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

References

• Adam, B. 2007. “ Futures Traversed.” WEB 130207. Accessed October 27, 2015. http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/futures/wp_ba_futurestraversed130207.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Bogner, A., and H. Torgersen. 2014. “Emerging Technologies and the Interpretative Turn in Technology Assessment.” Teorija in Praksa, Let 51 (5): 726–741.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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].
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Dierkes, M., U. Hoffmann, and L. Marz. 1992. Leitbild und Technik: zur Entstehung und Steuerung technischer Innovationen. Berlin: Edition Sigma.
   Google Scholar
• Enzer, S. 1972. “Cross-impact Techniques in Technology Assessment.” Futures 4 (1): 30–51. doi: 10.1016/0016-3287(72)90023-7
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Grin, J., and A. Grunwald, eds. 2000. Vision Assessment: Shaping Technology in the 21st Century. Towards a Repertoire for Technology Assessment. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Gross, M., and L. McGoey, eds. 2015. Routledge International Handbook of Ignorance Studies. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Grunwald, A. 2000. Technik für die Gesellschaft von morgen. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen gesellschaftlicher Technikgestaltung. Campus: Frankfurt.
   Google Scholar
• Grunwald, A. 2012. “Synthetische Biologie als Naturwissenschaft mit technischer Ausrichtung. Plädoyer für eine “Hermeneutische Technikfolgenabschätzung”.” Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 21 (2): 10–15.
   Google Scholar
• Grunwald, A. 2013. “Techno-Visionary Sciences: Challenges to Policy Advice.” Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 9 (2): 21–38.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Guston, D. H. 2014. “Understanding ‘Anticipatory Governance’.” Social Studies of Science 44 (2): 218–242. doi: 10.1177/0306312713508669
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Hebestreit, R. 2013. Partizipation in der Wissensgesellschaft. Funktion und Bedeutung diskursiver Beteiligungsverfahren. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S., and S. Kim, eds. 2015. Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Joss, S., and S. Bellucci. 2002. Participatory Technology Assessment – European Perspectives. London: University of Westminster.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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).
   Google Scholar
• Lösch, A., R. Heil, and C. Schneider. 2017. “Responsibilization Through Visions.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2). doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1360717.
   Google Scholar
• Mander Huits, N. 2010. “What Values in Design? The Challenge of Incorporating Moral Values into Design. Science and Engineering.” Ethics 17 (2): 271–287.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Oreskes, N., and E. M. Conway. 2014. The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• PACITA Consortíum. 2015. “ PACITA Manifesto.” Accessed October 27, 2015. http://www.pacitaproject.eu/pw-content/uploads/2015/03/manifesto_v3.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Rask, M., R. Worthington, and M. Lammi, eds. 2012. Citizen Participation in Global Environmental Governance. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Rosa, H., D. Strecker, and A. Kottmann. 2013. Soziologische Theorien. Konstanz: UVK.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Sand, M. 2016. “Responsibility and Visioneering – Opening Pandora’s Box.” Nanoethics 10: 75–86. doi: 10.1007/s11569-016-0252-7
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Torgersen, H. 2013. “TA als hermeneutische Unternehmung.” Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 22 (2): 75–81.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Voß, J.-P., D. Bauknecht, and R. Kemp, eds. 2006. Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar