Multiple futures for society, research, and innovation in the European Union: jumping to 2038

References

• Acheson, Helena, et al. 2002. “Thinking, Debating and Shaping the Future: Foresight for Europe.” Final Report Prepared by a High Level Expert Group for the European Commission, Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General for Research, EUR 20439. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.21056.15367.
   Google Scholar
• Bartsch, Bernhard. 2015. “China im Jahr 2030.” IP Länderporträt 2: 56–61.
   Google Scholar
• Bartsch, Bernhard. 2016. “China 2030. Szenarien und Strategien für Deutschland.” In collaboration with Elna Schirrmeister, Philine Warnke, Erduana Shala, Ewa Dönitz, Anika Sina Laudien, Antonia Hmaidi, and Philipp Hedemann, edited by Bertelsmann Stiftung. Gütersloh.
   Google Scholar
• Bishop, Peter, Andy Hines, and Terry Collings. 2007. “The Current State of Scenario Development: an Overview of Techniques.” Foresight (los Angeles, Calif ) 9 (1): 5–25. doi:10.1108/14636680710727516.
   Google Scholar
• Blok, Vincent, and Pieter Lemmens. 2015. “The Emerging Concept of Responsible Innovation: Three Reasons Why It Is Questionable and Calls for a Radical Transformation of the Concept of Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation: Issues in Conceptualization, Governance and Implementation, edited by Bert-Jaap Koops, Jeroen van den Hoven, Henny A. Romijn, Tsjalling Edsger Swierstra, and Ilse Oosterlaken, 19–35. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17308-5_2.
   Google Scholar
• Börjeson, Lena, Mattias Höjer, Karl-Henrik Dreborg, Tomas Ekvall, and Göran Finnveden. 2006. “Scenario Types and Techniques: Towards a User’s Guide.” Futures 38 (7): 723–739. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2005.12.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradfield, Ron, George Wright, George Burt, George Cairns, and Kees van der Heijden. 2005. “The Origins and Evolution of Scenario Techniques in Long Range Business Planning.” Futures 37 (8): 795–812. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2005.01.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaminade, Christina, Bengt-Åke Lundvall, and Shagufta Haneef. 2018. Advanced Introduction to National Innovation Systems. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Daimer, Stephanie, Miriam Hufnagl, and Philine Warnke. 2012. “Challenge-oriented Policy-Making and Innovation Systems Theory: Reconsidering Systemic Instruments.” In Innovation System Revisited – Experiences from 40 Years of Fraunhofer ISI Research, edited by Fraunhofer Institut für System-und Innovationsforschung, 217–234. Fraunhofer Verlag: Stuttgart.
   Google Scholar
• Edquist, Charles. 1997. Systems of Innovations: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London: Pinter.
   Google Scholar
• Erdmann, Lorenz, and Elna Schirrmeister. 2016. “Constructing Transformative Scenarios for Research and Innovation Futures.” Foresight 18 (3): 238–252. doi:10.1108/FS-06-2014-0041.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagerberg, Jan. 2018. “Mobilizing Innovation for Sustainability Transitions: A Comment on Transformative Innovation Policy.” Research Policy 47 (9): 1568–1576. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagerberg, Jan, Ben R. Martin, and Esben S. Andersen. 2013. Innovation Studies: Evolution and Future Challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fagerberg, Jan, David C. Mowery, and Richard R. Nelson. 2005. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, Chris. 1995. “The ‘National System of Innovation’ in Historical Perspective.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 19 (1): 5–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godet, Michel. 2000. “The Art of Scenarios and Strategic Planning: Tools and Pitfalls.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 65 (1): 3–22. doi:10.1016/S0040-1625(99)00120-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, Bronwyn H., and Nathan Rosenberg. 2010. Economics of Innovation. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Havas, Attila. 2008. “Devising Futures for Universities in a Multi-Level Structure: a Methodological Experiment.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75 (4): 558–582. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2008.02.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Havas, Attila, and Matthias K. Weber. 2017. “The ‘Fit’ Between Forward-Looking Activities and the Innovation Policy Governance sub-System: A Framework to Explore Potential Impacts.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 115: 327–337. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kosow, Hannah, and Robert Gaßner. 2008. Methods of Future and Scenario Analysis. DIE. Bonn. http://www.die-gdi.de/uploads/media/Studies_39.2008.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. 2018. How Democracies Die. New York: Crown.
   Google Scholar
• Lindner, Ralf, Stephanie Daimer, Bernd Beckert, Nils B. Heyen, Jonathan Hugh Köhler, and Benjamin Teufel. 2016. “Addressing Directionality: Orientation Failure and the Systems of Innovation Heuristic: Towards Reflexive Governance.” Discussion Papers Innovation System and Policy Analysis 52, 41 pages. Karlsruhe.
   Google Scholar
• Long, Thomas B., and Vincent Blok. 2017. “When the Going Gets Tough, the Tough get Going: Towards a new – More Critical – Engagement with Responsible Research and Innovation in an age of Trump, Brexit, and Wider Populism.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (1): 64–70. doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1319036.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loveridge, Denis. 1996. “Technology and Environmental Impact Assessment: Methods and Synthesis.” International Journal of Technology Management 11 (5/6): 539–553.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• López, José Julián, and Janet Lunau. 2012. “ELSIfication in Canada: Legal Modes of Reasoning.” Science as Culture 21 (1): 77–99. doi:10.1080/09505431.2011.576240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundvall, Bengt-Åke. 1992. National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter.
   Google Scholar
• Lundvall, Bengt-Åke. 2007. “National Innovation Systems – Analytical Concept and Development Tool.” Industry and Innovation 14 (1): 95–119. doi:10.1080/13662710601130863.
   Google Scholar
• Lundvall, Bengt-Åke, Björn Johnson, Esben Sloth Andersen, and Bent Dalum. 2002. “National Systems of Production, Innovation and Competence Building.” Research Policy 31 (2): 213–231. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00137-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macnaghten, Phil. 2020. The Making of Responsible Innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Markley, Oliver. 2011. “A new Methodology for Anticipating STEEP Surprises.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 78 (6): 1079–1097. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2011.01.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazzucato, Marianna. 2018. “Mission-oriented Innovation Policies: Challenges and Opportunities.” Industrial and Corporate Change 27 (5): 803–815. doi:10.1093/icc/dty034.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metcalfe, Stanley J. 1998. Evolutionary Economics and Creative Destruction. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Moller, Björn, Ariane Voglhuber-Slavinsky, Ewa Dönitz, and Aaron Rosa. 2019. 50 Trends Influencing Europe’s Food Sector by 2035. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Nature. 2020a. “Science and Politics are Inseparable.” Nature 586: 169–170. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-02797-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nature. 2020b. “A Four-Year Timeline of Trump’s Impact on Science.” Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-02814-3.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, Richard R. 1993. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, Richard R. 1995. “Recent Evolutionary Theorizing About Economic Change.” Journal of Economic Literature 33 (1): 48–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, Richard R. 2002. “Technology, Institutions, and Innovation Systems.” Research Policy 31 (2): 265–272. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00140-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Opiela, Nicole, Resa Mohabbat Kar, Basanta Thapa, and Mike Weber. 2018. Exekutive KI 2030 – Vier Zukunftsszenarien für Künstliche Intelligenz in der öffentlichen Verwaltung. Methodological Work: Cuhls, Kerstin and Svetlana Meissner. https://www.oeffentliche-it.de/publikationen?doc=84404&title=Exekutive+KI+2030+-+Vier+Zukunftsszenarien+f%C3%BCr+K%C3%BCnstliche+Intelligenz+in+der+%C3%B6ffentlichen+Verwaltung.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, Richard, and Mario Pansera. 2019. “Responsible Innovation and Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Handbook on Science on Science and Public Policy, edited by Dagmar Simon, Stefan Kuhlmann, Julia Stamm, and Weert Canzler, 26–48. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Rafols, Ismael, Loet Leydesdorff, Alice O’Hare, Paul Nightingale, and Andy Stirling. 2012. “How Journal Rankings Can Suppress Interdisciplinary Research: A Comparison Between Innovation Studies and Business & Management.” Research Policy 41 (7): 1262–1282. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Randles, Sally, Philippe Laredo, Allison Loconto, Bart Walhout, and Ralf Lindner. 2016. “Framings and Frameworks: Six Grand Narratives of De-facto Responsible Research and Innovation.” Chap. 3 in Navigating Towards Shared Responsibility in Research and Innovation: Approach, Processes and Results of the RES-AGorA Project, edited by Ralf Lindner, Stefan Kuhlmann, Sally Randles, Bjorn Bedsted, Guido Gorgoni, Erich Griessler, Allison Loconto, and Niels Mejlgaard. http://res-agora.eu.
   Google Scholar
• Renda, Andrea. 2020. “Deliverable D4.5 Explorative Scenarios of Governance by and of Emerging Technologies with Far- Reaching Consequences on Society and the Economy.” Project TRIGGER. Ref. Ares (2020)4052088 - 31/07/2020. Accessed 21 January 2021. https://trigger-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/D4.5-Explorative-scenarios-of-governance.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Schot, Johan, and W. Edward Steinmueller. 2018. “Three Frames for Innovation Policy: R&D, Systems of Innovation and Transformative Change.” Research Policy 47 (9): 1554–1567. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, Keith. 2000. “Innovation as a Systemic Phenomenon: Rethinking the Role of Policy.” Enterprise & Innovation Management Studies 1 (1): 73–102. doi:10.1080/146324400363536.
   Google Scholar
• Steinmüller, Angela, and Karlheinz Steinmüller. 2004. Wild Cards. Wenn das Unwahrscheinliche Eintritt. 2nd ed. Hamburg: Murmann.
   Google Scholar
• Stilgoe, Jack. 2014. “Against Excellence.” The Guardian, December 19. https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2014/dec/19/against-excellence.
   Google Scholar
• Stilgoe, Jack, Richard Owen, and Phil Macnaghten. 2013. “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation.” Research Policy 42 (9): 1568–1580. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strand, Roger. 2019. “3 Policy Narratives for RRI.” SuperMoRRI Blog. Accessed 30 July 2020. https://www.super-morri.eu/super-morri/more/blog/blog_article3.php.
   Google Scholar
• Tollefson, Jef. 2020. “How Trump Damaged Science.” Nature 586: 190–194. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-02800-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Notten, Philip W.F., Jan Rotmans, Marjolein B.A. van Asselt, and Dale S. Rothman. 2003. “An Updated Scenario Typology.” Futures 35 (5): 423–443. doi:10.1016/S0016-3287(02)00090-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Oost, Ellen, Stefan Kuhlmann, Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros, and Peter Stegmaier. 2016. “Futures of Science with and for Society: Towards Transformative Policy Orientations.” Foresight 18 (3): 276–296. doi:10.1108/FS-10-2014-0063.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Oudheusden, Michiel. 2014. “Where Are the Politics in Responsible Innovation? European Governance, Technology Assessments, and Beyond.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 (1): 67–86. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.882097.
   Google Scholar
• von Schomberg, René. 2012. “Prospects for Technology Assessment in a Framework of Responsible Research and Innovation.” In Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale Transdisziplinärer, edited by Marc Dusseldorp, and Richard Beecroft, 39–61. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, Gordon. 2012. Environmental Justice. Concepts, Evidence and Politics. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Warnke, Philine, Ewa Dönitz, Ina Opitz, Felix Zoll, Alexandra Doernberg, Kathrin Specht, Rosemarie Siebert, Annette Piorr, and Regine Berges. 2018. Szenarien zur Zukunft der Nahrungsmittelversorgung: Chancen und Herausforderungen für alternative Versorgungsnetzwerke. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung.
   Google Scholar
• Warnke, Philine, Knut Koschatzky, Ewa Dönitz, Andrea Zenker, Thomas Stahlecker, and Oliver Som. 2016. “Opening up the Innovation System Framework Towards New Actors and Institutions.” Discussion Papers Innovation System and Policy Analysis, 49. Fraunhofer Institut für System-und Innovationsforschung. Karlsruhe. https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/isi/dokumente/cci/innovation-systems-pol-icy-analysis/2016/discussionpaper_49_2016.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, Max. 1947. “The Types of Authority and Imperative Co-ordination.” In The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation, translated by A.M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons, edited by Talcott Parsons, 324–423, New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, K. Matthias, and Harald Rohracher. 2012. “Legitimizing Research, Technology and Innovation Policies for Transformative Change: Combining Insights from Innovation Systems and Multi-Level Perspective in a Comprehensive ‘Failures’ Framework.” Research Policy 41 (6): 1037–1047. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, K. Matthias, and Bernhard Truffer. 2017. “Moving Innovation Systems Research to the Next Level: Towards an Integrative Agenda.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 33 (1): 101–121. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grx002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong, Pak-Hang. 2016. “Responsible Innovation for Decent Nonliberal Peoples: A Dilemma?” Journal of Responsible Innovation 3 (2): 154–168. doi:10.1080/23299460.2016.1216709.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwicky, Fritz. 1969. Discovery, Invention, Research – Through the Morphological Approach. Toronto: The Macmillan Company.
   Google Scholar