Abstract
Expectations play a distinctive role in shaping emerging technologies and producing hype cycles when a technology is adopted or fails on the market. To harness expectations, facilitate and provoke forward-looking discussions, and identify policy alternatives, futures studies are required. Here, expert anticipation of possible or probable future developments becomes extremely arbitrary beyond short-term prediction, and the results of futures studies are often controversial, divergent, or even contradictory; thus they are contested. Nevertheless, such socio-technical imaginaries may prescribe a future that seems attainable to those involved in the visioneering process, and other futures may thus become less likely and shaping them could become more difficult. This implies a need to broaden the debate on socio-technological development, creating spaces where policy, science, and society can become mutually responsive to each other. Laypeople’s experiential and value-based knowledge is highly relevant for complementing expertise to inform socially robust decision-making in science and technology. This paper presents the evolution of a transdisciplinary, forward-looking co-creation process—a demand-side approach developed to strengthen needs-driven research and innovation governance by cross-linking knowledge of laypeople, experts, and stakeholders. Three case studies serve as examples. We argue that this approach can be considered a method for adding social robustness to visioneering and to responsible socio-technical change.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
As a policy concept, RRI aims at aligning research and innovation with the values, needs and expectations of society; public engagement being one of the concepts’ major elements. This is implemented as a crosscutting theme throughout Horizon 2020.
CIMULACT—Citizen and Multi-actor engagement on Horizon2020, 2015–2017, www.cimulact.eu.
CASI—Public Participation in Developing a Common Framework for Assessment and Management of Sustainable Innovation, 2014–2017, www.casi2020.eu.
References
Geels FW, Schot JW (2007) Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res Policy 36:399–417
Alkemade F, Suurs RAA (2012) Patterns of expectations for emerging sustainable technologies. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 79:448–456. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2011.08.014
Geels FW, Kern F, Fuchs G, Hinderer N, Kungl G, Mylan J, Neukirch M, Wassermann S (2016) The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: a reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014). Res Policy 45:896–913. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.015
Borup M, Brown N, Konrad K, Van Lente H (2006) The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Tech Anal Strat Manag 18:285–298
Verbong G, Geels F, Raven R (2008) Multi-niche analysis of dynamics and policies in Dutch renewable energy innovation journeys (1970-2006). Tech Anal Strat Manag 20:555–573
van Lente H, Spitters C, Peine A (2013) Comparing technological hype cycles: towards a theory. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 80:1615–1628. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2012.12.004
Grunwald A (2014) Modes of orientation provided by futures studies: making sense of diversity and divergence. European Journal of Futures Research 15:30. doi:10.1007/s40309-013-0030-5
Goldstein D, Gigerenzer G (2009) Fast and frugal forecasting. Int J Forecast 25:760–772
Makridakis S, Taleb N (2009) Decision making and planning under low levels of predictability. Int J Forecast 25:716–733
Shannon R, Fye S, Charbonneau M, Hay J, Mullins C (2013) An examination of factors affecting accuracy in technology forecasts. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 80:1222–1231
Nennen HU, Garbe D (1996) Das Expertendilemma: Zur Rolle wissenschaftlicher Gutachter in der öffentlichen Meinungsbildung. Springer, Berlin
Grunwald A (2003) ‘Experts’ dilemma’: technology assessment at the German Bundestag. ‘Expertising’ democracy for ‘democratising’ expertise. Sci Public Policy 30:193–198
Scapolo F, Miles I (2006) Eliciting experts’ knowledge: a comparison of two methods. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 73:679–704. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.001
Jasanoff S, Kim S (2009) Containing the atom: sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva 47:119–146
Felt U, Barben D, Irwin A, Joly PB, Rip A, Stirling A, Stöckelová T (2013) Science in society: caring for our futures in turbulent times. In: De La Hoz Del Hoyo (ed) Science Policy Brief 50. EuropeanScience Foundation, Strasbourg
Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J (2012) Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Sci Public Policy 39:751–760. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs093
Arnstein S (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plan Assoc 35:216–224
Pateman C (1970) Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Jasanoff S (2003) Technologies of humility: citizens’ participation in governing science. Minerva 41:223–244
Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2000) Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values 25:3–29
Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin FP (2003) Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med 57:239–251
Pieczka M, Escobar O (2013) Dialogue and science: innovation in policy-making and the discourse of public engagement in the UK. Sci Public Policy 40:113–126
Voß JP, Amelung N (2016) Innovating public participation methods: technoscientization and reflexive engagement. Soc Stud Sci:1–24
Dryzek JS, Tucker A (2008) Deliberative innovation to different effect: consensus conferences in Denmark, France and the United States. Public Adm Rev 68:864–876
Felt U, Fochler M (2010) Machineries for making publics: inscribing and de-scribing publics in public engagement. Minerva 48:319–338
EC Expert Group (2013) Options for strengthening responsible research and innovation. Report of the Expert Group on the State of Art in Europe on Responsible Research and Innovation. European Commission, Brussels
Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy 42:1–13. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008
Engage 2020 Consortium (2015) Engage2020—Tools and instruments for a better societal engagement in “Horizon 2020”. http://engage2020.eu/media/D3–2-Public-Engagement-Methods-and-Tools-3.pdf
Delgado A, Lein Kjølberg K, Wickson F (2010) Public engagement coming of age: from theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 20:826–845
Irwin A, Jensen TE, Jones KE (2013) The good, the bad and the perfect: criticizing engagement practice. Soc Stud Sci 43:118–135
Wynne B (2007) Public participation in science and technology: performing and obscuring a political–conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: an International Journal 1:99–110
Irwin A (2001) Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Underst Sci 10:1–18
Bora A, Hausendorf H (2006) Participatory science governance revisited: normative expectations versus empirical evidence. Sci Public Policy 33:478–488. doi:10.3152/147154306781778740
Goodin RE, Dryzek JS (2006) Deliberative impacts: the macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Politics & Society 34:219–244. doi:10.1177/0032329206288152
Bogner A (2012) The paradox of participation experiments. Sci Technol Hum Values 37:506–527
Rask M (2013) The tragedy of citizen deliberation—two cases of participatory technology assessment. Tech Anal Strat Manag 25:39–55. doi:10.1080/09537325.2012.751012
Wang X (2016) Revisiting upstream public engagement from a Habermasian perspective. NanoEthics 10:63–74. doi:10.1007/s11569-015-0239-9
Hennen L (2002) Impacts of participatory technology assessment on its social environment. In: Joss S, Bellucci S (eds) Participatory technology assessment—European perspectives. University of Westminster Press, London, pp 257–275
Decker M, Ladikas M (2004) Bridges between science, society and policy. Technology assessment—methods and impacts. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York
Goodin R (2008) Innovating democracy: democratic theory and practice after the deliberative turn. Oxford University Press, New York
Stilgoe LSJ, Wilsdon J (2014) Why should we promote public engagement with science? Public Underst Sci 23:4–15
Burgess MM (2014) From ‘trust us’ to participatory governance: deliberative publics and science policy. Public Underst Sci 23:48–52
Sanders EBN, Stappers PJ (2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4:5–18. doi:10.1080/15710880701875068
Voorberg WH, Bekkers VJJM, Tummers LG (2015) A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review 17:1333–1357. doi:10.1080/14719037.2014.930505
Ostrom E, Parks RB, Whitaker GP, Percy SL (1978) The public service production process: a framework for analyzing police services. Policy Studies Journal 7:381–389
EC—European Commision (2016) Call: co-creation for growth and inclusion. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/calls/h2020-sc6-co-creation-2016-2017.html. Accessed 22.5.2016
Gudowsky N, Peissl W, Sotoudeh M, Bechtold U (2012) Forward-looking activities: incorporating citizens’ visions. Poiesis Prax 9:101–123. doi:10.1007/s10202-012-0121-6
Glicken J (2000) Getting stakeholder participation ‘right’: a discussion of participatory processes and possible pitfalls. Environmental Science and Policy 3:305–310
Van Veen SC, Bunders JFG, Regeer BJ (2013) Mutual learning for knowledge co-creation about disability inclusive development: experiences with acommunity of practice. Knowl Manag Dev J 9:105–124
Wynne B (1996) May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In: Scott L, Szerszynsky B, Wynne B (eds) Risk, environment and modernity: towards a new ecology. SAGE, London, pp 44–83
Fischer F (2000) Citizens, experts, and the environment: the politics of local knowledge. Duke University Press, Durham and London
Joss S, Bellucci S (2002) Participatory technology assessment—European perspectives. University of Westminster, London
Collins H, Evans R (2007) Rethinking expertise. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London
Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141:2417–2431
Peschl MF, Bottaro G, Hartner-Tiefenthaler M, Rötzer K (2014) Learning how to innovate as a socio-epistemological process of co-creation: towards a constructivist teaching strategy for innovation. Constructivist Foundations 9:421–433
Epstein S (1995) The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Sci Technol Hum Values 20:408–437. doi:10.1177/016224399502000402
McClean S, Shaw A (2005) From schism to continuum? The problematic relationship between expert and lay knowledge—an exploratory conceptual synthesis of two qualitative studies. Qual Health Res 15:729–749. doi:10.1177/1049732304273927
McCormick S (2007) Democratizing science movements: a new framework for mobilization and contestation. Soc Stud Sci 37:609–623. doi:10.1177/0306312707076598
Pfister T, Horvath A (2014) Reassessing expert knowledge and the politics of expertise. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 27:311–316. doi:10.1080/13511610.2014.986436
Prior L (2003) Belief, knowledge and expertise: the emergence of the lay expert in medical sociology. Sociology of Health & Illness 25:41–57. doi:10.1111/1467-9566.00339
Naiditch M (2007) Patient organizations and public health. Eur J Pub Health 17:543–545. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckm105 543-545
Myskja BK (2007) Lay expertise: why involve the public in biobank governance? Genomics, Society and Policy 2007:1–16
Britten N, Maguire K (2016) Lay knowledge, social movements and the use of medicines: personal reflections. Health 20:77–93. doi:10.1177/1363459315619021
Hagendijk R, Irwin A (2006) Public deliberation and governance: engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva 44:167–184. doi:10.1007/s11024-006-0012-x
Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, London
Pidgeon N, Rogers-Hayden T (2007) Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: risk communication or “upstream engagement”? Health Risk and Society 9:191–210
Escobar O (2014) Upstream public engagement, downstream policy-making? The brain imaging dialogue as a community of inquiry. Sci Public Policy 41:480–492
Collingridge D (1980) The social control of technology. St. Martin's Press, New York
Krabbenborg L, Mulder HAJ (2015) Upstream public engagement in nanotechnology: constraints and opportunities. Sci Commun 37:452–484. doi:10.1177/1075547015588601
Bogner A (2015) From Invited Participation to Blue Sky Engagement. In: Scherz C, Michalek T, Hennen L, Hebáková L, Hahn J (eds) The Next Horizon of Technology Assessment. Proceedings from the PACITA 2015 Conference in Berlin. Prague: Technology Centre ASCR, pp. 127–132
Levitas R (2007) Looking for the blue: the necessity of utopia. Journal of Political Ideologies 12:289–306. doi:10.1080/13569310701622184
van der Helm R (2009) The vision phenomenon: towards a theoretical underpinning of visions of the future and the process of envisioning. Futures 41:96–104
Bloch E (1986) The principle of hope. Blackwell, London
Mannheim K (1979) Ideology and utopia. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London
Levitas R (2013) Utopia as method: the imaginary reconstitution of society. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
List D (2006) Action research cycles for multiple futures perspectives. Futures 38:673–684
McGregor SLT, Donnelly G (2014) Transleadership for transdisciplinary initiatives. World Futures 70:164–185. doi:10.1080/02604027.2014.934625
Thompson Klein J (2004) Discourses of transdisciplinarity: looking back to the future. Futures 63:68–74
