Prototype Scenarios as Negotiation Arenas Between the Present and Imagined Futures. Representation and Negotiation Power in Constructing New Socio-Technical Configurations

  • Ingo Schulz-SchaefferEmail author
  • Martin Meister
Part of the Technikzukünfte, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft / Futures of Technology, Science and Society book series (TEWG)


Situational scenarios and prototype scenarios in particular are socio-technical futures that shape present socio-technical developments in a specific way. Scenario-building is about putting together heterogeneous components, some of which are already existing and some of which still have to be created. The requirement to adapt these present and future components to each other turns scenario-building into negotiating between the present and imagined futures. In this contribution, we focus on how the envisaged contexts of use are represented in these negotiations. Based on empirical research on technology development in the field of ubiquitous engineering, we distinguish between different forms of representation and assess their respective negotiation power.


  1. Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., & Lente, H. V. (2006). The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(3–4), 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief. A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196–232). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  3. Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination, sociological review monograph 38 (pp. 132–161). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Carlson, W. B., & Gorman, M. E. (1990). Understanding invention as a cognitive process: The case of Thomas Edison and Early Motion pictures, 1888–91. Social Studies of Science, 20(3), 387–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke, A. E. (1991). Social worlds/arenas theory as organizational theory. In D. R. Maines (Ed.), Social organization and social process. Essays in honor of Anselm Strauss (pp. 119–158). Hawthorne: Aldine De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  6. de Laat, B. (2004). Conditions for effectiveness of roadmapping. A cross-sectional analysis of 80 different roadmapping exercises. EU-US Seminar: New Technology Foresight, Forecasting Assessment Mathods, Seville, 13–14 May 2004.
  7. Dierkes, M., Hoffmann, U., & Marz, L. (1992). Leitbild und Technik. Zur Entstehung und Steuerung technischer Innovationen. Berlin: Edition Sigma.Google Scholar
  8. Geels, F. W., & Smit, W. A. (2000). Failed technology futures: Pitfalls and lessons from a historical survey. Futures, 32(9), 867–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grin, J., & Grunwald, A. (Eds.). (2000). Vision assessment: Shaping technology in 21st century society. Towards a repertoire for technology assessment. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Grunwald, A. (2009). Vision assessment supporting the governance of knowledge-The case of futuristic nanotechnology. In G. Bechmann, V. Gorokhov, & N. Stehr (Eds.), The social integration of science. Institutional and epistemological aspects of the transformation of knowledge in modern society (pp. 147–170). Berlin: Edition Sigma.Google Scholar
  11. Grunwald, A. (2012). Technikzukünfte als Medium von Zukunftsdebatten und Technikgestaltung. Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Grunwald, A. (2013). Techno-visionary sciences: Challenges to policy advice. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 9(2), 21–38.Google Scholar
  13. Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.-H. (2009). Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47(2), 119–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jenkins, R. V. (1984). Elements of style: Continuities in Edison’s thinking. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 424, 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahn, H., & Wiener, A. J. (1967). The year 2000: A framework for speculation on the next thirty-three years. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Latour, B. (1988). Mixing humans and nonhumans together. The sociology of a door-closer. Social Problems, 35(3), 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Latour, B. (1991). Technology is society made durable. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 103–131). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Noury, N., Fleury, A., Rumeau, P., Bourke, A., Laighin, G., Rialle, V., & Lundy, J. (2007). Fall detection-Principles and methods. In IEEE (Ed.), Engineering in medicine and biology society (pp. 1663–1666). Lyon: EMBS 2007, 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE.Google Scholar
  20. Schaller, R. R. (1997). Moore’s law. Past, present and future. IEEE spectrum, 34(6), 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schulz-Schaeffer, I. (2013). Scenarios as patterns of orientation in technology development and technology assessment. Outline of a research program. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 9(1), 23–44.Google Scholar
  22. Schulz-Schaeffer, I. (2014). Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie. Zur Ko-Konstitution von Gesellschaft, Natur und Technik. In J. Weyer (Ed.), Soziale Netzwerke. Konzepte und Methoden der sozialwissenschaftlichen Netzwerkforschung (3rd ed., pp. 267–290). München: De Gruyter & Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
  23. Schulz-Schaeffer, I. (2017). Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie: Einführung. In S. Bauer, T. Heinemann, & T. Lemke (Eds.), Science and technology studies. Klassische Positionen und aktuelle Perspektiven (pp. 271–291). Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  24. Schulz-Schaeffer, I., & Meister, M. (2015). How situational scenarios guide technology development-Some insights from research on ubiquitous computing. In D. M. Bowman, A. Dijkstra, C. Fautz, J. Guivant, K. Konrad, H. van Lente, & S. Woll (Eds.), Practices of innovation and responsibility: Insights from methods, governance and action (pp. 165–179). Berlin: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  25. Schulz-Schaeffer, I., & Meister, M. (2017). Laboratory settings as built anticipations-Prototype scenarios as negotiation arenas between the present and imagined futures. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 4(2), 197–216. Scholar
  26. Strauss, A. L. (1993). Continual permutations of action. New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  27. Strauss, A. L. (2016). Creating sociological awareness. Collective images and symbolic representations. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers (First Publication 1991).Google Scholar
  28. Sturken, M., Thomas, D., & Ball-Rokeach, S. (2004). Technological visions. The hopes and fears that shape new technologies. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Sydow, J., Windeler, A., Möllering, G., & Schubert, C. (2005). Path-creating networks: The role of consortia in processes of path extension and creation. In 21st EGOS colloquium, June 30-July 2, 2005. Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
  30. van Lente, H. (1993). Promising technology. The dynamics of expectations in technological development. Delft, Netherlands: Eburon.Google Scholar
  31. van Lente, H. (2012). Navigating foresight in a Sea of expectations: Lessons from the sociology of expectations. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(8), 769–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van Lente, H., & Rip, A. (1998). The rise of membrane technology: From rhetorics to social reality. Social Studies of Science, 28, 221–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyTU BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations