Upcoming seminar: ”Fridays For Future meets Citizen Science”

Fridays For Future meets Citizen Science
Presenter: Anna Soßdorf, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf

Date: 27.5. 13.15–14.45
Zoom link: https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/62419842588?pwd=VnVrWDdrK3YzclJXQ2VjQmFDNnBodz09
Passcode: 897336
Seminar room: Room 127, Snellmaninkatu 10


Source: https://fridaysforfuture.org/what-we-do/who-we-are/

The Fridays For Future (FFF) climate movement has been strikingly successful in drawing global attention and appealing not only to teenage peers, but also to all segments of society. The extensive research has dealt with the activists’ reliance on social media and peer networks, their limited commitment to traditional organizations, or their socioeconomic characteristics such as the strong female presence. Most findings have remained on the macro level of the phenomenon; nevertheless, more in depth micro level analyses are palpable. This research gap is where this project fed into.

Within this citizen science project at the University of Duesseldorf scholars and local FFF activists were brought together to target the research question: How are decisions made and what influencing factors play a role? The approach of the research project differs from previous methodologies by making the activists part of the knowledge producing process. The rationale behind giving ownership to those citizen scientists is that the activists are better equipped to address the relevant questions and methods than traditional scholars. In the presentation the main pillars of the project, relevant methodological aspects of citizen science as well as the main findings and lessons learnt will be discussed.

Fridays For Future website: https://fridaysforfuture.org/
Article (open access): Mucha, Witold, Anna Soßdorf, Laura Ferschinger und Viktor Burgi (2020): „Fridays for Future Meets Citizen Science. Resilience and digital protests in times of Covid-19“. In: Voluntaris 8:2. https://doi.org/10.5771/2196-3886-2020-2-261

Spring 2022 Programme

POC-C Seminar

Politics of co-creation (PYAM-9142, 5 study credits) is a research seminar under the Doctoral programme in political, societal and regional changes (PYAM) at the University of Helsinki. The seminar is open to researchers, PhD and master’s students, and other experts interested in the related issues to co-creation and its introduction as a new paradigm in knowledge production, politics, and innovation. The seminar is also a venue for academic exchange for the COLDIGIT research project (Collective Intelligence through Digital Tools) run by the Politics of Co-creation research group.

Contacts: Bokyong (Bo) Shin – bokyong.shin(at)helsinki.fi & Mikko Rask – mikko.rask(at)helsinki.fi

Spring 2022 theme: Evaluation of co-creation

As public authorities increasingly involve multiple stakeholders in working on wicked social problems, including planning, environment, and social innovation, the notion of co-creation has received significant attention. Co-creation refers to ”practices that mobilize the experiences, resources, and ideas of a plurality of public and private actors in the creation of public solutions” (Torfing et al., 2019, p.3). Practitioners and researchers need new approaches to evaluate the democratic processes and outcomes within this governance transformation.

Against this challenge, the Politics of Co-creation seminar invites students and scholars to share their ideas, works, and use-cases related to the evaluation and co-creation. The seminar welcomes both qualitative and quantitative approaches to diverse real-world cases. The form of the presentation is free, but we encourage presenters to share the following points:

– Problem orientation and research questions
– Analytical framework
– Data collection and methods
– Summary of preliminary or expected study results

Seminar format

The participants will present their works using PowerPoint presentations (30-45 minutes). After the presentation, PhD students who participate in the course will take a discussant role (10 minutes). Discussions are then open to all participants. Practitioners and users of knowledge are also welcome to take part in the discussions.

Slots for the Spring 2022 seminar
_
21.1. 13.15–14.45

Assessing the social impact of Industry-Academia collaborations in social media: A Finnish case study.
Postdoctoral researcher Bokyong Shin

As industry-academia collaboration proliferates, there is a growing interest in enhancing and assessing its social impact. Industrial and academic stakeholders increasingly use social media platforms to promote public awareness of their innovative contributions and societal benefits. However, few studies have examined the substance and reception of social impact in social media platforms. This article fills this gap by analyzing social impact activities in Twitter with a case of the Tandem Industry-Academia project in Finland. Using public Twitter API, this article collected 20000 tweets related to the project during 2019 and 2021 and applied topic modeling and network analysis as analytical methods. In this seminar, Bokyong will report the preliminary results and open the floor for questions and comments.

Zoom link: https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/62419842588?pwd=VnVrWDdrK3YzclJXQ2VjQmFDNnBodz09

_
11.2. 13.15–14.45

Practice theory meets Co-creation
Professor Mika Pantzar

Professor Mika Pantzar has for a long time contributed to the developed practice theory that borrows from actor network theory, but also from general evolutionary thoughts when emphasizing the reproductive quality of behavioural patterns and emerging practice complexes. In this seminar meeting, Mika will give an introduction to practice theory and reflects how it might be applicable to the study of co-creative processes. For participants interested in this topic, you can find a manuscript-in-process (attached below), where Mika discusses the journey of practice theory to its current form.

Manuscript: MANUCRIPT_PANTZAR_Practice theory handbook

Zoom link: https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/62419842588?pwd=VnVrWDdrK3YzclJXQ2VjQmFDNnBodz09
Passcode: 897336

_
18.3. 13.15–14.45

Dialogue, deliberation, and aggregation: new approaches to collective decision-making and self-governance.
Coordinators: Hidenori Nakamura and Bokyong Shin

In this seminar, we will focus on different ways of collective will formation, be it based on dialogue, deliberation, or aggregation of votes. The session is based on presentations of two book chapters, followed by free discussions. Due to the nature of the session, participants are expected to read the materials listed below:

1. Dialogue? Deliberation? How about combining them?–The D+D Process:
In this session, we discuss the “D+D Process” by Oliver Escobar (2011), who proposed a mixed model of dialogue and deliberation to overcome the limitations and facilitate more democratic decision-making. Bokyong will present the main content of the text (10 mins), followed by free discussions considering real applications with pros and cons (30 mins). Can the D+D process empower the public, particularly disadvantaged groups, in democratic decision-making processes?

Escobar (2011) Chap. 4-6.
Escobar, O. (2011). Public dialogue and deliberation: A communication perspective for public engagement practitioners. Edinburgh Beltane. https://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/20.500.12289/2614/eResearch_2614.pdf?sequenc

2. Quadratic Voting as an alternative voting model?:
Quadratic voting has gained increasing attention (https://www.economist.com/interactive/2021/12/18/quadratic-voting, https://www.dgen.org/blog/quadratic-voting-on-the-blockchain-counting-voter-preference). In this session, we discuss the problem of the current one-person-one-vote in a majority system and the possibility of quadratic voting as an alternative. AF-JSPS Postdoctoral fellow Hidenori Nakamura will summarise the concept of quadratic voting with blockchain technology (10 mins) and open the floor for discussion (30 mins). Can quadratic voting help us make collective decision-making more democratically?

Posner and Weyl (2018) Chap 2.
Posner, E. A., & Weyl, E. G. (2018). Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society. Princeton University Press. http://governance40.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Eric-Posner-E.-Weyl-Radical-Markets_-Uprooting-Capitalism-and-Democracy-for-a-Just-Society-Princeton-University-Press-2018.pdf

Zoom link: https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/62419842588?pwd=VnVrWDdrK3YzclJXQ2VjQmFDNnBodz09
Passcode: 897336

_
8.4. 13.15–14.45

Unpacking interconnections: Democratic models and the politics of facilitation
Presenter: Doctoral researcher Natalia Villaman

Facilitation is a practice used for mediating conflicts of interest, while addressing complex systemic issues. Facilitation is often seen as an art of advancing democratic decision making, by supporting the involvement of different types of knowledge and actors, all in their own unique ways across sectors and through different means of collaboration. Despite its central role in the practices of participatory and deliberative governance, facilitation remains highly under-theorized.

In this seminar meeting, we will continue exploring the “politics of facilitation” through two academic articles. The article by Phil Kirk and Mike Broussine (2000) reflects on the impacts of the politics of facilitation, whereas the section from John Fishkin’s (2011) book defines the participatory and deliberative models of democracy, against which the role of facilitation can be discussed.

In this study circle type of meeting, doctoral researcher Natalia Villaman will introduce us to the main arguments of these articles and raises questions that will be discussed in the seminar. Some main points of discussion will include the question about the political nature of facilitation, the expected role of facilitation in contributing to more egalitarian, inclusive and high-quality deliberation, the status of facilitation theories in academic literature as well as topical examples of facilitation from topical cases in Finland and internationally. The session is open to the public and aims to encourage an open discussion, joint sharing of ideas and posing questions to spark further thoughts on these topics.

Pre-readings
Kirk, P., & Broussine, M. (2000). The politics of facilitation. Journal of Workplace Learning, 12(1), 13–22. doi:10.1108/13665620010309756 – On understanding facilitation as a political practice (12 pages) https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/13665620010309756/full/pdf?title=the-politics-of-facilitation

Fishkin, James S. (2011). When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford, 2011. Oxford Scholarship Online – pg. 65, 76-85 (11 pages)

Slide:
Politics of co-creation

Zoom link: https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/62419842588?pwd=VnVrWDdrK3YzclJXQ2VjQmFDNnBodz09
Passcode: 897336

_
22.4. 13.15–14.45

Striving for Normality: Agency, Citizen Participation and Intergroup Belonging on the Urban Periphery of Helsinki
Presenter: Postdoctoral researcher Pekka Tuominen

In my presentation, I examine how the inhabitants of a culturally diverse suburban estate in Finland strive for meaningful encounters in their lives. The focus is on Kontula, a residential working-class district on the eastern periphery of Helsinki, which has become a powerful symbol of the ills of contemporary urbanity – poverty and social problems, as well as rootlessness and the failed integration of the immigrant populations – in the vernacular geography and media representations of the city.

I studied how everyday mobility in an increasingly segregated city is related to a range of qualities of sociocultural encounters, both within the immediate neighbourhood and across other urban areas. I argue that for many marginalised inhabitants, agency predominantly emphasises striving for normality, not a challenge to the system. This is why it is so rarely recognised. Themes such as common decency, meaningful activity and equal encounter are much more typical aims of everyday practices than those focussing on changing the conditions. The contexts explored range from the familiar and neighbourly surroundings characterised by high degree of cultural intimacy and effortlessness to spaces with unfamiliar expectations and very different cultural codes. How do people living on the stigmatised periphery establish sense of belonging in a segregated city? How is it possible retain a sense of decency and dignity in unpredictable circumstances?

During my long-term ethnographic fieldwork in the area, I concentrated on the qualities of encounters and senses of agency. These are interweaved with the inhabitants’ everyday life, realised in their movement across the city and vary considerably in different contexts, reproducing the quotidian urbanity of Helsinki.

