Abstract
Situational scenarios and prototype scenarios in particular are socio-technical futures that shape present socio-technical developments in a specific way. Scenario-building is about putting together heterogeneous components, some of which are already existing and some of which still have to be created. The requirement to adapt these present and future components to each other turns scenario-building into negotiating between the present and imagined futures. In this contribution, we focus on how the envisaged contexts of use are represented in these negotiations. Based on empirical research on technology development in the field of ubiquitous engineering, we distinguish between different forms of representation and assess their respective negotiation power.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In the sense of the well-known quote attributed to William Gibson ‘The future is already here—it’s just not evenly distributed’.
- 2.
Citing Adele Clark (1991, p. 131); Strauss (1993, p. 212) defines social worlds as “groups with shared commitments to certain activities, sharing resources of many kinds to achieve their goals, and building shared ideologies about how to go about their business”. Additional features according to Strauss are that in “each social world, at least one primary activity […] is strikingly evident”, that there are “sites where activities occur”, and that most worlds “evolve quite complex technologies” and organizations that further the social world’s activities (Strauss 1993, p. 212–213).
- 3.
This does not necessarily imply that the respective engineers would define it as their job to develop their prototypes this far. Most of the research engineers we studied see their work done with a prototypical realization of their new ideas. However, they frame their prototypical realizations as demonstrations of the performance future real-world implementations of their new technologies would have, thus confirming that a prototype that works within a laboratory setting is not meaningful in itself.
- 4.
Though it is common that PhD students do most of the work of constructing and coding the prototypes, there were usually also senior researchers involved in the technology development projects we studied.
- 5.
Though several of the research engineers we interviewed, especially those who were heads of research laboratories, emphasized the necessity to include these competencies much more.
- 6.
We do not give the full reference of this and of all the following quotes from publications to maintain the anonymity of the researchers with whom we conducted interviews.
References
Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., & Lente, H. V. (2006). The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(3–4), 285–298.
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief. A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196–232). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination, sociological review monograph 38 (pp. 132–161). London: Routledge.
Carlson, W. B., & Gorman, M. E. (1990). Understanding invention as a cognitive process: The case of Thomas Edison and Early Motion pictures, 1888–91. Social Studies of Science, 20(3), 387–430.
Clarke, A. E. (1991). Social worlds/arenas theory as organizational theory. In D. R. Maines (Ed.), Social organization and social process. Essays in honor of Anselm Strauss (pp. 119–158). Hawthorne: Aldine De Gruyter.
de Laat, B. (2004). Conditions for effectiveness of roadmapping. A cross-sectional analysis of 80 different roadmapping exercises. EU-US Seminar: New Technology Foresight, Forecasting Assessment Mathods, Seville, 13–14 May 2004. www.jrc.es/projects/fta/papers/Session%201%20Methodological%20Selection/Conditions%20for%20effectiveness%20.pdf.
Dierkes, M., Hoffmann, U., & Marz, L. (1992). Leitbild und Technik. Zur Entstehung und Steuerung technischer Innovationen. Berlin: Edition Sigma.
Geels, F. W., & Smit, W. A. (2000). Failed technology futures: Pitfalls and lessons from a historical survey. Futures, 32(9), 867–885.
Grin, J., & Grunwald, A. (Eds.). (2000). Vision assessment: Shaping technology in 21st century society. Towards a repertoire for technology assessment. Berlin: Springer.
Grunwald, A. (2009). Vision assessment supporting the governance of knowledge-The case of futuristic nanotechnology. In G. Bechmann, V. Gorokhov, & N. Stehr (Eds.), The social integration of science. Institutional and epistemological aspects of the transformation of knowledge in modern society (pp. 147–170). Berlin: Edition Sigma.
Grunwald, A. (2012). Technikzukünfte als Medium von Zukunftsdebatten und Technikgestaltung. Karlsruhe: KIT Scientific Publishing.
Grunwald, A. (2013). Techno-visionary sciences: Challenges to policy advice. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 9(2), 21–38.
Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S.-H. (2009). Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva, 47(2), 119–146.
Jenkins, R. V. (1984). Elements of style: Continuities in Edison’s thinking. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 424, 149–162.
Kahn, H., & Wiener, A. J. (1967). The year 2000: A framework for speculation on the next thirty-three years. New York: Macmillan.
Latour, B. (1988). Mixing humans and nonhumans together. The sociology of a door-closer. Social Problems, 35(3), 298–310.
Latour, B. (1991). Technology is society made durable. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology and domination (pp. 103–131). London: Routledge.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Noury, N., Fleury, A., Rumeau, P., Bourke, A., Laighin, G., Rialle, V., & Lundy, J. (2007). Fall detection-Principles and methods. In IEEE (Ed.), Engineering in medicine and biology society (pp. 1663–1666). Lyon: EMBS 2007, 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE.
Schaller, R. R. (1997). Moore’s law. Past, present and future. IEEE spectrum, 34(6), 52–59.
Schulz-Schaeffer, I. (2013). Scenarios as patterns of orientation in technology development and technology assessment. Outline of a research program. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 9(1), 23–44.
Schulz-Schaeffer, I. (2014). Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie. Zur Ko-Konstitution von Gesellschaft, Natur und Technik. In J. Weyer (Ed.), Soziale Netzwerke. Konzepte und Methoden der sozialwissenschaftlichen Netzwerkforschung (3rd ed., pp. 267–290). München: De Gruyter & Oldenbourg.
Schulz-Schaeffer, I. (2017). Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie: Einführung. In S. Bauer, T. Heinemann, & T. Lemke (Eds.), Science and technology studies. Klassische Positionen und aktuelle Perspektiven (pp. 271–291). Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.
Schulz-Schaeffer, I., & Meister, M. (2015). How situational scenarios guide technology development-Some insights from research on ubiquitous computing. In D. M. Bowman, A. Dijkstra, C. Fautz, J. Guivant, K. Konrad, H. van Lente, & S. Woll (Eds.), Practices of innovation and responsibility: Insights from methods, governance and action (pp. 165–179). Berlin: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft.
Schulz-Schaeffer, I., & Meister, M. (2017). Laboratory settings as built anticipations-Prototype scenarios as negotiation arenas between the present and imagined futures. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 4(2), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2017.1326260.
Strauss, A. L. (1993). Continual permutations of action. New York: De Gruyter.
Strauss, A. L. (2016). Creating sociological awareness. Collective images and symbolic representations. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers (First Publication 1991).
Sturken, M., Thomas, D., & Ball-Rokeach, S. (2004). Technological visions. The hopes and fears that shape new technologies. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Sydow, J., Windeler, A., Möllering, G., & Schubert, C. (2005). Path-creating networks: The role of consortia in processes of path extension and creation. In 21st EGOS colloquium, June 30-July 2, 2005. Berlin, Germany.
van Lente, H. (1993). Promising technology. The dynamics of expectations in technological development. Delft, Netherlands: Eburon.
van Lente, H. (2012). Navigating foresight in a Sea of expectations: Lessons from the sociology of expectations. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(8), 769–782.
van Lente, H., & Rip, A. (1998). The rise of membrane technology: From rhetorics to social reality. Social Studies of Science, 28, 221–254.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schulz-Schaeffer, I., Meister, M. (2019). Prototype Scenarios as Negotiation Arenas Between the Present and Imagined Futures. Representation and Negotiation Power in Constructing New Socio-Technical Configurations. 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_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27155-8_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-27154-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-27155-8
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)