Otto-suhr-institute
Yüklə 3,57 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Maintenance Group: citizens (P3) Sex Age Group Activity Place of residence Duration
- Maintenance Group: stakeholders and politicians (P4) Function during the process Sex Duration Unique Number
- Maintenance Group: organizers (P5) Function during the process Sex Duration Unique Number CD
- Title and type of document Unique Number CD
Type Sex Age Activity Housing Unique Number CD Questionnaire6 F 67
P - MC A6-1
M 29 Student C - A A6-2
M 26 Student C - A A6-3
F 35 Educator C - A A6-4
M 39 Liberal Profession P - MID A6-5
M 29 Engineer P - ? A6-6
M 52 Framework P - MID A6-7
M 47 Employee P - ? A6-9
F 57 ? P - ? A6-10 PROBE Telephone Interview F ? Framework ? A6-11-1 + 6The questionnaire 8 does not exist, it is produced by an error in the original numbering which has been subsequently corrected. In addition, the questionnaires are not included on the CD because they are not anonymous. 412 3. Documents relating to chapter 5 3.2Arrangements put in place in Poitou-Charentes (P) 3.2 .1Questionnaire of the written assessment Citizen Jury - assessment - anonymous Questionnaire and optional Thank you for your cooperation. 1. Could you assess the quality of the following elements: 1 2
4 5 6 Comments The framework The home The framework of work (the room, the comfort, equipment, etc. ) The hotel and the meals The animation Neutrality Competence Quality of people resources Quality of debates Diversity of stakeholders The work in a small group Quality of debates Opportunity to take the floor Possibility of exchanging arguments 2. Other elements you come from has the spirit, that you would like to evaluate? If yes, which? 3. What you seems the more successful? 4. What you seems the least successful? 5. If the Region resurface a jury of citizens, what is that there be a change? 6. The participation has this jury you has been useful? If yes, how? 7. Are you satisfied with(e) of the notice produced by the jury? Why? 8. What is your feeling about the future of the opinion? 413 Annexs
9. Have you any other comments? 10. You:
Age: Sex: Occupation: Are you:member of an association? Member of a party? A member of another organization? If yes what type? 3.2 .2written evaluation (P2) Sex
Age Activity
Member of an association Member of a political party A member of another organization Unique Number CD F
Restated Yes
Yes Non
P2-1 M 69 Retirement Yes
Non Yes
P2-2 M 40 Commercial Non
Non Non
P2-3 F 42 Woman at home Non
Non Municipal Council P2-4 F
Decorator Yes
Not yet Non
P2-5 M 56 Early Retirement Non
Non Non
P2-6 F 55 Teacher Yes
Non Non
P2-7 M 45 Maintenance Worker Non
Non Non
P2-8 M 58 Financial Advisor Yes
Non Cultural
P2-9 F - Without Non
Non Non
P2-10 M 58 Retirement Yes
Yes Municipal Council P2-11 M
Retirement Yes several Yes Non
P2-12 M 63 Retirement Non
Non Non
P2-13 F 60 Innkeeper Yes several Non Non
P2-14 M 60 Retirement Non
Non Non
P2-15 M 49 Teacher Non
Non Non
P2-16 F - Plastic Non
Non Non
P2-17 M 50 Technical Assistant Non
Non Group Sustainable Development P2-18 F
Lab Technician Non
Non Non
P2-19 - - - - - - P2-20
M 49 Stevedore Yes Non
Rotary P2-21
M 60 Director Post Yes - AMAP P2-22 3.2 .3Service Guide - stakeholders and politicians 1. The invitation 414 3. Documents relating to chapter 5 A. How are you in contact with the jury of citizens? B. What was your first reaction? 1. Rather positive? Negative? Why? 2. How your entourage has he reacted? (Family, colleagues, knowledge) ? C. Did you know about the model? Similar examples? D. That is what pushes you to participate? E. Do you know why the model has been used? 1. Who has supported? Proposed? With what arguments? 2. Who was against? With what arguments? A. The citizens have the take of leave to participate: how do you do that? B. The citizens have received a compensation: what do you think of this principle? 1. Do you think that money can motivate some people? Is this? 2. You yourself, have you received compensation for your intervention? If not: do you think this should be the case? If yes: Did you sufficient? Would you also participated without compensation? Why? 3. Procedure of choice A. The participants have been drawn: 1. Did you know about this method of selection? From where? In what frames? 2. Have you yourself already been drawn by lot? B. What do you think of this principle? 1. The results of the procedure you seem acceptable? Good? Bad? Why? 2. Would it have taken do otherwise? Why? 3. What are in your opinion the advantages and disadvantages of this procedure? 4. You it seems that certain categories were over-represented? Under-represented? Is it inevitable? Is this? 4. The work during the jury 415 Annexs
A. How was the framework? 1. The parts, the place? The technique? Meals, nights, etc? B. You played the role of " resource person " and giving information to citizens and discussed with them: 1. How was this exchange? 2. Had you already done this type of presentation in front of the citizens? 3.Have you had enough time to present your point of view / your information? 4. You deem you as informant neutral? Is it important to be neutral? 5. Do you think that the assignee may exercise an influence on the participants and on the result of the jury of citizens? Is this? Is it inevitable? C. How were the questions of citizens? 1. You have they surprised? 2. The citizens you have-they seemed competent on the subject of climate warming? 3. You have-it published earn skills with the time? 4. Have you identified the leaders of opinion? Is this? D. The movie: 1. How was the movie? Do you think it has been neutral? Why? 2. The moderators can they influence the citizens? What do you think? E. The region: 1. Do you think it has been neutral in the process? Why? Its role has he been balanced? F. The questions posed to citizens? 1. How you have they published? Too Complex, well, too simple? Realistic? Adapted? Neutral? 2. Do you think that the citizens have been put in a position to assess the regional policy? Why? 5. The results of the work A. The recommendations have been handed over to the regional council in June: 1. How was the ceremony? 416 3. Documents relating to chapter 5 2. Have you been able to read these recommendations? What do you think? 4. Do you think these recommendations take into account the issue of climate change? Are they competent? 5. What will you do with these recommendations? 6. Do you think the opinion citizen may be orchestrated? B. Costs: Do you know the price of the jury? What do you think? C. Consequences: 1. What do you think of the future of the results? 2. Will you integrate them into your work? Why? How? 6. The jury in context A. The jury citizen is defined by some authors as an instrument of participatory democracy: 1. Do you know this expression? What do you mean by participatory democracy? 2. Is this a good thing? What are the strengths and weaknesses of participatory democracy? 3. Should we do more of juries citizens? 4. What is, in your opinion, the report between participatory democracy and representative democracy? B. The citizens are drawn. Some authors propose to draw lots to the Hon. Member to resolve what they analyze as a crisis of representative democracy: 1. What do you think of this proposal? Why? C. What has been / has there been a reaction in the media? Which? What do you think? 7. In conclusion A. What is your overall opinion on the jury of citizens? What are the advantages and disadvantages of this model? What could be improved? B. Is there something that I have forgotten? That you want to add? 417 Annexs
3.2 .4Interviews (P3 - P4 - P5) Maintenance Group: citizens (P3) Sex Age Group Activity Place of residence Duration Unique Number CD M 25-40 Commercial Vienna
57:19 P3-1
+ M 40-60 Technical Assistant Vienna
50:55 P3-2
+ M 25-40 Workman Deux-sèvres 50:13 P3-3
+ M 40-60 Retirement Charente-Maritime 48:55 P3-4
+ F 40-60 Retirement Charente-Maritime 47:20 P3-5
+ F 40-60 Plastic Charente-Maritime 01:03:46 P3-6
F 40-60
Inactive Charente
56:46 P3-7
+ F 40-60 Restated Charente
51:59 P3-8
+ M 40-60 Commercial Deux-sèvres 1:10:28 P3-9
+ F 25-40 Decorator Vienna
29:32 P3-10
+ Maintenance Group: stakeholders and politicians (P4) Function during the process Sex Duration Unique Number CD Assignee - Director department transport and environment of the region M 47:10
P4-1 Representative of the opposition regional - UMP M 19:52
P4-2 Representative of the regional majority - Green Party - the greens F 29:07
