3.1 Stakeholder, actor, and end-user: attached meanings and methodologies of involvement
3.1.1 Stakeholder(s)
3.1.1.1 Meaning of the term
The main results of the semantic analysis (level 1) made for the term stakeholder individuated 26 nodes, each one representing a word with more than 4,000 occurrences in the selected literature. First, as per the co-occurrence criterion, the highest co-occurrences are registered between stakeholder and theory (4,632), stakeholder and management (2,910), management and project (2,638), stakeholder and group (2,057), make and decision (1,642) and stakeholder and project (1,505). As for the significance analysis level, the analysis of the first 10 terms shows the centrality of the business management field in shaping the use of the term stakeholder in the selected literature13.
As for the official definitions of the term stakeholder used for EU policymaking (level 2) it is possible to quote several here. First, according to the British Standard BS ISO/IEC 38500L:200814, a stakeholder is «any individual, group or organisation who may affect, be affected by, or perceive themselves to be affected in a formal perspective by a decision or activity». On the other hand, IATE underlines that «stakeholder usually implies some formal relationship to the proposed decision or activity, such as business or property interests that may be affected. 'Interested parties', on the other hand, refers to anyone who might have an interest in the proposed decision or activity, either formally or informally»15. Finally, the Commission Regulation (EU) No 454/201116 defines stakeholder(s) as «any person or organisation with a reasoned interest in train service delivery», while for the EC Decision 623/200717 a stakeholder is a «group that advises the Commission with regard to the Action Programme for Reducing Administrative Burdens in the European Union whose aim is to reduce administrative burdens on businesses arising from EU legislation by 25 % by 2012».
In conclusion, the three definitions identify respectively three different stakeholder characteristics, namely: the capacity to affect/being affected in the first case; the reasoned interest in the second; and the possession of relevant knowledge in the third one.
As for the combination of EU funded research review, academic research semi-systematic review and EU funded projects related to the term stakeholder (level 3), it is possible to summarize the results saying that a stakeholder might be identified according to interest and influence (Martinsohn et al. 2014), or to the degree/typology of involvement (Meritxell & Ferraro, 2014). The categorisations proposed by these sources are mostly operational: stakeholder(s) can be classified according to their role in the specific field of analysis/action (Borowiak et al., 2012; Kavadas et al., 2013; Martinsohn et al., 2014; Meritxell & Ferraro, 2014; Svedung & Cojazzi, 2006). Some of them might be identified as key stakeholders if considered necessary for the success of a project (Martinsohn et al., 2014). According to the reviewed sources, stakeholders should be taken into consideration in order to assess their requirements (Boden et al., 2016; Svedung & Cojazzi, 2006), foster consultation (Borowiak et al., 2012; Matinga et al., 2014) and dialogue (Meritxell & Ferraro, 2014), strengthen their commitment to the issue at stake (Svedung & Cojazzi, 2006), and finally acquire (Boden et al., 2016; Kavadas et al., 2013; Martinsohn et al., 2014) and/or transmit (Svedung & Cojazzi, 2006) relevant knowledge.
Moreover, stakeholder theory is used in the attempt of strengthening ethical values (e.g., stronger environmental awareness, gender dimension etc.) as part of a strategic approach to business decision making. All selected papers (Achterkamp & Vos, 2008; Fassin, 2012; Kaler, 2002; Littau et al., 2010; Miles, 2012; Miles, 2017) identify the definition formulated by Freeman (1984) as a milestone in the development of stakeholder theories. According to Freeman, a stakeholder should be recognised by the fact that she/he/it is capable to affect, or being affected, by the achievement of the organisation’s objectives18.
It must be considered that most of the definitions of the term stakeholder taken into account share a characteristic: they take the perspective of a unique subject, usually a firm, and they identify and categorise stakeholder(s) according to a specific objective and/or field of action in which the subject is involved. This aspect is particularly highlighted in Miles’ (2012) review as the author collected several answers from different theoretical perspectives on the issue «Who identifies stakeholders? »: corporations, enterprises, organisations, management (p. 289). Such a modelling is particularly relevant when dealing with private sector and private sector-like scenarios, where several non-institutional subjects contribute to the definition of a stake.
Regarding the term’s application to EU funded projects, it is possible to remark that a stakeholder might be defined by the idea of effect (i.e., it can be impacted, or it can impact by the project)19. In other cases, stakeholders are considered as beneficiaries of the project, and they are categorised as end-users, potential clients, and decision makers20. Other projects mention «relevant stakeholders»21, or talk about «targeted stakeholders»22, «interested stakeholders»23, or aim at rationalizing stakeholders’ needs and threats24, wants to investigate stakeholders through empirical research and expert panels25, or aim at promoting stakeholder groups26. So, the approaches can vary a lot from a project to another, and can, thus, impact the use and the perception of what and who stakeholders are.
One could draw the conclusion that the majority of the sources under analysis identify stakeholders in terms of a particular stake that is itself established by a key entity, such as a company, institution, or initiative. Then, stakeholders are specifically designated as such based on their capacity to effect, be impacted by, or have an impact, as well as their interest in, responsibility for, or claim with regard to the stake. Similar conclusions may be derived from reviews of official definitions, research financed by the EU, academic research, and definitions offered in EU-funded projects.
3.1.1.2 Methodologies of involvement
The materials chosen for the EU-funded research part (level 1) primarily consist of scientific contributions, such as chapters from scholarly books or presentations at conferences, in areas like the development of spatial data infrastructure, water management, and energy management. Stakeholders’ support is considered as crucial in the development of projects and/or initiatives by all the selected sources. However, they frequently do not specify involvement tools in depth, instead choosing to concentrate on theoretical definitions of stakeholders’ roles in involvement processes or policy recommendations on the necessity of putting such procedures into practice.27.
As for the analysis of stakeholders’ involvement based on academic research (level 2), many sources agree in defining stakeholders as both target and active subject of proposed involvement tools (Becu et al., 2003; Dvarioniene et al., 2015; Kavadas et al., 2013; Ramos et al., 2013). Other scholars identify stakeholders either as target groups (Mettepenningen et al., 2011) or as active participants (Vlachokostas et al., 2011). According to Tako and Kotiadis (2015) stakeholders need to be generally involved in decision-making processes considering the specific knowledge they often bear and to avoid/take into consideration possible conflicting perspectives. Among the tools proposed for the involvement of relevant stakeholders it is necessary to mention surveys (Mettepenningen et al., 2011), participatory multi-criteria analysis (Vlachokostas et al., 2011), facilitated dialogue through representation modelling depicting or imitating a selected part of the reality concerning the issue at stake (Becu et al., 2003) or other models (Ramos et al., 2013; Tako & Kotiadis, 2015), e.g., prototypes, also is due mentioning living lab methodology (Dvarioniene et al., 2015), and finally co-creation activities (Kavaratzis, 2012).
According to the EU funded projects analysis related stakeholders’ involvement (level 3) there is a prevalence of collective meetings solutions to involve stakeholders – such as focus groups or world café. All inquired projects mentioning stakeholders, except for CyberROAD and MEDEA, reported the use of such instruments. Results also show a limited use of training activities (WISER28), quantitative inquiry (TAKEDOWN29, CyberROAD), qualitative inquiry (IECEU), participatory evaluation (BODEGA), and participatory processes (MEDEA)30.
In conclusion, when proposing stakeholders’ involvement methodologies – or discussing implemented approaches – the analysed sources take into consideration stakeholders as both target groups and active subjects. Stakeholders, however, are occasionally treated as either the objects or the subjects of involvement procedures. The above-mentioned sources state that stakeholders should be involved to gather pertinent information, avoid and/or manage potential conflict, and ensure the legitimacy and sustainability of the decision-making process. The suggested tools include questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, modeling, multi-criteria analysis, living lab approach, world café, and co-creation activities. They also include structured and/or facilitated discourse.
3.1.2 Actor(s)
3.1.2.1 Meaning of the term
The major findings of the semantic analysis (level 1) conducted for the keyword actor were based on 20 nodes, each of which represented a word that appeared 1,749 times in the chosen literature.
The first element to be noticed is that the lemma actor is neither the most quoted – it appears 3,804 times, while transition and power show respectively 4,481 and 4,876 occurrences – nor the central element, as the strongest co-occurrences are identified between the following terms: make and decision (1,349), transition and management (1,060), power and transition (737), actor and network (389), make and process (299), process and decision (288). This result suggests that, while the literature selected for the term stakeholder is more focused on its conceptualisation, literature quoting the term actor is more operational. Further lemmas specify the context of action (transition, project, use, process, policy, management, decision, plan, change, problem, development), while others refer to the definition of actor (power, social, network, different, group). At the same time for the significance context the term actor emerges as peculiar for the selected literature, as well as terms referring to the theoretical framework in which actors are analysed (dynamics, sociotechnical, spatial, trajectory), other lemmas – housing, renewable, electricity, fossil – suggesting, again, a more operational profile of the selected literature.
It is significant to highlight that the research based on terms like actor, multi-actor, and multi-actor analysis did not give relevant results in the IATE Database with regard to the official definitions of the term used for EU policymaking (level 2).
