Content Texte - Image Texte There is a vast literature on the benefits to be hoped from the concertation of stakeholders in technology assessment, risk governance, territorial development, and other classes of social choice problems. According to this literature, the fulfillment of hopes for integrated assessment would depend not only on an adequate science base, but above all on the embedding of the relevant science in collective learning. This means, on the one hand, the sourcing of knowledge from a range of people and in many different forms, and, on the other hand, a negotiation across a broad spectrum of stakeholders about the quality of different proposals for action. Prospects for socially robust collective choices may be explored through bringing stakeholder perspectives into constructive dialogue with each other, in order to search for a common ground of action in both knowledge and value terms. We choose, for this purpose, to adopt a framework for participatory integrated assessment known as The INTEGRAAL Cycle. INTEGRAAL Generic Description of the Step Step ONE. What’s Our Problem? Identification by the stakeholder community of “our common problem”. This step may engage stakeholder consultation and deliberation; and it delivers the context, the scale, and the dynamics of the formal deliberation process to come. Step TWO Structure the Evaluation Tasks Organise “our common problem” in terms of the categories of actors concerned, the objects or options being assessed, and the value criteria. This means developing typologies for (1) the spectrum of stakeholders; (2) the projects, policies, strategy options, and scenarios to be appraised; and (3) the principles of performance, quality and acceptability that the stakeholders hold. Step THREE Prepare Knowledge Resources Identify and mobilise tools for system representation (e.g., maps, data sets, models of processes and systems) that can help to ground the deliberations in a robust knowledge base and that will assist in preparing catalogues of indicators representing the stakeholders’ reference points when working to evaluate situations and scenarios. Step FOUR Exercises of Deliberative Evaluation Mobilise actors for tasks of deliberation. This step depends on the frameworks and information developed in Steps 1-3 above. Using functionalities of the KerDST Deliberation Matrix on-line, it produces outcomes in the formal sense of multi-actor multi-criteria evaluations. Simultaneously it provides insights and learning opportunities to participants. Step FIVE Restitution of Results Communication of Results & Recommendations. This includes, but is not limited to, the reporting of outcomes of an evaluation exercise. It also includes all tasks “along the way” of information sharing relating to the design and preparations of deliberations, documentation of discussions and intermediate results. Step SIX Start all over Again Reflection on the outcomes obtained and, in an iterative sense, a return to Step ONE of the process, in order to review the entire evaluation sequence or, as seems fit, to repeat the exercise or formulate new specific evaluation problems.