This is the briefing presentation of the lecture seminar that Dr Calzada from the University of Oxford (UK) Future of Cities & COMPAS and Ikerbasque, Basque Foundation for Science and Dr Casado from the University of the Basque Country, Philosophy Department delivered at the University of Iceland in Reykjavik on the 27th Sept 2013. They presented the #research #project titled #Basque & #Iceland #Connection after one week of full time #fieldwork #research conducting interviews in Reykjavik from 22nd-29th Sept. The procedure will continue in the Basque Country with the same methodology. This presentation became a paper that will be published shortly.

1. #Basque
&
#Iceland
#Connec1on
Igor
Calzada,
Ph.D.
PostDoctoral
Research
Fellow
at
the
University
of
Oxford
(UK).
Future
of
Ci?es
FoC
Programme,
COMPAS
&
InSIS.
&
Ikerbasque,
Basque
Founda?on
for
Science.
&
Antonio
Casado,
Ph.D.
Lecturer
&
Researcher
at
the
University
of
the
Basque
Country.
University
of
Iceland,
Reykjavik
14:00
27th
September
2013.

2. INDEX
0.-­‐
Bio
&
Background
1.-­‐
Research
Aims
(4)
2.-­‐
Research
Ques1ons
(3)
3.-­‐
Framework:
Methodology
(5
Systems
x
6
Indicators)
&
Field
work.
4.-­‐
Hypothesis
(5
x
6
=
30
Items)
N.-­‐
Open
Discussion:
#Connec1on?
*References

3. 0.-­‐
Bio
&
Background.

4. 0.-­‐
Bio

5. 0.-­‐
Background

6. 1.-­‐
Research
Aims
(4).

7. 1.-­‐
Research
Aims
(4)
① to
interpret
the
Basque
&
Icelandic
situa1on
in
the
global
context:
① specificaly,
redefining
their
role
as
a
territory
in
the
context
defined
by
the
decline
of
the
Na?on-­‐States
(Ohmae,
1995)
and
the
uncertain
postcrisis
EU
general
context
(a)
Scotland,
Catalonia,(b)
even
Iceland
itself
and
(c)
Oresund
as
a
non-­‐iden?ty
based
region),
② struggling
to
get
out
of
a
crisis
that
is
more
than
financial,
③ in
need
to
restructure
their
governance
systems
to
the
changes
happened
from
2008.
② to
develop
an
inventory
or
interview
list
to
capture
the
ethically
relevant
social
innova1on
trends
behind
hypothe1cal
democra1c
change
in
a
given
society
or
territory,
and
① test
it
in
both
Iceland
and
the
Basque
Country

8. 1.-­‐
Research
Aims
(4)
③ to
make
explicit
the
underlying
ethics
(presupposi1ons,
emerging
topics,
emo1ons)
and
strategically
cri1cal
social
innova1on
trends
around
themes
such
as:
① poli?cal
innova?on
at
the
global
and
local
scales,
② the
meaning
of
the
crisis
and
its
impact
on
democracy
(before
and
a_er
2008),
③ the
influence
of
technology
and
social
movements
in
this
hypothe?cal
social
transforma?on,
④ the
role
of
different
stakeholders,
⑤ the
macro
&
micro
socio-­‐economic
real
alterna?ves
in
contrast
with
the
neoliberal
agenda,
and
⑥ how
can
we
see
each
others'
experience
④ to
reconnect
again
(rela1onship
between
Basque
whalers
and
Icelandic
people
ended
tragically
in
1615)
① to
put
together
our
two
poli?cal
systems,
and
look
at
them
through
the
lenses
of
applied
ethics
and
social
innova?on
field
(our
connec?on
not
only
involves
two
territories,
but
also
two
different
disciplines:
applied
ethics
and
cri?cal
social
innova?on.
We
think
both
might
benefit
from
collabora?on.)

