Abstract Title

5th International Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA) - Engage today to shape tomorrow Brussels, 27-28 November 2014

FTA ROLES IN SOCIETAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: ANTICIPATE, FORECAST, PREDICT, OR MANAGE? Florian Fritz IRKS Research

Abstract Conceiving of Impact Assessment (IA) as an approach to identifying „future consequences of a current or proposed action“ (International Association for Impact Assessment website1) emphasises its character as forward-looking analysis. This paper demonstrates how the FP7-project ASSERT addressed the triple challenge of a) taking stock of existing future-oriented assessment methodologies, b) adapting and operationalising them for the specific case of security research and c) pointing out ways for embedding such forward-looking, participatory mechanisms in the systemic context of the EU’s security research and innovation programme. Attempting to inject a “culture of future-oriented thinking” (Havas, Schartinger, Weber 2010) into security research and innovation systems, SIA is about envisioning societal impacts (usually in terms of unintended consequences) by relying on scenario building, which could also take the form of simulations. As opposed to evaluation approaches, SIA is inherently forward-looking. Envisioning alternative futures is central to SIA approaches and supports long-term strategy development to increase sustainability and responsibility of the R&D process. Focussing on Societal Impact Assessment (SIA), ASSERT explored ways to strengthen the societal dimension of security research by addressing the entire programming cycle of security research and innovation: work programmes and annual calls, research proposals, project negotiation phase, project execution, and the pickup of results after a project’s conclusion. Aiming to increase reflexivity among stakeholders, SIA addresses different issues at different stages of the R&D process. ASSERT has defined critical intervention points of actors, institutions and stakeholders and correlated them with the different phases of the innovation journey. Attempts to broaden the scope of participation in IA activities are nothing new. Practical implementations though have oscillated between “participation as input for decision makers” (or consultation) and “participation in decision making” (Ostermeier, Prainsack 2013: 15). ASSERT has developed best practice examples for a general framework for the implementation of prospective analyses, concerning power (ability of the process to alter project or programme objectives, agenda setting etc.), knowledge and transparency.

1

http://www.iaia.org, login 10 November 2014.

THEME 1: FTA AND INNOVATION SYSTEMS

-1-

5th International Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA) - Engage today to shape tomorrow Brussels, 27-28 November 2014 The ASSERT methodology builds on empirical evidence gathered during a series of expert workshops, an extensive literature review and the innovative concept of a “Masterclass in societal security” that aims to inspire critical thinking about creating alternative futures of security research and the ways in which they could be implemented in a systemic way.

Introduction This paper has two objectives: a) to highlight some ways of how in impact assessment the future is being conceived of, operationalised and dealt with. As will be shown, the future is what could be called the “zone of impact”, and used to formulate targets (usually in terms of unintended consequences of a development or research project. As an impact assessment procedure usually remains vague about the underlying concept of the future or the certainty of impacts (somehow it is about the future, yet the relation seems generally poorly made explicit). B) the embedding of forward looking technology analysis was the objective of the ASSERT project, the approach and results shall therefore briefly be discussed here. The FP7-funded project ASSERT is used to show how existing forward-looking practices and discourses were reviewed and analysed in order to expand on the concept of societal security as a necessary alternative to exclusively technological solutions. ASSERT explored new ways of embedding impact assessment in the security research and development cycle and elaborated best practices of embedding the forward-looking approach of societal impact assessment. This means that while ASSERT discussed and explored methodological aspects of embedding assessment procedures in the security research programming cycle, it also analysed existing practices (and literature) of assessing the impacts of research and science as a future-oriented activity: research and technology are being viewed and analysed through the lens of their future impact on society. For the purposes of this assessment, this also entails the development of future-oriented scenarios against which the proposed action or plan of research (research proposal) is mapped and analysed in order to identify (typically) unintended future consequences of decisions and actions taken in the present. ASSERT itself was not about devising new forward-looking instruments, but, instead, harnessing existing best practices in order to upgrade a specific programming field (security research). An implicit understanding of the future formed the framework of analysis: ASSERT took the futureoriented character of SIA as given. Implicitly acknowledging the future-orientedness of SIA approaches and principles and, in general, the future as the “zone of impact” of any current actions, the project strongly focused on exploring pathways towards an institutional embedding of future-oriented technology analysis (FTA). For this exploration, a series of expert workshops were held in order to determine the best way forward.

Clarification of Terminology Throughout the ASSERT project, the term “Societal Impact Assessment” was widely used to describe activities and considerations to be applied to the field of security research and development specifically. However, during the research and exploration phase, the researchers also tapped into the long-standing discourse and practice called “Social Impact Assessment” which

THEME 1: FTA AND INNOVATION SYSTEMS

-2-

5th International Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA) - Engage today to shape tomorrow Brussels, 27-28 November 2014 has come to denote a certain empirical body of knowledge and set of methodologies (although rather vaguely). These two should not be confused.

Methodological approach The ASSERT-project, funded under FP7, explored new ways of integrating societal security in the process of security research planning and programming. The challenges to such an objective are manifold and among the prerequisites to overcoming them are a preliminary understanding of societal security, a general approach to analysing the field, structuring stakeholder engagement, and segmenting the research and innovation programming cycle in order not only to identify useful intervention points for policy information, but also for an exploration of the research options available at different stages. What does this mean? ASSERT pre-structured the discussion of the expert workshops that were organised by providing reflection on the different segments of the research and innovation cycle. The segmentation arrived at the following classification:

    

Programme planning, evaluation, programme implementation, project implementation, (i.e. execution of the project’s work plan) exploitation of research results (Ostermeier & Prainsack, 2014b).

For each phase, the authors provided reflections on desirable roles for SIA (Ostermeier & Prainsack, 2014b). Also, each phase requires different target audiences and stakeholders. As a practical example, ASSERT has undertaken to distil, from the expert workshops, core requirements which technology researchers and developers need to fulfil in order to meet a baseline of societal impact consideration. ASSERT took a very pragmatic approach to societal security by acknowledging longer-standing traditions e.g. of Social Impact Assessment and other discourses. Complementarily, the ASSERT project developed the term Societal Impact Assessment (SIA) to capture “anything affecting human, natural, or artefactual systems“ (Prainsack, Ostermeier 2013, p.6). ASSERT drew on discourses such as Social Impact Assessment, Constructive Technology Assessment or Privacy and Surveillance Impact Assessment to guide the discussion on which methodologies of considering societal aspects of security research and development could be suitable for transference to the security (research field) and to assess impacts of security research and its outcomes there. SIA transcends established approaches of ethical and legal assessment in the evaluation of research proposals. As outlined above, ASSERT took the notion of impact very broadly, as any changes, positive or negative, that could result from a project or action if it were implemented in a real world context. Typically, impact dimensions could include the environment, data security,

THEME 1: FTA AND INNOVATION SYSTEMS

-3-

5th International Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA) - Engage today to shape tomorrow Brussels, 27-28 November 2014 social relations, interests of minorities, organisational procedures, and others. To further test the evidence, ASSERT implemented a format titled “Masterclass in Societal Security” as part of the project work. Beyond being a mere training format, the two iterations provided participants the possibility to develop a research proposal under guidance by the consortium as to the best ways the societal dimensions of security research could not only be taken into consideration, but also how SIA could actually alter the process of developing a research proposal. Throughout the project’s lifetime, ASSERT developed good practice principles for SIA (Ostermeier & Prainsack, 2014a). If observed, they should ensure that any future-oriented analysis of research and technology would not fall into the typical pitfalls. They are provided in more detail in the “Results”-section of this paper.

Future-Orientedness of SIA: Focussing on embedding SIA in security research, ASSERT did not explore the various (and often implicit) concepts of the future in impact assessment procedures and how such concepts might contrast with other foresight processes. However, its outcomes on how to (better) embed assessment procedures in security research programming could help clarify the ways in which, what could be called SIA’s foresight nucleus, is meant to be embedded. Why? Naturally, impact assessment is about the future: it is about a future in which impacts of current actions and decisions are thought to materialise. Inevitably, such impacts will arise. In the early days of Environmental Impact Assessment, the impacts of developing a mine amidst an indigenous zone were a certain future. Besides a strong – and, one might add necessary – normative component (distinguishing the bad from the good and more societally desirable impacts and outcomes), assessment methodologies did not so much consider the future as an “undiscovered country” (as it is called in Star Trek) – once future impacts were determined and forecast, their materialisation was more or less certain (albeit requiring “Social Impact Management Plans” (Barnard-Wills, Wadhwa, & Wright, 2014)). Needless to say, in today’s world, complexity und unpredictability have grown exponentially compared to the early days of Impact Assessment. Risk is rather uncertain than incalculable. Chandler (2014) sees this as the main reason for the rise of resilience thinking. Indeed, one of the problems which today’s future-oriented thinking – especially in the security-domain – faces, is that „[c]ontemporary logics of security are certainly attuned to uncertain and multiple potential futures that do not operate according to statistical, probabilistic or epidemiological rules“ (Lentzos & Rose, 2009, p. 236). Governance frameworks designed to assess and manage the envisioning of (and resulting rationales for) future impacts will have to deal with such uncertainty or non-linearity of events (Chandler, 2014). The impact dimensions that any SIA in the field of security should make a priority, regardless of how they fare in the future as a contested zone, include (Barnard-Wills et al., 2014):  

