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

ABSTRACT

An increasing orientation of technology assessment (TA) and adjacent fields toward future socio-technological developments is leading scholars to examine, assess and adapt different approaches of future studies on various levels. In this special issue of the Journal of Responsible Innovation, a number of members of the extended TA community in Europe seek to advance different approaches to handling the unpredictable, to consider various possible socio-technical futures and to explore a more active role in technology design and shaping of the future as required by concepts such as responsible innovation (RI) or responsible research and innovation (RRI). The three German words ‘Zukunft Macht Technik’ (the title of a TA conference in Vienna in 2015) make a nice little pun in German: they can either be interpreted as the short sentence ‘Future shapes technology’ or as the assembly of the three nouns ‘future power technology.’ Both readings are borne in mind in this special issue. A main insight of this special issue is that we need to explore how the debate on imagined socio-technical futures is enriched by concepts such as R(R)I, taking into account that no future can exist without an awareness of the present setting of innovation processes and technology development.

KEYWORDS:

• Socio-technical futures
• technology assessment
• responsible research and innovation

1. Dealing with technology futures …

‘What starts out as science fiction today may wind up being finished tomorrow as a report.’ The American author Norman Mailer here very elegantly formulates an idea that could serve as a motif for this special issue. First, it places a focus on science fiction with its promises of interesting and exciting future (technological) developments. Second, the statement points to the possibility of fictitious ideas becoming reality by turning into real-life innovations which are then described in reports – a prospect which can hold both fascinating and horrifying visions. In short, Mailer’s statement shows the whole range of challenges TA is confronted with on a daily basis when using futures as both method and object of investigation: the question of whether and if so, how, to work with ideas on socio-technical innovations whose development and thus impact on present or future realities remain uncertain.

TA’s core task – providing policy advice about intended and unintended consequences of technologies on an interdisciplinary scientific basis – has always necessarily included a forward-looking component: assessing potential (future) consequences of technologies for society in the Here and Now. The uptake of such assessments undoubtedly has impacts on how the future will indeed develop. For the relation between TA and the multiple future options it elucidates is multi-directional: the way we think about the future matters in the present, by framing and preparing the ground for not only one but many possible socio-technical futures. Even impossible futures from today’s point of view may become possible, considering a wider time frame as well as the disruptive power of anticipated and especially unanticipated socio-technological developments. Technology, on the other hand, may frame specific futures for decisions taken today, which may result in pathways from which it is not easy to exit, for instance, in technological lock-ins. Meanwhile, imagined socio-technical futures have the power to orient today’s innovation pathways, for instance, through changing mindsets or allocating funding, and thus may co-produce a wide variety of consequences. In popular literature, fiction and science fiction use the power of the imagination to set out and negotiate different ways into or toward the future, with authors taking up contemporary discourses on societal conditions. Prominent examples include Huxley’s Brave New World (1932), Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (1968), Lem’s Kongres futurologiczny (1970) and, more recently, Oreskes’ and Conway’s The Collapse of Western Civilization (2014),¹ where elements of contemporary scientific discourse such as the societal responsibility of scientists are explored.

1.1.  … in times of pluralism, uncertainty and ignorance

It has been widely acknowledged that expectations regarding the future of technologies may create a certain dynamic in technological development. For example, the sociology of expectations in science and technology describes the mutual feedback of technological developments and expectation cycles (Borup et al. 2006). Meanwhile, this field of scholarship continues to undergo scrutiny and development, from Schulz’s plea for a ‘strengthening of a future-oriented sociology and studies of culture, society and technology’ (Schulz 2015, 129) to the recent focus on visioneering in socio-technical innovations, which has contributed to a widening of approaches toward futures (see Sand and Schneider 2017).

Innovation studies and the social sciences have for a long time been interested in studies of the future and have sought to implement their knowledge in practice, for example, by providing more than twenty foresight graduate programs worldwide,² some of them well connected (Bishop 2016). Some of the institutions involved in this work, such as the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research³ and the Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies, have been in existence for decades.⁴ Nonetheless, more recent foundations, such as the School for Future of Innovation in Society set up at Arizona State University in 2015,⁵ acknowledge in an exemplary way the increasing importance of the issue for various scholarly communities. However, for TA, futures have been subject to consideration since the very establishment of the field (Enzer 1972; Grin and Grunwald 2000; Tran and Daim 2008), and interest in the topic is hardly waning.

But why is the discussion of futures such an important thing today – especially when it comes to technologies? From an individual perspective, imagining ‘one’s place’ in society is constitutive of one’s social identity, indicating that the ‘future’ defines one’s present identity while remaining designable and – therefore – variable (Rosa, Strecker, and Kottmann 2013). On a societal level, different images of futures and their possible implications for today’s decisions have always been fundamental to decision-making. In fact, it has been argued that political decision-making nowadays is undergoing a change from a more past-oriented to a more future-oriented approach, requiring reliable recommendations or policy options (e.g. Grunwald 2014; Habegger 2010; Harper et al. 2008). Providing unambiguous and scientifically sound policy advice, however, is becoming more and more difficult due to the increasing complexity of interacting social and natural systems and the resulting (scientific) uncertainty. These developments incrementally put pressure on political decision-makers and policy advisors, thus pluralizing the approaches and methods needed to meet these challenges (Hebestreit 2013; Jasanoff 2004). Gross and McGoey (2015, 1) argue that we need to rationally acknowledge the limits of rationality, suggesting that if this is done ‘[m]aking decisions based on nonknowledge would not be irresponsible but fully justifiable as the only rational solution.’ They point to ignorance as a regular feature of decision-making in general, in social interactions and in everyday communication, which leads to the idea that the space that opens up for experimentation can be seen as one positive feature of ignorance (Gross and McGoey 2015). Yet, with regard to concepts such as responsible innovation (RI) and with regard to the daily practice of institutions giving policy advice (e.g. TA), this space for experimentation may not always be perceived as something positive. Considering the different roles TA and adjacent disciplines obtain while assessing, communicating and even co-creating futures – as producer, user and observer (Grunwald 2017; Sand and Schneider 2017) – this special issue sets out to investigate the different responsibilities these roles entail and the challenges which arise.

1.2. Changing the (political) game? Responsibility and futures in relation to research and innovation

When it comes to new technologies, the question of responsibility is of special interest. Adam (2011), for example, refers to the problems of space, time and matter as constraints on scientific processes, but especially on economic and political ones as their implications become extended into the future without falling under anybody’s responsibility in current daily practice. According to Adam, this shows the mutual contribution of all three realms to an institutionally constituted irresponsibility based on their time-bound scope of action (Adam 2007). Thus, there is a clear link between the debates on futures within governance and debates on risks, sustainability and responsibility (see, e.g. Voß, Bauknecht, and Kemp 2006). Accordingly, the relation between science and technology policy-making and advice becomes even more tricky. The introduction of the Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM) in May 2015 by the European Commission (EC) is an example of how institutions are coping with these challenges on a political level in reaction to increasing uncertainty and ignorance regarding scientific findings. SAM is designed to ensure the provision of independent scientific advice and it requires the currently seven nominated members of ‘High Level Group of Scientific Advisors’ to have a clear ‘role within the scientific advice structures that already exist, including the Joint Research Centre (JRC). Crucially, there must also be absolute clarity about who are the recipients of its advice, and it will need the autonomy and necessary support to provide advice on all relevant matters and at all times, not only on the basis of explicit requests or demand by the recipients’ (Science Europe 2015).

In short, independence of institutional and policy interests, interdisciplinary and transparency are of major importance in the European policy context (EC 2015).

Against this background, and with the introduction of the concept of responsible research and innovation (RRI) (Von Schomberg 2011, 2013), the EC is attempting to operationalize forward-looking activities and societal engagement within policy processes and to integrate innovation and precaution. While there are different approaches to ‘responsible (research and) innovation’ itself, the EC highlights five keys: public engagement, science education, ethics, gender equality and open science (European Commission 2012) while science studies scholars tend to identify the largely procedural dimensions of anticipation, societal engagement, reflexivity, responsiveness, accountability and transparency (e.g. Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013). Most ideas associated with RRI highlight engagement and the inclusion of societal actors and the importance of morality and ethics in research and innovation activities.