Zoom link: https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/62419842588?pwd=VnVrWDdrK3YzclJXQ2VjQmFDNnBodz09
Passcode: 897336

_
27.5. 13.15–14.45

Fridays For Future meets Citizen Science
Presenter: Anna Soßdorf, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf


Source: https://fridaysforfuture.org/what-we-do/who-we-are/

The Fridays For Future (FFF) climate movement has been strikingly successful in drawing global attention and appealing not only to teenage peers, but also to all segments of society. The extensive research has dealt with the activists’ reliance on social media and peer networks, their limited commitment to traditional organizations, or their socioeconomic characteristics such as the strong female presence. Most findings have remained on the macro level of the phenomenon; nevertheless, more in depth micro level analyses are palpable. This research gap is where this project fed into.

Within this citizen science project at the University of Duesseldorf scholars and local FFF activists were brought together to target the research question: How are decisions made and what influencing factors play a role? The approach of the research project differs from previous methodologies by making the activists part of the knowledge producing process. The rationale behind giving ownership to those citizen scientists is that the activists are better equipped to address the relevant questions and methods than traditional scholars. In the presentation the main pillars of the project, relevant methodological aspects of citizen science as well as the main findings and lessons learnt will be discussed.

Fridays For Future website: https://fridaysforfuture.org/
Article (open access): Mucha, Witold, Anna Soßdorf, Laura Ferschinger und Viktor Burgi (2020): „Fridays for Future Meets Citizen Science. Resilience and digital protests in times of Covid-19“. In: Voluntaris 8:2. https://doi.org/10.5771/2196-3886-2020-2-261

Zoom link: https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/62419842588?pwd=VnVrWDdrK3YzclJXQ2VjQmFDNnBodz09
Passcode: 897336
Seminar room: Room 127, Snellmaninkatu 10

_

Fall 2021 Programme

Politics of co-creation research seminar (PYAM-9142, 5 study credits)

This is a research seminar under the Doctoral programme in political, societal and regional (PYAM) at the University of Helsinki. The seminar is open to researchers, PhD and master’s students as well as other experts interested in the related issues to co-creation and its introduction as a new type of paradigm in knowledge production, politics and innovation.

Contact: Bokyong (Bo) Shin – bokyong.shin(at)helsinki.fi

Autumn 2021 theme: Governance, co-creation and collaboration

Since the 2000s, we have witnessed the upsurge of online collaboration as digital technologies develop. People collaborate online for collective knowledge (e.g., Wikipedia), fund-raising (e.g., Kickstarter), sharing economy (e.g., Uber and Airbnb), participatory budgeting (e.g., OmaStadi), open hearing (e.g., Tell your stock), information sharing/discussion (e.g., Twitter and Reddit), and so on. While digital platforms open new spaces for collaboration between people from different regions, the dark side has emerged in fake news, right-wing populism, cyberbullying, and digital exclusion that polarises our community. The new logics of collaborating in the digital era calls for responses and solutions from academic research in studying these new hybrid environments.

Against this challenge, the Politics of Co-creation seminar invites students and scholars to share their ideas, works, and use-cases of collaboration in the digital era. The seminar will focus on diverse methods and frameworks of online and (or) offline collaboration in the real world. The form of the presentation is free, but we encourage presenters to share the following points:

  • Definition and operationalisation of collaboration
  • Problem orientation and research questions
  • Analytical framework
  • Data collection and methods
  • Summary of preliminary or expected study results

Seminar format

The participants will present their works using PowerPoint presentation (30-45 minutes). PhD students who participate in the course will take a discussant role after the presentation (10 minutes). Discussions are then open to all participants.

Slots for the Autumn 2021 seminar

_

10.9. 13.15–14.45

Doctoral student Natalia Villaman

Facilitation as a means for making politics: Pathways towards a reconfiguration of practice

Natalia belongs to the Doctoral Programme in Social Sciences and focuses on issues of power exertion linked to facilitation and political participation. In this talk, she will be introducing her PhD topic, in which she dives into facilitation and its potential within public governance and the creation of political opportunities.

In her MA thesis work (linked below), Natalia found an interest towards the uses and misuses of facilitation, and the underlying notions of power and politics linked to it. Deriving from configurative disciplines such as design and management, facilitation holds the potential to be both a hegemonic and counter-hegemonic practice, depending on its deployment in participatory instances.

Moving in a multidisciplinary continent between design, mediation, and social sciences, she problematizes facilitation’s claim to be neutral, leading to naive or manipulative misuses of practice (Villaman, 2020), depoliticizing facilitation by minimizing it to a mere series of methods and tools. Hypothesizing that facilitation beholds the potential to be a key component in public governance by mediating clashes of ambition and influence in the making of politics, Natalia will reconceptualize facilitation as a politicized practice, able to take active part in mediations of struggles for power, and focusing on the creation of political opportunities.

Reference: Villaman, Natalia (2020) Fostering resistance: Acknowledging notions of power exertion and politics in design facilitation. Master Thesis. Aalto University.

Discussants:
Lari Karreinen, solution-focused facilitator, Part Ltd
Susanna Vase, PhD candidate, University of Helsinki

Zoom link: https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/69254518332
Presentation file: Facilitation as a means for making politics

_

1.10. 13.15–14.45

Doctoral student Bokyong Shin

Mock doctoral thesis defence: ”Social network analysis for communicative planning research”

Bokyong practices for his upcoming public defence (1 November 2021), with the help of three opponents and the audience. In the thesis, Bokyong examined the applicability of social network analysis in the planning literature, highlighting its contribution in identifying a theoretical bridge (social capital and deliberation) and proposing new network measures and models. In the mock defence, Bokyong exercises a 20-minute Lectio, then answers questions from three opponents. After that, Bokyong also answers questions from the audience.

