Contributing to an European vision of democratic education by engaging multiple actors in shaping responsible research agendas

Main Article Content

Niklas Gudowsky
Mahshid Sotoudeh
Ulrike Bechtold
Walter Peissl

Abstrakt

Traditionally, expert-based forward looking has been applied to anticipate future challenges, solutions and strategic decisions, but limitations to this approach have become obvious – especially when considering long term perspectives – e.g. failing to include a comprehensive array of opinions. Aiming at producing sustainable strategies for responsible socio-technical change, research funding can benefit from combining forward looking and public participation to elicit socially robust knowledge from consulting with multi-actors, including citizens. In this paper, we give insights into the EU project CIMULACT – Citizen and Multi- Actor Consultation on Horizon 2020. In CIMULACT, more than 4500 citizens, stakeholders and experts from 30 European countries engaged online and offline to co-create research topics. These are supposed to serve as input for the next round of calls in Horizon 2020, national research agendas as well as the ninth framework programme in the making. We investigate key results of this transdisciplinary process focussing on the topic “democratic education” with regard to two levels: What issues concerning the topic were raised? Can we find a common European imaginary for “democratic education”? Our analysis shows that the results contribute to defining and describing challenges for the currently prevailing imaginary of democratic education in Europe.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Jak cytować
Gudowsky, N., Sotoudeh, M., Bechtold, U., & Peissl, W. (2016). Contributing to an European vision of democratic education by engaging multiple actors in shaping responsible research agendas. Filozofia Publiczna I Edukacja Demokratyczna, 5(2), 29-50. https://doi.org/10.14746/fped.2016.5.2.20
Dział
Articles

