Poiesis and Praxis 9 (1-2):101-123 (2012)
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)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science.Sheila Jasanoff - 2003 - Minerva 41 (3):223--244.
Participation as a Means of Enhancing the Legitimacy of Decisions on Technology? A Sceptical Analysis.Armin Grunwald - 2004 - Poiesis and Praxis 3 (s 1-2):106-122.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Towards the Desired Future of the Elderly and ICT: Policy Recommendations Based on a Dialogue with Senior Citizens.Steven Eggermont, Heidi Vandebosch & Stef Steyaert - 2006 - Poiesis and Praxis 4 (3):199-217.
Negotiating Plausibility: Intervening in the Future of Nanotechnology.Cynthia Selin - 2011 - Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (4):723-737.
Electronic Identity Management in Sweden: Governance of a Market Approach. [REVIEW]Åke Grönlund - 2010 - Identity in the Information Society 3 (1):195-211.
European Public Advice on Nanobiotechnology—Four Convergence Seminars.Marion Godman & Sven Ove Hansson - 2009 - NanoEthics 3 (1):43-59.
Knowing the Unknowable: The Epistemological Authority of Innovation Policy Experts.William Davies - 2011 - Social Epistemology 25 (4):401 - 421.
Why Zygon? The Journal's Original Visions and the Future of Religion-and-Science.Karl E. Peters - 2010 - Zygon 45 (2):430-436.
Environmental Risks, Uncertainty and Intergenerational Ethics.Kristian Skagen Ekeli - 2004 - Environmental Values 13 (4):421-448.
Community Engagement to Facilitate, Legitimize and Accelerate the Advancement of Nanotechnologies in Australia.Kristen Lyons & James Whelan - 2010 - NanoEthics 4 (1):53-66.
Accounting for the Appeal to the Authority of Experts.Jean Goodwin - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (3):285-296.
Added to index2012-11-15
Total downloads11 ( #404,930 of 2,172,937 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #324,815 of 2,172,937 )
How can I increase my downloads?