reykjavik   14:00   27th  September  2013.  
  • 2. INDEX     0.-­‐  Bio  &  Background     1.-­‐  Research  Aims  (4)     2.-­‐  Research  Ques1ons  (3)     3.-­‐  Framework:  Methodology  (5  Systems  x  6  Indicators)  &  Field  work.     4.-­‐  Hypothesis  (5  x  6  =  30  Items)     N.-­‐  Open  Discussion:  #Connec1on?     *References  
  • 3. 0.-­‐  Bio  &  Background.  
  • 4. 0.-­‐  Bio  
  • 5. 0.-­‐  Background  
  • 6. 1.-­‐  Research  Aims  (4).  
  • 7. 1.-­‐  Research  Aims  (4)       ① to  interpret  the  Basque  &  Icelandic  situa1on  in  the  global  context:             ① specificaly,  redefining  their  role  as  a  territory  in  the  context  defined  by  the  decline  of   the  Na?on-­‐States  (Ohmae,  1995)  and  the  uncertain  postcrisis  EU  general  context  (a)   Scotland,  Catalonia,(b)  even  Iceland  itself  and  (c)  Oresund  as  a  non-­‐iden?ty  based   region),     ② struggling  to  get  out  of  a  crisis  that  is  more  than  financial,     ③ in  need  to  restructure  their  governance  systems  to  the  changes  happened  from  2008.         ② to  develop  an  inventory  or  interview  list  to  capture  the  ethically  relevant  social   innova1on  trends  behind  hypothe1cal  democra1c  change  in  a  given  society  or  territory,   and   ① test  it  in  both  Iceland  and  the  Basque  Country    
  • 8. 1.-­‐  Research  Aims  (4)     ③  to  make  explicit  the  underlying  ethics  (presupposi1ons,  emerging  topics,  emo1ons)  and   strategically  cri1cal  social  innova1on  trends  around  themes  such  as:     ①  poli?cal  innova?on  at  the  global  and  local  scales,     ②  the  meaning  of  the  crisis  and  its  impact  on  democracy  (before  and  a_er  2008),   ③  the  influence  of  technology  and  social  movements  in  this  hypothe?cal  social   transforma?on,     ④  the  role  of  different  stakeholders,     ⑤  the  macro  &  micro  socio-­‐economic  real  alterna?ves  in  contrast  with  the  neoliberal   agenda,  and     ⑥  how  can  we  see  each  others'  experience     ④  to  reconnect  again  (rela1onship  between  Basque  whalers  and  Icelandic  people  ended   tragically  in  1615)   ①  to  put  together  our  two  poli?cal  systems,  and  look  at  them  through  the  lenses  of   applied  ethics  and  social  innova?on  field  (our  connec?on  not  only  involves  two   territories,  but  also  two  different  disciplines:  applied  ethics  and  cri?cal  social   innova?on.  We  think  both  might  benefit  from  collabora?on.)      
  • 9. 9   1.-­‐  Research  Aim  (*)  
  • 10. 2.-­‐  Research  Ques1ons  (3).  
  • 11. 2.-­‐  Research  Ques1ons  (3)       ① Iceland  was  the  first  country  to  be  hit  by  the  2008  financial  crisis  with  drama?c  democra?c   consequences.  If  there  has  been  some  democra1c  social  innova1on  or  regenera1on  in   Iceland  ader  the  crisis,  what  rela?onship  does  it  have  with  ethics?  What  is  its  moral  core?     ② Because  they  share  some  features  concerning  their  compara1ve  small  size  and  iden1ty   (unique  local  language  and  culture  dealing  with  bigger  players  in  a  global  arena),  we   wonder  whether  some  of  the  transforma1ons  (innova1ons?)  emerged  in  Iceland  during   the  Kreppa  years  (2008-­‐2013)  could  be  applicable  to  the  crisis  in  the  Basque  Country  in   the  new  post-­‐violence  scenario  (ETA’s  ceasefire  from  2011  on).  And  what  about  micro   social  innova?ve  cases  (coopera?vism,  plurilingualism,…)?   ③ Different  as  they  are,  both  situa1ons  involve  hopes  of  regenera1on  of  the  democra1c   system,  and  both  raise  ques?ons  such  as:  What  has  been  really  happening  in  Iceland?   What  is  the  nature  of  the  change  or  innova?on  that  has  emerged?  In  what  way  is  it  special   or  different  from  the  Basque  case?        
  • 12. 3.-­‐  Framework:     Methodology  (5  Systems  x  6  Indicators)  &  Field  work.  
  • 13. Cri1cal  Social  Innova1on     Applied  to  Territories   Applied   Ethics   3.-­‐  Framework:  Methodology  
  • 14. 3.-­‐  Framework:  Methodology   Social  Innova1on     Applied  to  Territories   Applied   Ethics   5  SYSTEMS    DEMOS  =       •  URBS  +     •  CYBER  +     •  CIVITAS  +     •  POLIS       6  INDICATORS    ETHOS  =     •  Ends  +     •  Intersubjec?vity  +   •  Reflec?on  +   •  Consensus  +     •  PostConven?onality  +   •  CoResponsibility  
  • 15. On  one  flank,  moral  philosophers,  well  armed  with  three  centuries  worth  of  arguments   about  the  fact-­‐value  dis?nc?on,  target  the  validity  of  empirical  ethics  research  and   cri1que  what  they  see  as  the  empirical  ethicists’  untenable  efforts  to  develop  prescrip?ve   conclusions  from  descrip?ve  evidence.  On  the  opposing  flank,  social  scien1sts  (and   others)  amack  the  dis?nc?veness  of  empirical  ethics  research,  with  cri1cisms  ranging  from   empirical  ethicists’  naive  appropria?on  of  the  complex  methodologies  and  methods   developed  from  within  their  disciplines,  to  their  apparent  ignorance  of  social  scien?sts’   own  amempts  to  account  for  the  ways  in  which  social  prac1ces  are  laden  with  judgments   of  moral  value.   Dunn,  M.,  Sheehan,  M.,  Parker,  M.  and  Hope,  T.  (2012)  ‘Towards  methodological  innova?on  in  empirical  ethics   research’,  Cambridge  Quarterly  of  Healthcare  Ethics,  21(4):  466.   As  Swyngedouw  suggested,  today  the  social  problema1c  addressed  through  Social   Innova1on  has  become  much  more  complex  due  to  the  deepening  of  mutually  reinforcing   socioeconomic,  socio-­‐poli1cal  and  socio-­‐ecological  crises  (Moulaert  et  al,  2013).     3.-­‐  Framework:  Methodology   (Cri1cal)  Social  Innova1on  Applied  to  Territories   Applied  (Empirical)  Ethics  
  • 16. Two  Research  Ques1ons:   1.-­‐  How  do  Territories  behave?     2.-­‐  How  could  we  iden?fy  socially  innova?ve  processes  among  them  ?   Social  Innova1on     Applied  to  Territories   5  SYSTEMS:   #URBS   1.-­‐  Human  Geography:  Sociodemographic  factors.   2.-­‐  Sustainable  &  Resilience  Territorial:  Technical  factors.     3.-­‐  Urban&Rural  +  Centre&Periphery  Linkage:  Morphological  &  Mobility  factors.   #CYBER   4.-­‐  Physical  Connec1vity:  Usage  of  the  land/users  rela?onship  factors.   5.-­‐  Digital  Connec1vity:  Interac?on  enabling  factors.   6.-­‐  Social  Connec1vity:  Social  Capital  factors.   #CIVITAS   7.-­‐  Immigra1on:  Ethnic  diversity  and  integra?on  factors.   8.-­‐  Entrepreneurship:  Socio-­‐economic  challenged  factors.   9.-­‐  Local  Communi1es:  Local  grassroots  factors.   #POLIS   10.-­‐  Iceland  &  EU:  Globaliza?on  threats  &  oportuni?es’  factors.     11.-­‐  Governance:  Dialogue  between  stakeholders’  enabling  factors.   12.-­‐  Par1cipa1on:  Precondi?ons,  mobiliza?ons  and  par?cipaton  process’  factors.   #DEMOS  
  • 17. Applied   Ethics   Self-­‐understanding   E)  Ends:  this  item  tries  to  capture  the  self-­‐understanding  of  the  moral  subject(s)  by  looking  at  the   extent  they  iden?fy  the  goals  or  internal  goods  that  give  meaning  to  a  given  prac?ce,  and  the  factors   influencing  their  choice  of  those  ends.   I)  Intersubjec1vity:  this  item  tries  to  capture  the  self-­‐understanding  of  the  moral  subject  in  rela?on  to   others,  by  looking  at  what  they  think  about  the  subject   Jus1fica1on   R)  Reflec1on:  this  item  tries  to  capture  to  what  extent  the  subject(s)  bases  their  decisions  in  a  dialogue   or  delibera?on  in  which  the  right  (minimal  ethics)  and  the  good  (maximal  ethics)  are  considered   C)  Consensus:  this  item  tries  to  capture  to  what  extent  the  subject’s  decisions  would  have  been  taken   by  consent  in  an  ideal  community  of  communica?on,  in  which  all  stakeholders  are  present  in  a   dialogue  on  equal  grounds   Applica1on   PC)  Post-­‐Conven1onality:  this  item  tries  to  capture  to  what  extent  the  subject(s)  implement  principles   that  all  stakeholders  could  agree  to,  irrespec?vely  of  their  own  concep?on  of  the  good   CR)  Co-­‐Responsability:  this  item  tries  to  capture  to  what  extent  the  subject(s)  assume  a  share  of   responsibility  for  the  consequences  of  collec?ve  behaviour   Two  Research  Ques1ons:   1.-­‐Can  we  measure  the  extent  ethics  is  applied  in  a  territory?   2.-­‐  How  can  we  iden?fy  emerging  trends  in  moral  prac?ce?  
