Suchergebnisse

AbstractCurrent governance of science, technology and innovation (STI) faces tough challenges to meet demands arising from complex issues such as societal challenges or targets, e.g. the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals. For decades, scholars and civil society institutions have called for increased public participation in STI, and political institutions have been taking up the request to integrate engagement activities into their decision-making processes, at least in the form of consultations. Moving engagement in research and development further upstream makes early interventions and social shaping of technologies and innovation possible. Since research has also faced repeated requests towards taking on more responsibility for solving societal problems, engagement processes thus help in shaping research. Here, the earliest point for possible engagement can be found within the constituting phase of research agendas as topics, general lines of enquiry and targets are shaped in this phase. These are the boundaries in between which researchers later navigate. This article serves as introduction to this journal's topical collection on participatory agenda setting for research and innovation (PASE). It provides a review of the literature on theory and practice of PASE activities, summarises the topical collection's contributions regarding current international cases and analyses respective PASE limits and benefits, thereby promoting its conceptual and practical understanding.

In this paper, we present the forward-looking CIVISTI method with strong participatory elements for inter- and transdisciplinary futures research based on citizens' visions. This multi-perspective demand side approach, has been developed and implemented since 2008 in different projects at EU, national and local level for knowledge-based policy advice mainly focussed on program development. Applying CIVISTI (Citizens Visions on Science Technology and Innovation) provides desirable futures that incorporate people's hopes and fears and provides insights to societal challenges and values. It furthermore combines this knowledge with experts' and stakeholders' recommendations for implementation.

In this paper, we present the forward-looking CIVISTI method with strong participatory elements for inter- and transdisciplinary futures research based on citizens' visions. This multi- perspective demand side approach, has been developed and implemented since 2008 in different projects at EU, national and local level for knowledge-based policy advice mainly focussed on program development. Applying CIVISTI (Citizens Visions on Science Technology and Innovation) provides desirable futures that incorporate people's hopes and fears and provides insights to societal challenges and values. It furthermore combines this knowledge with experts' and stakeholders' recommendations for implementation.

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.

Technikfolgenabschätzung (TA) verwendet häufig vorausschauende Methoden, um sozio-technische Entwicklungen und deren Auswirkungen zu antizipieren und daraus Empfehlungen für Politik und Gesellschaft abzuleiten. In den letzten Jahren wurden zunehmend partizipative Methoden eingesetzt, um die Erwartungen der Gesellschaft bezüglich Zukunftstechnologien zu identifizieren. In diesem Zusammenhang haben mehrere TA‑Projekte eine partizipative Foresight-Methode entwickelt, angewandt und angepasst, um Bürgerinnen und Bürger sowie andere Akteursgruppen über einen standardisierten Prozess in die Mitgestaltung von Forschungs- und Innovationsagenden einzubeziehen: die multiperspektivische und mehrstufige CIVISTI-Methode (Citizens' Visions on Science, Technology and Innovation). Im Laufe der letzten zehn Jahre haben etwa 560 Laien ohne spezielle Kenntnisse über Technologie und Innovation und 610 Fachleute an diesen Prozessen der Wissens- ko-generierung teilgenommen. In diesem Beitrag nutzen wir unsere Erfahrungen mit dieser Methode, um Kriterien für die Bewertung von Wissens-ko-Generierung und wechselseitigem Lernen in partizipativen Foresight-Prozessen innerhalb der TA abzuleiten. ; 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 ...

In this contribution, we investigate how results produced in a large-scale participatory agenda setting process differ from results of expert-based foresight studies with a similar aim of informing EU research and innovation (R&I) policy. After providing a theoretical positioning and an overview of the EU-wide participatory agenda setting process CIMULACT - Citizen and Multi-Actor Consultation on Horizon 2020, we describe our developed analytical approach that includes five analytical steps and calculation of three metrics. By comparative reading, analysis and scoring of 16 expert-based foresight reports, we produced data for the metrics that allow for discerning between (a) how many of the analyzed foresight reports cover a respective topic from CIMULACT, (b) how well this basic coverage aligns qualitatively, and (c) comprehensive comparison of each CIMULACT topic with respect to all surveyed reports. To discern differences, we chose those results (research topics) from CIMULACT that were also sufficiently covered by expert-based reports. Our findings suggest that such citizen-based, multi-actor co-created policy advice qualitatively differs considerably from that elicited by expert-based reports, in terms of direction and focus of the proposed R&I agenda.

AbstractEngaging non-experts in matters of science and technology has been increasingly stressed in both rhetoric and action during the past decades. Under the call for moving participation upstream, agenda setting processes have been identified as viable entry point for laypeople's experiential and value-based knowledge into science, technology and innovation governance (STI). Harnessing visioning for target setting promises to elicit such knowledge, whilst at the same time evading the dilemma of informing participants about STI that does not exist prior to engagement. To test such claims, we investigate a large-scale citizen-visioning exercise employed as an initiation of a transdisciplinary research and innovation agenda setting process, namely CIMULACT. In a comparable Europe-wide process, more than 1000 laypeople (citizens) produced 179 visions of desirable futures which built the basis for co-creating future research topics for advising the EU research and innovation programme Horizon 2020. We provide in depth insights into the visioning methodology for inclusion of citizens into STI agenda setting, and discuss room for methodological improvement regarding potential loss and gains of creativity and diversity of opinions considering empirical results of ex-post participant evaluation questionnaires (n ≈ 964). The discussed data shows a generally positive evaluation of the process and engagement, since citizens are in retrospective content with the process and visions, they would participate again in a similar event, and they are in favour of the EU to continue hosting such events in the future. However, citizens were rather sceptic whether the results actually (can/will) have an impact on the stated aim of integration in research and innovation agenda setting.