Content

Linda Nierling, Maria Maia, Tanja Bratan, Technological or social drivers for a transformation towards an inclusive society? The role of Assistive Technologies for people with disabilities in:

Ralf Lindner, Michael Decker, Elisabeth Ehrensperger, Nils B. Heyen, Stephan Lingner, Constanze Scherz, Mahshid Sotoudeh (Ed.)

Gesellschaftliche Transformationen, page 381 - 394

Gegenstand oder Aufgabe der Technikfolgenabschätzung?

1. Edition 2021, ISBN print: 978-3-8487-6035-0, ISBN online: 978-3-7489-0155-6, https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748901556-381

Series: Gesellschaft - Technik - Umwelt, vol. 22

Bibliographic information
Linda Nierling, Maria Maia and Tanja Bratan Technological or social drivers for a transformation towards an inclusive society? The role of Assistive Technologies for people with disabilities Introduction A central goal of the European Union is the creation of inclusive, reflective and innovative societies. Despite the multitude of existing regulations and technologies that can promote such societies, the reality of inclusion is far from optimal. At an international level, in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (UNCRPD), the definition of people with disabilities1 was a major step towards the social model of disabilities. It represents a transition from an ‘object’ view to a ‘subject’ view on people with disabilities: The ‘problem’ for an equal participation of people with disabilities in society is not the impairment as such, but the barriers put up by the society. With regard to Assistive Technologies (ATs), the UNCRPD also plays a crucial role: It highlights the use and value of ATs to promote the inclusion of people with disabilities in different fields of society such as everyday life, education and the labour market. Until now, the convention has served as a driver for further activities at international as well as European levels, such as the Global Cooperation on Assistive Health Technology initiative 1 1 According to article 1 of the UNCRPD, people with disabilities are defined as ‘those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others’ (United Nations, 2006). This definition was also adopted in the European Disability Strategy (2010–2020) in 2010. (GATE)2 or the European Accessibility Act (EAA)3. The UNCRPD explicitly states that ATs can play an important role in assisting and enabling a person with a disability to overcome different types of barriers. Despite the high strategic importance given to ATs, their definition is still contested in the disability community: On the one hand, a formal and narrow understanding of ATs following the ISO 9999:2011 standard is applied,4 which classifies ATs as a distinct terminology. On the other hand, a broader perspective on ATs is proposed – considering them as mainstream technologies. Thus, they can be understood as aiding tools which can in principle used by everyone in need for assistance. This controversy gives a first hint of the complexity surrounding the sociotechnical arrangements of ATs. Our foresight study for the STOA Panel of the European Parliament (2016–2017)5 revealed that the role and involvement of ATs in achieving the overall goal of “inclusion” has to be reflected in a nuanced way (Nierling et al. 2018b). Our study focused on three different disabilities (blindness and visual impairment, deafness and hearing impairment 2 GATE is a World Health Organization (WHO) initiative that consists of a priority assistive product list of 50 items considered to be, ‘those products that are highly needed, an absolute necessity to maintain or improve and individual’s functioning and which need to be available at a price the community/state can afford’ (WHO 2016, p. 1). The GATE Initiative paradigm is to ‘improve access to assistive technology for everyone, everywhere’ (WHO 2016, p. 0). 3 The EEA aims to ‘contribute to improve the proper functioning of the internal market and remove and prevent barriers for the free movement of accessible products and services’ (EC 2015a, p. 2) created by divergent legislation. The general objectives of the initiative are to ‘improve the functioning of the internal market of specific accessible goods and services, while facilitating the work for industry and serving the needs of consumers, as well as to contribute to the goals of the Europe 2020 Strategy and the European Disability Strategy 2010–2020’ (EC 2015b, p. 5). By facilitating trade and increase competition, the EEA will ‘facilitate access by consumers with disabilities to a wider range of competitively priced accessible goods and services’ (EC 2015b, p. 5). 4 ISO 9999:2011 establishes a classification of assistive products, especially produced or generally available, for persons with a disability. 5 The project was funded by the Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA) of the European Parliament (2016/2017). It was conducted by The European Technology Assessment Group (ETAG) and coordinated by the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS) of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT). The Institute of Technology Assessment of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (ITA), the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI) and Responsible Technology (RT) were partners in the consortium. The aim of the project was to provide a foresight analysis on the future trends of ATs. This analysis covered the state of the art of ATs, their political framework in selected European countries as well as the needs and perceptions people with disabilities have on ATs. 382 Nierling, et al. and Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)) and identified the needs and opportunities towards ATs. As will be outlined in the article, there are a variety of helpful ATs – especially digital ones – however there are significant barriers to their integration into social contexts. Further, (national) political conditions, especially regulatory measures in place, have a far-reaching impact on the availability and usability of ATs (Nierling et al. 2018a). We therefore would like to highlight the difficulties and challenges of the social transformation underway. In the field of ATs, prerequisite conditions and political visions of a desirable transformation towards an inclusive society will be depicted. Firstly, empirical findings will be presented, highlighting the main trends in the financing and provision of ATs, directions of future technical developments and current role of ATs for social integration (chapter 2). On this basis, four narrative scenarios, envisioning different future pathways regarding the availability and use of ATs as well as their social embedding will be developed. It will be shown that depending on societal trends and political decisions in different fields – e.g. financing of ATs, strategies of technical innovation, societal context – further inclusion of people with disabilities will proceed along different paths (chapter 3). Finally, we will argue – based on our empirical findings and the scenarios – that neither technology nor political pathways on their own can foster the inclusion of people with disabilities. Rather, socio-technical transformations have to be actively shaped by all societal actors in order to foster such desired inclusive society (chapter 4). Needs, demands and challenges of ATs for a socio-technical transition Methods In this article, we draw on two empirical outcomes of our foresight study. Firstly, the results of two sets of qualitative expert interviews in the field of ATs and disabilities at European level; secondly, the collaborative development of future scenarios for guiding political governance (see chapter 3). The first set of interviews focused on the needs and perceptions of people with disabilities on ATs (practical experiences with ATs, specific needs in relevant societal fields, perceptions and attitudes towards ATs, present and future challenges). Experts from European disability organisations European Union of the Deaf (EUD), European Union of the Blind (EUB), Autism Europe as well as cross-European user groups (e.g. European Association of Service Providers for Persons with Disabilities (EASPD)) were interviewed. The second set of interviews focused on complementary measures of the 2 2.1 Technological or social drivers for a transformation towards an inclusive society? 383 public sector in order to improve the inclusion of people with disabilities. It encompassed experiences with political measures on ATs for people, opinions on further political measures following the UNCRPD, and addressed current and future political developments. The interviewees included representatives from relevant stakeholder groups: In addition to European disability organisations (see above), experts from medicine, research, industry, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and International Labour Organisation (ILO) were interviewed.6 Accessibility The definition of what constitutes an AT is very much debated in the community around ATs and disability (see chapter 1). However, these different positions are central to understanding access to ATs. There are two opposite approaches: ATs are either classified as medical devices or as mainstream products. The arguments for classifying ATs as medical devices are reimbursement by the healthcare system and assessment and evaluation procedures ensuring quality control. Arguments against this classification are high regulatory efforts which increase costs and slow down the innovation process. In turn, the advantage of understanding ATs as mainstream devices is that products can be developed more quickly and can be specifically adapted to special needs. In the field of ASD for example, there is a boom in technology development, especially apps for tablets, sometimes even developed by relatives. In addition, mainstream products are less expensive. The disadvantages however are issues of quality control, and questions concerning reimbursement and therefore accessibility. An important precondition for access relies on the fact that the devices should follow the principles of universal design, which still – despite several approaches – cannot be taken for granted. However, the appropriate design and development of ATs with regard to the sound involvement of user needs (WHO 2016, p. 4) is crucial, or as one of our experts put it: “Bad design of ATs disables, good design of ATs enables” (EUD 1, 71). Although the principle of universal design is 2.2 6 In total, 14 interviews were conducted between May and August 2016. The interviews had an average duration of 60 minutes and were all recorded and transcribed. The written content of the interviews was coded with software support (MAXQDA 11) and then analysed according the rules of qualitative content analysis (Mayring 2000). The direct quotes provided in the text refer to the interview transcriptions. The code is composed of the organisation, the number of the interview set and the line of the transcription (e.g. WHO 1, 44). The authors can be contacted for further details on the research process. 