P4-3 Representative of the regional majority - PS F 38:42
P4-4 Representative of the opposition regional - UMP M 50:22
P4-5 Maintenance Group: organizers (P5) Function during the process Sex Duration Unique Number CD Animator / organizer F 01:09:29
P5-1 Facilitator / organizer M 34:00
P5-2 Organizer / regional administration Department participatory democracy in the region F 01:31:24 P5-3 Organizer / regional administration Department participatory democracy in the region F 01:11:51 P5-4 418
3. Documents relating to chapter 5 3.2 .5analysis of documents (P6) Title and type of document Unique Number CD Invitation and preparation Documents of the steering committee P6-1-1
Documents public engagements P6-1-2
Documents stakeholders P6-1-3
Recruitment Documents P6-2-1
Documents handed to participants Information Tag on the environmental policy of the region and on different subjects (water, pesticides, etc) P6-3 +
Place animation P6-4
Program of Work P6-5
Protocol of the first session P6-6-1
Protocol for the second session P6-6-2
Conduct of the jury - various P6-6-7
Subsequent Documents Report citizen P6-8-1 +
P6-8-1 + Film Jury citizen P6-9 Program socialist party regional 2010 P6-11-1 +
P6-12 + Press Articles P6-13 +
I would like to contact you regarding the citizen jury assessment of regional policy against climate change, to which you had participated in June 2008 and during which I myself had even played the role of observer (and photographer) in the framework of my thesis. I now find myself in the final phase of my work and seeks to assess the consequences in the medium term of employment of such a tool of participatory democracy. To do this I would like to know if you have the time and the kindness to kindly answer has a short series of questions contained in the attached form. It would help me enormously. The questions are well on all optional and i anonymiserai the answers. I enclose an envelope pre-stamped for the answer. To make the participation more interesting, I put into play a superb batch between all the people who send me their response before the October 20, 2010: it is a meal for two people in the restaurant of the hotel "ecological the Orangeries ≪, that Olivia Gautier, the owner, was present at the jury. Ms. Gauthier has even kindly proposed to offer in addition the wine accompanying the meal. I would like to keep you informed of the result of the drawing by email. You would be-it 419 Annexs
Therefore possible to inform me of your e-mail address at the end of the form (or on a separate sheet in order to facilitate the anonymization of questionnaires) ? I'll be contacting you by post if you do not have e-mail. Well on, if you do not want to participate in the draw it you will suffice for me the indicate. Thank you in advance, Antoine Vergne 1. The experience two years after 1.1 What is the remembrance that you has the most brand of your participation in the jury of citizens? 1.2 Why?
1.3 Have you had the news of the other members of the group? In what context? 2.1 If today another jury citizen was working on the same topic, would you do more, as much or less confidence has its members that has your group of 2008 ? More As Much
Less No opinion / do not know7 2.2 Why? 2.3 And if today another jury of citizens was working on another topic, would you do more, as much or less confidence has its members that has your group of 2008 ? More As Much
Less SO / NSP
2.4 Why? 3.1 Have you had the impression of having been influence in your work? Yes Non
SO / NSP 3.2 If yes, by whom and why has this happened? 3.3 Is there in your opinion a danger of manipulation in the formula of the jury of citizens? 4.1 Have you had the impression that the work of the jury has been fairly transparent for the citizens who have not participated? Yes Non
SO / NSP 4.2 Why?
7Shortcut in the suite by: NA / NA / NSP 420 5.1 Do you think it was legitimate to organize a jury to deal with the issue of climate change? Yes Non
SO / NSP 5.2 If yes, on what basis such a legitimacy? 5.3 If not, a jury could it become legitimate? By what(s) way(s) ? 6.1 Have you had the impression of being competent on the subject: At the beginning of the jury? Yes Non
SO / NSP 6.2 At the end? Yes Non
SO / NSP 6.3 Why?
