• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Inuse seminar Mikko Rask
 

Inuse seminar Mikko Rask

on

  • 1,528 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,528
Views on SlideShare
413
Embed Views
1,115

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 1,115

http://inuse.fi 1115

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Inuse seminar Mikko Rask Inuse seminar Mikko Rask Presentation Transcript

    • Vaikuttava osallistuminen: kuinkateknologian arviointi muuttaa maailmaa Mikko Rask Kuluttajatutkimuskeskus INUSE-seminaari, HSE, 12. joulukuuta 2011
    • Content n Technology assessment and the “participatory turn” n Principles of deliberative democracy n Models of participation n Studying the impacts of participatory technology assessment (pTA) n Successful and less successful experiences n Discussion: connections between user-driven product development and pTA2
    • Personal research interests n Modernisation and attitudes to technology n Relation between expert and lay knowledge n Governance of science, technology and environmental risks n Deliberation theory and public participation practice3
    • Technology assessment – what is it?4
    • ”Broadly, the term ’participatory technology assessment (pTA) refers to the class of methods and procedures of assessing socio-technological issues that actively involve various kinds of actors as assessors and discussants” Joss & Bellucci, 2002, p. 55
    • Related concepts TECHNOLOGY USER PARTICIPATION IN constructive technology assessment, CTA PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT? (Rip et al. 1995) dialogic/interactive/communicative TA (Geurts & Meyer, 1996) ASSESSMENT technology foresight > foresight (Martin, 1996) post-positivist/ hermeneutic/ discursive/ argumentative policy analysis (Mayer & Geurts 1998, Jamison 1999) integrated assessment (Rotmans, 2001) PARTICIPATION futures studies (Bell, 2002) environmental public participation (Renn, 2008) conflict resolution (Simmel, 1959) participatory planning (Forrester, 1989) deliberative (democratic) theory (Habermas, Rawls, Dryzek) > deliberative democratic processes (DDPs)6
    • A shared context n Problems are complex and systemic n Effective solutions require technical expertise, economic efficiency, political legitimacy and social acceptance n Demand of communication across disciplines and domains7
    • The systemic challenge“Socially relevantproblems are rarely dealtwith within the limits ofsingle system logic”- Renn 2008, p. 2898
    • Participatory methods future search conference public journalism scenario workshop citizen initiatives delphi national issues forums expert hearing electoral deliberation FUTURE voting conference INITIATIVES on-line dialogues POLITICS study circles VOTING e-the people collaborative learning approach ON-LINE world café LEARNING deliberative polling MIXED st 21 century town meetings RESEARCH focus group FACE-TO-FACE PANELS interview meeting consensus conferences (DK) MEDIATION planning cells (DE) citizen juries (US) regulatory negotiation PLANNING DECISION MAKING mediation deliberative city planning referenda co-operative discourse participation in public policies (Brasil)9
    • Deliberation as a yardstick: not all methods are deliberative!10
    • Principles of deliberation n “Deliberation” refers to the style and procedure of decision-making n “fairness and competence” factors (Renn et al. 1995) n mutual exchange of arguments instead of decision making based on status (Stern & Fineberg, 1996) n “open dialogue, access to information, respect, space to understand and reframe issues, and movement toward consensus” (Carson & Hartz-Karp 2005) n transforms views rather than simply aggregates preferences (Barnes, 2008) n “an active process of challenging unconsidered beliefs and values, encouraging individuals to arrive at a defensible position on an issue” (Gundersen, 1995) n does not specify the participants who are invited to deliberate11
    • Deliberative democracy n “Deliberative democracy” refers to the combination of deliberation and third-party involvement (e.g., Fishkin 1991; Renn 2008) n Stakeholder involvement (self-select or targeted) n ”Mini-publics” with some claim of representativeness n e.g. Deliberative Polls, Consensus Conferences, Citizens’ Juries, Planning Cells n not statistical or electoral representativeness n ”that the diversity of social characteristics and plurality of initial points of view in the larger society are substantially present in the deliberating mini-public” (Goodin & Dryzek, 2006) n contrast to processes, where participants are self-select or are selected on the basis of their partisanship, e.g. public hearings, stakeholder dialogues, mediation, regulatory negotiation12
    • Does quality of deliberation matter in participatory product development?13
    • Impacts of TA14 Decker & Ladikas, 2004
    • ”Impact of TA is defined as any change with regard to the state of knowledge, opinions held and actions taken by relevant actors in the process of societal debate on technological isssues.”15
    • Expectation of impacts depends on the objectives of participation16
    • Different models ofparticipation17
    • Concept Main objective Rationale Examples of instruments Functionalist quality of decision output representation of knowledge Delphi, workshops, carriers; systematic hearings, citizen advisory integration of knowledge committees Neoliberal proportional representation informed consent; Pareto referenda, focus groups, of values and preferences optimality internet participation, negotiated rule making Deliberative debating the criteria of truth inclusion of relevant discourse-oriented models; and normative validity arguments; consensus citizen forums; deliberative through argumentation juries Anthropo- to engage in common sense inclusion of disinterested consensus conference, logical laypersons representing basic citizen juries, planning cells social categories Emancipatory to empower less privileged strengthening the resources community development groups of those who suffer most groups, science workshops, town meetings Postmodern to demonstrate variability, acknowledgement of plural open forums, open space plurality and legitimacy of rationalities; no closure conferences, panel dissent necessary discussions Based on Renn, 2008, p. 30318
    • Which models are relevant for participatory product development?19
    • Multidimensional impacts of TA (Decker & Ladikas, 2004) n Types of changes generated n raising knowledge n forming opinions/ attitudes n intializing actions n Types of issues n technoscientific n social n political20
    • Decker & Ladikas, 2004, p. 6321