  • 18. 3.-­‐  Framework:  Field  work     ①   Interviews  with  Stakeholders:  Academia  and  Poli?cs.     ②   Informants:  6-­‐8.     ③   Hypothesis:  5  Systems  x  6  Indicators  =  30  Items.    
  • 19. 3.-­‐  Framework:  Methodology   Social  Innova1on     Applied  to  Territories   Applied   Ethics   5  SYSTEMS    DEMOS  =       •  URBS  +     •  CYBER  +     •  CIVITAS  +     •  POLIS       6  INDICATORS    ETHOS  =     •  Ends  +     •  Intersubjec?vity  +   •  Reflec?on  +   •  Consensus  +     •  PostConven?onality  +   •  CoResponsibility  
  • 20. 3.-­‐  Framework:  Methodology  
  • 21. 4.-­‐  Hypothesis:  (5  x  6  =  30  Items)    
  • 22. 4.-­‐  Hypothesis   Hub  &  Periphery   #Tension?   (City-­‐Region)     Liquid   Mythopoe1c   #Ar1facts   #Emo1onally   Channeled   Ac1vism   Dilemmas     in     #Transi1on   On-­‐going   #ReExamina1on  
  • 23. #URBS   photo  by  @icalzada  
  • 24. 4.-­‐  Hypothesis   Hub  &  Periphery  #Tension  ?  (City-­‐Region)    
  • 25. #CYBER   photo  by  @icalzada  
  • 26. 4.-­‐  Hypothesis   Liquid  Mythopoe1c  #Ar1facts  
  • 27. #CIVITAS   photo  by  @icalzada  
  • 28. 4.-­‐  Hypothesis   #Emo1onally  Channeled  Ac1vism  
  • 29. #POLIS   photo  by  @icalzada  
  • 30. 4.-­‐  Hypothesis   Dilemmas  in  #Transi1on  
  • 31. #DEMOS   photo  by  @icalzada  
  • 32. 4.-­‐  Hypothesis   On-­‐going  #ReExamina1on  
  • 33. N.-­‐  #Connec1on?   ICELAND   BASQUE  
  • 34. Takk  fyrir  þástökuna.   Eskerrik  asko  zuen  parte  hartzega?k.   Thank  you  for  your  par?cipa?on.       Igor  Calzada,  Ph.D.   Igor.calzada@compas.ox.ac.uk   hmp://www.igorcalzada.com   hmp://about.me/icalzada   @icalzada       &     Antonio  Casado,  Ph.D.   antonio.casado@ehu.es     hmp://antonio.ias-­‐research.net     @eskuezkerraz    
  • 35. #WorkInProgress     Summary   #Tension?   #Ar1facts   #Emo1onally   #Transi1on   #ReExamina1on  
  • 36. *References   •  Social  Innova1on  &  Territory.   •  Moulaert,  F.,  MacCallum,  D.,  Hillier,  J.,  Vicari,  S.,  (2009)  Social  Innova+on  and  Territorial  Development,  Ashgate,   Aldershot.  ISBN:  978-­‐0754672333.   •  Innerarity,  D.  (2013),  The  Democracy  of  Knowledge,  Bloomsbury,  London.   •  Calzada,  I.  (2013),  The  Future  of  City-­‐Regions  <>  Compara+ve  Territorial  Benchmarking.    RSA  Regional  Studies   Associa?on,  Winter  Conference.   •  Calzada,  I.,  DiSiena,  D.  eta  Chautón,  A.  (2013)  #MacroMesoMicro  Systemic  Territory  Framework  from  the  perspec+ve   of  Social  Innova+on  //  Marco  Analí+co  del  Territorio  desde  la  Innovación  Social.  ISBN:  978-­‐84-­‐616-­‐5217-­‐4.  Calzada,  I.   (2011a),  Towards  the  Basque  City?  Compara+ve  Territorial  Benchmarking  from  Social  Innova+on:  Dublin  (Ireland)  &   Portland  (Oregon),  Bilbao:  Innobasque-­‐Basque  Innova?on  Agency.   •  Applied  Ethics.   •  Dunn,  M.,  Sheehan,  M.,  Parker,  M.  and  Hope,  T.  (2012)  Towards  methodological  innova?on  in  empirical  ethics   research,  Cambridge  Quarterly  of  Healthcare  Ethics,  21(4):  466-­‐480.   •  Forde,  R.  (2012)  How  Can  Empirical  Ethics  Improve  Medical  Prac?ce?  Cambridge  Quarterly  of  Healthcare  Ethics,   21(4):  517-­‐526.   •  Kristjansson,  K.  (2004)  Iceland:  Searching  for  Democracy  along  Three  Dimensions  of  Ci?zen  Control,  Scandinavian   Poli?cal  Studies,  27(2),  153-­‐174.   •  Siurana,  J.  C.  (2009)  La  sociedad  é?ca.  Indicadores  para  evaluar  é?camente  una  sociedad,  Barcelona,  Proteus.