# Technology hypes: Practices, approaches and assessments

Jascha Bareis, Maximilian Roßmann, Frédérique Bordignon

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Jascha Bareis, Maximilian Roßmann, Frédérique Bordignon. Technology hypes: Practices, approaches and assessments. TATuP - Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis, 2023, 32 (3), pp.11-16. 10.14512/tatup.32.3.11. hal-04348489

HAL Id: hal-04348489

https://enpc.hal.science/hal-04348489v1

Submitted on 17 Dec 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
## INTRODUCTION

# Technology hypes: Practices, approaches and assessments

Jascha Bareis*<sup>1,2</sup> ID, Maximilian Roßmann<sup>3</sup> ID, Frédérique Bordignon<sup>4,5</sup> ID

**Abstract** • To date, the study of hype has become a productive but also eclectic field of research. This introduction provides an overview of the core characteristics of technology hype and distinguishes it from other future-oriented concepts. Further, the authors present promising approaches from various disciplines for studying, critiquing, and dealing with hype. The special issue assembles case studies, methodological and theoretical contributions that analyze tech hypes' temporality, agency, and institutional dynamics. It provides insights into how hypes are triggered and fostered, but also how they can be deconstructed and anticipated.

**Technologie-Hypes:** Praktiken, Ansätze und Abschätzungen

**Zusammenfassung** • Mit der Erforschung von Hypes ist ein produktives, aber auch vielschichtiges Forschungsfeld entstanden. Ziel dieser Einführung ist es, einen Überblick über die zentralen Merkmale von Technologie-Hypes zu geben und diese von anderen zukunftsorientierten Konzepten abzugrenzen. Darüber hinaus stellen die Autor*innen vielversprechende Ansätze aus verschiedenen Disziplinen zur Untersuchung, Antizipation und zum Umgang mit Hype vor. Das Sonderheft versammelt Fallstudien, methodische und theoretische Beiträge, die die Zeitlichkeit, das Handeln und die institutionelle Dynamik von Tech-Hypes analysieren. Es bietet Einblicke, wie Hypes ausgelöst und gefördert werden, aber auch wie sie dekonstruiert und antizipiert werden können.

**Keywords** • hype, overpromising, expectations, emerging technology

This article is part of the Special topic "Technology hype: Dealing with bold expectations and overpromising" edited by J. Bareis, M. Roßmann and F. Bordignon. https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.32.3.10

"Hyper! Hyper!
We need the bass drum!
Come on!"<fnref n="1" />

## Introduction

Technology assessment (TA) has been highly productive in discussing the power and problems of technology expectations, futuristic communication, and their overpromising. Situating TA in societal context, ranging from political debates to the attention economy in social media, sheds light not only on the analysis of hype but also on the 'modulation' of visions to reach wider audiences. This may include unheard or neglected voices and arguments in technology development and its critiques, e.g., to reach sustainable development goals (Dierkes et al. 1996; Grunwald 2015; Rip 2006; Schneider et al. 2023).

In contrast to 'vision' or 'expectation', calling technology 'hype' is both descriptive and action-guiding. It suggests a temporal dynamic of attention and confidence in projected technological change – an increase followed by a decrease – and points to the question of inappropriate attitude and reaction, given the context of a debate. At stake are taking poor public policy decisions, misdirecting financial resources, the lack of studying more pressing societal consequences, and, more generally, jeopardizing trust in science (Intemann 2020; Löfstedt 2003).

However, TA has never been alone in developing methods to study and find a response to technology hype. This Special topic in the *Journal for Technology Assessment in Theory and Practice* seeks to highlight the variety of approaches from dif-

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="1">1 "Hyper Hyper" is a song by German band Scooter, released in May 1994 from their debut album, "... and the Beat Goes On!" (1995).</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author: jascha.bareis@kit.edu</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, DE</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society, Berlin, DE</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASoS), Maastricht University, Maastricht, NL</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ École des Ponts ParisTech, Marne-la-Vallée, FR</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ LISIS, INRAE, Univ Gustave Eiffel, CNRS, Marne-la-Vallée, FR</footnote>
ferent disciplines and the internationality of cases. Herewith
the issue contributes to a better understanding of temporalities,
agency, and institutional dynamics that provoke, fuel and main-
tain hypes, and provides knowledge to better anticipate, decon-
struct and criticize them.

