and networking between organisations (universities, research institutes, firms and service-providers), which is held generally to improve the prospects for successful innovation.
Supporting innovation-based growth Achievement of long-term reform of the productive system through a raised emphasis on high technology Making the case for increased investment in R&d More informed STI priorities
In terms of ultimate impacts, the exercise influenced research agendas in the science base and in industry and influenced the shape and course of government policy.
‘Futur the German research dialogue',Research Evaluation 13 (3)( 2004) 143 153.3 R. Barre, Synthesis of technology foresight, in:
network forms of organisation, Research in Organisational Behavior, vol. 12,1990, pp. 295 336.20 L. Blatter, Beyond hierarchies and networks:
Organisational Alliances, Partnerships and Networks in Management Benchmarking Study, Washington Research Evaluation Network, www. wren. network. net/resources/benchmarking. 27 J. Airaksinen, A. Haveri, Networks and hierarchies in inter-municipal co-operation.
Since 1996 she held the position of Director of the Science and Technology policy Studies Unit at ATLANTIS Research organisation (Greece)
Research interests include the areas of research evaluation and impact assessment, foresight, national innovation systems and policies, scientific advice for policy-making and risk governance.
Effie Amanatidou, Research and Innovation policy Analyst, P o box: 1698, Trilofos, P. C. 57500, Trilofos Thessalonikis, Greece.
Previous affiliations include the Science policy Research Unit (SPRU) at Sussex University, where he founded and led the EGIST (Evaluation of Government and Industry Strategies for Technology) group;
but other actors have also become major research performers. Meanwhile, the notion of research has been extended considerably,
iii) the role of other research actors, and more importantly, the links among universities and those other research players are disregarded often.
This article offers an alternative approach, using the case of EU universities as an example, to rectify these shortcomings.
which the European research and Innovation Area can evolve. Third, skipping the national level, futures are built for the universities themselves,
The European research and Innovation Area (ERIA) and universities; Trends and drivers for changes; Multilevel governance 1. Introduction The first universities emerged as responses to the need to harness the expanding intellectual forces of the era to the increasingly demanding knowledge requirements of the surrounding society
and economy in the 12th to 15th century in Europe as this major institutional innovation is described by P. A. David, masked in the language of our contemporary discussions of university research and training policies 1,
emergence of new research players; changing science society links and societal demands towards universities; demographic changes,‘massification'of higher education,
First, universities like all the other research players operate in broader socioeconomic systems and thus it is crucial to set the scene,
Third, the role of other research actors, and more importantly, the links among universities and those other research players are disregarded often.
This article offers an alternative approach, using the case of EU universities as an example, to rectify these shortcomings.
It is followed by futures for the European research and Innovation Area (ERIA), 5 as the more immediate surroundings for universities,
and compete with other research actors active inside the EU. 6 Finally, futures are devised for universities. 4 The most visible ones are the so-called Bologna process, the regular meetings of education ministers,
as it is composed of all other EU, national and regional policies affecting RTDI processes and performance, the activities of firms, various types of R&d units and institutes, higher education organisations, financial intermediaries,
among these actors. 6 Non-EU universities and Business r&d units are already operating in the EU,
it is assumed that the European research and Innovation Area can evolve in different directions, depending on the main features of the EU to a significant extent,
& Social Change 75 (2008) 558 582 2. The role of universities in knowledge production 2. 1. The changing landscape of research systems Universities have traditionally been key players in
training the future generation of researchers, engineers, managers (including R&d managers), experts, and policy-makers (among many other fields, for STI policies);
while further research actors became strong players in the 19th century, notably firms (often but not exclusively in the form of R&d units) and public labs 12.
More recently, some patient groups and other types of NGOS are engaged also in research activities.
the outputs (outcomes, impacts) of research efforts by universities. Only the first aspect is treated in some detail below.
