3. iii
Constructive TA of
Newly Emerging Technologies
Stimulating learning by anticipation through bridging events
Proefschrift
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor
aan de Technische Universiteit Delft,
op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. ir. K.C.A.M. Luyben,
voorzitter van het College voor Promoties,
in het openbaar te verdedigen op
maandag 12 maart 2012 om 15:00 uur
door
Alireza PARANDIAN
ingenieur Management of Technology
geboren te Tehran, Iran
5. v
I dedicate this book to the dearest person in
my life, my mother, Maryam, for her
unconditional love, sacrifice, and
encouragement. Thank you for always
believing in me.
6. vi
Acknowledgements
This PhD journey incorporated both enjoyable and painful experiences. To me it
was like climbing a high peak, step by step, and I would not have made it without
the encouragement, trust and help of so many kind people. Truly speaking, I now
realize that achieving the top of this peak has been the most beautiful and satisfying
sensation I have ever experienced in my entire life. At the same time I realize that
what matters most is to utilize the learning experience I have accumulated along
each step of this journey in my future life.
First, and foremost, I want to thank Arie Rip for the tremendous support he has
given me as a promotor, a mentor and a friend during the past few years. I feel lucky
to have had such a knowledgeable and cooperative, and above all a caring supervisor
at my side. Thank you Arie, for believing in me, and making me believe in myself.
Thank you for your trust and the enormous intellectual inspiration you have given
me. Without your guidance, mentorship and dedicated efforts this dissertation would
not have materialized. I’m deeply indebted to you. This all sounds like goodbye, but
I am actually looking forward to our future collaboration.
A special thanks also goes to Karel Mulder, my daily supervisor in Delft, who never
lost faith in me since he accepted me as a PhD candidate. Thank you for the freedom
you provided me to develop my thoughts. I deeply appreciate your support as an
intellectual sparring partner throughout my PhD activities. I am also grateful to Theo
Toonen for his critical comments in the later stages of my writing process which
helped me to make necessary improvements. I also appreciate my PhD committee
members, who reviewed and commented on my dissertation and have provided me
the opportunity to improve upon it.
There are many people without whose contribution the present book would have not
seen light. My deepest gratitude goes to Omid Tansaz for his unconditional support
throughout this PhD project and his dedicated effort and help with the layout of this
book and all the workshop documents. Omid, you have supported me for a lifetime
now like a big brother and I cannot express in words what you mean to me. I can
just say that you have a special place in my heart.
I want to thank all my colleagues at the TA-Nanoned program for their friendship,
kindness and the good time we had together while writing our dissertations. In
particular I want to thank Douglas Robinson, my friend, colleague and intellectual
sparring partner whom I could always rely on. Doug, thank you for all your
constructive advice, comments and the enthusiasm you have given me throughout
my PhD research. I am looking forward to future collaborations with you.
7. vii
I would like to thank all my colleagues at the section technology dynamics and
sustainable development at Delft University of Technology. It was great fun
working and interacting with all of you. Especially I like to thank Karin and Agnes
for their patience and help with administrative issues. and my special thanks goes to
Mariette whom I would like to thank for her listening ear and all the helpful advice
she has provided for me. My dear friends Fardad Zand and Sam Soleimani, you have
been of greatest support to me. I cannot thank you guys enough.
I would also like to thank my friends and family in the Netherlands who have given
me unconditional support and encouragement outside my work. Behrouz, Behnam,
Mehran, Armin, Lena, Payam, Shayan, Ashkan, Arash, Amir, you guys are the best
friends and family one could ever have. I am so lucky to have all of you together by
my side. My deepest gratitude goes to Elica for her endless support throughout the
years. Thank you so much!
Finally, I want to thank my mother, Maryam. Mom, you are truly the most important
person in my life. You have been the most significant teacher as you have thought
me to have courage and daring to make a difference. Who I am today is the result of
your dedicated support and love. I am eternally grateful to you for having faith in
me. With you, I am in peace.
This thesis was printed with financial support from the Dutch Graduate School of
Science, Technology and Modern Culture (WTMC) and Section Technology
Dynamics and Sustainable Developments of Delft University of Technology.
Alireza Parandian
February 2012
8. viii
Table of contents
1.1 Setting the scene .............................................................................................................1
1.2 A first round of analysis..................................................................................................7
2.1 Dynamics of technological change and its embedding in society.................................15
2.2 Strategic intelligence and reflexive co-evolution of science, technology and society...21
2.3 CTA as modulation of technological development & its embedding in society ...........29
2.4 Learning by anticipation...............................................................................................36
3.1 Mapping the dynamics of the domains taken up in the workshops...............................44
3.2 Relevant variations .......................................................................................................47
3.3 Linking variations to the productivity of the bridging events .......................................48
3.4 Data collection: workshop interaction process..............................................................53
3.5 Analysis of the interaction processes............................................................................55
3.6 Post-workshop data collection on learning of participants............................................57
4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................66
4.2 Domain description: Organic Large Area Electronics .................................................68
4.3 Preparation for the workshops: diagnosis, dilemmas and scenarios.............................81
4.4 The workshops............................................................................................................111
4.5 Post-workshop evaluation...........................................................................................127
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................152
5.2 Domain description: Body Area Networks in healthcare............................................153
5.3 Preparation for the workshops: diagnosis, dilemmas and scenarios............................175
5.4 The Workshops...........................................................................................................211
5.5 Post-workshop evaluation...........................................................................................226
6.1 Approach to analysis and the used data set.................................................................251
6.2 Causal stories..............................................................................................................256
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................vi
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................1
2 Conceptual background ................................................................................................14
3 Research design and methods.......................................................................................44
4 Organic Large Area Electronics....................................................................................66
5 Body Area Networks in Healthcare ............................................................................152
6 Productivity of bridging events in relation to orchestration........................................249
9. ix
6.3 Experiences and recommendations.............................................................................267
7.1 Participants’ appreciation of scenarios and interactions .............................................272
7.2 Incentives in the macro-world for the uptake of microcosmos enabled learning........280
7.3 Considerations on Constructive TA and reflexive co-evolution .................................287
7 Concluding considerations..........................................................................................271
Bibliography..........................................................................................................................295
Summary...............................................................................................................................312
Samenvatting.........................................................................................................................322
10.
11. 1
1 Introduction
1.1 Setting the scene
This PhD thesis is about designing an approach to facilitate interactions among
heterogeneous stakeholders to deal with complex issues around the societal
embedding of Newly Emerging Science and Technologies (NEST). In doing so,
it offers a contribution to methodology development of Constructive Technology
Assessment (CTA). Constructive TA has been introduced as a way for our
societies to handle emerging technologies better (cf. Rip et al. 1995). Thus, my
concrete questions can be positioned as part of a larger endeavor. I will briefly
discuss CTA and the need to address how we handle technology in society to
develop the twin themes of the thesis.
Constructive TA is part of what is, by now, a long tradition (at least 40 years) of
TA studies and activities (Smits and Leyten 1991, Rip 2001, Smits et al. 2010).
It can be located in the so-called second generation of institutionalized
technology assessment (Van Eijndhoven 1997, Rip 2012), where contribution to
agenda-building about technologies and technological projects in society is more
important than contributions to policy analysis that are the focus of first
generation TA. Distinctive for Constructive TA is, first, how it is positioned as
part of ongoing development of technology and its embedding in society (which
it shares with Real Time TA (Guston and Sarewitz 2002)), and second, how it
draws on general and specific insights into the development and embedding in
society of the technologies it focuses on (Robinson 2010).
Constructive TA locates itself explicitly in what has been called the philosophy
of technology assessment: Reduce the costs of learning by trial-and-error which
characterizes much of our handling of technology in society, by anticipating
future developments and their impacts, and by accommodating such insights in
decision making and its implementation. (adapted from Rip 2001: 15512). Such
anticipation is not limited to commissioned TA studies, but will be part of a
societal learning process, in which many actors participate. This is not to push
societal learning processes as a remedy for all evils, but to draw attention to the
dimension of learning in interaction, in particular in heterogeneous interactions.
In this thesis the focus is on newly emerging technologies, and this introduces
further challenges for handling technology in society, because of the novelty of
the technological options and the uncertainty about eventual performance, uptake
in society and impacts. Ways to meet these challenges have been explored,
12. 2
particularly in TA NanoNed (Van Merkerk 2007, Robinson 2010). An important
innovation was the development and use of sociotechnical scenarios to translate
specific technology dynamics insights into support for strategy articulation. And
subsequently, the use of broad stakeholder workshops as a sort of microcosmos
(supported by sociotechnical scenarios) in which interactions can be played out
and learning can occur. This thesis will do this more systematically, for a few
areas of nanotechnology development, by designing such workshops using
general and specific technology dynamics insights and evaluate them, as such
and in terms of the learning that occurred.
Why do we need to better handle newly emerging technologies in society? One
fundamental reason is the “shadow” of uncertainty hanging over the hopeful
promises (as highlighted by technology promoters at the beginning, and often
taken up more widely). It appears from historical studies that the original
functionalities envisioned for technologies are often different than the functions
that eventually become dominant. Consider, for instance, the Internet. “Its mass
appeal had no part in decisions made in 1973, rather the project reflected the
command economy of military procurement” (Abbate 1999:145). It was
originally developed to protect the flow of information between military
installations by creating a network of geographically separated computers which
exchanged information. The further important step was the development of the
world wide web, which allowed easy use of the possibilities of the Internet
(Berners-Lee and Fischetti 1999). The example shows that technology
development involves contingent processes, and co-production of eventual shape
of the technology and its functionalities. Thus, “managing technology in society”
(Rip et al. 1995) cannot be based only on actors’ intentions or their projection
about what the eventual achievement might be. What is required is an
understanding of the specific dynamics, including how uncertainty is reduced
over time; and on that basis, soft interventions (Robinson 2010, cf. also Te Kulve
2011).
The other fundamental reason, highlighted in general arguments for doing
technology assessment, is that technologies and their uptake and use also bring
about unintended consequences. A case in point is the damage that was brought
to the ozone layer (which protects us against ultraviolet radiation of the sun),
because of the widespread use of organic compounds called Chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs) in refrigerators and aerosol-sprays. Interesting about the case of CFCs is
that it shows that even when unintended consequences were put on the agenda,
their certainty was challenged by technology actors because of the economic
stakes involved, and therefore response was delayed by years (Dotto and Schiff
13. 3
1978).1
The point I want to emphasize here with this example is to show the
difficulty of anticipating on unpredictable outcomes. This means that by the time
that unintended impact is visible so to be able to do reliable impact studies,
developments become ‘entrenched’ and consequently only little adjustment and
repair work will be possible, except prohibition of the technology altogether.
This was emphasized by Collingridge (1980) as a dilemma of control. Another
striking example relates to the negative reception, at the time, of cochlear
implants, by the deaf community (Reuzel 2001; Garud and Ahlstrom 1997),
which indicates how technology development pursued by insiders, will be
exposed eventually to outsiders, who might have different evaluation criteria.
Insiders have limited understanding of the world outside and therefore structure
their activities in a concentric manner, addressing functional issues first, and
sequentially addressing broader aspects like regulations and social acceptance.
Running a bit ahead of my argument, I can now already say, that insiders’
anticipation of societal embedding process can be improved upon if wider
contexts are taken into account (Deuten et al. 1997).
Thus, there is sufficient reason to say that successful introduction and societal
embedding of new technologies is not dependent on particular strategies of its
promoters. The outcome of technological innovations and societal embedding is
not the ensuing result of a process which is rationally oriented by some actor
towards achieving such a goal. Rather, it is a process that takes shape at the
collective level as it were. This is because variety of actors anticipate social
embedding processes and engage in strategic interactions as they attempt to exert
influence on technology change by way of pursuing their own interest and goals
(according to what they see as a prospective structure that has to be realized).
The outcome of the socio-technical transformation process is the net effect of the
actions and interactions of variety actors (Rip 1995). This point is a specific
version of a more general sociological diagnosis: there are a variety of actors
involved and they anticipate social embedding processes: actor interactions and
eventual choices that are made are embedded in existing social structures and
thus the decisions and choices are already constrained – at least to some extent.2
The final point I need to emphasize relates to the situated character of
technologies. Introduction of new technologies will always have to take place
against the backdrop of the established and existing socio-technical situation. In
1
See the general quandaries of early warning as well. See Harremoës (2001).
2
As Karl Marx phrased it in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte: “Men make their own
history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected
circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past”
(Marx 1852), quoted from http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-
brumaire/ch01.htm.
14. 4
other words, new technology, at first only as a promise, introduces novelties in
the existing socio-technical order. If accepted, it requires de-alignment with
respect to existing competencies and linkages (as between firms and customers)
which will then become ‘obsolete’ (Abernathy and Clark 1985). Concurrently,
new competencies and linkages are built up towards a new re-alignment. This
dynamic of de-alignment and re-alignment can (and must) be extended to include
competencies and linkages at a societal level (Rip 2010). Such re-alignments in
the real world are established through a mechanism of trial and error because in
early stages of NEST the situation is open-ended and highly uncertain. Still,
choices have to be made for certain directions to go, in order to achieve
something, anything (Verganti 1999). Over time, choices add up to stable
patterns, including emerging irreversibilities (Van Merkerk and Robinson 2006),
which make it difficult to deviate from directions taken and thus constrain
further thinking and action. Is there a way for actors to do better, or at least not
be victim before the fact of emerging irreversibilities?
This background question, formulated in terms of actor’s own interests, is linked
to the macro-level question of how our societies handle emerging technologies.
The "philosophy" of Technology Assessment (quoted above) addresses the issue
of reducing the costs of learning by trial-and-error, by contributing to a societal
learning process in which many actors participate. If this is a real possibility, the
dynamics of de-alignment and re-alignment must be recognized for what they are
and be taken up in concrete learning processes.
This possibility is the background challenge that is addressed in this thesis. The
immediate question of designing an approach to facilitate interaction of
heterogeneous actors around NEST must be addressed in terms of multi-actor
societal learning processes. Hence, what I will do is zoom-in on approaches at
micro-level (and sometimes meso-level) while keeping in mind the overall or
macro-level goal of Constructive TA. This zooming-in is informed by insights
from studies of dynamics of technology development and its embedding in
society.
While this thesis is part of the Dutch research and development consortium
NanoNed, specifically the Technology Assessment component of NanoNed (TA-
Nanoned), and builds on its overall intellectual framework (and on work of other
PhD students in TA-NanoNed) 3
, one of its distinguishing contributions is the
focus on the learning dimension.
The research program of TA-Nanoned builds on the earlier (largely theoretical
and programmatic) work on Constructive TA. In contrast with most other TA
3
In particular the work of Rutger van Merkerk and Douglas Robinson.
15. 5
approaches, the Constructive TA approach puts a particular emphasis on the
analysis of dynamics of technology development and diagnosis as it embraces
the open ended character and complexities of NEST. This enables ‘controlled
speculation’ about possible futures which can support ongoing interactions in
real time, for instance in workshops where relevant heterogeneous actors
participate. Such supported interactions stimulate reflection and broadening of
scope of strategic choices and this can then contribute to make co-evolution of
science, technology and society more reflexive. Eventually, this can lead to
better technology development and better ways in which these become societally
embedded.
The recognition that anticipation on societal embedding issues might help actors
to do better is becoming more visible (Te Kulve 2011). The fact that the
Nanoned Consortium was prepared to devote part of its funding to TA and social
aspects of nanotechnology is part of larger dynamics: it is an effect of actual
failures that were faced in historical cases like the most recent impasses
concerning genetically modified organisms in agriculture where society was
perceived as simply rejecting the developments (at least in Europe and some
developing countries). The converse of this perception is the idea that societal
aspects, or ethical, social and legal issues (ELSI) should be considered early on,
if any economic benefit is to be gained from innovations. For biotechnology this
point has been made by (Deuten et al. 1997). Their analysis is important because
it also usefully distinguishes three components of societal embedding processes:
”the integration in relevant industries and markets, admissibility with regards to
regulations and standards and the acceptance by the public” (Deuten et al. 1997:
131). The three components can be recognized in practices of actors and further
operationalized, but also refer to how societal embedding of NEST is part of
larger processes. Running ahead of my argument, I can already say that this leads
to requirements on the design of a CTA method. A successful intervention aimed
at improving societal embedding has to rely on relevant insights which consider
concrete actions and interactions of heterogeneous actors on different levels,
especially the way new roles and responsibilities get defined, because these
might add up to effects at collective levels.
It is clear from the above discussion that the central themes of this research lie at
the intersection between issues and complexities faced in situations of NEST and
design of an approach to facilitate bridging events as a way to address gaps
between different perspectives. Addressing these themes then implies two
specific activities: Analysis of dynamics and ‘endogenous’ futures by using
available tools from the CTA tool box, and design and systematic evaluation of
bridging events to capture methodological lessons.
16. 6
Theme 1: Analysis of dynamics and constructing socio-technical scenarios
The first research theme addresses the challenge to assess technological
development and societal embedding as these occur (in real time). The particular
challenge of anticipation in situations of NEST in general, and nanotechnology
in particular relates to its doubly fictional character. Yet it is essential to
anticipate on possible futures as a way to support reflexivity and broadening of
the scope of strategic choices. As Te Kulve and Rip (2008) argue, in situations of
NEST, characterized by high level of uncertainty, that socio-technical scenarios
are valuable tools that can support strategy articulation to become more reflexive
because thy capture ongoing dynamics and develop implications for what might
happen.
Construction of socio-technical scenarios requires tracing and analysis of
ongoing dynamics in context, and patterns that are part of the emergence process
of particular domains that the analyst will probe into. The key point is that
understanding of dynamics of development allows identification of opportunities
for intervention and specifies how such intervention can be productive. Work on
this theme will lead to results that will be interesting in their own right.
Theme 2: Design and orchestration of bridging events and evaluating their
productivity
The second research theme involves designing an approach to facilitate
interactions among heterogeneous stakeholders. More specifically, it concerns
the design and orchestration of productive bridging events with an emphasis on
supporting controlled anticipation and strategy articulation. Bridging has to be
facilitated between the world of research and innovation and that of societal
aspects. An important aspect in the design is the feedback of insights in ongoing
socio-technical dynamics. The insights are translated into scenarios (cf. theme 1),
which serve as a platform to support interaction among variety of relevant actors
who discuss how possible impacts can play out and deliberate on their
desirability. In this sense, the bridging events will be a microcosmos, allowing a
temporary space for social experimentation and learning. The productivity of
bridging events will be evaluated systematically in relation to the learning
effects.
To be able to contribute to methodology development of Constructive TA, the
design must introduce systematic variation in the conditions under which
interactions occur and evaluation of their effects. The specific form of a
Constructive TA exercise depends on the nature of the technology and how far it
has developed already. I can include this, to some extent, by having workshops
17. 7
in two different domains: a domain in which developments are still at a very
early stage and societal embedding issues are not visible and a domain in which
developments are more crystallized and there is at least some visibility of
societal embedding issues. It can be expected that interactions will play out
differently when societal embedding issues are already articulated and actors
might have taken specific positions than when societal embedding issues are not
clear and still have to be articulated. Thus, this is an important parameter of
variation in the design of the bridging events. The main variation will be
working with different workshop orchestrations, for example by starting the
discussion emphasizing the variety of actor perspectives or focusing on
dilemmas in further developments (see further Section 1.2).
A key element is to link the general analysis of dynamics of development of
newly emerging science and technologies with the specific issues of dedicated
bridging events. To offer an overview, I have put each of my twin themes as
elements in a rectangle and indicate the various links (see Figure 1.1 below). The
specifics need not be discussed at this stage. They will be prepared for in Chapter
2, and return in Chapter 3.
Supporting actors
in “doing better” through
“bridging events”
which function as a micro-cosm
Theme 1: Analysis of dynamics and constructing socio-technical scenarios
Microcosmos and its
possible futures as
play ground for
actors in workshop
Methodology
Development
Theme 2: Design and orchestration of bridging events and evaluating their productivity
Evaluation
Of interaction process that take
shape as result of structuring
Of social learning in terms of
dimensions relevant to doing better
in the real world
Orchestration & Support tools
Identification and invitation of
relevant actors
Provision of “Strategic Intelligence”
to support reflection and strategy
articulation
Preparation & Design
Creation of dedicated workshops to
stimulate alignment creation.
Identify what is at stake to create
link with the real world issues
Introduce relevant permutations in
design to facilitate bridging
mechanisms
Analysis of dynamics:
Focus on co-production processes shot through
with anticipations and assessments (to reduce
uncertainty).
Ongoing anticipations open-up occasions for
emergence of spaces
Socio-technical Scenarios
Narratives indicate lateral movements, non-
linearities & reflect complexity of force fields at
play and what these add up to in collective level
dynamics
Insights from
preparatory work
(interviews,
observations & desk
research)
Deriving requirements for
design & structuring of
“bridging events”
Identifying key
elements, dilemmas
and forceful dynamics
at play and insight into
force fields based on
interactions in
workshop
Figure 1.1: The two research themes as elements in rectangles, and their interactions
1.2 A first round of analysis
The twin themes have been phrased in general terms, but I can already be a bit
more specific so as to formulate research questions which will guide my further
work. The analysis will necessarily be brief; elements will be discussed at more
length in Chapter 2.
18. 8
Technological innovation is a process, part of the overall co-evolution of
technological change and social change. Technology and society are mutually
shaped (Rip and Kemp 1998). The ongoing process of creation of novelties in
science and technology, and their actual uptake through selection mechanisms
are already influenced at an early stage through dynamics of expectations and
promises. Promises articulate the potential value of specific options and act as a
bridge, mediating between the ongoing explorative efforts on the one hand and
interests for exploitation of the potential on the other.
In retrospect, the eventual process of uptake of promising scientific knowledge
into technological applications and their societal embedding is often presented as
a linear one. This representation does not reflect the actual dynamics as it leaves
out shifts, feedbacks and iterations, as well as the contingencies and failures that
are involved in travelling through an unexplored area to a new destination. When
such complexity is considered the process of innovation can be described as
journey-like (Van de Ven et al. 1999). In the words of De Laat (1996: 34)
“Innovation is not a process where actors (academia, laboratories, firms, users
etc.) intervene sequentially, but one during which durable links are created
between these various players.” A key point is that while there will always be
contingencies involved, the process of creating new linkages, and increasing
alignments add up to patterns which further shape actions and interactions.
Hence, they amount to some predictability.
Expectations play an important role in early stages as guiding actions and
interactions in the development process. In early stages, particularly rhetoric of
expectations helps to set agendas and mobilize support (Van Lente 1993). To
locatecomplexities associated with novelties and uncertainties in NEST, one
should include broader patterns in innovation processes (e.g. effect of regimes at
a more collective level). This is important because at a macro level, the co-
evolution of science, technology and society leads to stable patterns.
Innovation journeys are embedded in larger patterns of expectations which shape
the efforts towards technological change: making coordination for resources,
commitments and for risk management easier for certain innovations than others.
These patterns are captured by the notion of technological regime (originally
introduced by Nelson and Winter 1977): “A technological regime is the rule-set
or grammar embedded in a complex of engineering practices, production
process technologies, product characteristics, skills and procedures, ways of
handling relevant artefacts and persons, ways of defining problems—all of them
embedded in institutions and infrastructures. Regimes are intermediaries
between specific innovations as these are conceived, developed, and introduced,
and overall sociotechnical landscapes” (Rip and Kemp 1998).
19. 9
The implication is that present and future choices about right directions will be
conditioned by choices that have been made in the past, making certain
innovations easier based on the nature of the technological change that is
expected. For instance, incremental innovations are indicated by expectations
about ordinary progress along dimensions where relatively little risks are
involved as such innovations occur within existing technological regimes. In
contrast, radical innovations may involve development of new knowledge,
infrastructure and regulations for that matter. Thus, instead of following existing
regimes, these challenge the existing configurations. This is because existing
functional and structural connections like knowledge infrastructure and
regulatory setting may not be conducive towards this type of change. Hence,
actors that engage in realizing radical innovations are exposed to higher risks as
linear predictive models don’t apply. The situation is essentially characterized as
open-ended and for the actors who are engaged in the developments this implies
experimenting and learning through trial and error. The learning that might occur
will be an effect of the attempts to resolve issues in the face of uncertainty – it
will be unclear when such effects will become visible, if at all.
The analysis provided by Abernathy and Clark (1985), already mentioned, is a
useful entrance point to understanding the situation that is faced by the actors in
the ongoing technology development process. They try to capture the variety of
dynamics by distinguishing between major and minor technology changes in
terms of disruption of existing patterns. In the case of radical innovations (their
term is ‘architectural’), which constitute major changes, existing technological
competencies and other relevant capabilities of a firm, and existing linkages with
markets become obsolete.
This can be generalized: introduction of novelties always introduces a rupture in
the existing sociotechnical order, because it makes previous capabilities and
linkages obsolete. Concurrently, however, new linkages and alignments have to
be made. The significance of these linkages and alignments extends beyond
innovations and industry structure to embedding of technology in society (Rip
2010), definitely if one considers longer-term developments and broader notions
of success than the short-term profits of a firm (Rip 1995). As I will show in
Chapter 2, processes of de- and re-alignment play across multiple levels, for
example within a firm, in an industry and in sectors of society. This creates an
entrance point to map dynamics at different levels, necessary to provide a full
understanding of dynamics.
From this short discussion it is visible that anticipating on societal embedding
involves more than just looking at the ongoing creation of novelty but that it
should include the process of adoption of a novelty when it is exposed to
20. 10
selection mechanisms. At first, novelties can survive because of the promises
that are claimed about their potential but there is also a lot of uncertainty
including new capabilities and linkages that have to be created along different
dimensions. The situation that actors face here can be characterized as a wicked
problem (Rittel and Webber 1973). Due to incomplete and changing
requirements which are not easy to recognize, the situation is such that it is
difficult to resolve issues. Moreover, because of complex interdependencies, the
effort to solve one aspect of a wicked problem may reveal or create other
problems (Deuten et al. 1997; Shelley-Egan 2011).
A deeper understanding of the dynamics can contribute to the decision making
process at an early stage. That is how it figures in my first research theme.
Anticipation occurs already, but there should be deliberate efforts aimed at better
anticipation. This is a further task because the situation of NEST is too open-
ended to apply systematic forecasting. The challenge in open-ended situations is
actually to anticipate on a range of possible future developments, to enable more
informed strategy articulation in real time.
While the advent of NEST introduces novelties that cause rupture in the existing
socio-technical order, over time re-alignment choices are made and
irreversibilities can set in through stabilized expectations and sunk investments.
As I noted already, emerging irreversibilities facilitate actions and interactions in
specific directions and constrain others (Van Merkerk and Robinson 2006). In
general, new patterns are created which shape future choices and action. In other
words, there are “endogenous futures” embodied in these patterns (Robinson
2010). To speak in evolutionary terms, variation is not independent of
anticipations and embedded in the present are preferred directions, which implies
that trajectories are followed (Dosi 1982). While there will always be
uncertainties and contingencies, there are also opportunities to support
anticipation through analysis of dynamics.
