Referierte Beiträge (17)
- . (2023). Introduction: Technology Assessment – Beyond National Boundaries. In L. Hennen, Hahn, J., Ladikas, M., Lindner, R., van Est, R., & Peissl, W. (Eds.), Technology Assessment in a Globalized World – Facing the Challenges of Transnational Technology Governance (p. 272). Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-10617-0
- . (2023). Artificial Intelligence—A New Knowledge and Decision-Making Paradigm?. In L. Hennen, Hahn, J., Ladikas, M., Lindner, R., van Est, R., & Peissl, W. (Eds.), Technology Assessment in a Globalized World – Facing the Challenges of Transnational Technology Governance (p. 272). Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-10617-0
- . (2021). Democratising utopian thought in participatory agenda setting. European Journal Of Futures Research, 9,5. doi:10.1186/s40309-021-00174-3
- . (2019). „Wes Brot ich ess, des Lied ich sing”? TA und ihre Auftraggeber. Tatup – Zeitschrift Für Technikfolgenabschätzung In Theorie Und Praxis, 28, 33-38. doi:10.14512/tatup.28.1.33
- . (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.2016.5.2.20DOIWebseiteRISENWBIB Kurzfassung
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.
- . (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/s40309-016-0090-4DOIWebseiteRISENWBIB Kurzfassung
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
- . (2015). Cross-European Technology Assessment: Visions for the European TA Landscape. Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie Und Praxis, 24, 68-74. Retrieved from http://www.tatup-journal.de/tatup151_peba15a.phpWebseiteRISENWBIB Kurzfassung
The whole of Europe is getting more closely connected and, with the rapid technological development, there seems to be a need for establishing networks and knowledge bases in a cross-European manner. This can be advantageous for both the national and regional levels of policy making as well as for the European one. This paper discusses the past, present and future of cross-European work going on in the field of parliamentary technology assessment (PTA). The main questions to be dealt with will be: What did we learn from past cross-European projects? What is the additional value provided by cross-European TA? And how can cross-European TA be structurally established in the long term? To answer them, we analyse the existing framework conditions for cross-European projects, compare ten cases of previous cross-European projects and draw some lessons. In the final part we present conclusions and recommendations for fostering cross-European cooperation within the TA community.
- . (2012). Forward-looking activities: incorporating citizens´ visions. Poiesis &Amp; Praxis. doi:10.1007/s10202-012-0121-6DOIWebseiteDownloadRISENWBIB Kurzfassung
Hellseherei ist eine alte Kunst. Der Glaube an eine vorherbestimmte Zukunft hat zur Entwicklung der skurrilsten Werkzeuge, mit denen sich diese vorhersehen lassen sollen, geführt. Auf den ersten Blick haben vorausschauende Studien auch immer einen Anschein von Wahrsagerei. Im Gegensatz zum Handlesen versuchen wissenschaftliche Methoden aber lediglich Wege zu zeigen, auf denen sich eine offene Zukunft entwickeln kann. Hinter solchen vorausschauenden Studien steckt oft die Motivation, eine breitere Informationsbasis für EntscheidungträgerInnen zu schaffen, die die Möglichkeit haben, die Zukunft aktiv mitzugestalten. ExpertInnen, StakeholderInnen und Laien können verschiedene Wertvorstellungen und Prioritäten haben, woraus sich unterschiedliche Standpunkte zu verschiedenen Fragestellungen ergeben. Die Einbeziehung einer möglichst breiten Basis solcher Standpunkte kann im besten Fall zu robusteren Entscheidungen und Strategien führen. Dabei stellt die Verarbeitung dieser Diversität in eine für EntscheidungsträgerInnen brauchbare Form eine Herausforderung an das Design und die Durchführung jeden partizipativen Prozesses dar. In diesem Beitrag wird eine neue qualitative Methode für vorausschauende Studien vorgestellt (CIVISTI: Citizen Visions on Science, Technology and Innovation; www.civisti.org), die in einem gleichnamigen EU-Projekt entwickelt wurde und kritisch durchleuchtet wird. Die Methode integriert das Wissen verschiedener Gruppen um Empfehlungen für die Forschungs- und Förderungspolitik zu erarbeiten. Der Schwerpunkt liegt dabei auf Partizipation mit klar getrennten Rollen von BürgerInnen und ExpertInnen. Am Beginn des Prozesses entwickeln BürgerInnen Visionen für eine Zukunft in 30–40 Jahren, aus denen ExpertInnen und StakeholderInnen die Empfehlungen generieren. Diese werden dann an die BürgerInnen zur Bewertung zurückgegeben um ein Endprodukt zu erzeugen. Der folgende Beitrag soll Stärken, Schwächen und Verbesserungspotentiale der Methode aufzeigen.
- . (2010). Privacy in Europe from a TA perspective. (S. Gutwirth, Poullet, Y., & De Hert, P., Eds.), Data Protection in a Profiled World. Berlin: Springer.
- . (2010). Impact assessment as a means to train future engineers for sustainable development. Gaia, 58-60.
- . (2003). Surveillance and Security – a dodgy relationship. Journal Of Contingencies And Crisis Management, 19-24.RISENWBIB Kurzfassung
Modern societies are vulnerable. We have known this long before the attacks of September 11, but they made it clear to everyone. The second lesson learned was that it is impossible to foresee such events. Although these attacks to the real world were “low-tech”, now there are attempts around the globe to control especially the electronic or virtual world. However, does more surveillance really lead to more security? If so, what will be the price we have to pay? This paper gives an overview over what happened on a governmental level after September 11 in the EU, in some EU-member states and in the USA. Apart from political actions, we already face even direct socio-economic implications as some anonymizer services were shut down. They empowered Internet users to protect their right of privacy, and they were the first targets of investigation and suspicion. Shutting down these services reduces the potential room of users to protect their privacy by using privacy enhancing technologies (PETs). This is an indicator for a serious societal problem: democracy already has changed. In a second part this paper analyses the relationship between surveillance and security. It is argued that, the international over-reactions will not lead to the intended effects. Rather, they will have long-term implications for the respective societies.
- . (2001). Technology Foresight – more than fashion?. International Journal Of Technology Management, 653-660.
- . (1998). An Assessment of PACS: The Case Study of the SMZO Project. International Journal Of Technology Assessment In Health Care, 573-582.
- . (1996). Technology Assessment in Austria – a tentative attempt. International Journal Of Technology Management, 604-612.
- . (1993). Technologiefolgen-Abschätzung – ein zaghafter Versuch sozialwissenschaftlicherPolitikberatung in Österreich. Sozialwissenschaften Und Berufspraxis, 37-51.
- . (1992). Patient cards: an assessment of a new information technology in health care. Project Appraisal, 67-78.