As for the combination of EU funded research review, semi-systematic review of academic research and EU funded projects related to the term actor (level 3), it is possible to summarize the results as follows. For the EU funded research review the selected documents belong to two macro-categories: environmental policies and e-inclusion. As it was in the case of the term stakeholder (see par. 2.1) they also cover different typologies of documents, e.g., academic papers and policy, survey and technical reports. However, the conducted review provided limited theoretical insights, mostly related to specific fields, such as e-inclusion (Garrido et al., 2012, p. 15) or water management (Vetere Arellano et al., 2007). The selected sources do not provide general definitions of the term actor, as these are generally identified according to their specific, contextual role. Perhaps, Garrido et al. (2012) propose a categorisation of actors according to the sector they belong to: public, private, third sector. In addition, La Notte and Marques (2017) differentiate between two typologies of actors: enabling actors, who are involved in the production of a specific output, and beneficiaries, which may be intended as end-users of that output. Finally, Gordon et al. (2013, p. 19) introduce the relevant issue of potential conflict arising among different actors according to their different visions of the issues at stake.
For what concerns the Semi-Systematic Review of Academic Research, the selected materials cover different fields of research: spatial and landscape planning, policy and conflict analysis, organisational management, and behavioral simulation, providing a more operational approach, sustained by a smaller body of theory if compared with the term stakeholder. Thus, confirming what emerged for the EU funded research review under the same level of analysis. In fact, the boundaries of the term actor seem to be blurrier, while sometimes it is proposed as a synonymous of stakeholder – explicitly, as in de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof (2008), or implicitly, as in Kapadia et al. (2011) and in Ligtenberg et al. (2001).
While the terms stakeholder and actor often appear to overlap, there are other instances where the use of the term actor specifically reveals a network structure that may be more complicated than the one that is defined around the issue at stake in the context of stakeholder theories. What appears to give multi-actor theories their structure represents a process rather than a straightforward stake. This enables a more dynamic picture of actors, who are referred to as players by Ligtenberg et al. (2001), and who exhibit a desire to participate in and engage in interaction rather than just a general interest in the subject at hand (de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Ligtenberg et al., 2004). Actors can be categorized based on their unique function in the situation being studied (Ligtenberg et al., 2001), or, as proposed by de Bruijn and ten Heuvelhof (2008), taking in account the following characteristics: stances, interests, resources, relations and repetitive character of the relations. Avelino and Wittmayer (2016), on the other hand, recommend differentiating between formal and informal players, for-profit and nonprofit actors, and public and private actors when classifying actors. Within the parameters of this classification, actors may also be separated into groups based on their make-up, including sectors, people, and organizations.
As for the analysis of the use of the term actor in EU funded projects, according to the used sample of H2020 projects it is possible to identify mainly three different approaches. In fact, in the WOSCAP project, actors are governmental ones, thus institutions involved in the project field31. On the other hand, according to EUNITY, actors are research bodies32, while MEDEA mentions actors in the context of the engagement of «critical mass of security practitioners and actors»33.
It follows that results regarding the definition of the term actor are different from those regarding stakeholder since they are conceptually less precise. While the distinction between public, private, and third sector players as well as profit and non-profit actors is frequently made, there is no widely accepted definition of the term actor as there was for the term stakeholder. It appears that actors are grouped and related to one another in a somewhat different way than stakeholders since they interact with and/or participate in a process rather than being interested in or impacted by a particular stake. They behave more dynamically than stakeholders, therefore they could be classified as participants. Actors may participate in more elaborate and articulated connections because they do not relate to a central figure; these structures appear to be more appropriate for elaborate, multileveled institutional contexts. On the other hand, multi-actor networks are most appropriate in situations when the legislation or other institutional rules for the specific identification of subjects that need to be involved in participatory procedures. They are probably less operationalized than stakeholder structures.
3.1.2.2 Methodologies of involvement
The selected materials for the EU funded research part (level 1) consist in academic publications as well as technical reports and similar documents, generally pertaining to the fields of data management and water/waste management. The chosen sources suggest that actors' involvement may allow for the exploitation of their knowledge resources (Paneque Salgado et al., 2009, p. 1002) as opposed to their capacity to learn from one another (Ferraro, 2014), their decision-making capacity (Craglia & Shanley, 2015), their capacity to act as go-betweens between citizens and political processes (Garrido et al., 2012, p. 12), and them being the selected target of research/project (Misuraca et al., 2014). Other authors affirm explicitly that actors should be involved across the whole process (Ferraro & Martell, 2015). Building on a similar perspective, Paneque Salgado et al. (2009) propose the use of participatory multi-criteria analysis to involve actors across the whole processes.