Contrary to the widespread belief that technologies are, in essence, applied sciences, a number of scientific disciplines evolved from the puzzles why certain technologies work as they do 22.12 This list is far from being exhaustive:
Suffice it to say that the still predominant‘holy trinity'of basic and applied research, plus experimental development is not providing any meaningful guidance for devising policies,
(i) not only universities conduct academic research (see Section 2. 2. on the role of other research actors);
and (ii) university research and basic research should not be taken as synonyms. 14 Clearly, the significant differences in the responsibilities of national and regional governments in funding and regulating higher education have to be taken into account
For a more detailed discussion, see, e g. 31.562 A. Havas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 558 582 As for the third aspect, the very fact that universities'research efforts lead to rather diverse outputs (outcomes
Further, empirical research does suggest that diversity prevails even inside universities: the performance of faculties or individual institutes/departments varies a lot.
plus other research performers do play a major role in producing knowledge. In other words teaching and research nowadays are intertwined only'at a fewer number 15 Obviously,
The average share of universities in performing basic research was 54%across the OECD in 2003,
the role of these latter types of research organisations should not be ignored in policy discussions. 19 In sum,
and partly because the crucial role of other research actors in producing knowledge. To understand the role of universities,
Second, both employment and financial data, that is, spending on R&d activities by research performing sectors, suggest a great diversity in terms of the‘weight'of these sectors.
etc. are not readily available by research performing sectors, and thus their relative weight cannot be compared this way. 3. Recent key trends and driving forces for future changes Several recent key trends,
and the Academies of Sciences in a number of Central and Eastern European countries. 19 For a more detailed description of public research centres, especially on the variety of players in this sector, e g. in terms of organisational forms and changing ownership (public,
an extensive statistical annex can be found in the original report for the DG Research, EC, on which this article draws.
academic research; joint RTDI projects with businesses (including troubleshooting; consultancy for NGOS and policy-makers at national/regional/local levels is changing.
e g. universities are assuming essential responsibilities in shaping local, regional, sectoral, national and international production and innovation systems. 22 Fig. 1. The distribution of GERD by R&d performing sectors
and that dimension is interconnected obviously closely with the research activities of universities, both in terms of the present research projects (in
new results should be achieved faster to stay ahead of rival research groups. This is adding thrust to the already strong pressure for intense international collaboration,
as well as between universities and other research actors. New players are likely to enter the global research arena in two respects.
First, a large number of research organisations (universities, public and private labs, firms, etc. located in currently laggard countries likely emerge as major players.
In other words, the number of the already existing types of research organisations can increase significantly, hence adding to the intensity of global competition,
to a somewhat limited extent adding to the diversity of the‘ecology'of research actors, too.
Second, new types of currently‘unthinkable'research players might also Fig. 2. The distribution of researchers by R&d performing sectors (FTE, most recent years.
not only certain research actors, but even types of research actors might disappear, as they are becoming‘unfit'to the radically changing environment.
Technological changes offer more sophisticated and thus more expensive equipment for conducting research, but in the meantime it also becomes a must to purchase these pieces of advanced equipment,
given the intense international rivalry among research actors. That is putting extra burdens on the already tight budgets of research organisations,
including universities. Tighter funding opportunities lead to increased competition among higher education and other public research organisations for restricted funds.
Cost-efficiency of research becomes a major objective: the combined effects of technological changes, together with the pressure on public funding, open a gap between rapidly increasing research costs
and public budgets allocated to research conducted at universities. Thus research projects are to be closely scrutinised in terms of their cost-efficiency, too.
New methods, approaches, and norms are likely to be applied when organising, managing, validating, legitimating, and evaluating research activities.
That might lead to a much larger share of research classified by governments as military R&d. 23 A few decades ago no one would have thought of e g.
NGOS and patient groups as research players. 24 These policy initiatives are criticised heavily by researchers on various grounds.
-interdisciplinary research. 4. New players might emerge and new norms might be applied when legitimating and validating knowledge.
Besides conventional academic researchers, knowledge is produced by a wide variety of players, e g. think tanks, private research organisations, nonprofit organisations, government agencies, consultancy companies, market research organisations, patients'groups, various
firms'labs), sold to other parties (contract research organisations, consultancies) or exploited in political/societal processes for advocating/pursuing certain views or interests (NGOS, trade associations).
i e. academic research loses its power to validate knowledge;(b) knowledge either from academic or nonacademic sources is accepted only in society
Then the European research and Innovation Area (ERIA) is taken into account as a‘mezzo level'system.
Second, universities just as other research actors cannot operate fully isolated from their socioeconomic environment. 26 For these two reasons
Fifth, promoting RTDI efforts in cohesion regions via joint research projects (funded e g. by RTD Framework programmes) does not mean that scientific excellence is compromised 45.
successful regions Research agenda An appropriate balance between societal and techno-economic issues Focus on techno-economic issues;
some (minimal) research efforts to tackle social challenges stemming from the widening gaps between flourishing and laggard EU regions Mobility of researchers, university staff and students Two-way traffic:
lacking modern infrastructure Research infrastructure Up-to-date equipment, including joint large and medium-sized RTD facilities, are distributed across regions,
'students, the wider research community, businesses, policy-makers and the civil society. They possess excellent‘navigation'skills to find their way in this complex world, often characterised by conflicting requirements of the various stakeholders.
yet, a number of other organisations e g. think tanks, private research organisations, private nonprofit research organisations, government laboratories, consultancy firms, patient organisations, various NGOS, trade associations and interest groups
) a clear separation of knowledge produced by universities (and other credible research organisations), on the one hand, and knowledge produced by other sources with a‘lower status',on the other.
Double success case Trends, driving forces Universities Largely unchanged universities Radically reformed universities The role/mission of universities The main emphasis is on teaching and‘basic research'(science for the sake of science), not much interaction
too The majority of universities are interested only in‘basic research'projects, isolated from innovation processes Reformed universities actively participate in these co-operations Multi-disciplinary research A widely used practice,
but conducted in the rationale of‘pure science':'the complexities of societal issues and competitiveness are addressed not;
the full potential of multi-disciplinary research is exploited not Awidely used practice at universities across the EU;
Successful multi-speed EU Trends, driving forces Universities Largely unchanged universities Radically reformed universities The role/mission of universities The main emphasis is on teaching and‘basic research,
the ones located in laggard regions seek partners in the advanced regions (not paying attention to the cohesion needs of their own home region) Multi-disciplinary research A more widely used practice,
the full potential of multi-disciplinary research is exploited not Multi-disciplinary research is pursued in a limited sense:
The Humboldtian model of universities higher education and basic research as almost inseparable‘Siamese twins'is still a prevailing notion in many professors'and policy-makers'mindsets.
A closer look at various R&d indicators clearly shows however, that universities are not predominant research performers in the developed OECD (and EU) countries.
Not only several other players conduct research, but in the advanced countries Business r&d units have even a bigger weight than universities.
Further, as nowadays 30 40%of the relevant age group attend higher education courses, an ever larger number of higher education organisations offer mainly or only teaching.
Data also indicate that universities not only conduct basic research and it is not only universities who conduct basic research (on average,
54%of basic research expenditures are spent at universities in the OECD countries). Yet, the widely held consensus in the literature on the rationale for funding‘basic science'by public money still rests on the Humboldtian model:
training of future generation of researchers is of overriding importance among the benefits of basic science,
and‘basic research'are not that closely interconnected as they used to be, the rationale for funding basic research needs to be revisited.
To reflect on recent changes, the very notion of research has also been broadened substantially/reconsidered,
considering different future states first for the EU and the European research and Innovation Area, and then for universities themselves.
and on the‘mission'of the European 578 A. Havas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 558 582 Innovation and Research area are made in a transparent and conscious way.
in turn, can and should always be tailored to a specific research question);(iii) the role of other research actors,
and more importantly, the links among universities and those other research players can be discussed properly. This sort of analysis a structured set futures, taking into account the links among systems operating at different levels can be of relevance in other Triad regions, too,
considering their own salient features. It can be extended to public research organisations, too, operated either in the EU or other Triad regions.
Given the importance of strategic thinking in this field, prospective activities of universities should be promoted by organising awareness-raising events at regional,
Acknowledgements This article draws on a report prepared for an expert group on The Future of Key Research actors in the European research area
commissioned by DG Research, EC. Comments on earlier versions by Andrea Bonaccorsi, Elie Faroult, János Gács, Luke Georghiou, Annamária Inzelt,
What is changing in academic research? Trends and futures scenarios, Eur. J. Educ. 41 (2)( 2006) 169 202.6 P. H. Aghion, et al.
http://www. bruegel. org. 7 STRATA-ETAN EXPERT group, Higher education and Research for the ERA:
Current Trends and Challenges for the Near future, Final Report, EC DG Research Unit RTD-K. 2 october, 2002.8 LERU, Universities and Innovation:
the Challenge for Europe, League of European research Universities, November, 2006.9 L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena Harper, The Higher education sector and Its Role in Research:
and Approaches in Technology and Innovation policy, STI Review, No. 22,1998. 16 OECD, Benchmarking Industry science Relationships, OECD, Paris, 2002.17 W. Polt, C. Rammer, H. Gassler, A. Schibany,
D. Schartinger, Benchmarking industry science relations: the role of framework conditions, Sc. Public policy 28 (4)( 2001) 247 258.18 EUROPOLIS, The European research area:
Policy 33 (3)( 2004) 455 471.23 EC, Frontier Research: The European Challenge, HLEG report, DG Research, Office for Official Publications of the European communities, Luxembourg, 2005.24 OECD, Frascati Manual:
Proposed Standard practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental development, OECD, Paris, 2002.25 D. E. Stokes, Pasteur's Quadrant:
Basic science and Technological innovation, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D c.,1997 26 E. von Hippel, The Sources of Innovation, Oxford UP, Oxford, 1988.27 M. Akrich, R. Miller
, The Future of Research actors in the European research area, Synthesis Paper, HLEG on The Future of Key Research actors in the European research area, 2006.28 A. Bonaccorsi, The Changing Role of Researchers in Europe, 2020, Contribution to the HLEG on The Future
of Key Research actors in the European research area, 2005.29 H. Etzkowitz, L. Leysdorff, The dynamics of innovation:
Regional governments, Contribution to the HLEG on The Future of Key Research actors in the European research area, 2005.32 A. Bonaccorsi, C. Daraio (Eds.
What makes basic research economically useful? Res. Policy 20 (2)( 1991) 109 119.34 K. Pavitt, The social shaping of the national science base, Res.
Policy 27 (8)( 1998) 793 805.35 A j. Salter, B. R. Martin, The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research:
of Education and Research, Bonn, 2005.42 G. Dosi, P. Llerena, M. Sylos Labini, The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation:
Differences to the USA and Changes Over Time, WIFO, 2005.48 J. Romanainen, National Governments, Contribution to the DG Research Expert Group on The Future of Key Research actors in the European research area, 2005.
Attila Havas (MA 1983, Phd 1997) is a Senior Research fellow at the Institute of Economics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences (e-mail:
He has participated in a number of international research projects on STI policies, innovation and transition, as well as on foresight and prospective analyses, been a member of several EU expert groups on foresight,
The challenge of joining forces to develop more robust future-oriented support to decision making has been addressed in the series of International Seville FTA Conference organized by the Institute of Prospective Technological Studies, one of the Joint research Centers
but it also directly aims its messages at policy makers responsible for designing more effective strategies for the deployment of public funds for R&d and those responsible for forecasting where and how to do this no small task indeed!
and interplay between FTA and RA approaches is considered a necessity at VTT Technical research Centre of Finland for being truly innovative
the Technology barometer can be regarded as a new tool for managing strategic investments in R&d, as well as in other areas such as new skills acquisition and patents management etc.
This well designed process breaks new ground in being concerned explicitly with enabling foresight as a sustainability asset for Germany's status as a R&d-innovation leader with specific elements also aimed at four innovative targets:
new R&d domains; crosscutting opportunities; new fields for strategic partnerships; and priorities for innovation policy. As well, the interplay between foresight and policy is defined further and elaborated,
a research project exploring potential co-evolutions of nanotechnology and governance arrangements. This involved the inclusion of pre-engagement analysis of potential co-evolutions in the form of scenarios into interactive workshop activities, with the aim of enabling multi-stakeholder anticipation of the complexities of co-evolution.
Totti Könnölä is a research fellow at the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies of the Joint research Centre in the European commission.
and many strategic decision-making processes to align future R&d priorities and innovation strategies with sustainability goals. He holds a Dr. Tech. and a Lic.
Foresight and Innovation strategy, Defence R&d Canada, and Chair of the Foresight Synergy Network of Canada.
he was Director of S&t Foresight for the Office of the National science Advisor to the Prime minister of Canada and Leader of the Office of Technology foresight for the National research council of Canada.
Annele Eerola is a Senior Research scientist of the knowledge center‘Organisations, Networks and Innovation systems'at VTT Technical research Centre of Finland.
totti. konnola@ec. europa. eu. Jack Smith Defence RD, Ottawa, Canada Annele Eerola VTT Technical research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland 1
Relevant research has approached the problem of forecasting radical technological change with methods for supporting analysis for both decomposition and integration of new technologies.
enabling them to rapidly respond to the research and development efforts of their peers. Thus, they also require analytic support to gather, structure,
The roadmapping activity achieves value by providing a single locus for coordinated research and development activity (see for instance 19.
