Constructing Productive Engagement: Pre-engagement Tools for Emerging Technologies

Engagement with stakeholders and civil society is increasingly important for new scientific and technological developments. Preparation of such engagements sets the stage for engagement activities and thus contributes to their outcomes. Preparation is a demanding task, particularly if the facilitating agent aims for timely engagement related to emerging technologies. Requirements for such preparation include understanding of the emerging science & technology and its dynamics. Multi-level analysis and socio-technical scenarios are two complementary tools for constructing productive engagement. Examination of the emergence of nanotechnologies in the food packaging sector demonstrates how these tools work. In light of recent policy demands for responsible innovation, but also more generally, the role of organizers of engagement activities is one that deserves reflection insofar as it can extend beyond that of preparation and facilitation.

[1]  Michiel Van Oudheusden,et al.  Nanotechnologies for Tomorrow's Society: A Case for Reflective Action Research in Flanders, Belgium , 2008 .

[2]  Knut H. Sørensen,et al.  Shaping technology, guiding policy: concepts, spaces and tools , 2002 .

[3]  Lynn Bergeson,et al.  REGULATORY REPORT FDA Regulation of Food Packaging Produced Using Nanotechnology , 2006 .

[4]  Aurélie Delemarle,et al.  The role of regional institutional entrepreneurs in the emergence of clusters in nanotechnologies , 2005 .

[5]  A. Rip,et al.  The past and future of constructive technology assessment , 1997 .

[6]  te Haico Kulve.  Emerging technologies and waiting games : institutional entrepreneurship in embedding nanotechnologies in the food packaging sector , 2010 .

[7]  N. Pidgeon,et al.  Moving engagement “upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering's inquiry , 2007 .

[8]  A. Rip.  Folk Theories of Nanotechnologists , 2006, The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering and Clean Energy.

[9]  C. Mitcham,et al.  Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance From Within , 2006 .

[10]  Arie Rip,et al.  Societal Embedding and Product Creation Management , 1997 .

[11]  Tsjalling Swierstra,et al.  Genetica, genomics en gezondheidszorg: een toekomstverkenning , 2008 .

[12]  Michiel van Oudheusden,et al.  Questioning ‘Participation’: A Critical Appraisal of its Conceptualization in a Flemish Participatory Technology Assessment , 2011, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[13]  Amy K. Wolfe,et al.  Adding to the Mix: Integrating ELSI into a National Nanoscale Science and Technology Center , 2011, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[14]  R. Gavara,et al.  Improving packaged food quality and safety. Part 2: Nanocomposites , 2005, Food additives and contaminants.

[15]  A. Kumaraswamy,et al.  INSTITUTIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE SPONSORSHIP OF COMMON TECHNOLOGICAL STANDARDS: THE CASE OF SUN MICROSYSTEMS AND JAVA * , 2002 .

[16]  Helge Toutenburg,et al.  The Social Control of Technology , 1982 .

[17]  W. Abernathy.  Innovation : Mapping the winds of creative destruction * , 2003 .

[18]  Arie Rip,et al.  A timely harvest , 2007, Nature.

[19]  Arie Rip,et al.  The Rise of Membrane Technology , 1998 .

[20]  David Ahlstrom,et al.  Technology assessment: a socio-cognitive perspective , 1997 .

[21]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  Public advice on the development of nanobiotechnology : Final report of four european convergence seminars , 2007 .

[22]  N. Phillips,et al.  The Birth of the 'Kodak Moment': Institutional Entrepreneurship and the Adoption of New Technologies , 2005 .

[23]  Douglas K. R. Robinson,et al.  Multi-path mapping for alignment strategies in emerging science and technologies , 2008 .

[24]  Kevin Sandgren.  Material flow analysis for an industry—A case study in packaging , 1996 .

[25]  Chi-Fai Chau,et al.  The development of regulations for food nanotechnology , 2007 .

[26]  Mads Borup,et al.  The sociology of expectations in science and technology , 2006, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[27]  R. Joerger,et al.  Antimicrobial films for food applications: a quantitative analysis of their effectiveness , 2007 .

[28]  Richard R. Nelson,et al.  Co-evolution of Industry Structure, Technology and Supporting Institutions, and the Making of Comparative Advantage , 1995 .

[29]  Joan H. Fujimura,et al.  Constructing `Do-able' Problems in Cancer Research: Articulating Alignment , 1987 .

[30]  Arie Rip,et al.  Constructive Technology Assessment and Socio-Technical Scenarios. , 2008 .

[31]  Lilli Manolis Sherman.  Impact: Which test to use? Which instrument to buy? , 2001 .

[32]  Haico te Kulve,et al.  de Emerging technologies and waiting games : Institutional entrepreneurs around nanotechnology in the food packaging sector , 2010 .

[33]  K. Clark,et al.  Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction☆ , 1993 .

[34]  Boelie Elzen,et al.  Socio-Technical Networks: How a Technology Studies Approach May Help to Solve Problems Related to Technical Change , 1996 .

[35]  Alberto Cottica.  THE MICROECONOMICS OF ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATION IN THE EUROPEAN PACKAGING INDUSTRY , 2001 .

[36]  Arie Rip.  Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Bridging Gaps Through Constructive Technology Assessment , 2008 .

[37]  R. Gavara,et al.  Improving packaged food quality and safety. Part 1: Synchrotron X-ray analysis , 2005, Food additives and contaminants.

[38]  Haico te Kulve.  Anticipatory interventions and the co-evolution of nanotechnology and society , 2005 .

[39]  Arie Rip,et al.  Antagonistic Patterns and New Technologies , 1998 .

[40]  F. Geels.  Towards sociotechnical scenarios and reflexive anticipation: using patterns and regularities in technology dynamics , 2002 .

[41]  Arie Rip,et al.  Introduction of New Technology; Making Use of Recent Insights from Sociology and Economics of Technology , 1995 .

[42]  Kees Sonneveld,et al.  WHAT DRIVES (FOOD) PACKAGING INNOVATION , 2000 .

[43]  V. Vittoria,et al.  Potential perspectives of bio-nanocomposites for food packaging applications , 2007 .