94 4 CHAPTER 4 4.1 EXPERT INTERVIEWS Three expert interviews were conducted to get more empirical background information. We interviewed a professor at Delft University of Technology to check the academic relevance of the Comprehensive Human Oversight Framework. To gain understanding in the empirical context of current drone deployment we interviewed an applied researcher at the NLR [Netherlands Airspace Centre] (previously working in the Royal Netherlands Airforce) and two operators at the drone squadron of the Royal Netherlands Airforce. The questions regarding the drone deployment were on the decision-making processes, mission planning, execution and evaluation of current drone missions and the results were used to create the implementation concept in chapter 5. 4.2 VALUE DELIBERATION PROCESS For the value elicitation of the interpretation stage of the Glass Box framework we used the Value Deliberation Process developed by (Pigmans, 2020). Value deliberation is a form of participative deliberation aimed at creating mutual understanding on the various perspectives of the participants. By discussing values instead of solutions, a common ground and normative meta-consensus among stakeholders can be achieved (Dryzek & Niemeyer, 2006). Active participation in a debate offers the opportunity for people to develop and draft collective judgements on complex issues in real time. Deliberation will enhance critical thinking and reflection among its participants through a formalized and guided process. Through (online) deliberation, one can find solutions that consider and integrate various views on certain aspects of a topic. It enables people to learn about the different aspects of a complex (political) topic and to better understand each other’s positions (Verdiesen, Dignum, & Hoven, 2018). Based on the practical implementation of deliberative democracy platforms, Fishkin (2009) identifies five characteristics essential for legitimate deliberation: 1) information: accurate and relevant data is made available to all participants, 2) substantive balance: different positions are compared based on their supporting evidence, 3) diversity: all major positions relevant to the matter at hand and held by the public are considered, 4) conscientiousness: participants sincerely weigh all arguments, 5) equal consideration: views are weighed based on evidence, not on who is advocating a particular view. The Value Deliberation process that Pigmans (2020) developed is inspired by the Delphi method. Where the Delphi method is designed to reach consensus between anonymous experts in an iterative process, the Value Deliberation process is aimed at reaching mutual understanding on the various stakeholder perspectives by direct interaction. The Value Deliberation process consists of six stages and eight steps (see Figure 13).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw