Enacting anticipatory heuristics: a tentative methodological proposal for steering responsible innovation

1 This is the Accepted Manuscript of “Urueña, S. (2023). Enacting anticipatory heuristics: A tentative methodological proposal for steering responsible innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 10 (1): 1–32 (Article: 2160552). ISSN: 2329-9460. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2022.2160552”. The Version of Record of this manuscript has been published and is freely available in Journal of Responsible Innovation 10(1) 2023 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/23299460.2022.2160552 Enacting anticipatory heuristics: A tentative methodological proposal for steering responsible innovation Sergio Urueñaab a Department of Philosophy, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU b Centre for Technology and Society, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture, Norwegian University of Science and Technology Email: [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0002-1084-2709 Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation and the Spanish State Research Agency under Project Grant PID2020-114279RB-I00, and by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and the European Regional Development Fund under Grant BES-2016-079192. The author would also like to thank the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), especially to Knut H. Sørensen for his kind insights on early drafts of this work. Any inaccuracies remain the responsibility of the author. The author does not declare any conflict of interest 2 Enacting anticipatory heuristics: A methodological proposal for steering responsible innovation Abstract Over the past decade, various normative frameworks that aim to promote more responsible governance of research and innovation in terms of better aligning with society’s demands and expectations have emerged. Among the common aspects of these normative frameworks and proposals is the reliance on foresight and/or anticipation as a key interventive dimension or instrument. The article reviews the main challenges to which anticipation has been explicitly or implicitly directed and the respective methodological approaches that have been associated with them. In doing so, the article diagnoses a fragmentation in the methodological treatment of the different challenges. Against this fragmentation, a multi-foresight methodology is proposed. The proposed methodology not only addresses the fragmentation problem by embracing the different challenges posed to foresight/anticipation for promoting more socio-politically responsible technoscientific and innovation practices, but also aims to minimise the uncritical reification of futures. Keywords: foresight; responsible innovation; methods; RRI; technology assessment. 1. Introduction Multiple recent umbrella frameworks point to the need for anticipation as an operational dimension for promoting more responsible research and innovation. Anticipatory Governance (AG) (Barben et al. 2008; Guston 2014), Responsible Innovation (RI) (Stilgoe et al. 2013), Responsible Research or Innovation (RRI) (European Commission 2013b, 2013a; von Schomberg 2013), or recent developments in Technology Assessment (TA) (Grunwald 2019) are examples of normative approaches that explicitly rely on anticipation as a central—though not the sole—procedural dimension 3 to improve co-production dynamics in science, technology, and innovation (STI). 1 In contrast to the traditional and historically dominant predictive-based approaches to STI governance, anticipation in these normative models takes on a more reflexive character (Guston 2014). Following the foundational work of today's dominant futures studies perspectives, the future is understood as a non-existent (and therefore unknowable), open and plural space (e.g. de Jouvenel 1967; Bell and Olick 1989). Yet, the idea that the future cannot be known does not prevent representations of the future from being considered as heuristically fruitful resources for learning and enacting reflection in the present (Rip and te Kulve 2008; Selin 2014). Concordant with nonpredictivist approaches, anticipation is understood by AG, RRI, RI, and TA scholars as a key enabling procedural principle to align STI processes, outcomes, and purposes with societal interests, values, and expectations throughout the whole co-production phases (European Commission 2013b, 4). Accommodating various conceptual broadenings of responsibility and its forward-looking character (e.g. Jonas 1984; Groves 2006; Adam and Groves 2011), responsibility is here understood as ‘taking care of the future towards collective stewardship of science and innovation in the present’ (Stilgoe et al. 2013, 1570), and anticipation is one of the tools used to promote the ongoing, early, and socially robust problematisation of the futures that are (not) at stake through STI developments (Rip et al. 1995; Guston and Sarewitz 2002; Dupuy and Grinbaum 2004). Against this context, the call for anticipation finds its most direct operative factor in the execution of foresight exercises such as sociotechnical or techno-moral scenarios (Barben et al. 2008, 993; Selin 2011; Arnaldi 2018; Withycombe Keeler et al. 2019). 1 Long historical-conceptual roots nourish, support, and inspire AG, RRI, RI, and TA. For more on the origins of these frameworks, see: Barben et al. (2008) and Karinen and Guston (2009) on AG; von Schomberg (2013) and Owen et al. (2012) on RRI; Stilgoe et al. (2013) and Owen and Pansera (2019) on RI; and Grunwald (2019) and Grunwald (2009) on TA. 4 The reflexive heuristics to promote a better STI governance attributed to foresight can take various forms and be targeted at different research and innovation dimensions and fields of action. For instance, it has been stated that foresight might serve in the management of visions and expectations (Warnke and Heimeriks 2008, 79), to shape more systemic thinking for ‘socially-robust risk research’ (Stilgoe et al. 2013, 1570), or to foster ‘practical wisdom’ (Boenink 2013) and ‘emancipate’ societal actors (Withycombe Keeler et al. 2019). These heterogeneous heuristics of foresight only mirror the diversity of epistemologies, schools, and modes of orientation that constitute the plural identity of futures studies (Sardar 2010; Grunwald 2013). In the development of such heuristics ascribed to foresight, the processes channelled by the methodology are of paramount importance. However, methodological architectures are surprisingly under-explored and under-problematised in AG, RRI, RI, and TA literature. As Lehoux et al. (2020, 1) diagnoses, ‘there is little empirical research examining how in practice prospective public deliberation processes should be organized to inform anticipatory governance’. The questions of which methods can better shape responsibilisation heuristics, how and why, have not been at the forefront. Only recently has some conceptual work emerged on the methodological and operational aspects of anticipation within the academic community (e.g. Arnaldi 2018; Lehoux et al. 2020; Macnaghten 2021). This article seeks to advance the problematisation of methods for enacting anticipatory knowledge and capabilities aimed at promoting socio-politically responsible STI activities. To this end, it first explores how anticipation/foresight is theoretically understood in AG, RRI, RI, and TA and what challenges are associated with this dimension. It is shown that anticipation is understood and approached as addressing heterogeneous challenges, each of which requires specific forms of 5 engagement with ‘futures’ (Section 2). The article then analyses 17 practical anticipatory interventions for AG, RRI, RI, and TA. The focus of the analysis is on the methodological structures of the interventions and how these open up certain STI issues to problematisation and exclude others. In this context, two main limitations are identified. The first relates to the fragmented ways in which the challenges attributed to anticipation are addressed (which hinders the development of holistic anticipatory heuristics). The second relates to the reification of futures (which prevents a deep problematisation of STI) (Section 3). Finally, given the above diagnosis, a tentative architecture of a multi-foresight process is proposed. This procedural methodology aims to promote a more holistic or integral treatment of the challenges that anticipation addresses and minimise the uncritical reification of futures (Section 4). The article ends with a series of concluding remarks (Section 5). 