Imagining socio-technical futures–challenges and opportunities for technology assessment

Journal of Responsible Innovation

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 85-99

  Bechtold, Ulrike ^a   Fuchs, Daniela ^a   Gudowsky, Niklas ^a  

^a ERICH SCHMID INSTITUTE OF MATERIALS SCIENCE   (Austria)

Author keywords

responsible research and innovation; Socio technical futures; technology assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 85044833303     PISSN: 23299460     EISSN: 23299037     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2017.1364617     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Adam, B., 2007. “Futures Traversed.” WEB 130207. Accessed October 27, 2015. http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/futures/wp_ba_futurestraversed130207.pdf.
2. Adam, B., 2011. “Wendell Bell and the Sociology of the Future: Challenges Past, Present and Future.” Futures 43: 590–595. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2011.04.007
3. Bauer, A., A., Bogner, and D., Fuchs. 2016. “Societal Engagement Under the Terms of RRI.” PROSO Deliverable D 2.2. Accessed February 1, 2017. http://www.proso-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/proso_d2.2_societal_engagement.pdf.
4. Bechtold, U., L., Capari, and N., Gudowsky. 2017. “Future Ageing and Technology: An Analysis of Different Actors Imaging the Times to Come.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2). doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1360721.
5. Bishop, P., 2016. “The University Foresight Network: The Search for Common Ground among Foresight Educators.” World Futures Review 8 (1): 6–11. doi: 10.1177/1946756715627371
6. Bogner, A., and H., Torgersen. 2014. “Emerging Technologies and the Interpretative Turn in Technology Assessment.” Teorija in Praksa, Let 51 (5): 726–741.
7. Borup, M., N., Brown, K., Konrad, and H., Van Lente. 2006. “The Sociology of Expectations in Science and Technology.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18: 285–298. doi: 10.1080/09537320600777002
8. Coates, J., 1977. “Technological Change and Future Growth: Issues and Opportunities.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 11 (1): 49–74. doi: 10.1016/0040-1625(77)90016-6
9. Decker, M., and A., Grunwald. 2001. “Rational Technology Assessment.” In Interdisciplinarity in Technology Assessment, edited by M., Decker. Berlin: Springer [Cited by: Decker, M., and M. Ladikas. eds. 2010. Bridges Between Science, Society and Policy. Technology Assessment–Methods and Impacts, 2. Wissenschaftsethik und Technikfolgenbeurteilung Bd. 22. Berlin: Springer-Verlag].
10. Decker, M., and M., Ladikas, eds. 2004. Bridges Between Science, Society and Policy. Technology Assessment–Methods and Impacts. Wissenschaftsethik und Technikfolgenbeurteilung Bd. 22, 2. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
11. Decker, M., and N., Weinberger, B.-J., Krings, and J., Hirsch. 2017. “Imagined Technology Futures in Demand-Oriented Technology Assessment.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2). doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1360720.
12. Delvenne, P., 2017. “Responsible Research and Innovation as a Travesty of Technology Assessment?” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2). doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1328653.
13. Dickel, S., and F., Schrape. 2017. “The Renaissance of Techno-Utopianism as a Challenge for Responsible Innovation.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2). doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1310523.
14. Dierkes, M., U., Hoffmann, and L., Marz. 1992. Leitbild und Technik: zur Entstehung und Steuerung technischer Innovationen. Berlin: Edition Sigma.
15. Enzer, S., 1972. “Cross-impact Techniques in Technology Assessment.” Futures 4 (1): 30–51. doi: 10.1016/0016-3287(72)90023-7
16. European Commission. 2012. “Responsible Research and Innovation–Europe’s Ability to Respond to Societal Challenges.” Accessed February 1, 2017. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/responsible-research-and-innovation-leaflet_en.pdf.
17. European Commission. 2015. “Press Release: President Juncker Welcomes World-Leading Scientists, Discusses Role of Science in Competitiveness and Announces New Mechanism for Scientific Advice.” http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4970_en.htm.
18. Fisher, E., M., O’Rourke, R., Evans, E. B., Kennedy, M. E., Gorman, and T. P., Seager. 2015. “Mapping the Integrative Field: Taking Stock of Socio-Technical Collaborations.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 2 (1): 39–61. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.1001671
19. Fisher, E., and A., Rip. 2013. “Responsible Innovation: Multi-level Dynamics and Soft Intervention Practices.” In Responsible Innovation. Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by R., Owen, J., Bessant, and M., Heintz, 165–183. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
20. Ganzevles, J., R., Van Est, and M., Nentwich. 2014. “Embracing Variety: Introducing the Inclusive Modelling of (Parliamentary) Technology Assessment.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (3). doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.968439
21. Garud, R., and D., Ahlstrom. 1997. “Technology Assessment: A Socio-cognitive Perspective.” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 14 (1): 25–48. doi: 10.1016/S0923-4748(97)00005-2
22. Grin, J., and A., Grunwald, eds. 2000. Vision Assessment: Shaping Technology in the 21st Century. Towards a Repertoire for Technology Assessment. Berlin: Springer.
