When I shared with a ministry in Taiwan that we were planning to conduct participatory workshops with members of the public including with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the staff member at the ministry looked taken aback. He was concerned that activists might disrupt the engagement process instead.

We at the Risk Society and Policy Research Center (RSPRC) were planning to conduct workshops to identify areas in Taiwan’s digitalization and sustainability strategies which the Taiwanese think can be improved on and the solutions they might have, and thought it would be useful to engage with NGOs and activists as well.

Coming from an activist background and having previously worked as part of a government agency which engaged with NGOs to do our work, it became natural for me to rely on community partners to carry out the work in part because they understood the ground while we did not, sitting behind our desks.

It was especially important since I was working in HIV awareness campaigns, and the people we were reaching out to were more likely to trust the NGOs than the government – the perception is that the government wants only to lecture them. 

In my current work studying the social impact of digitization on society, it has become even more pertinent to work with community actors, because of how fast changing digitalization is occurring today. Without engaging with local partners, we will be going in blind designing policies.

(Source: Risk Society and Policy Research Center)

The ministry eventually became interested in learning from the participatory engagement, and a person from the ministry also attended the workshop and told our team afterwards how immensely beneficial the workshop was, both in terms of the new insights she was able to garner, as well as how it helped her understand the ground better. A participant also adopted the technique to conduct meetings in his NGO. But it was massively useful to us as well.

The Role Research Centers Can Play in Participatory Engagement

The mindset has formed within some people that working with activists meant having to deal with confrontations or arguments, as they are usually protesting and chanting fierce slogans on the streets. 

It was a question I asked a member at our workshop as well – why do activists in Taiwan not spend more time developing policy proposals to lobby the government? In response, the member explained that though NGOs do see the value of advocating to the government with policy proposals, protests however provide visibility to the issues being discussed, which helps to raise awareness among the public and to attract greater financial assistance to carry out the important work they do. Unfortunately, this means inadequate time and manpower to research and develop policy solutions. 

This is where agencies like our research center play a crucial role in bringing these social actors together, to act as a bridge and provide a platform for the exchange of ideas and solutions, as well as to foster greater understanding, build consensus and develop a common pathway forward. 

The Risk Society and Policy Research Center (RSPRC) conducted two participatory foresight planning workshops in August and September this year, involving youths, startups, as well as individuals from environmental, human rights and tech groups, among whom are startup founders, people whom have engaged regularly with the government on digital rights issues and professionals who have returned from overseas to work in the local tech industry.

(Source: Risk Society and Policy Research Center)

Participants were divided into three main groups: climate change and energy transition, digitalization, and long-term and elderly care – these were topics our center has been researching on and which we think are urgent for Taiwan’s transformation in the next era. 

Digitalization Solutions Developed from RSPRC’s Participatory Workshops

One example of how participatory engagement is particularly useful in helping bridge differences came from the digitalization group I was facilitating – while participants were unanimous in how data is imperative for the digital age and that regulatory oversight of data and databases is therefore necessary, they had different ideas as to the form the regulations should take. 

A participant working with a small and medium-sized enterprise raised concerns about whether data openness could leak to trade secrets being revealed and compromising on the competitiveness of businesses. While this could have potentially been a flash point during the discussion, our participants were able to come to an understanding that different industries (whether it be business-to-business or business-to-consumer, etc.) would require different regulatory frameworks and customized approaches – this suggestion was brought up by a participant who has been active in advocating for stronger data regulations, and while such activists might be assumed to be rigid in their demands for data privacy, can be best placed to advise on the necessary regulations, and it is precisely these participatory conversations that can help stimulate such lateral and collaborative thinking. 

The government’s plan for the introduction of the electronic identification card (eID). (Source: Ministry of the Interior)

In fact, when the discussion turned to the government’s plan for the introduction of the electronic identification card (eID), contrary to the perception that activists are unagreeable and wanted the eID implementation completely shut down, some of our participants clarified that their main aim however is to ensure that loopholes are plugged, so that a more secure and effective system can be developed. Even among participants calling for greater digital security, there were also voices in favor of the eID with the awareness that this could enhance digital access for citizens.

What then are participants’ solutions? Given the access of the eID to various government databases, the security of these databases would need to be ensured to prevent them from being hacked or vulnerable to fraud-use. With revelations that the eID cards were initially going to be manufactured by a French security firm which previously worked for the Chinese Public Security Bureau in China, protocols need to be developed to ensure that such national security concerns can be identified and safeguards put in place to prevent them from happening again. While such feedback means that the eID rollout would undoubtedly have to be delayed, it also means that a more secure eID system could be implemented, which would engender greater trust between the government and citizenry and less social pushback. This can therefore be a win-win if taken with the right frame of mind.

(Source: Risk Society and Policy Research Center)

Engaging with these activists-cum-experts on the ground also means that examples of best practices can be easily procured from them: one participant pointed to the national data management system created by Estonia as a framework Taiwan could adopt. In Estonia, the types of datasets and databases are clearly defined under the Public Information Act, where the State Information Management System (RIHA) functions as a major state registry and “secure web-based database and software application” containing the full list of functional databases, which all public databases are required to be registered with and their use regulated by the law. In fact, citizens can even find out which public officials have looked at their data, which creates transparency and trust.

While government databases continue to function separately and datasets collected separately as well, the Estonia government has also created a middleware called X-Road which connects the decentralized databases and acts as an interoperability platform which allows data use to both be encrypted while yet traceable. 

The Role Government Can Continue to Play within a Participatory Framework

Such participatory engagement can therefore become a useful method not only for the government to solicit feedback from the ground but to also utilize such on-ground expertise to develop solutions and even strategies, especially important because of the urgency with which new ways to undergo sustainable development needs to be devised and due to the rapid changes brought about by digitalization. 

In fact, if these participatory exercises are conducted with a wide enough audience, policymakers would not even need to spend too much time defending the policies created, because consensus would have already been reached among a broad spectrum of society, and would likely to see wide-ranging support. 

When we first started planning for these participatory workshops early this year, many of our center researchers have not had experience facilitating or planning such workshops, but we took up the mantle to train ourselves under a professional facilitator.

While the relatively fluid nature of the workshops can be daunting since the discussion was structured to be open-ended, and we did not know the direction the discussion was going to be pulled toward, the various expertise the participants brought to the table allowed for the discussion to be richer, as highlighted above. In fact, we should not underestimate the willingness of participants to want to come together to build consensus, and to develop solutions for Taiwan.

(Source: Risk Society and Policy Research Center)

The government however still fulfils a niche role most of the participants cannot perform, and it is the government’s experience in policy making and knowledge of how the different agencies work – this was in fact a point made by a participant who felt that policymaking perspectives would have been valuable as part of the workshop. 

The question therefore is how the government can elevate its role to become a facilitator of ideas and in translating them into policies, as well as to harness the energy and solutions citizens develop, to formulate adaptive policies for the upcoming age of digital disruption. If policymakers learn not to fear diverse voices but are instead able to enlist the expertise of citizens including activists, to fuse their ideas into meaningful solutions, it will allow Taiwan to move away from patchwork policymaking to more effective ones with greater buy-in from the ground. 

For a start, if government agencies do not yet have the time to conduct similar participatory engagement exercises, participants highlighted how external consultants with relevant digital expertise should be engaged to help shape policy making. Digital literacy courses should also be conducted to civil servants, to equip them with the basis with which to develop informed digital policies. 

Related to this, participants also emphasized the importance of multidisciplinary learning, in that digital literacy should not only be about teaching digital skills, but also about how to communicate and convey such knowledge between the ministries, as well as with businesses and the general public – which is especially important in order to obtain buy-in from the public on digital policies the government develops.

"The development of Taiwan’s [rapidly developing] offshore wind industry is seen as a model for other Asian countries and includes efforts to develop locally-sources components that can also be marketed globally," @Mar_Ex writes. https://t.co/JYlA08ZnqN

— Taiwan Risk Society and Policy Research Center (@RSPRCTaiwan) November 24, 2020

Research centers like the RSPRC are well-positioned to play a unique role in bridging the government with the public – the more political neutral spaces our centers occupy enable research centers to become the middleman where safe spaces are provided for views to be exchanged and consensus reached, which can then be conveyed to the government as policy suggestions. 

The ball however is in the government’s court in ensuring that participants’ feedback is translated into actual policies. If such participatory engagement exercises can become a formalized method at seeking input for policymaking, it can help build healthy trust with the citizenry and enable policies to be developed more in tune to public needs.

---

About the author：
Roy Ngerng is an Assistant Research Fellow at the Risk Society and Policy Research Center, National Taiwan University. He researches on sustainable digitalization and foresight research for Taiwan's 2050 future. He also writes on social protection issues.

---

Have you read?

♦ When will Taiwan go Carbon Neutral?
♦ Taiwan needs to build a brand image beyond COVID-19
♦ What stifles the success of Taiwan’s companies?

Uploaded by Penny Chiang