384 Nierling, et al. anchored in the UNCRPD, unfortunately, there is still a lack of user involvement which in turn causes the non-use of certain devices and technologies. Regarding the provision of ATs, there is currently a “twin-track-approach” (ILO, 55) which includes both approaches: the need for specialised technologies serving the special needs of people with disabilities on the one hand; and on the other hand the need for mainstream devices following a universal design approach or being at least compatible with specialised devices. Another key factor to the access to ATs is the affordability of the devices: “Some of these technologies are rather expensive, so it can be a barrier to obtain them because specifically if you don’t have a job, you don’t have too much income, you cannot pay for the assistive technology which in turn affects… you cannot have a job, so it’s a circle.” (ILUNION, p. 79). The affordability is crucial for equal access to ATs, serving as a precondition for social equality. What is however often still neglected is that the “cost” of a technology is not only the purchase price but can include further service costs such as training in usage or maintenance, e.g. batteries in the case of hearing devices. Technology design and development When it comes to future technological innovations, the hopes of people with disabilities vary, depending on their type of disability and their personal circumstances. However, technophobia was certainly not a common theme we encountered in the interviews: “But it’s true that people with disabilities are not afraid of technology and even embracing the possibilities that are coming” (EBU 1, 36). A central topic is independence in mobility and navigation. This is still regarded as “one of the biggest challenges” (EBU 1, 74) from the perspective of people with blindness or visual impairments but is also a topic for people with ASD. The experts see opportunities in “automatic travel” (Autism 1 Europe 53) or autonomous cars promising autonomy to move and travel. Another field are technologies aiming to replace malfunctioning organs, such as the bionic eye. However, the development of such artificial organs is only a first step. The more complex problems to be solved lay within the functionality of the human body, where many-layered learning and adaptation processes have to take place. So, for a child, the learning process towards the full ability to see (measuring distances, identifying colours, assess moving targets) takes around seven years. 2.3 Technological or social drivers for a transformation towards an inclusive society? 385 Last but not least, the progress in IT-based facial recognition is highlighted. Such a technology is welcomed on the one hand from persons with blindness or the visually impaired, who could take advantage from the description of what or who can be seen in a picture. On the other hand, people with ASD could use applications which recognise facial expressions e.g. supporting autistic children in school. For the above applications, a mainstream use is mentioned, too. However, concerns related to privacy issues are also raised in broader societal debates. Thus, potential benefits of emerging technologies for specific groups must be carefully balanced with their flipsides for other user groups. Role of ATs for social integration On an overall level, the societal participation of people with disabilities can be assessed by their integration into three different fields: independent living, education and employment, or in the words of the WHO: ATs can enable people to “live healthy, productive, independent and dignified lives” to “participate in education, the labour market and civic life (WHO 2016, p. 1). Also, in our results, ATs are seen to give support to gain “independence” in social life: “Being able to integrate in society, do what you need to do, independently [...] it’s what assistive technologies bring us, independence” (EBU 1, 44). Independent living There are different needs according to the type of the disability: In the case of ASD, these needs mainly concern communication, either in supporting the expression of language or being socially active, or in other words, to use technology “to overcome social barriers” (Autism Europe 2, 77). Using augmentative and alternative ways of communication, supported by IT play a central role in this respect, such as the substitution of verbal communication by non-verbal cues, e.g. replacing words by symbols or translating symbols into voice. Here, digital devices play a supportive role for people with disabilities: “You can see people with autism without verbal language, intellectual disabilities able to use tablets and smartphones very easily. They are very comfortable with technologies in spite of being intellectually disabled because to touch, to use images, to use symbols… it is adapted to our cognitive style” (Autism Europe 1, 77). However, despite technical opportunities, as communication is a two-sided process, people with ASD still face several barriers in communication, e.g. 2.4 2.4.1 386 Nierling, et al. in public services as the knowledge about the existence and use of such technologies is lacking. In the case of blindness, a strong need is seen in the accessibility of everyday technologies. These encompass not only “tangible” technologies such as washing machines with an accessible user interface but also “virtual” internet applications. Especially with regard to social media based on pictures, e.g. Instagram or Facebook, there are still no tools for the “virtual integration” of persons with blindness, although there have been recent developments towards this. Education In the field of education, ATs have been used to integrate pupils with disabilities in the regular educational system for many years. Technological support is regarded as crucial: “So it helps integrating in normal education indeed: Before we had assistive technologies, we had schools for the blind” (EBU 1, 50). However, devices are very specific and have to be developed, applied and implemented according to the type of disability. Also, progress with access to information on the internet is highlighted, which is regarded as a big advantage for people with blindness or visually impaired. For pupils with ASD, tablets with specific apps play a central role in schools. The experts emphasised furthermore that the level of education is crucial, also for the use of technologies to lead an independent life as a good educational background provides an important basis for independently using mainstream devices. “I believe that it’s much more efficient for people to have a good education and where they can learn how to use all the goods from the available technologies […] than to have to buy separate devices which really cost a lot of money” (EBU 2, 120). Employment The relevance of ATs is also of high relevance in the field of employment, as technical solutions in the workplace have the potential to “make the labour market more disability friendly” (EASPD, 33). Here, technological solutions differ across the three disabilities. While people with visual impairments need access to ICT applications such as screen readers or software for voice control, persons who are deaf or hard of hearing benefit from applications such as “sign language interpreter over the net” (EUD 2, 3785). People with ASD can use technology-based training for social interaction in the workplace, which can be delivered e.g. by augmented reality applied in video games, simulating professional tasks as well as critical social situations at the workplace. 2.4.2 2.4.3 Technological or social drivers for a transformation towards an inclusive society? 387 However, although there is a range of technical support devices as well as software available, technologies still play a minor role when it comes to the field of employment. Rather, major “attitudinal barriers” (ILO, 27) towards people with disabilities are preventing their inclusion, often already at the stage of recruitment. All in all, the experts ask for a better knowledge base easily accessible for companies on how to employ people with a disability, coupled with further legislative steps to strengthen elements which are already addressed in the UNCRPD, in particular Article 2 (reasonable accommodation). All in all, a picture of a multitude of opportunities related to the inclusion of people with disabilities through ATs emerges. However, a socio-technical perspective is crucial for exploiting their full potential. This concerns the design, development and implementation process as well as the successful use of ATs in its different social contexts. Future scenarios: towards a socio-technical transformation? Scenarios are consistent and plausible images of the future (Schirrmeister/ Warnke 2013; Schwartz 1991; van der Heijden 1997). They are mental models of different possible futures that enable reflection on upcoming opportunities and risks. Scenarios can support robust policy design and decisionmaking. Here four explorative scenarios regarding the situation of people with disabilities and the role of ATs in 2050 are presented7. Their purpose is to provide a broad European picture on the potential attitudes towards disability and technical innovations, the availability of technical and human support and other important factors for the use and non-use of ATs, which can then reveal the developments that need to be monitored in order to adapt political strategies at a European level. The scenarios are designed to contain the most important insights from our study. During their develop- 3 7 The scenarios were developed in an iterative process within the project context. Fed by the key findings from the empirical research, a “360º envisioning” workshop took place at the European Parliament in January 2017. The aim of the event was to identify cross-cutting (un)certainties, weak signals as well as future signs, namely long-term impacts and unintended side-effects of ATs. The main social concerns raised were assessed along the STEEPED framework (social, technological, economic, environmental, political/legal, ethical and demographic aspects) (van Woensel/Vrscaj 2015), by the project team, external experts as well as the STOA unit. This event was followed up by a scenario-building workshop of the project consortium and the STOA unit where four distinct scenarios were developed in a brainstorming exercise. The four scenarios drafts were then further refined and finalised in follow-up meetings. 