Short abstract:

This contribution aims to provide a theoretical analysis of the main assumptions of the "Anticipatory Governance" framework as characterized in STS, focusing on the critical-reflective affordances it seeks to enact.

Long abstract:

The concept of ‘Anticipatory Governance' (AG) in the STS domain encompasses a set of practices —both de facto and interventionally activated by STS scholars— designed to build capacities for foresight, engagement, and integration. These capacities are conceived to be extended through society, and their proactive strengthening is intended to enable the possibility of acting "on a variety of inputs to manage emerging knowledge-based technologies while such management is still possible" (Barben et al., 2008; Guston, 2014).

This paper aims to provide a theoretical analysis of the main assumptions of the AG normative approach/framework, focusing on the critical-reflective affordances it seeks to enact. After a brief contextualization of the emergence of AG and a non-exhaustive review of the existing literature on/from this framework, I will define some basic guiding variables for assessing the critical-reflective affordances or spaces of problematization that this (and other normative frameworks) might open up. Subsequently, I will explore how AG, as it is characterized in STS, tends to position itself with respect to each of the previously proposed variables, thereby assessing AG's theoretical critical-reflective affordances. The purpose of this exercise is to highlight some of the virtues and limitations of AG, emphasizing points where AG's potential critical-reflective affordances could be strengthened to promote more robust science and technology activities.