Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

One Site—Multiple Visions: Visioneering Between Contrasting Actors’ Perspectives

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Visions of and narratives about the future energy system influence the actual creation of innovations and are thus accompanying the current energy transition. Particularly in times of change and uncertainty, visions gain crucial relevance: imagining possible futures impacts the current social reality by both creating certain spaces of action and shaping technical artifacts. However, different actors may express divergent visions of the future energy system and its implementation. Looking at a particular innovation site involving multiple stakeholders over an 8-year period, we empirically analyze the collective negotiation process of vision making, its shifting over time, and how visions eventually unfold performativity. Adopting a process perspective, we identify four different phases and the respective functions of visions and visioneering related to the site’s development by exploring the question: Why do certain visions gain importance and eventually lead to substantial changes of the project in process? Qualitative data from documents and interviews analyzed with reference to science and technology studies show the interweaving conditions that influence the visioneering and the linkage to the actual development of material artifacts. Against the backdrop of innovation projects, this paper explores visioneering as an ongoing, transformative and collective process and reveals its moments of (de)stabilization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Borup et al. use the terms “expectations” and “visions” almost synonymously, describing expectations as “real-time representations of future technological situations and capabilities.” Visions are “largely overlapping with ‘expectations’ but emphasize to a higher degree their enacting and subjectively normative character” ([12]: 286).

  2. This paper is based on the presentation by Engels/Münch 2015: “One site – multiple visions. Visioneering between contrasting actors’ perspectives” at the First International Conference on Anticipation in Trento (Italy), 6.11.2015.

  3. Our study is being conducted within a research project that gathers different actor groups who are working on the development and operation of a micro smart grid including electro-vehicles.

  4. All interviews are originally conducted in German and translated by the authors.

References

  1. Morris C (2014) Germany’s Energiewende. In: Woodrow C (ed) Global sustainable communities handbook. Green design technologies and economics. Butterworth-Heinemann / Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 105–113

  2. Ohlhorst D (2015) Germany’s energy transition policy between national targets and decentralized responsibilities. J Integr Environ Sci 12(4):303–322. doi:10.1080/1943815X.2015.1125373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bulkeley H, Castán Broto V (2012) Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Trans Inst Br Geogr 38(3):361–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Evans J, Karvonen A (2014) 'Give me a laboratory and I will lower your carbon footprint!'. Urban laboratories and the governance of low-carbon futures. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38(2):413–430. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12077

  5. Späth P, Rohracher H (2012) Local demonstrations for global transitions—dynamics across governance levels fostering socio-technical regime change towards sustainability. Eur Plan Stud 20(3):461–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jasanoff S, Kim S-H (2013) Sociotechnical imaginaries and national energy policies. Sci Cult 22(2):189–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kivisaari S, Lovio R, Väyrynen E (2004) Managing experiments for transition: examples of societal embedding in energy and health care sectors. In: Eelzen B, Geels FW, Green K (eds) System innovation and the transition to sustainability: theory, evidence and policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Northampton, pp 223–281

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dierkes M, Hoffmann U, Marz L (1996) Visions of technology: social and institutional factors shaping the development of new technologies. St Martin’s Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  9. Nordmann A (2013) Visioneering assessment. On the construction of tunnel visions for technovisionary research and policy. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 9(2):89–94

    Google Scholar 

  10. Truffer B, Voß J-P, Konrad K (2008) Mapping expectations for system transformations: lessons from sustainability foresight in German utility sectors. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 75(9):1360–1372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. van Lente H (1993) Promising technology. The dynamics of expectations in technological developments. Eburon, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  12. Borup M, Brown N, Konrad K, van Lente H (2006) The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Tech Anal Strat Manag 18(3/4):285–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. van Lente H (2012) Navigating foresight in a sea of expectations. Tech Anal Strat Manag 24(8):769–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Janda KB, Topouzi M (2015) Telling tales: using stories to remake energy policy. Building Research & Information 43(4):516–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Eames M, McDowall W, Hodson M, Marvin S (2006) Negotiating contested visions and place-specific expectations of the hydrogen economy. Tech Anal Strat Manag 18(3/4):361–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McCray P (2013) The visioneers: how a group of elite scientists pursued space colonies, nanotechnologies, and a limitless future. University of Princeton Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Evans J, Karvonen A, Raven R (2016) The experimental city: new modes and prospects of urban transformation, in: The experimental city, Routledge, London, New York, pp 1–12

  18. Felt U (2015) The temporal choreographies of participation: thinking innovation and society from a time-sensitive perspective. Pre-Print; Published by the Department of Science and Technology Studies, University of Vienna, January 2015. Available at http://sts.univie.ac.at/publications

  19. Grunwald A (2012) Technikzukünfte als Medium von Zukunftsdebatten und Technikgestaltung (Karlsruher Studien Technik und Kultur 6). KIT Scientific Publishing, Karlsruhe

  20. Brown N, Rappert B, Webster A (2000) Contested futures. A sociology of prospective techno science. SATSU, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  21. Flick U (2008) Methoden-Triangulation in der qualitativen Forschung, in: Triangulation. Eine Einführung. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, pp 27–49

  22. Lamnek S (1995) Qualitative Sozialforschung. Psychologie Verlags Union, Weinheim

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kühn T, Koschel KV (2011) Gruppendiskussionen. Ein Praxis-Handbuch. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Engels F, Münch AV (2015) The micro smart grid as a materialized imaginary within the German energy transition. Energy Research & Social Science 9:35–42

  25. Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Soc Stud Sci 19(4):387–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Berker T (2010) Dealing with uncertainty in sustainable innovation: mainstreaming and substitution. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development 5(1):65–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Böhle F (2011) Management of uncertainty—a blind spot in the promotion of innovations. In: Jeschke S, Isenhardt I, Hees F, Trantow S (eds) Enabling innovation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 17–29

  28. Star SL (2010) This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of a concept. Sci Technol Hum Values 35(5):601–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Boix Mansilla V, Lamont M, Sato K (2016) Shared cognitive-emotional-interactional platforms: markers and conditions for successful interdisciplinary collaborations. Sci, Tech & Human Values 41(4):571–612

  30. Parker JN, Hackett EJ (2012) Hot spots and hot moments in scientific collaborations and social movements. Am Sociol Rev 77(1):21–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Rip A, Voß J (2013) Umbrella terms as a conduit in the governance of emerging science and technology. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 9(2):39-59

  32. Trujillo C, Yenisa L (2014) Visioneering and the role of active engagement and assessment. NanoEthics 8(2):201–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jasanoff S (2015) Future imperfect: science, technology, and the imaginations of modernity. In: Jasanoff S, Kim, SH (eds) Dreamscapes of modernity. Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. University of Chicago Press. http://iglp.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Jasanoff-Ch-1.pdf. Accessed 17 February 2017

  34. Latour B (2005) Third source of uncertainty: objects too have agency. In: Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 63–86

    Google Scholar 

  35. Winner L (1986) Do artifacts have politics. In: The whale and the reactor. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 19–39

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research project “D3 Micro Smart Grid EUREF” was part of the promotional program called “International Showcase of Electric Mobility (Berlin-Brandenburg)” that was being funded by the federal government as well as by the federal states of Berlin and Brandenburg for a period of 3 years (03/2013–06/2016) as part of the federal government’s Showcase initiative. The project’s objective was the development and testing of a micro smart grid (MSG) at a designated local area. The accompanying social scientific research in this project was conducted by the TU-Campus EUREF gGmbH, an institute at the Technische Universität Berlin.

The authors would like to thank the editors of this special section as well as the hosts and participants of the session “Visioneering Sociotechnical Innovations: The Making of Visions” at the First International Conference on Anticipation in Trento (Italy), 5–7 November 2015 for their constructive comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. WZB Berlin Social Science Center, Reichpietschufer 50, 10785, Berlin, Germany

    Franziska Engels & Dagmar Simon

  2. Munich Center for Technology in Society (MCTS), Technical University of Munich, Arcisstr. 21, 80333, Munich, Germany

    Franziska Engels

  3. TUM School of Management, Technical University of Munich, Arcisstr. 21, 80333, Munich, Germany

    Franziska Engels

  4. TU-Campus EUREF gGmbH, Torgauer Straße 12–15, 10829, Berlin, Germany

    Anna Verena Münch

Authors
  1. Franziska Engels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Verena Münch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dagmar Simon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Franziska Engels.

Appendix. List of quoted interviewees and documents

Appendix. List of quoted interviewees and documents

Code

Position of the interviewee

Date of interview/protocol

P1

Manager, international energy organization

11/2008

I2

Architect, part of the development team

07/2014

I3

Investor and developer of the site

01/2014

I4

Manager, consulting company, “early settler”

04/2014

I5

Scientist and manager, consulting company, “early settler”

10/2014

I6

Manager, international communication company

02/2015

I7

Manager, public-private partnership in the ICT sector

07/2014

I8

Manager, public-private partnership in the climate sector

08/2014

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Engels, F., Münch, A.V. & Simon, D. One Site—Multiple Visions: Visioneering Between Contrasting Actors’ Perspectives. Nanoethics 11, 59–74 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0290-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0290-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation