Orienting European innovation systems towards grand challenges and the roles that FTA can play Cristiano Cagnin1*,Effie Amanatidou2 and Michael Keenan3 1dg Joint research Centre Institute for Prospective and Technological Studies
(JRC-IPTS), Seville, Spain; and Center for Strategic Studies and Management (CGEE), SCN Quadra 2, Bloco A, Ed. Corporate Financial center, 11andar, Sala 1102, CEP 70712-900, Brazil 2manchester
Institute of Innovation research, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9pl, UK 3directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, OECD,
and Honorary Research fellow, Manchester Institute of Innovation research, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9pl, UK*Corresponding author.
cristianocagnin@gmail. com A strong research and innovation policy discourse has emerged in recent years around the need to address‘grand challenges',particularly at EU level.
technology assessment. 1. Introduction Recent years have seen a great deal of discussion on how science, technology and innovation (STI) systems might be reoriented to better address several grand challenges that affect not only contemporary societies but also the future of human civilisation itself.
It differs from an earlier mission-led period (1940s and 1950s) that was focused more nationally
and largely oriented towards supporting the military industrial complex (Gassler et al. 2008). The issues covered by the term‘grand challenges'naturalll lend themselves to a global outlook,
are grand in scope and scale, and are made generally up of‘wicked problems'(Rittel and Weber 1973) that are difficult
This new orientation is perhaps nowhere more in evidence than at the EU level, where grand societal Science and Public policy 39 (2012) pp. 140 152 doi:
10.1093/scipol/scs014 The Author 2012. Published by Oxford university Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email:
process, service or organisational form into the marketplace and the social sphere (OECD and Eurostat 2005;
Fagerberg et al. 2004. It occurs mostly in firms that respond to expected market opportunities by combining different types of knowledge, capabilities, skills and resources (Hall and Rosenberg 2010.
Expectattion of such opportunities can be created by any number of factors, many of them defined differently in different national spaces, e g. through regulations, financiia incentives, consumer preferences etc.
At the same time, innovation is a systemic phenomenon by nature as it results from the continuing interaction between different actors and organisations (Freeman 1970.
but often result from a long process involving many interrelated innovaation (Rogers 1995; Freeman and Soete 1997.
Furthermore, many economically significant innovations occur while a product or process is being diffused since the introduction of something‘new'in a different context often implies adaptation
and technology transfer and/or organisational changes (Hall and Rosenberg 2010). This incrementalism often leads to lock in
and this has implications for policy (Fagerberg et al. 2004). Factors vary, for instance, on R&d intensity (i e. high-tech,
and the workings of institutions (Arnold 2004; Woolthuis et al. 2005. Indeed, expected system elements might be completely absent in some national settings particularly in less developed countries and/or weakly developed or dysfunctional in others.
Each of these structural elements is described further below:.Actors: these include a wide range of types of organisattion including:
This is because strong cooperative relationships can lead to overembedddedness marked by myopia and inertia (Woolthuis et al. 2005.
Bergek et al. 2008) have recommended the functions of innovation system as an alternative point of analytical departure. 1 Such functional analysis,
Drawing upon a mix of sources (Bach and Matt 2005; Bergek et al. 2008; Edquist 2008;
Hekkert et al. 2007; Jacobsson and Bergek 2006; van Lente 1993; von Hippel 2005; Woolthius et al. 2005), the following six‘high-level'functions of innovation systems can be identified:.
Facilitate experimentation and learning: safeguarding‘variety'in the innovation system is key given the uncertainties that follow from new combinations of knowledge, applications and markets.
Entrepreneurial experimentation reduces uncertainty through a continnuou probing into new technologies and applications that allows many forms of social learning to take place..
Nurture knowledge development: this is considered to be the most basic function of innovation systems without which nothing else would happen.
It has traditioonall been associated with R&d, but there are differren types of knowledge besides science and technology knowledge, including production,
design and market knowledge. The sources and locations of knowledge development are wide-ranging, and include R&d activities in the public and private sectors,
and design and production in firms..Promote knowledge diffusion: given the distributed nature of knowledge production, knowledge diffusion is an essential function of innovation systems.
and social (for the public good) innovation (Depledge et al. 2010). Furthermore, grand challenges cannot be dealt effectively with through technological innovaation alone.
or stakeholder theory, in which business organisations increasingly promote innovation in their social and environmental policies (Smith 2000).
It is an emergent trend encouraging activities that generate mutual benefit to business and society or the natural environment (Bright et al. 2006.
Nonprofit making motivations have surfaced also already in trends towards commons-based peer productiio (Benkler 2006.
are intrinsic to FTA (Cagnin et al. 2008). At the same time, appropriate constellations of policy interventions will vary, depending on specific challenges,
opportunities and problems encountered in sectors, technologies and social networks (Stirling et al. 2009). Clearly, the eorientation of innovation systems places particular demands on STI policy and the governance of innovation systems.
2010) highlight the need for the creation of more transparent and accountable forms of governance that are better able to anticipate
otherwise have been the case (Cagnin et al. 2008). This role most closely corresponds to the innovation functions of knowledge diffusion, mobilisaatio of resources,
This implies a type of knowledge production close to the so-called‘mode 2'(Nowotny et al. 2003) acknowledging the distributed nature of knowledge,
Adapted from Barre'and Keenan (2008) and Cagnin et al. 2011). ) 146. C. Cagnin et al. 6. Implications for European collaborative programmes This section examines some of the recent STI policy initiatiive of the EU that seek to better orient policy agendas towards grand challenges
and considers the contributions that are being, and could be made by FTA in this regard. In general, having to deal with more global issues implies a corresponding organisational capacity to deal with them
The Europe 2020 Strategy2 is oriented explicitly towards tackling grand societal challennge and has formulated ambitious policy objectives for climate change, energy security, demographic ageing and resource efficiency.
At the same time the Europe 2020 Strategy notes that a partnership approach should extend to EU committees, to national parliaments and national, local and regional authorities,
to social partners and to stakeholders and civil society so that all main stakeholders can be involved in delivering on the vision of Europe 2020.
and engaging certain stakeholders like businesses (Annenberg et al. 2010), as well as in contributing to the coordination of national and local research and innovation policies towards joint goals (IDEA Consult 2010).
Additionally, there are limitations to achieving the necessaar flexibility, creativity and cross-disciplinary research needed to tackle grand challenges,
These shortcomings are recognised well in Horizon 2020 and certain new initiatives have been proposed to overcome them.
ERA NET PLUS and Article 185.4 JPIS go beyond existing relevant schemes by implementing joint research programmes towards real public-to-public partnerships between Member States and the EU (ERAC-GPC 2010.
i e. large firms, small and medium-sized enterprises, the public sector, the social economy and citizens themselves (CEC 2010).
or Art. 185 initiatives (Wintlev-Jensen, cited in Amanatidou 2011). Experiment and learning Knowledge develop Direct search
The identification of grand challenges and the corresponding priorities for research and innovation through the use of forward-looking activities is mentioned explicitly in the Council's conclusions (December 2009) 7 on guidance on future priorities for European research.
which analytical guidelines are developed to facilitate the planning and implementation of joint research programmes (ERAC-GPC 2010).
The importance of transnational foresights is highlighted also specifically for joint programming (Acheson et al. 2007. In this regard, the importance of the informing role and benefits from FTA are recognised already in the new instruments.
2008) make clear that:..using the notion of an‘overall function'does not imply that all actors in a particular system exist for the purpose of serving that function
2007) point out, the notion of‘function'is provided useful its heuristic value is stressed. 2. COM (2010) 2020, Brussels, 3 march 2010.3. COM (2010) 546 final, Brussels, 6 october 2010.4.
