Vision as make-believe: how narratives and models represent sociotechnical futures

References

• Beckert, Jens. 2016. Imagined Futures. Fictional Expectations and Capitalist Dynamics. Cambridge, MA; London, England: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Binder, Werner. 2019. “Social Imaginaries and the Limits of Differential Meaning.” Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie 44 (S2): 17–35. doi:10.1007/s11614-019-00371-2.
   Google Scholar
• Birch, Kean. 2017. “Rethinking Value in the Bio-Economy: Finance, Assetization, and the Management of Value.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 42 (3): 460–490. doi:10.1177/0162243916661633.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Böhm, Karl, and Rudolf Dörge. 1959. Unsere Welt von morgen. Berlin: Verlag neues Leben.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, Nik, Brian Rappert, and Andrew Webster, eds. 2016. Contested Futures. A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science. Florence: Taylor and Francis. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/gbv/detail.action?docID=4816841.
   Google Scholar
• Currie, Gregory. 2016. “Models As Fictions, Fictions As Models.” The Monist 99 (3): 296–310. doi:10.1093/monist/onw006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emirbayer, Mustafa, and Ann Mische. 1998. “What Is Agency?” American Journal of Sociology 103 (4): 962–1023. doi:10.1086/231294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enzing, Christien, Matthias Ploeg, Maria Barbosa, and Lolke Sijtsma. 2014. Microalgae-Based Products for the Food and Feed Sector. An Outlook for Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office (EUR, Scientific and technical research series, 26255). http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC85709/LFNA26255ENE.epub, checked on 11/21/2018.
   Google Scholar
• Ewenstein, Boris, and Jennifer Whyte. 2009. “Knowledge Practices in Design: The Role of Visual Representations as ‘Epistemic Objects’.” Organization Studies 30 (1): 7–30. doi:10.1177/0170840608083014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friend, Stacie. 2008. “Imagining Fact and Fiction.” In New Waves in Aesthetics, edited by Kathleen Stock, and Katherine Thomsen-Jones, 150–169. Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Frigg, Roman. 2010. “Models and Fiction.” Synthese 172 (2): 251–268. doi:10.1007/s11229-009-9505-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grunwald, Armin. 2013. “Wissenschaftliche Validität als Qualitätsmerkmal der Zukunftsforschung.” Zeitschrift für Zukunftsforschung 2 (1): 22–33.
   Google Scholar
• Haraway, Donna. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14 (3): 575. doi:10.2307/3178066.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilgartner, Stephen. 2015. “Capturing the Imaginary. Vanguards, Visions and the Synthetic Biology Revolution.” In Science and Democracy. Making Knowledge and Making Power in the Biosciences and Beyond, edited by Stephen Hilgartner, Clark A. Miller, and Rob Hagendijk, 33–55. New York, Abingdon: Routledge (Genetics and society).
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, Sheila, ed. 2010. States of Knowledge. The Co-production of Science and Social Order. London: Routledge (International library of sociology).
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, Sheila, and Sang-Hyun Kim. 2009. “Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Nuclear Power in the United States and South Korea.” Minerva 47 (2): 119–146. doi:10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, Sheila, and Sang-Hyun Kim. 2013. “Sociotechnical Imaginaries and National Energy Policies.” Science as Culture 22 (2): 189–196. doi:10.1080/09505431.2013.786990.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahn, Herman. 1965. On Escalation. Metaphors and Scenarios. London: Pall Mall Press (Hudson Institute series on national security and international order, 1).
   Google Scholar
• Kahn, Herman, and Anthony J Wiener. 1967. The Year 2000. A Framework for Speculation on the Next Thirty-Three Years. Croton-on-Hudson: Hudson Inst.
   Google Scholar
• Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 2001. Objectual Practice.
   Google Scholar
• Koschorke, Albrecht. 2013. Wahrheit und Erfindung: Grundzüge einer Allgemeinen Erzähltheorie. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer (S. Fischer Wissenschaft).
   Google Scholar
• Koschorke, Albrecht. 2019. Zukunftsangst und Naherwartung. Über aktuelle Endzeitszenarien und ihre Konflikte. Eröffnungskonferenz der DFG-Kolleg-Forschungsgruppe „Zukünfte der Nachhaltigkeit: Modernisierung, Transformation, Kontrolle“. Hamburg.
   Google Scholar
• Koselleck, Reinhart. 2007. “Fiktion und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit.” Zeitschrift für Ideengeschichte 1 (3): 39–54.
   Google Scholar
• Kosow, Hannah, Robert Gaßner, Lorenz Erdmann, and Beate-Josephine Luber. 2008. Methoden der Zukunfts- und Szenarioanalyse. Überblick, Bewertung und Auswahlkriterien. Berlin: IZT (WerkstattBericht / IZT, Institut für Zukunftsstudien und Technologiebewertung, 103). http://www.izt.de/fileadmin/downloads/pdf/IZT_WB103.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Labov, William. 1972. Language in the Inner City. Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press (Conduct and communication, 3).
   Google Scholar
• Latour, Bruno. 1996. La clef de Berlin. CIP-Einheitsaufnahme. Berlin: Akademie.
   Google Scholar
• Lewandowski, Iris, Enno Bahrs, Nicolaus Dahmen, Thomas Hirth, Thomas Rausch, and Annette Weidtmann. 2019. “Biobased Value Chains for a Growing Bioeconomy.” GCB Bioenergy 11 (1): 4–8. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12578.