Some additional research into the first item reveals that there are indeed developments here: the World wide web consortium has developed recently standards for accessible rich Internet applications,
undiscovered linkages may be valuable new innovations worthy of research and development. Undocumented linkages may simply reflect out of date source materials.
The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, SAGE, London, 1994.13 B. Harrison, Industrial districts:
Inf. 22 (2)( 1983) 191 235.34 Lakatos, The Methodology of Scientific research Programmes: Philosophical Papers, Two Volumes, Cambridge university Press, Cambridge, 1978.35 M. Polanyi, Personal Knowledge:
Scott Cunningham received a Ph d. in Science, Technology and Innovation policy from the Science policy Research Unit.
developed patents in the fields of pricing and promotion algorithms, been a research fellow at the Technology policy Assessment Center of Georgia Tech,
b Department Urban Water management Research at Eawag, Switzerland c Institute of environmental Engineering at ETH Zurich, Switzerland d Competence Center Sustainability and Infrastructure Systems
and tested in a transdisciplinary research project that empirically focused on The swiss urban water management sector. Following the model of action research 56,
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1150 1162 Acknowledgements The project Regional infrastructure foresight was funded by The swiss National science Foundation within the National research Program 54 Sustainable development of the Built Environment.
Eckhard Störmer is a project leader at the Social science Research Department Cirus (innovation research in utility sectors) at The swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag.
Anja Herlyn is a scientific researcher at the Group Water Infrastucture Management at Eawag. Harald Hiessl is head of the Competence Center Sustainability and Infrastructure Systems at the German Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research ISI and the deputy of this Institute.
Hans Kastenholz is a senior researcher at the Technology and Society unit of The swiss Federal Institute of Materials Science and Technology (Empa.
Annette Ruef is a scientific researcher at Cirus at Eawag and led the case study Kiesental. 1162 E. Störmer et al./
Integrating future-oriented technology analysis and risk assessment methodologies Raija Koivisto, Nina Wessberg, Annele Eerola, Toni Ahlqvist, Sirkku Kivisaari, Jouko Myllyoja, Minna Halonen VTT Technical research Centre of Finland
VTT Technical research Centre of Finland, P o box 1300, FI-33101 Tampere, Finland. Tel.:++358 20 722 3272.
but in practice the researches, research projects and case studies have separated and are linked seldom. It is thus interesting to explore how these research traditions can contribute to each other.
Foresight and risk assessment activities are considered increasingly important throughout the R&d value chain, stressing the need for a flexible, integrative approach.
o Section 2 discusses the main research traditions contributing to the paper. o Section 3 presents the concrete projects in the light
and FTA PROCESSES. o Section 5 points out preliminary conclusions and directions for further research. 2. Methods of FTA and risk assessment 2. 1. The methods of future-oriented technology analysis Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA) can be seen as a common
and technology oriented forecasstin practices and called for new participatory and systemic foresight approaches 3. Also the R&d functions are moving from the basic science
This will be discussed further in Section 2. 2. Joint research Centre (JRC) and Institute of Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) have launched a FOR-LEARN On-line Foresight guide developed during the project FOR-LEARN in 6th Framework programme project of the European commission.
and risk assessment methodologies by analysing the foresight design dimensions of three research projects. 3. Prospective projects illuminating possible synergies
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1163 1176 The INNORISK Managing opportunities, risks and uncertainties project is a 3-year (2006 2009) joint research project between the Corporate Foresight
Group (Cofi) of Åbo Akademi Finland and VTT Technical research Centre of Finland financed by the Finnish funding agency for technology and Innovation (TEKES.
and in the Nordic countries is carried out at VTT, namely the Nordic Energy Research Climate and Energy systems:
forthcoming) propose a taxonomy of foresight activities at a contract research organisation like VTT (see the taxonomy framework in Fig. 4). The axes of the taxonomy are described in the Box 1. According to Könnölä et al. 2 most of the VTT's foresight activities position themselves to the consensual
analysis of modular foresight projects at contract research organisation. Technology analysis & Strategic management 21 (3)( 2009) 381 405.3 R. Smits, S. Kuhlmann, The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy, Int. J. Foresight Innov.
practices on the basis of European experience, VTT Research Notes, vol. 2174,2002,(in Finnish, abstract in English;
The Handbook of Technology foresight, PRIME Series on Research and Innovation policy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 2008.8 I. Nonaka, H. Takeutchi, The Knowledge-creating Company, Oxford university Press, New york, 1995.9
Innorisk-project, www. vtt. fi/innorisk, Managing Opportunities, Risk and Uncertainties in New Business Creation Working Report, VTT Technical research Centre of Finland, Tampere
towards a new safety paradigm, Journal of Risk Research 10 (7)( 2007) 959 975 October 2007.
