Refereed Contributions (21)
- . (2023). Augmented futures? Scenarios and implications of augmented reality use in public spaces. Futures 2023, Volume 151, 1-15. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2023.103193DOIWebsiteRISENWBIB Abstract
As foresight activities continue to increase across multiple arenas and types of organizations, the need to develop effective modes of reviewing future-oriented information against long-term goals and policies becomes more pressing. The activities of institutional sensemaking are vital in constructing potential and desired futures, but remain sensitive to organizational culture and ethos, thus raising concerns about whose futures are being constructed. In viewing foresight studies as a critical component in such sensemaking, this research investigates a method of textual analysis that deploys natural language processing algorithms (NLP). In this research, we introduce and apply the methodology of topic modelling for conducting a comparative analysis to explore how citizen-derived foresight differs from other institutional foresight. Finally we present pros- pects for further employing NLP for strategic foresight and futures studies.
- . (2021). Ethical challenges of researching emergent socio-material-technological phenomena: insights from an interdisciplinary mixed-methods project using mobile eye-tracking. Journal Of Information, Communication And Ethics In Society, Vol. 19, 391-408. doi:10.1108/JICES-01-2021-0007
- . (2021). Limits and benefits of participatory agenda setting for research and innovation. European Journal Of Futures Research, Vol. 9, 1-11. doi:10.1186/s40309-021-00177-0
- . (2021). Democratising utopian thought in participatory agenda setting. European Journal Of Futures Research, 9,5. doi:10.1186/s40309-021-00174-3
- . (2021). Sensemaking and Lens-Shaping: Identifying Citizen Contributions to Foresight through Comparative Topic Modelling. Futures 2021, Volume 129, 1-15. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2021.102733
- . (2020). Theoretical and Practical resesarch ethics: three cases. Aoir Selected Papers Of Internet Research, AoIR2020: Panels, 1-11. doi:10.5210/spir.v2020i0.11117
- . (2019). Wrinkles and Smiles — What is Good Aging? A Technology Assessment Perspective. Obm Geriatrics, 3, 26. doi:10.21926/obm.geriatr.1902058
- . (2019). Foresight and Technology Assessment for the Austrian Parliament – Finding new ways of debating the future of Industry 4.0. Futures, 109, 240-251. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2018.06.018
- . (2019). Bridging Epistemologies – Identifying uniqueness of lay and expert knowledge for agenda setting. Futures, 109, 24-38. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.04.003
- . (2018). But do they deliver? Participatory agenda setting on the test bed. European Journal Of Futures Research, 6. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-018-0143-y
- . (2018). Participatory foresight for technology assessment – Towards an evaluation approach for knowledge co-creation. Tatup – Technikfolgenabschätzung In Theorie Und Praxis, 27, 53-59. Retrieved from http://www.tatup.de/index.php/tatup/article/view/135/199
- . (2017). Into Blue Skies – Transdisciplinary Foresight and Co-creation as Socially Robust Tools for Visioneering Socio-technical Change. Nanoethics, 11, 93-106. Retrieved from http://http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0284-7WebsiteRISENWBIB 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.
- . (2017). CIVISTI – A forward-looking method based on citizens’ visions. Special Issue 'Participatory Methods for Information Society'. Public Philosophy &Amp; Democratic Education, 5, 73-86. doi:10.14746/fped.2016.5.2.22
- . (2017). Contributing to an European imaginary of democratic education by engaging multiple actors in shaping responsible research agendas. Special Issue 'Participatory Methods for Information Society'. Public Philosophy &Amp; Democratic Education, 5, 29-50. doi:10.14746/fped.2016.5.2.20DOIWebsiteRISENWBIB Abstract
Traditionally, expert-based forward looking has been applied to anticipate future challenges, solutions and strategic decisions, but limitations to this approach have become obvious – especially when considering long term perspectives – e.g. failing to include a comprehensive array of opinions. Aiming at producing sustainable strategies for responsible socio-technical change, research funding can benefit from combining forward looking and public participation to elicit socially robust knowledge from consulting with multi-actors, including citizens. In this paper, we give insights into the EU project CIMULACT – Citizen and Multi-Actor Consultation on Horizon 2020. In CIMULACT, more than 4500 citizens, stakeholders and experts from 30 European countries engaged online and offline to co-create research topics. These are supposed to serve as input for the next round of calls in Horizon 2020, national research agendas as well as the ninth framework programme in the making. We investigate key results of this transdisciplinary process focussing on the topic “democratic education” with regard to two levels: What issues concerning the topic were raised? Can we find a common European imaginary for “democratic education”? Our analysis shows that the results contribute to defining and describing challenges for the currently prevailing imaginary of democratic education in Europe.
- . (2017). Futures of ageing and technology – comparing different actors’ prospective views. Journal Of Responsible Innovation, 4, 157-176. doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1360721DOIWebsiteRISENWBIB Abstract
Ambient and assistive technologies (AT) have the potential to increase individual autonomy, social participation and quality of life for ageing populations. In seeking to implement these technologies, national and supranational funding schemes have strongly supported primarily market-driven research activities. This means that other societally relevant aspects, such as specific social and cultural contexts, are likely to be underestimated if not neglected. In view of the development of RI, this would be a serious misconception. We examine three recent participatory forward-looking technology assessment studies that involved experts, stakeholders and laypersons in discussions about the future of ageing and AT, and identify the diverse futures they imagine. We show different ways an ageing society of the future can be pictured, and contribute to the discourse on European demographic change as a Grand Challenge. In the light of RI, this diversity of imagined futures underlines the finding that answers to societal challenges connected to an ageing population cannot only be found by means of technological solutions, societal aspects will also play an important role.
- . (2017). Introduction: Imagining socio-technical futures – challenges and opportunities for technology assessment. Journal Of Responsible Innovation, 4, 85-99. doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1364617DOIWebsiteRISENWBIB Abstract
An increasing orientation of technology assessment (TA) and adjacent fields toward future socio-technological developments is leading scholars to examine, assess and adapt different approaches of future studies on various levels. In this special issue of the Journal of Responsible Innovation, a number of members of the extended TA community in Europe seek to advance different approaches to handling the unpredictable, to consider various possible socio-technical futures and to explore a more active role in technology design and shaping of the future as required by concepts such as responsible innovation (RI) or responsible research and innovation (RRI). The three German words ‘Zukunft Macht Technik’ (the title of a TA conference in Vienna in 2015) make a nice little pun in German: they can either be interpreted as the short sentence ‘Future shapes technology’ or as the assembly of the three nouns ‘future power technology.’ Both readings are borne in mind in this special issue. A main insight of this special issue is that we need to explore how the debate on imagined socio-technical futures is enriched by concepts such as R(R)I, taking into account that no future can exist without an awareness of the present setting of innovation processes and technology development.
- . (2017). Transdisciplinary forward-looking agenda setting for age-friendly, human centered cities. Futures, 90, 16-30. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2017.05.005
- . (2016). Human centred science and technology – transdisciplinary foresight and co-creation as tools for active needs-based innovation governance. European Journal Of Futures Research, Vol. 4. doi:10.1007/s40309-016-0090-4DOIWebsiteRISENWBIB Abstract
Current governance structures are increasingly showing inability to address complex issues such as the Grand Challenges. Dealing with these highly interrelated, cross cutting, extensive and potentially open ended issues requires research, development and innovation to be oriented towards societal needs and demands. Here, developing and applying sustainable long term strategies for socio-technical change on the basis of socially robust knowledge seems inevitable and using the tools of anticipatory governance—forward looking and participation—is essential in order to govern innovation actively and responsibly. Yet, expert-based forward looking has its limits, especially when considering long term perspectives, and may fail to include all necessary opinions. Thus, stakeholder engagement has become a norm over the last decades, but including laypeople into forward looking science, technology and innovation (STI) governance is underexplored. Here, strategy and policy programme development may be well suited to function as early entry point for public needs and values into the innovation process. This paper will briefly review the theoretical basis for transdisciplinary forward looking and provide first insights into an ongoing highly deliberative and reflexive foresight and co-creation process engaging science, society and policy makers, CIMULACT—Citizen and Multi-Actor Consultation on Horizon2020. We will especially focus on the role of technology within a collective visioning exercise that allowed for shared explorations of desirable futures, thereby collecting tacit knowledge as well as social needs and values. Integrating these with stakeholders’ and experts’ knowledge serves for co-creating socially robust knowledge for orienting policy and strategy programming towards needs based science, technology and innovation.
- . (2016). Schlaue Gedanken zu smarter Technik, Konferenzbericht von der TA16. Tatup - Zeitschrift Für Technikfolgenabschätzung In Theorie Und Praxis, 25, 79-86. doi:10.14512/tatup.25.2.91
- . (2013). The Role of Information in Public Participation. Journal Of Public Deliberation, 9, Art. 3. doi:10.16997/jdd.152