Rider W. Foley

Illustrating Anticipatory Life Cycle Assessment for Emerging Photovoltaic Technologies

Current research policy and strategy documents recommend applying life cycle assessment (LCA) early in research and development (R&D) to guide emerging technologies toward decreased environmental burden. However, existing LCA practices are ill-suited to support these recommendations. Barriers related to data availability, rapid technology change, and isolation of environmental from technical research inhibit application of LCA to developing technologies. Overcoming these challenges requires methodological advances that help identify environmental opportunities prior to large R&D investments. Such an anticipatory approach to LCA requires synthesis of social, environmental, and technical knowledge beyond the capabilities of current practices. This paper introduces a novel framework for anticipatory LCA that incorporates technology forecasting, risk research, social engagement, and comparative impact assessment, then applies this framework to photovoltaic (PV) technologies. These examples illustrate the potential for anticipatory LCA to prioritize research questions and help guide environmentally responsible innovation of emerging technologies.

Anticipatory life-cycle assessment for responsible research and innovation

The goal of guiding innovation toward beneficial social and environmental outcomes – referred to in the growing literature as responsible research and innovation (RRI) – is intuitively worthwhile but lacks practicable tools for implementation. One potentially useful tool is life-cycle assessment (LCA), which is a comprehensive framework used to evaluate the environmental impacts of products, processes, and technologies. However, LCA ineffectively promotes RRI for at least two reasons: (1) Codified approaches to LCA are largely retrospective, relying heavily on data collected from mature industries with existing supply chains and (2) LCA underemphasizes the importance of stakeholder engagement to inform critical modeling decisions which diminishes the social credibility and relevance of results. LCA researchers have made piecemeal advances that address these shortcomings, yet there is no consensus regarding how to advance LCA to support RRI of emerging technologies. This paper advocates for development of ...

Nanotechnology for sustainability: what does nanotechnology offer to address complex sustainability problems?

Nanotechnology is widely associated with the promise of positively contributing to sustainability. However, this view often focuses on end-of-pipe applications, for instance, for water purification or energy efficiency, and relies on a narrow concept of sustainability. Approaching sustainability problems and solution options from a comprehensive and systemic perspective instead may yield quite different conclusions about the contribution of nanotechnology to sustainability. This study conceptualizes sustainability problems as complex constellations with several potential intervention points and amenable to different solution options. The study presents results from interdisciplinary workshops and literature reviews that appraise the contribution of the selected nanotechnologies to mitigate such problems. The study focuses exemplarily on the urban context to make the appraisals tangible and relevant. The solution potential of nanotechnology is explored not only for well-known urban sustainability problems such as water contamination and energy use but also for less obvious ones such as childhood obesity. Results indicate not only potentials but also limitations of nanotechnology’s contribution to sustainability and can inform anticipatory governance of nanotechnology in general, and in the urban context in particular.

Ideal and reality of multi-stakeholder collaboration on sustainability problems: a case study on a large-scale industrial contamination in Phoenix, Arizona

Multi-stakeholder collaboration among industry, government, the public, and researchers is widely acknowledged as a critical success factor for resolving sustainability problems. Proponents argue that pooling capacities and resources is necessary to cope with such wicked problems. Despite good intentions and attempts to follow best practices, the reality of multi-stakeholder collaboration is often flawed. We demonstrate this mismatch between the ideal and reality with a case study of a multi-stakeholder collaboration centered on a large urban area affected by industrial contamination (superfund site) in Phoenix, Arizona. The study indicates deficits in the collaborative process due to the lack of trust, power asymmetry, and other factors. Efforts have recently been undertaken to enhance the multi-stakeholder collaboration through novel engagement approaches. The study uses insights from stakeholder engagement approaches to demonstrate how the quality of multi-stakeholder collaboration on sustainability problems could be appraised and how common obstacles to such collaboration could be overcome, while reflecting on the role of transdisciplinary research in this process.

Towards an alignment of activities, aspirations and stakeholders for responsible innovation

ABSTRACTGovernance of technological innovation remains challenged by the dilemma of control. Two divergent responses seek to meet this challenge. The first regulates negative impacts once evidence is gathered. The second precludes dissemination of technologies until enough is known about outcomes. Recognizing limitations of each response, scholars are increasingly exploring responsible innovation (RI), a concept that revolves around dimensions of anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion, and responsiveness. At present, current conceptualizations of RI do not address questions of “to what end?” or “how to innovate responsibly?” This paper informs RI with sustainability principles and proposes an alignment of activities, aspirations, and stakeholders with previously defined dimensions for RI. A case study on nanotechnology innovation illustrates the applicability of this framework for assessing innovation governance. The proffered idea of alignment, buttressed by insights from sustainability and adaptive manage...

Building Sustainability Literacy Among Preservice Teachers: An Initial Evaluation of a Sustainability Course Designed for K-8 Educators

In the wake of colleges and universities being criticized for inadequately preparing their students for the grand challenges of the twenty-first-century, the New American University proposes to prepare future leaders to address these challenges and contribute to a more sustainable way of life. One of the major mechanisms to enact lasting and impactful change toward achieving this goal is educating future teachers in sustainability literacy. This chapter describes a newly required hybrid course at Arizona State University titled Sustainability Science for Teachers. The course, launched in the K-8th grade teacher education program in fall 2012, imparts sustainability lessons in meaningful ways by integrating technology and digital storytelling with in-class activities. The goal of the course is to develop sustainability literacy among preservice teachers by providing engaging content-knowledge and enabling them to employ these concepts in their future classrooms. Analyzing pre- and post-tests that capture preservice teachers’ conceptual maps along with preservice teacher feedback provides data for an initial evaluation of this new course. This chapter examines the learning outcomes and lessons learned from creating and implementing a course focused on sustainability targeted to preservice teachers.

Broken promises and breaking ground for responsible innovation – intervention research to transform business-as-usual in nanotechnology innovation

ABSTRACT Despite repeated calls for novel forms of innovation and governance, including responsible innovation, anticipatory governance, and sustainability-oriented governance, nanotechnology continues to be mainly innovated following conventional schemes – with persistent shortcomings and negative impacts. Shifting these schemes towards sustainable and responsible innovation and fully utilising the benefits of sustainable nanotechnologies will necessitate difficult changes across all stages of and actors in the innovation process. We outline an agenda for intervention research in support of such changes. The article synthesises insights from four years of research on nanotechnology innovation, anticipatory governance, and sustainability in urban environments, with a focus on Phoenix, Arizona.

An operationalized post-normal science framework for assisting in the development of complex science policy solutions: the case of nanotechnology governance

Scientists, engineers, and policy analysts commonly suggest governance regimes for technology to maximize societal benefits and minimize negative societal and environmental impacts of innovation processes. Yet innovation is a complex socio-technical process that does not respond predictably to modification. Our human propensity to exclude complexity when attempting to manage systems often results in insufficient, one-dimensional solutions. The tendency to exclude complexity (1) reinforces itself by diminishing experience and capacity in the design of simple solutions to complex problems, and (2) leads to solutions that do not address the identified problem. To address the question of how to avoid a complexity-exclusion trap, this article operationalizes a post-normal science framework to assist in the enhancement or design of science policy proposals. A literature review of technological fixes, policy panaceas, and knowledge-to-action gaps is conducted to survey examples of post-normal science frameworks. Next, an operational framework is used to assess the case of a proposed international nanotechnology advisory board. The framework reveals that the board addresses a slice of the broader, more complex problem of nanotechnology governance. We argue that while the formation of an international advisory board is not problematic in-and-of-itself, it is symptomatic of and plays into a complexity-exclusion trap. We offer researchers, policy analysts, and decision-makers three recommendations that incorporate a more appropriate level of complexity into governance proposals.

Acquisition of T-shaped expertise: an exploratory study

Abstract Disciplinary boundaries become increasingly unclear when grappling with “wicked problems,” which present a complex set of policy, cultural, technological, and scientific dimensions. “T-shaped” professionals, i.e. individuals with a depth and breadth of expertise, are being called upon to play a critical role in complex problem-solving. This paper unpacks the notion of the “T-shaped expert” and seeks to situate it within the broader academic literature on expertise, integration, and developmental learning. A component of this project includes an exploratory study, which is aimed at evaluating the emergent attributes of T-shaped expertise in two different educational programs completed between January and May in 2015. The two programs build disciplinary knowledge in science, technology engineering, and mathematics fields at the core (vertical dimension), while expanding the students’ awareness and comprehension of other expertise (horizontal dimension). The courses introduced science and engineering students to case study topics focusing around complex human-technological-ecological systems in a nanotechnology and society course; and the governance of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in a science, technology, and society course. We analyze pre- and post-test data from this pilot project before presenting findings that pertain to student learning, as well as variants in the methodology and reflect on the utility (and limitations) of the selected methodology for evaluating expertise as it evolves over time. The paper closes with a discussion of a theory of acquisition with implications for delineating early attributes and characteristics of T-shaped expertise.

Bridgework ahead! Innovation ecosystems vis-à-vis responsible innovation

Public funding agencies largely support academic research as an effort to stimulate future product commercialization and foster broader societal benefits. Yet, translating research nurtured in academic settings into such outcomes is complex and demands functional interactions between government, academic, and industry, i.e., “triple helix,” organizations within an innovation ecosystem. This article argues that in the spirit of responsible innovation, research funding should build bridges that extend beyond the triple helix stakeholders to connect to peripheral organizations. To support that argument, evidence from agent network analysis gathered from two case studies reveals strong and weak connections, as well as gaps within innovation ecosystems in Switzerland and metropolitan Phoenix, USA. This article offers insights on how innovation ecosystems are aligned or misaligned with responsible innovation.