Evidence is about the past,policy is about the future.
Constructive TA and other waysof joint inquiry
Arie Rip (University of Twente)
International Workshop Joint Fact‐
Finding for the Future,
University of Tokyo, 30 September 2014

Evidence is about the past …
• Has to rely on data that have been collected• There may be regular patterns, even law‐like
relationships that allow extrapolation• Even then, the actual future situations may
not resemble the conditions under which theearlier regularities were established• Futures are to be captured in narratives• Arie Rip, ‘In Praise of Speculation,’ Ch. 8 in OECD, Proceedings,
Social Sciences for Knowledge and Decision Making, Paris:
OECD, 2001, 95‐103.

Robustness• Add the complexities of actual policy making andimplementation (cf. Marjan Slob and Jan Staman, Policy andthe Evidence Beast (2012), The Hague: Rathenau Institute)• Instead of evidence‐based, go for ‘robustness’:
hard to undermine, can withstand interference
or attack, also from stakeholders, politicians• Is outcome from ‘repertoire learning’, as in thecontroversy about the link between smoking andhealth (see Arie Rip, 'Controversies as Informal Technology
Assessment', Knowledge 8(2) (Dec. 1986) 349-371.)

Joint inquiry• Fact‐finding includes “best efforts to interpretuncertainties” (Keystone Center, Nuclear Power Joint
Fact‐Finding (2007), Executive Summary, p. 9)• Yes, but that’s not enough. There is also
indeterminacy, especially about futuretechnology and society.
• Think in terms of ‘joint inquiry’ and thearticulation and learning that can occur (cf. alsoPeter Adler on ‘collaborative inquiry’.)Joint inquiry (2)• Philosophical roots in pragmatist philosophy,
especially John Dewey (cf. his notion of ‘publics’(in the plural) gathering around a sharedconcern)• Pre‐amble to this workshop: “Joint Fact‐Finding
can make significant contributions to resolving or
preventing science‐intensive public controversy.”• Yes and no; the “no” because publiccontroversies may be necessary as opportunities
for learning, also because values, interests, andgradients of force are present.

Public engagement?
• Joint inquiry can happen in/through public
engagement, but not if public engagement isonly oriented towards collecting opinions andpreferences.
• This can be done in a sophisticated manner (e.g. Kei Kano,Toward Achieving Broad Public Engagement with Science,
Technology and Innovation Policies: Trials in JAPAN Vision
2020. Intntl. J. Deliberative Mechanisms in Science (HipathiaPress) 3(1) (2014) 1‐23.)• Focus groups will do better because there will
be interactions, but often the learning that isinvolved is not reported.

Positions on a continuum?
• Evidence production ↔
•joint inquiry ↔
•collecting opinions/comments• Only joint inquiry can address indeterminacy(including value and interest indeterminacy)• Importance of ‘framing’ (through a narrative),
Norwegian consumer focus groups discussing nanotechnology(H. Throne‐Holst): “new technologies are risky”, “yes, but oldtechnologies can be risky as well,” “so let’s see what advantages
new technologies might have.” This shapes fact‐finding!

Orientation towards the future• Constructive TA creates evidence‐based futures, notbased on extrapolation but on scenarios.
• Sociotechnical scenarios (emphasizing technology
and innovation) using multi‐level pattern analysis
and insights from innovation studies ‐‐ but theapproach is general.
• Essential further step: use the scenarios as aplatform for discussion in strategy‐articulation
workshops with a broad variety of stakeholders(thus, a micro‐cosm).
• It is a joint inquiry, even if participants just takehome whatever learning they have drawn out,
there is no need for a consensual conclusion.

Example: nanotechnology and food packaging“The food industry is hooked on nano‐tech's promises, but it isalso very nervous (The Observer, 2006)” [about acceptance]“Colors without Dyes”

Anticipation on uptake and embedding: dependingon who takes the lead, different scenarios unfold•“Waiting game” in food (packaging), attempts to overcome it
Three scenarios:
Occurs in almost
Promise pushed by scientists
all our cases; aRegulators become pro‐active
general pattern?
Consortium of actors from the whole chain

Development of nano packaging: an impasse?
MACRO:
Discourse on & attempts atgovernance ofsociotechnical aspects of(nano)technologies in thecontext of food packaging

MESO:
Mobilization & allocationof resources related to(nano)technologies in thecontext of food packaging

MICRO:
Research and productdevelopment activities in
the context of foodpackaging (which makeuse of nanotechnologies.)