Moving to actors’ participation according to academic research sources (level 2), the desk-research results consist in methodological or theoretical papers in different fields: quality assessment, cognitive studies, marketing techniques, environmental planning, children engagement and energy policies. Actors are depicted by Krogstrup (1997) as the main characters in a pluralistic setting. According to Jolivet and Heiskanen (2010) and Mäläskä et al. (2011), such an environment may be characterized by both rivalry and discourse (Damart, 2010). The most relevant sources mapping and/proposing tools for enhancing actors’ participation, are: Krogstrup (1997), proposing User Participation in Quality Assessment (UPQA), Jolivet and Heiskanen (2010), Mäläskä et al. (2011) and Cotton and Mahroos-Alsaiari (2015), proposing ex-post evaluation involving actors, and Damart (2010), describing cognitive mapping as an instrument supporting the involvement of actors in project formulations.
The outcomes of the actors’ participation based on sources from EU-funded projects (level 3) are quite dismal and reveal a general lack of qualitative questioning, participatory processes, and information and training activities for which actors’ participation is implemented. In fact, there were only two projects among those reviewed which explicitly foresaw actors’ participation implemented through participatory meetings (EUNITY)34 and participatory evaluation (WOSCAP)35.
The combination of the sources offers a clear picture of both the major employed tools/methods and the justification for actors' participation. As mentioned in the first part of this paragraph dedicated to actors, agents are thought to engage in a pluralistic framework through patterns of both rivalry and cooperation, or discourse. They possess resources, or the capacity for learning, making, and facilitating knowledge. The question of “where” to position actors' participation is addressed in a few sources, whether it be throughout the entire process, in the design of a multi-criteria analysis, or at the conclusion of the process, in an ex-post review. Tools that have been suggested or examined range from participated multi-criteria analysis and participated quality assessment to the creation of knowledge centers, group gatherings, and the usage of cognitive mapping.
3.1.3 End-user(s)
3.1.3.1 Meaning of the term
Moving now on how the term end-user is used, 13 nodes representing words with more than 838 (co)occurrences in the chosen literature served as the foundation for the main findings of the semantic analysis (level 1) conducted for this lemma.
The first obvious consideration is that, in the case of end-user(s), occurrences were less than for the other two terms (i.e., there were 4,000 occurrences identified for the term stakeholder, and 1,749 for the term actor). The highest co-occurrence, of course, is that between end and user (3,044). Other relevant co-occurrences are those between information and systems (304), service and support (277), spreadsheet and development (256), user and use (215), and user and system (188). Since the term end-user(s) is used so frequently in disciplines like information technology system, most examples occurring in the chosen literature demonstrate that the term end-user(s) is more context-specific than the other lemmas under investigation. Regarding the importance context, it demonstrates that the literature that was chosen to support the conceptualization of the end-user is mostly concerned with information systems issues.
Considering the level 2 of analysis (i.e., official definition of end-user), according to the ECHA Guidance for downstream users36, an end-user is a «person or body using substances or preparations in an industrial or professional activity (e.g., not a consumer or distributor) who does not supply it further downstream». On the other hand, Directive 2002/21/EC37 affirms that an end-user is an «ultimate user of a telecommunications service, (i.e., who does not provide public communications networks or publicly available electronic communications services)». While Regulation (EU) 2019/202038 defines an end-user as a «natural person buying or expected to buy a product for purposes which are outside his trade, business, craft or profession». Eventually, Council document ST 14114/1739 mentions end-user as «competent authority directly searching CS-SIS, N.SIS or a technical copy thereof». Therefore, even though they are tailored to distinct settings, all definitions of end-user share a common perspective: end-user(s) are found at the very end of a series of interactions and actions, such as the end of a production chain. While the third source conflates the concept of end-user and customer, the last source contends that end-users can occasionally include institutional actors in addition to individuals, groups, or for-profit businesses.
Being focused on the combined findings of the semi-systematic review of academic research, the EU funded projects connected to the term end-user(s), and the EU funded research review (level 3 of analysis), it is possible to evaluate the following points. Regarding the review of research sponsored by the EU, the materials that were chosen are from several fields, including media analysis, energy policies, fishery management, and security systems. They also cover other document types, including scholarly contributions and technical manuals. The last user of a resource, a tool, or a product is the foundation for all of these definitions of end-user. However, no pertinent categorizations are used in the chosen materials. End-users are seen as the intended audience for policies and actions (Bertoldi et al., 2013; Punie, 2011; Spisto, 2016), as providers of feedback (Castro Ribeiro, 2015), as targets for an information effort (Doyle et al., 2016)40.
As for the semi-systematic review of academic research related the use of the lemma end-user(s), the analysed sources cover mostly the fields of IT studies, informatics and entrepreneurial management. Among the reviewed materials, only one paper provides an explicit definition of end-user(s), which, even though related to a specific field of inquiry (IT studies) may be easily extended to other contexts too: «An end-user is any organizational unit or person who has an interaction with the computer-based information system as a consumer or producer/consumer of information» (Cotterman & Kumar, 1989, p. 1315). On the other hand, Scherrer-Rathje and Boyle (2012) suggest that the identification of end-user(s) as such depends upon the context of analysis. For instance, they define as end-users (of entrepreneurial strategic choices) several categories of employees and managers.
Therefore, it is possible to argue that the last, ultimate user of a good, tool, resource, or service is the recurring concept attached to the word end-user(s) through the many methodological approaches. Nevertheless, this does not imply that an end-user is always a consumer—it could be, for instance, a competent authority using a particular piece of software or a technical user of a particular tool, device, or service—nor that it is situated at the very end of a fictitious chain of actors. For instance, an intermediate developer deploying a particular instrument might be an end-user of that instrument. In other words, the fundamental factor directing the entire structure is the rigid link between end-users and the objects of their usage.
3.1.3.2 Methodologies of involvement
In terms of the analysis of end-user participation, EU-funded research sources (level 1) continue to be the starting point. The chosen materials cover the management of fisheries, soil studies, and spatial information and include scholarly papers as well as technical reports and related materials. The proposed end-user participation typology is where the selected references diverge most. Most of the sources advocate for the creation of feedback mechanisms (Abella et al., 2013; Castro Ribeiro & Guillen, 2016; Hengl & Husnjak, 2006). Ben-Dor et al. (2008), on the other hand, advocate constant communication between developers and end-users across all stages of a project.
On the other side, when the focus is turned to end-users’ engagement according to academic research (level 2) the results indicate a preponderance of methodological papers as well as case studies reviews. According to L’Astorina et al. (2015), end-users are a product’s final users, with their definition overlapping with stakeholders, Almirall et al. (2012) contend that end-users are co-creators as opposed to being merely a topic of research. The length of time suggested for end-users’ participation in sources can be categorized, as was already the case with actors’ participation. Some authors back their participation throughout the entire process (Almirall et al., 2012; L’Astorina et al., 2015; Othman, 2007; Sun, 2013).
Finally, the findings based on the sources employed for the analysis of end-user engagement in EU financed projects (level 3) reveal a general lack of quantitative research, participatory processes, and participatory assessment for which end-user involvement is implemented. Interviews and group meetings were used to see how the IECEU41 project approached its end-users, as stated in its dissemination plan. BODEGA42 offers an online platform and coordinated a meeting with a scenario-focused agenda. In conclusion, there have been few discoveries in the sources regarding the justification for end-user(s) involvement. From a methodological perspective, feedback mechanisms seem to be the most often used instruments for user involvement, primarily including end-users in monitoring and evaluation activities. On the other hand, some sources advocate including end-users throughout the entire process, promoting communication between end-users and developers at every stage of a project.
3.2 The context of action of the ARESIBO Participatory Model (APM)
In order to frame the context of action of the APM, it is necessary to focus the attention on the key concept of border first. For the purpose of this paper, the border should not be interpreted only as a geographical locus, but rather as a complex context of interaction among different stakeholders, actors and end-users. According to some scholars, borders work as sites «at and through which socio-spatial differences are communicated» (Van Houtum, 2005, p. 672) and thus the construction of the border may be understood as the result of bordering practices, discursive and emotional as well as technical (Kinnvall & Svensson, 2014). Building a border entails the definition of a mobile equilibrium between surveillance techniques and procedures, respecting individual privacy, and trying to provide security. Borders lose their typically associated “fixed” and “static” image when understood as contexts of interaction. The extension of borders’ geographic locations, often known as the “diffuse” border (Pavone & Degli Esposti, 2012, p. 559), and the externalisation of EU frontiers, become simpler to recognize (Guild et al., 2008). More specifically, in recent years, there has been a strong security link between irregular forms of human mobility and security, both in terms of what is known and what policies are in place (Carrera & Guild, 2007). At the same time, border control concerns have been more closely associated with anti-terrorism objectives as a result of the strong but contentious correlation between immigration and anti-terrorism strategies (Argomaniz et al., 2015).
Building on this complex and multifaceted idea of border, and on the centrality of the security-privacy dichotomy, it is now crucial to introduce three related fundamental concepts from a literature review perspective. These concepts are surveillance, security, and privacy.
