anticipatory governance
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

66
(FIVE YEARS 27)

H-INDEX

12
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2022 ◽  
Vol 73 ◽  
pp. 102452
Author(s):  
Karlijn Muiderman ◽  
Monika Zurek ◽  
Joost Vervoort ◽  
Aarti Gupta ◽  
Saher Hasnain ◽  
...  

NanoEthics ◽  
2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergio Urueña

AbstractIn anticipatory governance (AG) and responsible innovation (RI), anticipation is a key theoretical and practical dimension for promoting a more responsible governance of new and emerging sciences and technologies. Yet, anticipation has been subjected to a range of criticisms, such that many now see it as unnecessary for AG and RI. According to Alfred Nordmann, practices engaging with ‘the future’, when performed under certain conditions, may reify the future, diminish our ability to see what is happening, and/or reproduce the illusion of control over the future. Several authors have stressed that these critiques fail to capture the heterogeneous character of anticipatory practices, and yet research on the question of what particular kind of socio-epistemic engagements with ‘the future’ AG and RI aim to enact through anticipation remains fragmentary and their underlying rationale under-theorised. This article aims to advance the theoretical characterisation and problematisation of anticipation as key interventive tools for AG and RI. By distinguishing between four modes of anticipation and heuristically testing them against Nordmann’s critiques, the article argues that despite his assessment failing to recognise the heterogeneity of anticipatory practices considered valuable for AG and RI, it reinforces the relevance of performing certain modes of anticipatory exercises, namely critical-hermeneutic ones. Thus, anticipation continues to be a necessary heuristic dimension for AG and RI. More concretely, the article maintains that such anticipatory heuristics may find their radical constructive and critical-reflective character in the dynamics of inclusive scrutiny and negotiation about the (im)plausibility and (un)desirability of the envisioned or (co-)created futures.


2022 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 100130
Author(s):  
Joost Vervoort ◽  
Astrid Mangnus ◽  
Steven McGreevy ◽  
Kazuhiko Ota ◽  
Kyle Thompson ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-50
Author(s):  
John P. Nelson ◽  
Cynthia Selin ◽  
Lauren Lambert ◽  
David H. Guston

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse De Pagter

In recent years, the governance of robotic technologies has become an important topic in policy-making contexts. The many potential applications and roles of robots in combination with steady advances in their uptake within society are expected to cause various unprecedented issues, which in many cases will increase the demand for new policy measures. One of the major issues is the way in which societies will address potential changes in the moral and legal status of autonomous social robots. Robot standing is an important concept that aims to understand and elaborate on such changes in robots’ status. This paper explores the concept of robot standing as a useful idea that can assist in the anticipatory governance of social robots. However, at the same time, the concept necessarily involves forms of speculative thinking, as it is anticipating a future that has not yet fully arrived. This paper elaborates on how such speculative engagement with the potential of technology represents an important point of discussion in the critical study of technology more generally. The paper then situates social robotics in the context of anticipatory technology governance by emphasizing the idea that robots are currently in the process of becoming constituted as objects of governance. Subsequently, it explains how specifically a speculative concept like robot standing can be of value in this process.


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 20-31
Author(s):  
Matt Boyd ◽  
Nick Wilson

The world faces many large-scale risks. We describe these global catastrophic and existential risks and identify some challenges in governing the prevention and mitigation of such risks. We identify that risk reduction activity in Aotearoa New Zealand has not appropriately addressed these threats. On the basis of the challenges identified, we then deduce the desired features and functions of an entity for effectively governing risk reduction approaches. We argue for an entity that is: anticipatory, central/aggregating, coordinating, apolitical, transparent, adaptive and accountable. We offer structural options for such an entity and outline the merits of several options.


2021 ◽  
pp. 146349962110334
Author(s):  
James D Faubion

In “Governing the Future,” Limor Samimian-Darash does much to illuminate scenarism and the divergence between the simulations and the scenarios that constitute the chief apparatuses of anticipatory governance. She renders both of them fabulations, drawing the concept as well as the divergence between simulations and scenarios from the epistemological and ontological precedents that Henri Bergson and Gilles Deleuze have set. Her renderings are compelling, but leave many epistemological and ontological issues unresolved. I address three of these issues. First, it has to do with what sort of concept scenarism might be. Second, it has to do with the poetics of simulations and scenarios. Third, it has to do with the virtuality or actuality of simulations and scenarios, in their planning as in their enactments.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyungmoo Heo ◽  
Yongseok Seo

AbstractAnticipatory governance (AG) is defined as a “system of systems” that employs foresight to create future plans and execute relevant actions. Recently, various frameworks of AG have been introduced, but there is little practical information available for newcomers on how to do this. This research conducted a framework-based comparative country analysis to provide lessons learned for newcomers in the sphere of foresight-linked AG. By evaluating the AG levels of Finland, the UK, the Netherlands, and Korea, we found that the consequences of foresight-linked AGs were different in each country. At the same time, we also identified a common denominator, namely, future receptivity, a “human or people” capacity to accept and understand the value of foresight. Instead of temporary system changes or organizational modifications, future receptivity is an underlying element for newcomers to overcome lingering short-termism and facilitate the coordination of stakeholders concerning foresight. In conclusion, we suggest ways to promote future receptivity for newcomers. First, the government should educate and train the public and government officials to promote future literacy and future proficiency. Second, the government should provide a process for public participation such as nationwide networking that enables the public to influence their diverse future images over foresight outcomes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document