Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intervening Through Futures for Sustainable Presents: Scenarios, Sustainability, and Responsible Research and Innovation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Socio-Technical Futures Shaping the Present

Abstract

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 is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • 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 

  • Beck, U. (2000). The cosmopolitan perspective: Sociology of the second age of modernity*. The British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 79–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2000.00079.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beder, S. (1996). The nature of sustainable development. Newham: Scribe Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, M. J., Reifschneider, K., Bennett, I., & Wetmore, J. M. (2017). Science outside the lab: Helping graduate students in science and engineering understand the complexities of science policy. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(3), 861–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boenink, M., Swierstra, T., & Stemerding, D. (2010). Anticipating the interaction between technology and morality: A scenario study of experimenting with humans in bionanotechnology. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology, 4(2), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, W. C., & Dickson, N. M. (2003). Sustainability science: The emerging research program. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14), 8059–8061.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cozzens, S. E., Bobb, K., Deas, K., Gatchair, S., George, A., & Ordonez, G. (2005). Distributional effects of science and technology-based economic development strategies at state level in the United States. Science and Public Policy, 32(1), 29–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cozzens, S., Cortes, R., Soumonni, O., & Woodson, T. (2013). Nanotechnology and the millennium development goals: water, energy, and agri-food. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 15(11), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L., & Mitcham, C. (2006). Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26(6), 485–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley, R. W., & Wiek, A. (2013). Patterns of nanotechnology innovation and governance within a metropolitan area. Technology in Society, 35(4), 233–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley, R. W., Bernstein, M. J., & Wiek, A. (2016). Towards an alignment of activities, aspirations and stakeholders for responsible innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 3(3), 209–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsberg, E.-M., Quaglio, G., O’Kane, H., Karapiperis, T., Van Woensel, L., & Arnaldi, S. (2015). Assessment of science and technologies: Advising for and with responsibility. Technology in Society, 42, 21–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsberg, E.-M., Ribeiro, B., Heyen, N. B., Nielsen, R., Thorstensen, E., de Bakker, E., et al. (2016). Integrated assessment of emerging science and technologies as creating learning processes among assessment communities. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 12(1), 9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. H. (2008). Innovation policy: Not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature, 454(7207), 940–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. H. (2014). Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’. Social Studies of Science, 44(2), 218–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hankins, J. (2013). Endnotes: Building capacity for responsible innovation. In R. Owens, J. Bessant, & M. Heinz (Eds.), Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 269–273). London: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. E. H. M. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(4), 413–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huesemann, M. H. (2003). The limits of technological solutions to sustainable development. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 5(1), 21–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R. F. (2008). Changing values among western publics from 1970 to 2006. West European Politics, 31(1–2), 130–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2016). The floating ampersand: STS past and STS to come. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 2, 227. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2016.78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, R. (1994). Technology and the transition to environmental sustainability: The problem of technological regime shifts. Futures, 26(10), 1023–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khoury, M. J., & Ioannidis, J. (2014). Big data meets public health. Science, 346(6213), 1054–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazer, D., Kennedy, R., King, G., & Vespignani, A. (2014). The parable of Google Flu: Traps in big data analysis. Science, 343(6176), 1203–1205.

    Article  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 

  • Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review, 1(6), 894–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (2004). The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research Policy, 33(3), 455–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751–760.

    Article  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.

    Chapter  Google 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 

  • Polanyi, M. (1962). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva, 1(1), 54–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramírez, R., & Selin, C. (2014). Plausibility and probability in scenario planning. Foresight, 16(1), 54–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-08-2012-0061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramírez, R., & Wilkinson, A. (2016). Strategic reframing: The Oxford scenario planning approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. (2014). The past and future of RRI. Life sciences, society and policy, 10(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-014-0017-4.

    Article  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 

  • Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, L., et al. (2009). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salamanca-Buentello, F., Persad, D. L., Court, E. B., Martin, D. K., Daar, A. S., & Singer, P. A. (2005). Nanotechnology and the developing world. PLoS Med, 2(5), e97. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selin, C. (2007). Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 32(2), 196–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selin, C. (2008). The Sociology of the Future: Tracing Stories of Technology and Time. Sociology Compass 2 (6), 1878–1895. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00147.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selin, C. (2011). Negotiating plausibility: Intervening in the future of nanotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 723–737.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swart, R. J., Raskin, P., & Robinson, J. (2004). The problem of the future: Sustainability science and scenario analysis. Global Environmental Change, 14(2), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swierstra, T., & Rip, A. (2007). Nano-ethics as nest-ethics: Patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics, 1(1), 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tainter, J. A., & Taylor, T. G. (2014). Complexity, problem-solving, sustainability and resilience. Building Research and Information, 42(2), 168–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.850599.

    Article  Google 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.

  • Van der Leeuw, S., Wiek, A., Harlow, J., & Buizer, J. (2012). How much time do we have? Urgency and rhetoric in sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 7(1), 115–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Oost, E., Kuhlmann, S., Ordóñez-Matamoros, G., & Stegmaier, P. (2016). Futures of science with and for society: Towards transformative policy orientations. Foresight, 18(3), 276–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesan, A. K., & Halden, R. U. (2014). Wastewater treatment plants as chemical observatories to forecast ecological and human health risks of manmade chemicals. Scientific Reports, 4, 3731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Schomberg, R. (2013). A vision of responsible research and innovation. In R. Owen, J. R. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 51–74). London: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • WCED, World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future, from one earth to one world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westley, F., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Homer-Dixon, T., Vredenburg, H., Loorbach, D., et al. (2011). Tipping toward sustainability: Emerging pathways of transformation. AMBIO, 40(7), 762–780. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0186-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011a). Key competencies in sustainability: A reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science, 6(2), 203–218.

    Article  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., Foley, R. W., & Guston, D. H. (2012). Nanotechnology for sustainability: What does nanotechnology offer to address complex sustainability problems? Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 14(9), 1–20.

    Article  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 

  • Wiek, A., Foley, R. W., Guston, D. H., & Bernstein, M. J. (2016b). Broken promises and breaking ground for responsible innovation–intervention research to transform business-as-usual in nanotechnology innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28(6), 639–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiek, A., Withycombe, Keeler L., Beaudoin, F., et al. (2019). Building transformational capacity for implementing sustainability solutions in urban areas. Ambio, 48(5), 494–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R., & Edge, D. (1996). The social shaping of technology. Research Policy, 25(6), 865–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Withycombe Keeler, L., Gabriele, A., Wiek, A., & Kay, B. (2017). Future shocks and city resilience: Building organizational capacity for resilience and sustainability through game play and ways of thinking. Sustainability: The Journal of Record, 10(5), 282–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfram, M., Frantzeskaki, N., & Maschmeyer, S. (2016). Cities, systems and sustainability: Status and perspectices for research on urban transformations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 18–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse, E., & Sarewitz, D. (2007). Science policies for reducing societal inequities. Science and Public Policy, 34(2), 139–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA

    Lauren Withycombe Keeler & Michael J. Bernstein

  2. School for the Future of Innovation in Society & School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA

    Cynthia Selin

Authors
  1. Lauren Withycombe Keeler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J. Bernstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cynthia Selin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lauren Withycombe Keeler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung und Systemanalyse (ITAS), Karlsruher Institut für Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Andreas Lösch

  2. Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung und Systemanalyse (ITAS), Karlsruher Institut für Technologie, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Armin Grunwald

  3. Institut für Soziologie, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Martin Meister

  4. Institut für Soziologie, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Ingo Schulz-Schaeffer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Keeler, L.W., Bernstein, M.J., Selin, C. (2019). Intervening Through Futures for Sustainable Presents: Scenarios, Sustainability, and Responsible Research and Innovation. In: Lösch, A., Grunwald, A., Meister, M., Schulz-Schaeffer, I. (eds) Socio-Technical Futures Shaping the Present. Technikzukünfte, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft / Futures of Technology, Science and Society. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27155-8_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation