Rasmus Øjvind Nielsen
Abstract
This article discusses why and how the history and the current state of participatory technology assessment (referred to as pTA; not to be confused with PTA, which stands for parliamentary TA), especially in Denmark, may be understood in terms of institutionalization. The core argument is that while pTA has emerged as a practice within institutions for parliamentary technology assessment (referred to as PTA), the local logic of structuring PTA institutions does not necessarily explain the institutional role of pTA practices. To grasp these practices appropriately, a broader framework may be needed. The aim of the article is thus to relate the challenges of establishing and continuing pTA as a societal practice to the question of societal institutions and their logic. Towards this aim, the paper draws on a number of different theoretical directions within New Institutionalism and attempts to build a generic conceptual framework, which may relevantly add to the understanding of the multiple institutional logics at play in and around pTA practices. The usefulness of this generic framework will first and foremost be to function as a platform for empirical research in the field. An overarching goal of developing the framework, however, will be to serve as a conceptual resource for the long-term strategic outlooks of organizational entrepreneurs working to establish or continue pTA practices within STI policy-making.
Introduction
As a part of a larger budget settlement for the Danish STI policy, a decision was made in November 2011 to abolish the DBT. With the Board having stood as a one of the leading figures in the development and practice of participatory methods for technology assessment and policy development, this decision was met by protests from a wide range of different actors at national and international level (see also Paldam Folker et. al. 2012). Partly on the basis of these protests, but mostly on the basis of efforts by central institutional entrepreneurs, the DBT was transferred to a non-profit foundation and given a grace period to establish itself as an independent economic entity able to carry on the work of the DBT.
Institutionalisation of Technology Assessment In the Danish institutional tradition, the current state of existence of the DBT is something of a non-sequitor. With a few exceptions, Denmark does not have the same strong tradition of advisory organizations funded by private foundations with the purpose of shaping societal development as, for example, Germany, the UK or the US,. The continued existence of the DBT after the abolition of a public advisory institution therefore makes very little sense, and the DBT has moved into an unknown territory. Should the organization be viewed as a consultancy, a think-tank, a research institute or something altogether different? Where will its operational resources come from? How can it maintain legitimacy? What new horizons open up? In this situation, organizational survival naturally comes into focus. But the DBT as a concrete organization only has meaning as long as it exists to continue TA as a societal institution.
To navigate this conceptually gray area, adopting an institutional perspective is helpful.
Institutional analysis has a deconstructive element to it (Peters 2012), which allows for the discovery of overseen chains of causation within long-term evolutionary developments.
It also makes it possible to import conceptual resources from other institutional areas to view the situation in a new light. Analyzing the situation using the resources of institutional theory may thus open up overseen opportunities for institutional innovation and strategic re-orientation.
Institutionalization of PTA in Denmark
The institutionalization of PTA in Europe has been given great attention in a number of core studies containing both comprehensive overviews and comparisons between PTA institutions in different countries as well as thorough case studies of the DBT (Vig and Paschen 2000;
Decker and Ladikas 2004; Hennen and Ladikas 2009; Enzing 2012; Ganzevles and Van EST 2012). On the basis of this literature, it is possible to see the DBT and its current situation as a limit-case for the institutionalization of PTA. Within the PTA literature, three types of PTA institutions have been identified (Enzing et. al. 2012:ii), the DBT falling into the “independent institutions” category, which is populated by PTA institutions formally placed outside the Parliament and mandated for self-governance. But it has also been shown that individual PTA organizations must continually adapt to national circumstances in continuing processes of institutional bricolage, which takes both an entrepreneurial spirit and a great deal of creativity. As such, these works inspire a view of the current situation as transitory; an obstacle that others have met before and that may be overcome.
These existing studies focus squarely on institutionalization within national parliamentary contexts. From this perspective, the drama of the DBT and its evolutionary path easily boils down to this question: How much independence can the independent institutional model bear? What comes into focus are the internal contradictions within the logic of the institutional establishment. As stated in the PACITA case study of the DBT: “the DBT is in fact more than a TA institution” (op. cit.: 64, my emphasis). With its focus on activities that aim to involve citizens in decision-making and to establish dialogue processes between
Institutional Interpretationof Parliamentary TA stakeholders in the Danish society, the DBT’s activities have evolved beyond the arena of parliamentary debate, even to the point where assessment projects only involve the Parliament if and when it is a relevant actor in the situation under scrutiny (op. cit.). The DBT has thus evolved out of a role strictly defined by its relation to parliament towards a broader mission of “policy-oriented TA” – a development which applies, to a degree, to the entire field of PTA (Bütchi 2013).
The evolutionary path traced by the DBT thus makes it relevant to adopt a broader perspective with regard to institutionalization. For what would the emergence of this “more than” imply for our understanding of the strategic space currently inhabited by the DBT?
Firstly, Paldam-Folker et. al. (2012) make it clear that the evolution of the institution is not a shift away from the politicization of technology and innovation – on the contrary, it is an expansionary movement driven by a broadening understanding of the political will to embrace notions of network democracy and participatory governance. Secondly, Klüver (2000) provides the understanding that this expansion of activities towards a broader audience cannot meaningfully be construed as a case of mission creep. The development away from a parliament-centric approach to TA may paradoxically be seen as a mission-driven development unfolding out of the original mandate of the DBT. On the one hand, the mandate designated Parliament as “the most important target group”, while on the other hand, the mandate included the tasks of facilitating “dialogue between experts and lay people” and the freedom to select target groups “with regard to the topic treated” whether or not this would lead to the inclusion of the Parliament (op. cit.). The formal relationship to the Parliament was thus always marked by inner contradiction and made it predictable that tensions would arise between the need to stay relevant to the Parliament and the mission to involve broader segments of society.
How to analyze this development? Taking the existing literature as sole reference and extrapolating from it might lead to an analysis in which the abolishment of the DBT happened because one element of the institutional logic behind it – the logic of independence from the Parliament – wins out against the opposing element, namely subjection to the Parliament.
Going on the accounts already given of the institutionalization process, the limits of independence would seem to be that an advisory institution cannot allow its independence to trump its reliance on its institutional base of support, which supplies it with institutional legitimacy and the resources to operate. To carry out an in-depth analysis of the situation would therefore mean to scrutinize the relationship between the DBT and the Parliament for direct causes of the abolition. And by default, the question of re-institutionalization would be posed as one of reestablishing formal ties with the Parliament.
Such an explanation would, however, fail to capture the gist of the DBT’s situation on a number of accounts. Firstly, it would fail to take into account the significance for the abolition decision within broader developments in the governance of it STI, such as European integration, increased privatization and globalization. Secondly, it would fail to explain the apparent base of support for the institution found outside the Parliament allowing the institution to survive the abolition. And thirdly, because it would equate institutionalization with formal
Institutionalisation of Technology Assessment relations to the Parliament, it would fail to produce options for institutional re-orientation reliant on other sources of legitimacy and support. Consequently, this triple failure looms because the analytical frameworks employed so far in the PTA institutionalization literature have not yet been able to fully explain the dialectical dynamics between TA as a broader political project and concrete PTA institutionalization processes. Furthermore, we do not yet have the necessary frameworks for mapping and following the interactions between PTA institutions and other institutions in the STI policy field. At this stage of the literature’s development, we still need ways to capture the interaction between the three layers of institutionalization: the micro-level on which we can follow historically the struggles for institutionalization of the DBT as a concrete organization within the Danish-European STI governance system; the macro-level on which the creation of PTA organizations must be seen as one among a number of different projects for establishing forms of interaction and coordination between science, society, policy and markets; and the practice level on which participatory methods in TA may be seen as taking on an institutional character of their own, i.e. becoming established through repetition as an institution within political life.
Towards a Multi-Level Institutional Analysis
On the micro-level, the existing in-depth analysis of the formal setup underpinning an institution and the struggles among stakeholders to formulate them must remain as one of the core elements of our understanding. This is the perspective from which the major life events of an institution and their relation to the ecosystem of political institutions – initial establishment, growth and evolution, changes and tensions – can best be identified and described. This is the perspective taken by most of the existing institutionalization literature, and the theoretical resources applicable within this perspective are the notions of path-dependency and change. Typically, change and continuity in institutions can be explained through the mechanisms of diffusion of institutional forms, adaptation to national contexts and continuing reconfiguration of institutional elements through bricolage and translation (Campbell 2004: 63-89). Remaining on the micro-level, however, we need to broaden our understanding of the breadth of strategic options available to institutional entrepreneurs. In the tension between the internal logic of an institution and the pressures affecting it from the outside, adaptation is only one of a number of identifiably successful strategies. Oliver (1991, cited in Mac 2005) identifies an entire range of overall strategies and tactics on a scale from acceptance and adjustment to external forces to strategies for manipulating the external environment. Such strategies and tactics must be a part of our vocabulary when studying concrete cases of institutionalization.
Macro-level analysis must complement such micro-level strategies and tactics in order for them to be anchored in a firm understanding of the bigger picture, i.e. of societal changes affecting institutions. Friedland and Alford (1991) famously argued for “bringing society back in” to the analysis of level institutional change. Without a firm rooting of micro-level analysis in an understanding of the macro-micro-level interaction between multiple logics
Institutional Interpretationof Parliamentary TA of different societal institutions (i.e. ‘grand politics’ and historical trends), the success or failure of institutionalization would remain inexplicable (op. cit.:244). They argue that the macro-level of society is as “real” as any other level, all levels being socially constructed (op.cit. 242). The specific mode of existence of the macro-level, however, is that of the ideas held by actors about the macro-level and the actions through which these ideas are enacted. Campbell (2004:101) divides the social reality of such ideas into background (paradigms and public sentiments) and foreground phenomena (political/administrative programmes and the frames produced by hype, spin and campaigns). Each of these phenomena articulates a general view of societal development and seeks to advance one or more logics of development. As such, they link individual actions on a micro-level to overall visions of society and thus bestow a larger meaning on concrete efforts, which would otherwise be reduced to expressions of self-interests (op.cit. 91). Establishing links between micro-level institutional analysis of strategies and tactics and macro-level analysis of clashes between ideas would provide us with a view of the progress of TA as a political project in itself. We would be able to put meat on the bone of the core image of TA as a bridge-builder between science, society and policy (Decker and Ladikas 2004). Which are the concrete chasms needing to be bridged; where do different sectors misunderstand each other, disconnect, de-couple? Where are the concrete potentials to contribute to societal development through knowledge brokering and participatory methods? When and how do PTA institutions succeed or fail in establishing their relevance and legitimacy, step by step, in the broader system of STI governance institutions?
Strategies Tactics
Acquiesce Habit, Imitate, Comply Compromise Balance, Pacify, Bargain Avoid Conceal, Buffer, Escape Defy Dismiss, Challenge, Attack Manipulate Co-opt, Influence, Control
Table 4: Strategies and tactics of institutional entrepreneurs (Oliver 1991, cited in Mac 2005)
Ultimately, this leads to the necessity of including TA practice as a subject for institutional analysis. March and Olsen (1989) argued that institutions do not only derive legitimacy from their formal placement within existing systems, such as governments or parliaments.
Of equal importance is the informal legitimacy gained through repetition of actions through which certain practices grow to become an expected part of the way things work, i.e. “institutionalized”. Institutionalization in this sense is a broader concept with more unpredictable empirical expressions. Our understanding of such informal institutionalization cannot rest on written sources and formal frameworks, but must be rooted in the concrete experiences of actors, whether practitioners or audiences. And we cannot a priori equate the institution of TA as perceived by societal actors with the PTA organization itself. Perceived
Institutionalisation of Technology Assessment according to logics entirely separate from the internal institutional logic of PTA itself, the recurrence of events, projects and public statements from PTA organizations may, over time, serve to create a permanent reference point in the public sphere – a place to delegate problems having to do with the science-society relationship. In the case of the DBT, the
“institution” may in fact be the continued practices of participatory events within the STI field – with all the different perceptions and expectations from different actors in the field, which become attached to those practices over time. This will be especially relevant in the study of the DBT for which the direct interaction with and between actors plays such a key role in the process of technology assessment.
Conclusions
On the micro-level, we find formal statutes embodying political decisions to establish, consolidate and abolish PTA institutions; on the macro-level, mediated through the ideas of individuals and organizations, we find competing political projects for defining the direction of societal development, a field of contestation in which TA evolves as a project in itself; and finally, on the intermediate level of practice, we find pTA events and projects established over time as a reference point within the landscape of debate and decision-making, one small piece of the puzzle of how society works. Each level of analysis must be woven together to create an organic understanding at any given time of the stage of the institutional and strategic situation of a PTA organization carrying out pTA. Through such multi-level analysis, we will be better placed to understand the dialectical interaction between formal and informal processes of institutionalization. Specifically, this will enable a better understanding of the role that participatory methods may play in the struggle between different actors regarding the institutionalization or de-institutionalization of PTA organizations.
References: Page 382
Disputed Evidence and Robust Decision-Making