This document discusses participatory technology assessment and how it can change the world through effective public involvement. It defines participatory technology assessment as methods that actively involve various stakeholders in assessing socio-technological issues. The document outlines several principles of deliberative democracy and different models of public participation, from functionalist to emancipatory. It also reviews literature on studying the impacts of participatory technology assessment, which can include raising knowledge, changing opinions and attitudes, and initiating actions. Experimental studies and evidence from more intensive participation processes suggest participation can increase the quality, legitimacy and capacity of decisions.

1. Vaikuttava osallistuminen: kuinka
teknologian arviointi muuttaa maailmaa
Mikko Rask
Kuluttajatutkimuskeskus
INUSE-seminaari, HSE, 12. joulukuuta 2011

2. 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 pTA
2

3. 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
practice
3

4. Technology assessment
– what is it?
4

5. ”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. 5
5

6. 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

7. 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 domains
7

8. The systemic challenge
“Socially relevant
problems are rarely dealt
with within the limits of
single system logic”
- Renn 2008, p. 289
8

9. 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

10. Deliberation as a yardstick:
not all methods are deliberative!
10

11. 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 deliberate
11

12. 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 negotiation
12

13. Does quality of deliberation
matter in participatory product
development?
13

14. Impacts of TA
14 Decker & Ladikas, 2004

15. ”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

16. Expectation of impacts depends
on the objectives of participation
16

17. Different models of
participation
17

18. 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. 303
18

19. Which models are relevant for
participatory product development?
19

20. 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 political
20

21. Decker &
Ladikas,
2004, p. 63
21

22. 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 participation
22

23. 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

24. Studying the impacts of TA
24

25. “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

26. Reviews
26

27. The impact of participation
Dietz & 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

28. 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

29. …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

30. Evidence of impacts?
30

31. 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

32. 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

33. Other types of evidence
n Quasi-experimental studies, where more
and less participatory process occure
normally are compared
n Multi-case studies
n Practitioners’ experiences
33

34. 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

35. 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

36. The deliberative system and its
consequentiality (Dryzek, 2009)
36

37. Kiitos!
37