PARTICIPATORY METHODS IN IA FIRMA Review workshop Barcelona 13- 16 March

STRUCTURE PRESENTATION History Definition concepts Participatory methods in general Experiences with participatory methods in IA Insights for FIRMA

PARTICIPATION IN IA IA can be described as: Interdisciplinary and participatory process of gathering, combining, interpreting, communicating, knowledge from different scientific disciplines and knowledge domains to allow a better understanding of complex phenomena In IA analytical and participatory methods are used

HISTORY PARTICIPATION IN IA Until mid nineties: Modeling as the way to IA In the course of the nineties: it became acknowledged that social scientific methods (including participatory methods) enrich IA

HISTORY PARTICIPATION IN GENERAL 1930s: Social scientists start investigating alternatives to interviewing World War II: First examples of ‘focus groups’ Focus groups used in market research to gain insight in consumers’ thinking 1960s: Social scientists start investigating participation with respect to policy and decision-making; aimed at empowering people Recent years: Focus on gaining support for decisions, and enriching assessments with lay-knowledge and opinions, inspired by social-constructivism, post-modernism and post-normal science

DEFINITION OF CONCEPTS (1) Participants Participants are those directly or indirectly involved in, affected by, knowledgeable of or have relevant expertise on the issue at stake Five categories of participants in assessment processes aiming at public policy making: Government Citizens Interest groups Business Scientific experts

DEFINITION OF CONCEPTS (2) Participatory methods Participatory methods are methods to structure group processes in which non-experts play an active role and articulate their knowledge, values and preferences for different goals.

AIMS OF PARTICIPATION Mapping out diversity: to uncover a spectrum of options and information - making tacit knowledge explicit - test alternative strategies in a permissive environment Reaching consensus: to define a single option or decision Advising: to inform the process of decision-making Democratisation: to employ knowledge of people to create options for tackling (policy) issues that directly concern them. The ideas and opinions of the people involved weigh in the follow-up process

PARTICIPATORY PROCESS A participatory process is not only a proces….. ..but also information gathering and evaluation by: Observing Making minutes Video- and audiotaping Writing transcripts ….

TYPOLOGY OF METHODS Mapping out diversity Policy Exercises Focus Groups Scenario analysis Participatory modeling Dialogue methods Democratisation Advising Citizens’ Juries Participatory Planning Consensus Conferences Reaching consensus

FOCUS GROUPS Definition: A planned discussion among a group (4-12 participants) to obtain information about preferences and opinions Goal: Uncover diverse information about values and preferences and why they are held about a certain defined issue by observing the structured discussion of the group Issue: exploratory research Tools: focussed questions (sometimes supported by computers)

SCENARIO LEARNING Definition: A process engaging a group that identifies, creates and explores scenarios with a view to learning about the external environment and/or integrating the insights into the decisionmaking of the organisation Goal: explore the range of available choices involved in preparing for the future, test how well those choices would succeed in various possible futures and prepare a rough timetable for future events. Issue: complex issues whose futures are shrouded in uncertainty Tools: brainstorming, story line approach, predefined scenario’s

POLICY EXERCISES Definition: Creative process in a gaming atmosphere employing a variety of methods such as models Goal: integration of knowledge from various sources to explore alternative future developments and evaluate new policy ideas in order to obtain a better structured view of complex problems. Issue: when issues or values at stake are ill understood, ambiguous or contested Tools: For example models

CITIZENS’ JURIES Definition: Group of randomly selected people (microcosm of their community) who follow a process of informed deliberation based on information from several perspectives and make public their conclusions on a specific (policy) issue Goal: Incorporate knowledge of the type that is usually absent in decision-making processes Issue: Where a selection needs to be made from a limited number of choices Tools: Question and answer sessions between jurors (the citizens) and witnesses (experts)

CONCENSUS CONFERENCES Definition: Lay people confront experts with questions concerning a specific topic, and then negotiate a consensus statement about their expectations, concerns and recommendations. Goal: To broaden the debate on issues of science and technology by including the viewpoints of non-experts. Issue: Socially controversial science or technology issues on a national scale level, which need expert clarification Tools: 8-10 key questions, answered by experts in short presentations, question and answer sessions

PARTICIPATORY PLANNING Definition: Enables groups of participants to influence and share control over development initiatives and decisions which affect them. Goal: Promoting knowledge sharing, building commitment to the process, and empowering people to develop strategies Issue: A wide variety of development problems Tools: for example symbolic representations to overcome language difficulties,

