Suchergebnisse

The present proliferation of portable smart devices and stationary home assistant systems changes the ways in which people share information with each other. Such devices regularly have permission to switch on at any time and can collect a wide range of data in their environment. In consequence, the social challenge of personal data protection is growing and necessitates a better understanding of privacy as an interdependent phenomenon. Interview by Mahshid Sotoudeh (ITA-ÖAW).

Technikfolgenabschätzung (TA) verwendet häufig vorausschauende Methoden, um sozio-technische Entwicklungen und deren Auswirkungen zu antizipieren und daraus Empfehlungen für Politik und Gesellschaft abzuleiten. In den letzten Jahren wurden zunehmend partizipative Methoden eingesetzt, um die Erwartungen der Gesellschaft bezüglich Zukunftstechnologien zu identifizieren. In diesem Zusammenhang haben mehrere TA‑Projekte eine partizipative Foresight-Methode entwickelt, angewandt und angepasst, um Bürgerinnen und Bürger sowie andere Akteursgruppen über einen standardisierten Prozess in die Mitgestaltung von Forschungs- und Innovationsagenden einzubeziehen: die multiperspektivische und mehrstufige CIVISTI-Methode (Citizens' Visions on Science, Technology and Innovation). Im Laufe der letzten zehn Jahre haben etwa 560 Laien ohne spezielle Kenntnisse über Technologie und Innovation und 610 Fachleute an diesen Prozessen der Wissens- ko-generierung teilgenommen. In diesem Beitrag nutzen wir unsere Erfahrungen mit dieser Methode, um Kriterien für die Bewertung von Wissens-ko-Generierung und wechselseitigem Lernen in partizipativen Foresight-Prozessen innerhalb der TA abzuleiten. ; Technology assessment (TA) frequently uses forward-looking methods to anticipate socio-technical changes and their corresponding implications to deduce advice for policy and society. In recent years, participatory methods have increasingly been applied to identify the expectations of society towards future technologies. In this context, several TA projects have developed, applied and adapted a participatory foresight method to engage citizens as well as other actor groups into co-generating advice for research and innovation agenda setting in a standardized process; namely, the multi-perspective and multi-step CIVISTI method (Citizens' Visions on Science, Technology and Innovation). Over the course of the past ten years, about 560 lay citizens without specialised knowledge on technology and innovation and 610 experts and stakeholders have taken ...

Technology assessment (TA) frequently uses forward-looking methods to anticipate socio-technical changes and their corresponding implications to deduce advice for policy and society. In recent years, participatory methods have increasingly been applied to identify the expectations of society towards future technologies. In this context, several TA projects have developed, applied and adapted a participatory foresight method to engage citizens as well as other actor groups into co-generating advice for research and innovation agenda setting in a standardized process; namely, the multi-perspective and multi-step CIVISTI method (Citizens' Visions on Science, Technology and Innovation). Over the course of the past ten years, about 560 lay citizens without specialised knowledge on technology and innovation and 610 experts and stakeholders have taken part in these processes of co-generation of knowledge. In this contribution, we use our experience with this method and elaborate some criteria for the evaluation of knowledge co-generation and mutual learning in participatory foresight processes within TA.

In this paper, we present the forward-looking CIVISTI method with strong participatory elements for inter- and transdisciplinary futures research based on citizens' visions. This multi-perspective demand side approach, has been developed and implemented since 2008 in different projects at EU, national and local level for knowledge-based policy advice mainly focussed on program development. Applying CIVISTI (Citizens Visions on Science Technology and Innovation) provides desirable futures that incorporate people's hopes and fears and provides insights to societal challenges and values. It furthermore combines this knowledge with experts' and stakeholders' recommendations for implementation.

In this paper, we present the forward-looking CIVISTI method with strong participatory elements for inter- and transdisciplinary futures research based on citizens' visions. This multi- perspective demand side approach, has been developed and implemented since 2008 in different projects at EU, national and local level for knowledge-based policy advice mainly focussed on program development. Applying CIVISTI (Citizens Visions on Science Technology and Innovation) provides desirable futures that incorporate people's hopes and fears and provides insights to societal challenges and values. It furthermore combines this knowledge with experts' and stakeholders' recommendations for implementation.

