Anticipatory governance and moral imagination: Methodological insights from a scenario-based public deliberation study

•Anticipatory governance requires methods that support meaningful public engagement.•Future interactions between technical and moral issues are difficult to envision.•Scenario-based methods can stimulate the public's moral imagination.•Academics and practitioners have a critical responsibility...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Technological forecasting & social change 2020-02, Vol.151, p.119800, Article 119800
Hauptverfasser: Lehoux, P., Miller, F.A., Williams-Jones, B.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:•Anticipatory governance requires methods that support meaningful public engagement.•Future interactions between technical and moral issues are difficult to envision.•Scenario-based methods can stimulate the public's moral imagination.•Academics and practitioners have a critical responsibility in improving these methods. The fields of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and participatory foresight seek to establish, and to include publics within, anticipatory governance mechanisms. While scenario-based methods can bring to the publics’ attention the ethical challenges associated to existing technologies, there has been little empirical research examining how, in practice, prospective public deliberative processes should be organized to inform anticipatory governance. The goal of this article is to generate methodological insights into the way such methods can stimulate the public's moral imagination regarding what may (or may not) happen in the future and what should (or should not) happen in the future. Our qualitative analyses draw on a public deliberation study that included videos and online scenarios to support participants’ (n = 57) deliberations about fictional interventions for genetically at-risk individuals. Our findings clarify how participants: (1) challenged key elements of our scenarios; (2) extended several of their technical and moral prospects; (3) engaged personally with others, including our scenarios’ characters; and (4) mobilized the past creatively to reason about the future. Our methodology enabled participants to creatively and empathetically envision complex sociotechnical futures. Yet, important methodological limits should be acknowledged by those who design, implement and use public engagement methods to inform anticipatory governance.
ISSN:0040-1625
1873-5509
DOI:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119800