KEY
Bold:		Interviewer
Regular:		Respondent
[ ]:		Uncertain word(s)

Could you record me if I call you on a number?
Actually if you call me on the landline I won't be able to record you.
I can do that easily, so I’ll take the number.
But it’s okay now.
But if we start again I think we will be more comfortable.
I won't be able to record the interview if you call me on the landline.  I can only do it through the computer and now it seems to be working, so I’m really sorry but we should be fine from this point on.
My last question was, can I check if you quote me, can I check the context of the quote or not?
Yes, you can.  One thing I should add to the summary I gave you before is that the interview will be anonymised.  We will basically use quotes but there won't be a name associated with the quote.  It will be a pseudonym or a senior figure at European Commission or it will be—
But my role was so sort of specific that it’s easily identifiable.  But anyway, I don’t intend to say anything I—
We can definitely do that, by saying that we will put a mechanism in place for you to do that, so it’s fine.
Okay.
Having said that, the questions are fairly broad, it’s mainly a conversation.  The idea of the – I don’t know how familiar you are with the project or how much you remember about the project, but what we are trying to do with this project is interrogate a bit critically how the games and gamification are featured in research programme Horizon 2020.  We’ll also be looking back at Framework 7.  And we want to understand how these ideas became research priorities and deserving somehow attention, funding and support.  
And we are engaging with a number of stakeholders, experts, in order to identify possible alternative framings to use video games for culturally educationally relevant purposes.  So that is more or less the background where the project is coming from.  The idea obviously is we want to look at a more ethically – some of the ethical dimensions associated with the use of games in society.  And the implications that come from that.  So I will ask a few questions about your role in defining—
I have a clear idea, I can clearly answer your question as what the intention was behind the writing of the topic but maybe I follow the question that you ask.  And if I didn’t manage to say what I want I will add it in the end?  Or you want me to start?  So let’s go.
Let’s start with your background, so your current role, the sort of things that you do generally in terms of your capacities.  And your involvement in defining some of these priorities with respect to funding programmes like Horizon 2020, or some others?
My background, I am trained as an engineer.  Then I studied operations research, then economy and after philosophy.  So I have sort of background both technical and in humanities, social science.  My role in identifying this as a priority I have to say was quite critical.  Because I was in charge in [anonymised]  of implementing the responsible research innovation and the main training of SSH into our own ICT remit.  ICT remit was thought to be more techno stuff.  The colleague having this technological perspective and we had as you know two mainstreams, both RRI and SSH.  And I was brought about in [anonymised]  by Robert Madelin to be sort of embodiment of this main training within [anonymised] .  So what I did to do this job, I convened the Onlife Initiative.  
So my point was to say that you can only do that if you go beyond compliance.  So it is not just ticking the box about what our colleagues in DG RTD are asking to do, but to think from where we are about how we can be responsible and mainstream SSH meaningfully, not just as a cherry or an add-on stuff.  So it was really a call to think to all engineers and social science.  So then I convened the Onlife Initiative and you must also know maybe that before joining [anonymised]  I was in Science and Society Directorate in [anonymised] , so I knew, I have initiated the policy on women in science.  Then I was asked to mainstream sustainable development considerations in FP7.  So I was trained and used to do a sort of dynamic mainstreaming, not just a compliant mainstreaming.
And this I put with the Onlife Initiative and what I wanted to do was to go beyond the mainstream upstream stuff, or the dialogue between engineers and social scientists where social scientists say we don’t want to be the cherry of the cake or the fifth wheel of the wagon.  And then they think that they could be first and that engineer could only apply what they ask for, because they would have thought about the design in a perfect manner.  My point there was together with Peter-Paul Verbeek who is an STS scholar and was part of the Onlife Initiative is to in fact say that to be responsible means not just comply and either be on top of things, or just – so neither compliance or being on top.  But instead having a critical accompaniment between social science knowledge and technological knowledge.  A sort of iterative critical accompaniment.  
And this is why my approach, what I have sold to Robert Madelin, was – and this idea of sister project came about following a study that we have committed on multiple disciplinarity.  It is another thing that I had witnessed over the thirty years of working in [anonymised] , is that also we could form a multidisciplinary team but it seems to be that it doesn’t happen.  So we funded a study to say, okay, please help us either to decide we should not call for this anymore or if we do how to do it.  And that study, which is on the web, it’s called multiple disciplinary – building bridges and breaking barriers or something like that.
