Shaping technological change: transparency, dialogue and participation to bring about social consensus

Latest project publications

Project background

Does technology cause more problems in the long term than it solves, as more than 23 per cent of respondents in the representative TechnikRadar (Technology Radar) believe? 45 per cent are undecided. The majority of Germans are ambivalent towards technological change, according to a finding of the study (TechnikRadar 2022) (in German).

Technological change is an important prerequisite for prosperity as well as environmental and climate protection. The benefit of new technologies only comes to bear when they are at least tolerated by people but better yet if they are accepted and shaped by the individual and society. So, what are the reasons for the scepticism towards technology in sections of the population – and how can it be effectively addressed? What holistic methodology and what communication formats achieve sustainable and trustworthy technology communication?

These are the key questions asked in the project “Shaping technological change: transparency, dialogue and participation to bring about social consensus”. The aim was to develop, try out as well as evaluate and measure the impact of a practicable form of technology dialogues that is grounded in science. The plan was to involve society in early, competent opinion-forming when shaping new fields of technology. Together with interested citizens, the opportunities, benefit and risks of technologies were discussed in an objective and balanced manner. The project subsequently brings the conclusions of this discussion to the attention of policy makers, industry, civil society and the individuals concerned.

Two working groups delved deeper into these initial questions and project aims within the scope of “Resilience and capacity of the digital infrastructure” and “Resilience and capacity of the healthcare system based on data availability”. They analysed current discussions in politics and society and worked up proposals for dialogue and communication initiatives that were then trialled within the project.

Supervision

Working group 1: “Resilience and capacity of the digital infrastructure”

Digital applications are part of everyday life. They are built upon their respective digital, technical infrastructures. Germany wants to drive forward the expansion of these infrastructures. But first the population has to be consulted on matters of benefit and risk. Many municipalities and their inhabitants are undecided on what degree of digitalisation should actually be sought. To obtain more clarity, the working group “Resilience and capacity of the digital infrastructure” held civil dialogues with partner municipalities on various themes. The civil dialogues took the form of focus groups, a specific form of group discussion used in sociology research.

In Wittenberge in Brandenburg, citizens and representatives of municipal undertakings shared with the municipality their opinions and preferences in relation to the digitalisation of the administration. The municipal authorities want to use the results of these dialogues to expand their digital offerings as part of the implementation of the Online Access Act (Onlinezugangsgesetz – OZG). The focus groups were the start of a longer-term process of engagement with the population.

In Wuppertal, on the other hand, the debate centred on civil protection. In a number of groups, citizens discussed how digital technology is to be used in disasters and also how people with different levels of ability to protect themselves want to handle its use. The municipal authorities input the findings into the Smart City Strategy they were concurrently developing.

Both municipal projects were analysed to find out to what extent focus groups can contribute to objective and sound opinion forming and thus to a sensible degree of municipal technological change that is backed by the majority. The findings of the two case studies are included in two publications: the substantive results and conclusions as well as the findings in relation to the conduct of the focus groups appear in the publication “Civil Dialogues on the Digitalisation of Municipal Services. Two Case Studies” (published in German: „Bürgerdialoge zur Digitalisierung kommunaler Aufgaben. Zwei Fallbeispiele“). The findings in relation to the opinion-forming effect of focus groups as a dialogue format for technology are included in the complete project publication entitled “Supporting Opinion Formation within the Digital Transformation. Analysis of the Impact of Examples of Means of Communication and Dialogue” (published in German: „Unterstützung von Meinungsbildung im digitalen Wandel. Wirkungsanalyse exemplarischer Kommunikations- und Dialogangebote“).

Leadership of Working Group 1 (WG 1)

Working group 2: “Resilience and capacity of the healthcare system based on data availability”

The first time a patient attends a GP or consultant, they must sign a privacy policy, and for good reason: few things are as sensitive as medical data. However, digitalisation is changing the healthcare sector: more and more people are tracking their health markers in apps. This is practical – but often at the cost of handing over our own data, especially when the digital service originates in a country with poor data protection.

But aside from the risks – e.g. manipulation, theft or misuse of health data – there are many advantages to the use of health data both for the individual and the whole of society. For example, by analysing medical datasets that are as large as possible, findings can be made about medical correlations or even about rare disorders.

At the moment, digitalisation in Germany is lagging behind other countries. For that reason, health data can rarely be used for healthcare provision and research. The introduction of the electronic patient record (ePA), a digitised form of a paper patient file, is set to change data availability in the German healthcare system: everyone with health insurance will be able to use the digital record to keep and reuse their own patient data. There are also plans for the patient to be able to make their own data available to medical research through the ePA. However, according to a survey by acatech and Körber-Stiftung (in German), only a small percentage of the population is aware of this possibility or opts in.

The work of WG 2 aimed to intensify the societal discourse on the use of health data based on the example of the electronic patient record. In focus groups, a form of group discussion used in sociology, experts and non-experts were asked about attitudes, needs, hurdles, risks and opportunities in relation to the ePA. The website ePA Check-up (in German) is a digital guide that is designed to help citizens form an objective opinion on the electronic patient record by informing them about the risks and opportunities in a balanced way. The ePA Check-up was evaluated and its influence on the opinion of the users measured. The results of the focus group discussions as well as the evaluation and measurement of impact are included in the complete project publication entitled “Supporting Opinion Formation within the Digital Transformation. Analysis of the Impact of Examples of Means of Communication and Dialogue” (published in German: „Unterstützung von Meinungsbildung im digitalen Wandel. Wirkungsanalyse exemplarischer Kommunikations- und Dialogangebote“). The success of the marketing campaign is discussed in the publication entitled “Campaign for Website “ePA Check-up”. Documentation and Analysis”, which has already been published (in German: „Kampagne zur Website ePA Check-up. Dokumentation und Analyse“).

Leadership of Working Group 2 (WG 2)

Communication Science Expert Group (WG 0)

The Communication Science Expert Group (WG 0) comprised experts from science and technology communication, technology assessment, psychology, evaluation as well as the practice of science communication. It supported the two working groups, inputting findings on communication science and identifying cross-cutting results of the working groups.

Furthermore, the experts addressed key issues of relevance to society in the context of current technology communication. Their input informed the publication entitled “Technological Change – Effective Communication and Participation. 12 Items for Consideration from the Research” (published in German: „Technologischer Wandel – wirksam kommunizieren und beteiligen. 12 Denkanstöße aus der Wissenschaft“). This volume is targeted at institutions and organisations that already engage in or are planning science-based communication and participation procedures in relation to technology with a focus on new technology applications.

Socio-political Advisory Group

The Socio-political Advisory Group was made of up representatives of different views in society, including science, enterprise, associations and media, who discussed the shift in and the development of society in the context of technological progress. The Advisory Group served as a sounding board for project work.

Project members worked in the project groups on a voluntary basis and may also have done contract work as part of the project.