Opponents:
Mikko Rask, Adjunct Professor, University of Helsinki
Arho Toikka, University lecturer, University of Helsinki
Pekka Tuominen, Postdoctoral researcher, University of Helsinki

Zoom link: https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/67615939040
Manuscript: It will be published later.

_

29.10. 13.15–14.45

Associate professor Hidenori Nakamura, Toyama Prefectural University

”Citizen Dialogue as Collaborative Environmental Governance: An Exploratory Case Study in Post- Fukushima Japan”

I report on an exploratory case study to help facilitate a culture of dialogue in Japan, utilizing part of the method of, and following the philosophy of, Open Dialogue, developed by mental health professionals and researchers in Finland. There is an emphasis on proposing methods for polyphonic dialogue among citizens, and between citizens and experts, to effectively manage the environment. I argue that a culture of dialogue is essential to pluralistic participatory environmental governance. A random sampling-based citizen dialogue—involving experts and citizens—regarding radioactive waste disposal was held in Japanese cities. Three proposed methods —-politeness-based facilitation dialogue, evidence-based and position-explicit presentations by experts with differing views and experts reflecting in tandem with citizens engaged in dialogue—- might lead to enhanced positive attitudes toward dialogue with others holding different views, as well as better internal self-deliberation. Attitudes for dialogue were measured empirically. The current research suggests that explicit treatment of pluralistic positions and views among citizens and experts would be a key factor for quality social learning and resilience for uncertainty. The hypothetical findings imply the applicability and significance of Open Dialogue in the public policy process.

I will also explain the research ideas conducted in Finland as an AF-JSPS postdoctoral fellow at the University of Helsinki.

Zoom link: https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/62036383895

_

5.11. 13.15–14.45

Doctoral student Susanna Vase

From science policy ideas to infrastructures: Understanding the construction of research funding schemes

Susanna is a PhD candidate studying science policy making and its effects on knowledge production practices. In this talk, she will discuss findings of a case study on the emergence of a Strategic Research funding instrument that was established at the Academy of Finland in 2015 as part of the reform of state research institutes. As science policy is shaped by the policy instruments used, it becomes vital to understand the process of their construction. Strategic research funding schemes are centered around notions of relevance, challenge-orientation, and transdisciplinary collaboration. The presentation will focus on the instrument implementation phase after the decision on founding the instrument was made. Susanna examined how policy objectives were translated into governance by interviewing the policy makers closely involved in developing the instrument. She identified and analyzed three dimensions that importantly shaped how the funding scheme was constructed: anticipatory tailoring, templates and sense-making. She discusses how they structured inclusion and exclusion in terms of council member and project selection, research theme formation, assessment, and formal representations of knowledge production. The results indicate how the translation of policy ideas to infrastructures is historically contingent, does not always respond to intuitive conceptions of what is sought after, and can generate paradoxical outcomes to governance practices, such as the disqualification of experts in evaluation. The findings increase understanding of the work that the designing of policy instruments entails, and the factors that make a difference in the outcome of their construction processes.

Zoom link: https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/68611777964

_

26.11. 13.15–14.45

Doctoral student Veronica Ahonen

”Towards zero carbon – governing emission offsetting in Finnish universities”

Veronica Ahonen is a PhD student in the Doctoral Program for Interdisciplinary Environmental Sciences, and works at the Department of Geosciences and Geography, where the focus of her work is on reducing emissions from work-based mobility. Her first article, ”The Sustainability of Academic Air Mobility in Finnish Universities” was published in Sustainability in March 2021, and focused on the carbon reduction strategies and mobility patterns of Finnish higher institutions. This talk revolves around her second, work in progress article, which aims to compare the carbon offsetting strategies and their alternatives in the universities of Finland, as well as individual travel-related attitudes and behaviors of Finnish academics, using a case study from the University of Helsinki. The results show that currently, higher education institutions of Finland do not have a single consensus on carbon reduction strategies, and emission offsetting is still practiced in only a handful of institutions. A majority of surveyed academics also had limited knowledge of the emission offsetting and carbon neutrality strategies of their university, although they were cautiously optimistic towards the topic, and showed willingness to reduce travel. COVID-19 has affected the travel-related attitudes of many academics, suggesting that the pandemic may have had acted as an important turning point in the context of academic travel.

Zoom link: https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/61510432509
_

17.12. 13.15–14.45

Anna Zhelnina (Urbaria) & Pekka Tuominen (COLDIGIT)

”Citizen participation in Helsinki, New York and St. Petersburg: Top-down and bottom-up initiatives”

Participatory budgeting (PB) has increased its popularity globally as a novel approach to redistribute resources especially in urban contexts. However, very different senses of citizen participation are gathered under this umbrella term with significant consequences. The presentation provides a comparative approach to the foundations, central values and sociocultural dynamics of PB processes in New York, Helsinki and St.Petersburg.

Zhelnina’s long-term qualitative study of PB in New York concentrates on how the activist-initiated process has developed through the interaction with the municipal decision-makers and examines in detail the different trade-offs the participants have encountered. In Helsinki, Tuominen’s focus is on how various co-creation practices have emphasised deliberative and competitive dimensions at different stages of the process. PB in St. Petersburg offers yet another historically grounded example with different sociocultural dynamics. These three examples allow us to analyse the dynamics of state-, grassroots-, and expert-driven PB processes.

The study is based on ethnographic data on how the participants have experienced their sense of participation through their interactions with decision-makers, civil servants and other urban activists. Analytically, it provides a comparative framework for understanding the context-specific character of PB as a flexible form of citizen participation.

Discussants:
James Scott, Professor, University of Eastern Finland
Matti Fritsch, Senior Researcher, University of Eastern Finland
EUARENAS project (https://www.euarenas.eu/)

Zoom link: https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/65633146515?pwd=bnF4Wnl0NVNjVkRFZjZreXlYbEl1dz09
Passcode: 763904
_

Spring 2021 Programme

Politics of Co-Creation seminar (PYAM-9142, 5 study credits)

This is a research seminar under the Doctoral programme in political, societal and regional (PYAM) at the University of Helsinki. The seminar is open to researchers, PhD and master’s students as well as other experts interested in the issues related to co-creation and its introduction as a new type of paradigm in knowledge production, politics and innovation.

The seminar has run, since 2015, by the Politics of co-creation team at the Centre for Consumer Society Research. The idea of the seminar is to i) provide a multidisciplinary platform for the discussion and critical reflection on related phenoma, ii) introduce on-going and emerging research projects, and iii) link researchers with users of knowledge, thus supporting societal relevance and value to research based knowledge. During spring 2021, the seminar will continue to be arranged online due to Covid-19 restrictions. In case you want to formally complete the course, you should enroll to it in Weboodi. A presentation and active participation are requested to acquire 5 study credits. Otherwise, you are welcome to participate and listen to the presentations that will take place in Zoom.

The seminar will continue to build on the “collective intelligence” theme. Collective intelligence refers to processes and capacities through which humans can interact with each other, many times facilitated by machines and the Internet, resulting in better quality of decisions or knowledge than would be possible to achieve by any individual actor. This special theme will feed into, and benefit from the NordForsk funded project COLDIGIT “Collective Intelligence through Digital Tools” which started in November 2020. In addition to this special theme, other research contributions to the theme “politics of co-creation” are welcome, and you can approach any of the organizers, Mikko Rask, Nina Kahma and Titiana Ertiö, to ask for an opportunity to either participate or give a talk.

Programme for Spring 2021

April 23 at 13:15 – 14:45 Dr. Michele Cantarella (University of Helsinki): Impact evaluation of startup innovation policies: evidence from a natural experiment

Zoom venue:
https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/67203519846?pwd=aGZRaStPcmkrK09kMDRTVlp4dzRSQT09

Many countries around the world have developed policy packages aimed at supporting innovation among young firms. Assessing the effectiveness of such policies is, however, rather difficult: self-selection issues usually prevent the researcher from establishing whether a firm would have been equally successful without the aid of these initiatives. In Italy, the Startup Act came into force in December 2012, and set up a scheme of benefits which young firms could access by registering as ”innovative startup” on a voluntary basis, as long as certain pre-requisites were met.

In this paper, we look at a natural experiment from the Italian region of Trentino Alto-Adige/Südtirol to find quasi-experimental evidence on the effect of startup policies on firm performance. We find that informational asymmetries arising from assignment into different language groups affects firm registration as an innovative startup conditional on the etymological origins of the surname of the CEO. Firms whose CEOs have a surname of German origin are more likely not to register as startups, while no differences in terms of outcomes between with firms with Italian-named CEOs are to be noted during the years preceding the introduction of the policy. We exploit these asymmetries as an exogenous source of access to the benefit scheme. Our findings suggest that acquiring innovative startup status increases R&D expenses and facilitates access to loans from shareholders, but that the effects on employment, revenues and access to bank credit are null.

 

Previous presentations

5th of March at 13:15 – 14:45 Dr. Salvatore Ruggiero (UH): Current research interests

Zoom venue: https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/68166129175?pwd=OFdZbHUwOVJXOGVrZWMyYmRZOVhYUT09

Dr. Salvatore Ruggiero has recently joined the Centre for Consumer Society Research as a post-doctoral researcher. Previously he worked as a postdoctoral researcher at Aalto University where he conducted research on business model innovation processes in organizations operating at the intersection of the ICT and energy sectors. In addition, he also investigated the role of community energy initiatives in diffusing grassroots innovations and promoting cultural change in sustainability transitions. Currently, Salvatore is still partially affiliated to Aalto University as he leads the D.Game project. This is a project funded by EIT Climate-KIC focusing on sustainable education and co-creation processes to promote collaboration between secondary schools, academia, businesses and civil society sector in local sustainability projects. In the near future, Salvatore plans to conduct research in the following two research areas:

(i) civil society organizations (CSOs) and legitimacy of environmental governance processes — to better understand when the participation of CSOs has positive, negative, or even irrelevant implications for large processes of societal transformation towards sustainability

(ii) young people and sustainability education — explore the role of new forms of
environmental governance based on the active participation of children/young people in local decision making processes related to the transition towards a more sustainable future

 

12th of February at 13:15 – 14:45

Dr. Maija Jäske (Åbo Akademi): Two-way street: Involving politicians in a deliberative mini-public

Co-creation seminar_Maija Jäske_12022021

Abstract

Democracy scholars are currently trying to come up with models for connecting deliberative mini-publics with the institutions of electoral democracy. One proposed model is involving elected representatives in mini-public deliberations with lay citizens. It has been argued that the involvement of politicians may increase the commitment among politicians and boost the impact of mini-publics.

We designed a deliberative mini-public engaging politicians in half of the small groups. The mini-public took place in a Finnish city, Turku/Åbo, and involved 171 citizens and 21 local councillors. The participants deliberated on three expert scenarios for the future traffic arrangements in the city. We examine how councillors’ participation influenced deliberations. We also study councillors’ experiences of deliberation and their attitudes toward direct public engagement in general. The study takes a mixed-methods approach using interviews of 11 councillors who participated in the mini-public, councillors’ (N=17) and citizens’ answers to a post deliberation survey (N=171).