Tracing dynamics and anticipating better are linked together through the
phenomenon of emerging patterns. The analysis of emergence will have to
include a variety of aspects of co-production (including expectations at different
levels and how these evolve, shaping of research agendas, R&D networks and
industrial consortia) informed by insights from science and technology studies
(STS) and innovation studies. A further step is to realize that there will be ‘forks’
in the scenarios, where the co-evolution can go in one direction or another (and
subsequently become path dependent). Identification of such forks creates a
focus for reflection and strategy articulation. All this brings me to formulate a
first research question:
21. 11
What are the emerging expectations and interactions in the chosen domains of
study, and how do patterns emerge (including emerging irreversibilities)?
To develop the second theme, I start with how Constructive TA emphasizes
feedback of insights into technology development process so as to modulate
ongoing dynamics as these occur. Schot and Rip (1997) have articulated generic
strategies of CTA towards this goal and highlight the importance of interactions
for creating and exploiting what they term ‘loci for alignment’. That is, they
show the importance of attempts to create spaces and forums for interaction
between the world of innovation and those who will eventually be exposed and
have to select the innovation in society. Such bridging then offers opportunities
to modulate developments.
The need for interaction is based on a diagnosis of asymmetries and gaps in the
real world that have to be bridged, to some extent to improve co-evolutionary
dynamics of science, technology and society. In the literature, the key
asymmetry has been diagnosed as the different position of insiders in
technological development and outsiders. I referred to Collingridge (1980) who
identified the knowledge and control dilemma: the difficulty to intervene in
technology development processes in a constructive manner in early stage as
there is little known about possible impacts and when there is more knowledge,
it may be too late. (Rip et al. 1995) showed how the dilemma is part of a
stabilized regime, since industrialization, of how society handles technology,
where promotion and control are institutionally separated. Thus, there is a built-
in asymmetry between those who are engaged in technology development and
those who will be impacted by the activities of technology developers in society
and more importantly indicates differences in timing i.e. initiators of technology
development processes always know more at the start and other in the society
will have to wait and see how they might be impacted by developments.
Garud and Ahlstrom (1997) diagnosed the same asymmetry in a slightly different
way by emphasizing the division of labour, where technology developers or
“insiders” are not necessarily knowledgeable about the outside world, while the
actual uptake will be up to the world “outside”, who can have different interests.
They indicate differences in the assessment criteria that are used by insiders and
outsiders. Insiders have an ‘enactment frame’, mainly emphasizing benefits,
while outsiders emphasize broader evaluation frames that emphasize benefits,
costs and risks, and can compare and select.
Rip and Te Kulve (2008) have used the term enactor (adapted from Garud and
Ahlstrom (1997) by Rip 2006) when characterize the primary target group of
CTA. They argue that enactors (technology developers and promoters, who are
22. 12
enacting new technologies) construct scenarios of progress and identify barriers
to be overcome (similar to roadmap projections). They thus work within an
enactment cycle which is geared towards realization and thus has to be
optimistic. While the enactors might think that the world may be waiting to
receive their promising options (perhaps in the form of products or services), the
world may have alternatives from which they can choose, i.e. they have a
comparative selector position.
Thus two positions with their specific perspectives are important for the
modulation and broadening goal of Constructive TA: on the one hand the
enactors and on the other hand comparative selectors. In the real world the two
positions can, and sometimes even have to interact, and this happens in various
formal and informal settings. The hearings of the US Food and Drug
Administration are an example of a formal setting where actors with different
positions meet. But there are also various conferences where actors from
different perspectives interact informally. There is also the recent interest of
firms and other research institutes (like Philips company with their Philips-Home
Lab) who attempt to show case their future technologies for people to try them
and provide feedback, but they also function as a ‘future store display’ to show
tangible results and attract more resources for further development.
Bridging of the gap between the two perspectives occurs at least temporarily
(and not necessarily productively) as enactment cycles and comparative selection
cycles interfere. Garud and Ahlstrom (1997) refer to such loci of interference as
“bridging events” and identify some examples. Bridging events can be improved
and the analysis of Garud and Ahlstrom (1997) has added value as it shows that
bridging events actually enable actors to experience more factors and aspects
which transcend one specific perspective and it might also lead to the recognition
of other perspectives. This offers the starting point to improve bridging events by
pro-actively creating and orchestrating a space (cf. Rip and Joly 2004) where
productive interactions can take place. This leads me to formulate a second
research question:
How to design orchestrated and supported “bridging events” tailored to the
context of emerging technologies, in order to stimulate the ongoing process of
reflexive anticipation on the societal embedding process in situations of NEST?
This question reflects the main goal of this dissertation to contribute to the
methodology development of CTA in a systematic way. One element is to be
explicit in the orchestration of the workshops and why certain effects are
expected, the other element is to evaluate in terms of its productivity to stimulate
actor’s anticipations to become more reflexive. The learning effect of
23. 13
participation can be evaluated as a measure of productivity of the outcome for
different stakeholders. I can already say that learning should at least enable
participants to include broader sets of actors and aspects into their strategic
assessments and decision making, which in turn enables them to make more
reflexive choices and do better. There might well be two main routes, in addition
to the construction of scenarios about possible futures that I, following Robinson
(2010), will do for all workshops. The variety of actor positions and perspectives
can be emphasized as starting point for a workshop, or the tensions and
dilemmas in the co-evolution of the domain. These could then be taken as
productive permutations of the orchestration of the workshops. Thus, I can add a
third research question:
What permutations in the orchestration of bridging event can be meaningful for
the development of a CTA methodology addressing situations of NEST and what
is the relation between these permutations and eventual productivity?
Together, these research questions will guide my research design (see Chapter
3), and to a large extent the selection of concepts and literatures to be discussed
in Chapter 2. The two domains that were selected, one at an early stage of
development (Organic Large Area Electronics), another at an intermediary stage
(Body Area Networks in Health Care), and the two workshops (with different
permutations) that were held for each of the domains, are the topic of Chapters 4
and 5 which extensively report on data and analysis. In Chapter 6, the evaluation
data are used to analyze the conditions for productive outcomes of the workshop
exercises. In the concluding Chapter 7, I return to broader questions about the
potential of this form of CTA, using a variety of qualitative data. I close with a
brief speculation about the possibility of more reflexive co-evolution of science,
technology and society.
24. 14
2 Conceptual background
In the four parts of this chapter, I will loosely follow the twin themes presented
in Chapter 1, technology dynamics of novelties (adding the role of strategic
intelligence) and intelligent intervention strategies through bridging events (with
a focus on learning by anticipation). I will mobilize relevant literatures,
sometimes developing points that were presented already in Chapter 1, but now
at more length and embedded in broader analysis.
Section 2.1 addresses the general dynamics of technological change and its
embedding in society, with a focus on introduction of novelties and uncertainties
(and the way society handles such novelties) by the advent of newly emerging
sciences and technologies (NEST). The dynamics of co-evolution will be
discussed, drawing in particular from evolutionary economics and actor network
theory, and relevant insights from innovation studies.
Strategic intelligence and reflexive co-evolution, the topic of Section 2.2, is not a
new phenomenon. The dynamic, multi-actor and decentralized co-production
processes associated with NEST are shot through with anticipatory strategies and
assessments, sometimes linked to professional studies. With co-evolution
becoming more reflexive, there is more explicit attention to strategic intelligence,
and interest in the ways that technology dynamics studies (as in CTA exercises)
can contribute.
Section 2.3 will position Constructive TA against the backdrop of increasing
anticipatory interventions in co-evolution, as the intentional design of spaces for
interaction, between heterogeneous actors (supported by strategic intelligence+).
Bridging events, already discussed in Chapter 1, are such spaces, and the notion
of ‘bridging’ the positions and perspectives of different actors is a pervasive
theme. The section builds heavily on the literature on Constructive Technology
Assessment and the analytical perspective on stimulating reflexive co-evolution
of science, technology and society as articulated in the TA-Nanoned Program.
Section 2.4 will provide a brief review of literature on learning processes in
technology development processes in order to develop the notion of learning by
anticipation which turns out to be important for my questions. Learning by
anticipation occurs (precariously) in the real world, while the heterogeneous
interactions in bridging events can support learning by anticipation, and this can
then inform the design of my workshops. For the purpose of evaluating the
productivity of the bridging events, different dimensions of learning relevant for
learning by anticipation will then be identified.
25. 15
2.1 Dynamics of technological change and its
embedding in society
There is a large body of innovation studies (not all of them relevant for my
questions, e,g. when they focus on micro-management in firms), but they have to
be located in terms of the broader question of the dynamics of societal
embedding processes, from the beginning of a new and promising option to the
vicissitudes of market introduction and wider uptake. To do so, I will mobilize
further literature, in particular, literature on evolutionary approaches to
technological change. An important point in this literature, as well as in actor-
network studies (to which I will refer to as well), is that the fate of the novelty
that is introduced depends on factors and contexts outside the range of influence
of the actors actively developing and introducing it.
Evolutionary economics of technical change stands in the neo-Schumpeterian
tradition, and the unit of analysis is the firm (cf. Nelson and Winter 1977). My
focus is on new and hopeful technologies, and I can build on sociologically
informed evolutionary approaches (like Van den Belt and Rip 1987). The basic
tenet of an evolutionary perspective on technological change is how societies
function as a selection environment relatively independent of the innovations.
Novelties must be nurtured and protected to survive in this harsh selection
environment. The actual dynamics are more complex than simple Darwinian
evolution consisting of variation, selection and retention, but this remains the
basic pattern.
Technological development is a search process which is inherently uncertain. It
involves trying out new combinations and exploring of new possibilities through
trial and error where different options are implemented and evaluated. The
process is thus conceptualized as successive sequences of variation and selection
(and retention of what was selected). While new technological options are
continually introduced by firms, only some grow, depending on the selection
environments (Nelson and Winter 1977). In their theory, routines within firms to
produce innovations (i.e. changes in routines) are the retention mechanisms.
Selection works on firms in markets and other selection environments. In Nelson
and Winter (1977: 49) the term selection environment is adopted instead of
market in order to include broader institutional factors than just traditional
market dynamics of supply and demand.
Variations are not tried out at random. Search processes are structured through
heuristics, i.e. guidelines which promise, but do not guarantee solutions.
Evaluation in selection environments have their own heuristics (e.g. what to take
into account) to guide decisions. Actors can intentionally link variation and
26. 16
selection processes. Dosi (1982: 156) refers to this as ex ante selection. This is
because firms can actually adjust their heuristics by anticipating upon expected
selections in selection environments.
These are the basic elements of an evolutionary model. Van den Belt and Rip
(1987) and Rip (1992a, b) speak of quasi-evolution in order to emphasize “the
intentional and strategic aspects which not only introduce imitation and
learning, and thus Lamarckian rather than Darwinian evolution, but also active
attempts to anticipate, and obviate, later selection” (Rip 1992b: 75). Actor’s
choices are actually shot through with assessments and anticipation of how
others might react. In addition, Rip (1992b: 75) highlights that search actors
could actively attempt to modify selection environments. This happens for
instance when potential customers are influenced through advertising methods as
a way to bias selection in favor of a specific product. But there are also indirect
approaches, as when changes in patent regulation are pushed for.
Van den Belt and Rip’s (1987) analysis (drawing on the case of synthetic dyes at
the end of 19th
century) shows that anticipatory interaction can occur between
variation and selection and become institutionalized. Test laboratories were
created in the German synthetic dye industry in order to simulate selection
environments. Tests on performance and effects of dyes allowed developers to
anticipate on the future selection of dyes, and thus select for themselves.4
Test
labs became institutionalized, and thus a ‘nexus’ between variation and selection.
The large sociological and historical literature on technological change can
actually be read as filling in a quasi-evolutionary approach. Important analyses
of the role of anticipations, and in particular anticipations about how a specific
option might be embedded in society, include those of Akrich and Callon. Such
anticipations have the form of diffuse scenarios and each “variation includes a
script that, in addition to technical aspects also includes aspects of the
surrounding environment” (Akrich (1987) cited in Schot (1992)). Callon’s
(1986) analysis of work on the electric car in France in the 1960s and 1970s
shows, in addition, that future ‘actor worlds’ envisaged by various actors may
conflict, and lead to interactions and shifts in the trajectory of development.
Conversely, selection can be pro-active as in negotiations of customers to
include requirements into specific options. One can speak of co-evolution of
technology development and selection environments (Schot 1992: 39).
Expectations and promises, even though diffuse and ad hoc in an early stage,
play an important role. They articulate the value of technological options on a
4
Remark on reversal: what was formally the selection environment (the dyers) became dependent on
the manuals of the dye producers.
27. 17
sort of ‘quasi-market’ (Schaeffer 1998). They are put forward to mobilize
resources from selection environments, but these have to adapt to the
requirements that come with them (Van Lente 1993; Van Lente and Rip 1998).
Expectations and promises made about the potential of technological options
create protection against harsh selection pressures.
When promises become specific, i.e. are formulated in terms of a concrete
performance that might/should be realized, or an actual demand that might be
met, these are translated into requirements for further development. Resources
can be dedicated to work to realize the requirements. After a first round of
development and evaluation of results, specific obstacles and/or specific
expectations will be identified and again translated into requirements for further
work. This continues until a working artifact or system is realized (but it can be
stopped earlier if progress is disappointing). Van Lente (1993) has called this the
promise requirement cycle. The other main promise dynamic in technological
change is how over time, expectations stabilize and add up to a matrix of
expectations that are present across various levels of organizations, disciplinary
fields, sectors and society (Van Lente 1993: 207). A key point is that the matrix
of expectations guides and legitimates actors’ choices. This happens as
expectations stabilize to set research agendas and concomitantly, specify an
arena of relevant actors (Rip 1992b: 78).
The key point for actors – and for analysts – is that anticipating changes requires
understanding of responses of different actors; i.e. actions and interactions in the
particular context of existing and prospective structures (Van Lente and Rip
1998). There will be mutual dependencies where actual movements will be
governed by anticipations of other’s moves and possible variations. Rip (1992b)
further shows that the emergence and functioning of such structures at collective
level leads to strategic games: “Mutual accommodations lead to interlocking sets
of relationships, networks that are not accidental, but coupled to a repertory of
expectations about each other’s roles and behaviors, as well as shared ways to
do things, heuristics and expectations about technology. In that sense, one can
usefully speak of a game: [….] to indicate that there are participants, a domain,
rules and stakes.” (Rip 1992b: 79) The phenomenon of strategic games is
particularly striking in the pattern of interaction where dual dynamics of
promises leads to waiting games (Parandian et al., forthcoming). 5
In such a
waiting game, the diffuse and open-ended character of the umbrella promise
leads to reluctance of actors to invest heavily in concrete developments, while
they cannot exit either because of the potential of the umbrella promise.
5
(Ruef and Markard (2010) analyzed such dual dynamics for one area of fuel cell development; they
used the term ‘frame’ for what (Parandian et al. forthcoming 2012) called “big but open-ended
promises” (they also use the term “umbrella promises").
28. 18
The phenomena I outline here are actually an instance of the general
phenomenon of emergence of social order and patterns/structures emerging as
result of collective actions and interactions – institutionalization in the
sociological sense of the term. The point is that while technological change
involves a process full of contingencies, patterns do emerge. Evolutionary
approaches combined with sociological insights about technological
change/shaping can address this, as I have indicated, because these combine
contingent variation and partly contingent selection mechanisms which over time
lead to stabilizations. One implication is that while patterns are constructed,
regularities that emerge can be used to anticipate. For example a well-known
pattern is the hype-disappointment cycle as introduced by Gartner Group for ICT
developments (Fenn and Raskino 2008), and now widely applied by actors as a
kind of folk theory to position themselves and define strategies (Rip 2006).6
Patterns emerge because over time actions and strategies of actors get entangled
and cannot move independently anymore (Robinson and Rip 2006 and Rip
2010b). (There is overlap with the literature on the phenomenon of path
dependence, when it becomes difficult to move away from a certain path because
pattern of interactions stabilize and get entangled (David 1985; Arthur 1990).)
One example of such entanglement is the emergence of a ‘technological
paradigm’ (Dosi 1982): technological developments follow patterns (shaped by
anticipations) that guide search processes. Another example is the emergence of
dominant designs (Tushman and Anderson 1986; Clark 1985; Utterback 1994).
The case of VHS video cassette recorder that became dominant even when it was
sub-optimal in performance compared to alternative designs like Betamax at the
time shows the complexities (Deuten 2003; Rosenbloom and Cusumano 1987).
When some novelties get accepted and survive (at first, based on the promise
they carry), successive promise-requirement cycles follow which create a path of
development. At each turn of the cycle decisions have to be taken – necessarily
based on expectations – whether to continue to explore or whether to be more
focused. Overall, the path goes from requirement-constrained exploration of an
option to a focus on exploitation (March 1991, Verganti 1999). Other perhaps
viable options might be neglected or become less important. Van Merkerk and
Robinson (2006) have discussed this as an example of emerging irreversibility,
and linked it with the phenomenon of path dependency because of the sunk
investments.
6
In their promising, scientists and technologists exaggerate, and thus contribute to the hype. Even
though they may be concerned about possible disappointment, exaggeration appears to be
inevitable to create visibility and fundability in present-day competitive environments. Hence, the
pattern is reproduced even when actors realize what is happening.
29. 19
There are links with the meso-level, where dominant designs and technological
standards emerge. Emerging irreversibilities have to do with actors developing
ways to handle uncertainties involved in technological change at micro- and
meso-levels, developing heuristics and routines to do so, which stabilize and
shape further development.
In other words, further developments are already predicated in the patterns of the
present situation; in that sense, the future is endogenous (Robinson 2010). Actors
can anticipate on that basis (cf. concept of fictive script (De Laat 1996)). Those
who are interested in mitigating less desirable irreversibilities could make use of
the understanding of dynamics so their choices become more informed, I will
return to this point when I discuss anticipatory interventions and Constructive
Technology Assessment in section 2.3.
Another but compatible take on emerging patterns is visible in actor-network
theory. Here, I highlight two useful types of analysis.7
First, that stabilizations
occur as actors become connected (entangled) through mutual translations.