6.4 Have you made any personal skills in the work of the jury? Yes
Non SO / NSP
6.5 If yes which? If not, why? 2. The results 7.1 How did you find the notice at the time? 7.2 And today? 8.1 Do you know if the region has used the opinion? Yes
Non SO / NSP
8.2 If yes, by what means have you learned? 8.3 If you have been informed of the suites data has the opinion, do you know how this has been done? 8.4 What do you think? 9.1 Have you had the impression to represent the inhabitants of the Poitou-Charentes ? Yes Non
SO / NSP 9.2 The French in general? Yes Non
SO / NSP 9.3 Do you think that you have defended the interests of the whole population of Poitou-Charentes ? Yes Non
SO / NSP 9.4 If not, what interests have been less regarded? Or considered too much? 3. The jury on the medium term 10.1 The experience did she influence your daily behavior just after? If yes, how: Yes Non
SO / NSP 10.2 You are you more interested in the subject of climate change? How is it translated? Yes Non
SO / NSP Annexs
10.3 Have you talked from time to time? With that? Yes
Non SO / NSP
10.4 Have you acting otherwise? If yes how? Yes
Non SO / NSP
11.1 The experience she continued to influence your behavior today and if yes how: Yes
Non SO / NSP
10.2 You are interested you still on the subject of climate change today? How does this translate: Yes
Non SO / NSP
11.3 You talking about it from time to time? With that? Yes
Non SO / NSP
11.4 Made you certain things otherwise? Which? Yes
Non SO / NSP
11.5 The jury he continues to influence you in other areas? If yes, which and how? Yes
Non SO / NSP
12.1 Have you learned things during the jury? Yes
Non SO / NSP
12.2 If yes, you are still useful today? How? Yes
Non SO / NSP
12.3 Do you have the sense to know more things than your entourage on the subject? Yes
Non SO / NSP
12.4 Do you think everyone can participate has a jury of citizens? If not, who cannot and why? Yes
Non SO / NSP
13.1 Have you heard of other similar experiences in Poitou-Charentes or elsewhere? Which? Yes
Non SO / NSP
13.3 There has been the regional elections in March of this year: would you say that the participation to the jury was able to influence your electoral choice? If yes, how? Yes
Non SO / NSP
13.4 The jury did he influence your report has the policy and the elected? Why and how? Yes
Non SO / NSP
13.5 Have you more, as much or less confidence in the elected? Why? More
As Much Less
SO / NSP 13.6 Have you more, as much or less confidence in the possibility of changing things by the policy? Why? More As Much
Less SO / NSP
4. Jury and Policy 14.1 You interested has the policy? Why? Yes Non
SO / NSP 422
3. Documents relating to chapter 5 14.2 A part of our elected representatives are professionals of the policy. What do you think of this state of fact? 14.3 Do you think there should be special skills to make the policy? Which? Yes
Non SO / NSP
14.4 It is often said that elected representatives act on a time scale short, taking into account the elections. Do you think this is true? And what do you think of this state of fact? Yes
Non SO / NSP
14.5 Do you think the jury with which you have been involved had a time scale: Identical? Shorter? More long? SO / NSP Why?
14.6 With the benefit of hindsight, do you think the juries citizens are a suitable instrument to make recommendations on the issue of climate change? Yes
Non SO / NSP
14.7 On other subjects? Which? Yes
Non SO / NSP
14.8 Do you think that such a tool could also be used to formulate proposals for legislation or even directly of laws without going through Parliament? Yes
Non SO / NSP
Under the following conditions: 14.9 Do you think that such a tool could also be used to directly take political decisions at the local level? Yes Non
SO / NSP Under the following conditions: 15.1 You have been drawn by lot: what do you think of this method of selection? 15.2 Is this a good thing to use in politics? Why? Yes Non
SO / NSP 15.3 If you had has compare prize draw and elections, what expressions would you association: With the draw With the election With the two With none of the two SO / NSP Transparency Impartiality Equality
Responsibility Representativeness Participation Power
Rotation Corruption Elected Economic
Destiny 423 Manipulatable Annexs Expression of a preference Mandate Unpredictable Independence Competence Legitimacy Rationality Democracy Aristocracy Oligarchy Fair Procedure Other associations you do they come from has the spirit? 16.1 What would be the three advantages and three disadvantages of the draw? Benefits Disadvantages 16.2 What would be the three advantages and three disadvantages of the election? Benefits
Disadvantages 5. To finish 17.1 If a day you find an old lamp has oil and that by rubbing to clean a genius in went out and gave you three wishes concerning the political system french, that please ask him-you to change? A few more questions for do my statistics: Department of residence? Net annual income (more or less) ? Sex: Age:
Mel (for the draw of the meal) : Other comments, questions? Thank you for your participation,
Yüklə 3,57 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|