I think I know it.
Okay.  And they insisted on the human dimension, the fact that to make connection you need in fact to take time.  So it’s all sort of counterintuitive compared to going quick, being big to have big results.  We have to put ourselves in the mindset.  And then another thing that I observed was that social science and humanities scholars were feeling that once the work programme was trusted in fact it was already too late somehow.  
Another thing I also observed was to see some kick-off meeting where you had a poor SSH partner that was put there by a bunch of engineers because they needed one.  And the poor guy really was lost and not understood by these engineers about what he wanted to say.  So the succession of these inputs led me to argue in [anonymised]  and to Robert Madelin that followed me, okay, why not give social scientists the opportunity to challenge also the way engineers speak about what they do.  
So with this topic what we aim to do is to transform the status of this work programme, which is supposedly a bible, to make it as a sort of springboard for social scientists to draw the attention of engineers and say, do you realise when you speak in this way about your topic it’s not only about technique but it really shapes the type of research that comes out and the type of outcome, more importantly.
But that induces the fact that the people making – so the idea of putting a topic which is itself a licence to challenge the text itself, that was an idea that I said to multiply the ways through which SSH can dialogue with engineer.  And also it was because when I read the work programme of my colleagues I was saying that they were really doing their best and they thought this was the only thing to be said, and I had in mind the critiques that social scientists make on that language.  
And the first year, to tell you the truth, I tried myself to mitigate the biggest enormities I would say in French.  But then also later I thought, but maybe it’s best not to do it myself and to really open it up and let the social science community comment on it in a constructive way.  
And that’s where the sister project came from?
Right.  The sister project was really that. This sort of small opening.  And the choice as you understood was to challenge whatever you thought was interesting to be challenged from your perspective, you chose to challenge game, others choose to challenge the use of the word smart or anything [0:10:33], the association of robots for example, you could just – there you go.  And the goal was really to have this dialogue with engineers in a way that people open up and do not feel attacked and in need of being defensive, sort of  mind opener.
That’s precisely the assumption that we have, the background of the project.
Yeah.
Like you said, you framed it perfectly, we are doing this kind of work in the area of gaming and gamification, because we thought that that was—
This was fully understood.  Your project was very well appreciated by the evaluator I must say.
That’s great, fantastic.  The reason I wanted to speak to you about this, as part of this process as you know we are looking at the text, the way of funding calls, the way certain priorities are titillated and the way certain priorities are framed.  As somebody who actually was involved in injecting these elements of RRI, responsible research and innovation in these calls.  Obviously it may be too specific to ask you to focus, you may not be aware of the specific calls that deal with gamification or game based learning.  
But generally, okay, as we are beginning to look at these calls we are not seeing this kind of tension between different types of priorities.  Things like push for market expansion, market growth, technological innovation on the one hand.  And then the societal challenge, you know, need to take into account things like ethics, equity, inclusion.  So we are doing that kind of work kind of specifically focussing on a number of calls.  But from your perspective, if somebody was involved in making an effort to increase the visibility of the societal and cultural elements.  How do you feel now, the way for example, talking for Horizon 2020 in general, how do you feel now those elements are featured?  Are you happy with the way this kind of—
Too many questions!  If I’m happy or not is not too important.  But when you say how it features, it’s not about visibility.  What I wanted to do was to encourage a critical approach and reflexivity and thoughtful approach.  I am afraid of an approach where the visibility of RRI would be only – exactly what I say, sort of compliance.  So my enemies, if I may speak like that, is of course total invisibility of RRI but a more subtle enemy would be a fossilised or a totally ossified approach to RRI where you have sort of just compliance rules, where in fact it would not be thoughtful.  That is also problematic.
I’m afraid – I am quite sure that people are aware there are challenges and things to be considered, but too few people are aware that considering these things require really a common thinking and constructive conversation between social scientists and engineers.  Not looking for silver bullet or magic tricks, but to thinking in context about what they do. 
