Participatory foresight for technology assessment

Towards an evaluation approach for knowledge co-creation

Authors

  • Mahshid Sotoudeh ITA – Institut für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (IR)
  • Niklas Gudowsky ITA – Institut für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (AT)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.27.2.53

Keywords:

technology assessment, participatory foresight, co-creation of knowledge, mutual learning, evaluation criteria

Abstract

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.

Downloads

Published

02.07.2018

How to Cite

1.
Sotoudeh M, Gudowsky N. Participatory foresight for technology assessment: Towards an evaluation approach for knowledge co-creation. TATuP [Internet]. 2018 Jul. 2 [cited 2022 Sep. 25];27(2):53-9. Available from: https://www.tatup.de/index.php/tatup/article/view/135

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>