Bibliografia

  1. Balabanian, N. (2006). On the presumed neutrality of technology. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 25(4), 15-25.
  2. Biesta, G. (2009). What Kind of Citizenship for European Higher Education? Beyond the Competent Active Citizen. European Educational Research Journal, 8(2), 146-158. doi:10.2304/eerj.2009.8.2.146.
  3. Boden, M., Cagnin, C., Carabias, V., Haegeman, K. and Könnölä, T. (2010). Facing the future: Time for the EU to meet global challenges, 24364 EN, 6/2010. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission.
  4. Decker, M., Ladikas, M. (Eds.) (2004). Bridges between Science, Society and Policy. Technology Assessment – Methods and Impacts. Wissenschaftsethik und Technikfolgenbeurteilung, vol. 22. Berlin–Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
  5. Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan. (Original work published in 1916.)
  6. Georghiou, L. (2013). Challenges for Science and Innovation Policy. In: D. Meissner, L. Gokhberg and A. Sokolov (Eds.), Science, Technology and Innovation Policy for the Future: Potentials and Limits of Foresight Studies. Berlin–Heidelberg: Springer, 233 246.
  7. Gudowsky, N., Peissl, W. (2016). Human centred science and technology – transdisciplinary foresight and co-creation as tools for active needs-based innovation governance. European Journal of Futures Research, 4. Online first: 22.10.2016. doi:10.1007/s40309-016-0090-4
  8. Gudowsky, N., Sotoudeh, M. (2017). Into Blue Skies – Transdisciplinary Foresight and Co-creation as Socially Robust Tools for Visioneering Socio-technical Change. NanoEthics, 11(1), 93-106. Online first 24.2.2017. doi:10.1007/s11569-017-0284-7
  9. Gudowsky, N., Peissl, W., Sotoudeh, M.; Bechtold, U. (2012). Forward-looking activities: incorporating citizens´ visions. Poiesis & Praxis, 9(1-2), 101-123. Online first: 15.11.2012. doi:10.1007/s10202-012-0121-6
  10. Haegeman, K., Spiesberger, M., Veselitskaya, N., Sokolov, A., Weiss G. (2015). FTA supporting effective priority setting in multi-lateral research programme cooperation: The case of EU–Russia S&T cooperation. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 101, 200-215.
  11. Halász, G., Michel, A. (2011). Key Competences in Europe: interpretation, policy formulation and implementation. European Journal of Education, 46, 289-306. doi:10.1111/j.1465-3435.2011.01491.x
  12. Hebáková, L., Ratinger, T., Jansa L., Vančurová I. (forthcoming). CIMULACT Deliverable 4.2 European Report on Online Consultation Results.
  13. Jacobi, A., Klüver, L., Rask, M. (2010). Relevant Research in a Knowledge Democracy: Citizens’ Participation in Defining Research Agendas for Europe. In: R. J. in ‘t Veld (Ed.),
  14. Knowledge Democracy – Consequences for Science, Politics, and Media (pp. 87-98). Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-11381-9_8
  15. Joss, S., Bellucci, S. (2002). Participatory technology assessment – European perspectives. London: University of Westminster.
  16. Jørgensen, M. L., Schøning, S. (2015). CIMULACT Deliverable 1.3 – Vision Catalogue Encompassing the visions from all 30 countries. http://www.cimulact.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/D1.3final.pdf, accessed 20.2.2017.
  17. Könnöllä, T., Haegeman, K. (2012) Embedding foresight in transnational research programming. Science and Public Policy, 39, 191-207. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs020
  18. Kuhlmann, S., Rip, H. (2014). The challenge of addressing Grand Challenges. https://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/expert-groups/The_challenge_of_addressing_Grand_Challenges.pdf, accessed 6.2.2017.
  19. Margonis, F. (2009), John Dewey’s racialized visions of the student and classroom community. Educational Theory, 59, 17-39. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.2009.00305.x
  20. Mission Publique, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Strategic Design Scenarios, Politecnico di Milano & all the participants of the Pan-European Conference (2016). Deliverable 2.2 – Social needs based research programme scenarios. http://www.cimulact.eu/social-needs-based-researchprogramme-scenarios/, accessed 20.2.2017.
  21. Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39, 751-760. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs093
  22. Rask, M. (2013). The tragedy of citizen deliberation – two cases of participatory technology assessment. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25, 39-55. doi:10.1080/09537325.2012.751012
  23. Perry, L. B. (2009). Conceptualizing Education Policy in Democratic Societies. Educational Policy, 23(3), 423-450. doi:10.1177/0895904807310032
  24. Rizvi, F. (2006). Imagination and the globalisation of educational policy research, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 4(2), 193-205. doi:10.1080/1476772060075255
  25. Schutz, A. (2001a). John Dewey’s Conundrum: Can Democratic Schools Empower? Teachers College Record, 103(2), 267-302.
  26. Schutz, A. (2001b). “John Dewey” and “A Paradox of Size”: Democratic Faith at the Limits of Experience. American Journal of Education, 109(3), 287-319. doi:10.1086/444273
  27. Sotoudeh, M., Gudowsky, N. (forthcoming). CIVISTI – A forwardlooking method based on citizens’ visions. Public Philosophy & Democratic Education
  28. Sotoudeh, M. (2009). Technical Education for Sustainability. An Analysis of Needs in the 21st Century. Environmental Education, Communication and Sustainability, vol. 30. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.
  29. Tran, T. A., Daim, T. (2008). A taxonomic review of methods and tools applied in technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(9), 1396-1405. doi:10.1016/j.techfore. 2008.04.004
  30. Drury, S. A. M., Andre, D., Goddard, S., Wentzel, J. (2016). Assessing Deliberative Pedagogy: Using a Learning Outcomes Rubric to Assess Tradeoffs and Tensions. Journal of Public Deliberation, 12(1). http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol12/iss1/art5, accessed: 20.2.2017.
  31. Vare, P., Scott, W. (2007). Learning for a Change: exploring the relationship between education and sustainable development. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 1(2), 191-198.
  32. Warnke, P., Fiedler, P. (Eds.) (2016). CIMULACT Deliverable 2.1 – First draft of social needs based research programme scenarios Research programme scenarios. http://www.cimulact.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CIMULACT_Deliverable-2-1Research_programmes_scenarios-corrected.pdf, accessed 6.2.2017.
  33. Wittenberg, L. (2002). Geschichte der individualpsychologischen Versuchsschule in Wien. Eine Synthese aus Reformpädagogik und Individualpsychologie. Dissertation University of Vienna. Wien: WUV.