Although autonomous driving is expected to provide a solution for various mobility-related issues, ideas on how the technology will actually unfold are vague. Nevertheless, stakeholders in the field hold expectations about the technology and the future users. With very few exceptions, so far research does not focus on these expectations as social constructions of individuals and publics. In addition, these perceptions play only a minor role in the technology-centered debate. Thus, to bring these perceptions to light and to analyze their implications, we draw on the sociotechnical imaginaries approach to reconstruct stakeholders’ views of future users and publics. We perform a qualitative content analysis and show that imaginaries unfold along the themes of responsibility for the process of driving, rationality in decision-making, and acceptance for emerging technologies. We discuss how the themes relate to each other, what role science plays, and what implications follow from the respective stakeholders’ views.
AkrichM (1992) The de-scription of technical objects. In: BijkerWELawJ (eds) Shaping Technology / Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnological Change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 205–224.
2.
AkrichM (1995) User representations: Practices, methods and sociology. In: RipA (ed.) Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London: Pinter, pp. 167–184.
3.
BainbridgeL (1983) Ironies of automation. Automatica19(6): 775–779.
4.
BanisterD (2005) Unsustainable Transport: City Transport in the New Century. New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
BarbenD (2010) Analyzing acceptance politics: Towards an epistemological shift in the public understanding of science and technology. Public Understanding of Science19(3): 274–292.
6.
BarnettJBurninghamKWalkerGCassN (2012) Imagined publics and engagement around renewable energy technologies in the UK. Public Understanding of Science21(1): 36–50.
7.
BergmanN (2017) Stories of the future: Personal mobility innovation in the United Kingdom. Energy Research & Social Science31: 184–193.
8.
BergmanNSchwanenTSovacoolBK (2017) Imagined people, behaviour and future mobility: Insights from visions of electric vehicles and car clubs in the United Kingdom. Transport Policy59: 165–173.
9.
BijkerWELawJ (eds) (1992) Shaping Technology / Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnological Change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
10.
BissellDBirtchnellTElliottAHsuEL (2020) Autonomous automobilities: The social impacts of driverless vehicles. Current Sociology68: 116–134.
11.
BruceSYearleyS (2009) The SAGE Dictionary of Sociology. London: SAGE.
12.
ButlerJ (1997) The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
13.
CanzlerWKaufmannVKesselringS (eds) (2009) Tracing Mobilities: Towards a Cosmopolitan Perspective. Aldershot: Ashgate.
14.
CherryCHopfeCMacGillivrayBPidgeonN (2017) Homes as machines: Exploring expert and public imaginaries of low carbon housing futures in the United Kingdom. Energy Research & Social Science23: 36–45.
15.
DelinaLL (2017) Whose and what futures? Navigating the contested coproduction of Thailand’s energy sociotechnical imaginaries. Energy Research & Social Science35: 48–56.
16.
DomaradzkaA (2018) Urban social movements and the right to the city: An introduction to the special issue on urban mobilization. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations29(4): 607–620.
17.
EatonWMGasteyerSPBuschL (2014) Bioenergy futures: Framing sociotechnical imaginaries in local places. Rural Sociology79(2): 227–256.
18.
EngelsFMünchAV (2015) The micro smart grid as a materialised imaginary within the German energy transition. Energy Research & Social Science9: 35–42.
19.
FoucaultM (1998) The Will to Knowledge. London: Penguin Books.
20.
FraedrichELenzB (2016) Taking a drive, hitching a ride: Autonomous driving and car usage. In: MaurerMLenzBWinnerHGerdesJC (eds) Autonomous Driving: Technical, Legal and Social Aspects. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 665–695.
21.
FunkJL (2015) IT and sustainability: New strategies for reducing carbon emissions and resource usage in transportation. Telecommunications Policy39(10): 861–874.
22.
FuntowiczSORavetzJR (1992) Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of postnormal science. In: KrimskySGoldingD (eds) Social Theories of Risk. Westport, CT: Praeger, pp. 251–273.
23.
GarfinkelH (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
24.
GeelsFW (2014) Reconceptualising the co-evolution of firms-in-industries and their environments: Developing an inter-disciplinary Triple Embeddedness Framework. Research Policy43(2): 261–277.
25.
GrunwaldA (2016) Societal risk constellations for autonomous driving: Analysis, historical context and assessment. In: MaurerMLenzBWinnerHGerdesJC (eds) Autonomous Driving: Technical, Legal and Social Aspects. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 641–663.
26.
HampelJKroppCZwickMM (2018) Zur gesellschaftlichen Wahrnehmung des voll autonomen Fahrens und seiner möglichen nachhaltigkeitsbezogenen Implikationen [On the societal perception of fully autonomous driving and its potential sustainability related consequences]. TATuP Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis27(2): 38–45.
27.
HöijerB (2011) Social representations theory: A new theory for media research. Nordicom Review32(2): 3–16.
28.