Concepts such as RRI, as promoted by the EC, and RI, as put forward by this journal, are vague, pluralistic and widely discussed, therefore opening up to various different framings and arguments (e.g. Pellé 2016). However, while RI in our understanding aims at fostering (voluntary) self-regulation among all actors by enhancing self-reflective approaches to their own research and innovation, RRI is predominantly considered a frame for justifying public funding decisions. In this special issue, the discussions and results will thus mostly relate to the latter, as our contributors are all based in Europe and often operate in close conjunction to policy stakeholders. Both RI and RRI have origins in several academic fields, but mainly public and stakeholder participation, anticipatory governance and, last but not least, TA (Owen, Macnaghten, and Stilgoe 2012). While TA in its institutionalized form acts as one – albeit polymorphic – agency, the idea of RRI addresses manifold actors in the field of science, technology and innovation (STI) governance, thus allowing for the integration and advancement of diverse and partly already existing approaches. Zimmer-Merkle and Fleischer (2017) argue that an increased focus on anticipatory knowledge and the will to actively use it for decision-making helped further inclusive approaches such as constructive TA (cTA), real-time TA (RTTA) and especially RRI.

With regard to the development of the RRI idea, Bauer, Bogner, and Fuchs (2016) see it deriving from a variety of well-known approaches. Starting with the debate on side-effects of technologies, developments such as the institutionalization of TA from the 1970s onwards, bioethics in the 1990s, and accompanying Ethical, Legal and Societal Implications (ELSI) research resulted in a conglomerate of approaches of ‘responsible technology development and governance’ which tends to take place more and more upstream – cumulating in RRI. For further elaboration of the historical relationship between TA and RI, see this issue’s discussion paper and three responses (see below).

RRI takes up elements from debates around (partly) institutionalized ex post or in vivo ethical evaluations (as provided, for example, by ethics committees or ELSI research), discussions on issues such as Value Sensitive Design (see, e.g. Mander Huits 2010; Van den Hoven 2013; Vedder and Custers 2009; Verbeek 2009) can also be found along its development. Here, design is interpreted as ‘ethics by other means’ (Verbeek 2009, 70), meaning that human actions are shaped via the technological design applied. Thus, values such as desirability, moral justifiability and democracy are inscribed in design processes (Verbeek 2009; on the relation between cTA, VDS and comparable approaches in RRI, see van Est 2017 and Fisher et al. 2015). Accordingly, RRI puts particular emphasis on a shift toward a pro-active understanding of ethics within the innovation process. Therefore, as Bauer, Bogner, and Fuchs (2016) conclude their literature review on RRI by stating that ethics in the context of RRI is used as a design element to shape innovation desirably.

Meanwhile, the notion of ‘responsibility’ is constantly being reframed under RRI, as different actor groups are invited to broadly reflect on their own roles and impacts in society (cf. Owen et al. 2013; Owen, Macnaghten, and Stilgoe 2012).

Taking these requirements seriously, RRI could be capable of creating processes of research and innovation open to fundamental change. However, the gap that has been identified in RRI between theoretical approaches and practices shows a clear need for a stronger focus on the implementation of RRI practice (cf. Marschalek et al. 2017).

Building on preceding approaches (e.g. anticipatory governance; Guston 2014), RRI’s focus on forward-looking activities in the assessment of different implications of upcoming decisions in (technology) development and innovation processes fuels the discussion of how science should handle the variety of images of futures. While building on the idea of co-production (Jasanoff 2004), the anticipatory quality of RRI encourages us to play with different imaginaries of technologies (as put forward by Jasanoff and Kim 2015). Nevertheless, RRI’s openness and attempt to integrate various approaches may pose challenges to earlier scientific approaches (again, see the discussion section as well as d’Anna-Huber’s book review).

