WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS FOR CULTIVATING CIVIC ACTION? HOW DO WE ENCOURAGE SOLIDARITY AND HELP PEOPLE TO FIND THEIR OWN POWER TO CREATE CHANGE?

Presenter: Dr. Sylvia Gale / Executive Director, Bonner Center for Civic Engagement, University of Richmond

Date: 31.3. 13.15–14.45 (EET)
Zoom link: https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/62419842588?pwd=VnVrWDdrK3YzclJXQ2VjQmFDNnBodz09
Passcode: 897336
Seminar room: Room 127, Snellmaninkatu 10

I will reflect on these questions from my perspective as an American, university-based “civic engagement professional,” who is now immersed for a semester in Helsinki with a 150-year-old social services organization, Diakonissalaitos (the Deaconess Foundation).  Thanks to a grant from the Fulbright Finland Foundation, I am studying the work of the Deaconess Foundation’s civic action and community programs team and spending time at the “D-Stations” across the city, publicly described as “a community’s meeting place open to everyone.” You are invited to a discussion about the practices I’ve observed in action so far, and the ways these practices usefully and in some cases quite radically disrupt efficiency, expertise, and outcomes-based professional paradigms, in favor of practicing community, together.

Dr. Sylvia Gale is Executive Director of the Bonner Center for Civic Engagement at the University of Richmond in Richmond, Virginia, and a 22-23 Fulbright Finland Mid-Career Professional Development Grantee, hosted by the Deaconess Foundation, Helsinki, and Tampere University of Applied Sciences.

Link: https://news.richmond.edu/releases/article/-/21588/university-of-richmonds-civic-engagement-leader-receives-fulbright-award-to-study-civic-engagement-model-in-finland.html?utm_source=related-stories&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=releases-story

Prospects for participatory budgeting in Brazil: Elections 2022 and digital tools in the participatory process
Presenter: Anna Kemppainen

Date: 2.12. 13.15–14.45 (EET)
Zoom link: https://helsinki.zoom.us/j/62419842588?pwd=VnVrWDdrK3YzclJXQ2VjQmFDNnBodz09
Passcode: 897336
Seminar room: Room 24, Unioninkatu 40 (Metsätalo)

Source: https://cabezanews.com/a-promessa-de-lula-e-os-desafios-do-orcamento-participativo/

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The presentation is preceded by an update of on-going research activities on PB at the Politics of Co-Creation research team, including e.g., study of OmaStadi implementation, comparison of Helsinki, Gothenburg and Trondheim PBs by using the Co-Creation Radar and nation-wide social media analysis of PB in South Korea. Presenters include Mikko Rask, Bokyong Shin and Pekka Tuominen.

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

_

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
_