From an historical standpoint, Dratwa affirms that the term surveillance comes from «the French verb surveiller […], from sur- ‘over’ and veiller ‘to watch’, from Latin vigilare, from vigil ‘watchful’. Interestingly, ‘surveiller’ carried with it from the start a tension between the meanings of watching over, of taking care of, and of suspicion and control. It also comprised from the start the complementary notion of watching over oneself and one’s own behaviour» (2017, XIX). Moving on to a more specific topic linked to the focus of this study, surveillance may be defined as the collection of tools and practices used to compromise privacy in order to ensure security. The definition of surveillance is, of course, inextricably linked to those of privacy and security. Therefore, the term surveillance has no absolute value per se, but its definition is indeed the result of social, political, and cultural processes of legitimization and delegitimization.
On the other hand, the literature review shows that security is a very broad, ambiguous, and mobile term. From a theoretical point of view, it could stand for all the actions – usually institutional – claiming to reach a positive output in different contexts (Wæver, 1993). As a result of this, Friedewald et al. (2015, p. 42) felt an effort of specification was needed, thus identifying seven typologies of security: physical security, political security, socio-economic security, cultural security, environmental security, radical uncertainty security, information security. The suggested list leaves room for additional definitions of "security" that, depending on the precise context of use, may have a positive or negative connotation43. As a last observation, it is important to draw attention to Guild, Carrera, and Balzacq’s claim that security, as opposed to privacy,«is not a value as such» (2008, p. 9).
Turning now to the privacy aspect, Gavison (1980, p. 423) offers a general definition of privacy as follows: «the extent to which we are known to others, the extent to which others have physical access to us, and the extent to which we are the subject of others' attention». The concept of privacy varies across space and time, being continuously shaped by socio-economic, political, cultural, and technological factors. Changes in technology, more particularly, «have continually required a more precise re-working of the definition in order to capture the ethical and legal issues that current and emerging surveillance and security technologies engender» (Friedewald et al., 2015, 41). Such instability led to the point reported by Solove, when he states: «Privacy is a concept in disarray. Nobody can articulate what it means» (Solove, 2006, p. 477).
More recent definitions of the term, however, show that the focus still lays on the issue of availability of sensitive information – not necessarily data in the strict sense of the term – pertaining to individuals. Riley (2007) defines privacy as the right to have one’s personal information safeguarded against access by the government and/or commercial organizations interested in doing so for purposes of trade, profit, or other reasons that go beyond the exceptions allowed by law. Such definition introduces the aspect of exceptional circumstances which, according to this perspective, limit the exercise of the right to privacy.44.
Also, regarding the goal of this essay, it is crucial to move away from an abstract conception of security – and from surveillance as the collection of tools that ensure it – to securitization, a procedure developed from a socially constructed conception of security. As Léonard emphasized, «what security scholars can and should study is the process through which an issue becomes socially constructed and recognised as a security threat» (Léonard, 2010, p. 235). It follows that securitisation policies and practices address issues that have been ‘securitised’ (i.e., constructed as such through securitizing discourses). What is meant as discourse vary from author to author: some scholars consider discourses mainly as speech acts (Wæver, 1993), while others consider them as performative practices in the broader sense, ranging from administrative tools to the deployment of technical knowledge (Bigo, 2000). Léonard (2010) remarks that, in the EU context, securitisation processes have been mainly enacted through practices45.
As a result of this approach, securisation procedures are becoming more and more characterized by the employment of new technologies, or SOSTs. Two outstanding examples of this include the application of drone technology and the use of biometrics in border management and control. Implementing SOSTs frequently necessitates defining specific infrastructures for data sharing and storage, which introduces significant privacy and data protection problems (Pavone & Degli Esposti, 2012)46. In a historical context in which technology could have bridged the gap between institutions and citizens, SOSTs development appears to be caught in what has been dubbed a proximity paradox (Lodge, 2005): the growing proximity between institutions and citizens raises concerns and suspicions more than trust and legitimacy.
The relationship existing among security and privacy, often conceived as a balance, appears thus now more complex than ever before. As underlined by Pavone and Degli Esposti, SOSTs engage citizens in the controversial process of trading «part of their privacy in exchange for enhanced security» (2012, p. 558) and even to take on themselves the burden of proof (Argomaniz et al., 2015, p. 200). Similar dynamics are especially ambiguous because it is challenging to measure how well these technologies promote security while preserving fundamental rights and the rule of law (Argomaniz et al., 2015; Guild et al., 2008). Last but not least, Dratwa (2017) characterizes the current stage of SOSTs growth as “beta”, and as a result, it is characterized by ambivalent processes that both exploit and strengthen citizens’ rights.