Joint efforts to narrow down the phenom-
enon: dimensions and characteristics
of technology hypes

Rhetorics and the emotional appeal
of overpromising language

By means of bold statements, superlatives and exaggerated
claims, hypes appeal to emotions to seek attention. Historical
analogies to break-throughs or reference to fictional literature
serve tech-evangelists to claim proficiency and reliable guidance
in uncertain times. Cherishing narratives of approaching disrup-
tions suggest societal roles and call for requirements to be met,
so a specific goal can be achieved (Mische 2014; Van Lente and
Rip 1998). People often share technology narratives for the sake
of excitement, however, often ignoring how they assemble and
change the meaning of arguments, facts, and data, e.g. at a sce-
nario workshop (Roßmann 2021).

Ideally, “imagination under constraints” of beliefs and sci-
entific knowledge allow for societal learning (Kind 2016, p. 3).
The simulated experience of technological consequences (by
means of illustrative imagery, or stories in place of an argumen-
tation) reaches wider audiences and can help to bridge bounda-
ries between disciplines, publics and institutions (Dierkes et al.
1996; Lösch 2006). However, by means of emotional appeal and
dramatization, narrative communication can also bypass the ra-
tional assessment of statements (Green and Brock 2000). This

potentially conflicting communication aims. It urges us to care-
fully consider the context, speech positions and audience, when
technological novelties are announced.

Temporality and the play with attention spans

The three ‘musketeers’ of rhetoric – *ethos*, *pathos* and *logos* –
are occasionally supplemented by *kairos*, which is the oppor-
tune moment for action. Hypes gain their real performative mo-
mentum by pointing to vast opportunities that lie ahead, which
ask for the right timing if great potentials shall not be lost. Hence,
temporality is a crucial dimension for understanding and negoti-
ating technology expectations.

Popular technology narratives structure salient societal dis-
courses on technology and usually refer to bigger time-spans.
The studies of socio-technical imaginaries (Jasanoff and Kim
2009), for example, reveal differences in common understand-
ings of technology projects in society, informing about hopes
and concerns in project proposals or policy papers that consider
large future trajectories (e.g. see Bareis and Katzenbach 2022
for staging Artificial Intelligence; or Mosco 2005 for the study
of the cyberspace metaphor).

Technology hypes, however, radically focus on temporal
prominence. Stressing the opportunity costs is a distinctive fea-
ture of hypers, who urge followers to act instantly, take risks
and think boldly. Thereby hype narrows down remembrances
of the past and, likewise, future trajectories to come. While nar-
ratives, visions and imaginaries rather mark the cultural back-
ground that persists over a longer period of time, technology
hypes foreground peak and outlier achievements of tech devel-
opment. Hereby, they give relevance to certain claims for only a
limited period of time. Hypers are the opportunists among fu-
ture tellers, who ride on the wave of attention and are less inter-
ested in the long-term societal consequences of what happens

Hypes appeal to emotions to seek attention.

emotional celebration of statements is characteristic of hype –
and risks turning an informative and appealing story into a sen-
sationalist one.

Social media has further increased this phenomenon. Big
technologies reinforce outreach and attention to a topic by
a system of likes, shares, hails and reposts. Here, research has
shown that communication and algorithmic content modera-
tion on platforms supports sensationalism and click-baiting. It
is emotional and controversial posts, and especially visual ma-
terial over factual and descriptive content, that become featured
in timelines by users (Gillespie 2018; Gorwa et al. 2020). Such
attention-seeking logic on platforms certainly contributes to an
environment that nourishes hyping as it elicits emotional appeal
and impulsive action over critical reflection.

Given this large influence of language, deliberate and respon-
sible communication about technology requires reflection about

when the wave collapses. Comparing hype cycles therefore stud-
ies the attention and popularity of technologies and their claims
by means of time-row analysis of publication counts in news-
papers or social media, citation counts, or patent applications
(Dedehayir and Steinert 2016). One can also draw on discourse
analysis or stakeholder interviews, for instance to assess confi-
dence in stock market trends. The representation of a hype cy-
cle according to Gartner Consulting, which follows the evolve-
ment of hype from an attention trigger, over a peak of inflated
expectations, to a trough of disillusionment – until state of af-
fairs stabilize in a plateau of productivity, is particularly pop-
ular (Linden and Fenn 2003). Though, due to its missing em-
pirical validation, weak theoretical grounding, and instrumen-
tal use for claiming future developments with the authority of a
seemingly scientific representation, Rip (2006) calls the model
a “folk theory” (p. 362).
Time is a crucial factor in the phenomenon of hype – both as a constitutive feature (hypes need the future trajectory in order to gain momentum), and also as an analytical dimension (e.g., when studying the attention span in the building up and waning of a hype).