23. Gross, M., and L., McGoey, eds. 2015. Routledge International Handbook of Ignorance Studies. London: Routledge.
24. Grunwald, A., 2000. Technik für die Gesellschaft von morgen. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen gesellschaftlicher Technikgestaltung. Campus: Frankfurt.
25. Grunwald, A., 2012. “Synthetische Biologie als Naturwissenschaft mit technischer Ausrichtung. Plädoyer für eine “Hermeneutische Technikfolgenabschätzung”.” Technikfolgenabschätzung–Theorie und Praxis 21 (2): 10–15.
26. Grunwald, A., 2013. “Techno-Visionary Sciences: Challenges to Policy Advice.” Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 9 (2): 21–38.
27. Grunwald, A., 2014. “The Hermeneutic Side of Responsible Research and Innovation.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (3): 274–291. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2014.968437
28. Grunwald, A., 2017. “Assigning Meaning to NEST by Technology Futures: Extended Responsibility of Technology Assessment in RRI.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2). doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1360719.
29. Gudowsky, Niklas, and Mahshid, Sotoudeh. 2017. “Into Blue Skies–A Transdisciplinary Foresight and Co-creation Method for Adding Robustness to Visioneering.” NanoEthics 11 (1): 93–106. doi: 10.1007/s11569-017-0284-7
30. Guston, D. H., 2014. “Understanding ‘Anticipatory Governance’.” Social Studies of Science 44 (2): 218–242. doi: 10.1177/0306312713508669
31. Guston, D. H., and D., Sarewitz. 2002. “Real-time Technology Assessment.” Technology in Society 24: 93–109. doi: 10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1
32. Habegger, B., 2010. “Strategic Foresight in Public Policy: Reviewing the Experiences of the UK, Singapore, and the Netherlands.” Futures 42 (1): 49–58. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2009.08.002
33. Haegeman, K., M., Weber, and T., Könnölä. 2012. “Preparing for Grand Challenges: The Role of Future-Oriented Technology Analysis in Anticipating and Shaping Structural and Systemic Changes.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 24: 729–734. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2012.715475
34. Harper, J. C., K., Cuhls, L., Georghiou, and R., Johnston. 2008. “Future-oriented Technology Analysis as a Driver of Strategy and Policy.” Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 20 (3): 267–269. doi: 10.1080/09537320801997193
35. Hebestreit, R., 2013. Partizipation in der Wissensgesellschaft. Funktion und Bedeutung diskursiver Beteiligungsverfahren. Berlin: Springer.
36. Jasanoff, S., 2004. “Ordering Knowledge, Ordering Society.” In The Co-production of Science and the Social Order, edited by S., Jasanoff, 13–45. London: Routledge.
37. Jasanoff, S., and S., Kim. 2009. “Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Nuclear Power in the United States and South Korea.” Minerva 47: 119–146. doi: 10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4
38. Jasanoff, S., and S., Kim, eds. 2015. Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
39. Johnston, R., 2008. “Historical Review of the Development of Future-oriented Technology Analysis.” In Future-Oriented Technology Analysis-strategic Intelligence for an Innovative Economy, edited by C., Cagnin, M., Keenan, R., Johnston, F., Scapolo, and R., Barre, 17–23. Berlin: Springer.
40. Johnston, R., and C., Cagnin. 2011. “The Influence of Future-oriented Technology Analysis: Addressing the Cassandra Challenge.” Futures 43: 313–316. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2010.11.008
41. Joss, S., and S., Bellucci. 2002. Participatory Technology Assessment–European Perspectives. London: University of Westminster.
42. Kastenhofer, K., U., Bechtold, and H., Wilfing. 2011. “Sustaining Sustainability Science: The Role of Established Inter-disciplines.” Ecological Economics 70 (4): 835–843. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.12.008
43. Lösch, A., K., Böhle, C., Coenen, P., Dobroc, A., Ferrari, D., Fuchs, R., Heil, et al. 2016. “Technikfolgenabschätzung von soziotechnischen Zukünften.” Discussion paper no.03/ Dec. 2016. Institut für Technikzukünfte. KIT, Karlsruhe. Accessed February 15, 2017. http://www.itz.kit.edu/img/2016_Andreas-Loesch_Technikfolgenabschaetzung-von-soziotechnischen-Zukuenften_final-Druck.pdf (only available in German).
44. Lösch, A., R., Heil, and C., Schneider. 2017. “Responsibilization Through Visions.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2). doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1360717.
45. Mander Huits, N., 2010. “What Values in Design? The Challenge of Incorporating Moral Values into Design. Science and Engineering.” Ethics 17 (2): 271–287.
46. Marschalek, I., M., Schrammel, E., Unterfrauner, and M., Hofer. 2017. “Interactive Reflection Trainings on RRI for Multiple Stakeholder Groups.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2). doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1326262.
47. Meister, M., and I., Schulz-Schaeffer. 2017. “Laboratory Settings as Built Anticipations–Prototype Scenarios as Negotiation Arenas Between the Present and Imagined Futures.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2). doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1326260.
48. Nentwich, M., 2017. “A Short Response to van Lente, Swierstra and Joly’s Essay ‘Responsible Innovation as a Critique of Technology Assessment’.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2). doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1325698.
49. Oreskes, N., and E. M., Conway. 2014. The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future. New York: Columbia University Press.
50. Owen, R., P., Macnaghten, and J., Stilgoe. 2012. “Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society.” Science and Public Policy 39: 751–760. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs093
51. Owen, R., J., Stilgoe, P., Macnaghten, M., Gorman, E., Fisher, and D. H., Guston. 2013. “A Framework for Responsible Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation. Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by R., Owen, J., Bessant, and M., Heintz, 27–50. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
52. PACITA Consortíum. 2015. “PACITA Manifesto.” Accessed October 27, 2015. http://www.pacitaproject.eu/pw-content/uploads/2015/03/manifesto_v3.pdf.
53. Pellé, S., 2016. “Process, Outcomes, Virtues: The Normative Strategies of Responsible Research and Innovation and the Challenge of Moral Pluralism.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 3 (3): 233–254. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2016.1258945
54. Rask, M., R., Worthington, and M., Lammi, eds. 2012. Citizen Participation in Global Environmental Governance. London: Earthscan.
55. Rosa, H., D., Strecker, and A., Kottmann. 2013. Soziologische Theorien. Konstanz: UVK.
56. Rieder G., and J., Simon. 2017. “Big Data and Technology Assessment: Research Topic or Competitor?” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2). doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1360718.
57. Sand, M., 2016. “Responsibility and Visioneering–Opening Pandora’s Box.” Nanoethics 10: 75–86. doi: 10.1007/s11569-016-0252-7
58. Sand, M., and C., Schneider. 2017. “Visioneering Socio-technical Innovations–A Missing Piece of the Puzzle.” Nanoethics 11: 19–29. doi: 10.1007/s11569-017-0293-6
59. Schneider, C., and A., Lösch. 2014. “What About Your Futures, Technology Assessment? An Essay on How to Take the Visions of TA Seriously.” Motivated by the PACITA Conference. Technikfolgenabschätzung–Theorie und Praxis 24(2015)2, 70–74.
60. Schot, J. W., and A., Rip. 1997. “The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment.” Technological Forecasting & Social Change 54: 251–268. doi: 10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00180-1
61. Schulz, Markus S., 2015. “Future Moves: Forward-oriented Studies of Culture, Society, and Technology.” Current Sociology Monograph 63 (2): 129–139. doi: 10.1177/0011392114556573
62. Science Europe. 2015. “Science Europe Statement on the Establishment of a Scientific Advice Mechanism by the European Commission.” May 19. Accessed October 27, 2015. http://www.scienceeurope.org/uploads/PressReleases/150519_SE_Statement_Scientific_Advice.pdf.
63. Stilgoe, J., R., Owen, and P., Macnaghten. 2013. “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation.” Research Policy 42 (9): 1568–1580. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008
64. Torgersen, H., 2013. “TA als hermeneutische Unternehmung.” Technikfolgenabschätzung–Theorie und Praxis 22 (2): 75–81.
65. Torgersen, H., and D., Fuchs. 2017. “Technology Assessment as a Myth Buster: Deconstructing Myths Around Emerging Technologies.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2). doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1320157.
66. Tran, T. A., and T., Daim. 2008. “A Taxonomic Review of Methods and Tools Applied in Technology Assessment.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75 (9): 1396–1405. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2008.04.004
67. Van den Hoven, J., 2013. “Value Sensitive Design and Responsible Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation. Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by R., Owen, J., Bessant, and M., Heintz, 75–83. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
68. van Est, R., 2017. “Responsible Innovation as a Source of Inspiration for Technology Assessment, and Vice Versa: The Common Challenge of Responsibility, Representation, Issue Identification, and Orientation.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2). doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1328652.
69. van Lente, H., Swierstra, T., and P-B., Joly. 2017. “Responsible Innovation as a Critique of Technology Assessment.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2). doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1326261.
70. Vedder, A., and B., Custers. 2009. “Whose Responsibility Is It Anyway? Dealing with the Consequences of New Technologies.” In Evaluating New Technologies: Methodological Problems for the Ethical Assessment of Technology Development, edited by P., Sollie and M., Düwell, 21–34. Springer: Dordrecht.
71. Verbeek, P.-P., 2009. “The Moral Relevance of Technological Artifacts.” In Evaluating New Technologies, edited by P., Sollie and M., Düwell, 63–77. Springer: Dordrecht.
72. Voß, J.-P., D., Bauknecht, and R., Kemp, eds. 2006. Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
73. Von Schomberg, R., 2011. “Prospects for Technology Assessment in a Framework of Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden, edited by M., Dusseldorp and R., Beecroft. Wiesbaden: Vs Verlag. English Version. Accessed February 15, 2017. https://app.box.com/s/f9quor8jo1bi3ham8lfc.
74. Von Schomberg, R., 2013. “A Vision of Responsible Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by R., Owen, M., Heintz, and J., Bessant, 51–74. London: John Wiley-VCH.
75. Zimmer-Merkle, S., and T., Fleischer. 2017. “Eclectic, Random, Intuitive? Technology Assessment, RRI, and Their Use of History.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2). doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1338105.