Suchergebnisse

The Quadruple Helix Model of innovation recognizes four major actors in the innovation system: science, policy, industry, and society. In keeping with this model, more and more governments are prioritizing greater public involvement in innovation processes. The goal of this study was to identify desirable and productive forms of interaction between the scientific community and the public. Our analysis focuses on the point of view of societal actors, which has so far been largely neglected in scientific literature and political discourse. To this end, we interviewed 50 laypersons with participatory research and innovation experience in Germany to document their opinions of the value of such interaction, the goals it should pursue, and the forms it should take. Rather than preferring the democratization of science in general, interviewees expressed the desire for more extensive opportunities to introduce scientific and technological considerations as part of bidirectional exchanges between academia and society. This paper proposes a layperson typology intended to help design participatory processes that facilitate such exchanges and includes the differences in opinions between men and women.

The Quadruple Helix Model of innovation recognizes four major actors in the innovation system: science, policy, industry, and society. In keeping with this model, more and more governments are prioritizing greater public involvement in innovation processes. The goal of this study was to identify desirable and productive forms of interaction between the scientific community and the public. Our analysis focuses on the point of view of societal actors, which has so far been largely neglected in scientific literature and political discourse. To this end, we interviewed 50 laypersons with participatory research and innovation experience in Germany to document their opinions of the value of such interaction, the goals it should pursue, and the forms it should take. Rather than preferring the democratization of science in general, interviewees expressed the desire for more extensive opportunities to introduce scientific and technological considerations as part of bidirectional exchanges between academia and society. This paper proposes a layperson typology intended to help design participatory processes that facilitate such exchanges and includes the differences in opinions between men and women.

Aiming at designing a comprehensive approach to ethics and participation, this study encompasses general features and configurations of ethics in the field of research and innovation, to further connect them with participatory practices broadly understood. Taking stock of the overall blurred vision that R&I literature and practices manifest in regards with participation, this critical review faces this challenge by opening up the meanings of participation and offering a multi-layered approach, combining theoretical considerations with policy-making and empirical forms. Participation can be considered as the epitome of innovation ethics, provided its multidimensionality, and the depth and nature of the involvement, are clarified at the outset. DISCLAIMER: The present Deliverable has been submitted to the European Commission for review. The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Neither the European Union institutions and bodies nor any person acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Civic innovation is about focusing on what is positive, creative and imaginative in the face of a world that seems beset by crisis narratives. In exploring the term civic innovation, as it is used in Development Studies, we are not looking for a new theory and practice that will lead to a grand transformation of neoliberal capitalism but rather at how to build a mosaic of responses by looking at what is happening on the ground where people are living the contradictions of development. It is argued that we need to question pre-determined ideas of what measures to take and go beyond universal policy solutions, in order to look with openness at the actions on the ground. In that sense, civic innovation can be perceived as the 'political sister ' of social innovation as it directly assesses dominant power relations. The paper explores a different and trans-disciplinary approach to researching change: by descending from the academic ivory tower, respecting and deploying multiple knowledges for civic innovation, as well as approaching change with the ideas and tools of Participatory Action Research. Examples from knowledge dialogues with Central American social movements are used to explore this methodology further, including the downsides and the dilemmas. The paper concludes that carefully planned dialogues, reflexivity of facilitators, and awareness about potential power issues are probably key features of a knowledge generation process that may embody progressive social change.

Civic innovation is about focusing on what is positive, creative and imaginative in the face of a world that seems beset by crisis narratives. In exploring the term civic innovation, as it is used in Development Studies, we are not looking for a new theory and practice that will lead to a grand transformation of neoliberal capitalism but rather at how to build a mosaic of responses by looking at what is happening on the ground where people are living the contradictions of development. It is argued that we need to question pre-determined ideas of what measures to take and go beyond universal policy solutions, in order to look with openness at the actions on the ground. In that sense, civic innovation can be perceived as the 'political sister ' of social innovation as it directly assesses dominant power relations. The paper explores a different and trans-disciplinary approach to researching change: by descending from the academic ivory tower, respecting and deploying multiple knowledges for civic innovation, as well as approaching change with the ideas and tools of Participatory Action Research. Examples from knowledge dialogues with Central American social movements are used to explore this methodology further, including the downsides and the dilemmas. The paper concludes that carefully planned dialogues, reflexivity of facilitators, and awareness about potential power issues are probably key features of a knowledge generation process that may embody progressive social change.

This review compares and discusses the literature and practice of participatory design (PD) and responsible research and innovation (RRI) to discover commonalities and contrast their approaches to similar challenges found in such 'participatory' methods. It seeks to gain insights from the older practice of PD and attempts to discover whether there are lessons that RRI could usefully draw on to address its own challenges. The paper suggests that PD's understandings of the politics and power dynamics surrounding inclusive methods; its democratisation imperative; and its nascent development of project documentation may offer useful considerations for RRI. The paper concludes with some concrete suggestions for RRI as it continues to develop and be operationalised.

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.

Participatory design has become increasingly engaged in public spheres and everyday life and is no longer solely concerned with the workplace. This is not only a shift from work oriented productive activities to leisure and pleasurable engagements, but also a new milieu for production and innovation and entails a reorientation from "democracy at work" to "democratic innovation". What democratic innovation entails is currently defined by management and innovation research, which claims that innovation has been democratized through easy access to production tools and lead-users as the new experts driving innovation. We sketch an alternative "democratizing innovation" practice more in line with the original visions of participatory design based on our experience of running Malm? Living Labs - an open innovation milieu where new constellations, issues and ideas evolve from bottom-up long-term collaborations amongst diverse stakeholders. Two cases and controversial matters of concern are discussed. The fruitfulness of the concepts "Things" (as opposed to objects), "infrastructuring" (as opposed to projects) and "agonistic public spaces" (as opposed to consensual decision-making) are explored in relation to participatory innovation practices and democracy.Full text at ACM

AbstractMarginalization of poor and uneducated residents has led to fundamental social damage in Iran's large cities, which is manifest in a persistent culture of poverty and lack of access to opportunities and services. Empowering these people is not possible with government resources, and it requires the use of empowerment methods, such as social innovation‐based solutions. The purpose of the present study was to propose a social innovation cycle for the marginalized individuals in parts of Tehran, Iran (Farahzad and Khavarshahr) as a sustainable solution to empower them by creating jobs for them. The present study was conducted using the participatory action research methodology to analyze key activities undertaken during the "poultry self‐sufficiency" social innovation cycles in four phases: 1. generating ideas by understanding the needs and identifying potential solutions; 2. developing, prototyping, and piloting the ideas; 3. assessing, scaling up, and diffusing the good ideas; and 4. learning and evolving. The results showed that social innovation has the most significant effect when actors in different parts of society contribute and cooperate. According to the results obtained in this study, "poultry self‐sufficiency" social innovation lifts the marginalized out of poverty, and the empowerment process helps them to participate in the community.

"In this article, we outline the main elements concerning the evolution of
action research and participatory research that we have come across in the
last decades. These concepts have come closer together along the years,
and have become a strong methodological alternative, especially in
people-driven projects. They have gained ground in the scientific world,
in the fields of social science, as well as in other more conservative
domains, as demonstrated by some of our experiences in Brazil. Their
importance in the context of teaching, in universities and educational
projects alike, is also stressed. The aspect of participation is defined in
more detail in regards to the different degrees and forms of participation,
as well as its religious component in Brazil. Action research and participatory
research are, finally, methodologies that, in light of their potential for
encompassing the stakeholders' view in the results and developing a sharing
culture, must constantly be renewed in order to evolve and always be a
rich source of knowledge and critical thinking.." (author's abstract)

Participatory Design (PD) is increasingly applied in marginalized and low-resource communities. This paper looks at how Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) can inform future PD work in these politically contested spaces. We distinguish between these approaches through two participatory photo visual methods: photo elicitation and photovoice. We conclude with suggestions for integrating principles from CBPR into PD to lead to more impactful work with marginalized and low-resource communities.Full text at ACM

The new context of responsibility in modern science and the transition from ELSI and ELSA models to the new initiative of "responsible research and innovation" are considered. Relevance of transdisciplinary approaches to new dimensions in the field of biomedicine detected, the role of participatory models in the search for mechanisms to coordinate the social expectations and demands of innovations disclosed.

Research and development can no longer be the exclusive domain of scientists. To find sustainable solutions to development problems, a wider range of actors must be involved. It is crucial, for example, that local stakeholders provide input to the process. Participatory research and development (PR&D) offers such an inclusive model. This three-volume sourcebook provides easy access to field-tested PR&D concepts and practices for practitioners, researchers, and academic. As well, it presents a comprehensive overview of PR&D and will serve as a general reference for trainers, policymakers, donor