However, closures may still leave room
for diversity. 19
In sum, certain forms of practical
self-reflection and self-criticism ex-
ist in ICT research and could be cul-
tivated further under the extended
AREA Plus framework. In this sense,
EPSRC’s original AREA principles are
clear that the social shaping of tech-
nologies is at the heart of computer sci-
ence, not external to it, as suggested by
some of the interviewees in our study.
Visions, utopia, predictions, promises,
and hype have been produced for de-
cades concerning how socio-technical
futures may unfold, though much of it
has been done rather unconsciously,
thus shaping the trajectories of ICT in
ways that shut down alternative paths.
There are thus implicit human and
technological powers at play. Narra-
tives, teleology, and technological de-
terminism proliferate but are not suf-
ficiently reflected.
In practical terms, our framework
draws on such existing approaches to
ICT development and provides a variety
of scaffolding questions. Each aspect
of the framework expands into deeper
questions, suggesting literature, more
detailed discussion, and problemati-zation of a particular aspect of ICT innovation. For instance, after scanning
the framework as a whole (see Figure 1)
a researcher might want to consider to
what extent the effects of ICT development may be anticipated (see Figure 2
and Figure 3). Various links between
approaches provide questions for exploring different possible pathways, a
more comprehensive line of reasoning,
and references.
Our framework is meant to be
adapted to the context in which re-
searchers and other stakeholders find
themselves. The idea is to productively
“open up” not “close down” expert dis-
course. 19 At the same time, we do not
question “closure” per se. Any design-
and-development process requires tak-
ing countless decisions and translat-
ing them into software and hardware
solutions at multiple points in time.
Figure 1. The AREA Plus framework.
Process
Rhythm of ICT
Product
Logical malleability
and interpretive flexibility
Purpose
Convergence and pervasiveness
People
Problem of many hands
To what extent are we able to
anticipate the final product, future
uses, and impacts?
Will the product be socially
desirable?
How sustainable are the outcomes?
Why should we pursue this
research?
Have the right stakeholders been
included?
Reflect What mechanisms are used to
reflect on process?
How might we do it differently?
How do we know what the
consequences might be?
What might be the potential use?
What do we not know?
How can we ensure social
desirability?
How might we do it differently?
Is the research controversial?
How might we do it differently?
Who is affected?
How might we do it differently?
Engage How can we engage a wide group
of stakeholders?
What are the viewpoints of a wide
group of stakeholders?
Is the research agenda
acceptable?
Who prioritizes research?
For whom is the research being
done?
Act How can your research structure
become flexible?
What training is required?
What infrastructure is required?
What needs to be done to ensure
social desirability?
What training is required?
What infrastructure is required?
How might we ensure the implied
future is desirable?
What training is required?
What infrastructure is required?
Who matters?
What training is required?
What infrastructure is required?
Figure 2. Selecting anticipation.
Process
Rhythm of IC T
Product
Logical malleability and interpretive flexibility
To what extent are we able to anticipate the final
product, future uses, and impacts?
Will the product be socially desirable?
How sustainable are the outcomes?
Figure 3. Unpacking anticipation.
To what extent are we able to anticipate the final product, future uses, and impact?
The future cannot be predicted with certainty, but there is room for exploring different possible
pathways. Also, researchers and other stakeholders can build on existing formal and informal
practices of anticipation in the ICT community.
Exploring different possible pathways
˲ Who might be the intended audience(s) of the envisioned product?
˲ What is the context the envisioned product is meant to address? And what is the context in
which this anticipation process itself is taking place?
˲ What current issues does the anticipation process target or could target?
˲ What can we learn from earlier (historical) anticipation processes?
˲ In pursuing a particular vision, what pathways might we also be shutting down? And what
endpoints and current issues might be excluded?
(Scaffolding questions adopted and adapted from Reeves16)
Envisioning in ICT
As in Reeves, 16 although it is difficult to predict the trajectory of IC T innovations, including outcomes, future uses, and impacts, ICT is a domain in which vision, utopia, predictions, promises, and
hype have been produced for decades. Much of it has been done rather unconsciously, thus shaping
the trajectories of IC T in ways that shut down alternative paths. Implicit powers are also at play.
Narratives, teleology, and technological determinism proliferate but are not sufficiently reflected.
