1. Participatory Policy Modelling @ the FuturICT “Interactive Observatories” Meeting 16 th June 2011 Bruce Edmonds Centre for Policy Modelling Manchester Metropolitan University

2. Two Worlds – Five Meanings Empirical Ultimate Goal is Agreement with Observed (Truth) Modeller also has an idea of what the model is and how it works Participatory Policy Modelling, Bruce Edmonds, FuturICT Meeting, Zurich, June 16 th 2011, slide 2 Instrumental Ultimate Goal is in Final Outcomes (Usefulness) Decisions justified by a communicable causal story Model Labels/Documentation may be different from all of the above! Modeller Policy Advisor Tighter loop = participatory modelling

3. A tighter loop involving stakeholders... Stakeholders are involved in parts of the “modelling” loop: criticising model, providing data, specifying model, determining goal etc. Involvement comes from: relevance to their goals, having some effect/control, quickly seeing the results, feeling involved, not onerous, being situated in their lives This inevitably means a loss of control by modellers! This is unavoidably political. A radical move: giving this power more directly to people rather than their representatives Participatory Policy Modelling, Bruce Edmonds, FuturICT Meeting, Zurich, June 16 th 2011, slide 3

4. Top-level Policy Advisors, Academics, Official Stats. Crowd sourcing/input, individuals Regional-level Policy Makers, Stakeholders A Multi-Level Vision of PPM Participatory Policy Modelling, Bruce Edmonds, FuturICT Meeting, Zurich, June 16 th 2011, slide 4 Top-level PM Topic Specific PM Region Specific PM Citizen- level PM Top-level Policy Makers Local Stakeholders, activists Feedback on Use Continual Docking Empirical Input Pressure groups, Qual. Data, Academics

5. Consequences Different models being “pulled” in different ways by different groups, inputs and needs Continual re-modelling to keep models ‘docked’ with each other and to incorporate new observed processes (maybe with a distributed ‘wiki’-like structure) A lot of work by stakeholders as well as researchers A lot of data of ALL levels and kinds: textual, anecdotal, network, aggregate statistical, mass data, time-series etc. Participatory Policy Modelling, Bruce Edmonds, FuturICT Meeting, Zurich, June 16 th 2011, slide 5

6. Summary of PPM@FuturICT Any representation has different meanings and different uses for different groups (eg. academics, policy makers) Deep, frequent interaction brings these closer (eg. openness, relevance, control), but tensions will remain Bringing parts of the policy making process into the hands of stakeholders is unavoidably political Pros: more bottom-up information into process, more democratic, more flexible, more relevant Cons: academics/policy makers may lose control, many contradictory viewpoints, drift away from evidence Many related models at different levels are probably necessary but need to be continually kept ‘docked’ More study, understanding and facilitation of the academic  policy interaction needed Participatory Policy Modelling, Bruce Edmonds, FuturICT Meeting, Zurich, June 16 th 2011, slide 6