388 Nierling, et al. ment, two key influencing factors emerged (see Figure 1). First, the openness of society towards the “other”, i.e. people who do not conform to what is considered "normal", and second the extent of technical advances and their social embedding. The four scenarios along the axes of society and technology (Nierling et al. 2018b, p. 94) Social embedding  of technology Technology fixes  only Inclusive  society Prejudiced  society Mid‐tech solutions in  an inclusive society High‐tech reliance in  an individualistic  society Privileged use of  technology in a  divided society Technological fixes in  a prejudiced society Source: Author's own compilation Scenario one: Mid-tech solutions in an inclusive society European societies have overcome tendencies towards marginalising minorities. They have matured into being fully inclusive, to the extent that everyone is viewed as being on a spectrum of ability, taking on different positions Figure 1: 3.1 Technological or social drivers for a transformation towards an inclusive society? 389 throughout life. Individuals, including people with disabilities, have become more valued for their skills and experience and far-reaching measures are in place to accommodate their needs. This includes both human and technical support as well as a favourable regulative framework. Lowand mid-tech ATs are widely used to enable inclusion and are available through the welfare system. Many devices are now tailor-made according the individual measurements, characteristics and needs of the user. As a result, the market for ATs has increased and costs of many ATs have fallen. This applies mainly to mid-tech solutions such as augmented reality travel devices, with advanced high-tech solutions (e.g. personal robots) only being available through the welfare system in exceptional circumstances. The need to make ATs available to an increasing number of people means that priority is given to affordable devices. Scenario two: Technological fixes in a prejudiced society European societies have become increasingly inwards-focused and intolerant of people not conforming to a “norm”. The welfare system has been drastically reduced. Foetal screening detects any genetic and other defects, drastically reducing the number of new-borns with disabilities. The majority of existing disabilities with a known genetic origin have been cured through genome editing, and many disabilities with a degenerative origin can now be treated. Human enhancement is available to assist with cognitive, sensory or motor functions. As a result of these “fixes” and preventative measures, there is high social and economic pressure to "repair" disabilities and there is little societal acceptance for living with a disability. The number of people requiring ATs has strongly declined. However, not everyone can afford the often-costly technologies, and “fixes” are not available for every disability. There is little funding for social, healthcare and other support, including funding for non-curative solutions. Inclusion of people with disabilities in society through ATs therefore is strongly dependent on their financial status. A small number of NGOs is trying to cover the most serious shortfalls of the welfare system. Scenario three: Intensive high-tech reliance in an individualistic society The prevalence of people with disabilities has increased through population ageing. While gene therapy is banned, self-enhancement to counter real or perceived intellectual, physical or social shortcomings is common. Disabilities are often expected to be “fixed”. The availability of effective ATs, including high-tech solutions, as well as good welfare coverage, means that people 3.2 3.3 390 Nierling, et al. with disabilities have good access to ATs. There is an expectation that these solutions are used and there is an implied hierarchy of ATs over human assistance. Especially for older people with multiple disabilities and who are not able or not willing to use ATs, this can increase social isolation. On the positive side, ATs have largely lost their stigma because of their association with self-enhancement through technology. People with disabilities are sometimes even seen as being at the forefront of technological progress. There is a high level of convergence between the mainstream market and the market for ATs, leading to further innovations. The networked nature of ATs causes a heavy reliance on the power and ICT infrastructure and there have been incidents of cyber-crime involving ATs. Scenario four: Privileged use of technology in a divided society European societies have become socially and economically divided into three socio-economic groups: The elite, which is affluent and does not contribute to a national welfare system; the middle class, which is the main contributor and beneficiary of the welfare system; and the lower class, which has failed to secure access to the welfare system. Societal division is reflected in the way disability is viewed. While one group believes in a society based on competition and performance and sees few opportunities for people with disabilities, the other believes in opportunities for all. Access to ATs is strongly affected by this paradigm and a distinction can be made between the technology-privileged and the technology-poor. The elite is able to acquire the most high-tech ATs and can also afford extensive human support, allowing for personalised solutions to cope with disability. The technology-privileged middle-class benefits from some ATs being adopted early by the elite but in general only has access to more established solutions. The lower class is mainly technology-poor, having access to only basic ATs and little influence on the ATs market. They rely