Her current research interests include emerging risks and critical infrastructure protection, among others. She also holds a docent position in the University of Oulu
Dr. Nina Wessberg is Senior Research scientist at VTT. She graduated in environmental engineering (M. Sc. 1996) and in environmental policy (M. Sc. 1997, Lic.
Dr. Annele Eerola is Senior Research scientist and Deputy Technology manager of the knowledge centre‘Organisations, Networks and Innovation systems'at VTT.
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1163 1176 Dr. Toni Ahlqvist is Senior Research scientist and Team Leader of Technology foresight and Technology assessment team at VTT.
Dr. Sirkku Kivisaari works as Senior Research scientist in VTT. Her educational background is in business management.
Jouko Myllyoja is Research scientist in Technology foresight and Technology assessment team at VTT. His main focuses of interests are commercializing environmental technologies and sustainable development.
Minna Halonen (MSC) has been working as Research scientist at VTT Technical research Centre of Finland since 2004.
Her main research interests concern technology foresight, service research and sustainable development. 1176 R. Koivisto et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1163 1176
Toni Ahlqvist b, Pekka Pellinen c a VTT Technical research Centre of Finland, Vuorimiehentie 5, Espoo 1000, FIN-02044 VTT, Finland b VTT
Technical research Centre of Finland, Itäinen Pitkäkatu 4, Turku 106,20521 Turku, Finland c The Finnish association of graduate engineers TEK, Ratavartijankatu 2, 00520 Helsinki, Finland a r t
and priority-setting of R&d and have become indispensable elements of policy-making. Besides technological development decision-makers need all-inclusive knowledge of future developments of society, economy and impacts of science and technology.
as well as a future-oriented survey exploring future visions of relevant national actors like industries, policy-makers and politicians, research community and future generations,
and dynamics into the analysis. The framework enables the structural comparisons of entire economies, their individual industrial sectors, related R&d and innovation intensities,
like private and public R&d investments, albeit the most important data is related to outcomes and impacts of inputs,
and both private and public investments in research and development (R&d). These investments show how effectively the information society related objectives will be achieved.
and the outcomes of these investments as R&d productivity. The knowledge-value society refers to an advanced formthat has developed froman information society via a knowledge society,
universities and research institutes. The ultimate goal of innovation activities is to improve the nation's competitiveness so as to promote citizens'wellbeing.
and develop the role of knowledge-intensive work, educational and R&d investment on an extensive basis,
i e. provision of meaningful and useful conclusions, requires a combination of scientifically generated explicit knowledge with implicit or tacit knowledge from the research group.
This development naturally raises new research questions and needs new data and novel indicators to be included in the barometer.
In Finland, the sectoral research system of government administrations will be renewed, underscoring the following four topics: regional and community structures and infrastructures;
WEF and IMD, are research institutes or university units. Also, the European commission produces several indicator and barometer type scoreboards and publications.
In principle, this concept could be applied in the study of different kinds of societal objects and objectives, related to national innovation system, regions, research programmes or societal actors, engaging private enterprises and public organizations.
Index (A t. Kearny) Globalization Index (World Markets Research centre) Society Human Development Index (UN) Corruption Perceptions Index (Transparency International) Overall Health
Torsti Loikkanen is a Senior Research scientist and Research Coordinator of innovation and innovation policy studies at VTT.
His recent research work is related to the rationales of innovation policy, foresight of technologies (e g. transition towards sustainable energy systems), intellectual property rights,
and impacts of globalization on enterprise R&d, innovation systems and innovation policies. He holds A m. Sc. in economics from Helsinki University.
Toni Ahlqvist is a Senior Research scientist and Team Leader of Technology foresight and Technology assessment team at VTT.
His research is focused on technology foresight technological transformation of societies, innovation systems and economic geography. He holds a Phd in human geography from the University of Turku, Finland.
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011