The results indicate that the involvement of councillors did not have a negative impact on deliberations. The mini-public provided councillors with new ways to listen and understand the needs and concerns of ordinary citizens. Furthermore, it increased councillors’ understanding and appreciation of citizens’ local knowledge and competence. The councillors felt positive about using mini-publics in the context of democratic decision-making.

22nd of January  at 13:15 – 14:45

Dr. Nina Kahma (UH): Dark Patterns in the Design of Challenge Competitions 

University-based science competitions are a recent example of orchestrated effort binding together researchers, universities, private corporations and societal stakeholders in attempts to develop solutions for societal problems as well as to develop new innovations – and from the researchers’ point of view to disseminate research knowledge to the wider publics. In her presentation that is linked to an on-going PhD study at Aalto University,Kahma will depict the adverse effects of participatory and multi-stakeholder processes in university-based challenge competitions using interview data from interviews with participants, organisers and other stakeholders who have been involved in recent challenge competitions. Leaving from the viewpoint of design ethics in challenge competition design, the presentation will proceed to the direction of dark patterns identified as situations where differences between the actors involved in challenge competitions (in terms of values and expectations, power and resources) become visible. The preliminary results from the study reveal both dark patterns related to the everyday inequalities in the academic world as well as imbalances between the participants and the organisers involved. It is to be questioned, whether positive user experience for all parties involved can be ensured? And which ones of the identified dark patterns can be addressed by design of an individual competition, and which ones extend beyond them.

 

 

Fall 2020 programme

Politics of Co-Creation seminar (PYAM-9142, 5 study credits)

This is a research seminar under the Doctoral programme in political, societal and regional (PYAM) at the University of Helsinki. The seminar is open to researchers, PhD and master’s students as well as other experts interested in the issues related to co-creation and its introduction as a new type of paradigm in knowledge production, politics and innovation.

The seminar has run, since 2015, by the Politics of co-creation team at the Centre for Consumer Society Research. The idea of the seminar is to i) provide a multidisciplinary platform for the discussion and critical reflection on related phenoma, ii) introduce on-going and emerging research projects, and iii) link researchers with users of knowledge, thus supporting societal relevance and value to research based knowledge. In the fall 2020 the seminar will be arranged on-line, due to Covid-19 restrictions. In case you want to formally complete the course, you should enroll to it in Weboodi. A presentation and active participation are requested to acquire 5 study credits. Otherwise, you are welcome to participate and listen to the presentations that you will find at Zoom.

There is a special theme in the fall, 2020, which is “collective intelligence”. Collective intelligence refers to processes and capacities through which humans can interact with each other, many times facilitated by machines and the Internet, resulting in better quality of decisions or knowledge than would be possible to achieve by any individual actor. This special theme will feed into, and benefit from the NordForsk funded project COLDIGIT “Collective Intelligence through Digital Tools” which will start in November 2020. In addition to this special theme, other research contributions to the theme “politics of co-creation” are welcome, and you can approach any of the organizers, Mikko Rask, Nina Kahma and Titiana Ertiö, to ask for an opportunity to either participate or give a talk.

Programme for fall 2020

September, 4  at 13.15-14.45
Mikko Rask and Titiana Ertiö (UH): Co-creation team fall 2020 research update and reflections on the NESTA’s Collective Intelligence Playbook. In the first meeting of the seminar we will have an upadate on on-going and soon starting research projects plus a presentation and discussion on the Collective Intelligence Playbook: What is meant by collective intelligence? How can it be facilitated? How could you mobilize collective intelligence to support your own research?
Resource: https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/Nesta_Playbook_001_Web.pdfJoin

Venue: Zoom Meeting:
https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/64611328726
Meeting ID: 646 1132 8726

September 25 at 13.15-14.45
Doctoral student Bokyong Shin (UH): Citizen participation as social capital and big data. Bokyong studies deliberation and social capital in the context of citizen participation. As recent participatory practices generate new forms of empirical data (i.e., network data and big data), his Doctoral thesis aims to apply new methods (i.e., statistical network models and topic modeling) for utilizing these data and assessing democratic processes. In this presentation, he will overview his thesis and ask audiences for critical comments or practical tips. It will help him to draft the introduction of a thesis.

Venue: Zoom meeting:
https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/62024574844
Meeting ID: 620 2457 4844

October 16 at 13.15-14.45
Doctoral student Veronica Ahonen (UH): Trends and strategies of sustainable mobility in Finnish Universities. Veronica is from the Department of Geosciences and Geography. She studies flight emissions in an organizational context. Universities play a dual role in climate change, actively offering climate solutions, but simultaneously producing substantial emissions through academic travel, in a phenomena known as the ”academic paradox.” This presentation delves into sustainable mobility in 14 Finnish universities, aiming to understand the current strategies, trends and pathways of the future. Is emission offsetting a solution, or should organizations aim for a more holistic approach? Could co-creation help draft more sustainable university strategies for academic mobility?

