tl;dr → bloggist discovers that Mary Meeker (for KPCB) is talking up their book. Welcome grasshoper, you have awoke!
<quote>But take the report for what it is — an extremely effective piece of content marketing, promoting the trends and interests of a company selectively invested in the space. Nothing sinister here — I fully believe KPCB saw their portfolio companies as a part of future trends first, not that they are trying to engineer these trends after the fact.</quote>
Prospection—the ability to represent what might happen in the future—is a broad concept that has been used to characterize a wide variety of future-oriented cognitions, including affective forecasting, prospective memory, temporal discounting, episodic simulation, and autobiographical planning. In this article, we propose a taxonomy of prospection to initiate the important and necessary process of teasing apart the various forms of future thinking that constitute the landscape of prospective cognition. The organizational framework that we propose delineates episodic and semantic forms of four modes of future thinking: simulation, prediction, intention, and planning. We show how this framework can be used to draw attention to the ways in which various modes of future thinking interact with one another, generate new questions about prospective cognition, and illuminate our understanding of disorders of future thinking. We conclude by considering basic cognitive processes that give rise to prospective cognitions, cognitive operations and emotional/motivational states relevant to future-oriented cognition, and the possible role of procedural or motor systems in future-oriented behavior.
ex-Apple, product management for media, who from 2014 to 2016.
Jonathan Badeen, co-founder and chief strategy officer, Tinder
<quote>Trying to predict where technology will be in a decade may be a fool’s errand, but how often do we get to tie up so many emerging trends in a neat package?</quote>
<quote>All these technologies—interfacing with our smart homes, smart cars, even smart cities—will constitute not just a new way to interact with computers but a new way of life. And of course, worrisome levels of privacy invasion.</quote>
<quote>By 2027, Apple and its competitors will also have cemented a world of tradeoffs: If you want your life enhanced by AI and all the rest of this tech, you’re going to have to submit to constant surveillance—by your devices or, in many cases, by the tech giants themselves. Apple’s bet is that you will trust it to do this: The company’s privacy stance is that it isn’t going to look at or share your data, and it will be encrypted so others can’t look at it, either.</quote>
Currently, several million people have accounts in massively multiplayer online games. The population of virtual worlds has grown rapidly since 1996; significantly, each world also seems to grow its own economy, with production, assets and trade with Earth economies. This paper explores two questions about these developments. First, will these economies grow in importance? Second, if they do grow, how will that affect real-world economies and governments? To shed light on the first question, the paper presents a simple choice model of the demand for game time. The model reveals a certain puzzle about puzzles and games: in the demand for these kinds of interactive entertainment goods, people reveal that they are willing to pay money to be constrained. Still, the nature of games as a produced good suggests that technological advances, and heavy competition, will drive the future development of virtual worlds. If virtual worlds do become a large part of the daily life of humans, their development may have an impact on the macroeconomies of Earth. It will also raise certain constitutional issues, since it is not clear, today, exactly who has jurisdiction over these new economies.
<ahem>To claim that there is a problematic at work here in the juristictional supervision of these online entertainment services is specious, at best; and at least, willfully ignorant.</ahem> Who owns the computers upon which they operate, and to whom is payment made to allow participation thereon? These, at least, are the subjects of jurisdictional supervision.
Au, Wagner James (2002), “Playing Games With Free Speech,” Technology and Business, salon.com, May 6.
Bartle, Richard. Designing Virtual Worlds. Indianapolis: New Riders, 2003.
Becker, David (2002), “Game Exchange Suit Goes to Court,” CNET News.com, February 7.
Borges, Jorge Luis (1962), “The Lottery in Babylon,” translated by John M. Fein, in Borges, Labyrinths: Selected Stories and Other Writings, New York: New Directions Publishing.
Castronova, Edward (2001a), “Virtual Worlds: A First-Hand Account of Market and Society on the Cyberian Frontier,” CESifo Working Paper No. 618, December.
_______ (2001b), “Achievement Bias in the Evolution of Preferences,” Gruter Institute Working Papers on Law, Economics, and Evolutionary Biology, Volume 2.
Dibbell, Julian. My Tiny Life: Crime and Passion in a Virtual World. New York: Henry Holt, 1999.
Easterlin, Richard A. (2001), “Income and Happiness: Towards a Unified Theory,” Economic Journal, 111, 465-484.