2. Handling futures – technology assessment and RRI

Technology assessment (TA) and related fields have a long tradition of engaging with futures in order to anticipate upcoming challenges and the possible consequences of socio-technological development (e.g. Coates 1977; Dierkes, Hoffmann, and Marz 1992; Jasanoff and Kim 2009; Johnston 2008; Tran and Daim 2008). Here, both quantitative and qualitative approaches are applied. While the main focus of this special issue is on the TA perspective, there is a certain overlap with fields such as foresight – methodologically as well as in terms of topics. In contrast to forecasting, which uses quantitative methods to predict certainties of future states, the former two disciplines provide (policy) advice not only by anticipating futures but also by eliciting target knowledge including the values and demands of different actors, which is then used as orientation to steer development. On a European level, a definitive account of forward-looking activities and a conference series dedicated to Future-Oriented Technology Analysis organized by the Joint Research Center provide a useful overview of the differences and commonalities of the different approaches to anticipating and shaping futures (e.g. Haegeman, Weber, and Könnölä 2012; Johnston and Cagnin 2011).

This special issue focuses on the role of TA in questions of responsibility and future-orientation. For TA, the practical requirement of providing orienting knowledge for policy-makers and the general public on technology issues calls for supplementing scientific knowledge with a prioritization of issues (Decker and Ladikas 2004) and also for the evaluation and development of criteria; however, these steps are at least partially normative and value-laden (Decker and Grunwald 2001). Therefore, TA needs to provide orientation to help policy-makers and publics weigh different kinds of knowledge, to identify possible challenges for regulation, and to foster general enlightenment, democratic deliberation and public debate (Grunwald 2013).

Taking futures into account has recently become increasingly important in the field of TA (see, e.g. Bechtold, Capari, and Gudowsky 2017; Grunwald 2013; Lösch, Heil, and Schneider 2017; Sand 2016; Schneider and Lösch 2014), challenging TA to further integrate new perspectives and methods from different fields and disciplinary approaches. That said, the engagement with depicted futures poses certain challenges for expert TA approaches, such as the request that TA should contribute constructively to tackling ‘multi-level and trans-national dimensions of development, regulation, implementation and management of technology’ among others (cf. PACITA Consortium 2015).⁶ Thus, only recently, members of the German-speaking TA community have published a discussion paper on Technology Assessment of Technology Futures⁷ (Lösch et al. 2016) which elaborates on the motivations, roles and possibilities of analyzing socio-technical futures for TA.

Taking into consideration the developments within TA itself over the last few decades, one can see that the field has changed considerably. Starting with a focus on ex-post assessment of technology development, processes, actor involvement and technologies of interest, TA has considerably expanded over the last 25 years (cf. Decker and Ladikas 2004; Ganzevles, Van Est, and Nentwich 2014, as well as van Est 2017 and Nentwich 2017). Approaches such as cTA (Schot and Rip 1997) and RTTA (Guston and Sarewitz 2002) have contributed to RRI (Fisher and Rip 2013) and show a certain proximity to and ongoing involvement of TA in actual innovation processes and technology development. Following the frequent engagement of stakeholders and laypeople in concrete technology development processes, the participatory turn in TA (see Joss and Bellucci 2002) entails an increasingly early involvement of engagement processes in technology development, especially in the case of new and emerging science and technologies (NESTs). Here, the goal is to exert a fundamental public influence at an early stage (‘upstream engagement’), a claim that can be found in the concept of RRI as well. In this context, Bogner and Torgersen (2014) claim that TA has recently been undergoing an ‘interpretative’ turn which implies that the field needs to provide a reliable assessment of future options. Since this sometimes takes place long before concrete applications are identified, they call for a different set of methodologies (Bogner and Torgersen 2014). Therefore, a vast catalog of methods exists across various (inter-)disciplines for anticipating and assessing futures as well as imagining desirable ones, in order to inform and shape today’s and tomorrow’s decisions (e.g. Torgersen and Fuchs 2017; Grunwald 2014; Gudowsky and Sotoudeh 2017; Kastenhofer, Bechtold, and Wilfing 2011; Rask, Worthington, and Lammi 2012).

3. Challenging TA

This special issue is thus motivated both by the growing interest in futures from a TA perspective and by the opportunity for TA and RRI to critique and enrich one another. It does not attempt to provide a comprehensive study of ‘the future’ but rather seeks to contribute to the discussion of a pluralization of ideas on socio-technical futures. Different approaches, which are already being discussed in TA and related fields, offer interdisciplinary perspectives on possible future developments and are designed to provide orientation and reliable recommendations. We aim to bring together newly developed theoretical and methodological approaches and perspectives, in order to meet a core demand of both TA and RRI: contributing to real-world problem resolutions.

Therefore, the main challenges we consider the contributions of this special issue to address are the following: First, the question remains of how TA, from a scientific perspective, can deal with socio-technical futures from a more theoretical perspective: which challenges are posed to it by its unpredictability and uncertainty and how can we make use of it in STI governance context TA is operating within?

Second, while the concepts associated with RRI may make valuable contributions to more socially responsible innovation processes, the operationalization of these concepts in the respective context poses various challenges for TA (and other) practitioners.

Third, the work on futures and possible future developments does not spare TA as an inter-discipline: it forces the field to reflect on whether the contribution of certain scientific fields should be (further) strengthened within a TA context and whether there are new possibilities to be explored for daily TA work.

Hence, the research articles roughly cover three different aspects of the relation between future(s) and TA. The first section provides a reflection on handling futures in the field of TA, as well as on the intertwined responsibilities deriving from active involvement in the process of imagining futures. A second section deals with the implications of this theoretical debate on a concrete field of application, namely ageing and ambient assisted technologies and the way different actors imagine the future of an ageing society in the light of these technologies. The third section discusses the contributions of what could be called ‘extended TA perspectives’ by evaluating possible contributions of history and philosophy, identifying implications and emerging challenges for TA. Subsequently, research perspectives related to the three areas, implications for RRI in practice, and a discussion of the question of whether RRI serves as a critique of TA round out the issue.

4. Sections of this special issue

4.1. Research papers

4.1.1. Theoretical implications of TA’s approach to future(s)

Addressing the first challenge mentioned above, the first part of this collection elaborates on TA’s attempts to adapt its existing methods and theoretical approaches in order to deal with futures, and reflects on the field’s responsibilities deriving from active involvement in the process of imagining and concretizing futures.

With the concept of ‘technology futures’, Grunwald (2017) extends the basis of conceptual RRI debates concerning NESTs and the roles of TA as a producer, user and observer of ‘technology futures’ for scientific policy advice. He focuses especially on the process of how and which meaning is designated to research and development by means of socio-technical futures as this process shapes subsequent debates on, for example, promises and risks. Following the discussion about hermeneutical TA (Grunwald 2012; Torgersen 2013), Torgersen and Fuchs (2017) use Roland Barthes’ approach to ‘mythologies’ to enrich the (TA) toolbox available to deal with discourses around NEST. Emerging ‘upstream,’ such discourses draw from preceding experiences with technological developments and hence may give rise to ‘technology myths.’ By deconstructing such myths, TA should address the underlying meanings, histories, chains and networks.

Lösch, Heil, and Schneider (2017) investigate the increased development and application of constructed futures: in-depth vision assessment should examine visions as part of socio-epistemic practices which shape processes of innovation. From three cases of visions (FabLabs, Big Data discourses and smart grids), the authors deduce three modes of responsibilization such futures produce in their usage: re-forming responsibilities, inventing responsibilities and creating irresponsibility. The authors draw special attention to the fact that there is growing interest in an increasing desire for early upstream TA, often focusing on discursive approaches to TA. In order to concretize the realization of RRI, it explores the implications of integrating different ideas of futures into technology development and the importance of images of futures for various disciplines and in different fields, as well as a ‘responsible’ handling of futures within TA.

4.1.2. Implications for practical settings – future perspectives on selected fields of application

In order to explore the implications of imagined futures in a concrete practical setting, one of the major challenges for societies in the years to come, ageing, is elaborated on. As demographic change is fairly certain in industrialized countries worldwide, there are abundant activities around developing futures designed to understand and manage the interconnected challenges.