2. Anticipation as a heuristic resource to foster more responsible research and innovation: conceptualisations and practical challenges The last two decades have been particularly fruitful in the emergence of governance frameworks that attempt to move beyond the tendency to formulate ex-ante responsibility solely based on expert-based models of the future with a predictive ambition. Normative frameworks such as AG, RRI, RI, and TA are clear examples in this regard. These proposals point to the need to develop more socio-politically robust or radical forms of responsibilisation for the tentative governance of STI (see Kuhlmann et al. 2019). Aside from the normative nuances that qualify and distinguish AG, RRI, RI, and TA frameworks, they all share their genealogies and coincide in at least two fundamental aspects. On the one hand, they understand responsibility in terms of opening-up to collective problematisation the potential coevolutionary future pathways 6 that the emergence of the STI in question may shape (including the deliberation around its purposes, processes, and ‘positive’/‘negative’ outcomes) (Stilgoe et al. 2013, 1570; von Schomberg 2014). The (im)plausibility and (un)desirability of STI sociotechnical and techno-moral pathways and their respective socio-political and ethical implications are subject to inclusive deliberation. The development of responsible STI would require the involvement of diverse societal actors, concerns, and expertise throughout the whole development process and from its earliest stages (European Commission 2013a; von Schomberg 2013). Responsible STI entails promoting more socio-politically robust and bottom-up, or ‘upstream’ ways of shaping sociotechnical worlds through STI (i.e. more transparent and aligned with different actors’ interests, values, and expectations). Traditionally silenced or marginalised voices would be facilitated to speak out during the STI co-production and governance practices, thus subverting the current hegemonic, technocratic forms of moral division of labour (Rip 2016). On the other hand, this notion of responsibility finds operational support in the foresight/anticipation dimension in all these frameworks. Anticipation is one of the operational dimensions that, in symbiosis or mutual reinforcement with the other dimensions of each framework, aims to promote this more socio-politically radical and reflexive notion of responsibility. However, despite this constitutive role given to anticipation, there has not been a robust and systematic conceptualisation of what anticipation entails for these frameworks. As Guston (2013, 110) states, anticipation ‘is perhaps the most crucial and problematic dimension to deal with’, yet it is also the most under-explored dimension: ‘there is less conceptual development around anticipation, and even poorer intuitions’. A detailed look at the foundational texts of these frameworks can reveal the different roles attributed to anticipation. Table 1 lists some examples of the diverse 7 engagements with the future that each normative framework establishes in its foundational texts when addressing their corresponding dimension of anticipation/foresight. 8 Table 1. Anticipation in AG, RRI, RI, and recent approaches to TA. Definitions, objectives, and associated techniques. 1 Normative framework Definitions of the framework Other dimensions assembled with anticipation Objectives and characteristics of foresight/anticipation Techniques and activities linked to anticipation AG AG ‘comprises the ability of a variety of lay and expert stakeholders, both individually and through an array of feedback mechanisms, to collectively imagine, critique, and thereby shape the issues presented by emerging technologies before they become reified in particular way’ (Barben et al. 2008, 993). Engagement Socio-technical integration Non-predictivist (does not strive for certainty, or to reduce complexity). Public engagement exercises aimed at ‘to help frame debates about the societal implications of new technologies’ (Barben et al. 2008, 986). ‘seek to integrate reflection with everyday decision making’ (Barben et al. 2008, 986). ‘to bridge the cognitive gap between present and future’ (Barben et al. 2008, 991). Future scenarios coconstructed in a large-scale through multiple wiki sites Scenario development or visioning workshops Science fiction prototyping Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) RRI ‘allows all societal actors (researchers, citizens, policy makers, business, third sector organisations, etc.) to work together during the whole research and innovation process in order to better align both the process and its outcomes with the values, needs and expectations of European society’ (European Commission 2013b, 4) European Commission – Pillars / Themes: Societal engagement, gender, open access/data, science education, ethics, and governance The European Treaty as normative anchor point ‘the use of foresight projects can help us to overcome the often too narrowly conceived problem definition scientists implicitly work with’ (von Schomberg 2012, 46) ‘technology foresight can reduce the human cost of trial and error and make advantage of a societal learning process of stakeholders and technical innovators. (…) This will ultimately lead to products which are (more) societal robust’ (von Schomberg 2012, 52) RRI ‘processes need to become more responsive and adaptive to these grand challenges. This implies, among others, the introduction of broader foresight’ (von Schomberg 2013, 51) Technology foresight Impact assessment 9 Normative framework Definitions of the framework Other dimensions assembled with anticipation Objectives and characteristics of foresight/anticipation Techniques and activities linked to anticipation Responsible Innovation (RI) RI ‘means taking care of the future through collective stewardship of science and innovation in the present’ (Stilgoe et al. 2013, 1570) Inclusive deliberation Reflexivity Responsiveness * Openness ‘Anticipation is here distinguished from prediction in its explicit recognition of the complexities and uncertainties of science and society’s co-evolution’ (Stilgoe et al. 2013, 1571) ‘Anticipation prompts researchers and organisations to ask ‘what if…?’ questions (…), to consider contingency, what is known, what is likely, what is plausible and what is possible. Anticipation involves systematic thinking aimed at increasing resilience, while revealing new opportunities for innovation and the shaping of agendas for sociallyrobust risk research’ (Stilgoe et al. 2013, 1570) Anticipatory methodologies ‘serve as a useful entry point for reflection on the purposes, promises, and possible impacts of innovation’ (Owen et al. 2013, 38) Foresight Scenario development Horizon scanning Vision assessment Socio-literary futures-thinking Technology Assessment (TA) (recent approaches) ‘TA is an interdisciplinary field of scientific research and advice, which aims to provide knowledge and orientation for better-informed and well-reflected decisions concerning new technologies and their consequences’ (Grunwald 2019, 1–2) Inclusion Complexity ‘anticipation addresses the dimension of time when facing an open future: enhancing reflexivity over time’ (Grunwald 2019, 2) Anticipation aims to stimulate actors to productively imagine options for desirable technological futures (Decker et al. 2017) ‘foresight in TA is increasingly oriented towards processes of knowledge co-generation between different actor groups’ (Sotoudeh and Gudowsky 2018, 53) Foresight Scenario development Vision Assessment Hermeneutic Technology Assessment * Dimensions added by Owen and Pansera (2019). 2 16 Table 2. Analysis of interventive anticipatory exercises. Source Framework(s) of reference STI domain of intervention Methodology & structure Types of engagements with futures Participants (as mentioned) Challenge(s) tackled Opening aspects Closure aspects Douglas and Stemerding (2014) RRI/AG Synthetic biology (i) Review reports and articles that highlight potentially promising applications of SynBio; (ii) perform ELSI analysis to these applications; and (iii) negotiate and strengthen the identified ELSI with participants and explore governance approaches to balance benefits and risks Exploratoryevocative Policymakers Analysts Regulators Ethics committees Patient organisations Academics (philosophers, social scientists, SynBio researchers) International health organisations Research funders ONGs I ELSI questions were kept open in a flexible way to allow for new insights from the participants Involve a wide range of societal actors The organisers acknowledge that the ELSI scenarios did not meet their expectations Reinforce SynBio’s promises related to the selected applications The most important ELSI aspects discussed were identified by the organisers of the intervention The ELSI-SynBio scenarios does not capture the complexity of sociotechnical and techno-moral co-evolutions Reduces responsibility to the ‘ethics management’ of ELSI concerns Mann (2015) TA Biodiversity offsets and banking (i) Identify actors and create scenarios (‘endogenous futures’); and (ii) debate the scenarios Exploratoryevocative Exploratorynormative (deliberation on already co-created futures) Experts Public representatives Environmental NGOs I II Opens spaces for discussion and reflexivity about the purposes and problemframe of biodiversity Shows that controversies are underpinned by different worldviews and philosophical and political orientations Scenarios are not created by the participants, but are pre-set, which can significantly frame the debate Sadowski and Guston (2016) AG Nanotechnology (i) Identify actors; and (ii) conduct a questionnaire on the future of nanoscientists’ research and potential outcomes Exploratorynormative Nanoscientists I Provides insight into the opinions of nanoscientists on the future of their work It might generate reflexivity among nanoscientists There is no collective debate or problematisation on nano Lucivero (2016) TA Immunosignatures Nanopil Techno-ethical scenarios: Explore potential pathways for the co-evolution of the innovation with values, obligations, and responsibilities Techno-moral vignettes: Narratives that explore potential (‘soft’) impacts of techs on forms of life, and morality. Exploratoryevocative Academics I Use of scenarios as a heuristic resource to facilitate discussion on the ‘soft impacts’ of techs, and thereby assess their associated ethical and desirability and enhance ‘moral imagination’ Raises critical questions about the sociosystemic activities and outcomes that the scenarios may enable The exploration is limited in terms of (i) actors involved, and (ii) variables considered (e.g. ‘patient-cantered’ vs. ‘doctor-mediated’) The discussions are framed by pre-given scenarios 17 Table 2. Analysis of interventive anticipatory exercises. Source Framework(s) of reference STI domain of intervention Methodology & structure Types of engagements with futures Participants (as mentioned) Challenge(s) tackled Opening aspects Closure aspects Gudowsky and Sotoudeh (2017) RRI/TA Autonomous living of older adults Transdisciplinary, visioneering co-creation process: (i) Citizens produce visions; (ii) experts and stakeholders elicit societal needs based on ‘(i)’ and formulate recommendations for R&D agendas; and (iii) the citizens validate ‘(ii)’ output Exploratorynormative Strategic Laypeople Experts Stakeholders II Visions have societal issues at their centre: Politics on STI purposes comes first to prevent the problem from being framed in purely technical terms It assumes an epistemic and moral division of labour among the actors Citizens’ visions may be biased by promises, expectations, and previously circulated visions It does not problematise scenarios about the possible consequences of STI and their plausibility and desirability Bechtold et al. (2017) TA/RI Ambient and Assistive Techs (regarding ageing issues) Scenarios Exploratoryevocative Experts Stakeholders Laypersons I It displays the common denominators of different publics’ perspectives and desires (experts, stakeholders, laypersons) Explorations are focused on how STI will affect different actors, and not so much on the STI itself It assumes an epistemic and moral division of labour among the actors, and discussions take place in parallel. No scenarios are envisaged where the very existence of the STI at hand can be questioned Arnaldi (2018) TA/RRI Nano neural implant Retooled Techno-moral scenarios: (i) Sketching the landscape (technoscientific, moral and socioeconomic); (ii) generating controversies (pros and cons for the creation); and (iii) closure and responsibility regimes (who is responsible, responsibility configurations, means for support responsibility) Exploratoryevocative (pros and cons) Strategic (who should be responsible, under which means to support certain responsibility regimes) Publics, experts, stakeholders I Introduces explicit reflection on who should be responsible, for what, and in what sense The promises of technologies are criticised The debate is being framed in controversies, and it would be more fruitful to frame it in terms of modes of co-production. It is unclear to what extent the complexity of the co-evolution between technology and morality is reflected in the scenarios The critique of the promises of STI is criticised in terms of underlying ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ negative impacts Withycombe Keeler et al. (2019) Sustainabilityoriented RRI Wastewater Sensing (WWS) Scenarios (scenario axes): (i) Define focal questions and timeframe; (ii) identify participants; (iii) exploration of analogous technologies, key factors, and critical uncertainties surrounding the development and dissemination of the tech; (iv) brainstorm driving forces; (v) identify critical uncertainties; (vi) select scenario axes; (vii) sketch scenario storylines; (viii) write scenarios narratives; (ix) assess scenarios (SWOT analysis); and (x) create proposals for action. Exploratoryevocative (explorations of impacts) Strategic (costbenefit analysis in taking action) Centre for Environmental Security WWS Researchers Legal Scholars STS and Ethics Scholars Regulators Water Managers Military I Scenarios are presented as a means for capabilitybuilding The whole process is performed in reflexive feedback with participants It raises important questions regarding who the innovation impacts and benefits It includes proposals for actions The scenarios do not provide alternatives to the technology itself, rather they indirectly reify its development (albeit improving it) The variables facing the four final scenarios are public/private (ownership) and individual/community (what is sensed) (i.e. multivariate scenarios could have been used) 18 Table 2. Analysis of interventive anticipatory exercises. Source Framework(s) of reference STI domain of intervention Methodology & structure Types of engagements with futures Participants (as mentioned) Challenge(s) tackled Opening aspects Closure aspects Stemerding et al. (2019) RI/TA Synthetic biology Application scenarios: (i) Define the nature of the problem and the role for SynBio; (ii) consult users and stakeholders about needs and vision; (iii) think about a business case; (iv) identify issues of risk and regulation; (v) consider design choices and requirements in this context; and (vi) combine these elements in an unfolding storyline about future SynBio Techno-moral scenarios: (i) consider ‘soft impacts’ of the application scenario; (ii) identify morally problematic situations; (iii) imagine how people might be affected and respond; and (iv) create a short story as vignette Exploratoryevocative Exploratorynormative Strategic Students Societal stakeholders Researchers in SynBio II I The intervention was extended in time (>3 years) The attention to the promotion of anticipatory capabilities in the early stages of the scientific career Highlights consideration of societal needs and definition of purpose through stakeholder involvement Considers both ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ impacts It assumes an epistemic and moral division of labour among the actors: most of the work and visioning for the future is done by the student team (interaction with stakeholders is limited) SynBio’s visions are not criticised: An enlightened view of science is promoted, in which science is presented as a problem solver Emphasis on providing solutions to social problems is addressed through an entrepreneurial approach Schneider et al. (2021) TA 3-D Printing Transformative Vision Assessment: (i) Current analysis (qualitative social science methods); (ii) dialogue (workshops); and (iii) modulation (participatory scenarios) Critical-hermeneutic (Analysis and dialogue) Exploratoryevocative (Building sociotechnical scenarios) Exploratorynormative (Building more sustainable visions) Social scientists Stakeholders STEM researchers III II I It begins with a critical approach that seeks to problematise existing visions The modulation and modulation of visions is based on both normative and descriptive explorations It assumes an epistemic and moral division of labour among the actors: Scientists create the scenarios, and scientists and stakeholders discuss them The variables facing the four scenarios are limited to ‘inclusivity/exclusion’ and ‘sustainability/unsustainability’ (i.e. multivariate scenarios could have been used) Scenarios where the STI at hand does not exist are not envisaged Repo and Matschoss (2019) RRI Strategic R&D Policies Workshops: (i) Researchers ask citizens to articulate visions; (ii) experts formulate research priorities based on those visions; and (iii) citizens asses the connections between the priorities and their visions Exploratorynormative Strategic Experts Citizens II Visions have societal issues at their centre: Politics on STI purposes comes first to prevent the problem from being framed in purely technical terms It assumes an epistemic and moral division of labour among the actors Citizens’ visions may be biased by promises, expectations, and previously circulated visions It does not problematise scenarios about the possible consequences of the STI and their plausibility and desirability Lehoux et al. (2020) AG/RRI Implantable cardiac ‘rectifier’ (genetically atrisk adults) Techno-moral scenarios: (i) Creation of videos depicting how the innovation works, the future context of its use, and two future scenarios; (ii) perform four face-to-face deliberative workshops; and (iii) conduct an online forum for scenarios discussion Exploratoryevocative (explorations of ethical tensions) 38 individuals (workshops) 57 individuals (forums) I Involves participants of all ages. Promotes the exercise of moral imagination as a long-term prerequisite for the promotion of RRI. Even though the study was Exploratoryevocative in nature, some participants expressed concerns about scenarios’ underlying promises The scenarios are created and discussed by the organisers (i.e. not opened up to the co-negotiation between participants) The emergence of critique of visions was dependent on the contingent dynamics of the exercise, not methodologically promoted It is not clarified how the intervention modelled the dynamics of STI coproduction 19 Table 2. Analysis of interventive anticipatory exercises. Source Framework(s) of reference STI domain of intervention Methodology & structure Types of engagements with futures Participants (as mentioned) Challenge(s) tackled Opening aspects Closure aspects Kera (2020) AG/RRI Blockchain and decentralised ledger technologies Simulation game: (i) Immersive experience in a fictional ‘smart village’; (ii) deliberative role-play and conclusions of concerns; (iii) develop and prototype based on ‘(ii)’ Exploratoryevocative Strategic Citizens I Enacts anticipatory capabilities through interactive exercises in a wide range of issues (design prototyping, policy, regulation issues) Supports contextual framing Contemplates the moratorium of the technology as an option It is unclear to what extent and how these capabilities were transferred to STI practice Participants are ‘confronted’ with scenarios, which frame the simulation game 111 20 The results presented in Table 2 show the heterogeneity of approaches to anticipation in 112 practice and allow several conclusions to be drawn. Due to space constraints, only the 113 most relevant results are highlighted below. These results will inform the value of the 114 methodological structure of the multi-foresight process described in the following 115 section. 116 The most relevant and general conclusion that can be drawn from the above 117 analysis is the existence of a fragmentation when it comes to addressing the various 118 challenges that anticipation poses (i.e. ‘I.’, ‘II.’, and ‘III.’)—an exception is the 119 Transformative Vision Assessment method recently proposed by Schneider et al. (2021). 120 In other words, the data suggest that the anticipatory exercises for AG, RRI, RRI, and 121 TA are not comprehensive enough when it comes to problematising the different 122 dimensions of STIs: their outcomes (‘I.’), their purposes and processes (‘II.’) and their 123 associated narratives, visions, promises, and expectations (‘III.’). The analysis thus 124 shows that STI is problematised (promoting dynamics of openness), yet this 125 problematisation is simultaneously typically restricted to different domains of STIs 126 (promoting dynamics of closure). 2 127 The analysis shows, for example, that there is a strong tendency to understand 128 anticipation in terms of exploring impacts, be they technical, sociotechnical, or techno129 moral. This is reflected in the widespread use of tools such as sociotechnical and 130 techno-moral scenarios in the implementation of anticipation. The challenge that AG, 131 RRI, RI, and TA anticipatory exercises tend to address in practice—considering various 132 2 The drivers constituting the fragmentation in the problematisation of the dimensions of STIs are heterogeneous. While exploring the causes of this fragmentation would be a necessary and interesting task, this article is limited to a tentative diagnosis of its existence. Ultimately, the aim is to encourage the design and adoption of anticipatory processes that are not a priori limited to problematising a particular subset of the issues raised by STIs. All this is done in awareness that no method is a panacea. Rather, it is a matter of problematising which “affordances of critique” intervening processes enact. 21 gradations of inclusivity, responsivity, and reflexivity—is ‘I.’. This can be interpreted in 133 the light of the prominence of the precautionary consequentialist tradition. This tradition 134 has typically understood responsibility in terms of the exploration of future impacts in 135 the service of (i) the minimisation (or avoidance) of those impacts that are considered 136 negative, and (ii) the maximisation of those impacts that are considered positive. Once 137 the potential impact ‘X’ has been identified and deemed negative, being responsible has 138 typically been conceived as the minimisation or avoidance of ‘X’. Of course, the 139 question of on what and whose grounds something is judged to be ‘positive’/‘negative’ 140 is not trivial and should be on the table (which is often not the case in these exercises). 141 This tendency to link anticipation to the problematisation of STI impacts (and 142 especially negative ones) is particularly problematic on account of the fragmentation 143 previously noted. Not only is anticipation often linked to the problematisation of 144 impacts, but it is usually reduced to this. The downside is not so much that anticipation 145 is predominantly related to the challenge of problematising outcomes (i.e. ‘I.’), but that 146 anticipation is predominantly activated only in relation to this challenge. This is highly 147 detrimental for a comprehensive operationalisation of AG, RRI, RI, or TA through 148 foresight exercises, which should include not only the problematisation of outcomes, 149 but also the problematisation of STI purposes, processes, and 150 visions/expectations/promises. 151 Indeed, another central challenge of AG, RRI, RI, and TA is to open up the 152 purposes to which STI is oriented (i.e. ‘II.’). While acknowledging the contingency, 153 impossibility of control, and non-linear nature of STI, the goal is to problematise in real 154 time the nature of the socio-political and techno-moral worlds we mould through STI 155 practices. While this is the case in theory, analysis shows that such problematisation of 156 22 the STI ends does not always occur in practice and that when it does occur, this 157 problematisation has various methodological-operational limitations. 