I see.  You mentioned defensiveness before, the fact that—
Yes, I mentioned defensiveness because too often we have an approach to relations and that goes for both I think social science and engineers and all that to – we think that the only way to be heard is to be against and to scream, so either we follow or we combat.  And I believe we should much more rely and build upon things which are some oddnesses and ambiguities.  I think there can be constructive ambiguities.  So that’s my point.
For example, ambiguities, can you give me examples?
I hope you get the possibility to speak with – what was his name again, because now I changed DG so I am not anymore involved in the work programme 1820 for example.  But Marco, Marco Marsella?
Yes, I interviewed him yesterday and actually he was very helpful, very kind.
Good.  Because he is a guy really, the penholder of the gamification.  So he’s at the edge with the community and thinking interestingly he’s a clever guy.  You have there a good example of why he writes, how he writes about gamification for example.
It was very helpful.  Like you said, he is very much involved in the agenda.  It was very focussed as a conversation.
Yeah.  And I think maybe one thing that he overlooked but when I told him that he totally – he was ready to open up, was the gender that I mention.  I think that often there is a sort of under consideration of how men and women – how boys and girls or female and masculine persons, call it as you like, how there can be dual approach to gamification.  But that’s just in passing.
Could you give me also a better idea of how you envisage ethics in technological design in general?  I just want to get an idea from somebody who is very much part of these conversations?
As I told you, I do not substantiate ethics.  I really resist strongly to the belief that ethics can be turned into an algorithm in whatever way.  That is just the way I think.
So it’s not an algorithm, it’s not a technical process, it’s a relationship or a collection of—
It’s something to be thoughtful in context.  It is all too because I am very much influenced by Hannah Arendt in here thinking, and I think that things that you produce always – and this is a good thing – have an impact which is beyond what you expected or different from what you expected.  So I never consider ethical issues in terms of doing bad or good because something that has been done with a bad intention can end up having a good effect.  Or also – so it should be – so there is – except when it is for killing people or poisoning them.
For example, okay, you prompt a reflection in my mind and I would say something I consider deeply unethical is getting benefit for yourself by fooling others consciously for example.  Or when it is to gain, when it is to encourage violence and competition and really brainwash people, users, that they have no empathy for others.  Anything that’s focussed on control, the mystification of omnipotence.
It’s very interesting that you mention these aspects, these are some of the things we are examining as part of the work that we’re doing around gamification and game based learning.  Which brings me to it may not be your specific area of expertise but at the same time you seem to have a bit of a view about the role of games in society or the sort of—
The role of games.  I know people play at all levels.  I don’t want to look like someone who wants to be censoring games, sort of puritanist person.  So I can very well take also that people may enjoy violent game and be very nice person.  It’s just that I hate violence wherever it is, and that’s me.  I don’t want to generalise my own sentiment for sure.  But I would say that inviting people to reflect on themselves, while allowing them sometimes also to just enjoy, but when you push them to enjoy some stuff which could be addictive that there are moment or possibilities to step out and to reflect about it.  I believe very much in people being able when they are not too much pressed upon to find their own balance.
So what do you think is, according to you, the best – the most socially, ethically appropriate way to influence behaviours?  To achieve the kind of positive social change that you have in mind?  How do you think we should go about it?  Because that is an issue, the technological—
But there again this I would call the instrumental approach to gaming and I think that this I would not agree.  Because for me if you are engaged in designing games it’s because you enjoy doing it.  And I’m also very much for valuing the present instead of putting everybody in the name of the future, which is stepping out of reality.   I think when people play games because they enjoy and people develop games because they enjoy doing it.  And also to have to argue that what you do is in order to improve the things, in order to the future, is often fictional in a non useful way.  It’s a screen.  All this instrumentalisation is a screen.
Okay, if you want to improve the fact that people speak more language and you end up doing this by a game, okay, but then people will think about gamification, they will speak about people who do it and there will be a conversation.  If it is about – I think it’s so many different situations that can happen then that I don’t think that thinking upfront theoretically about how games in general can achieve better futures, no, it’s boring.
That’s very interesting.  Can you think of an example, not just games but technology in general, because I think that is something that applies not only to games but to many other kinds of technological approaches.  Can you think of a case or an example where these kind of more critical socially or culturally sensitive ideas about social change kind of met successfully with technological design?  You know, where the two worlds kind of met without colliding.
