Participatory foresight for technology assessment
Towards an evaluation approach for knowledge co-creation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.27.2.53Keywords:
technology assessment, participatory foresight, co-creation of knowledge, mutual learning, evaluation criteriaAbstract
Technology assessment (TA) frequently uses forward-looking methods to anticipate socio-technical changes and their corresponding implications to deduce advice for policy and society. In recent years, participatory methods have increasingly been applied to identify the expectations of society towards future technologies. In this context, several TA projects have developed, applied and adapted a participatory foresight method to engage citizens as well as other actor groups into co-generating advice for research and innovation agenda setting in a standardized process; namely, the multi-perspective and multi-step CIVISTI method (Citizens’ Visions on Science, Technology and Innovation). Over the course of the past ten years, about 560 lay citizens without specialised knowledge on technology and innovation and 610 experts and stakeholders have taken part in these processes of co-generation of knowledge. In this contribution, we use our experience with this method and elaborate some criteria for the evaluation of knowledge co-generation and mutual learning in participatory foresight processes within TA.
References
Abdel-Monem, Tarik; Bingham, Shereen; Marincic, Jamie; Tomkins, Alan (2010): Deliberation and diversity, perceptions of small group discussions by race and ethnicity. In: Small Group. 41 (December), pp. 746–776. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496410377359
Bedsted, Bjørn et al. (2017): European citizens’ visions for a sustainable EU future, Research priorities and policy advice. CASI project Deliverable 3.3. Available online at http://www.casi2020.eu/library/deliverables/, last accessed on 23. 01. 2018.
Bellucci, Sergio et al. (2002): Theoretical perspectives In: Simon Jossand Sergio Belluci (eds.): Participatory technology assessment. European perspectives. Gateshead, UK: Athenaeum Press.
Brătianu, Constantin; Orzea, Ivona (2014): Emotional knowledge. The hidden part of the knowledge iceberg. In: Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy 2 (1), pp. 41–56.
Dubielzig, Frank; Schaltegger, Stefan (2004): Methoden transdisziplinärer Forschung und Lehre. Lüneburg: Centre for Sustainability Management, Universität Lüneburg. Available online at http://www2.leuphana.de/umanagement/csm/content/nama/downloads/download_publikationen/49-8downloadversion.pdf, last accessed on 23. 01. 2018.
Gudowsky, Niklas; Peissl, Walter; Sotoudeh, Mahshid; Bechtold, Ulrike (2012): Forward-looking activities, incorporating citizens’ visions. In: Poiesis & Praxis 9, pp. 101–123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-012-0121-6
Gudowsky, Niklas; Peissl, Walter (2016): Human centred science and technology. Transdisciplinary foresight and co-creation as tools for active needs-based innovation governance. In: European Journal of Futures Research 4 (8). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40309-016-0090-4
Gudowsky, Niklas; Sotoudeh, Mahshid (2017): Into blue skies. Transdisciplinary foresight and co-creation as socially robust tools for visioneering socio-technical change. In: NanoEthics 11 (1), pp. 93–106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0284-7
Gudowsky, Niklas; Sotoudeh, Mahshid; Capari, Leo; Wilfing, Harald (2017): Transdisciplinary forward-looking agenda setting for age-friendly, human centred cities. In: Futures 90 (6), pp. 16–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.05.005
Jacobi, Anders; Klüver, Lars; Rask, Mikko (2010): Relevant research in a knowledge democracy. Citizens’ participation in defining research agendas for Europe. In: Roeland in ’t Veld (ed.): Knowledge Democracy. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 87–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11381-9_8
Joss, Simon; Bellucci, Sergio (eds.) (2002): Participatory technology assessment. European perspectives. Gateshead, UK: Athenaeum Press.
Kuznetsov, Nikita; Baksanskii, Oleg; Zholkov, Sergej (2012): Sources and foundation of pragmatic knowledge. In: Journal of Communications Technology and Electronics 57(8), pp. 868–881. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064226912080025
Masini, Eleonora (2006): Rethinking futures studies. Futures 38, pp. 1158–1168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2006.02.004
Nikolova, Blagovesta (2014): The rise and promise of participatory foresight. In: European Journal of Futures Research 2: 33, 9 pp. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40309-013-0033-2
Nowotny, Helga (2003): Dilemma of expertise. Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. In: Science and Public Policy 30, pp. 151–156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780461
Ostrom, Elinor; Parks, Roger; Whitaker, Gordons (1978): The public service production process. A framework for analyzing police services. In: Policy Studies Journal 7 (1), pp. 381–389. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1978.tb01782.x
Pohl, Christian; Hirsch Hadorn, Getrude (2006): Gestaltungsprinzipien für die transdisziplinäre Forschung. München: oekom. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14512/9783962388621
Polk, Merrit; Knutsson, Per (2008): Participation, value rationality and mutual learning in transdisciplinary knowledge production for sustainable development. In: Environmental Education Research 14 (6), pp. 643–653. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802464841
Ramírez, María-Soledad; García-Peñalvo, Francisco-José (2018): Co-creation and open innovation. Systematic literature review. Comunicar 26 (54), pp. 9–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3916/C54-2018-01
Regeer, Barbara; Bunders, Joske (2009): Knowledge co-creation: Interaction between science and society. A transdisciplinary approach to complex societal issues. Den Haag: RMNO Publications.
Renn, Ortwin (2009): Integriertes Risikomanagement als Beitrag zu einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung. In: Reinhold Popp and Elmar Schüll (eds.): Zukunftsforschung und Zukunftsgestaltung. Beiträge aus Wissenschaft und Praxis. Berlin: Springer, pp. 553–568. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78564-4_40
Rower, Gene; Frewer Lynn (2005): A typology of public engagement mechanisms. In: Science, Technology and Human Values, 30 (2), pp. 251–257. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724
Sotoudeh, Mahshid; Gudowsky, Niklas; Capari, Leo (2014): Wünsche an die Zukunft. Zukunftsvisionen Jugendlicher über eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. In: Umweltdachverband GmbH (ed.): Krisen- und Transformationsszenarios. Frühkindpädagogik, Resilienz und Weltaktionsprogramm (Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung, Jahrbuch 2014). Wien: Forum Umweltbildung, pp. 124–130.
van Veen, Saskia; Bunders, Joske; Regeer, Barbara (2013): Mutual learning for knowledge co-creation about disability inclusive development. Experiences with a community of practice. In: Knowledge Management for Development Journal 9 (2), pp. 105–124.
Voorberg, William; Bekkers, Viktor; Tummers, Lars (2015): A systematic review of co-creation and co-production. Embarking on the social innovation journey. In: Public Management Review 17 (9), pp. 1333–1357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505
Research Data:
Websites of CIVISTI-based Projects: CIVISTI: www.civisti.org; CIVISTI-Ambient Assisted Living (Leben 2050): www.oeaw.ac.at/ita/en/projects/civisti-aal/overview; Future Foods 4 Men & Women: www.futurefoods.ages.at/home; CASI: www.casi2020.eu.
Brandstetter, Regina; Gajdusek, Martin; Kesselring; Alexander; Schuch, Klaus (2011): Evaluation of the FP7 project CIVISTI. Final report. Vienna: Centre for Social Innovation. Online available at http://www.civisti.org/files/images/D_6_3_Evaluation_report.pdf, last accessed on 23. 1. 2018.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Mahshid Sotoudeh, Niklas Gudowsky
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.