Article 185 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European union (ex Article 169 of the Treaty establisshin the European community) enables the EU to participate in research programmes undertaken jointly by several Member States,
Council of the European union, Guidance on future priorities for European research and research-based innovation in post-2010 Lisbon strategy, Council conclussions Brussels, 8 december 2009.8.
In 2011, the JRC-IPTS supported the European Institute of technology to identify potential priority areas for new KICS from 2013.
menu/standard/file/lund declaration final version 9 july. pdf>accessed Dec 2011. References Acheson, H.,Amanatidou, E. and Boekholt, P. 2007)‘ Optimising research programmes and priorities',Report of the ERA Expert Group, EUR 23324.
Brussels: European commission. Amanatidou, E. 2011)‘ Strategy workshop on Innovation Union: Joint programming and its instruments',Final Report.
Brussels: European commission.<<http://netwatch. jrc. ec. europa. eu/static/download/workshop april 2011/Report%20strategy%20workshop%20jp%20and%20itss20instruments. pdf>,accessed 11 oct 2011.
Annerberg, R.,Begg, I.,Acheson, H.,Borra's, S.,Halle'n, A.,Maimets, T.,Mustonen, R.,Raffler, H.,Swings, J.-P. and Ylihonko, K. 2010)‘ Interim evaluation of the Seventh
Framework programme',Report of the Expert Group, EUR 24569 EN. Brussels: European commission. Orienting European innovation systems. 151 Arnold, E. 2004)‘ Evaluating research and innovation policy:
A systems world needs systems evaluations',Research Evaluation, 13:3 17. Bach, L. and Matt, M. 2005)‘ From economic foundations to S&t policy tools:
A comparative analysis of the dominant paradigms'.'In: Matt, M. and Llerena, P. eds) Innovation policy in a Knowledge Based Economy:
Barre',R. and Keenan, M. 2008)‘ Revisiting foresight rationalles What lessons from the social sciences and humanities?'.
Benkler, Y. 2006) The Wealth of Networks. How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New haven and London:
Yale university Press,<http://cyber. law. harvard. edu/wealth of networks/Main page>accessed Apr 2011. Bergek, A.,Jacobsson, S.,Carlsson, B.,Lindmark, S. and Rickne, A. 2008)‘ Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems:
A scheme of analysis',Research policy, 37: 407 29. Boden, M.,Cagnin, C.,Carabias, V.,Haegeman, K. and Ko nno la, T. 2010)‘ Facing the future:
time for the EU to meet global challenges',EUR 24364 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European union.<
<http://ftp. jrc. es/EURDOC/JRC55981. pdf>,accessed Oct 2011. Bright, D. S.,Fry, R. E. and Cooperrider, D. L. 2006)‘ Transformative innovations for the mutual benefit of business society,
and environment',BAWB Interactive Working Paper Series 1 (1), pp. 17 33.<<http://worldbenefit. case. edu/research/paperseries/?
/p=21>accessed Apr 2011. Cagnin, C.,Keenan, M.,Johnston, R.,Scapolo, F. and Barre',R.,eds,(2008) Future-oriented technology analysis Strategic intelligence for an Innovative economy.
Heidelberg: Springer. Cagnin, C.,Loveridge, D. and Saritas, O. 2011)‘ FTA and equity: New approaches to governance',Futures, 43: 279 91.
CEC. 2010)‘ Communication from the Commission to the European parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social, Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union',SEC (2010) 1161
, COM (2010) 546 final, 6 october 2010. Brussels: European commission. Depledge, M.,Bartonova, A. and Cherp, A. 2010)‘ Responsible and transformative innovation for sustainable societies.
Fundamental and applied research',Report of the Environment Advisory Group, December 2010. Brussels: European commission. Edquist, C. 2008)‘ Design of innovation policy through diagnossti analysis:
Identification of systemic problems (or failures)',CIRCLE Electronic Working Paper Series 2008/06. Lund: Lund University.
ERAC-GPC. 2010)‘ Joint programming in research 2008 2010 and beyond',Report of the High level Group on Joint Programming to the Council, November 2010.
Brussels: European commission. European commission. 2010)‘ EUROPE 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth',COM (2010) 2020,3 March 2010.
Brussels: European commission. Fagerberg, J.,Mowery, D c. and Nelson, R. R. 2004) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation.
Oxford: OUP. Freeman, C. and Soete, L. 1997) The Economics of Industrial Innovation, 3rd edn.
London: Pinter. Freeman, E. 1970)‘ Stakeholder theory of the modern corporatiion'In: Hoffman, M.,Frederick, R. E. and Schwartz, M. S. eds) Business Ethics Readings and Cases in Corporate Morality, 4th edn.
New york: Mcgraw-hill. Gassler, H.,Polt, W. and Rammer, C. 2008)‘ Priority setting in technology policy historical developments and recent trends'.
'In: Nauwelaers, C. and Wintjes, R. eds) Innovation policy in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Gertler, M. S. and Wolfe, D. A. 2004)‘ Local social knowledge management:
Community actors, institutions and multilevel governance in regional foresight exercises',Futures, 36:46 65. Hall, B. H. and Rosenberg, N. 2010) Handbook of the Economics of Innovation.
Amsterdam: North Holland, Elsevier. Hekkert, M. P.,Suurs, R. A a.,Negro, S. O.,Kuhlmann, S. and Smits, R. E. H. M. 2007)‘ Functions of innovation systems:
A new approach for analysing technological change',Technological forecasting and Social Change, 74: 413 32. IDEA Consult. 2010)‘ The impact of European policy on the development of the ERA in the areas relevant to environmennt'Draft Final Report.
Prepared for the European commission, Research Directorate-General, Directorate 1 Environment, November 2010. Brussels: IDEA Consult.
Jacobsson, S. and Bergek, A. 2006)‘ A framework for guiding policy-makers intervening in emerging innovation systems in‘catching-up'countries',European Journal of Development Research, 18: 687 707.
Nowotny, H.,Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. 2003)‘ Mode 2'revisited: The new production of knowledge, Minerva, 41: 179 94.
OECD and Eurostat. 2005) Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd edn.
Paris: OECD. Rogers, E. M. 1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn. New york: Free Press. Rittel, H. and Weber, M. 1973)‘ Dilemmas in a general theory of planning',Policy Sciences, 4: 155 69.
Smith, K. 2000)‘ What is the knowledge economy? Knowledge-intensive industries and distributed knowledge bases',Paper prepared as part of the project‘Innovation policy in a knowledge-based economy'commissioned by the European commission.
Available at:<<http://www. druid. dk/uploads/tx picturedb/ds2000-123. pdf, >accessed August 2007. Stirling, A.,Geels, F.,Scrase,
I.,Smith, A. and Van Zwanenberg, P. 2009)‘ Transformative innovation',A research report for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural affairs. Brighton:
SPRU, University of Sussex. van Lente, H. 1993)‘ Promising technology, the dynamics of expectations in technological development',Phd thesis, University of Twente. von Hippel, E. 2005
) Democratising Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Woolthius, R. K.,Lankhuizen, M. and Gilsing, V. 2005)‘ A system failure framework for innovation policy design',Technovation, 25: 609 19.152.
C. Cagnin et al
Coping with a fast-changing world: Towards new systems of future-oriented technology analysis K. Matthias Weber1,,*Jennifer Cassingena Harper2, Totti Ko nno la 3 and Vicente Carabias Barcelo'4 1ait Austrian Institute of technology, Department of Foresight & Policy development, Donau-City
-Straße 1, 1220 Vienna, Austria 2malta Council for Science and Technology, Villa Bighi, Bighi, Kalkara KKR 1320, Malta 3impetu Solutions, Vi'ctor
Andre's Belaunde, 36-4c, 28036 Madrid, Spain 4zhaw Zurich University of Applied sciences, Institute of Sustainable development, Postfach, CH-8401 Winterthur, Switzerland*Corresponding author.
implement and monitor joint action at international level (Amanatidou 2008; Brummer et al. 2008. Increased mobility, the instantaneoou impact of events through social media and the socioculttura interconnections linking Europe to the rest of Science and Public policy 39 (2012) pp. 153 165 doi:
10.1093/scipol/scs012 Advance Access published on 11 march 2012 The Author 2012. Published by Oxford university Press.
All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals. permissions@oup. com the world, lead to reverberations in European society.
These developments heighten the uncertainty in the face of likely transformation processes ahead which call for strategic orientations (cf.
Cagnin et al. 2012; Keenan et al. 2012. Disruptive events highlight the vulnerability of governannc and economic systems at local, national,
European and global levels in the face of sudden crises and point to serious shortcomings in our ability to anticipate
In recent years, institutional responses have included the setting up of horizonscanning centres and similar anticipattor structures (Amanatidou et al. 2012;
Van Rij 2010) together with the downscaling of national exercises and the embedding of FTA functions in organisations and their respective decision-making structures and processes.
Section 3 will draw primarily on recent empirical research presented at the FTA 2011 Conference, 1
Taleb 2007) dominate our attention, these can overshaado less noticeable and gradual processes of transformmatio
as discussed by Nordmann (2004)).The more impressive transformations are those which happen by design and are engineered through deliberate and concerrte action,
Rotmans et al. 2001; Geels and Schot 2007) or rapidly (policy shocks)( e g. Skoufias 2003. The categories of grand challenges identified by theeuropean Research area (ERA) Rationales Expert Group (European commission 2008) provide one typology of transformations.
Economic challenges correspoon to the agenda set out by the Aho Group (European commission 2006) and call for a combination of supply-side
and demand-side measures to create innovation-friendly markets. Social and environmental challenges deal with the causes and consequences of issues such as climate change, food and energy security and the ageing society,
which require an initial drive from governments. Science and technology are also the basis of challenges involving the collective ability to respond to opportunities in frontier research.
Different types of grand challenges call for different transformation models and policy strategies. The distinction between disrupptiv and recognised grand challenges referred to in the European Science Foundation report (European Science Foundation 2010) highlights the fact that areas of disruptiiv grand challenges can be exogenous
or endogenous and are low-probability (emerging), high-impact issues that challenge societal and economic health.
Disruptive events in recent years have made apparent critical weaknesses in the capacity to anticipate, prepare for and address comprehensively sudden events
2009) derive four modes of governance from argumeent that build on cultural theory (Tukker and Butter Figure 1. Identified types of transformations.
Coping with a fast-changing world. 155 2007. Social organisation can be understood in terms of the extent to which an individual is bound in a unit or social group and the degree to
which an individual's life is determined by external prescriptions or rules and norms (Thompson et al. 1990).
Cuhls 2001; Joos et al. 1999) and foresight processes in general follow this type of model (Butter et al. 2009.
There are obvious exceptions to this rule and more recently there has been a growing trend to use foresight to open up broader and exploratory debates,
Loveridge and Street 2005; Ko nno la et al. 2012a. A key issue related to specific programmes
There is an emerging stream of FTA ACTIVITY geared to providing future-oriented knowledge for decision-making on a more continuous Figure 2. Modes of governance (modified from Thompson et al. 1990.
Amanatidou et al. 2012) in the UK, Netherlands and Singapore at national or regional levels, aimed at identifyiin not only major long-term trends and drivers,
Salo and Kuusi 2001. The institutionalisation of FTA provides continuity and permits the accumulation of knowledge and know-how in a single organisational unit.
