Opening-up or closing-down science, technology, and innovation policy
Science, technology, and innovation (STI) policies have been traditionally dominated by top-down approaches, in which linear, deterministic, and closed-down perspectives guide many policy debates. Expert-based analysis has been the cornerstone as it provides singular, measurable, and science-based recommendations. However, in recent years, more inclusive, deliberate, and opened-up frameworks have been guiding STI policymaking, making space for the public to engage in collective public issues.
For analysing and discussing this dichotomy between opening-up and closing-down, and between expert-based analysis and participation, this essay will present and examine the case of “Misión de los Sabios” (Mission of the Wise) in Colombia. This was an initiative held by the Colombian government in 2019, which gathered almost fifty local and overseas “specialists” in different disciplines to help “contribute to the construction and implementation of public policy in education, science, technology, and innovation” (Minciencias, 2019).
By relying on the concepts and theories of opening-up and closing-down, scientific citizenship, rationales for participation, and the ladder of participation, this essay will examine the rationales, attributes, and results of this case. In an attempt to question its degree of closing-down or opening-up, this essay will provide some conclusions about this type of process in innovation governance and democracy.
The discussion will be structured into four main sections. The second section will describe the theoretical framework on which the analysis will be based. The third section will present the case study and the analysis of the case through the lenses of
the theories, determining its orientation towards opening-up or closing-down. Finally, the fourth section will discuss whether this case is an example of conventional innovation policy or a more opened-up approach, and highlight conclusions about the topic.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
According to Andrew Stirling, STI policy methods are often driven by closure (Stirling, 2008). In this field, linear, scientific, and deterministic frameworks still dominate policy debates. The academic literature often calls this phenomenon a closing-down approach, in which expert, unitary, and exclusive analyses result in a particular answer, tending to privilege economic and incumbent interests, and is susceptible to influence by powerful socio-political actors.
When conducting this type of approach, is important to consider beforehand the relationship between STI and public opinion, as well as the degree of public confidence in the use of scientific advice for public issues. The scientific citizenship concept developed by Alan Irwin addresses these concerns by recognising that, when it comes to STI policy, there are still economic pressures for a continued science-based approach. Irwin acknowledges that we must acknowledge “increased openness and transparency in the treatment of scientific advice, the recognition of scientific uncertainty, and the legitimacy of public values and concerns” (Irwin, 2001).
The framing factors that guide the design of this process, such as the selection of the policy questions, recruiting processes, agenda-setting, methodology choices, and metrics are also subject to evaluation (Stirling, 2008). These elements are often excluded from analysis, although they can significantly influence the results and outputs of the policy process.
When trying to offset expert-based processes, governments repeatedly develop and promote participatory practices in which they consult the public about their decisions. Behind this effort, there are three main types of rationales, proposed by
Daniel J. Fiorino, motivating the interest in participation by different social actors: normative, substantive, and instrumental. The first aims to counter incumbent interests by allowing people to have influence, the second aims to improve the quality of decisions or achieve better ends, and the third aims to secure particular ends, leaving only the details for discussion, but not the goals (Fiorino, 1990; Stirling, 2008).
The design of these practices and the methods used can considerably affect the results, especially when scientists and researchers act as intermediaries between policy and the public. Regarding the design, Irwin proposes some practical points to consider: the balance between information and consultation, the extent to which the pre-framing agenda could have affected the form and outcome of the dialogues, and the degree of activity (or passivity) of the different groups. Concerning the methods, Sherry R. Arnstein argues that a participation process can be classified into one of eight ascending levels that go from non-participation to citizen power (Arnstein, 2007).
Apart from considering the design and the methods used, Gene Rowe and Lynn Jayne Frewer propose an evaluative criterion for analysing if a participatory process can be considered “good participation”. This standard includes aspects ranging from the inclusivity and representative mix of interests (representativeness) to the impact of the result on policy (influence). It is important to note here that this evaluation rhetoric can reinforce the instrumental rationales presented above.
As can be observed from the considerations of these different conceptual and theoretical frameworks, the use of participatory methods is not entirely democratic. They are often treated as means of justification for particular choices and decisions. Stirling distinguishes between “weak justification”, characterised by the insistency that a decision must be made, and “strong justification”, driven by the need to justify a particular decision outcome.
Finally, an expert-based or participatory process can be pushed towards closed-down or opened-up depending on the quality of the results. “Unitary and prescriptive” recommendations that involve “single numerical values” are characteristic of a closing-down approach, whereas “alternative questions” that involve “marginalised perspectives”, “contending knowledge”, “uncertainties”, and “different possibilities” are distinctive of an opened-up approach (Stirling, 2008).
THE MISSION OF THE WISE (“MISIÓN DE LOS SABIOS”) IN COLOMBIA
The International Mission of the Wise 2019 (“The Mission”) was an initiative organised by the Colombian government to contribute to “the construction and implementation of public policy in education, science, technology, and innovation” (Minciencias, 2019). This initiative brought together a large group of specialists, independent from the government, whose work was to define recommendations for the development of STI in Colombia.
The Mission was organised into strategic focuses that included biotechnology, convergent technologies, and “industry 4.0” initiatives. It worked under a participatory methodology with diverse actors of the Colombian national STI system, including students, business leaders and unions, and public institutes. In total, the process ran for over three hundred days and included more than two hundred dialogue activities, including talks, forums, meetings, workshops, surveys, and events.
The result of the Mission constitutes a roadmap that aimed to help the country to advance in its human, economic, social, and cultural development. It includes three different types of proposals that involve a multi-sector call to the government, universities, science institutions, and companies to work towards productivity, biodiversity, and equity (missions); specific policy actions on research, science, and education on behalf of the government, and financial strategies seeking to increase achieve greater participation of the private sector in STI activities (Poveda et al., 2020).
Analysis of the case through the theories
Closed-down approaches are common in scientific advisory processes in many countries (Stirling, 2008). At first glance, the Mission of the Wise in Colombia may seem to have adopted this approach, since a group of experts were selected to deliver a series of proposals about STI in the country. Nonetheless, there are other characteristics to consider before concluding whether this case is an example of a closed-down or an opened-up approach to innovation policy.
Before examining the Mission’s specific characteristics, it is important to consider the degree of confidence that Colombian citizens have in the use of scientific advice for public issues (Irwin, 2001). Although this could have changed the course of the Mission, and even affected the decision to undertake such an initiative in the first place, it that was not considered or addressed in the Mission’s report.
Regarding the explicit features of the Mission, the first aspect of note is the selected group of experts. This group was chosen to represent an appropriate mix of perspectives, the heterogeneous community, and the system of various stakeholders working in scientific research (Poveda et al., 2020). However, this kind of expert-analytical approach tends to privilege economic considerations and is susceptible to influence by powerful incumbent actors (Stirling, 2008).
The choice of the eight focuses and the general configuration of the Mission is the second aspect to consider. The selection of the strategic areas was studied considering the potential that these areas offer to Colombia, and it was made between Colciencias (now the Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation) and the Vice Presidency, with the support of the Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical, and Natural Sciences (Poveda et al., 2020). This choice, alongside the prioritisation of the academic disciplines involved, the recruitment of the group of experts, the agenda-setting, and the metrics definition, are all examples of “framing” factors Stirling identifies that could have significantly influenced the Mission’s results and guided its outputs towards a closing-down scenario (Stirling, 2008).
In addition to the expert-based process, the Mission also conducted a series of participatory dialogues. First, the rationale that may have lied behind such participation is critical since it can have directed the process to a closed-down or opened-up approach. Under the framework proposed by Fiorino, the rationale that may have motivated this participation can be seen as an instrumental rationale. The Mission’s policy goals were not open for discussion and the strategic focuses were already defined. These are distinctive attributes of this type of rationale whose aim is to gain public credibility and justify decisions (Wesselink et al., 2011), hereby supporting incumbent interests (Fiorino, 1990) and leading to closure (Stirling, 2008).
Second, the participatory methods used, including talks, forums, meetings, workshops, surveys, and events, are worth considering. Following Arnstein’s perspective, the Mission’s participatory process can be classified as participation as delegated power, which is the penultimate level of the ladder of participation, implying a certain degree of citizen power. This is because the government ceded some degree of control, management, and decision-making to the Mission’s expert group and participants, and these last ones have relative accountability to the initiative.
It is also relevant to question whether those participatory activities can be considered “good participation” or not. The Mission fulfilled some of the characteristics of the Rowe and Frewer evaluative criteria for “good participation”. It represented a mix of interests from the government, the scientific community, the business sector, and the public (representativeness); it was an independent process although it was conducted with direct instructions from the government (independence); it counted with relatively sufficient time, information, and expertise (resources); it conducted dialogues that sought to ensure an effective debate (structured dialogue); the outputs are accessible even though they are not entirely subject to feedback (transparency), the participants were clear about their roles (task definition); and the outputs are expected to have a genuine impact on policy (influence) (Rowe and Frewer, 2004).