    • The highest step in the ladder of participation (Arstein, 1969) Participatory Budgeting in the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre, where municipal budget priorities have been determined, since 1989, by direct vote in open to all popular Regional Assemblies. - popular regional assemblies (open to all) - regional budget forums (members selected by the regional assemblies) - municipal budget council elected by the regional assembiles) Dryzek (2006, 2009): - a great success in participatory terms - a great success in macro-political impact - however, self-select or elected participation22
    • Another ”hardwired” deliberation The Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform in the British Columbia (B.C.) province of Canada. The B.C. provincial government established, in 2003, a Citizens’ Assembly, made up of 160 randomly- selected citizens, who were legislatively charged with making a recommendation on province’s electoral system that would automatically go onto the ballot as a referendum proposal. (Levine, Fung et al. 2005 4; Goodin and Dryzek 2006 225).23
    • Studying the impacts of TA24
    • “It is now commonplace to talk about the deliberative turn in democratic theory. . . . Indeed, this turn is so striking that it has spawned a small industry of review articles and edited volumes attempting to sum up its meaning and content.” Chambers (2003, p. 307)25
    • Reviews26
    • The impact of participationDietz & Stern, 2008, p. 86 ”The evidence discussed in this section shows that the desired immediate results of public participation are positively correlated: one generally finds similar levels of success in terms of quality, legitimacy, and capacity. Available evidence supports with high confidence a conclusion that tradeoffs among these types of results are not inevitable.”27
    • Three criteria (Dietz & Stern, 2008) n Quality n refers to assessments or decisions that (1) identify the values, interests, and concerns of all who are interested in or might be affected by the environmental process or decision; (2) identify the range of actions that might be taken; (3) identify and systematically consider the effects that might follow and uncertainties about them; (4) use the best available knowledge and methods relevant to the above tasks, particularly (5); and(6) incorporate new information, methods, and concerns that arise over time.28
    • …criteria (Dietz & Stern, 2008) n Legitimacy n refers to a process that is seen by the interested and affected parties as fair and competent and that follows the governing laws and regulations. n Capacity n refers to participants, including agency officials and scientists, (1) becoming better informed and more skilled at effective participation; (2) becoming better able to engage the best available scientific knowledge and information about diverse values, interests, and concerns; and (3) developing a more widely shared understanding of the issues and decision challenges and a reservoir of communication and mediation skills and mutual trust.29
    • Evidence of impacts?30
    • Experimental studies ”An experimental study by Arvai (2003) shows that when people believe that a decision resulted from a public participation process, they are more likely to accept the decision, an indication of legitimacy. Arvai surveyed 378 individuals about a decision by the National Aeronautical and Space Administration to deploy a nuclear generator in space exploration. All individuals received the same information about the risks and benefits involved in using the nuclear generator. However, some were told that mission planning, including the decision to use the generator, was based on expert knowledge and experience, while others were told that decisions about mission planning, objectives, design, and the use of the generator were based equally on active public participation and on expert knowledge and experience. The individuals who were told that the decision incorporated public participation were significantly more supportive of the decision itself, as well as the process by which the decision was reached.”31 Dietz & Stern, 2008
    • Deliberative polls ”A number of studies by Fishkin and collaborators (e.g., Fishkin, 1997; Farrar et al., 2003, 2006; Fishkin and Luskin, 2005; List et al., 2006) used random samples of individuals in carefully planned participatory events, called deliberative polls, addressing a number of public policy issues…These studies found that participation changed people’s opinions on the issues and that people who engaged in deliberative polls were more likely to vote afterward, which we interpret as a positive outcome…These findings suggest that participatory processes increase participants’ capacity through learning and increased motivation to participate, as well as developing greater consensus on at least some aspects of preference ordering.”32 Dietz & Stern, 2008
    • Other types of evidence n Quasi-experimental studies, where more and less participatory process occure normally are compared n Multi-case studies n Practitioners’ experiences33
    • Intensive participation more succesful ”The most extensive such study was by Beierle and Cayford (2002), who coded 239 cases into five categories from least to most intensively participatory, according to the mechanism used: from public meetings and hearings at the low-intensity end of the spectrum, through advisory committees not seeking consensus to advisory committees seeking consensus, and finally to negotiations and mediations. More intense mechanisms were strongly associated with high ratings on an aggregate success measure: less than one-quarter of the processes featuring public meetings and hearings were rated highly successful, compared with over 90 percent of the negotiations and mediations. Beierle and Cayford (2002:48) noted, however, that the more intensive mechanisms sometimes achieve consensus by “leaving out participants or ignoring issues”—they look more successful from inside the process but may not yield better results when the participation moves out to the broader society.”34 Dietz & Stern, 2008
    • Problems of impact studies FOCUS ON INDIVIDUAL PROCESSES FEASIBILITY OF EVIDENCE ”Given…the relatively greater amount of evidence concerning immediate results relative to implementation outcomes and impacts in most studies of environmental public participation, it is much more feasible to evaluate most environmental public participation processes on the basis of immediate outputs and outcomes than against implementation or impact criteria.”35 Dietz & Stern, 2008
    • The deliberative system and its consequentiality (Dryzek, 2009)36
    • Kiitos!37