Eco, Umberto (1989), Foucault’s Pendulum, translated by William Weaver, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Engwall, Lars (1994), “Bridge, Poker, and Banking,” in Donald E. Fair and Robert Raymond, eds., TheCompetitiveness of Financial Institutions and Centres inEurope, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 227-39.
Johnson, Steven (2002), “Wild Things,” Wired, March.
Kaplan, Carl S. (2001), “Florida Community Can’t Shut Down ‘Voyeur Dorm,’” New York Times, October 5.
Kurzweil, Ray (1999), TheAge of Spiritual Machines, New York: Penguin Books.
Lastowka, F. Greg and Dan Hunter (2004), “The Laws of Virtual Worlds,” forthcoming in California Law Review.
Liebowitz, S.J. and Stephen Margolis (1994), “Network Externality: An Uncommon Tragedy,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(2), 133-150.
MacDonald, Glenn M. (1988), “The Economics of Rising Stars,” American Economic Review, 78(1), 155-66.
Metrick, Andrew (1995), “A Natural Experiment in ‘Jeopardy!” American Economic Review, 85(1), 240-53.
Mazalov, Vladimir V., Svetlana V. Panova, and Mojca Piskuric (1999), “Two-Person Bilateral Many-Rounds Poker,” Mathematical Methods of Operations Research 49(2), 267-82.
Mnookin, Jennifer L. “Virtual(ly) Law: The Emergence of Law in an On-Line Community.” In Peter Ludlow (ed.) Crypto Anarchy, Cyberstates, and Pirate Utopias. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001: 245-302.
Nash, John F. and Shapley, L. S. (1997), “A Simple Three-Person Poker Game,” in Mary Ann Dimand and Robert W. Dimand, eds., The Foundations of Game Theory, Volume II, Cheltenham: Elgar Reference Collection, 13-24.
Nichols, Mark W. (1998), “The Impact of Deregulation on Casino Win in Atlantic City,” Review of Industrial Organization, 13(6), 713-26.
Page, Scott E. (1998), “Let’s Make A Deal,” Economics Letters 61(2), 175-80.
Shubik, Martin (1999), “The ‘Bridge Game’ Economy: An Example of Indivisibilities,” in Martin Shubik, ed., TheSelected Essays of Martin Shubik, Cheltenham: Elgar, 184-187.
Simon, Herbert A., and Jonathan Schaeffer (1992), “The Game of Chess,” in Robert J. Aumann and Sergiu Hart, eds., Handbook of Game Theory With Economic Applications, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1-17.
This article critically discusses the state of STS, expressing feelings of discontent regarding four aspects: policy relevance, conceptual language, too much focus on complexity, theoretical styles. Middle range theory is proposed as an alternative, promising avenue. Middle range theories focus on delimited topics, make explicit efforts to combine concepts, and search for abstracted patterns and explanatory mechanisms. The article presents achievements in that direction for technology dynamics, particularly with regard to the role of expectations, niche theory and radical innovation, and the multi-level perspective on sociotechnical transitions.
Middle Range Theory (MRT)
Science & Techology Studies (STS)
Merton introduced the notion of MRT in sociology in the three editions
of Social Theory and Social Structure (1949, 1957, 1968). e.g.
Merton, R.K. 1948. Discussion of Parsons’ `The position of sociological theory ‘. American Sociological Review 13(2): 164-168. Google Scholar
At the paywall, it is unclear who wrote the article. The paywall declares that it was Frank W. Geels, but provides an “author biography” for Casper Bruun Jensen.
Yup, it is Frank W. Geels. Yet…
Casper Bruun Jensen is
Associate professor at the Technologies in Practice group, IT University of Copenhagen.
Casper Bruun Jensen, Ontologies for Developing Things (Sense, 2010)
Casper Bruun Jensen, Brit Ross Winthereik, Monitoring Movements in Development (MIT, 2013).
Bijker, W.E. 1993. Do not despair: There is life after constructivism. Science, Technology, & Human Values 18(1): 113-138. Google Scholar
Bijker, W.E. 1995. Of bicycles, bakelites and bulbs: Towards a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar
Boudon, R. 1991. What middle-range theories are. Contemporary Sociology 20(4): 519-522. Google Scholar
Brown, N., and M. Michael. 2003. The sociology of expectations: Retrospecting prospects and prospecting retrospects. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 15(1): 3-18. Google Scholar
Callon, M. 1986. The sociology of an actor-network: The case of the electric vehicle. In Mapping the dynamics of science and technology , edited by M. Callon, J. Law and A. Rip, 19—34. London: MacMillan Google Scholar
Callon, M., and B. Latour. 1992. Don’t throw the baby out with the Bath school: A reply to Collins and Yearley. In Science as practice and culture, edited by A. Pickering, 343-368. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
Collins, H.M., and S. Yearley. 1992. Journey into space. In Science as practice and culture, edited by A. Pickering, 369-389. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
Collins, H.M., and R. Evans. 2002. The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science 32(2): 235-296. Google Scholar
Davis, J.A. 1994. What’s wrong with sociology? Sociological Forum 9(2): 179-197. Google Scholar
Deuten, J.J. 2003. Cosmopolitanising technology: A study of four emerging technological regimes. Enschede: Twente University Press. Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P.J. 1995. Comments on “What theory is not”. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(3): 391-397. Google Scholar
Edge, D. 2003. Celebration and strategy: The 4S after 25 years, and STS after 9-11. Social Studies of Science 33(2): 161-169. Google Scholar
Freeman, C., and F. Louç. 2001. As time goes by: From the industrial revolutions to the information revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Garud, R., and P. Karnøe. 2003. Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technological entrepreneurship. Research Policy 32(2): 277-300. Google Scholar
Geels, F.W. 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy 31(8/9): 1257-1274. Google Scholar
Geels, F.W. 2005a. The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: A multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860—1930). Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 17(4): 445-476. Google Scholar
Geels, F.W. 2005b. Co-evolution of technology and society: The transition in water supply and personal hygiene in the Netherlands (1850—1930)—a case study in multi-level perspective. Technology in Society 27(3): 363-397. Google Scholar
Geels, F.W. 2005c. Technological transitions and system innovations: A co-evolutionary and socio-technical analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Google Scholar
Geels, F.W., and W.A. Smit. 2000. Failed technology futures: Pitfalls and lessons from a historical survey. Futures 32(9/10): 867-885. Google Scholar
Geels, F.W., and R.P.J.M. Raven. 2006. Non-linearity and expectations in niche-development trajectories: Ups and downs in Dutch biogas development (1973-2003). Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18(3/4): 375-392. Google Scholar
Geels, F.W., and J.J. Deuten. 2006. Local and global dynamics in technological development: A socio-cognitive perspective on knowledge flows and lessons from reinforced concrete. Science and Public Policy 33(4): 265-275. Google Scholar
Geels, F.W., and J.W. Schot. 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways: Refinements and elaborations of the multi-level perspective. Research Policy 36(3): 399-417. Google Scholar
Guggenheim, M., and H. Nowotny. 2003. Joy in repetition makes the future disappear: A critical assessment of the present state in STS. In Social studies of science & technology: Looking back, ahead, edited by B. Joerges and H. Nowotny , 229-260. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
Hård, M. 1993. Beyond harmony and consensus: A social conflict approach to technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values 18(4): 408-432. Google Scholar
Hård, M. 1994. Technology as practice: Local and global closure processes in diesel-engine design. Social Studies of Science 24(3): 549-585. Google Scholar
Hedström, P., and R. Swedberg , eds. 1998. Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google ScholarCrossRef
Kemp, R., J. Schot, and R. Hoogma. 1998. Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 10(2): 175-196. Google Scholar
Latour, B. 1999. On recalling ANT. In Actor network theory and after, edited by J. Law and J. Hassard, 15-25. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Google Scholar
Law, J. 1992. Notes on the theory of the actor network: Ordering, strategy and heterogeneity. Systems Practice 5(4): 379-393. Google Scholar
Law, J., and M. Callon. 1992. The life and death of an aircraft: A network analysis of technical change. In Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change, edited by W.E. Bijker and J. Law, 21-52. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar
Law, J. 1999. After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology. In Actor network theory and after, edited by J. Law and J. Hassard, 1-14. Oxford , UK: Blackwell. Google Scholar