Lawrence RJ (2015) Advances in transdisciplinarity: epistemologies, methodologies and processes. Futures 65:1–9
Nicolescu B (2014) Methodology of transdisciplinarity. World Futures 70:186–199. doi:10.1080/02604027.2014.934631
Wiek A, Iwaniec D (2013) Quality criteria for visions and visioning in sustainability science. Sustain Sci 9:497–512
Shipley R (2002) Vision in planning: is the practice based on sound theory? Environment and Planning A 34:7–22
O’Connor GC, Veryzer RW (2001) The nature of market visioning for technology-based radical innovation. J Prod Innov Manag 18:231–246. doi:10.1111/1540-5885.1840231
Dierkes M, Hoffmann U, Marz L (1992) Leitbild und Technik. Zur Genese und Steuerung technischer Innovationen. edition sigma, Berlin
Constanza R (2000) Visions of alternative (unpredictable) futures and their use in policy analysis. Conserv Ecol 4:5–22
Beers PJ, Veldkamp A, Hermans F, van Apeldoorn D, Vervoort JM, Kok K (2010) Future sustainability and images. Futures 42:723–732
Sand M, Schneider C (2017) Visioneering Socio-Technical Innovations – a Missing Piece of the Puzzle. doi:10.1007/s11569-017-0293-6
Dierkes M, Hoffmann U, Marz L (1996) Visions of technology, social and institutional factors shaping the development of new technologies. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, New York
Eames M, McDowall W, Hodson M, Marvin S (2006) Negotiating contested visions and place-specific expectations of the hydrogen economy. Tech Anal Strat Manag 18:361–374
Shipley R, Michela JL (2006) Can vision motivate planning action? Plan Prac Res 21:223–244
Sand M (2016) Responsibility and visioneering—opening Pandora’s box. NanoEthics 10:75–86. doi:10.1007/s11569-016-0252-7
McCray P (2012) The visioneers: how a group of elite scientists pursued space colonies, nanotechnologies and a limitless future. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Simakova E, Coenen C (2013) Visions, hype, and expectations: a place for responsibility. In: Owen R, Bessant JR, Heintz M (eds) Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Wiley, Chichester, pp 241–266
Cabrera Trujillo YL (2014) Visioneering and the role of active engagement and assessment. NanoEthics 8(2):201–206. doi:10.1007/s11569-014-0199-5
Ferrari A, Marin F (2014) Responsibility and visions in the new and emerging technologies. In: Arnaldi S, Ferrari A, Magaudda P et al (eds) Responsibility in nanotechnology development. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 21–36
Gudowsky N, Sotoudeh M (2015) Citizens’ visions on active assisted living. In: Hayn D, Schreier G, Ammenwerth E, Hörbst A (eds) eHealth2015—health informatics meets eHealth. Studies in health technology and informatics 212. IOS, Amsterdam, pp 43–49. doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-524-1-43
Gudowsky N, Sotoudeh M, Drott F (2015) Future foods—a transdisciplinary prospect of the (Austrian) food system. In: Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture (Zagreb) (eds) Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems, pp. 1–8
Gudowsky N, Bechtold U, Capari L, Sotoudeh M (2015) Participatory foresight. Experiences with a qualitative demand-side approach. In: Scherz C, Michalek T, Hennen L, Hebáková L, Hahn J (eds) The next horizon of technology assessment. Proceedings from the PACITA 2015 conference in Berlin. Technology Centre ASCR, Prague, pp 139–143
Rask M, Damianova Z (2009) Citizen visions – preliminary content report. Deliverable EU project CIVISTI. http://civisti.org/files/images/Preliminary_content_analysis_FINAL_CORR.pdf. Accessed 6 Sept 2016
CIVISTI Consortium (2008) Website of EU project CIVISTI. www.civisti.org. Accessed 6 Sept 2016
Leben2050 (2014) Project website CIVSTI-AAL. www.leben2050.at. Accessed 9.6. 2016
City of Vienna (2015) VIENNA 2050: ensuring quality of life through innovation. Adopting the Smart City Wien Framework. https://smartcity.wien.gv.at/site/en/initiative/rahmenstrategie/. Accessed 6.6.2016
AGES—Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (2016) Project website. www.ages.at/ages/futurefoods/. Accessed 9.6. 2016
AGES—Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (2016) AGES Projekt. Future foods 4 men & women.https://www.youtube.com/embed/AQAm2pKecIk. Accessed 9.6.2016
UNEP (1992) Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gudowsky, N., Sotoudeh, M. Into Blue Skies—a Transdisciplinary Foresight and Co-creation Method for Adding Robustness to Visioneering. Nanoethics 11, 93–106 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0284-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0284-7