In this contribution, we investigate how results produced in a large-scale participatory agenda setting process differ from results of expert-based foresight studies with a similar aim of informing EU research and innovation (R&I) policy. After providing a theoretical positioning and an overview of the EU-wide participatory agenda setting process CIMULACT—Citizen and Multi-Actor Consultation on Horizon 2020, we describe our developed analytical approach that includes five analytical steps and calculation of three metrics. By comparative reading, analysis and scoring of 16 expert-based foresight reports, we produced data for the metrics that allow for discerning between (a) how many of the analyzed foresight reports cover a respective topic from CIMULACT, (b) how well this basic coverage aligns qualitatively, and (c) comprehensive comparison of each CIMULACT topic with respect to all surveyed reports. To discern differences, we chose those results (research topics) from CIMULACT that were also sufficiently covered by expert-based reports. Our findings suggest that such citizen-based, multi-actor co-created policy advice qualitatively differs considerably from that elicited by expert-based reports, in terms of direction and focus of the proposed R&I agenda.

中文翻译：

---

但是他们能交付吗？参与式议程设置在测试台上

在这项贡献中，我们调查了大规模参与式议程制定过程中产生的结果与基于专家的远见研究的结果有何不同，其目的是为欧盟研究与创新（R＆I）政策提供信息。在提供了整个欧盟范围内的参与性议程设置过程CIMULACT（《地平线2020年公民与多角色咨询》）的理论定位和概述之后，我们介绍了我们开发的分析方法，其中包括五个分析步骤和三个指标的计算。通过对16个基于专家的预见性报告进行比较阅读，分析和评分，我们生成了指标数据，以便区分（a）多少个分析的预见性报告涵盖了CIMULACT的相应主题，（b）该基本情况如何？覆盖范围在质量上保持一致，（c）将每个CIMULACT主题与所有调查报告进行全面比较。为了识别差异，我们选择了CIMULACT的那些结果（研究主题），这些结果也被基于专家的报告充分涵盖。我们的研究结果表明，在拟议的R＆I议程的方向和重点方面，这种基于公民的，由多个参与者共同制定的政策建议与基于专家的报告所引发的建议在质量上有很大不同。