Way of life, fears and aspirations Culture and community

THEME 1: FTA AND INNOVATION SYSTEMS

-4-

5th International Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA) - Engage today to shape tomorrow Brussels, 27-28 November 2014    

Political systems Environment Health & well-being Personal and property rights

It is in these dimensions that ASSERT suggested to consider future impacts of security research and development. Yet, the future is a highly contested field. Its shape and form are (apart from being unknown) strongly influenced by stakeholder interests. Impact Assessment and its various traditions, therefore focus on participatory approaches to deciding on the shape of things to come. As will be shown in the results section of this paper, the question of how much power SIA as comprehensive governance approach to security programming should and could have, ranges highest. After all, what should be of highest concern, is the question whether a negative assessment outcome leads to an altering of project objectives (or the abandonment of the project altogether) or whether the results end up in an archive of some vague to-do lists. In other words: what happens to a project the objectives of which are assessed to be harmful and negative for society? Frank Vanclay summarises the nucleus of Social Impact Assessment as all the “processes of analysing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended social consequences, both positive and negative, of planned interventions (policies, programs, plans, projects) and any social change processes invoked by those interventions. Its primary purpose is to bring about a more sustainable and equitable biophysical and human environment.“ (Vanclay, 2003, p. 5) The future-oriented character of the activity is enshrined in this formulation. It is to “bring about” desirable outcomes, which means that the future is something that needs to be acted upon. It means that trajectories leading away from current actions or security research proposals be altered according to the assessment process (which, of course, touches upon a vast array of challenges to participation, decision-making, etc. which is not the topic of this paper). The futureoriented-nature of assessment activities becomes evident in formulations such as “SIA is much more than the act of predicting impacts in a regulatory context (the old traditional view); it is the process of managing the social aspects of development.” (cf. Vanclay & Esteves 2011: 3). This also shows a conceptual difference between impact assessment and foresight activities. The former seems to operate on a fixed or linear understanding of the future, relying on the identification of possible future impact by sound methodologies and reasonable participation and stakeholder involvement. What is being predicted is how a technology or research proposal will create change across the societal dimensions outlined above. Foresight, obviously, is not so much about prediction, but rather, as in the cases of the FP7-funded projects FORESEC2 and

2

http://www.foresight-platform.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/EFMN-Brief-no.-159_ForeSec.pdf, 10 November 2014.

THEME 1: FTA AND INNOVATION SYSTEMS

-5-

5th International Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA) - Engage today to shape tomorrow Brussels, 27-28 November 2014 FOCUS3, about an elaboration of “alternative futures” (FOCUS project website). These alternative futures are demonstrated in a set of scenarios which are derived from specific sets of variables in a system’s current setup (e.g. the security research landscape of the present). Those variables can act as drivers of change, and thereby contribute to the emergence of a context scenario against which a specific issue domain could be mapped, e.g. the future role of security research in a world that, during the course of the next 20 years, has integrated towards unipolarity vs. a world which will become even more fragmented and multipolar as today’s. The main focus, thus, could be seen on how binding the relation to the future is: what in impact assessment approaches tends to be seen as an outcome for the implementation of which the responsible body is liable, foresight as understood above would conceive just one impact scenario of research and technology development and strive to ascertain The core of impact assessment, then, would be to develop negative future scenarios in which unintended consequences of current research (proposal) have materialised – and to develop a social impact management plan guided by those future scenarios, but charged with preventing those scenarios from happening. Impacts could range from „simple“ freedom infringements by technology to much more subtle shifts in the fabric of society. As the literature review done in ASSERT reveals, typical, well-described and used practices of impact assessment think of identifying the future as the act of forecasting. Such forecasting is concerned with social changes as a result of policies, programmes, plans or projects. Again, such forecasting hints at attempts to recreate linear trajectories of future impacts that are assumed to represent an exclusive future (Prainsack & Ostermeier, 2013). The future, in terms of impacts, is something that is thought to be approached through predictions. The quality of the prediction is thought to be enriched using various tools: “SIA practitioners are typically required to forecast future impacts and/or future scenarios. The quality of predictions is enhanced by post-impact studies and follow-up, enabling evaluation of the interventions recommended by themselves and other SIA practitioners” (Aucamp, Woodborne, Perold, Bron, & Aucamp, 2011, p. 45) Predictions are what links proposed changes to projects and development plans to futures which are thought of as “desired futures” (Prainsack & Ostermeier, 2013, p. 10). Such a statement is necessarily reductionist, as it leaves out the complex and multidimensional issues of participation, power, and knowledge generation throughout the impact assessment and management phase. However, it could serve to clarify the position of future-oriented thinking in impact assessment. As the ASSERT-researchers stress, „Imagining and acting on the future is a core activity of any SIA. This future-orientation has the merit that it puts stakeholders of the R&D process in the position to develop long-term

3

http://www.focusproject.eu/web/focus/home;jsessionid=0FBE6DB8FC9859E56A95FFF7E0E90C63, 10 November 2014.