"Responsible Research and Innovation" (RRI) ist zu einem wichtigen Schlagwort der EU-Forschungspolitik geworden. Das Ziel: Technische Innovationen sollen sich an ethischen und gesellschaftlichen Erfordernissen orientieren und nicht allein durch kommerzielle Interessen bestimmt sein. RRI verlangt daher nach einer frühzeitigen Einbindung der Technikfolgenabschätzung (TA) in Innovationsprozesse. Doch was kann die TA in diesem Rahmen leisten? Und wie tragfähig ist das Konzept von RRI überhaupt?Die in diesem Band versammelten Beiträge zeigen, welche Rolle das Konzept RRI im europäischen Kontext spielt, welche Bezüge es zwischen RRI und TA gibt und wo die Grenzen von RRI liegen. Damit wendet sich dieser Band an Entscheidungsträger in Politik und Industrie, die je unterschiedliche Phasen des Innovationsprozesses begleiten. Schließlich ist das Buch auch für die interessierte Öffentlichkeit von Interesse, denn deren Rolle wird in der RRI besonders hervorgehoben, um gesellschaftlich wünschenswerte Innovationen zu realisieren

Die Analyse komplexer Probleme, unter anderem mittels Indikatoren, gehört zum Alltag der Technikfolgenabschätzung (TA). Indikatorenarbeit verdeutlicht, dass die Auswahl von Indikatoren, trotz genereller Regeln, auf akteursabhängigen Entscheidungen beruht. Die These des Artikels lautet, dass TA kontextneutralisierende wie kontextoffene Analysestrategien nutzt. Die Analyse von Indikatorenarbeit an einem Beispiel im Feld der Nachhaltigkeitsanalyse zeigt, wie die Spannung zwischen diesen beiden Analysestrategien in der Indikatorenarbeit durch Verfahrensregeln transparent zu machen ist. Normative Transparenz kann durch reflektierte Indikatorenarbeit in der TA sichergestellt werden.

AbstractEngaging non-experts in matters of science and technology has been increasingly stressed in both rhetoric and action during the past decades. Under the call for moving participation upstream, agenda setting processes have been identified as viable entry point for laypeople's experiential and value-based knowledge into science, technology and innovation governance (STI). Harnessing visioning for target setting promises to elicit such knowledge, whilst at the same time evading the dilemma of informing participants about STI that does not exist prior to engagement. To test such claims, we investigate a large-scale citizen-visioning exercise employed as an initiation of a transdisciplinary research and innovation agenda setting process, namely CIMULACT. In a comparable Europe-wide process, more than 1000 laypeople (citizens) produced 179 visions of desirable futures which built the basis for co-creating future research topics for advising the EU research and innovation programme Horizon 2020. We provide in depth insights into the visioning methodology for inclusion of citizens into STI agenda setting, and discuss room for methodological improvement regarding potential loss and gains of creativity and diversity of opinions considering empirical results of ex-post participant evaluation questionnaires (n ≈ 964). The discussed data shows a generally positive evaluation of the process and engagement, since citizens are in retrospective content with the process and visions, they would participate again in a similar event, and they are in favour of the EU to continue hosting such events in the future. However, citizens were rather sceptic whether the results actually (can/will) have an impact on the stated aim of integration in research and innovation agenda setting.

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.

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.

Cover -- Grand Challenges meistern - der Beitrag der Technikfolgenabschätzung -- Einführung und Überblick -- Hintergrund -- Das Thema im Fokus von Technikfolgenabschätzung -- Fragestellungen für die vorliegende Publikation und weitere Arbeiten zum Thema -- Fazit und Ausblick -- Literatur -- Grand Challenges -- Theoretische und praktische Probleme transdisziplinärer Forschung angesichts kollektiver Handlungsprobleme von globaler Reichweite -- 1 Wissenschaft vom Ganzen oder interdisziplinäre Forschung? -- 2 Epistemologische Qualitätssicherung -- 2.1 Die Grenzen des Falsifikationismus -- 2.2 Kritik des Topos der besten Erklärung -- 3 Wissenschaftliche Wahrheit und demokratische Öffentlichkeit -- Literatur -- Think Global! Reflections on a Global Technology Assessment -- Grand Global Challenges -- Common Global Ground -- Global RRI in Practice -- From RRI Practice to Global TA? -- References -- Grand Challenges: Eröffnung von gesellschaftlichen Lernräumen oder Suche nach diskursiver Kontrolle? -- 1 Drei Typen von Risiken -- 2 Wissensregime -- 3 Grand Challenges: Codierung von Wissensregimen? -- 4 Grand Challenges: Demokratisierung oder Technokratisierung gesellschaftlichen Problemlösens? -- Literatur -- Grand Challenges als Spiegelbild des homo fabers - Herausforderungen für die Technikfolgenabschätzung im 21. Jahrhundert -- 1 Einleitung -- 2 Technologisches Programm als Erfolg und Problem gleichermaßen -- 3 Zwei "Ansätze" zur Wesensentwicklung der Technik und des Menschen -- 4 Herausforderungen für die TA im 21. Jahrhundert - ein vorläufiges Resümee -- Literatur -- Technikfolgenabschätzung in Wendezeiten: Herausforderungen der Transdisziplinarität und des Nationalen -- 1 Einleitung -- 2 Entwicklungsetappe der TA -- 3 Transdisziplinäre Herausforderung -- 4 Nationale Herausforderung