Considering all these points, as well as the literature review provided in previous sections of this paper, and the existent, reliable and consolidated frameworks for analysis and implementation of engagement/involvement activities elaborated by Ostrom and by ISIG/Council of Europe (i.e., the Institutional framework of Common-pool resources management – Ostrom, Gardner and Walker, 1994, and the Civil participation framework of the Council of Europe – ISIG/CoE 2017) it is possible to introduce in the next paragraph the three components of the ARESIBO Participatory Model (i.e. the ARESIBO Participation Framework - APF, the ARESIBO Participation Strategy - APS, the ARESIBO Participation Action Plan - APA).
3.3 The ARESIBO Participation Framework (APF), the ARESIBO Participation Strategy (APS) and the ARESIBO Participation Action plan (APA)
As a general preliminary note to the overall presentation of the APM’s components and phases, it must be highlighted here that the methodological framework proposed by Ostrom et al., (1994), together with the approach and the tools elaborated by the Council of Europe and by ISIG in the framework of the Civil participation framework (ISIG/CoE, 2017), represent the solid basis on which the model has been built and tested. Both frameworks guarantee the possibility to resort to an innovative and reliable tool in order to elaborate a focused analysis and consistent implementation of involvement activities.
3.3.1 ARESIBO Participation Framework (APF)
The ARESIBO Participation Framework (APF) is the APM methodological element. It consists of a heuristic framework that specifies the involvement’s goals and techniques. In the cited Institutional framework of Common-pool resources management (Ostrom et al., 1994), the characteristics of the physical world, the characteristics of the community, and the rules-in-use all contribute to shaping an action arena, which includes action situations (i.e., the opportunity for actors to interact, exchange resources, knowledge, etc.) and the actors themselves. The action arena generates some interaction patterns that lead to a result. The result is then considered as the subject of evaluation criteria. For the purpose of APF, the Action arena is understood as the SOSTs development process. In order to accomplish this, the aforementioned framework was interpreted in order to elaborate the APF. Attributes of the physical world are intended within the APF as the Border Area under focus for the purpose of designing and implementing involvement activities. Geographical and infrastructure features that define the border region at issue serve as a metaphor for the “real world” in this sense. The project demo-sites and pilots provide the border areas that are being analyzed for ARESIBO. The APF defines rules-in-use as the collection of border security policies and procedures that are in effect at a particular border. All these factors combine to form the APF’s Action Arena (i.e., the SOSTs development process), which is where action circumstances and actors for upcoming engagement activities were found.
The Actors are envisaged within the APF to be the targets of the involvement actions in the future. The analysis’ findings, which are presented in paragraph 3.1, demonstrate how the definitions of the targets of involvement – stakeholders, actors, and end-users – tend to overlap. In particular, the definitions of actors and end-users use the term stakeholder as a point of comparison.
Using the aforementioned definitions as a foundation, the APF suggests a taxonomy for further target identification that takes into account impact and acceptance, two types of dimensions that ultimately describe the relationship between the future target, the SOSTs development process and related end-results/product. It will be feasible to emphasize the potential relevance of targets in the involvement process, particularly in terms of the kinds of information, feedback, and insights that will need to be gathered, by analysing targets based on these aspects.
The first dimension, the impact of the SOST development process (i.e., What type of impact will the final results of the SOSTs development have on the target?), can be a direct impact (i.e., the target has a direct relation with the products/end-results of SOST development process, such as direct deployment of the product or direct exposure to the product) or an indirect impact (i.e., the target has an indirect relation with the products/end-results of SOST development process). The second dimension is the acceptance of the SOST development (i.e., What type of acceptance is expected from the target in relation to the results of the SOST development process? What kind of feedback is thus envisaged from the target?) and it is articulated in two sub-dimensions as well: technical acceptance (i.e., the target expresses ultimately its levels of acceptance with the deployment of the product, thus with the usability of the product) or societal acceptance (i.e., the target expresses ultimately its levels of acceptance with the perceived effects of the deployment of the product in a specific (societal) context).
Ultimately, the Taxonomy for Targets identification, allows for depicting four main profiles of Targets of involvement: Citizens, Stakeholders, Actors and End-users.
Moving on to the identification of Action Situations for the ARESIBO Participation Model, the APF suggests a Taxonomy that considers two categories of dimensions, namely Capacity and Interest, which ultimately describe the potential interaction of the identified target and the SOST development process itself. Capacity is defined as the target's type and level of knowledge in relation to the SOST development process. In this respect, capacity is defined in terms of two dimensions: context capacity, which denotes a high degree of awareness and understanding of the particular (societal) context at issue, and technical capacity, which denotes a high or expert level of technical knowledge of the SOST. On the other hand, Interest is defined as the degree of the targets’ readiness to interact for the growth of the SOST. In this sense, interest can be divided into two sub-dimensions: direct interest, which refers to targets who are highly willing to participate in or provide feedback on the development process, and indirect interest, which refers to targets who are less willing to participate in or provide feedback on the development process. The four primary patterns of interaction that can be represented using the Taxonomy of Action Situations are as follows: Information, Advice, Discussion, and Partnership.
In the end, the APF permits the identification of 8 dimensions that characterize the framework for involvement and participation in the SOST development process, as follows: Direct impact, Technical acceptance, Technical capacity, Indirect interest, Indirect impact, Societal acceptance, Context capacity, Direct interest. The 8 dimensions are deployed in the APF with a twofold objective. First, performing an initial context analysis (i.e., SWOT analysis) that will shape the Action Plan for a Participation oriented SOST development. Second, is due performing monitoring and evaluation activities (i.e., evaluative criteria) on the implementation of the Participation oriented SOST development (i.e., involvement activities).
3.3.2 ARESIBO Participation Strategy (APS)
As previously mentioned, the APM seeks to ensure a consistent and uniform framework within which various pertinent targets (i.e., citizens and communities, stakeholders, actors, and end-users) are effectively and efficiently involved in the development of ARESIBO technologies throughout the project cycle.
According to this perspective, the ARESIBO Participation Strategy (APS) comes after the APF and determines the context and targets. It seeks to establish the goals and particular objectives of engagement for certain activities (such as pilots) and situations (e.g., ARESIBO pilot communities). The APS aims at ensuring that all ARESIBO products are created in such a way that they are relevant to and beneficial to stakeholders and people in a particular context, as well as valuable to and owned by end-users and actors.
To accomplish this, the APS designates the following points as the overall objectives of all ARESIBO engagement activities. First, in accordance with the categories envisioned by the APF (citizens, stakeholders, actors, and end-users), each ARESIBO pilot site’s targets of involvement must be clearly and consistently mapped, both internally and externally Second, it is necessary to involve both internal and external targets in order to collect feedback on the usability, applicability, and usefulness of ARESIBO tools (from actors and end-users), as well as on the tools' overall perceived impact and degree of societal acceptance (from stakeholders and citizens). Third, it is essential to have the assurance that all project partners have the capabilities and tools necessary to participate in the engagement process.
The APS, to be intended as an engagement strategy, promotes a co-creation approach in the SOSTs development process, thus fostering a structured engagement of targets in different phases of the project. The strategy is divided into two key stages. The first one is co-design, which refers to engagement activities meant to identify and analyse issues and potential solutions. These activities take place during the early stages of the development process and have the objective of determining the precise needs and requirements of the target audience. The second is co-production, which refers to engagement activities that are focused on implementing or testing the suggested solutions. These activities refer to the implementation phase.
Moreover, the involvement activities were designed so to reflect the following core values: Participation, Responsiveness, Efficiency & effectiveness, Openness & transparency, Innovation, Diversity, Accountability. Finally, it is necessary to recall that in order to sustain the involvement activities, attention should be also paid to viable incentives for participation47.
3.3.3 ARESIBO Participation Plan (APA)
The ARESIBO Participation Action Plan (APA) represents the operationalisation in concrete activities of the overall APM. The APA is a living document that offers the operational procedures and tools that partners in the involvement process must use, as well as the instruments for the process’ monitoring and assessment.
The APA establishes the responsibilities (i.e., ownership of involvement activities), objectives (i.e., what is the scope of the involvement activity at hand, such as co-design or coproduction, and who are the targets, such as citizens, stakeholders, actors, or end-users), outputs (i.e., desired concrete results of the involvement activities, such as type of data or feedback collected from targets), and timeframe for each involvement activity (i.e., setting the involvement activities in the overall project GANTT). Moreover, to ensure an efficient implementation of the involvement activities, monitoring and evaluation actions are envisaged by the APA – such actions are embedded/engrained within the monitoring and evaluation mechanism of the overall project.
Stemming from the literature review and related analysis around the methods and tools deployed in involvement activities, as well as from the project map of involvement activities, the following activities have been identified by the APA as relevant for the purpose of the ARESIBO Participatory Model: targets mapping, questionnaires, workshops.
The major goal of the targets mapping is to identify the groups that should be included in each of the ARESIBO trial sites in accordance with the proposed taxonomy included in the APM, including citizens, stakeholders, actors, and end-users both inside and outside the project consortium. By basing the questionnaires’ content on particular SOSTs development steps, their primary goal is to collect input from specified targets at various stages of SOSTs development and on particular issues. Workshops are meant to be interactive gatherings that focus on certain SOSTs development steps and aim to collect feedback from stakeholders and citizens at various stages of SOSTs development and on particular subjects (e.g., impact of SOSTs, societal acceptance, etc.).