158 In fact, only five sources were identified that explicitly problematise the socio159 political purposes of STI. However, these five works present a variety of 160 methodological challenges. For example, Mann (2015) and Stemerding et al. (2019) 161 problematise the purposes, but this problematisation occurs within the frame previously 162 established by projections about the potential merits and pitfalls of the STI in question 163 (the former in terms of future impacts, the latter in terms of potential niches where STI 164 could become valuable or profitable). This means that the problematisation of the 165 purposes is not so much about the socio-political significance of the STI at hand, but 166 rather the modalities under which the STI must be promoted in order not to be socio167 politically (so) problematic in the future. In this way, the exercises subtly reify the 168 needs and goals of the STIs under study. This problem of reification could be solved by 169 starting the process with an exploratory-normative exercise, as is the case with Repo 170 and Matschoss (2019)’s exercise. However, this exercise is by no means unproblematic 171 either. Its main problem is that it does not consider that citizens’ visions can be distorted 172 by promises and visions, and therefore critically reify the STI lines that represent those 173 visions. For this very reason, Schneider et al. (2021) suggest that the core of the 174 intervention should begin with a critical-hermeneutic engagement with participants’ 175 anticipatory assumptions: The aim is to counteract the performative power that some 176 visions might have later in the intervention when goals and implications are explored 177 and reflected upon. 178 The work of Schneider et al. (2021) is indeed the only one of the analysed 179 sources that integrates the critical-hermeneutic approach and thus the only one that 180 addresses the ‘III.’ challenge of AG, RRI, RI, and TA. Moreover, the work of Schneider 181 23 et al. (2021) is the only one that addresses the three challenges of AG, RRI, RI, and TA. 182 However, the way the work is structured has some shortcomings, the most important 183 being that the possibility of the non-existence of 3D printing is not presented in any 184 scenario, or that 3D printing has been presented as a disruptive element in all scenarios 185 (thus ultimately reproducing the visions that 3D printing campaigners are interested in). 186 The debate should no longer be methodologically closed, so that a moratorium could be 187 conceivable as a plausible scenario. Moreover, as with many other exercises, there is 188 little evidence on how the anticipatory considerations and enabled knowledge were later 189 integrated into STI practice. 190 As previously mentioned, the assessment of the anticipatory dimension cannot 191 be separated from other dimensions that permeate AG, RI, RRI, and TA, such as 192 reflexivity, inclusion, or responsiveness. Regarding reflexivity, it has already been 193 suggested that the different forms of enabling anticipation exert different degrees of 194 reflexivity on STI. In terms of inclusivity, the presence of closure mechanisms in 195 relation to the actors coming into play and their (sometimes too passive) role in the 196 processes of co-creating and assessing scenarios is worth noting. Many of these 197 exercises remain undertaken within the framework of an epistemic, political, and moral 198 division of labour (e.g. there is very often a demarcation between the group of actors 199 who co-construct the scenarios and the group that co-assesses them). Many of the 200 scenarios are created by desk research and then presented to various participants for 201 critique and feedback; participants who are in turn referred to using a variety of labels, 202 each having different semantic connotations. These mechanisms of subtle closure 203 contrast with exercises wherein all actors collectively co-produce the very scenarios that 204 will later be the subject of collective critique and a source for reflection. These more 205 open exercises, being a minority, are expected to allow for a more inclusive and 206 24 responsive process in terms of the underlying assumptions to be considered, thus 207 opening-up the alternatives to be considered. The findings of the analysis suggest that 208 more attention needs to be given to (i) the criteria underlying the selection of actors, (ii) 209 the ways in which these actors are referred to and the biases or constraints associated 210 with them (they are heterogeneously presented under labels such as ‘stakeholders’, ‘lay 211 people’, ‘public’, ‘citizens’, ‘experts’, etc.), and (iii) the forms of participation that are 212 actually facilitated in order to strengthen their voices and allow for a more robust socio213 political critique of STI. As Irwin et al. (2013) argue, critique should be ‘a key 214 component’ of public engagement to improve the quality of knowledge co-production 215 processes. Finally, regarding responsiveness, in most cases there is no demonstration of 216 how these actions have subsequently impacted on STI systems and how public concerns 217 have been reflected in subsequent STI practices and developments. In this sense, there is 218 a need for more in-depth analysis and monitoring of the ways in which these exercises 219 transform STI practices. 220 Many of the above limitations are of course attributable to time and socio-material 221 constraints (which are unavoidable). However, many other limitations are due to 222 methodological criteria (which are certainly avoidable or minimisable). The discussion 223 above is not intended to highlight things we might be doing wrong, but rather to suggest 224 what we could be doing better. The emphasis on closure in the above critical review 225 should not blind us to the benefits expressed in the exercises cited. These undoubtedly 226 promote more robust forms of STI co-production than the mainstream ones. However, if 227 the ultimate ambition is to open up STI modes to more socio-politically robust forms of 228 co-production, it is worth discussing how the structures that underpin our interventive 229 methods narrow the spaces for discussion and problematisation. 230 25 4. A comprehensive methodological proposal to operationalise anticipation 231 This section proposes a tentative structure of a (multi-)foresight process to support the 232 operationalisation of AG, RRI, RI, and TA. This procedural anticipatory structure is 233 presented as ‘a methodology of inquiry-in-interaction, which increases reflexivity of the 234 [STI] developments’ (Rip and Robinson 2013, 37). The tentative structure of the multi235 foresight exercise seeks to minimise the two main limitations identified above: (i) the 236 fragmentation of foresight exercises in addressing the main challenges of AG, RI, RRI, 237 and TA, and (ii) the problem of reifying futures. 238 While the problem of fragmentation is addressed through a systematic 239 problematisation of the diverse STI domains (purposes, processes, and outcomes), the 240 problem of the reification of futures is addressed through the integration of a critical241 hermeneutic approach to future narratives and representations during the intervention. 242 Since some degree of reification is inescapable, the enemy is not reification per se, but 243 rather uncritical reification. The aim is to introduce ‘upstream’ reflexivity in STI 244 practices through foresight so that the sociotechnical futures that are in constant co245 production are anticipatorily shaped in the most transparent, inclusive, and reflective 246 way possible (Jasanoff 2020). 247 It should be noted that the fact that the methodology proposed here aims to be 248 less vulnerable to these two problems does not mean naively supposing that it will not 249 be subject to the limitations and contingencies inherent in any interventive 250 operationalisation. The exercise does not claim to be a solution or panacea. Instead, it is 251 a tentative ideal-typical proposal that can be further critiqued and elaborated. 