Dutch packaging legislation:
firms financially responsible forlitter.
Researchers and firms: HES and risksof nanoparticles?
Expectations: using
nanotechnologies will result inFirms: uncertainty about
customer & environmental
RoI in packaging R&D:
benefits.
Consumer acceptance?
Dutch government:
EU/Nl: stimulate R&D
food sector key
environmental friendly
economic area
packaging materials.

Sustainpack to EU: invest
in environmentally friendly
nano packaging research.

MinacNed / Nano4Vitality
propose: Invest in / join
research in nano &packaging.

DSM: specialty
packaging as an
emerging businessarea

Research by Wageningen
University and Smurfitt Kappa
in EU co‐funded
SUSTAINPACK.
Development of assessment
methods of safety ofnanoparticles in food / foodpackaging.

Time

University of Twente

Firms hesitant about R&D innano & packaging; waiting forcommercially ready new
packaging technologies fromsuppliers/institutes /government support ?

DSM invests in developing new
packaging materials; nano is newlabel for already existing activities(chemistry).
Research institute TNOresearches new nanopackaging
technologies.

Three scenarios
Dutch packaging
legislation: firms
financially responsible forlitter.
Expectations: using
nanotechnologies will resultin customer & environmental
benefits.

MACRO:
Discourse on &attempts at governanceof sociotechnicalaspects of(nano)technologies in
the context of foodpackaging

EU/Nl: stimulate R&D
environmental friendly
packaging materials.

Researchers and firms: HES andrisks of nanoparticles?

Dutch
government: foodsector key
economic area

Sustainpack to EU:
MinacNed /invest in
Nano4Vitality propose:environmentallyInvest in / joinfriendly nanoresearch in nano &packaging research.
packaging.
DSM: specialty
packaging as an
emerging business
area

MESO:
Mobilization &allocation of resources
related to(nano)technologies inthe context of foodpackagingResearch by Wageningen
University and Smurfitt
Kappa in EU co‐funded
SUSTAINPACK.

MICRO:
Research and productdevelopment
activities in thecontext of foodpackaging (whichmake use ofnanotechnologies.)

Development of assessment
methods of safety ofnanoparticles in food / foodpackaging.

Firms: uncertainty
about RoI in packaging
R&D: Consumer
acceptance?

Regulation helps

Firms hesitant about R&D
in nano & packaging;waiting for commercially
ready new packaging
technologies fromsuppliers/institutes /government support ?

Thresholds are passed

DSM invests in developing
new packaging materials;
nano is new label for alreadyexisting activities (chemistry).
Research institute TNO
researches new
nanopackaging technologies.

TimeUniversity of Twente(Top down dynamics)(Linking pin dynamics)

Only Little Nano
(Bottom up dynamics)

Lessons• There must be something at stake to create
incentives for joint inquiry and learning. (People are
not keen on putting an effort in learning.)• Rather than representation of the public (orpopulation), the micro‐cosmos must represent theforcefields at play in the real world. Otherwise nolearning, only brainstorming.
• Constructive TA is specialized (science, technology,innovation, and their embedding in society), builds
on understanding of dynamics. Overall approach canstill be used for broader, more complex issues.

Other ways of joint inquiry• Analysts are exploring more sophisticatedmethodologies, as in the I2TA project(Shiroyama et al. 2007‐2011). One example isproblem structuring (Nakagawa et al. Techn.
Forecasting and Social Change 77 (2010) 615‐638)• At the other end of the continuum, the newsocial media and the bloggosphere have
unstructured interactions, which may haveeffects (cf. repertoire learning)In
conclusion
In conclusion• I have broadened the idea of joint fact‐finding• And introduced a future‐orientation• While maintaining the goal of robustness, andindicating productive methodologies• Who will actually put effort into realizing all this?
• Will it become part of Responsible Research andInnovation (the latest fashion in the EuropeanUnion, in addition to Grand Challenges)?