Political science has seen in recent years the development of participatory methods. A way to collect the opinions of citizens who aren’t experts in a particular field, in order to enrich the decision-making process. Spiral, a University of Liège research centre, has acquired expertise in the subject, resulting in a recently published book called La participation à l’épreuve (Participation put to the Test)(1). A book that takes a look at the methodological findings resulting from several research projects, in an effort to better define this approach, often still dependent on experimentation.

Imagine 126 people gathered in the same place for a long weekend. They don’t know each other, don’t all speak the same language and come from nine different countries. They are supposed to discuss a subject together which, in principle, they know nothing about. And yet, it is highly specialised: neuroscience. Odd... Did you say odd?

Not that bizarre. The (pilot) experiment took place in 2006, in Brussels, within the framework of the Meeting of Minds project. A meeting between 126 average minds asked to reflect upon a subject which, if we ignore its rather daunting name, is somewhat sensitive as it deals with ethics in medicine.  And what if this discipline not only made it possible to treat certain neurological pathologies in the near future, but also allowed us to anticipate them and even act upon what goes on in our brain? Recent scientific advances have led us to believe that this scenario could soon become reality. A subject that is up for discussion, even among non-specialists.

Meeting of Minds was set up by the King Baudouin Foundation with the support of the European Commission. At the end of two years of meetings with citizens (first divided into national sample groups then gathered in the same place), the aim was to come up with a series of recommendations, to be handed over to national and European politicians, on six themes relating to neuroscience and the ethical, legal and social consequences that these could have on our societies.

Non-professional expertise

Today, this kind of experimental procedure is still fairly original, owing to its extent, its multiculturalism and multilingualism. It has become one of the most representative examples of using participation. “Participation can be considered as a knowledge production technique that allows us to find what is known as non-professional expertise, among people who don’t have scientifically recognised or identified competences. For instance, this is the case with amateur astronomers who know a lot about stars without being scientists in this field, but nevertheless add to its enrichment", specifies Sébastien Brunet, professor at the University of Liège, head of the Institut Wallon de l’Evaluation, de la Prospective et de la Statistique (IWEPS) and co-author of La participation à l’épreuve.

This work is a sort of ‘logbook’ for Spiral, the ULg research centre specialising in expertise in terms of risk management and the assessment of public policies. Since its creation in 1995, it has developed special data collection methodologies within the framework of its activities. Participation has become one of its specialities and the recently published book incorporates the research carried out by different members of the team over the past ten years. This research provides experience feedback dealt with from a critical point of view, by describing the methodological challenges that can arise, the factors that influence success or failure, and the mechanisms that should be anticipated, etc.

Meeting of Minds isn’t the only participatory experiment that has been closely examined. Other chapters are dedicated to the application of this approach within the framework of the possible creation of a federal constituency in Belgium, the analysis of public management, discussion of genocide with young people, food terrorism, etc. 

 Sébastien Brunet, Frédéric Claisse et Catherine Fallon (dir.), La participation à l’épreuve, Bruxelles, P.I.E Peter Lang, 2013.