DIALOGUE METHODS Definition: dialogues between analysts and intended users where users serve as co-designer or test-group Goal: to extract essential information from the intended users Issue: where the intended users are considered as a source of knowledge beyond behaviour and preferences necessary for the analysts to perform the assessment Tools: continuous dialogues (intended users have the role of co-designer) and user-platforms (participants serving as a test-group)

PARTICIPATORY MODELING See Holling and Costanza: Adaptive Ecological Modeling See Geurts and Vennix for example Group Model Building Goal of GMB: - improving the model building process - eliciting implicit knowledge

PARTICIPATION IN IA Aims To facilitate mutual learning by establishing a communication process between scientists and non-scientists FIRMA To formulate relevant societal questions for the IA research agenda To enrich the assessment with the knowledge, values, preferences, judgements and perspectives of non-scientists To create commitment, ownership, legitimacy and support for the outcome of the assessment and to come to policy recommendations

PARTICIPATION IN IA PROJECTS RAINS (Regional air pollution information and simulation model) (IIASA 1983) MacKenzie Basin Impact study (SDRI, 1990-1996) Image/Delft process (1990-1999) QUEST (Quite useful ecosystem and scenario tool) (SDRI, 1996-1999) ULYSSES (Urban lifestyles sustainability, and integrated environmental assessment) (Darmstadt University of Technology, 1996-99) VISIONS (Integrated Visions for a sustainable Europe) (ICIS, 1998-2001) COOL (Climate options for the long term) (1999-2001)

PARTICIPATORY METHODS IN IA PROJECTS

DIFFERENT METHODS AND IA PROJECTS

EXAMPLE OF IA PROJECT: VISIONS DGXII Fourth framework programme, environment and climate Aim: to create a set of alternative scenarios for future sustainable development paths up to 2020 and 2050 For Europe as a whole and for three regions in Europe: North-West UK Venice, Italy Green Heart, Netherlands

Participatory element METHODOLOGY Participatory element Analytical tools Mutual learning / gaming Northwest-UK Model-supported REGIONS Interactive mutual learning Data-based and EUROPE WORLD Expert group Data collection & Trend analyses Green Heart Model-suuported Tensions group Transitions, Cultural Theory & Models Venice Mutual learning and interviews Narrative & ICT tools

EUROPEAN SCENARIOS First workshop goal: development of storylines 2 consecutive days 25 participants (broad selecton: representatives from policy, business, NGOs, science, free thinkers and so on)

METHODOLOGY Expert input on the issues and topics for the workshop Brainstorming on related issues Identifying key variables from the outcome of the brainstorm Developing storylines based on the key variables Iterative enrichment of the storylines

OUTPUT & FOLLOW-UP Workshop output: 10 Storylines After the workshop: storylines were built into 3 scenarios by scientists Two follow-up workshops with stakeholders: reflection on scenarios Expert meeting: reflection on scenarios

EXAMPLE OF STORYLINE 2008: EU reaches Kyoto targets 2010: Gulf stream reverses 2020: Mass migration because of climate change 2025: Energy need/use increases 2030: Social conflicts EU government and economy collapses 2040: Quality of life deteriorates

The European Scenarios ‘Knowledge is King’ ‘Big is Beautiful?’ ‘Convulsive Change’

Example: Temperatures rise in CC

Example: Forever young in KIK

INSIGHTS FOR FIRMA (1) Before starting participatory process always analyse the goal of the process in terms of desirable output (goal of the process), and needed input Needed input: participants process design INPUT OUTPUT

PARTICIPANTS CHECKLIST Recruitment Number of participants (also depends on available financial budget and time) Profile of participants (mainly depends on central issue) Tasks of the participants Payments and contracts ...

PROCESS DESIGN CHECKLIST Duration Program in time Supporting material (models for example) Facilitation (passive / active) Data collection Material produced ...

CONCLUSION Participation in IA is not a ‘just do it process’ but a process that asks for social scientific knowledge and craftmenship

INSIGHTS FOR FIRMA The use of participatory methods in IA is still in its infancy Active communication on experiences with participatory methods in IA is necessary If documented and evaluated well FIRMA can have added value to the development process of the use of participatory methods in Integrated Assessment See also: workshop on participation in COOL and VISIONS (probably be organised in February 2002)