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 Decision-makers; Networks; Citizens / Transparent procedures Create legitimate and accepted solutions Pragmatic Citizens; Stakeholders / Networking; Social learning Uncover and share norms and values Normative Experts; Users / Operative aims Establish knowledge-base; suggest knowledge based solutions Cognitive Actors / functionsMethod demandDimension

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

ProblemToday 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 TechnologyBioethanol, biodiesel, methanol, methan, hydrogen – espescially new advanced technologies for production of biofuels are alternatives. 2 ImportanceThe 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 TimingToday 70% of all energy in EU is imported. This percentage is expected to rise to 98% in There is a need for action now. New fuels demand adaptation. 1 Aimed atResearch 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 Experts Stake- holders 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 PrincipleBenefitsCosts Repre- sentativity Sample represents population (demogr. – attitudes) Is accepted Can be compared with other studies or elections Very big group very expensive Difficult to ”handle” Mixed Example – Consensus Conference Define criteria – compose a group Variety, broad group all kinds of people Any size you want Possible to cheat Interested thank yes – but.. Balanced Example – Scenario Workshop Equal repr. Of involved interests Pol. relevant debate Room for views 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 projectlead Method ex. Survey/ interviews Source of information ResearcherChoice quiestionnai re Deliberative survey Evaluator ”voice” Organizer/a nalyst Focus groups, deliberative poll Constructive dialogue Stake holderOrganizer, mediator Future search/Scen ario Workshop Public consultation Advisor, consultant OrganizerConsensus Conference

Roles of participation in TA Raising Knowledge Forming Attitudes Initialising Action Tech/ Science Aspects Scientific Assessment (options,con- sequences) 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