9. 9
1.-­‐
Research
Aim
(*)

10. 2.-­‐
Research
Ques1ons
(3).

11. 2.-­‐
Research
Ques1ons
(3)
① Iceland
was
the
first
country
to
be
hit
by
the
2008
financial
crisis
with
drama?c
democra?c
consequences.
If
there
has
been
some
democra1c
social
innova1on
or
regenera1on
in
Iceland
ader
the
crisis,
what
rela?onship
does
it
have
with
ethics?
What
is
its
moral
core?
② Because
they
share
some
features
concerning
their
compara1ve
small
size
and
iden1ty
(unique
local
language
and
culture
dealing
with
bigger
players
in
a
global
arena),
we
wonder
whether
some
of
the
transforma1ons
(innova1ons?)
emerged
in
Iceland
during
the
Kreppa
years
(2008-­‐2013)
could
be
applicable
to
the
crisis
in
the
Basque
Country
in
the
new
post-­‐violence
scenario
(ETA’s
ceasefire
from
2011
on).
And
what
about
micro
social
innova?ve
cases
(coopera?vism,
plurilingualism,…)?
③ Different
as
they
are,
both
situa1ons
involve
hopes
of
regenera1on
of
the
democra1c
system,
and
both
raise
ques?ons
such
as:
What
has
been
really
happening
in
Iceland?
What
is
the
nature
of
the
change
or
innova?on
that
has
emerged?
In
what
way
is
it
special
or
different
from
the
Basque
case?

12. 3.-­‐
Framework:
Methodology
(5
Systems
x
6
Indicators)
&
Field
work.

13. Cri1cal
Social
Innova1on
Applied
to
Territories
Applied
Ethics
3.-­‐
Framework:
Methodology

14. 3.-­‐
Framework:
Methodology
Social
Innova1on
Applied
to
Territories
Applied
Ethics
5
SYSTEMS
DEMOS
=
• URBS
+
• CYBER
+
• CIVITAS
+
• POLIS
6
INDICATORS
ETHOS
=
• Ends
+
• Intersubjec?vity
+
• Reflec?on
+
• Consensus
+
• PostConven?onality
+
• CoResponsibility

15. On
one
flank,
moral
philosophers,
well
armed
with
three
centuries
worth
of
arguments
about
the
fact-­‐value
dis?nc?on,
target
the
validity
of
empirical
ethics
research
and
cri1que
what
they
see
as
the
empirical
ethicists’
untenable
efforts
to
develop
prescrip?ve
conclusions
from
descrip?ve
evidence.
On
the
opposing
flank,
social
scien1sts
(and
others)
amack
the
dis?nc?veness
of
empirical
ethics
research,
with
cri1cisms
ranging
from
empirical
ethicists’
naive
appropria?on
of
the
complex
methodologies
and
methods
developed
from
within
their
disciplines,
to
their
apparent
ignorance
of
social
scien?sts’
own
amempts
to
account
for
the
ways
in
which
social
prac1ces
are
laden
with
judgments
of
moral
value.
Dunn,
M.,
Sheehan,
M.,
Parker,
M.
and
Hope,
T.
(2012)
‘Towards
methodological
innova?on
in
empirical
ethics
research’,
Cambridge
Quarterly
of
Healthcare
Ethics,
21(4):
466.
As
Swyngedouw
suggested,
today
the
social
problema1c
addressed
through
Social
Innova1on
has
become
much
more
complex
due
to
the
deepening
of
mutually
reinforcing
socioeconomic,
socio-­‐poli1cal
and
socio-­‐ecological
crises
(Moulaert
et
al,
2013).
3.-­‐
Framework:
Methodology
(Cri1cal)
Social
Innova1on
Applied
to
Territories
Applied
(Empirical)
Ethics