## Impression management and the creation of followership and collaboration

The possibility to learn from imagining futures and to influence how others imagine them with pretense practices, invites various stakeholders for strategic actions and engage in the “politics of expectations” (Beckert 2016, p. 79). Recalling *kairos* above: Observing a trend as hype points to a short window of

spectives and indicating how one would act if a certain scenario unfolds, generates a common ground for individuals or organizations to understand each other and plan with mutual assurances. Two extreme poles can be distinguished that both allow for coordination: either a situation of mutual trust, where stakeholders understand and rely on each other, or the situation of mistrust, when all statements about the future are perceived as strategic performances resulting from profit or power striving. The study of hypes and overpromising provides insights into popular expectations and their reactions. Mische (2014) suggests developing digital methods to study ‘projective grammars’ that can further indicate e.g., the perceived openness and attitude of different actors to shape or collaborate in the future.

> Hypes gain their real performative momentum by pointing to vast opportunities that lie ahead, which ask for the right timing if great potentials shall not be lost.

opportunity to instrumentally exploit the attention for one's own purpose. Especially on social media, the strategic use of certain buzzwords, hashtags and prefixes, like AI, nano-, smart-, or green-, helps actors to reach a wider audience, even though actors know that there is little or no shared understanding of the term (Bensaude Vincent 2014). The relationship between leaders and their followers is shaped sustainably by 'impression management' that instills attention and authority in promises about products, applications, or tech-companies. It becomes visible when one follows actors and objects across different sites, revealing differences between 'front region' performances and statements and actions 'backstage' in team meetings or the laboratory (Goffman 1990, p. 69). Technology presentations, such as the release of a new iPhone (Sharma and Grant 2011) or the advertisement of air-taxis (Woznica 2022) strategically highlight and disguise expectations. As 'narrative accelerators' they fuel public discourse and can further bloat an emerging bubble (Goldfarb and Kirsch 2019). In interaction with their own communities of practice, scientists tend to easily reject certain visions but still strategically use these narratives to gain funding or legitimacy from politicians (Selin 2007). Birch (2017), therefore, understands not the expectations of successful technological applications but the expectation to increase the value of research assets, such as networks, laboratory equipment, or topical knowledge, as a major driving force in techno-scientific capitalism. The economic, social, and cultural capital required for (strategic) 'future making' also sheds light on unequal speaker positions to advocate for neglected concerns or more 'profane' and less technocentric visions, such as job opportunities (Sand 2019).

Finally, imagined futures serve as a projective space to coordinate actions (Van Lente and Rip 1998). Sharing problem per-

Although our call for papers drew attention to the fact that digitization of mass media also necessitates a revision of methods for studying imagined futures and that we are particularly interested in computational methods, we received hardly any submissions from this field. In our opinion, TA is a welcoming interdisciplinary niche for experimenting with new methodological approaches. We would therefore call our colleagues to follow up, e.g., with the study of hype language in scientific publications by word lists (Bordignon et al. 2021; Millar et al. 2019; Vinkers et al. 2015), or with the use of metrics of significance (like citation surge or betweenness centrality) to identify emerging trends and potential hypes (Chen 2006; Chen et al. 2012).

## Dealing with hype: How and when to intervene?

Actors can be stuck in 'lock-ins' when promises call for action and stakeholders are on the spot to deliver on their bold claims. Such lock-ins hinder organizations to acknowledge 'uncomfortable knowledge' or to share relevant information, which can spur worrisome trajectories based on misguided beliefs (Rayner 2012). Exchanging expectations about potential but unproven harms or benefits of technology is indispensable for reflecting about societal change, though. It is the realm of shared imagined futures that allows for debates, self-reflection and strategic planning about the use and misuse of technology and their societal consequences.

How, though, can we assess when a red line is crossed regarding economic market power and an overheated discursive situation? When do some players gain too much attention and lock society in unwanted path-dependencies? Assessing the dis-
course on Nanoethics, Nordmann (2007) prominently warned of
the looming danger of futuristic ‘tunnel visions’ that draw all at-
tention and ‘ethical resources’ away from other, more pressing
issues. Also, Vinsel (2021) understands the criti-hype as an aca-
demic business model. Others argue that it may only be right that
TA not only analyzes but speaks out for the instrumental use of
visions, e.g., to foster democratic values and sustainable devel-
opment goals (Dierkes et al. 1996; Schneider et al. 2023). Grun-
wald (2010) argued that enabling public debates about technol-
ogy in society makes imaginaries available for technology devel-
opment and can, thus, justify or outweigh the danger of tunnel
visions. However, the question remains when and why such an
instrumental use of imagined futures becomes inappropriate.
Auch (2013) suggests that there is no checklist answer but we

sented in national strategies. Their analysis considers how this
policy discourse is collaboratively shaped by scientists, poli-
ticians, and industry. They challenge current models of hype
in science and innovation, mainly the Gartner hype cycle, and
propose the 'hype helix', a model that captures the cyclical and
iterative nature of hype in research.

Arora and Sarkar endeavor to go beyond hype as a discursive process by redescribing it also as a mnemonic device. They show how tech hype, when applied to emerging technologies like blockchain, can influence the way complex societal problems, such as land rights in India, are (mis-)remembered. Their study highlights the danger of oversimplification and selective presentation of benefits – mainly a solution to corruption and an improvement of land titles management – which overlooks the

Actors can be stuck in 'lock-ins' when promises
call for action and stakeholders are on the spot
to deliver on their bold claims.

can only train our ‘virtue of proportionality’. As Dani Shanley
illustrates in her TATuP interview (this issue), the history of TA
and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) also provides
some learnings on this.

An even more hands-on treatment of technology hypes would
be the building of scenario pathways. Here, policy makers can
discuss potential future trajectories and ground lofty discourses
with plausibility. This helps them to assess the complexity and
ambiguity of future developments and structure messy and con-
tradictory future discussions. The benefits are manifold. Policy
makers can escape dominant thought patterns and dive into dif-
ferent epistemic and power positions of actors in society, giving
space to silenced and neglected discourses. The biggest bene-
fit of scenarios in the context of hype, though, is to strengthen
one's own strategic orientation in the midst of societal crisis, or
technology glorification by some attention-seeking actor. The
knowledge about different scenarios allows policy makers a
strategic-resilient treatment of exuberant promises, encourag-
ing them not to jump on every bandwagon a tech-hype proclaims.

Presentation of the volume

The contributors to this TATuP Special topic have used differ-
ent methods to respond to our call to deconstruct technological
hypes: Some have developed an original analytical framework,
others have used interviews and field observations, some have
proposed case studies, and finally a few others have also supple-
mented their study with a quantitative approach.

Roberson et al. examine the dynamics of hype in the field
of quantum technology by deconstructing core arguments pre-

complexities and nuances of India's land tenure system and the
potential negative consequences for marginalized groups.

In his study of exaggerations in debates surrounding social
experiments, Neuwinger also finds a tendency among both advo-
cates and critics to overstate benefits and understate risks. This
stems from a reductive, tool-based mindset that glosses over
complexity by equating social experiments with drug trials, and
solely defining impact in causal terms.

Züger et al. demonstrate how the performative nature of ex-
pectations has significant implications for actors within the pub-
lic interest AI field. Their research, employing case studies and
interviews, unveils the paradoxical position of actors in public
interest initiatives. While they gain support and benefit from the
community-building which fosters AI hype, they also maintain
a critical stance, acknowledging the risks of unreliable funding
and emphasizing the priority of addressing societal needs.

Kari et al. leverage the sociology of expectations perspective to offer valuable insights into the intricate interplay of hype and promises within the domain of nuclear technologies, particularly small modular reactors (SMRs). With the analysis of publication counts and ‘hype language’ in a Finnish newspaper, they highlight the crucial role of techno-scientific promising in shaping innovation trajectories. They show how the media serves as a key arena where proponents and critics battle over SMRs promises (e.g., cutting carbon emissions and enhancing energy security) leading to SMR topicality, hyping, and eventual deconstruction.

Meunier and Herzog clarify the relationship between a long-
term socio-technical imaginary, such as precision medicine, and
shorter-term technological hypes, including advancements in
omics and AI technologies. They consider that an improvement
in the assessment of precision medicine requires a cautious and
realistic approach that considers the long-term developments, including previous disappointments, as well as limitations that have hindered the realization of promises being made.

Both Frisch and Gaillard et al. unpack the concept of over-
promising and provide new definitions. Frisch sees overpromis-
ing as a distinct feature of companies’ imagined business futures
in response to decarbonization pressure. He suggests that over-
promises emerge from contradictions between a company’s in-
evitable profit orientation, the exaggeration and misrepresenta-
tion of an organization’s estimated potential to restructure it-
self, and the systemic pressure and bandwagon of performative
commitments. Eventually, promoting optimistic narratives about
achieving a decarbonized economy can paradoxically hinder cli-
mate action by creating a false sense of achievement and delay-
ing necessary measures.

