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!