Callon et al. (1992) use the notion of the Techno Economic Network (TEN),
where the links between actors materialize through ‘intermediaries’ (e.g.
scientific articles, technical artifacts, software, people, money, contracts etc.)
which are put into circulation. When dealing with novelties of NEST there will
be emerging heterogeneous alliances and emerging interactions, so that the
model of TEN should be expanded to take fluid situations into account,
particularly when applying this type of analysis to emerging technologies.
The second type of actor-network analysis that is relevant addresses the
difference between fluid situations (‘hot’) and well-articulated and stabilized
situations (‘cold’). Actor Network Theory tends to focus on fluid situations while
it also recognizes the existence of ‘cold’ situations (Callon 2002). What it does
not explicitly do is address transitions from ‘hot’ to ‘cold’ situations (cf. Callon
2002 where emerging and consolidated networks are given due attention, but not
the transition from one to another)). This is exactly the challenge that needs to be
addressed in situations of NEST. Rip (2010b) argued that co-evolutionary
approaches addressing processes of partial stabilization and emergence of
trajectories and paths through understanding of socio-technical entanglements,
can model transition from ‘hot’ to ‘cold’ situations.
Analysis and understanding of socio-technical entanglements can be further
supported by some mapping approaches in the literature, even if these were not
developed for this purpose. One such mapping tool was discussed already in
7
See Van Lente (1993: 213) for an expectations and technology version of actor network theory and
a discussion of the semiotic turn in Actor Network Theory.
30. 20
Chapter 1: Abernathy and Clark’s (1985) analysis of disruption of competencies
and linkages.8
In the case of novel technology, emerging entanglements can be
mapped as such; de-alignments and re-alignments of existing linkages and
competencies of firms and customers, but also across different levels and
contexts (thus going further than Abernathy and Clark). When novelties are
introduced in an existing order, it requires de-alignment of existing linkages and
competencies in order to create some room for the new and subsequently re-
alignment is necessary in order to embed the new. Abernathy and Clark’s (1985)
perspective was already extended by Afuah and Bahram (1995) to include
innovation value chains. Rip (2010a) argued for a further extension of the model
to include societal embedding of innovations and noted that alignment across
contexts is important for eventual societal embedding.
A second mapping approach focuses on the multi-layered character of
technological change and its embedding in society. A constellation of two layers
is already visible in my earlier discussion of actor choices and meso-level
patterns. Local practices of actors have their own dynamics, and there is a
cosmopolitan level, e.g. where a dominant design stabilizes, with its own
dynamics. At the same time there is interaction between dynamics between the
different layers, and mutual dependencies. There is actually a third layer: the
gradually shifting (or changing) backdrop against which interactions play out
which one can call a sociotechnical landscape (Kemp et al. 2001).9
This multi layer analysis was first developed by Rip and Kemp (1998) in their
thorough literature review on technological change. They raise a further
important point, that governance of technological change must be a matter of
“modulation” of ongoing dynamics within and between the three levels. Geels
(2005) developed the multi-layer analysis to create a multi-level model for socio-
technological developments in terms of niches, regimes, and landscape.10
A version of the multi-layered model is part of the analytical framework of the
TA-Nanoned Program within which this thesis is embedded: ongoing practices
in R&D, relevant institutions and networks and lastly public debate, regulatory
issues and broader societal forces. Analyses across these three levels have been
particularly useful to follow (in real-time) and understand what is happening in
and around nanotechnology (see Robinson 2010; Te Kulve 2011). Alignment
across levels is important because it introduces vicarious stabilization: actors at
9
These concepts of meso-level regimes and macro-level landscapes offer further articulation of the
empty notion of ‘selection environment’.
10
A constructively critical discussion of such multi-level models is offered in Rip (forthcoming
2012).
31. 21
one level will not be able to move completely independently as they will be
constrained by the dynamics at other levels (Te Kulve 2011).
It may seem that I have moved away from the original evolutionary approaches
(introduced at the start of this section). Indeed, I did so with respect to narrow
versions of evolutionary economics. I added complexity in terms of
anticipations, and in terms of emerging patterns.11
These are building blocks for
a co-evolutionary approach to technological change. There are intentional and
strategic aspects in variation and selection processes, and this makes co-
evolution somewhat reflexive. By now, actors increasingly think and act in terms
of the overall dynamics.12
They will do so from their own perspective as
individual actors, but this can add up to further reflexivity of co-evolution.
2.2 Strategic intelligence and reflexive co-evolution
of science, technology and society
The notion of strategic intelligence about science and technology was introduced
by Kuhlmann et al. (1999), with a focus on information and understanding
produced in R&D evaluation, technology foresight and technology assessment.
The phenomenon of strategic intelligence is much broader, and includes attempts
by science and technology actors to get information about ongoing work and
plans of their competitors.13
I will use the notion for the particular case of
novelties introduced by newly emerging technologies. Particularly when dealing
with novelties with potentially breakthrough nature, i.e. outside the incumbent
regime of innovation, the situation is open-ended and uncertainty abounds. Yet,
in the real world choices have to be made and actors mobilize information, often
hints and suggestions, to inform these choices. Hence, there is an element of
future-oriented technology analysis (to use a term pushed by IPTS, the European
Commission’s Institute for Prospective Technology Analysis),14
already in
actors’ own visions and assessments. Such future-oriented technology analysis
can have the form of independent or commissioned studies. I will build on that
literature, but add that it should be located as part of ongoing and increasingly
reflexive co-evolution of science, technology and society. This implies additional
11
Geels (2006: 999) asserts that co-evolution is increasingly recognized as an important issue and
offers a comprehensive overview of co-evolutionary processes in different strands of literature.
12
The literatures I have been drawing on in this Section are also read and used by actors (policy
makers, some practitioners).
13
See for example how Watson and Crick, working on the structure of genetic material in Cambridge
(UK) in the early 1950s, kept informed of the progress (and lack of progress) their competitor in
California, Linus Pauling, was making through what his son Peter Pauling, working in their
Department, was telling them from the letters he received from his father (See Watson 1968).
14
See for example the International Conference on Future-oriented Technology Analysis, organized
by IPTS in Selville (Spain). http://foresight.jrc.ec.europa.eu/fta_2011/intro.html
32. 22
requirements on, and opportunities for, production and use of strategic
intelligence; I will occasionally write strategic intelligence (plus) to emphasize
this use of strategic intelligence.
Strategic intelligence (plus) should be aware of the contexts and allow for
interaction with contexts. The analysis must be informed by insights in co-
evolutionary processes and anticipation of societal embedding (see Section 2.1).
Conversely, anticipation of embedding processes will inform individual actor’s
efforts towards creation of new alignments (i.e. it functions as a mechanism of
co-evolution) and thus contributes to reflexivity in processes of co-evolution.
One can see the emergence and further evolution of technology assessment, since
the 1970s, as an earlier indication of increasing reflexivity.
At the macro level, the co-evolution of science, technology and society has led to
stable patterns in the way how our modern society handles technologies, in
particular (as I noted already in Chapter 1) a historically grown division of
labour where technology development is separate from uptake of technology
(Rip et al. 1995). For example, there is government-led technology policy
focused on promotion of technologies, while on the other hand, within the same
government, other departments and agencies have the responsibility to reducing
the human and social costs of the introduction of new technology by regulation.
The dichotomy of promotion and control is also visible in how society
anticipates and handles controversies, as in the assumption that there will be
proponents and opponents to a new technology (Rip and Talma 1998).
Thus, there is recognition and institutionalization of different roles with regards
to handling of technology in society. In evolutionary terminology: Variation is
pushed by ‘insiders’ who articulate ‘promotion’ and selection is pushed by
‘outsiders’ who articulate ‘control’. The separation between variation and
selection is then bridged through anticipations and interactions (Van den Belt
and Rip 1987, Rip 1992; Van Lente 1993). Such anticipation-oriented patterns in
the interactions between science and technology with society create a demand for
new kinds of strategic intelligence, e.g. to improve embedding in society.15
Van Merkerk (2007: 35) emphasized the idea of TA as strategic intelligence, and
used a broad definition, drawing on a draft paper eventually published as Smits,
Van Merkerk et al. (2010): Provides a broad description on the notion of
15
Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA) as it emerged in the late 1980s would be an example,
but also the interest in doing better at early warning, or just early signalling (Harremoës 2001) and
of course, the proliferation of technology foresight studies of various kinds, and their institutional
recognition in institutes like the European Commission’s Institute for Prospective Technology
Analysis..
33. 23
strategic intelligence: “[It is] an umbrella term that covers approaches that
support actors to play their role in innovation processes by providing them with
tailor-made information that may help them to develop ideas, visions and
strategies as well as action plans to realize these.” Kuhlmann et al. (1999) focus
on how policy makers and strategists have traditionally used a number of
intelligence tools (e.g. Technology Foresight) to formulate appropriate policies
and strategies, and how these need to be improved and integrated. I shall first
briefly discuss conventional methods like technology forecasting and foresight
and then return to specific strategic intelligence tools required in the case of new
and emerging technologies.
The terms forecasting and foresight (and the recent term future-oriented
technology analysis) cover trend extrapolation, modeling and scenario
approaches up to Delphi studies where expert opinions are benchmarked. As De
Laat (1996: 27) notes, forecasting tends on quantified prediction of future events,
arrived at through formal modeling and/or expert opinion. Foresight is more
qualitative, and is considered useful for selecting the most promising research
areas and emerging generic technologies on which to target limited resources
(Martin 1995: 139). I will not offer an elaborate review of different methods
available and discuss their differences. They are difficult to apply to assess
emerging technologies.16
Reflecting on forecasting activities, Schaeffer (1998:
21) notes that the outcome of such activities are strongly influenced by the expert
opinions mobilized, which is highly unsatisfactory. This is especially the case for
newly emerging technologies: on the one hand they are expected to contribute a
great deal to policy goals while on the other hand relevant future costs and
performance characteristics are hard to assess. Also for foresight methods, De
Laat (1996: 29) argues that they tend to assume stable external environments, so
are not applicable to ‘non-stabilized situations’ like those of emerging
technologies. Scenarios do offer possibilities in such situations (I will come back
to this point on page 27 and 28 in this chapter).
There are further limitations to the body of method/tools oriented literature. For
one, this relates to the neglect of the ongoing process of informal anticipations
which form the context for the uptake of such exercises. Said differently, these
methods/models are socially embedded; as they are partly produced based on
ongoing informal anticipation, they also become performative and so constitutive
for innovation process. The analysis of Van Lente (1993) on the role of
expectations and promises in agenda building processes shows that the formal
methods used for priority setting are actually one way through which
16
This was also the conclusion of Rip et al. (2005), final activity report ATBEST project, in their
extensive literature review of different assessment tools and their applicability to new and
breakthrough science and technologies.
34. 24
expectations and promises are produced in the first place. Thus, they are part of
the process of articulating expectations and performative at the same time. They
are performative because they influence innovation processes, for instance when
roles and responsibilities are allocated in ‘scripts’ (Van Lente 1993: 187-194).
The other limitation was already highlighted in De Laat (1996), but more
recently underlined by Robinson (2010): the neglect of ongoing socio-technical
dynamics. This is particularly clear in road mapping activities where back
casting from envisioned market-application is used to set priorities in research
and development.
When understanding of socio-technical dynamics is included, methods of future-
oriented technology analysis become more complex (cf. Robinson 2009). As a
first step, I can refer to how Rip and Schot (2002: 157-166), in their quest to
identify opportunities for (soft) intervention, address the question of anticipation
on eventual contextualization of a novel technology. They develop a mapping
and diagnostic tool which simplifies the reality to some extent, but is sufficiently
rich to capture complexity. They combine the notion of ‘innovation journey’ as
used by Van de Ven et al. (1999) with the mapping approach of Techno-
Economic Networks as outlined in Callon et al. (1992) to capture the contextual
dynamics as evolving socio-technical networks, mapping linkages and networks
while they occur. Patterns emerge when linkages are formed, alignments made
and networks become established, indicating a transition from ‘hot’ to ‘cold’
situations.17
The ‘innovation journey’ combined with alignments categorized under the four
poles of science, technology, regulation and society, allows a visualization that
captures dynamic processes. Figure 2.1 (from Rip and Schot 2002 [or Rip
2010a]) shows how an option is nurtured and developed as the ‘innovation
journey’ matures. Actors as well as analysts can anticipate, at an early stage, on
the next steps in the ‘innovation journey’, assuming that the overall pattern will
occur again.
The journey metaphor as used by Rip and Schot (2002) introduces a quasi-linear
characteristic, i.e. the journey is expected to materialize in successive phases.
But in practice, different parts of the journey may occur at the same time, which
is difficult to include in a mapping as shown in Figure 2.1. For instance, when
certain products are introduced in successive generations, part of the societal
embedding process will be articulated already because of earlier generations, and
17
Laredo et al. (2002) in the EU funded SOCROBUST project created anticipatory assessment tools
for analysis and improving societal embedding of innovations. The idea of transition from hot to
cold situations was taken up there.
35. 25
will shape features of the later generation (already in terms of compatibility).
Even if disruptive effects are anticipated (for the new generation, or for
disruptive innovation in general) there will be residuals of earlier innovation and
societal embedding. The notions of ‘regime’ and ‘landscape’ are important to
trace this, but the present mapping tool does not accommodate that, unless a
multi-level model is added (cf. Section 2.1).
Summary of the dynamics
The ‘innovation journey’ maps activities of
the main enactors involved in the
development process. It starts as a hopeful
promise for future application based on a
scientific finding. The dynamics develop
as more resources are mobilized around
shared expectations to develop the option
into desired functionalities to prove the
feasibility of the technological opportunity.
After some time of successive iterations,
the decision emerges to make prototypes in
order to demonstrate the promising
technology. Different iterations and
optimization and sometimes further
scientific research and preliminary market
research are performed. In case of emerging
nanotechnologies also issues regarding
regulations to prevent risk will also be a part
of the agenda. The picture becomes more
complex as developments have to be attuned
with other players along the innovation
value chain. Interdependencies between
suppliers, complementary innovators, lead
user preferences, regulating authorities, collaboration with public institutions and other external
forces will become visible which have to be dealt with. Thus, this phase of the journey is
characterized by learning to adjust the applications to the demands of the selection environment and
the wider world. Market introduction is gradually built up. A third phase of the journey will then
emerge where a further branching of products in different market segments can be characterized. The
dynamics of this phase depend on the industrial sector and on wider developments. The co-evolution
of technology, industrial sectors and how various suppliers and complementary innovators orient
themselves to the new technology play an important role in the successful branching of the
technology. Cumulative effects could lead to shifts in existing regimes and emergence of a new
regime.
Figure 2.1: Figure & Summary of the dynamics based on (Rip and Schot 2002)
Innovation Journey In context:
36. 26
Another limitation (which might be overcome by adding more complexity) is
that relevant industrial sectors, as micro-nano-electronics, may have highly
defined and differentiated value chains, which have to be taken into account
explicitly.18
There are also increasing links between different business networks,
as has been emphasized in the innovation models of open innovation as put
forward by Chesbrough (2003), and followed by a number of large companies.
A subsequent step in adding more complexity to future-oriented technology
analysis is to include actions, in particular actor’s own anticipations on
embedding. Te Kulve (2011: 27) distinguished two analytical dimensions for
actors anticipation on embedding: (1) individual actor’s assessments of emerging
technologies and their embedding, taken up in strategies to cope with
embedding, and (2) individual actors assessment of how other actors in the sector
are, and might be, coping with issues of societal embedding, taken up in strategic
interaction with these actors. This links up with the discussion about
performative role of expectations. Van Lente (1993: 192) suggests this
phenomenon can be captured, and traced, in terms of ‘script’.
In this context, Callon (1986) introduced the term future ‘actor-world’: “the
description of the world including, roles for self, other and artefacts. By
positioning, linkages are made between self, others and artefacts.” The mutual
positioning of actors is invited because expectation claims contain endogenous
futures in the form of future-oriented visions. In general, actors implicitly or
explicitly ascribe roles to themselves when expressing future-oriented
statements, including presumptions about how the technology will eventually
functions in a future state (De Laat 2000). Through interaction with the way
further actors position themselves and others, such ascriptions may converge.
Thus, the interactions lead to de facto coordination and some alignment (Van
Lente 1993; Van Merkerk and Robinson 2006).
A next step would be to develop the approach for mapping and quality checks of
future scripts explored by Den Boer et al. (2009), building on Larédo et al.
(2002). Promising options project innovation value chains which still have gaps,
now bridged by expectations and projections of what others might do to realize
the envisioned future. Building on the assessment tool of ‘fictive scripts’
developed by De Laat (1996), one can ask actors about their assessments of what
should be in place in order for the envisaged innovation actually to occur and be
18
Rip (2010a) considers a further, related problem, that the mapping approach of Rip and Schot
(2002) is based on insights into industrial process and product innovation, so may not be
applicable to innovation dynamics in agriculture or infrastructure, or already in the ICT sector
where software innovation is important. He does claim that similar mapping approaches are
possible, only that there is less insight in the patterns that occur to do so without further study.
37. 27
successful. There will also be a mapping of the present innovation chains and
frame conditions, and the potential future chains and frame conditions, the latter
based on assessments from others than the actor(s) pushing their promising
option. Comparisons between the maps allow identification of gaps in the present
network, and also dynamics that are necessary to achieve what was envisaged.
This methodology helps to capture diffuse scenarios embedded in individual
actor’s assessments of emerging technologies and their societal embedding.19
This can play a role in the development of my CTA methodology, particularly in
drawing up scenarios and in anticipating on interactions in the workshops.
Until now, I have focused on ongoing anticipation, in context. In addition, the
analyst can take the lead and make explicit scenarios, possibly in interaction with
actors. As demonstrated by Robinson (2009) and Rip and Te Kulve (2008), this
is actually an opportunity to make an important further step in providing high
quality strategic intelligence focusing on anticipating possible developments.
Robinson (2009) developed an approach for creating open-ended and context-
rich scenarios based on dedicated empirical research, including interviews and
observation about de facto anticipations and scripts current in the domain. The
construction of scenarios is then embedded in a diagnosis of ongoing dynamics
shaping the future. Thus, the approach is definitely useful for CTA as it
emphasizes a process of reflexive anticipation through controlled speculation
(Robinson 2010: 28). Inclusion of complex dynamic processes in the scenarios
and the forks and dilemmas these give rise to, provides support to reflexive
strategy articulation (as noted already in Chapter 1). Such a scenario approach is
necessary to support learning by anticipation. While scenario exercises in general
aim to improve learning about strategies to follow and actions to undertake, this
approach contrasts with the dominant approach of creating possible worlds at
some time in the future, as in the whole tradition of Shell scenarios.20
19
Van Merkerk (2007) used such a methodology in his interviews with key actors in the domain he
studied, to make their scenarios explicit.
20
To enable a more robust way of strategy development, Shell Company, in the late 1960s, created a
special unit which analyses different kinds of context variables relevant to the operations of the
company. On that basis they develop contextual scenarios showing possible future worlds
including contingencies and uncertainties. Comparing a range of such scenarios, they test which
possible strategies would be robust against the circumstances of all these future worlds – so that
the company can continue to operate profitably (Wack 1985a, b; Schwartz 1996). The strategic
relevance of this sort of ‘controlled speculation’ now about possible future worlds was
highlighted when Shell was much better prepared to handle the oil crisis during the 1970s, gaining
competitive advantage (Van der Hijden 1996). However, a later crisis, around Brent Spar, showed
that Shell’s aim to anticipate on all kinds of unexpected developments was not always
comprehensive (see Vergragt and Quist 2011). While the tradition of Shell scenarios is interesting
to my research there is a crucial difference. Shell scenarios are developed for the purpose of
developing robust strategies in one particular organization. The interest of my study is to support
38. 28
Robinson’s (2009) approach is visible in more detail in Robinson (2010). In
addition to what I mentioned already, the construction of scenarios utilizes an
extended framework of innovation chains in order to identify and develop
anticipations in arenas of variation and selection in different parts of the
innovation chain. This type of scenario shows the unfolding of ‘innovation
journeys’ (with shifts and setbacks) while including enabling and constraining
factors which shape the co-evolutionary processes. Utilizing this kind of scenario
in practice then also enriches the understanding of participating actors, of
dynamics of technological change and its embedding in society. When used in
multi-actor interactive workshops (as happens in Constructive TA), there is
further learning, through probing and seeing the responses by prospective
stakeholders.21
It will be clear that the use of sociotechnical scenarios, as discussed above, will
increase reflexivity of co-evolution of science, technology and society, and
intentionally so. The kind of strategic intelligence involved is quite broad, but
given the focus on enactors (see Chapter 1), intelligence about technology
development strategies and producer-user relations may well be dominant.
Intelligence on societal embedding may come up, but as it were in a second
round (cf. the concentric approach that tends to be followed by enactors). This
might change, however, because of credibility pressures on technology
developers (already visible) 22
and because of an existing tradition, and thus
variety of organizations in a particular domain in a way that their strategies can be informed by
unforeseen circumstances as well as repercussions of following a specific development route.
Thus, I must do my controlled speculation in terms of possible developments rather than possible
future worlds.
21
Rip and Te Kulve (2008) note that sociotechnical scenarios for strategy articulation workshops
when they build on endogenous futures create a paradoxical situation. First, actors are shown they
are embedded in patterns and are shaped by them. Then, they are enjoined to develop strategies
and take actions that might actually change the whole pattern. However, this should be seen as a
matter of learning, a version of social learning. Actors will now recognize the way their choices
are being shaped by an assortment of different socio-technical factors and patterns, and then
attempt to take actions, and hopefully better action, because these are now motivated and
informed by understanding of the patterns. Rip and Te Kulve (2008) suggest a general point about
emerging irreversibilities and path dependencies: they will occur, but if you understand them, it is
possible to escape them, or at least modulate them. In this way, intelligent intervention is possible.
The “intelligence” should include recognition of what are desirable as well as less desirable path
dependencies. Schot and Rip (2002) assumed this when they formulated emergence of path
dependencies as a window of opportunity rather than as a problem to be concerned about. “If one
can help shape the path and its ensuing path dependencies in an early stage there is no need to
interfere later on: the irreversibilities along the path will take care of maintaining direction.”
Schot and Rip (2002: 166)
22
Paraphrasing Robinson (2010:8), there is a growing emphasis on the responsibility to innovate and
thus a growing pressure to produce results in terms of concrete solutions that will benefit society
and contributes to the economy. There is a pressure (responsibility) to operate more efficiently
which is driven by the growing costs of science and technology development. There is thus
39. 29
competencies, to address societal embedding through ELSA studies, that can be
drawn on.
The inclusion of the Ethical, Legal, and Societal Issues or Aspects (ELSI/ELSA),
first in the Human Genome Project during the early 1990s, and now also in
nanotechnology research programs,23
is an example of increasing reflexivity in
co-evolutionary patterns through provision of strategic intelligence.24
In an
earlier analysis of ongoing co-evolution, Rip (2002) noted that ELSI/ELSA type
studies can be construed as a test laboratory, where studies about possible effects
and their assessment (sometimes including experiments, as with focus groups
discussing societal impacts of a new technology) can anticipate on eventual
selection. When done well, and taken into account, this could reduce the costs of
exposing society to new technologies in a trial-and-error manner.
What is a special feature is that the anticipation on the societal impacts is now
seen as a responsibility of technology developers, not just part of a division of
labour between technology development and society. There is increasing use of
the label of ‘responsible innovation’ suggesting that innovation activities should
take social aspects, desirability and acceptability into account (Robinson 2010:
7). This necessitates a response on the side of technology developers, which in
turn creates a need (or increased demand) for strategic intelligence, now about
possible embedding in society.
2.3 Constructive TA as modulation of technological
development and its embedding in society
In line with how Sections 2.1 and 2.2 located technological development and
strategic intelligence in the broader context of reflexive co-evolution of science,
technology and society, I will discuss the possibilities of technology assessment,
pressure to act more strategically by actively pursuing anticipatory coordination up to agenda
building and road-mapping activities. There is now also a pressure to be transparent, i.e. to be
responsive to the public, and is sometimes seen as being addressed through the recent ‘upstream’
or early public engagement activities, e.g. around nanotechnology. Finally, a pressure to engage
and include ELSA in technology development activities as a move towards responsible
innovation.
23
Response to last pressures (see note 22) identified by Robinson (2010) is already visible, consider
for instance how the acronym of ELSA is now almost taken for granted and actually often
expected as a component of national and international funding programs. Prudent technology
developers and scientists can play a role in further stimulating such activities like when the Dutch
Nanoned consortium included Technology Assessment program to provide insight in dynamics of
technology development and societal embedding.
24
Fisher et al. (2006: 487) highlight that “in theory, (ELSI) research extrapolates implications from
ongoing or proposed techno-scientific research to provide intelligence for upstream policy
making and downstream regulation.”
40. 30
and particularly Constructive TA with its interest in feedback of analysis into
strategy articulation and action, as part of, and feeding on, change processes that
are going on anyway. The overall message of the previous two sections can be
summarized as: Technological change processes are the product of societal
constructive action and interaction. This dynamic co-production process is shot
through with assessments up to strategic games that are the framework in which
technology is shaped. Therefore, if one is interested in better technology in a
better society, one should start with these processes and attempt to ‘modulate’
them rather than go for so-called command and control approaches (which are
often ineffectual anyway).
Thus, there are two parts to this section. Firstly, I will briefly highlight ongoing
anticipatory interventions (cf. Te Kulve 2011) and spaces that open up in the co-
production and co-evolution processes. This will allow me, secondly, to position
TA, and particularly CTA, as adding to anticipatory intervention and actively
opening up spaces. I conclude by briefly discussing the earlier achievements of
CTA in TA Nanoned.
Modulation is a form of intervention, but not in a command and control sense, or
top down steering. It is a soft manner of intervention, and as such comparable
with other kinds of soft intervention, like what Lindblom and Woodhouse (1993:
131-135) call intelligent trial and error. Effective modulation requires
understanding of the nature and dynamics of the processes, so as to be able to
anticipate on the processes and on eventual outcomes; even if this will always be
provisional.
Two phenomena are particularly relevant: ‘anticipatory interventions’ as they
occur, and emerging spaces for interaction, deliberation and negotiation. The
phenomenon of anticipatory interventions is general, but Te Kulve (2011) draws
attention to the pro-active attempts of technology enactors and other actors to
pursue their interests as well as broader interests like avoiding mistakes made
around previous emerging technologies.25
This is particularly salient in the world
of nanotechnology. One example is the recurrent reference to so-called mistakes
that have been made with genetic manipulation, as a stepping stone to a call to
avoid similar impasses in the future through anticipatory intervention.
There can be windows of opportunity to do so, as when in the US in 2003 a Bill
on Nanotechnology was being prepared. For example, the presentation of Vicky
25
This applies to interventions by all kinds of actors, not just to public interventions. Also, if we
follow Rip and Joly (2004: 10), public interventions do not only refer to public policy and its
attempts at implementation. There are also interventions by a variety of actors, as long as there is
reference to res publica (e.g. NGOs referring to sustainability and environment).