Gaillard et al. explore overpromising as a common feature of scientific discourse, particularly in fields such as nanoscience. In their multidisciplinary approach, combining signaling theory, philosophy of promising, and science studies research on scientific communication, they put forth a conceptualization that facilitates the identification and assessment of overpromises. They emphasize the importance of considering the context of knowledge available when assessing promises and delineating the crucial factors for assessing the plausibility of claims being made.

Some of the case studies that the authors have chosen to pres-
ent raise issues that ethicists should help to address. But accord-
ing to Pichl, ethicists can also contribute to hype as she shows
in an investigation within the field of stem cells, where thera-
peutic promises are often used as moral arguments for funding
and research-friendly regulation. Pichl’s research article clearly
demonstrates how this contributes to the hype surrounding stem
cell research and its potential applications. To avoid contribut-
ing to hype, the article argues, ethicists must critically examine
future visions and promises, be aware of their own performative
role, and cooperate more closely with disciplines like STS and
TA to contextualize analyses within socio-technical dimensions.

We conclude by expressing our gratitude to all the review-
ers who contributed to improving the quality of the manuscripts
with their constructive comments, and by wishing (with no over-
promising) that the readers of this TATuP Special topic will find
both inspiration and answers for future work.

**Funding** • This work was partially funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme of the European Union, H2020-ERC-2020-SyG – Grant Agreement No. 951393

**Competing interests** • The authors declare no competing interests.

References

Auch, Adam (2013): Virtuous argumentation and the challenges of hype. In: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation 10: Virtues of Argumentation. Available online at https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/72768221.pdf, last accessed on 07.11.2023.

Bareis, Jascha; Katzenbach, Christian (2022): Talking AI into being. The narratives and imaginaries of national AI strategies and their performative politics.

In: Science, Technology, & Human Values 47 (5), pp. 855–881. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439211030007

Beckert, Jens (2016): Imagined futures. Fictional expectations and capitalist dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bensaude Vincent, Bernadette (2014): The politics of buzzwords at the interface of technoscience, market and society. The case of ‘public engagement in science’. In: Public Understanding of Science 23 (3), pp. 238–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513515371

Birch, Kean (2017): Rethinking value in the bio-economy. Finance, assetization, and the management of value. In: Science, Technology, & Human Values 42 (3), pp. 460–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243916661633

Bordignon, Frederique; Ermakova, Liana; Noel, Marianne (2021): Over-promotion and caution in abstracts of preprints during the COVID-19 crisis. In: Learned Publishing. Journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers 34 (4), pp. 622–636. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1411

Chen, Chaomei (2006): CiteSpace II. Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57 (3), pp. 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317

Chen, Chaomei; Hu, Zhigang; Liu, Shengbo; Tseng, Hung (2012): Emerging trends in regenerative medicine. A scientometric analysis in CiteSpace. In: Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy 12 (5), pp. 593–608. https://doi.org/10.1517/14712598.2012.674507

Dedehayir, Ozgur; Steinert, Martin (2016): The hype cycle model. A review and future directions. In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change 108, pp. 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.04.005

Dierkes, Meinolf; Hoffmann, Ute; Marz, Lutz (1996): Visions of technology. Social and institutional factors shaping the development of new technologies. Frankfurt: Campus.

Gillespie, Tarleton (2018): Custodians of the internet. Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300235029

Goffman, Erving (1990): The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin.

Goldfarb, Brent; Kirsch, David (2019): Bubbles and crashes. The boom and bust of technological innovation. Stanford: Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503607934

Gorwa, Robert; Binns, Reuben; Katzenbach, Christian (2020): Algorithmic content moderation. Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. In: Big Data & Society 7 (1), p. 205395171989794. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719897945

Green, Melanie; Brock, Timothy (2000): The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (5), pp. 701–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701

Grunwald, Armin (2015): Die hermeneutische Erweiterung der Technikfolgenabschätzung. In: TATuP – Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis 24 (2), pp. 65–69. https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.24.2.65

Grunwald, Armin (2010): From speculative nanoethics to explorative philosophy of nanotechnology. In: NanoEthics 4 (2), pp. 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-010-0088-5

Intemann, Kristen (2020): Understanding the problem of “hype”. Exaggeration, values, and trust in science. In: Canadian Journal of Philosophy Cambridge University Press 52 (3), https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2020.45

Jasanoff, Sheila; Kim, Sang-Hyun (2009): Containing the atom. Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South
Korea. In: Minerva 47 (2), pp. 119–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4

Kind, Amy (2016): Imagining under constraints. In: Amy Kind and Peter Kung (eds.): Knowledge through imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716808.003.0007

Linden, Alexander; Fenn, Jackie (2003): Understanding Gartner's hype cycles. Strategic analysis report. Available online at http://ask-force.org/web/Discourse/Linden-HypeCycle-2003.pdf, last accessed on 07.11.2023.

Löfstedt, Ragnar (2003): Science communication and the swedish acrylamide 'alarm'. In: Journal of Health Communication 8 (5), pp. 407–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/713852123

Lösch, Andreas (2006): Anticipating the futures of nanotechnology. Visionary images as means of communication. In: Technology Analysis & Strategic Management Routledge, 18 (3–4), pp. 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320600777168

Millar, Neil; Salager-Meyer, Françoise; Budgell, Brian (2019): "It is important to reinforce the importance of ...'. 'Hype' in reports of randomized controlled trials. In: English for Specific Purposes 54, pp. 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2019.02.004

Mische, Ann (2014): Measuring futures in action. Projective grammars in the Rio+20 debates. In: Theory and Society 43 (3–4), pp. 437–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-014-9226-3

Mosco, Vincent (2005): The digital sublime. Myth, power, and cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2433.001.0001

Nordmann, Alfred (2007): If and then. A critique of speculative NanoEthics. In: NanoEthics 1 (1), pp. 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0007-6

Rayner, Steve (2012): Uncomfortable knowledge. The social construction of ignorance in science and environmental policy discourses. In: Economy and Society 41 (1), pp. 123–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2011.637335

Rip, Arie (2006): Folk theories of nanotechnologists. In: Science as Culture 15 (4), pp. 349–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430601022676

Roßmann, Maximilian (2021): Vision as make-believe. How narratives and models represent sociotechnical futures. In: Journal of Responsible Innovation 8 (1), pp. 70–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1853395

Sand, Martin (2019): On "not having a future." In: Futures 107, pp. 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.01.002

Schneider, Christoph; Roßmann, Maximilian; Lösch, Andreas; Grunwald, Armin (2023): Transformative vision assessment and 3-D printing futures. A new approach of technology assessment to address grand societal challenges. In: IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 70 (3), pp. 1089–1098. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2021.3129834

Selin, Cynthia (2007): Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology. In: Science, Technology, & Human Values 32 (2), pp. 196–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243906296918

Sharma, Abz; Grant, David (2011): Narrative, drama and charismatic leadership: The case of Apple's Steve Jobs. In: Leadership 7 (1), pp. 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715010386777

Van Lente, Harro; Rip, Arie (1998): Chapter 7. Expectations in technological developments. An example of prospective structures to be filled in by agency. In: Cornelis Disco and Barend Van der Meulen (eds.): Getting new technologies together. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 203–230. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110810721.203

Vinkers, Christiaan; Tijdink, Joeri; Otte, Willem (2015): Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014. Retrospective analysis. In: British Medical Journal, p. h6467. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h6467

Vinsel, Lee (2021): You're doing it wrong. Notes on criticism and technology hype. In: Medium, 01.02.2021. Available online at https://sts-news medium. com/youre-doing-it-wrong-notes-on-criticism-and-technology-hype- 18b08b4307e5, last accessed on 07.11.2023.

Woznica, Marcel (2022): Stage performances as means for linking sociotechnical imaginaries and projective genres in the discourse around urban air mobility. In: European Journal of Futures Research 10 (12). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-022-00198-3

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

JASCHA BAREIS

is a researcher at the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS) at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) and associate researcher at the Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG) since 2020. He is a political scientist whose passion lies at the crossroads of studying AI policy, algorithmic culture and future visions.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

DR. MAXIMILIAN ROSSMANN

is a post-doc at Maastricht University and studies how hypes and narratives influence technology development and hinder error-correction in science. He graduated in chemical engineering and philosophy and worked on the Vision Assessment of 3D printing, microalgae nutrition, and nuclear waste management at ITAS.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

DR. FRÉDÉRIQUE BORDIGNON

is a researcher at Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Sciences Innovations Sociétés (LISIS), bibliometrician at École des Ponts ParisTech, and ethics trainer. She is a linguist by training and studies academic writing, scholarly literature and correction of science.