   Google Scholar
• Luhmann, Niklas. 1976. “The Future Cannot Begin: Temporal Structures in Modern Society.” Social Research 43 (1): 130–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacKenzie, Donald A., and Judy Wajcman. 2010. “Introductory Essay: The Social Shaping of Technology.” In The Social Shaping of Technology. How the Refrigerator Got Its Hum. 2. ed., repr, edited by Donald A. MacKenzie, and Judy Wajcman, 2–25. Maidenhead: Open Univ. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Meffert, Maria Elisabeth, and Heinz Stratmann. 1953. Algen-Großkulturen im Sommer 1951. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften (Forschungsberichte des Wirtschafts- und Verkehrsministeriums Nordrhein-Westfalen, 8). Available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-02300-5.
   Google Scholar
• Mische, Ann. 2009. “Projects and Possibilities: Researching Futures in Action.” Sociological Forum 24 (3): 694–704. doi:10.1111/j.1573-7861.2009.01127.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mische, Ann. 2014. “Measuring Futures in Action: Projective Grammars in the Rio + 20 Debates.” Theory and Society 43 (3-4): 437–464. doi:10.1007/s11186-014-9226-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nickerson, Raymond S. 1998. “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises.” Review of General Psychology 2 (2): 175–220. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175.
   Google Scholar
• Oomen, Jeroen, Wytske Versteeg, Jesse Hoffman, and Maarten Hajer. forthcoming. The Politics of the Future. Futuring for Sustainability, and the Search for a Post-Fossil & Post-Corona World.
   Google Scholar
• Ploeger, Angelika, ed. 2011. Die Zukunft auf dem Tisch. Analysen, Trends und Perspektiven der Ernährung von morgen. 1. Aufl. Wiesbaden: VS-Verl.
   Google Scholar
• Reibnitz, Ute von. 1991. Szenario-Technik. Instrumente für die unternehmerische und persönliche Erfolgsplanung. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
   Google Scholar
• Roßmann, Maximilian, and Christine Rösch. 2019. “Key-Narratives of Microalgae Nutrition: Exploring Futures with a Public Policy Delphi in Germany.” Science and Public Policy. doi:10.1093/scipol/scz053.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roßmann, Maximilian, Matthias Stratmann, Nadine Rötzer, Philipp Schäfer, and Mario Schmidt. 2020. “Comparability of LCAs – Review and Discussion of the Application Purpose.” In Progress in Life Cycle Assessment 2019, edited by Stefan Albrecht, Matthias Fischer, Leistner Philip, and Liselotte Schebeck, 213–225. Cham: Springer International Publishing (Sustainable Production, Life Cycle Engineering and Management). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50519-6_15
   Google Scholar
• Rösch, Christine, and Clemens Posten. 2012. “Challenges and Perspectives of Microalgae Production. Introduction to the Thematic Focus.” TATuP – Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis 21 (1): 5–16. doi:10.14512/tatup.21.1.5.
   Google Scholar
• Salis, Fiora. 2016. “The Nature of Model-World Comparisons.” The Monist 99 (3): 243–259. doi:10.1093/monist/onw003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salis, Fiora, and Roman Frigg. 2020. “Capturing the Scientific Imagination.” In The Scientific Imagination. Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives, edited by Arnon Levy, and Peter Godfrey-Smith, 17–50. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Saltelli, Andrea, and Monica Di Fiore. 2020. “From Sociology of Quantification to Ethics of Quantification.” Humanities & Social Sciences Communications 7 (1): 1–8. doi:10.1057/s41599-020-00557-0.
   Google Scholar
• Schellenberg, Susanna. 2013. “Belief and Desire in Imagination and Immersion.” Journal of Philosophy 110 (9): 497–517. doi:10.5840/jphil2013110914.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, Christoph, and Andreas Lösch. 2018. “Visions in Assemblages: Future-Making and Governance in FabLabs.” Futures. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2018.08.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, Christoph, Maximilian Roßmann, and Andreas Lösch. 2020. Sociotechnical Visions of 3D Printing – After the First Hype? Report of the Vision Assessment Study in the Cluster of Excellence 3D Matter Made to Order. https://publikationen.bibliothek.kit.edu/1000117984.
   Google Scholar
• Star, Susan Leigh, and James R Griesemer. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39.” Social Studies of Science 19 (3): 387–420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strand, Roger, Andrea Saltelli, Mario Giampietro, Kjetil Rommetveit, and Silvio Funtowicz. 2018. “New Narratives for Innovation.” Journal of Cleaner Production 197: 1849–1853. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suits, Bernard. 2005. The Grasshopper. Games, Life and Utopia. Broadview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, Charles. 2007. A Secular Age. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Toon, Adam. 2014. Models as Make-Believe. Imagination, Fiction and Scientific Representation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• University of Hohenheim. 2018. Congress FOOD 2030: Towards Sustainable Agrifood Systems. Final Programm. University of Hohenheim. Stuttgart. https://food2030.uni-hohenheim.de/fileadmin/einrichtungen/food2030/Documents/FOOD2030_FINAL_Program_22.10.2018_FINAL.pdf, checked on 8/23/2019.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, Kendall L. 1990. Mimesis as Make-Believe. On the Foundations of the Representational Arts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weberman, David. 1997. “The Nonfixity of the Historical Past.” The Review of Metaphysics 50 (4): 749–768.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, Hayden. 1980. “The Value of Narrativity in the Representation of Reality.” Critical Inquiry 7 (1): 5–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar