When the citizen becomes actor
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. 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.”
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
© 2007 ULi�ge
|
||