16. Two
Research
Ques1ons:
1.-­‐
How
do
Territories
behave?
2.-­‐
How
could
we
iden?fy
socially
innova?ve
processes
among
them
?
Social
Innova1on
Applied
to
Territories
5
SYSTEMS:
#URBS
1.-­‐
Human
Geography:
Sociodemographic
factors.
2.-­‐
Sustainable
&
Resilience
Territorial:
Technical
factors.
3.-­‐
Urban&Rural
+
Centre&Periphery
Linkage:
Morphological
&
Mobility
factors.
#CYBER
4.-­‐
Physical
Connec1vity:
Usage
of
the
land/users
rela?onship
factors.
5.-­‐
Digital
Connec1vity:
Interac?on
enabling
factors.
6.-­‐
Social
Connec1vity:
Social
Capital
factors.
#CIVITAS
7.-­‐
Immigra1on:
Ethnic
diversity
and
integra?on
factors.
8.-­‐
Entrepreneurship:
Socio-­‐economic
challenged
factors.
9.-­‐
Local
Communi1es:
Local
grassroots
factors.
#POLIS
10.-­‐
Iceland
&
EU:
Globaliza?on
threats
&
oportuni?es’
factors.
11.-­‐
Governance:
Dialogue
between
stakeholders’
enabling
factors.
12.-­‐
Par1cipa1on:
Precondi?ons,
mobiliza?ons
and
par?cipaton
process’
factors.
#DEMOS

18. Applied
Ethics
Self-­‐understanding
E)
Ends:
this
item
tries
to
capture
the
self-­‐understanding
of
the
moral
subject(s)
by
looking
at
the
extent
they
iden?fy
the
goals
or
internal
goods
that
give
meaning
to
a
given
prac?ce,
and
the
factors
influencing
their
choice
of
those
ends.
I)
Intersubjec1vity:
this
item
tries
to
capture
the
self-­‐understanding
of
the
moral
subject
in
rela?on
to
others,
by
looking
at
what
they
think
about
the
subject
Jus1fica1on
R)
Reflec1on:
this
item
tries
to
capture
to
what
extent
the
subject(s)
bases
their
decisions
in
a
dialogue
or
delibera?on
in
which
the
right
(minimal
ethics)
and
the
good
(maximal
ethics)
are
considered
C)
Consensus:
this
item
tries
to
capture
to
what
extent
the
subject’s
decisions
would
have
been
taken
by
consent
in
an
ideal
community
of
communica?on,
in
which
all
stakeholders
are
present
in
a
dialogue
on
equal
grounds
Applica1on
PC)
Post-­‐Conven1onality:
this
item
tries
to
capture
to
what
extent
the
subject(s)
implement
principles
that
all
stakeholders
could
agree
to,
irrespec?vely
of
their
own
concep?on
of
the
good
CR)
Co-­‐Responsability:
this
item
tries
to
capture
to
what
extent
the
subject(s)
assume
a
share
of
responsibility
for
the
consequences
of
collec?ve
behaviour
Two
Research
Ques1ons:
1.-­‐Can
we
measure
the
extent
ethics
is
applied
in
a
territory?
2.-­‐
How
can
we
iden?fy
emerging
trends
in
moral
prac?ce?

19. 3.-­‐
Framework:
Field
work
①
Interviews
with
Stakeholders:
Academia
and
Poli?cs.
②
Informants:
6-­‐8.
③
Hypothesis:
5
Systems
x
6
Indicators
=
30
Items.

20. 3.-­‐
Framework:
Methodology
Social
Innova1on
Applied
to
Territories
Applied
Ethics
5
SYSTEMS
DEMOS
=
• URBS
+
• CYBER
+
• CIVITAS
+
• POLIS
6
INDICATORS
ETHOS
=
• Ends
+
• Intersubjec?vity
+
• Reflec?on
+
• Consensus
+
• PostConven?onality
+
• CoResponsibility

21. 3.-­‐
Framework:
Methodology

22. 4.-­‐
Hypothesis:
(5
x
6
=
30
Items)

23. 4.-­‐
Hypothesis
Hub
&
Periphery
#Tension?
(City-­‐Region)
Liquid
Mythopoe1c
#Ar1facts
#Emo1onally
Channeled
Ac1vism
Dilemmas
in
#Transi1on
On-­‐going
#ReExamina1on

24. #URBS
photo
by
@icalzada

25. 4.-­‐
Hypothesis
Hub
&
Periphery
#Tension
?
(City-­‐Region)

26. #CYBER
photo
by
@icalzada

27. 4.-­‐
Hypothesis
Liquid
Mythopoe1c
#Ar1facts

28. #CIVITAS
photo
by
@icalzada

29. 4.-­‐
Hypothesis
#Emo1onally
Channeled
Ac1vism

30. #POLIS
photo
by
@icalzada

31. 4.-­‐
Hypothesis
Dilemmas
in
#Transi1on

32. #DEMOS
photo
by
@icalzada

33. 4.-­‐
Hypothesis
On-­‐going
#ReExamina1on

34. N.-­‐
#Connec1on?
ICELAND
BASQUE

35. Takk
fyrir
þástökuna.
Eskerrik
asko
zuen
parte
hartzega?k.
Thank
you
for
your
par?cipa?on.
Igor
Calzada,
Ph.D.
Igor.calzada@compas.ox.ac.uk
hmp://www.igorcalzada.com
hmp://about.me/icalzada
@icalzada
&
Antonio
Casado,
Ph.D.
antonio.casado@ehu.es
hmp://antonio.ias-­‐research.net
@eskuezkerraz

36. #WorkInProgress
Summary
#Tension?
#Ar1facts
#Emo1onally
#Transi1on
#ReExamina1on

37. *References
• Social
Innova1on
&
Territory.
• Moulaert,
F.,
MacCallum,
D.,
Hillier,
J.,
Vicari,
S.,
(2009)
Social
Innova+on
and
Territorial
Development,
Ashgate,
Aldershot.
ISBN:
978-­‐0754672333.
• Innerarity,
D.
(2013),
The
Democracy
of
Knowledge,
Bloomsbury,
London.
• Calzada,
I.
(2013),
The
Future
of
City-­‐Regions
<>
Compara+ve
Territorial
Benchmarking.
RSA
Regional
Studies
Associa?on,
Winter
Conference.
• Calzada,
I.,
DiSiena,
D.
eta
Chautón,
A.
(2013)
#MacroMesoMicro
Systemic
Territory
Framework
from
the
perspec+ve
of
Social
Innova+on
//
Marco
Analí+co
del
Territorio
desde
la
Innovación
Social.
ISBN:
978-­‐84-­‐616-­‐5217-­‐4.
Calzada,
I.
(2011a),
Towards
the
Basque
City?
Compara+ve
Territorial
Benchmarking
from
Social
Innova+on:
Dublin
(Ireland)
&
Portland
(Oregon),
Bilbao:
Innobasque-­‐Basque
Innova?on
Agency.
• Applied
Ethics.
• Dunn,
M.,
Sheehan,
M.,
Parker,
M.
and
Hope,
T.
(2012)
Towards
methodological
innova?on
in
empirical
ethics
research,
Cambridge
Quarterly
of
Healthcare
Ethics,
21(4):
466-­‐480.
• Forde,
R.
(2012)
How
Can
Empirical
Ethics
Improve
Medical
Prac?ce?
Cambridge
Quarterly
of
Healthcare
Ethics,
21(4):
517-­‐526.
• Kristjansson,
K.
(2004)
Iceland:
Searching
for
Democracy
along
Three
Dimensions
of
Ci?zen
Control,
Scandinavian
Poli?cal
Studies,
27(2),
153-­‐174.
• Siurana,
J.
C.
(2009)
La
sociedad
é?ca.
Indicadores
para
evaluar
é?camente
una
sociedad,
Barcelona,
Proteus.