Difference between revisions of "Neosocratic Dialogue"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[[Category:Social]] |
[[Category:Social]] |
||
| + | '''Neosocratic Dialogue''' is a [[citizen participation]] method to determine [[ethics aspects]] in planning of public spaces. |
||
| − | ={{PAGENAME}}= |
||
| ⚫ | The |
||
| + | ==Description== |
||
| ⚫ | Neo-socratic methods are recommended for the clarification of controversial questions, for developing a common understanding of basic terms and approaches, and for discussing basic topics such as principles, values and attitudes.<ref>Gronke Horst |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| + | |||
| ⚫ | Neo-socratic methods are recommended for the clarification of controversial questions, for developing a common understanding of basic terms and approaches, and for discussing basic topics such as principles, values, and attitudes.<ref>Gronke Horst : Increasing Public Involvement in Debates on Ethical Questions of Xenotransplantation. Guidebook: Neo Socratic Dialogue. Projektbericht/Research Report. Studie im Auftrag der Europäischen Kommission (Research Directorate-General). Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin, Institute of Advanced Studies (IHS), 2002. Retrieved from http://www.ihs.ac.at/departments/soc/xeno-pta/xeno_gronke.pdf [last access: 2012-04-12].</ref> |
||
==Process description== |
==Process description== |
||
| − | A question central to the topic to be dealt with is put as clearly and simply as possible. |
+ | A question central to the topic to be dealt with is put as clearly and simply as possible. In the next step, instances of the participants’ actual experience are gathered. |
The topic is put as a central question in a clear and simple manner. The participants’ share their experiences; and an example is selected for further analysis and argumentation. Assumptions, arguments and perspectives are highlighted. |
The topic is put as a central question in a clear and simple manner. The participants’ share their experiences; and an example is selected for further analysis and argumentation. Assumptions, arguments and perspectives are highlighted. |
||
| Line 16: | Line 18: | ||
==How does it support in planning of secure public spaces?== |
==How does it support in planning of secure public spaces?== |
||
The Neosocratic Dialogue is not suitable for general planning assignments. However, the method is useful in: |
The Neosocratic Dialogue is not suitable for general planning assignments. However, the method is useful in: |
||
| − | * |
+ | * Assessing the impact of new (security) technologies and public space designs; |
| − | * |
+ | * Gathering information on ethics aspects of security solutions in urban planning; |
| − | * |
+ | * Getting insights into citizens [[Perception of (in)security and risks|perceptions]] and acceptance of security solutions. |
==Links and further reading== |
==Links and further reading== |
||
| − | *Participation & |
+ | *Participation & Sustainable Development in Europe. Retrieved from: http://www.partizipation.at/neosocr-dialogue.html [last access: 2012-08-16]. |
| − | *Littig B. |
+ | *Littig B.: The Neo-Socratic Dialogue (NSD): a method of teaching the ethics of sustainable development. Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies, Dep. of Sociology, 2002. Retrieved from: http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/541/ssoar-2004-littig-the_neo-socratic_dialogue_nsd_a.pdf?sequence=1 [last access: 2012-10-22]. |
{{references}} |
{{references}} |
||
| − | |||
| − | = MAP = |
||
| − | <websiteFrame> |
||
| − | website=http://securipedia.eu/cool/index.php?wiki=securipedia.eu&concept=Neosocratic_Dialogue |
||
| − | height=1023 |
||
| − | width=100% |
||
| − | border=0 |
||
| − | scroll=auto |
||
| − | align=middle |
||
| − | </websiteFrame> |
||
| − | <headertabs/> |
||
Latest revision as of 09:32, 18 June 2013
Neosocratic Dialogue is a citizen participation method to determine ethics aspects in planning of public spaces.
Contents
Description
The Neosocratic Dialogue is an instrument for involving ordinary citizens in discussions on ethical-philosophical questions on a very general and basic level. Assumptions, reasons and points of view are “held up to the light”.
Neo-socratic methods are recommended for the clarification of controversial questions, for developing a common understanding of basic terms and approaches, and for discussing basic topics such as principles, values, and attitudes.[1]
Process description
A question central to the topic to be dealt with is put as clearly and simply as possible. In the next step, instances of the participants’ actual experience are gathered.
The topic is put as a central question in a clear and simple manner. The participants’ share their experiences; and an example is selected for further analysis and argumentation. Assumptions, arguments and perspectives are highlighted.
Simultaneously the discussion minutes are taken, and the course the discussion takes is documented.
How does it support in planning of secure public spaces?
The Neosocratic Dialogue is not suitable for general planning assignments. However, the method is useful in:
- Assessing the impact of new (security) technologies and public space designs;
- Gathering information on ethics aspects of security solutions in urban planning;
- Getting insights into citizens perceptions and acceptance of security solutions.
Links and further reading
- Participation & Sustainable Development in Europe. Retrieved from: http://www.partizipation.at/neosocr-dialogue.html [last access: 2012-08-16].
- Littig B.: The Neo-Socratic Dialogue (NSD): a method of teaching the ethics of sustainable development. Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies, Dep. of Sociology, 2002. Retrieved from: http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/541/ssoar-2004-littig-the_neo-socratic_dialogue_nsd_a.pdf?sequence=1 [last access: 2012-10-22].
Footnotes and references
- ↑ Gronke Horst : Increasing Public Involvement in Debates on Ethical Questions of Xenotransplantation. Guidebook: Neo Socratic Dialogue. Projektbericht/Research Report. Studie im Auftrag der Europäischen Kommission (Research Directorate-General). Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin, Institute of Advanced Studies (IHS), 2002. Retrieved from http://www.ihs.ac.at/departments/soc/xeno-pta/xeno_gronke.pdf [last access: 2012-04-12].
