Vaikuttava osallistuminen: kuinka teknologian arviointi muuttaa maailmaa
Mikko RaskKuluttajatutkimuskeskus
INUSE-seminaari, HSE, 12. joulukuuta 2011
2
Content
n Technology assessment and the “participatory turn”
n Principles of deliberative democracyn Models of participationn Studying the impacts of participatory
technology assessment (pTA)n Successful and less successful experiencesn Discussion: connections between user-driven
product development and pTA
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
4
Technology assessment– what is it?
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
6
Related concepts
constructive technology assessment, CTA (Rip et al. 1995)
dialogic/interactive/communicative TA (Geurts& Meyer, 1996)
technology foresight > foresight (Martin, 1996)
TECHNOLOGY
post-positivist/ hermeneutic/ discursive/ argumentative policy analysis (Mayer & Geurts 1998, Jamison 1999)
integrated assessment (Rotmans, 2001)
futures studies (Bell, 2002)
ASSESSMENT
environmental public participation (Renn, 2008) conflict resolution (Simmel, 1959)
participatory planning (Forrester, 1989)deliberative (democratic) theory (Habermas, Rawls, Dryzek)
> deliberative democratic processes (DDPs)
PARTICIPATION
USER PARTICIPATION INPRODUCT DEVELOPMENT?
7
A shared context
n Problems are complex and systemicn Effective solutions require technical
expertise, economic efficiency, political legitimacy and social acceptance
n Demand of communication across disciplines and domains
8
“Socially relevant problems are rarely dealt with within the limits of single system logic”
- Renn 2008, p. 289
The systemic challenge
9
Participatory methods
consensus conferences (DK)planning cells (DE)citizen juries (US)
deliberative polling21st century town meetings
on-line dialoguese-the people
national issues forumselectoral deliberation
study circlescollaborative learning approach
world café
deliberative city planningco-operative discourse
regulatory negotiationmediation
focus groupinterview meeting
public journalismcitizen initiatives
delphiexpert hearing
voting conference
future search conferencescenario workshop
FACE-TO-FACE PANELS
MIXED
ON-LINE
POLITICS
FUTURE
PLANNING
MEDIATION
RESEARCH
LEARNING
VOTING
INITIATIVES
referendaparticipation in public policies (Brasil)
DECISION MAKING
10
Deliberation as a yardstick:not all methods are deliberative!
11
Principles of deliberation n “Deliberation” refers to the style and procedure of
decision-makingn “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 anissue” (Gundersen, 1995)
n does not specify the participants who are invited to deliberate
12
Deliberative democracyn “Deliberative democracy” refers to the combination of
deliberation and third-party involvement (e.g., Fishkin1991; 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 representativenessn ”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
13
Does quality of deliberation matter in participatory product
development?
14
Impacts of TA
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.”
16
Expectation of impacts dependson the objectives of participation
17
Different models of participation
18
Concept Main objective Rationale Examples of instruments
Functionalist quality of decision output representation of knowledge carriers; systematic integration of knowledge
Delphi, workshops, hearings, citizen advisory committees
Neoliberal proportional representation of values and preferences
informed consent; Pareto optimality
referenda, focus groups, internet participation, negotiated rule making
Deliberative debating the criteria of truth and normative validity
inclusion of relevant arguments; consensus through argumentation
discourse-oriented models; citizen forums; deliberative juries
Anthropo-logical
to engage in common sense inclusion of disinterested laypersons representing basic social categories
consensus conference, citizen juries, planning cells
Emancipatory to empower less privileged groups
strengthening the resources of those who suffer most
community development groups, science workshops, town meetings
Postmodern to demonstrate variability, plurality and legitimacy of dissent
acknowledgement of plural rationalities; no closure necessary
open forums, open space conferences, panel discussions
Based on Renn, 2008, p. 303
19
Which models are relevant for participatory product development?
20
Multidimensional impacts of TA (Decker & Ladikas, 2004)
n Types of changes generatedn raising knowledgen forming opinions/ attitudesn intializing actions
n Types of issuesn technoscientific
n socialn political
21
Decker & Ladikas, 2004, p. 63
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, bydirect 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
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).
24
Studying the impacts of TA
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)
26
Reviews
27
The impact of participation
”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.”
Dietz & Stern, 2008, p. 86
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 followand 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.
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.
30
Evidence of impacts?
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 surveyed378 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 thatmission 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 knowledgeand experience. The individuals who were told that the decision incorporated public participation were significantly more supportive of thedecision itself, as well as the process by which the decision was reached.”
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 apositive outcome…These findings suggest that participatory processes increase participants’ capacity through learning and increased motivation to participate, as well as developing greater consensus on atleast some aspects of preference ordering.”
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 studiesn Practitioners’ experiences
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 meetingsand 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.”
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 toimplementation outcomes and impacts in most studiesof 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.”
Dietz & Stern, 2008
36
The deliberative system and its consequentiality (Dryzek, 2009)
37
Kiitos!