Graduate studies at Western
Poiesis and Praxis 9 (1-2):101-123 (2012)
|Abstract||Looking back on the many prophets who tried to predict the future as if it were predetermined, at first sight any forward-looking activity is reminiscent of making predictions with a crystal ball. In contrast to fortune tellers, today’s exercises do not predict, but try to show different paths that an open future could take. A key motivation to undertake forward-looking activities is broadening the information basis for decision-makers to help them actively shape the future in a desired way. Experts, laypeople, or stakeholders may have different sets of values and priorities with regard to pending decisions on any issue related to the future. Therefore, considering and incorporating their views can, in the best case scenario, lead to more robust decisions and strategies. However, transferring this plurality into a form that decision-makers can consider is a challenge in terms of both design and facilitation of participatory processes. In this paper, we will introduce and critically assess a new qualitative method for forward-looking activities, namely CIVISTI (Citizen Visions on Science, Technology and Innovation; www.civisti.org), which was developed during an EU project of the same name. Focussing strongly on participation, with clear roles for citizens and experts, the method combines expert, stakeholder and lay knowledge to elaborate recommendations for decision-making in issues related to today’s and tomorrow’s science, technology and innovation. Consisting of three steps, the process starts with citizens’ visions of a future 30–40 years from now. Experts then translate these visions into practical recommendations which the same citizens then validate and prioritise to produce a final product. The following paper will highlight the added value as well as limits of the CIVISTI method and will illustrate potential for the improvement of future processes|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Steven Eggermont, Heidi Vandebosch & Stef Steyaert (2006). Towards the Desired Future of the Elderly and ICT: Policy Recommendations Based on a Dialogue with Senior Citizens. Poiesis and Praxis 4 (3):199-217.
Cynthia Selin (2011). Negotiating Plausibility: Intervening in the Future of Nanotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):723-737.
Matt Ferkany & Kyle Powys Whyte (2012). The Importance of Participatory Virtues in the Future of Environmental Education. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (3):419-434.
Åke Grönlund (2010). Electronic Identity Management in Sweden: Governance of a Market Approach. [REVIEW] Identity in the Information Society 3 (1):195-211.
Ã…Ke GrÃ¶Nlund (2010). Electronic Identity Management in Sweden: Governance of a Market Approach. [REVIEW] Identity in the Information Society 3 (1):195-211.
Wendy Barger & Ralph D. Barney (2004). Media-Citizen Reciprocity as a Moral Mandate. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 19 (3 & 4):191 – 206.
Marion Godman & Sven Ove Hansson (2009). European Public Advice on Nanobiotechnology—Four Convergence Seminars. Nanoethics 3 (1):43-59.
Ezio Di Nucci (2012). Knowing Future Contingents. Logos and Episteme 3 (1):43-50.
Lauge Baungaard Rasmussen (2013). Cultural Visions of Technology. AI and Society 28 (2):177-188.
William Davies (2011). Knowing the Unknowable: The Epistemological Authority of Innovation Policy Experts. Social Epistemology 25 (4):401 - 421.
Karl E. Peters (2010). Why Zygon? The Journal's Original Visions and the Future of Religion-and-Science. Zygon 45 (2):430-436.
Kristian Skagen Ekeli (2004). Environmental Risks, Uncertainty and Intergenerational Ethics. Environmental Values 13 (4):421-448.
Kristen Lyons & James Whelan (2010). Community Engagement to Facilitate, Legitimize and Accelerate the Advancement of Nanotechnologies in Australia. Nanoethics 4 (1):53-66.
Jean Goodwin (2011). Accounting for the Appeal to the Authority of Experts. Argumentation 25 (3):285-296.
Anders Nordgren (2010). The Rhetoric Appeal to Identity on Websites of Companies Offering Non-Health-Related DNA Testing. Identity in the Information Society 3 (3):473-487.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-11-15
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?