252 Ultimately, it aims to promote intervention mechanisms that, from their conception, are 253 more sensitive to the reification of futures and attend to the politics of anticipation in 254 which they are embroiled, and which are propagated through them. 255 32 Subphase 2.III ‘I.’: To explore the different impacts that might coevolve with the development of the STI Future: Opening-up the range of issues and concerns considered regarding the STI at stake Exploratory: Openingup the potential impacts Subphase 2.IV ‘II.’: To problematise the processes and orientations of the STI Future: Draw up guidelines for current actions to promote the realisation of the desirable futures already problematised Strategic: Outlining guiding actions 365 Subphase 2.I – Setting the stage of plausibility and desirability negotiations 366 The first subphase aims to prepare certain grounds for the subsequent negotiation of the 367 plausibility and desirability of futures. These bases are intended to be established 368 through the generation of reflexive dynamics that address both past and present 369 temporality, as well as the critique of the futures-in-the-present that materialise in 370 visions, expectations, and sociotechnical imaginaries. 371 As Derbyshire and Wright (2017) argue, many scenario-building exercises 372 currently devote ‘little attention to the consideration of either the present state or how it 373 has come to be’, even though the treatment of the past and present can generate many 374 heuristics that can be particularly valuable for STI responsibilisation. Given that the 375 lenses or assumptions through which we look at the past and present are multi-layered 376 (different actors could underline different dimensions of the present and the past), and 377 many of the discrepancies about the future will be driven by divergences of the present 378 and past, it is necessary to address and co-negotiate the plausibility of these from the 379 outset. 380 The aim of fostering dynamics of reflection on the current state is not so much 381 intended to establish a common ground (i.e. to impose a uniform or monolithic state of 382 the art), but rather to consider the different perspectives on the present from which 383 actors perceive and interpret reality; both in relation to the sociotechnical system in 384 which the intervention takes place, and more specifically in relation to the STI at stake. 385 Indeed, it has been recognised in the literature that the plausibilisation of other futures 386 33 also depends on the plausibilisation and possibilities of reframing the presents (Urueña 387 2019; Fischer and Dannenberg 2021). 388 It might also be particularly fruitful to problematise how we relate the past to the 389 present of the STI in question, as well as the past to its future. Schwarz-Plaschg (2018a, 390 153), for example, has pointed out how analogies from the past (i.e. comparisons of the 391 past and the present) are used ‘to make arguments and enforce framings’. She has also 392 highlighted how analogical imagination and enhanced analogical sensibility can help 393 promote RRI (Schwarz-Plaschg 2018b). The case of nanotechnology is a clear example 394 of a non-presentist field where the use of both the pasts and futures has helped to 395 mobilise the imaginations and opinions of different publics (favourable or unfavourable 396 to legitimise nano-development) (Mody 2004; Selin 2006; Schwarz-Plaschg 2018b). 397 Despite the value of past knowledge for STI responsibilisation, there are calls to 398 increase both the use of this knowledge and its problematisation (Zimmer-Merkle and 399 Fleischer 2017). The inclusion of past temporality intended here also underlines this. 400 The case of the use and mobilisation of analogies illustrates that the colonisation 401 of the spaces of plausibility and desirability is not carried out by future representations 402 alone. However, this does not mean that the latter are excluded. The inclusion of the 403 problematisation of futures-in-the-present is intended to prevent the performative power 404 of promises, expectations, and sociotechnical imaginaries from limiting the later 405 explorations of the multi-foresight process. As Groves (2013, 186) notes, ‘technological 406 future imaginaries may help to prevent scrutiny of assumptions about innovation 407 pathways and to exclude alternative visions of the future from discussion, thus making 408 progress on the procedural elements of RRI more difficult’. The proposed 409 problematisation of these artefacts from the outset aims to enable a basic form of 410 ‘futures literacies’ (Miller and Sandford 2019) that neutralises as much as possible their 411 34 power to reify certain possibilities and thus impede the opening-up of alternatives to be 412 considered in later subphases. While it would be naïve to assume that these artefacts 413 will no longer have power in subsequent phases, it is possible to assert that the 414 necessary and possible mechanisms have been created to ensure that their impact is 415 lessened as much as possible. 416 417 418 In conclusion, this first subphase activates the negotiation of plausibility as an epistemic 419 process in the service of critically opening-up the past, present, and futures-in-the420 present that de facto colonise and modulate the way we imagine, explore, and confront 421 reality. This first subphase is ultimately proposed as a social learning exercise aimed at 422 opening/acquiring capacities for opening-up the representative artefacts that, exploiting 423 temporality in each historical moment, constrain our explorations and visions of the 424 future, thereby closing-down the spaces of possibility deemed desirable and plausible. 425 The purpose is to operationalise the demand to begin every exploration by such critical 426 assessments (Grin and Grunwald 2000; Nordmann 2014), as well as to offer a response 427 to calls for the introduction and promotion of hermeneutic anticipation (van der Burg 428 2014; Grunwald 2020). 429 430 Subphase 2.II – Giving our STI practices a desirable and plausible direction 431 In contrast to exploratory foresight exercises that start from ‘product scenes’ and 432 problematise their (un)desirability and (im)plausibility later, this second subphase of the 433 multi-foresight exercise aims to problematise upfront the problems, challenges, or 434 purposes with which we align the STI. Ultimately, the aim is to discuss the 435 sociotechnical and techno-moral worlds to which the STI is expected to contribute and 436 35 the ways in which it can/could contribute to them. This way of structuring the debate 437 prioritises discussion of the plausibility and desirability of the problem-framing and 438 policy purposes underpinning the STI in question over exploration of its potential 439 impacts. The aim is to address the problem already explicitly identified and criticised by 440 von Schomberg (2012, 7): 441 442 [F]oresight projects could benefit from a prior analysis of potential relationships between 443 types of plausible technological pathways and particular (social) problem-definitions, rather 444 than starting with ‘naïve product scenes,’ (…) thereby methodologically ignoring the 445 underlying problem definitions. 446 447 Suppose we co-design an anticipatory process. Its first exercise consists of co-projecting 448 and negotiating the (im)plausibility and (un)desirability of sociotechnical scenarios that 449 could arise from stratospheric sulphate injection as a measure in the face of climate 450 change. These scenarios will depict diverse negative and positive configurations that the 451 various participants are able to envision and justify. However, once we enter the debate 452 on the (im)plausibility and (un)desirability of these scenarios, we would be doing so not 453 only at the expense of taking the technology itself as plausible but also indirectly 454 accepting a way of dealing with the climate change problem that can and should be 455 explicitly problematised. For example, we would be assuming the Enlightenment 456 paradigm of technological solutionism, where the solution is posited as technical rather 457 than sociotechnical and organisational. The ‘product scene’ enframes a definition of the 458 problem and its corresponding resolution. The problem is climate change, and it is 459 enframed as a technical problem—thus with its corresponding technical solution. The 460 solution is to solve the effects of climate change by minimising the effects caused by 461 our current forms of industrial production. The ‘product scene’ presents a