Merton, R.K. 1948. Discussion of Parsons’ `The position of sociological theory ‘. American Sociological Review 13(2): 164-168. Google Scholar
Merton, R.K. 1968. Social theory and social structure. Third edition (previous editions in 1949 and 1957), Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Google Scholar
Mills, C.W. 1959. The sociological imagination. London , Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Misa, T.J. 1994. Retrieving sociotechnical change from technological determinism . In Does technology drive history? The dilemma of technological determinism, edited by M.R. Smith and L. Marx, 115—141. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar
Mokyr, J. 1990. The lever of riches: Technological creativity and economic progress. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Molina, A. 1995. Sociotechnical constituencies as processes of alignment: The rise of a large-scale European information technology initiative. Technology in Society 17(4): 385-412. Google Scholar
Nelson, R.R., and S.G. Winter. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change . Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Google Scholar
Perez, C. 2002. Technological revolutions and financial capital: The dynamics of bubbles and golden ages. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Google Scholar
Pestre, D. 2004. Thirty years of science studies: Knowledge, society and the political. History and Technology 20(4): 351-369. Google Scholar
Pinder, C.C., and L.F. Moore , eds. 1980. Middle range theory and the study of organizations. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff. Google Scholar
Poole, M.S., and A.H. Van de Ven . 1989. Towards a general theory of innovation processes. In Research on the management of innovation: The Minnesota studies, edited by A.H. Van de Ven, H.L. Angle, and M.S. Poole, 637-662. New York: Harper & Row Publishers. Google Scholar
Rip, A., and R. Kemp. 1998. Technological change. In Human choice and climate change, Volume 2, edited by S. Rayner and E.L. Malone, 327-399. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press. Google Scholar
Russell, S. 1986. The social construction of artifacts: A response to Pinch and Bijker. Social Studies of Science 16(2): 331-346. Google Scholar
Schot, J.W. 1998. The usefulness of evolutionary models for explaining innovation. The case of the Netherlands in the nineteenth century. History of Technology 14: 173-200. Google Scholar
Van Driel, H., and J. Schot. 2005. Radical innovation as a multi-level process: Introducing floating grain elevators in the port of Rotterdam. Technology and Culture 46(1): 51-76. Google Scholar
Van Lente, H., and A. Rip. 1998. Expectations in technological developments: An example of prospective structures to be filled in by agency. In: Getting new technologies together, edited by C. Disco and B.J.R. van der Meulen, 195-220. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar
Weick, K.E. 1999. Theory construction as disciplined reflexivity: Tradeoff in the 90s. Academy of Management Review 24(4): 797-806. Google Scholar
Williams, R., and D. Edge. 1996. The social shaping of technology. Research Policy 25(6): 865-899. Google Scholar
Woolgar, S. 2004. What happened to provocation in science and technology studies? History and Technology 20(4): 339-349. Google Scholar
Claim: Moore’s law is a self-fulfilling prophecy; by stating the law and the “tick tock” roadmap, the vision is driven to successful eventuality.
“The Hype Cycle,” The Gartner Group
The metaphoric device of an underdamped oscillator applied to social processes. Hype Cycle, In Jimi Wales’ Wiki.
<quote>By definition, innovation in contemporary science and technology is an intensely future-oriented business with an emphasis on the creation of new opportunities and capabilities. Novel technologies and fundamental changes in scientific principle do not substantively pre-exist themselves, except and only in terms of the imaginings, expectations and visions that have shaped their potential. As such, future-oriented abstractions are among the most important objects of enquiry for scholars and analysts of innovation. Such expectations can be seen to be fundamentally ‘generative’, they guide activities, provide structure and legitimation, attract interest and foster investment. They give definition to roles, clarify duties, offer some shared shape of what to expect and how to prepare for opportunities and risks. Visions drive technical and scientific activity, warranting the production of measurements, calculations, material tests, pilot projects and models. As such, very little in innovation can work in isolation from a highly dynamic and variegated body of future-oriented understandings about the future.</quote>
<ahem>future-oriented understandings about the future.</ahem>
There are 49 bibliographic references.
H. van Lente, Promising technology. The dynamics of expectations in technological developments, PhD Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, 1993.
M. Michael, Futures of the present: from performativity to prehension, in: N. Brown, B. Rappert & A. Webster (Eds) Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science (Aldershot, UK, Ashgate, 2000).
M. Sturken, D. Thomas & S. J. Ball-Rokeach (Eds), Technological Visions. The Hopes and Fears that Shape New Technologies (Philadelphia, PA, Temple University Press, 2004).
N. Brown, B. Rappert & A. Webster (Eds), Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science (Aldershot, UK, Ashgate, 2000).
W. Bijker & J. Law (Eds), Shaping Technology/Building Society (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1992); A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as Practice and Culture (Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1992); B. Latour, Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society (Milton Keynes, UK, Open University Press, 1987); J. Law (Ed.), A Sociology of Monsters—Essays on Power, Techno- logy and Domination (London, Routledge, 1991).
H. van Lente & A. Rip, Expectations in technological developments: an example of prospective structures to be filled by agency, in: C. Disco & B. van der Meulen (Eds), Getting New Technologies Together. Studies in Making Sociotechnical Order (Berlin, De Gruyter, 1998).
J. Guice, Designing the future: the culture of new trends in science and technology, Research Policy, 28, 1999, pp. 81– 98.
P. Martin, Great expectations: the construction of markets, products and user needs during the early development of gene therapy in the USA, in: R. Coombs, K. Green, A. Richards & V. Walsh (Eds), Technology and the Market: Demand, Users and Innovation (Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar, 2001); A. Hedgecoe & P. Martin, The drugs don’t work: expectations and the shaping of pharmacogenetics, Social Studies of Science, 33, 2003, pp. 327 –364.
C. Selin, Time matters: temporal harmony and dissonance in nanotechnology networks, Time & Society, 15, 2006, pp. 121–139.
H. Nowotny & U. Felt, After the Breakthrough—the Emergence of High-Temperature Superconductivity as a Research Field (Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1997); M. Callon, Variety and irre- versibility in networks of technique conception and adoption, in: D. Foray & C. Freeman (Eds), Tech- nology and the Wealth of Nations—The Dynamics of Constructed Advantage (London, Pinter, 1993).
Van Lente, op. cit., Ref. 1; Van Lente & Rip, op. cit., Ref. 6; J. Deuten & A. Rip, Narrative infrastructure in product creation processes, Organization, 7, 2000, pp. 69– 63; K. Konrad, Pra ̈gende Erwartungen— Szenarien als Schrittmacher der Technikentwicklung (Berlin, Edition Sigma, 2004).Editorial 297
N. Brown & M. Michael, A sociology of expectations: retrospecting prospects and prospecting retro- spects, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 15, 2003, pp. 3–18.
M. Dierkes, U. Hoffman & L. Maez, Leitbild und Technik: Zur Entstehung und Steuerung technischer Innovationen (Berlin, Edition Sigma, 1992); W. Rammert, Die kulturelle Orientierung der technischen Entwicklung. Eine technikgenetische Perspektive, in: D. Siefkes, P. Eulenho ̈fer, H. Stach & K. Sta ̈dtler, (Eds), Sozialgeschichte der Informatik. Soziale Praktiken und Orientierungen (Wiesbaden, Deutscher Universita ̈ts Verlag, 1998); H. D. Hellige, Technikleitbilder auf dem Pru ̈fstand: Leitbild-Assessment aus Sicht der Informatik- und Computergeschichte (Berlin, Edition Sigma, 1996).
For example, M. Akrich, The de-scription of technical objects, in: Bijker & Law, op. cit., Ref 5, pp. 205– 224; W. B. Carlson, Artifacts and frames of meaning: Thomas A. Edison, his managers, and the cultural construction of motion pictures, in shaping technology/building society, in: Bijker & Law, op. cit., Ref 5; J. Jelsma, Innovating for sustainability: involving users, politics and technology, Innovation, 16, 2003, pp. 103–116; N. Oudshoorn & T. Pinch, How Users Matter: The Co-construction of Users and Technol- ogy (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2003).
B. De Laat, Scripts for the future: using innovation studies to design foresight tools, in: Brown et al., op. cit., Ref. 4; FORMAKIN, Final Report of the Formakin Project (Foresight as a Tool for the Management of Knowledge Flows and Innovation), York etc.: Science and Technology Studies Unit, University of York, 2001. An EU-TSERP project led by A.Webster, L. Sanz-Mene ́ndez and B. van der Meulen.
C. Marvin, When Old Technologies were New (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1990); M. Levin, When the Eiffel Tower was New: French Visions of Progress at the Centennial of the Revolution (Cambridge, MA, University of Massachusetts Press, 1989).
R. Kosellek, Futures Past—On the Semantics of Historical Time (Columbia, NY, Columbia University Press, 2004).
M. Weber, Politics as a vocation, in: H. Gerth & C. W. Mills (Eds), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1958), pp. 77– 128; G. H. Mead, The Philosophy of the Present (Chicago, IL, Chicago University Press, 1932); A. Schutz, On multiple realities, in: Collected Papers I, The Problem of Social Reality (The Hague, Alfred Schutz, 1962); A. Schutz, Tiresias, or our knowledge of future events, in: Collected Papers II, Studies in Social Theory (The Hague, Alfred Schutz, 1964); M. Emirbayer & A. Mische, What is agency?, American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 1998, pp. 962 –1023.
R. K. Merton, Socially expected durations: a case study of concept formation in sociology, in: W. Powell & R. Robbins (Eds), Conflict and Consensus: A Festschrift for L. Coser (New York, Free Press, 1984); B. Adam, Timescapes of Modernity: The Environment and Invisible Hazards (London, Routledge, 1998); B. Adam, Time and Social Theory (Cambridge, Polity, 1990); P. Virilio, The Information Bomb (London, Verso, 2000); P. Virilio, Speed and Politics (Columbia, NY, Columbia University Press, 1986).
F. Bartlett, Remembering. A study in Experiential and Social Psychology (Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1995); P. Jedlowski, Memory and sociology: themes and issues, Time and Society, 10, 2001, pp. 29– 44; M. Halbwacks, La Memoire Collective (Paris, Albin Michel, 1997).
J. M. Barbalet, Social emotions: confidence, trust and loyalty, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 16(9/10), 1996, pp. 75 –96.
R. K. Merton, The self-fulfilling prophecy, The Antioch Review, 8, 1948, pp. 193– 210.
N. Rosenberg, On technological expectations, The Economic Journal, 86, 1976, pp. 523–535; N. Rosenberg, On technological expectations, in: N. Rosenberg (Ed.), Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics (Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 104–119; C. Antonelli, The role of technological expectations in a mixed model of international diffusion of process innovations: the case of open-end spinning rotors, Research Policy, 18, 1989, pp. 273–288; F. Lissoni, Technological expectations and the diffusion of ‘intermediate’ technologies, CRIC (Manchester), Working Paper No. 8, August 1999; D. S. Boone, K. N. Lemon & R. Staelin, The impact of firm introductory strategies on con- sumers’ perceptions of future product introductions and purchase decisions, Journal of Product Inno- vation Management, 18(2), 2001, pp. 96 –109.
K. Froot, D. Scharfstein & J. Stein, Herd on the street: informational efficiencies in a market with short- term speculation, Journal of Finance, 47, 1992, pp. 1461– 1484; S. Bikhchandani & S. Sharma, Herd behavior in financial markets, IMF Staff Papers, 47(3), 2001.
R. M. Grant, Contemporary Strategy Analysis, 2nd edn (Oxford, Blackwell, 1995).298 M. Borup et al.
G. Reger, Technology foresight in companies: from an indicator to a network and process perspective, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 13(4), 2001, pp. 533 –553.
R. Koppl, Big Players and the Economic Theory of Expectations (London, Palgrave, 2002); J. Pixley, Finance organisations, decisions and emotions, British Journal of Sociology, 53(1), 2002, pp. 41–65.
De Laat, op. cit., Ref. 15; H.van Lente, From promises to requirement, in: Brown et al., op. cit., Ref. 4.
W. Bijker, Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulps—Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1995), ch. 5.
Brown & Michael, op. cit., Ref. 12.
D. MacKenzie, Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1990).
J. Ravetz, What is post-normal science?, Futures, 31, 1999, pp. 647– 653.
Van Lente, op. cit., Ref. 1; Konrad, this issue.
Michael, op. cit., Ref. 2.
C. Thompson, The biotech mode of reproduction, Paper prepared for the School of American Research Advanced Seminar ‘Animation and Cessation: Anthropological Perspectives on Changing Definitions of Life and Death in the Context of Biomedicine’, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 2000.
P. Weingart, A. Engels & P. Pansegrau, Risks of communication: discourses on climate change in science, politics, and mass medi, Public Understanding of Science, 9(3), 2000, pp. 261–283.
H. Nowotny, P. Scott & M. Gibbons, Re-thinking Science—Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty (Cambridge, UK, Polity Press, 2001), p. 232.