Distributed mentoring: peer interaction and collaborative learning in P2PU

This paper explores how learning design and peer behaviour develops and evolves in a free, open online learning community, the Peer-to-peer university (P2PU). Drawing on ideas relating to 'participatory learning' (Seely-Brown and Adler, 2008), it begins with a theoretical discussion of the ways in which the infrastructural and the social dimensions of peer learning are expressed in terms of the design of three courses, and in relation to mentoring and peer interaction. Evident from the textual interface and social organization of the three courses is that the role of the instructor or course organizer adheres a cooperative model (Burge, 1994), reflected in the aggregation and filtering of materials and the evolution of pedagogical modeling. While the models of participation and engagement vary, depending on socio-technical factors, evident is that the governance model allows both for light models of involvement and the evolution of inquiry towards what we would like to call 'distributed' mentoring. We conclude with an evaluation of the ways in which the courses under study promote a participatory infrastructure, that not only can make the process of learning transparent, but also represent a relationship between teaching and learning in an open fashion

Three tyrannies of participatory governance

Despite the potential promise of more participatory urban governance, some debates do not sufficiently reflect difficult realities. This paper aims to make good on this by maintaining reflexivity about tensions. Drawing on traditions of pragmatism, the paper identifies tyrannies besetting understandings of participatory governance. Tyrannies are ways of thinking that developed in response to an identified issue, but which fail to live up to their initial promise. Despite this, those particular ways of thinking continue to hold sway. The paper sets three key tyrannies: the quest for authenticity in non-elected representation; assumptions about leadership models; and ‘bottom-up’ versus ‘top-down’ debates. First, despite widespread acknowledgement of the value of lived experience in participatory governance, in the quest for authenticity, it is simultaneously reified yet denied. Second, we question assumed symbiotic alignments between participatory governance and ideas of distributed leadership. Third, we present a critique of the fetishisation of ‘bottom-up’ approaches in participatory governance. It concludes with the role of reflexivity in re-negotiating the politics of participatory governance

Participation in Transition(s):Reconceiving Public Engagements in Energy Transitions as Co-Produced, Emergent and Diverse

This paper brings the transitions literature into conversation with constructivist Science and Technology Studies (STS) perspectives on participation for the first time. In doing so we put forward a conception of public and civil society engagement in sustainability transitions as co-produced, relational, and emergent. Through paying close attention to the ways in which the subjects, objects, and procedural formats of public engagement are constructed through the performance of participatory collectives, our approach offers a framework to open up to and symmetrically compare diverse and interconnected forms of participation that make up wider socio-technical systems. We apply this framework in a comparative analysis of four diverse cases of civil society involvement in UK low carbon energy transitions. This highlights similarities and differences in how these distinct participatory collectives are orchestrated, mediated, and subject to exclusions, as well as their effects in producing particular visions of the issue at stake and implicit models of participation and ‘the public’. In conclusion we reflect on the value of this approach for opening up the politics of societal engagement in transitions, building systemic perspectives of interconnected ‘ecologies of participation’, and better accounting for the emergence, inherent uncertainties, and indeterminacies of all forms of participation in transitions

Orchestrating Forest Policy in Italy: Mission Impossible?

In the Italian political and economic agenda the forest sector occupies a marginal role. The forest sector in Italy is characterized by a high institutional fragmentation and centralized decision-making processes dominated by Public Forest Administrations. Public participation in forest policy processes has been implemented since the 1990s at national, regional and local levels in several cases. However, today no significant changes have been observed in the overall governance of the forest sector and stakeholders' involvement in Italian forest policy decision-making is still rather limited. The aims of this paper are to describe the state of forest-related participatory processes in Italy at various levels (national, regional and local) and identify which factors and actors hinder or support the establishment and implementation of participatory forest-related processes in the country. The forest-related participatory processes are analyzed adopting a qualitative-based approach and interpreting interactive, complex and non-linear participatory processes through the lens of panarchy theory

Voluntary measures, participation and fundamental rights in the governance of research and innovation

open1noResponsible Research and Innovation (RRI) aims at being a new governance paradigm aiming at steering the innovation process in a participative manner by constructing responsibility as a shared process between innovators and societal stakeholders, rather than a remedy to its failures. In order to achieve those goals, RRI implements a collaborative and inclusive process between innovators and societal stakeholders, widely based on the idea of granting a wider participation of societal actors to the innovation process. The purpose of steering the research and innovation processes through participation of societal actors is one of the distinguishing characteristics of RRI approach, which this way aims at taking into account the increasing political implications of scientific innovation. In order to do so, RRI model promotes governance strategies focusing on actors’ responsibilisation, which make appeal to actors’ capacity of reciprocal commitment towards some common goals not mandated by the law. Whilst voluntary non-binding regulatory approaches seem to be the ‘natural’ way to implement RRI in practice, nevertheless some concern remains about the scope and the limits of the contextual agreements reached each time, in particular their capacity to grant respect to some fundamental values, which are part of the European political and legal culture, and which are at risk to become freely re-negotiable within the RRI context if we base it only on the idea of autonomy, participation and consent. On the contrary, the paper argues that, if it wants to be coherent with its premises, RRI governance model needs to be complemented with a reference to fundamental rights, in order to give normative anchor-points to the confrontations between divergent views and values accompanying the development of technological innovation.openGorgoni, GuidoGorgoni, Guid

Sustainable Participation? Mapping out and reflecting on the field of public dialogue on science and technology

The field of public participation in issues relating to science, technology and the environment is booming. To date much effort has gone into developing new participatory approaches and their evaluation, while most of what we know comes from individual case studies of engagement. This report builds on one of the first ever studies of public participation experts, their networks, roles and relations, to present a broader analysis of the UK public dialogue field as a whole. It draws on a recent project that involved 21 of the UK’s leading thinkers, practitioners, and policy makers in this area reflecting on the following critical questions. • What is the nature of participatory governance networks and the roles and relations of different actors within them? • Who counts as an expert on public participation and how are these meanings changing over time? • What are the implications of increasing institutionalisation, commercialisation and professionalisation of public dialogue? • To what extent are UK science and policy institutions learning about and learning from public dialogue? Taken together, these insights indicate that the field of public dialogue on science and technology has reached a critical moment and highlight a series of challenges and recommendations for its future sustainability

Framework, principles and recommendations for utilising participatory methodologies in the co-creation and evaluation of public health interventions

Background: Due to the chronic disease burden on society, there is a need for preventive public health interventions to stimulate society towards a healthier lifestyle. To deal with the complex variability between individual lifestyles and settings, collaborating with end-users to develop interventions tailored to their unique circumstances has been suggested as a potential way to improve effectiveness and adherence. Co-creation of public health interventions using participatory methodologies has shown promise but lacks a framework to make this process systematic. The aim of this paper was to identify and set key principles and recommendations for systematically applying participatory methodologies to co-create and evaluate public health interventions. Methods: These principles and recommendations were derived using an iterative reflection process, combining key learning from published literature in addition to critical reflection on three case studies conducted by research groups in three European institutions, all of whom have expertise in co-creating public health interventions using different participatory methodologies. Results: Key principles and recommendations for using participatory methodologies in public health intervention co-creation are presented for the stages of: Planning (framing the aim of the study and identifying the appropriate sampling strategy); Conducting (defining the procedure, in addition to manifesting ownership); Evaluating (the process and the effectiveness) and Reporting (providing guidelines to report the findings). Three scaling models are proposed to demonstrate how to scale locally developed interventions to a population level. Conclusions: These recommendations aim to facilitate public health intervention co-creation and evaluation utilising participatory methodologies by ensuring the process is systematic and reproducible

An Architecture for Integrated Intelligence in Urban Management using Cloud Computing

With the emergence of new methodologies and technologies it has now become possible to manage large amounts of environmental sensing data and apply new integrated computing models to acquire information intelligence. This paper advocates the application of cloud capacity to support the information, communication and decision making needs of a wide variety of stakeholders in the complex business of the management of urban and regional development. The complexity lies in the interactions and impacts embodied in the concept of the urban-ecosystem at various governance levels. This highlights the need for more effective integrated environmental management systems. This paper offers a user-orientated approach based on requirements for an effective management of the urban-ecosystem and the potential contributions that can be supported by the cloud computing community. Furthermore, the commonality of the influence of the drivers of change at the urban level offers the opportunity for the cloud computing community to develop generic solutions that can serve the needs of hundreds of cities from Europe and indeed globally.Comment: 6 pages, 3 figure