JägerS (2015) Kritische Diskursanalyse: Eine Einführung [Critical discourse analysis. An introduction]. Münster: Unrast.
29.
JasanoffS (2015) Future imperfect: Science, technology, and the imaginations of modernity. In: JasanoffSKimS-H (eds) Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago, IL; London: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–33.
30.
JasanoffSKimS-H (2009) Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva47(2): 119–146.
31.
JasanoffSKimS-H (eds) (2015) Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago, IL; London: The University of Chicago Press.
32.
JasanoffS (ed.) (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order. London; New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
33.
KorsnesM (2016) Ambition and ambiguity: Expectations and imaginaries developing offshore wind in China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change107: 50–58.
34.
LatourB (1990) Technology is society made durable. The Sociological Review38(1): 103–131.
35.
LawsDHajerM (2009) Policy in practice. In: GoodinREMoranMReinM (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 409–424.
36.
LorberJ (ed.) (1991) The Social Construction of Gender. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
37.
ManderscheidK (2016) Who does the move? Affirmation or deconstruction of the solitary mobile subject. In: EndresMManderscheidKMinckeC (eds) The Mobilities Paradigm: Discourses and Ideologies of Mobilities. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 91–113.
38.
ManderscheidK (2018) From the auto-mobile to the driven subject? Discursive assertions of mobility futures. Transfers—Interdisciplinary Journal of Mobility Studies8(1): 24–43.
39.
ManiatesMF (2001) Individualization: Plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world?Global Environmental Politics1(3): 31–52.
40.
MarantaAGuggenheimMGislerPPohlC (2003) The reality of experts and the imagined lay person. Acta Sociologica46(2): 150–165.
MoscoviciS (1988) Notes towards a description of social representations. European Journal of Social Psychology18: 211–250.
43.
NowotnyH (2014) Engaging with the political imaginaries of science: Near misses and future targets. Public Understanding of Science23(1): 16–20.
44.
PerrowC (1984) Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
PfotenhauerSJasanoffS (2017) Panacea or diagnosis? Imaginaries of innovation and the “MIT model” in three political cultures. Social Studies of Science47(6): 783–810.
46.
PinchTJBijkerWE (1992) The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In: BijkerWELawJ (eds) Shaping Technology / Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnological Change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 17–50.
47.
RammertW (2014) Distributed agency and advanced technology. Or: How to analyze constellations of collective inter-agency. In: PassothJ-HPeukerBSchillmeierM (eds) Agency without Actors? New Approaches to Collective Action. London: Routledge, pp. 89–112.
48.
ReinMSchönDA (1993) Reframing policy discourse. In: FischerFForesterJ (eds) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 145–166.
49.
RennOSchweizerP-J (2009) Inclusive risk governance: Concepts and application to environmental policy making. Environmental Policy and Governance19(3): 174–185.
50.
RommetveitKWynneB (2017) Technoscience, imagined publics and public imaginations. Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England)26(2): 133–147.
51.
RösgenP (ed.) (2017) Geliebt. Gebraucht. Gehasst: Die Deutschen und ihre Autos [Loved. Used. Hated: The germans and their cars]. Dresden: Sandstein Verlag.
52.
RyghaugMToftakerM (2016) Creating transitions to electric road transport in Norway: The role of user imaginaries. Energy Research & Social Science17: 119–126.
53.
SAE International (2014) Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to On-Road Motor Vehicle Automated Driving Systems. Warrendale: SAE International.
54.
SchreursMASteuwerSD (2016) Autonomous driving—Political, legal, social, and sustainability dimensions. In: MaurerMLenzBWinnerHGerdesJC (eds) Autonomous Driving: Technical, Legal and Social Aspects. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 149–171.
55.
SchwarzMThompsonM (1990) Divided We Stand: Re-defining Politics, Technology & Social Choice. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.
56.
SmithJMTidwellAS (2016) The everyday lives of energy transitions: Contested sociotechnical imaginaries in the American West. Social Studies of Science46(3): 327–350.
57.
SperlingD (ed.) (2018) Three Revolutions: Steering Automated, Shared, and Electric Vehicles to a Better Future. Washington, DC: Island Press.
58.
StilgoeJ (2018) Machine learning, social learning and the governance of self-driving cars. Social Studies of Science48(1): 25–56.
59.
StilgoeJLockSJWilsdonJ (2014) Why should we promote public engagement with science?Public Understanding of Science23(1): 4–15.
60.
UrryJ (2004) The “system” of automobility. Theory, Culture & Society21(4–5): 25–39.
61.
UrryJ (2016) What Is the Future?Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
62.
WalkerGCassNBurninghamKBarnettJ (2010) Renewable energy and sociotechnical change: Imagined subjectivities of “the public” and their implications. Environment and Planning A42(4): 931–947.
63.
WentlandA (2016) Imagining and enacting the future of the German energy transition: Electric vehicles as grid infrastructure. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research29(3): 285–302.
64.
WoolgarS (1990) Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. The Sociological Review38: 58–99.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
