Transcript The Danish Board of Technology

How to design and organize
a public deliberation project
Gy Larsen
Ida-Elisabeth Larsen
The Danish Board of Technology
How to design and organize
a public deliberation project
• Structure of presentation
– What kind of issue/problem? –
– What role is the project going to play? –
Purposes?
– How to select an issue?
– Who are going to be involved?
– What kind of methodology is possible
and/or necessary?
Technology means:
• engineering and technics – and • conditions surrounding their
application.
Ideally then
• a solution to a problem.
solves more problems than it creates.
Issues - examples
• New applications to gene technology
– new gene plants
• Toxicology and Nanotechnology
• Sustainable urban living
• Surveillance
• Energy system – future development
• Brain Science – new development and
uses
Proactive – Reactive TA
• upcoming technology
• regulation of technology
• dissemintation and wider use of
technology
3 dimensions of policy
analysis
Dimension
Method demand
Actors / functions
Cognitive
Establish knowledge-base;
suggest knowledge based
solutions
Uncover and share norms and
values
Experts; Users /
Operative aims
Create legitimate and accepted
solutions
Decision-makers;
Networks; Citizens /
Transparent procedures
Normative
Pragmatic
Citizens; Stakeholders /
Networking; Social
learning
How to select an issue
• Technological content
• Problem, conflict and need of
decisions
• Essential for many people or for a
segment
• Topical – timing
• Target group
• The Board must have a role to play
Problem
Today the transport sector in the western part of the world represents
nearly 2/3 of our total use of oil, and consumption is rising. It is necessary
to search for alternatives.
2
Technology
Bioethanol, biodiesel, methanol, methan, hydrogen – espescially new
advanced technologies for production of biofuels are alternatives.
2
Importance
The EU biofuel directive aims at growing use of biofuels to transport and
sets objectives for the member countries. Denmark has decided to have a
goal below the EU recommendation.
1
Timing
Today 70% of all energy in EU is imported. This percentage is expected to
rise to 98% in 2020. There is a need for action now. New fuels demand
adaptation.
1
Aimed at
Research and fiscal area, politicians in the fields of traffic, energy and
environment
1
Relevance
for the
Board
Existing and new knowledge about the topic must be found and
communicated to dcisionmakers Den eksisterende (især den nyeste) viden
om emnet skal samles og videreformidles til beslutningstagerne, så
debatten kan komme op på et højere niveau.
1
Total rating
8
Who should be involved?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Is new knowledge and solutions needed?
Do we know too little about public opinion?
Is it time for new agenda setting?
A conflict in society dealing with the issue?
Do politicians need an advice?
Or?
Considerations
• An expert group process
• Stakeholder involvement
• Citizen consultation
• Involving politicians
• Or?
Politicians
Stakeholders
Experts
Citizens
Laypeople
• Lack of knowledge – a vessel to be
filled with expert information
• No, laypeople do have knowledge and
engagement in society
• Laypeople have their own perspective
on technology
Democratic dimension
• Expert have to communicate with and
not only to citizens
• There is a worry in society to deal
with
• Interaction between citizens and the
representative democracy
• New knowledge to stakeholders from
citizens on controversial matters
Goals when involving
citizens
• Proactive discussions on upstream
technologies
• Consultation on how to use technology
• Debate resistance in society against
technology
• To involve the involved
Recruit and select participants
Principle
Benefits
Costs
Representativity
Sample
represents
population
(demogr. –
attitudes)
•Is accepted
•Can be compared
with other studies or
elections
•Very big group
•very expensive
•Difficult to
”handle”
Mixed
Define
criteria –
compose a
group
Variety, broad group
all kinds of people
Any size you want
Possible to cheat
Interested thank
yes – but..
Example –
Consensus
Conference
Balanced
Example –
Scenario
Workshop
Equal repr. Of •Pol. relevant debate
involved
•Room for views
interests
which use to be
marginalized or out
•Positions have to
be defined/accept
• riscs of hidden
agreements –
social partnering
Type of Participation – role of participants – method
example
Participati
on Type
Role of
participant
Role
Method ex.
projectlead
Survey/
interviews
Source of
information
Researcher
Choice
quiestionnai
re
Deliberative
survey
Evaluator
”voice”
Organizer/a
nalyst
Focus
groups,
deliberative
poll
Constructive
dialogue
Stake holder
Organizer,
mediator
Future
search/Scen
ario
Workshop
Public
consultation
Advisor,
consultant
Organizer
Consensus
Conference
Roles of participation in TA
Raising
Knowledge
Forming
Attitudes
Initialising
Action
Tech/
Science
Aspects
Scientific
Assessment
(options,consequences)
Agenda setting
(influence and
stimulate public
debate,
Introduce visions
etc.)
Reframing of
debate
(propose new
initiatives – find
new orientation)
Social
Aspects
Social
Mapping
(stake
holders,
conflicts)
Mediation
(help actors reflect
and communicate –
bridge building)
Propose new
decision making
processes
(new ways of
governance – new
debate)
Policy
aspects
Policy
analysis
(explore
objectives,
assess
policies)
Restructure policy
debate
Decisions about:
Pol innovations
New legislation
Be aware of pitfalls
• Do not underestimate citizens or other
participants
• Hidden conflicts
• Too narrow and unreflected use of methods
• Method not suitable for local problems
• Forget to involve some important actors
• A mistake to avoid the critical voices