I don’t understand the question, and I don’t know why, listening to your question trying to understand it, something else came to mind, so let me say.  What is the link between where games stop and where so called real life begins?  Because a lot of things people do seriously and in fact they play, for some people being competitive, developing something good, is also playing.  And you can see life as a play.  So yeah, I think it’s interesting for yourself also to wonder – to think about the blurring limits of what is gaming against non gaming maybe.  Don’t know, you can do what you want with that.  But what was the question then, I didn’t catch it?
The question is if you have an example, if you know, if you’re aware, of a situation, of a project let’s say, a project where technological design, which may or may not be related to games or gamification, just technological design in general, met successfully with this idea of RRI, you know, responsible research and innovation, this kind of more culturally sensitive idea of social change.
I think obviously smart phones are obviously an artefact that has been taken up so quickly because they correspond to a need or people – it’s like a glove to us.  So it is something but it wasn’t done – yes.  I don’t have this philological approach to RRI that you seem to induce with your question, that there would be something you can design from scratch and then produce it and it will be the perfect RRI type. 
No, that’s not what I had in mind.  It was more this kind of situation with this opening up of dialogue that you talked about.
The dialogue, no, my point, I would dream to see you speaking now for example with people developing games and see how you manage to open their own mind on what they do.  That you trigger in the people you interact with.  Because this sister project is supposed to be put in contact with also the other projects on gaming.  So I must say that I did not so far attend a conversation, this conversation that I dream about, no, I haven’t seen it.
Okay.  That’s the answer I was looking for.  As for the second point that you made, the links with other projects and other – that’s exactly, yes, it’s one of the things we’re trying to do, the kind of connection.
But you should speak to your project officer about that, and you may remember that because these sister projects were supposed to be small, the duty of putting you in touch with other projects is with the commission and the famous hub which is a three million Euro CSA that has been evaluated lately and will start soon.  With a duty to bring together the sister projects with the bulk of projects which is running in their own topic, you see?
RPO has been very helpful in that respect.  And just the fact that I managed to interview Mr Marcella yesterday is actually evidence of that.  
Don’t consider this a burden for under your project.  Of course you may have your own means to do it and you should make use of them, but you are supposed to be supported by a coordination action that should take up the logistics and identification of a project with whom you speak and all that.
That’s actually this more formal aspect (laughs), I wasn’t aware of it.  So it’s definitely good to know.  We’ve been talking for half an hour and I don’t want to take any more of your time.  
Did you cover any burning things?
Yes.  The main thing I wanted to cover was this idea of how responsible research and innovation, this concern for the more social, cultural, ethical aspects of technological design entered the dynamic.  And so I got a sense of that.
To that question, how it entered the dynamic is because there was an obligation to mainstream.  But then on that I have been in [anonymised]  trying to take this up in a dynamic way so that I introduce this critical dimension.  And this is only done in [anonymised]  and ICT.  With the idea that if I stayed there – but the DG changed and I changed – but the idea was that this could be tried in other areas, not only in ICT and at least pursued in ICT so that we see how it becomes when it’s tried a bit more.  So I’m afraid this experience is very ephemeral because I understand the current DG is less keen to be creative and supportive on this.  So he’s more compliant.  He’s to do what he has to do but not to add some initiative and be proactive about it. So that is the difference.  The sister project is a result of a proactive approach to RRI, not just a compliant approach.
Okay, thank you very much.
My pleasure, good luck with your project.  And thanks for applying, because as I said, your project was really appreciated.  If you have interesting outcomes you can always drop me a line, it’s nice to know that it’s useful to you and you make good things with it.
Probably the next outcome, the output that we are working on, the more discourse analytic approach to – we are actually doing a proper discourse analysis of a number of calls and strategic documents to unpick some of these things a bit more empirically.
Okay.  By the way, on discourse analysis, I’m doing now a critical discourse analysis on policy text of the EU in general to show.  So are you a specialist in critical discourse analysis?
I have done some, yes.  I’d love to see what you’re doing.
Okay, then I will send you a paper, I’ll keep this in mind.
Yes, and I will keep you in the loop about our own.  Thank you.