Bechtold, Capari, and Gudowsky (2017) shed light on qualitative future studies in TA by comparing visions and scenarios of ageing and ambient assisted living (AAL) provided by different societal actors. These ideas of futures serve as structural tools for integrating complex multi-dimensional assessment factors into shaping innovations and providing policy advice. Here, participatory methods open up scope for reframing issues and alternative approaches, thus enhancing the design processes’ responsiveness to societal needs as called for by RRI.

Meanwhile, Decker et al. (2017) assess a case study in a demand-oriented setting for assistive technologies within care-giving arrangements for people with dementia. Addressing the question of whether societal actors are able to envision future technologies in the first place, the authors describe the care sector as a major playing field for RRI with specifically elaborated ethical boundaries. They show how technology developers and professional care-givers are engaged to assess technology options aimed at increasing individual mobility, a key component in countering the manifestation of dementia.

Meister and Schulz-Schaeffer (2017) analyze the role of prototype scenarios in the development process linking ‘present realities’ and ‘future imagined realities,’ hence bridging the gap between technology visions and predictions. By creating a ‘space of exchange’ in the laboratory, an imagined but concrete situation is realized, contributing to present-day ‘capacity building,’ a precondition for future development. Thus, these scenarios (implicitly) provide an experimental realm for future developments and set the stage for technological solutions to come.

As this section shows, the specific context of AAL not only confronts scientists with aspects of life in the immediate future, but reveals particular ethical challenges, for example, regarding the needs of its clients. It touches not only upon the question of future technology use, but also on more substantive claims such as the constitution of a ‘good life.’ By using imagined futures of different actors to help shape the technological and non-technological solutions, TA aims at ensuring an adequate life for older adults today.

4.1.3. Contributions of other disciplines and approaches to TA

TA, as an interdisciplinary field, is especially challenged by implications of the debate on futures from the point of view of different disciplines as well as by possible contributions of these fields to TA’s own discussion on futures. The fields introduced in the following may freshen up the analysis of technology development processes by examining historical views and new methodological approaches, and show the value of an approach like Big Data for TA.

Zimmer-Merkle and Fleischer (2017) highlight the emphasis on historical analysis during the development of RRI and its present role in detecting folk theories. Based on the approach of enactor-selector games (Garud and Ahlstrom 1997), they analyze the use of history for TA. Here, classical TA and RRI are discussed as potential forces to integrate knowledge of the historical past which may help to reveal folk theories that (unconsciously) lay foundations for assumptions about the future in relation to NEST. By contrast, Rieder and Simon (2017) discuss the increasing societal proliferation of and political role assigned to Big Data and its implications for the field of TA as TA not only analyzes Big Data as NEST, but also may be forced to compete with it and risk being replaced by it. The authors, however, point out that certain alterations still have to take place before Big Data could occupy such a position.

This section thus aims to broaden the TA landscape by opening the field up to historical work, in order to help TA and RRI reveal folk theories and assumptions about the future in relation to emerging technologies. Additionally, TA can help topics like Big Data to sail under the flag of RRI by increasing cooperation, extending their methodologies and identifying the underlying premises of technologies.

4.2. Discussion paper and responses

Interpreting the rise of RRI as a result of TA’s failure to ‘include normative concerns about the societal goals of innovation,’ van Lente, Swierstra, and Joly (2017) provide a provocative angle on the ambiguous and still evolving relationship between TA and RRI, asking whether TA has in effect been rendered obsolete by RRI. This idea is challenged by Nentwich (2017), who insists on a more refined view on the different kinds of TA available than identified by van Lente, Swierstra, and Joly. Nentwich furthermore draws attention to the goal of participatory TA practices, which specifically emphasize engaging an unorganized public as well as the overall interdisciplinarity of TA teams, concluding by highlighting the possibility of the mutual enrichment of RRI and TA. Van Est (2017) answers with an overview of TA’s history, more specifically looking at cTA practices – that integrate normative reasoning – as a major origin of framing innovation policy toward RI, thereby taking RRI under the TA umbrella. From an STS (science and technology studies) perspective, Delvenne (2017) on the other hand renders RRI a real-world experiment, forcing social scientists and TA practitioners to cope with its consequences. Once more drawing attention to participatory TA practices and their aim of incorporating values and normative assumptions into evidence-based policy advice, Delvenne exposes the ‘legitimatory myth’ of TA – being a neutral actor in the role of a knowledge broker – as outdated, and calls for TA to take an even stronger normative stance on societally relevant STI issues.