The last feature to examine about the participatory dialogues is whether this participation was used as means of “justification” for certain decisions. Following Stirling’s differentiation between “weak” and “strong” justification, the Mission is somehow guided by a weak justification in which the attention is not so much on the
details of the participation, but on the pressure that decisions be made (Stirling, 2008). This type of justification is motivated by the need to avoid criticism about any particular decision, thus delegitimising the true value of participation and leading the process to closure.
Finally, the ultimate explicit feature to examine is the Mission’s outputs. It delivered three different types of results – missions, policies, and financing strategies (Poveda et al., 2020), which involved clear measurable goals in terms of spending budgets, responsibilities, and deadlines. These narrowed outputs reflect the characteristics of the closing down approaches in which the outputs to policymaking took the form of “unitary and prescriptive recommendations” that involve “single, discrete numerical values” and highlight “small subsets of possible courses of action” (Stirling, 2008).
CONCLUSION & FINAL REMARKS
The Mission of the Wise in Colombia is an interesting case to discuss the degree of “opening up” or “closing down” in contemporary STI policy processes and the often present dichotomy between expert-based analysis and participatory methods. This initiative has certain features that point towards a closed-down approach, but others that indicate a more opened-up procedure, as well as elements of both participation and expert analysis. On one side, there was a group of experts delivering unitary, prescriptive policy recommendations, but on the other side, there was also a series of participatory activities convening a wider public to discuss and co-create the proposals of the initiative.
The selection of a delimited group of experts, the pre-definition of eight strategic focuses, the instrumental rationale behind the participatory dialogues (Fiorino, 1990), the likely weak justification for participation (Stirling, 2008), and the narrowed outputs are attributes that guide this process towards closing down. In contrast, the delegated
power type of participation (Arnstein, 2007) and the quality of “good participation” (Rowe and Frewer, 2004) push towards the side of an opened-up approach.
The analysis of the case suggests that this type of discussion should not be emphasised on a final unanimity about whether a process should be guided exclusively by an expert-based or a participatory method, or framed distinguishably under a closed-down or an opened-up approach. Firstly, a more exploratory perspective should be adopted–one that involves expert-based analysis as well as participation, since both procedures share many things in common: both are subject to normative, substantive, and instrumental rationales; both are sensitive to framing conditions; and both are susceptible to processes of justification (Stirling, 2008). Secondly, processes of closure are sometimes necessary and inevitable, and they are preferable in certain contexts and conditions. Therefore, it is not about whether a policy process is guided by an opened-up or closed-down approach, but about broadening the scope for a more balanced analysis of both processes.
Undoubtedly, under an opening-up approach, the Mission would have delivered a more plural and conditional policy advice, describing how different courses of action are more or less desirable under different conditions (Stirling, 2008). Likewise, the final results should have been reached through iterative dialogue with the different stakeholders, and not through a linear process of expert analysis, dialogues, and proposals. Finally, it would have also explicitly described the ambiguities that lie between the different strategic focuses, the academic disciplines involved and the gaps and uncertainties in knowledge.
REFERENCES
Arnstein, S.R. (2007) “A Ladder Of Citizen Participation,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), pp. 216–224. doi:10.1080/01944366908977225.
Fiorino, D.J. (1990) “Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms,” Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15(2), pp. 226– 243. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177%2F016224399001500204.
Irwin, A. (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences, Public Understand. Sci. Available at: www.iop.org/Journals/pu.
Minciencias (2019) Misión Internacional de Sabios 2019 propone al país unir esfuerzos para cumplir tres retos y cinco misiones emblemáticas | Minciencias. Available at: https://minciencias.gov.co/sala_de_prensa/mision-internacional-sabios 2019-propone-al-pais-unir-esfuerzos-para-cumplir-tres (Accessed: December 22, 2021).
Poveda, G. et al. (2020) Colombia hacia una sociedad del conocimiento: Reflexiones y propuestas. Bogotá, D.C. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338052574.
Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2004) “Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda.” doi:10.1177/0162243903259197.
Stirling, A. (2008) “‘Opening Up’ and ‘Closing Down,’” Science, Technology, & Human Values, 33(2), pp. 262–294. doi:10.1177/0162243907311265.
Wesselink, A. et al. (2011) “Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: practitioner’s perspectives,” Environment and Planning A, 43, pp. 2688–2704. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1068/a44161 (Accessed: December 30, 2021).