Venue: Zoom meeting

https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/65989156647
Meeting ID: 659 8915 6647

Postponed! October 30 at 13.15-14.45

Dr. Nina Kahma (UH): Dark Patterns in the Design of Challenge Competitions. University-based science competitions are a recent example of orchestrated effort binding together researchers, universities, private corporations and societal stakeholders in attempts to develop solutions for societal problems as well as to develop new innovations – and from the researchers’ point of view to disseminate research knowledge to the wider publics. In her presentation that is linked to an on-going PhD study at Aalto University,Kahma will depict the adverse effects of participatory and multi-stakeholder processes in university-based challenge competitions using interview data from interviews with participants, organisers and other stakeholders who have been involved in recent challenge competitions. Leaving from the viewpoint of design ethics in challenge competition design, the presentation will proceed to the direction of dark patterns identified as situations where differences between the actors involved in challenge competitions (in terms of values and expectations, power and resources) become visible. The preliminary results from the study reveal both dark patterns related to the everyday inequalities in the academic world as well as imbalances between the participants and the organisers involved. It is to be questioned, whetherpositive user experience for all parties involved can be ensured? And which ones of the identified dark patterns can be addressed by design of an individual competition, and which ones extend beyond them.

November 20 at 13.15-14.45
Dr. Jaakko Kuosmanen (Finnish Academy of Science and Letters) and Dr. Mikko Rask (UH): Exploring collective intelligence and understanding its role in the development of the public sector Dr. Kuosmanen will discuss the demand of collective intelligence in the Finnish public sector development and Dr. Rask will present the newly started COLDIGIT (Collective Intelligence through Digital Tools) project. The audience is welcome to propose issues and questions that should be included in the research agenda of this major project lasting for the next three years.

December 11 at 13.15-15.15 NB: Super long session on participatory budgeting!
MA student Anniina Riikonen (UH): Does participatory budgeting promote youth political participation? This presentation will examine the possible effects of Helsinki’s participatory budgeting (OmaStadi) on youth political participation. Anniina Riikonen is currently writing her master’s thesis on the topic.
MA student Karim Pelkonen (UH): Environmental governance through participatory budgeting: case Helsinki
MA student Erik Nyroos (UH): Ecological ideas in Finnish participatory budgeting processes
MA student Andreas Sode (Aalto): OmaStadi Budgeting Game – An evaluation framework for working towards more inclusive participation through design games

Venue: Zoom Meeting
https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/69358679188

Meeting ID: 693 5867 9188

The emerging fourth sector & Trade union organizing and changing civic activism in the early 2000s

Understanding the Emerging Fourth Sector and Its Governance Implications

A literature review by Mikko Rask

Abstract: The fourth sector has traditionally been said to include families, households, neighbours, and friends; however, recently competing definitions have begun to emerge. Three different strands can be observed in the fourth-sector literature. The first strand centres on the notion of one-to-one aid. The second strand of the fourth-sector literature centres on self-organizing civic activism. The third strand focuses on hybrid organizations. The main purpose of this paper is to devise a ‘working model’ of fourth-sector involvement. The model will include a) a definition of the fourth sector that will acknowledge the different academic traditions involved with the fourth-sector phenomenon, b) an interpretation of the main characteristics and driving forces of the phenomenon, and c) identification of the main governance issues and challenges emerging around fourth-sector involvement. Using a general activity theoretical framework as a heuristic tool focusing attention on the actors, tools, objectives, and outcomes of any form of activity, four criteria for the definition of the fourth sector are proposed.

MR_Fourth Sector

*

Trade union organizing and changing civic activism in the early 2000s

Anna Malinen will present the research plan of the PhD dissertation

Abstract: The latest decades have seen the emergence of individual and collective forms of action that do not easily conform to top-down approaches or the current, established idea of the third sector – if defined as an organization-dominated sphere (as is the case in Finland). There is a growing literature on the theme of a fourth sector, which has also been defined as actors and activities “outside of organizations”.

These developments pose a real challenge to traditional organizations, among them trade unions. In the upcoming research project, the main idea is to apply the evolving concept of the fourth sector to a Finnish trade union context. The project is taken up against a background of falling trade union membership levels in Finland as well as internationally. There is a need to examine to what extent trade unions of today are perceived as relevant actors for channeling people’s concerns, and what kind of  changes might be needed in the relation between unions and their (potential) membership.

The more specific focus will be on current trade union efforts to renew the ways in which members are recruited and invited to participate at local and workplace levels. The employment of this so-called organizing model has been spreading in Finnish trade unions during the last decade. Its aim is to create a “snowflake” structure of trade union activism networks.

The research will be set within the subject of Political history. An historical perspective will be useful, as trade unions have a well-established position in Finnish society. From a third/fourth sector perspective, they can be characterized as both rooted in a very traditional form of social movement and “bureaucracy-heavy” organizations (and, as such firmly located within the scope of the third sector). The current forms of organizing are also perceived as both revolutionizing and a “return-to-basics” way of conducting trade union work, a divide which further necessitates a historical understanding.

Of particular interest are the meanings that trade union organizers and decision makers on the one hand, and union members on the other hand, give to the organizing efforts of their unions. To achieve a fourth sector/organizing comparison, attention will be given to the types of actor and action that emerge from fourth sector theory vs. experiences and accounts concerning organizing efforts.

AM 28.2.2020_Politics of co-creation

Welcome!

Time: Friday, 28.2.2020 at 13:15-14:45, Metsätalo (Unioninkatu 40) Sali 29

Utopian, dystopian and realist perspectives on the models of participatory budgeting

Participatory budgeting (PB) has spread throughout world in recent years. Finnish municipalities are also in a process of introducing this method among their tool of participatory planning and decision making. However, there is much room for thinking about alternative designs, with different implications for practice. In this presentation Mikko Rask will first distinguish between six main models as implicitly introduced in the Finnish context of PB, and then discuss some major issues related to the utopian, dystopian and realist evaluations of this approach: How can it be regarded as a tool for making cities more democratic and enhancing the quality of life of their citizens; how it can be regarded as an instrument of power that just cements existing structures of inequalities; or how it can be selectively and flexibly used an instrument of policy making, citizen participation, and even that of knowledge co-creation. The talk will be based on recent evaluation studies and engagement with several municipalities in Finland. The seminar will be highly reflective and calling for discussions with experts and researchers interested in this topic.