4.3. Research perspective and pedagogy piece

Dickel and Schrape (2017) analyze the performative power of techno-utopias with regard to underlying ideas of change in producer–consumer relations. They deduce three key narrative patterns of utopian potentials of NEST. The materialization of this discourse, for example, in the form of prototypes, emphasizes the influential potential of techno-utopias. In the particular case of 3D printing and associated changes in ownership, the integration of citizens into an expanded innovation regime also means a responsibilization of the individual.

From a pedagogical point of view, Marschalek et al. (2017) address the perceived gap between RRI ‘in theory’ and ‘in practice’: they offer a demonstration of how to overcome this gap by drawing from experiences with stakeholder trainings as part of an EU project (RRI tools). Here, the trainings served different purposes, such as to raise awareness for RRI, to enable mutual understanding of different stakeholder groups’ perception on RRI, to reflect on RRI and to implement RRI in daily practices for future impacts.

5. Conclusions

Aiming to tackle the issue of an increasing future-orientation within TA requires identifying the implications of this development and how it interacts with more recent research policy concepts such as the EC's notion of RRI. By exploring the interlinkages among conceptualizations of futures, TA and RRI, we want to fuel and advance the debate on the question of how TA can help to (responsibly) shape the future. As RRI opens up the debate on (future) innovation, the discussion on futures makes an important contribution to enriching the scope of RI. However, a gap between academic discussions of conceptualizations around RRI and the practical implementation of the related concepts can be observed. This is based on the assumption that an implementation of RRI, as promoted by the EC, allows for deeper changes in the role of research within society and is more than simply a slogan that renders RRI a mere tick-box activity within existing research structures. Taking into account the wider scope of related concepts, such as RI as treated in this journal, which focuses on a wider societal context by integrating non-scientific actors such as industry and civil society into considerations of responsibility, the question remains of how the concepts and practices of RRI can be taken further in designing ‘responsible’ and ‘desirable’ futures. In a TA context, this has been questioned repeatedly: the limited legitimation of certain actor groups, such as industry, in relation to society even though they have technological consequences for society as a whole, has been criticized repeatedly (cf. Grunwald 2000). Hence, our claim is that the debate on futures and responsibility should not remain within the realm of the scientific system, and that the burden of conducting such a debate should not be placed on individual scientists; rather, the debate should take advantage of opportunities to go beyond the boundaries of that system. The examination of links between existing approaches and new RRI ideas should be useful for this purpose. Coming back to the aim of this special issue to investigate responsibilities and challenges arising from an increasing use of futures while especially considering the rather narrow framing of RRI in Europe, we hope to contribute to the debate on responsibility in technology futures by highlighting the role of TA within this field of tension. As an inter- or rather trans-discipline, TA’s boundaries are in constant flux, and it is this flux that TA practitioners should actively foster, for instance by broadening the TA toolbox of methods and approaches. It is precisely this diversity that makes up the strength of forward-looking assessments of socio-technological change, related problems and their potential solutions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Daniela Fuchs http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2202-1027

Notes

1. In their book, Oreskes and Conway (2014) describe a scientist examining ex-post the reasons for the failure to counter global warming, referring to failed ways of adequately handling scientific uncertainty within political realms.

2. Foresight Graduate Programs – Global List, http://www.globalforesight.org/foresightprograms, accessed 26 January 2017.

3. http://www.research.mbs.ac.uk/innovation, accessed 26 January 2017.

4. http://www.futures.hawaii.edu/, accessed 26 January 2017.

5. http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/2015/08/17/asu-school-future-innovation/31887567/.

6. The project Parliaments and Civil Society in Technology Assessment (PACITA) was funded under FP7 and was conducted during the 2011–2015 period. It focused on ongoing TA activities in Europe.

7. So far, only available in German: ‘Technikfolgenabschätzung von soziotechnischen Zukünften’ (Lösch et al. 2016).