Futures of ageing and technology – comparing different actors’ prospective views

Figures & data

Table 1. Overview of the actors (in three pTA projects): experts, stakeholders and experts and citizens.

Actor	pTA output chosen for comparison	Scope	Project name, duration and sponsor	Primary Addressee
Experts	Scenarios	Values in science and innovation: bridge gap between science and industry	Value Ageing (VA) 2010–2014 European FP7 –Marie Curie	Industry and policy
Stakeholders and Experts	Scenarios	Future ageing: Participatory co-creation of recommendations	Parliaments and civil society in Technology Assessment (PACITA) 2011–2015 European FP7 –Science in society	National and EU policy
Citizens	Visions	Autonomous living and ageing in the city: Participatory co-creation of recommendations	Citizens Visions on Science Technology and Innovation – Ambient Assisted Living (CIVISTI) 2013–2014 Technology Agency of the City of Vienna, Austria (ZIT)	Regional policy, city planning

Table 2. VA/PACITA – comparison of important elements of scenarios.

Scenario element	Comparative remarks
Time framing	VA scenarios extend up until 2030, whereas PACITA scenarios cover the period until 2025. A consequence of this is a technology approach which is slightly more futuristic in VA – not all the technology described exists in that form today.
Closeness to actors’ everyday life	VA is more situational – the scenarios cover a special situation, and the protagonists face a change in the situation. In PACITA the actors are described during (subjectively) longer periods of time – there are no special situations in which their stories are told. One could even say that PACITA deploys a meta-perspective.
Introduction to scenarios	In PACITA a general description of the protagonists’ situation and an introduction to each scenario’s political and social context is given. VA wraps all information into the 12 different stories.
Main aim	The main aim of the PACITA scenarios is an identification of political measures which help to tackle the challenge of an ageing society – it is about rational and knowledge-based policy advice. It is also about analysing the societal consequences of political decisions in relation to technology use. The main aim of VA scenarios is to analyse specific situations of technology use, in situations where the technology involved is already integrated into the protagonists’ lives.
World making	Generally rather positive in PACITA (e.g. ‘the common action scenario’), and variable in VA (quite a number of scenarios – 5 out of 12 – are about countering crime, fraud and misuse).
Technology failure	An important topic in VA, but only a consequence of economic shortages in PACITA.
Technology to market	PACITA addresses the political decisions affecting the market, and political and/or economic incentives are part of the scenarios; the process of how the technologies become part of the protagonists’ lives is thus central. In VA the technology is already implemented – hence the analysis starts a little later here.
Individual and societal perspective	PACITA distinguishes a grand societal framing from the individual dealing with the societal issues and the technological challenges; VA mixes both aspects within each scenario anew.
Intelligent technology	VA addresses monetary aspects (social-economic) to gratify reasonable behaviour – individuals are steered towards desirable traits and technology realizes ambient law in form of ‘drive lock’, which disqualifies human beings from deciding whether they are able to drive or not. The aspect of technology influencing users’ behaviour is not present in PACITA directly, but indirectly this aspect is also present in terms of feedback functions of health apps or (tele)medical devices.
Needs of the protagonists	Their needs are quite similar in VA and PACITA – the needs of human beings seem to change only slowly over time.
Technology affinity of protagonists	VA – there are almost no protagonists who are technology nerds; similarly, in PACITA.

Table 3. Main aspects as presented by citizens, experts and stakeholders.

Main aspect	Citizens (CIVISTI) visions	Experts (VA) Ethical entanglements scenario	Stakeholders (PACITA) recommendations scenario
Social cohesion	Intergenerational exchange to prevent isolation	Social Integration and Communication	Detection and recognition of individual needs
Self-determination	Fear of enforced community participation in public life	Autonomy	Autonomy and freedom of choice (non-technological solutions also have to be possible)
Care provision	Guaranteed public care provision	Public care provision is absent here. Partly inherent to: universal technological access options to public services	Guaranteed public care provision
Technology as societal disruptor	Communication technologies could reduce personal contact	Technology replaces human beings	Participation and inclusion
Demand side orientation	Customized living quarters and personal transport	Customizable technology features	Appropriate framework (legal, social, financial, technical, including the definition of norms and standards)
Provision of services/goods	Fear of top-down offers Customized health offers	Freedom of choice	Self-determination, autonomy and freedom of choice (non-technological solutions also have to be possible)
Active older adults	Meaningful and socially valued activities Fear of late retirement age Barrier-free living, mobility	Remain active	Change the public perception of elderly people
Security and privacy	Fear of perceived or real surveillance Strong social networks provide security	Personal security Informational privacy	Data privacy
Local privacy	Chosen isolation and anonymity needs to be possible	Local privacy	Provision of adequate and appropriate technologies
Digital divide	Fear of excluding technologically illiterate	Human dependence upon technology	is absent here
Technology accompanying services	Free tech updates	Responsibility of providers to ensure effective use and (continuous) training	Education/training and provision of information to caregivers and elderly people
Accessing technology	Easy access to technological innovations	Universal technological access options to public services	is absent here
Economic perspective	Social networks relieve state budget	Trade-off of economic savings vs. (individual) risk	is absent here