solution to 462 one of our Grand Challenges, but it frames those solutions so that it shields the causes 463 36 of the problem from problematisation, focusing only on counteracting the effects. It 464 situates us in a scenario where the aim is to solve the effects of climate change caused 465 by our current systems, but without promoting a fundamental debate on the necessity 466 and relevance of changing our current sociotechnical systems and their productive 467 constellations. This way of framing the problem subtly promotes the reification or 468 perpetuation of the same organisational scheme that causes the problem by not 469 promoting the conception of alternative socio-economic and techno-industrial forms of 470 organisation that would address or minimise the problem at its root. 471 The absence of an explicit opening-up mechanism to unpack the potential 472 relationships between types of plausible STI pathways and particular problem 473 definitions would entail leaving it to chance whether these relationships are maintained 474 or transformed. The aim of interventive anticipatory exercises is not to leave these 475 issues to chance, but to promote reflexivity as deeply as possible (Guston 2014). The 476 aim of subphase 2.II should therefore be to explicitly deand reconstruct the problem 477 definitions and the STI purposes these embody. This includes, for example, questioning 478 the extent to which these problem definitions and STI purposes correspond to the 479 wishes, expectations, and interests of the social actors involved. The proposed critique 480 should be not only deconstructive but also constructive. The exercise has to remain 481 open to the suggestion of alternatives. If there are voices that consider the STI purposes 482 and issues to be ‘implausible’ and/or ‘undesirable’, these voices should suggest 483 ‘plausible’ and ‘desirable’ ones as a counterpoint. 484 This collective problematisation of the futures considered ‘(un)desirable’ and 485 their grounds/frames can obviously lead to the activation of problematisation processes 486 that will require calling on or revisiting the results of the previous subphase (e.g. taking 487 into account the extent to which narratives and meanings close the purposes). 488 37 Furthermore, this problematisation may also require activating socio-systemic processes 489 that would correspond to the next subphase (e.g. conducting risk explorations of either 490 the socio-technical project in question or of those alternatives considered most 491 desirable). It is therefore expectable that iterative and back and forth processes will exist 492 between these subphases. The rationale for placing this subphase in this second position 493 within the structure is to prevent problem definitions from uncritically pre-setting 494 possibility spaces outside of which alternatives cannot be envisaged. 495 496 Subphase 2.III – Enriching our normative futures 497 Once the futures deemed desirable have been explored, it is important to enrich them 498 with reflections on the possible negative/positive outcomes that might arise both in the 499 process of pursuing these futures and in the hypothetical situation in which these 500 become a reality (to some degree). 501 The reason for such hypothetical-projective explorations lies in the need to 502 problematise that the pursuit of a desirable future is neither neutral nor free from 503 tensions or imbalances. As Adam and Groves (2007, 2011) observe, any form of future504 making is a form of future-taking, and even the future(s) negotiated as ‘desirable’ would 505 not be free of depicting and embracing power asymmetries. This process aims precisely 506 to explore the sociotechnical and techno-moral co-evolutions that might occur. 507 Questions around (i) what effects there might be (e.g. effects on techno-moral or 508 sociotechnical orders) and (ii) what the distribution of these effects is (e.g. for whom 509 they are seen as positive or negative and under what conditions) would be the subject of 510 social examination and enrichment. This phase is thus ultimately about enriching the 511 normative futures co-negotiated in subphase 2.II through reflexivity. 512 38 At this point, one might ask whether the exercise does not reify the normative 513 future(s) dealt with in subphase 2.II. The answer is that a certain degree of reification is 514 unavoidable. If any kind of action is to be anticipatorily informed, it is necessary to 515 close the space of possibilities under consideration. In this sense, the problem here is 516 not so much reification per se, but uncritical reification. In other words, the problem is 517 the reifications produced on the basis of futures that are little discussed and negotiated, 518 and thus on futures with little socio-epistemic and socio-political legitimacy. The multi519 foresight process therefore aims to minimise this problem by discussing the 520 consequences within futures that have been previously problematised. 521 The futures of subphase 2.II that set the frame of this subphase 2.III, however, 522 must be kept open for re-examination. The results of subphase 2.III may lead to a 523 reconsideration of the visions of desirable futures themselves by reactivating the 524 previous subphase. 525 526 Subphase 2.IV – Co-creating action plans 527 The fourth and final subphase has the difficult task of translating all the heuristics 528 coming from the previous opening-up processes into practical guidance for the STI 529 exercises. Ultimately, as is common in strategic and visioneering exercises, the aim is to 530 create an execution plan. This essentially consists of identifying how, given the 531 resources available and the diagnosis of the current situation previously established in 532 subphase 2.I, actions can be triggered to promote the emergence of the negotiated 533 plausible and desired future(s). 534 There are at least two aspects of this ex-dure subphase that are important to 535 comment on. The first refers to the need to keep the implementation plan under 536 continuous review, as an open plan. This is important to be able to adapt it to the 537 39 contingencies that emerge during the process. Moreover, it is also important to insist 538 during the mediation process that processes and plans are fallible in nature, and their 539 significance is merely heuristic-orientational. Even when the outlined plan is accurately 540 followed, it is important to emphasise that the desirable future may not be achieved 541 (although following the instructions will more likely approximate this than otherwise). 542 Ultimately, these forms of mediation are important to prevent the multi-foresight 543 exercise from falling into the illusion of looking at the future as a space that can be the 544 target of our design. The future, in this sense, must be maintained throughout the 545 process as a space that is intrinsically uncertain, complex, contingent, and relatively 546 open. 547 The results of subphase 2.IV may lead to revisions of the futures or visions 548 considered plausible and desirable, or of the specific issues considered in these. As a 549 result, it may be possible to return to earlier stages of the multi-foresight process (e.g. 550 revisiting the findings of subphases 2.II and/or 2.III). 551 Phase 3: Foresight dissemination and assessment 552 The third phase includes all the activities that take place after the completion of the 553 multi-foresight exercise. These ex-post activities focus mainly—but not only—on (i) the 554 dissemination of the results and (ii) the systematic and mainly qualitative (although it 555 may be complemented by quantitative data) monitoring and evaluation of the foresight 556 processes, outcomes, and purposes (Table 4). The systematic and ex-post nature is 557 precisely what distinguishes this evaluation from the evaluation that could (and should) 558 be carried out in real time throughout the whole operationalisation process. 559 560 Table 4. Examples of key questions to address during the foresight assessment process 561 Examples of key question(s) Potential key heuristics 40 Processes • What underlying dynamics of anticipatory knowledge co-creation underpinned the exercise? • How were the various anticipatory capabilities intended to be developed or reinforced? • Which/whose voices were heard/silenced, which/whose capacities were enhanced, and which/whose spaces of possibility were selected/discarded, and on what grounds Identification of power dynamics and hampering (f)actors functioning during anticipation processes Types of relationships and their respective qualities and asymmetries (e.g. identifying instances of argumentative and epistemic injustices) Outcomes • What heuristics and/or anticipatory knowledge or capabilities were de facto activated? (in the long/medium/short term) • Did the hegemonic dynamics and realities of STI change? Which ones? When? To whom and in what sense? Knowledge about the emergence of immediate, intermediate, and final heuristics (including those unexpected or undesired) and how they evolved in time (whether they were reinforced, atrophied, or maintained) Identification of the actors who benefited (or not) from the results and in relation to which aspects Purposes To what extent do the outcomes match the initial operationalisation plan? Reflection on the intervening performance and the adequacy of the initial operationalisation plan 562 The realisation of this assessment would have as a necessary condition the creation of 563 documentary records of the processes (e.g. audio, video, field notebooks). These data 564 and records could then be analysed and interpreted using various well established 565 qualitative research methods in the social sciences and humanities—especially those 566 typically applied in the STS. Conducting this process evaluation could serve to draw 567 practical operational lessons to feed into subsequent anticipation exercises. 568 5. Conclusions 569 AG, RI, RRI, and TA propose anticipation as a key dimension through which to shape 570 more responsible innovation. This paper has provided an exploratory overview of how 571 anticipation has been operationalised recently for AG, RI, RRI, and TA. This overview 572 points to an operational fragmentation in addressing the theoretical challenges 573 associated with anticipation. In theory, anticipation is mobilised to delve into at least 574 three interrelated challenges: Enabling a socio-politically robust exploration of STI (I.) 575 outcomes (‘positive’/‘negative’, ‘soft’/‘hard’), (II.) purposes and processes, and (III.) 576 critiquing the performative power of STI visions, imaginaries, promises, and 577 expectations. However, in practice, anticipation is carried out with a narrow focus on a 578 41 few of these challenges (thus leaving challenges and issues unproblematised and subtly 579 promoting reification of some frames and futures). 580 The heterogeneous and simultaneously fragmented nature of anticipatory 581 practices has motivated the proposal of a flexible and general qualitative foresight 582 process. The foresight process outlined here proposes to structure the exercise from its 583 very inception into self-reflexive processes regarding how the framing of the 584 interventive exercise is itself framed and fixed (phase 1, ex-ante). This means, among 585 other considerations, that the openness and closure mechanisms involved in the 586 selection of the STI as a target for intervention (to the detriment of others) or in the 587 invitation of actors to participate in the process should be critically considered. Let us 588 imagine that in this first or ex-ante or preparatory phase, it was decided to carry out the 589 anticipatory exercise on stratospheric sulphate injection as a sociotechnical measure in 590 the face of climate change. Moreover, a heterogeneous group of actors have been 591 reflexively and critically identified and invited to participate in order to have different 592 perspectives and interests among these actors (in relation either to this technology in 593 particular or to more general concerns). 594 The next phase (i.e. phase 2, ex-dure) would encompass the socio-epistemic and 595 deliberative processes for the activation of anticipatory heuristics. The structure 596 proposes to initiate the process by enacting a critical-hermeneutic approach (subphase 597 2.I). This approach would include activities focused on collectively identifying the lines 598 of research that point to the development of this STI, reviewing similar technologies 599 that are occurring in the present or have occurred in the past, and in particular critiquing 600 the frames, narratives, and futures (e.g. visions, imaginaries, promises) that are 601 mobilised in relation to this STI. The goal is to problematise the (perspectives on) past 602 and current state of affairs and simultaneously to avoid (or minimise) that the 603 48 Stemerding, D., W. Betten, V. Rerimassie, Z. Robaey, and F. Kupper. 2019. "Future making and 849 responsible governance of innovation in synthetic biology." Futures 109:213–26. 850 Stilgoe, J., R. Owen, and P. Macnaghten. 2013. "Developing a framework for responsible innovation." 851 Research Policy 42 (9):1568–80. 852 Swierstra, T., D. Stemerding, and M. Boenink. 2009. "Exploring Techno-Moral Change: The Case of the 853 ObesityPill." In Evaluating New Technologies: Methodological Problems for the Ethical 854 Assessment of Technology Developments, edited by P. Sollie and M. Düwell, 119–38. Dordrecht: 855 Springer. 856 Swierstra, T., and H. te Molder. 2012. "Risk and Soft Impacts." In Handbook of Risk Theory: 857 Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk, edited by S. Roeser, R. 858 Hillerbrand, P. Sandin and M. Peterson, 1049–66. Dordrecht: Springer. 859 Urueña, S. 2019. "Understanding “plausibility”: A relational approach to the anticipatory heuristics of 860 future scenarios." Futures 111:15–25. 861 ———. 2021. "Responsibility through Anticipation? The ‘Future Talk’ and the Quest for Plausibility in 862 the Governance of Emerging Technologies." NanoEthics 15 (3):271–302. 863 ———. 2022. "Anticipation and modal power: Opening up and closing down the momentum of 864 sociotechnical systems." Social Studies of Science 52 (5):783–805. 865 Urueña, S., H. Rodríguez, and A. Ibarra. 2021. "Foresight and responsible innovation: Openness and 866 closure in anticipatory heuristics." Futures 134:102852. 867 van der Burg, S. 2009a. "Imagining the Future of Photoacoustic Mammography." Science and 868 Engineering Ethics 15 (1):97–110. 869 ———. 2009b. "Taking the “Soft Impacts” of Technology into Account: Broadening the Discourse in 870 Research Practice." Social Epistemology 23 (3-4):301–16. 871 ———. 2014. "On the hermeneutic need for future anticipation." Journal of Responsible Innovation 1 872 (1):99–102. 873 von Schomberg, R. 2012. "Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research 874 and innovation." In Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer 875 Methoden, edited by M. Dusseldorp and R. Beecroft, 39–61. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für 876 Sozialwissenschaften. 877 ———. 2013. "A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation." In Responsible Innovation: 878 Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, edited by R. Owen, 879 J.R. Bessant and M. Heintz, 51–74. Chichester: Wiley. 880 ———. 2014. "The Quest for the ‘Right’ Impacts of Science and Technology: A Framework for 881 Responsible Research and Innovation." In Responsible Innovation 1: Innovative Solutions for 882 Global Issues, edited by J. van den Hoven, N. Doorn, T. Swierstra, B.-J. Koops and H. Romijn, 883 33–50. Dordrecht: Springer. 884 Warnke, P., and G. Heimeriks. 2008. "Technology Foresight as Innovation Policy Instrument: Learning 885 from Science and Technology Studies." In Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Strategic 886 Intelligence for an Innovative Economy, edited by C. Cagnin, M. Keenan, R. Johnston, F. 887 Scapolo and R. Barré, 71–87. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. 888 Withycombe Keeler, L., M.J. Bernstein, and C. Selin. 2019. "Intervening Through Futures for Sustainable 889 Presents: Scenarios, Sustainability, and Responsible Research and Innovation." In Socio890 Technical Futures Shaping the Present. Empirical Examples and Analytical Challenges, edited 891 by A. Lösch, A. Grunwald, M. Meister and I. Schulz-Schaeffer, 255–82. Wiesbaden: Springer 892 VS. 893 Zimmer-Merkle, S., and T. Fleischer. 2017. "Eclectic, random, intuitive? Technology assessment, RRI, 894 and their use of history." Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (2):217–33. 895