Time: Friday, 7.2.2020 at 13:15-14:45, Metsätalo (Unioninkatu 40) Sali 29

Presentation slides Utopian&dystopian&realist

Seminar 17.1.2020: Effect of the city’s intervention on online public engagement: A case study of participatory budgeting using stochastic actor-oriented models

Despite the burgeoning literature on online deliberation, few studies have empirically examined the effectiveness of policy design and behavior intervention. Most previous studies tend to focus on new technology and evaluate the quality of deliberation and opinion change based on interviews, surveys, and experiments. However, the author argues that the role of governments is still crucial regardless of technology, and attention needs to be paid to research how citizens actually engage in online deliberative settings. Against the backdrop, the author will present preliminary results of a case study that aims to analyze the effect of interventions on online engagement. The analysis selected a case of Omastadi, a pilot participatory budgeting project initiated by the City of Helsinki that used a digital platform in which citizens proposed and developed ideas into feasible plans in collaboration with citizens and experts. The raw data were collected by parsing the web pages of all proposals and plans, then reconstructed into longitudinal network data. The relationship between interventions and significant change of engagement will be analyzed through stochastic actor-oriented models.

Time: Friday, 17.1.2020 at 13:15-14:45, Metsätalo (Unioninkatu 40) Sali 29

The presenter Bokyong (Bo) Shin is a PhD student in Urban Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki. He is interested in studying governance arrangements, where multiple stakeholders, who have different interests, resources, and power are incorporated into collective decision-making processes. Based on the communicative planning theory and social capital theory, he attempts to use statistical network models and topic modeling to investigate how actors build collective capacity and engage in deliberation under specific institutional settings.

Bokyong is a member of the Helsinki School of Critical Urban Studies

Presentation.17.01.20

Politics of Co-creation Seminar – Yhteisluomisen politiikat seminaari

Next Friday, Master’s student Pauli Saloranta (University of Helsinki) and MA Andreas Sobe (Aalto University, School of Arts, Design and Architecture) will discuss participatory budgeting in Helsinki with discussants Post-doc researcher Titi Ertiö and Adjunct Professor Mikko Rask (University of Helsinki/ KTK). Pauli’s presentation will be held in Finnish with a preliminary title: ”Miksi budjetoidaan? Helsingin osallistuvan budjetoinnin tarkoitus ja tehtävä”. Andreas’ presentation is in English with the title ”Assessing design in a governmental organisation – A study on the impact of OmaStadi’s participatory budgeting design game on the City of Helsinki.”

Time: 3.5.2019, 13:15-14:45

Place: Unioninkatu 37, hall 1055

 

 

Lue loppuun

Yhteisluominen lainvalmistelussa 18.5.2018

Tutkimustiedon hyödyntäminen päätöksenteossa tunnistetaan yleensä yhdeksi onnistuneen ja laadukkaan päätöksenteon kriteeriksi. Aiemman lainvalmistelukirjallisuuden mukaan on kuitenkin havaittu, että tutkimustiedon merkitys lainvalmistelussa on puutteellista. Lainvalmistelulle asetettujen ihanteiden toteutumista estävinä seikkoina mainitaan usein vähäiset resurssit ja kiire sekä voimakas poliittinen ohjaus. Vähemmälle huomiolle on kenties jäänyt vaikutusarviointien politiikka-arviointien ja vaikutusten rajaaminen. Muun muassa edellä mainittuja näkökulmia seminaarissa avaa Suomen ympäristökeskuksen erikoistutkija Petrus Kautto, jolla on monipuolinen kokemus säädösten vaikutusten arvioinnista, politiikka-arvioinnin menetelmien kehittämisestä ja tiedon käytön tutkimuksesta.

Esityksessä tekninen avustaja Noora Alasuutari Kriminologian ja oikeuspolitiikan instituutista esittelee lisäksi vastikään käynnistynyttä hanketta ”Tutkimustiedon hyödyntämisen hyvät käytännöt lainvalmistelussa: kohti parempaa sääntelyä?”, jonka tutkimuskonsortioon sekä Kautto että Alasuutari kuuluvat. Tutkimuksen tavoitteena on tunnistaa, mitkä tekijät tai ongelmat vaikeuttavat tutkimustiedon hyödyntämistä käytännön lainvalmistelutyössä.

Kirjallisuutta

Slant, O., Rantala, K. & Kautto, P. (2014). Vaikuttavaa vaikutusarviointia? Vaikutusarvioinnin merkitys lainvalmisteluprosessissa. Oikeuspoliittisen tutkimuslaitoksen tutkimustiedonantoja 125. Helsinki 2014. Linkki artikkeliin: https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/152506/TTA125_Slant_ym_2014.pdf?sequence=2

Kautto, P. (2009). Nokia as an Environmental Policy Actor: Evolution of Collaborative Corporate Political Activity in a Multinational Company. Journal of Common Market Studies, 47 (1), 103-125. Linkki artikkeliin: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2008.01834.x

Ajankohta: Pe 18.5. klo 13-15

Paikka: Unioninkatu 40 C (Metsätalo/Kuluttajatutkimuskeskus), seminaarihuone C216