A triply risky step: for participants who are confronted with others and are able to question themselves; for the authorities who call their legitimacy into question; and for scientists who are faced with issues of credibility.

“There are many mechanisms that saw off the branch they are sitting on because they weren’t sufficiently well thought out”, the researcher believes. He also stresses the need to have a good range of participants. “The stake is to convince people who are, in principle, inclined to invest time and energy into these processes, in order to go and seek voices that aren’t usually represented”, he adds. The scientist’s role is also essential to elaborate the ‘design’ of the mechanism and to explore it (study, pre-test, test, documentation, assessment, etc.). Because while “participation can’t be ‘decreed’”, the authors write in the introduction to the book, “its implementation nevertheless rests on procedures, methods and theoretically founded principles”.

Representativeness, cost, manipulation?

This doesn’t prevent certain criticisms regarding the usefulness, objectivity and significance of public participation. One of the chapters in the book, entitled "Critiquer les méthodes participatives ou succomber au chant des Hespérides?", puts into perspective the unpleasant experience of two of its authors, Pierre Delvenne (FNRS postdoctoral researcher at ULg) and Martin Erpicum (scientific advisor at the Institut Bruxellois pour la Recherche et l’Innovation). During the presentation of one of their works at a world congress organised in Chile in 2009, they were faced with negative accusations and even the barely veiled scepticism of their fellow speakers. 

“The scientific world isn’t exempt from conflicts!” exclaims Sébastien Brunet. “The main reproach made with regard to participation is the fact that it can’t be generalised.  And yet, the aim is indeed not to be representative, but to go and seek strong opinions and compare ideas in order to obtain a diversified view of a problem.” Other objections often formulated are: the high cost of the method (spending a lot of money to collect the opinions of a limited number of people), as well as the risks of manipulation, producing guided opinions in accordance with the sponsor’s expectations. “The answer to this comment is the authenticity of the approach”, he answers. “The people who participate in it mustn’t feel trapped in a system. Subsequently, the research protocol must be clear and precise. The quality will depend on the rigour of the methodology.”  

On a political level, some also question the relevance of adding 'decision-making crutches' to the representative electoral system. Why organise elections if the votes of the elected members won’t do? "It's a question of improving the decision”, the professor replies. “Participation can also cause fear because its results are unpredictable if it’s authentic. The lack of guarantee of the results may make decision-makers uneasy."

As well prepared as they may be, participatory experiences may somewhat miss their initial objective. While Meeting of Minds may well have led to producing recommendations, the approach also produced 'strange effects' as well as counter-productive ones. Not to mention the fact that the participants ended up pushing neuroscience into the background to focus on the collective production of an opinion.

“These methodologies have their place even if they don’t suit everyone”, concludes Sébastien Brunet. “It is an asset to be able to call upon interdisciplinarity. We must try to diversify views and combine the strong points of different approaches.”