THEME 1: FTA AND INNOVATION SYSTEMS

-6-

5th International Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA) - Engage today to shape tomorrow Brussels, 27-28 November 2014 strategies and thereby to increase the sustainability and responsibility of the R&D process.“ (Prainsack & Ostermeier, 2013, p. 11) Another strand of existing approaches to assessing the future impact of research or technology is Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA). There exist several priorities of future-oriented thinking. One consists in the promotion of social and policy learning in order to “enhance understanding of future possible impacts of technology” (Prainsack & Ostermeier, 2013, p. 20. Being about a special approach to technology assessment, CTA aims at staging experiments in the heart of society „out there“, as opposed to testing its effects under clinical laboratory conditions. One aspect of this is to include the “anticipation of the future effects of technology into the promotion and introduction of technology” (Prainsack & Ostermeier, 2013, p. 20) – the authors add that it is to be achieved through more active participation of the actors involved in the design process of the technology. Arie Rip (2001), among the founders of CTA, holds a relativist view on future-orientation, suggesting that it is less about predicting all kinds of impacts of a technology as accurately, but that the process leading to such predictions is extremely important and deserves more attention: Dialogue and interaction of all the stakeholders and actors which are actively engaged in an assessment process. As the ASSERT researchers put it, “CTA’s approach to public engagement is participatory and dialogical. In other words, the emphasis of CTA does not lie in predicting impacts and facilitating technological development and deployment, but it lies in understanding them (as well as the dynamics which facilitate or impede their occurrence).” (Prainsack & Ostermeier, 2013, p. 21)

Results, discussion and implications Impact assessment approaches operate under the certainty that specific types of impacts will occur in the future, once a baseline of what is to be expected from a project has been established. What is uncertain, however, is the ways they can be “uncovered”. Hence, long discussion and self-reflective deliberations on what Social Impact Assessment actually is. ASSERT researchers summarise the hybrid nature of activities to be found under this umbrella term: „ [...]the literature and practice of SIA is [sic!] influenced by contributions and insights from various disciplines and practical contexts, without sharing a common conceptual or methodological outlook. Besides the clear disadvantages of such a situation (difficulties of implementing common ‘best practice’ standards, or facilitating discussions about improving SIA methodologies when understandings of the main objectives of SIA vary), this also has advantages. SIA is carried out in a variety of different contexts: research, technology development and deployment, policy-making, implementation, evaluation, etc. These contexts have different needs and requirements. A conceptual and methodological toolbox whose elements can be customised to suit particular contexts, rather than focusing on establishing or maintaining internal coherence at the cost of applicability to a wide range of contexts, clearly has some benefits.“ (Prainsack & Ostermeier, 2013, p. 7) Impact assessment can be thought of a specific governance approach, similarly to the relatively new label of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). In order to deal with uncertainty or unpredictability as a project unfolds, a Social Impact Management Plan is being called for in or-

THEME 1: FTA AND INNOVATION SYSTEMS

-7-

5th International Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA) - Engage today to shape tomorrow Brussels, 27-28 November 2014 der to be able to accommodate changes. In general, the future does not appear as a set of alternative options or contexts. Once the impact has been “predicted”, it is all about the process of avoiding it and creating better solutions or reaching better design choices.

THEME 1: FTA AND INNOVATION SYSTEMS

-8-

5th International Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA) - Engage today to shape tomorrow Brussels, 27-28 November 2014 One of the results of ASSERT is a set of best practice principles, which, if observed, could spell a major upgrade for SIA in the field of security research. These principles pertain to the assessment of security research projects and can be found in ASSERT deliverable 1.4 (Ostermeier & Prainsack, 2014a): 

  



   

Clarify a project’s (often implicit) understanding of security; Clarify the types of security (environmental, health, national, energy security, etc.) the project addresses: which groups would benefit from enhanced security – who would be excluded? Clarify what kind of societal impacts could be relevant in the context of a particular project (e.g. benefits, harms, unintended consequences etc.) Findings from SIA should have the potential to adapt the project and R&D process: o This is probably the single most important principle for any mechanism of integrating SIA in the security research process. It is about the power the process should have. It is about ruling out specific futures as impact scenarios and therefore it is about bestowing SIA as a governance framework with sufficient power not only to alter a project’s objective, but, ultimately, decide on its suspension. Doubtless, power is the single most important question to clarify for any approaches wishing to embed future oriented assessment procedures (instead of having SIA as an add-on at the end of a project; Taking “participation” seriously: It is more than merely inform or consult relevant people or groups. It may be insufficient to only think of end-users as relevant stakeholders – involvement of wider groups of actors could be necessary (the public can be an important source of knowledge on societal impacts; Keep the administrative burden reasonable: The effort made (and the money spent) need to be tailored to specific projects – the ultimate aim is to achieve reflexivity); Think about transparency and the limitations of the SIA process: It should be openly stated which future impacts were addressed and what was not dealt with – SIA cannot draw a comprehensive impact picture; Clarify what purpose the knowledge produced in a SIA should serve; The SIA process should be kept very flexible in order to adapt to circumstances as a project unfolds.

Conclusions Embedding a forward-looking approach such as SIA in the context of security research requires not only a clear understanding of “the future”, it also has to rely on mechanisms endowed with sufficient power so they could to a reframing or even abandonment of the projects. SIA should take the form of a holistic governance framework, closely intertwined with research projects from as early on as possible. The concept and understanding of the future would need more clarification. Implicitly, it seems, assessment traditions seem to think of their relation to the future in term of certainty: speaking about predictions, forecasts, and anticipation. Yet certain, more than ever in today’s world, is not an option. Operating under conditions of uncertainty requires not only to rethink risk and resilience as an approach to surprises and the unknown unknowns or black swans: it also requires a better reflected role of the future (the zone where assessed impacts

THEME 1: FTA AND INNOVATION SYSTEMS

-9-

5th International Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA) - Engage today to shape tomorrow Brussels, 27-28 November 2014 “will” materialise) not under conditions of certainty, but rather as a set of alternative options that could be catered for in a comprehensive impact assessment management plan and process (Barnard-Wills et al., 2014). A role that also Vanclay & Esteves (2011) postulate for Social Impact Assessment: to think of the activity less as prediction and more of active management of identified (unintended) impacts.

THEME 1: FTA AND INNOVATION SYSTEMS

- 10 -

5th International Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA) - Engage today to shape tomorrow Brussels, 27-28 November 2014

References Aucamp, I. C., Woodborne, S., Perold, J. J., Bron, A., & Aucamp, S.-M. (2011). Looking beyond impact assessment to social sustainability. In F. Vanclay & A. M. Esteves (Eds.), New Directions in Social Impact Assessment. Conceptual and Methodological Advances (pp. 38–58). Cheltenham, Nothampton: Edward Elgar Publishing. Barnard-Wills, D., Wadhwa, K., & Wright, D. (2014). Societal Impact Assessment Manual and Toolkit. ASSERT deliverable 3.1. London. Retrieved from http://assert-project.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2013/04/D3-1-23-April-2014-Final.pdf Chandler, D. (2014). Resilience. The governance of complexity. London, New York: Routledge. Clarke, Roger (2009). Privacy impact assessment: Its origins and development, Computer Law & Security Review, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 123-135. Lentzos, F. & Rose, N., (2009). Governing insecurity: contingency planning, protection, resilience. Economy and Society, 38(2), pp.230–254. Ostermeier, L., & Prainsack, B. (2014a). Good practice in SIA - Final Report. ASSERT deliverable 1.4. Berlin, London. Retrieved from http://assert-project.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2013/04/ASSERT-D1.4-Final.pdf Ostermeier, L., & Prainsack, B. (2014b). Report on good practices of the exploration and assessment of the societal impact of research. ASSERT deliverable 1.3. Berlin. Retrieved from http://assert-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ASSERT_D1.3_fin.pdf Prainsack, B., & Ostermeier, L. (2013). Report on methodologies relevant to the assessment of societal impacts of security research. ASSERT deliverable 1.2. London. Retrieved from http://assert-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ASSERT_D1.2_KCL_final.pdf Rip, A. (2001). Assessing the impact of innovation: new developments in technology assessment, OECD Proceedings: Social Sciences and Innovation, Paris, OECD, pp. 197213. Vanclay, F. (2003). International Principles For Social Impact Assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21(1), 5–11. Vanclay, F & Esteves, A. M. (eds.) (2011). New Directions in Social Impact Assessment: Conceptual and Methodological Assumptions, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.

THEME 1: FTA AND INNOVATION SYSTEMS

- 11 -