Intervening Through Futures for Sustainable Presents: Scenarios, Sustainability, and Responsible Research and Innovation
Discourses around innovation often unreflexively assume positive progress and the inevitable contribution of new technologies to the betterment of society. Little attention is paid to issues of sustainability—including intergenerational equity, justice, and socio-ecological integrity—and the complex ways that societal arrangements and sociotechnical regimes are intermingled. Innovation governance for sustainability needs to actively engage both responsible research and innovation and sustainability paradigms in order for science and technology to effectively serve societal and sustainability goals. There is an opportunity to utilize tools of foresight to raise the capacity of actors in innovation processes to consider alternative framings of progress and challenge the status quo. This chapter explores participatory scenario construction as a means to productively disrupt status-quo imaginaries. The Future of Wastewater Sensing, a participatory scenario study, is presented as a case example to inform sustainability-oriented responsible research and innovation.
This research was undertaken with support by the Center for Nanotechnology in Society of Arizona State University (CNS-ASU), funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (cooperative agreement #0531194 and #0937591). The findings and observations contained in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. National Science Foundation.
- Arnaldi, S., Gorgoni, G., & Pariotti, E. (2016). RRI as a governance paradigm: What is new. In R. Lindner, S. Kuhlmann, S. Randles, B. Bedsted, G. Gorgoni, E. Giessler, A. Loconto, & N. Mejlgaard (Eds.), Navigating towards shared responsibility in research and innovation approach (pp. 23–29). Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer ISI.Google Scholar
- Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C., & Guston, D. H. (2008). Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In J. Hackett & O. Amsterdamska (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed., pp. 979–1000). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Beder, S. (1996). The nature of sustainable development. Newham: Scribe Publications.Google Scholar
- Collins, S. L., Carpenter, S. R., Swinton, S. M., Orenstein, D. E., Childers, D. L., Gragson, T. L., et al. (2011). An integrated conceptual framework for long-term social–ecological research. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(6), 351–357. https://doi.org/10.1890/100068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Huesemann, M. H. (2003). The limits of technological solutions to sustainable development. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 5(1), 21–34.Google Scholar
- Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1998). Triple Helix of innovation. Science and Public Policy, 25(3), 195–203.Google Scholar
- Lindner, R., Daimer, S., Beckert, B., Heyen, N., Koehler, J., Tuefel, B., et al. (2016a). Addressing directionality: Orientation failure and the systems of innovation heuristic. Towards reflexive governance. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer ISI.Google Scholar
- Lindner, R., Kuhlmann, S., Randles, S., Bedsted, B., Gorgoni, G., Griessler, E., et al. (2016b). Navigating towards shared responsibility in research and innovation: Approach, process and results of the res-agora project. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer ISI.Google Scholar
- Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Macnaghten, P., Gorman, M., Fisher, E., & Guston, D. (2013). A framework for responsible innovation. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 27–50). London: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 17–50). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Rip, A., & Kulve, H. T. (2008). Constructive technology assessment and socio-technical scenarios. In C. Selin, E. Fisher, E. Wetmore, & M. Jameson (Eds.), The yearbook of nanotechnology in society: Vol. I. Presenting futures. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Selin, C., Rawlings, K. C., de Ridder-Vignone, K., Sadowski, J., Altamirano Allende, C., Gano, G., Davies, S. R., & Guston, D. H. (2017). Experiments in engagement: Designing public engagement with science and technology for capacity building. Public Understanding of Science, 26 (6), 634–649. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515620970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- United Nations. (2015). Addis Ababa Action Agenda of the third international conference on financing for development. http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/ffd3/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/07/Addis-Ababa-Action-Agenda-Draft-Outcome-Document-7-July-2015.pdf. Accessed 4 Juli 2017.
- Venkatesan, A. K., Done, H. Y., & Halden, R. U. (2015). United States national sewage sludge repository at Arizona State University – A new resource and research tool for environmental scientists, engineers, and epidemiologists. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22(3), 1577.1586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-2961-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- WCED, World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future, from one earth to one world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., Redman, C., & Mills, S. B. (2011b). Moving forward on competence in sustainability research and problem solving. Environment, 53(2), 3–13.Google Scholar
- Wiek, A., Bernstein, M., Foley, R., Cohen, M., Forrest, N., Kuzdas, C., et al. (2016a). Operationalising competencies in higher education for sustainable development. In M. Barth, G. Michelsen, M. Rieckmann, & I. Thomas (Eds.), Routledge handbook of higher education for sustainable development (pp. 241–260). London: Routledge.Google Scholar