more heavily on family support and NGOs. These four different scenarios show that there are different future paths with regard to ATs. Depending on societal trends and political decisions in different fields, the further inclusion of people with disabilities with the support of ATs proceeds along different paths. We can see that three levels are crucial when addressing the question of inclusion of people with disabilities. Firstly, how is access to ATs regulated and to what extent are they available via the welfare system? While two of the scenarios present a future with widespread availability of affordable devices and coverage by the healthcare system (scenario 1 and 3), two others portray a future with costly devices where access strongly depends on personal income (scenarios 2 and 4). Secondly, what is the strategic horizon for technology development? Does it 3.4 Technological or social drivers for a transformation towards an inclusive society? 391 lean towards technological “fixes” based on exclusive high-tech innovations (scenario 2 and 3) affordable only for the privileged? Are the mid-tech devices adapted to personal needs which can serve many (scenario 1), or will there be even a social divide on the type of technical devices (scenario 4)? Last but not least, how is the societal climate? Is it a fully inclusive society (scenario 1), intolerant (scenario 2) or with high social inequality (scenario 3)? In order to assess the role ATs can play for the inclusion of people with disabilities, all three factors will play an important role in the socio-technical transformation towards a “good” inclusion of people with disabilities. Socio-technical strategies for an inclusive society The qualitative findings as well as the outline of four different possible futures show manifold facets of the role of ATs in a socio-technical transformation towards a successful inclusion of people with disabilities. Despite various efforts, this societal inclusion has remained a challenge. As a conclusion we would therefore like to highlight three areas which are of high priority to achieve positive change by implementing socio-technical strategies for an inclusive society. Regarding the accessibility of technologies, further measures are needed in order to fully exploit the potential that ATs can provide to people with disabilities. Fields of relevance here are a heightened awareness concerning the potential support of ATs for stakeholders such as employers and educators, but also in fields like public transport, ICT accessibility, etc. Raising awareness by people without disabilities who occupy “gate-keeping” positions, seems to be crucial for furthering the social embedding of ATs. Concerning the further development of technologies in this field, we would like to emphasis the wide range of possible technological options – ranging from socio-technical arrangements for mobility to single technical solutions or “fixes”, like the bionic eye. What appears most important is that investments in future research in this area should consider social and technological challenges jointly. Thus, the research in this field should be more strongly connected to “social” circumstances of the devices, e.g. by overcoming barriers in employment. Lastly, it should be recalled that diversity is hugely valuable for our society. ATs can play an important role in enabling such diversity. Its benefits can only be created and reaped jointly by developing and improving current social-technical strategies, aiming to increase awareness and promote knowledge for a supportive and friendly social environment towards people with disabilities. The involvement of people with disabilities in such a process at 4 392 Nierling, et al. different stages and in different contexts is crucial for reaching a desirable socio-technical transformation, perhaps ideally in a “mid-tech solutions in an inclusive society” future. Literature European Commission (2015a): Directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States as regards the accessibility requirements for products and services. Brussels European Commission (2015b): Impact Assessment on the Proposal for a Directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States as regards the accessibility requirements for products and services. Brussels Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), Art. 20. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/ fqs/article/view/1089/2386 [aufgesucht am 26.03.2019] Nierling, L. et al. (2018a) Assistive technologies for people with disabilities. Part I: Regulatory, health and demographic aspects. Brussels Nierling, L. et al. (2018b) Assistive technologies for people with disabilities. Part III: Perspectives, needs and expectations. Brussels Schirrmeister, E.; Warnke, P. (2013): Envisioning structural transformation – lessons from a foresight project on the future of innovation. In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80, pp. 453–466 Schwartz, P. (1991): The art of the long view. New York, NY UN – United Nations (2006): Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New York NY van der Heijden, K. (1997): Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation. New York, NY van Woensel, L.; Vrscaj, D. (2015): Towards Scientific Foresight in the European Parliament. Brussels WHO – World Health Organization (2016): Priority Assistive Products List. Geneva Technological or social drivers for a transformation towards an inclusive society? 393

Chapter Preview

References

Abstract

The intensively discussed term transformation refers to the comprehensive restructuring of processes and behaviour in order to address societal challenges posed by far-reaching changes in energy, transport, production and agricultural systems. Since such complex transformations are always accompanied by uncertainties about their effects and consequences, the contributions in this volume critically examine the opportunities and risks involved in these processes and discuss the possibilities and limits of technology assessment in the context of societal transformations. The volume brings together the academic contributions to the 8th international conference of the Technology Assessment Network, which took place in Karlsruhe from 7th to 8th November 2018. With contributions by Fabian Adelt, Marius Albiez, Annika Arnold, Walaa Bashary, Anja Bauer, Richard Beecroft, Alexander Bogner, Stefan Böschen, Tanja Bratan, Simone Colombo, Michael Decker, Rico Defila, Antonietta Di Giulio, Marion Dreyer, Elisabeth Ehrensperger, Philipp Ellett, Lorenz Erdmann, Ali Abdelshafy Ezzat, Erik Fisher, Michael Friedewald, Livia Fritz, Daniela Fuchs, Maryegli Fuss, Armin Grunwald, Niklas Gudowsky, Kristin Hagen, Simeon Hassemer, Alexandra Hausstein, Nils B. Heyen, Diego Iván Hidalgo Rodriguez, Peter Hocke, Florian Hoffmann, Sebastian Hoffmann, Michael Jonas, Dorothee Keppler, Jeanette Klink-Lehmann, Hannah Kosow, Cordula Kropp, Sophie Kuppler, Bastian Lange, Wolfgang Liebert, Ralf Lindner, Stephan Lingner, Andreas Lösch, Maria Maia, Martin Nicholas, Melanie Mbah, Franziska Meinherz, Rolf Meyer, Johanna Myrzik, Lisa Nabitz, Linda Nierling, Oliver Parodi, Witold-Roger Poganietz, Carmen Priefer, Filippo Reale, Ernst Dieter Rossmann, André Schaffrin, Dirk Scheer, Constanze Scherz, Jan Cornelius Schmidt, Maike Schmidt, Flurina Schneider, Andreas Seebacher, Astrid Segert, Mahshid Sotoudeh, Helge Torgersen, Ulrich Ufer, Karsten Weber, Matthias Weber and Johannes Weyer.

Zusammenfassung

Der intensiv diskutierte Begriff Transformation bezeichnet den umfassenden Umbau gesellschaftlicher Strukturen, um gesellschaftliche Herausforderungen durch tiefgreifende Veränderungen der Energie-, Verkehrs-, Produktions- und Agrarsysteme zu adressieren. Da solch komplexe Transformationen stets mit Unsicherheiten über Effekte und Folgen einhergehen, setzen sich die Beiträge kritisch mit den Chancen und Risiken dieser Prozesse auseinander und diskutieren Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Technikfolgenabschätzung im Kontext gesellschaftlicher Transformationsprozesse. Der Band versammelt die wissenschaftlichen Beiträge der 8. internationalen Konferenz des Netzwerks Technikfolgenabschätzung, die vom 7. bis 8. November 2018 in Karlsruhe stattfand. Mit Beiträgen von Fabian Adelt, Marius Albiez, Annika Arnold, Walaa Bashary, Anja Bauer, Richard Beecroft, Alexander Bogner, Stefan Böschen, Tanja Bratan, Simone Colombo, Michael Decker, Rico Defila, Antonietta Di Giulio, Marion Dreyer, Elisabeth Ehrensperger, Philipp Ellett, Lorenz Erdmann, Ali Abdelshafy Ezzat, Erik Fisher, Michael Friedewald, Livia Fritz, Daniela Fuchs, Maryegli Fuss, Armin Grunwald, Niklas Gudowsky, Kristin Hagen, Simeon Hassemer, Alexandra Hausstein, Nils B. Heyen, Diego Iván Hidalgo Rodriguez, Peter Hocke, Florian Hoffmann, Sebastian Hoffmann, Michael Jonas, Dorothee Keppler, Jeanette Klink-Lehmann, Hannah Kosow, Cordula Kropp, Sophie Kuppler, Bastian Lange, Wolfgang Liebert, Ralf Lindner, Stephan Lingner, Andreas Lösch, Maria Maia, Martin Nicholas, Melanie Mbah, Franziska Meinherz, Rolf Meyer, Johanna Myrzik, Lisa Nabitz, Linda Nierling, Oliver Parodi, Witold-Roger Poganietz, Carmen Priefer, Filippo Reale, Ernst Dieter Rossmann, André Schaffrin, Dirk Scheer, Constanze Scherz, Jan Cornelius Schmidt, Maike Schmidt, Flurina Schneider, Andreas Seebacher, Astrid Segert, Mahshid Sotoudeh, Helge Torgersen, Ulrich Ufer, Karsten Weber, Matthias Weber und Johannes Weyer.