IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v84y2014icp93-100.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Co-evolutionary scenarios for creative prototyping of future robot systems for civil protection

Author

Listed:
  • Carlsen, Henrik
  • Johansson, Linda
  • Wikman-Svahn, Per
  • Dreborg, Karl Henrik

Abstract

Co-evolutionary scenarios are used for creative prototyping with the purpose of assessing potential implications of future autonomous robot systems on civil protection. The methodology is based on a co-evolutionary scenario approach and the development of different evolutionary paths. Opportunities, threats and ethical aspects in connection with the introduction of robotics in the domestic security and safety sector are identified using an iterative participatory workshop methodology. Three creative prototypes of robotic systems are described: “RoboMall”, “RoboButler” and “SnakeSquad”. The debate in society that might follow the introduction of these three robot systems and society's response to the experienced ethical problems and opportunities are discussed in the context of two scenarios of different future societies.

Suggested Citation

  • Carlsen, Henrik & Johansson, Linda & Wikman-Svahn, Per & Dreborg, Karl Henrik, 2014. "Co-evolutionary scenarios for creative prototyping of future robot systems for civil protection," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 93-100.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:84:y:2014:i:c:p:93-100
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.07.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162513001686
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.07.016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. von Hippel, Eric, 1976. "The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 212-239, July.
    2. Carlsen, H. & Dreborg, K.H. & Godman, M. & Hansson, S.O. & Johansson, L. & Wikman-Svahn, P., 2010. "Assessing socially disruptive technological change," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 209-218.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Truffer, Bernhard & Schippl, Jens & Fleischer, Torsten, 2017. "Decentering technology in technology assessment: prospects for socio-technical transitions in electric mobility in Germany," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 34-48.
    2. Kwon, Heeyeul & Kim, Jieun & Park, Yongtae, 2017. "Applying LSA text mining technique in envisioning social impacts of emerging technologies: The case of drone technology," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 60, pages 15-28.
    3. Dufva, Mikko & Ahlqvist, Toni, 2015. "Knowledge creation dynamics in foresight: A knowledge typology and exploratory method to analyse foresight workshops," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 251-268.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Isaksson, Olov H.D. & Simeth, Markus & Seifert, Ralf W., 2016. "Knowledge spillovers in the supply chain: Evidence from the high tech sectors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 699-706.
    2. Thomas Pircher & Conny J. M. Almekinders, 2021. "Making sense of farmers’ demand for seed of root, tuber and banana crops: a systematic review of methods," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 13(5), pages 1285-1301, October.
    3. Habicht, Hagen & Oliveira, Pedro & Shcherbatiuk, Viktoriia, 2012. "User Innovators: When Patients Set Out to Help Themselves and End Up Helping Many," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 66(3), pages 277-295.
    4. Pamela D. Morrison & John H. Roberts & Eric von Hippel, 2000. "Determinants of User Innovation and Innovation Sharing in a Local Market," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(12), pages 1513-1527, December.
    5. Cristiano, Antonelli & Scellato, Giuseppe, 2007. "Complexity and Innovation: Social Interactions and Firm Level Total Factor Productivity," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 200709, University of Turin.
    6. Letty, Brigid & Shezi, Zanele & Mudhara, Maxwell, 2012. "An exploration of agricultural grassroots innovation in South Africa and implications for innovation indicator development," MERIT Working Papers 2012-023, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    7. Hötte, Kerstin, 2023. "Demand-pull, technology-push, and the direction of technological change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    8. Mathew, Nanditha & Paily, George, 2020. "STI-DUI innovation modes and firm performance in the Indian capital goods industry: Do small firms differ from large ones?," MERIT Working Papers 2020-008, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    9. Claudio Fassio & Sona Kalantaryan & Alessandra Venturini, 2020. "Foreign Human Capital and Total Factor Productivity: A Sectoral Approach," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 66(3), pages 613-646, September.
    10. Rodriguez, Mercedes & Doloreux, David & Shearmur, Richard, 2017. "Variety in external knowledge sourcing and innovation novelty: Evidence from the KIBS sector in Spain," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 35-43.
    11. Guillermo Arenas Díaz & Andrés Barge-Gil & Joost Heijs & Alberto Marzucchi, 2022. "The Effect of External Innovation on Firm Employment," DISCE - Quaderni del Dipartimento di Politica Economica dipe0026, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Dipartimenti e Istituti di Scienze Economiche (DISCE).
    12. Sophia Belghiti-Mahut & Anne-Laurence Lafont & Angélique Rodhain & Florence Rodhain & Leila Temri & Ouidad Yousfi, 2016. "Genre et innovateur frugal : 4 cas de femmes innovatrices," Innovations, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(3), pages 69-93.
    13. Tietze, Frank & Pieper, Thorsten & Herstatt, Cornelius, 2013. "To own or not to own: How ownership affects user innovation - An empirical study in the German rowing community," Working Papers 73, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute for Technology and Innovation Management.
    14. Matt, M. & Colinet, L. & Gaunand, A. & Joly, P.B., 2015. "A typology of impact pathways generated by a public agricultural research organization," Working Papers 2015-03, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    15. Alexander Brem & Volker Bilgram & Adele Gutstein, 2021. "Involving Lead Users in Innovation: A Structured Summary of Research on the Lead User Method," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Alexander Brem (ed.), Emerging Issues and Trends in INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, chapter 2, pages 21-48, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Antonelli, Cristiano & Gehringer, Agnieszka, 2015. "Knowledge externalities and demand pull: The European evidence," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 608-631.
    17. De Marchi, Valentina, 2012. "Environmental innovation and R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 614-623.
    18. John R Bryson & Chloe Billing & Mark Tewdwr-Jones, 2023. "Urban infrastructure patching: Citizen-led solutions to infrastructure ruptures," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 60(10), pages 1932-1948, August.
    19. Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco, 2001. "Knowledge Spillovers and Local Innovation Systems: A Critical Survey," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(4), pages 975-1005, December.
    20. Seyedesmaeil Mousavi & Bart Bossink & Mario van Vliet, 2019. "Microfoundations of companies' dynamic capabilities for environmentally sustainable innovation: Case study insights from high‐tech innovation in science‐based companies," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 366-387, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:84:y:2014:i:c:p:93-100. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.