Cachia et al. 2007. Examples of web 2. 0 networks include: EFP, FORWIKI, iknow, and the Millenium project.
including those presented at the FTA 2011 Conference, address the challenge of transformation, FTA organisation and governance modes,
FTA along these lines was need in of updates at regular intervals of three to five years
by analysing recent contributions to the literature as presennte at the 2011 FTA Conference. The analysis identifies the types of transformations addressed, the governance modes in
Rijkens-Klomp and van der Duin (2012) have illustrated that when a governmental organisation decides to use FTA METHODS,
In a search for effective organisational forms of FTA systems, the papers presented at the 2011 FTA Conference call for a stocktaking of diverse forms of FTA ACTIVITIES
2011) have analysed types of Table 3. Changing rationales for FTA APPROACHES on FTA systems Dimensions Transformation types and consequent challenges Governance modes Organisational models of FTA Traditional
The majority of the paper presented at the 2011 FTA Conference, despite reporting on experiences derived from a single foresight exercise, indicate increasing evidence of institutionalised forms of FTA.
In particular Warnke (2011) recommends the use of strategic dialogues to foster the embedding of suggested‘future fields'into the national research, technology and innovation (RTI) landscaape Ahlqvist et al.
2011) outline paths to enable anticipattor culture in research and technology organisations (RTOS) and other organisations.
In another example of embedded FTA, Calof (2012) as well as Calof et al. 2012) report on the setting up of foresight units within several departments at the federal level in Canada.
In essence, we can conclude that the horizontal convergence of FTA competencies is what is called for,
2011) address the importance of engaging stakeholders in foresight exercises from the very beginning in order to improve support for policy options and their implications.
Tiits and Kalvet (2011) learned from recent foresight exercises in Estonia that the Table 4. Diversity of FTA systems in practice Approaches in FTA systems Transformation types Governance modes Organisational models
2011) Deals with a deliberate roadmapping approach both to rapid and gradual systemic transformations characterised by complexity
2012) Focuses on gradual multilevel complex deliberate transformatiions which can be identified with a roadmapping exercise Identification of suitable policy instruments and/or strategies for various governance modes External service (projects and programmes),
2012) Addresses spatial dimension in gradual transformation, combining both reactive and deliberate approaches in scenario work that integrate spatial dimensions of urban planning Elements of different modes of governance addressed.
Recent experience from Germany'Warnke (2011) Focuses on deliberate design of transformations from viewpoint of post-Foresight phase
and require structured interactions with a broad range of related policy domains (European research area Board 2009;
Weber and Georghiou 2010. They also depend on governments and international institutions working together to define common research agendas.
Networked approaches to FTA have been growing in importance for several years, and this trend is likely to continue as part of a comprehensive package of elements for dealing with transformative change,
particularly as concerns the recognition of interconnections among the signals or the derivation of their policy implications (Dervin 1998).
In recent years, there has been a growing tendency among governments and businesses to invest less in individual large-scale foresight programmes and projects,
where matters of priority setting have acquired greater prominence (Georghiou and Harper 2011). Decisionmakkin in organisations themselves has become more complex,
but this development is currently being reconsidered in several firms (Daheim and Uerz 2008. This has led to a renewed interest in the institutionaalisatio of forward-looking intelligence,
Funtowitz and Ravetz 1994. While it is more and more difficult to anticipate when and how such changes will occur due to higher complexity,
because the 2011 FTA Conference was explicitly dealing with disruptions and how to deal with them from the side of FTA.
FARHORIZON Innovation policy Workshop (Weber and Georghiou 2010) and ERAPRISM Policy Dialogue Brief on Innovation policy (Georghiou and Harper 2010),<http://farhorizon. portals. mbs. ac. uk
and analyse weak signals (Amanatidou et al. 2012). 6. Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union,<http://ec. europa. eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/innovation-union-communication en. pdf>accessed 15 december
2011 (SEC 2010) References Ahlqvist, T.,Valovirta, V. and Loikkanen, T. 2012)‘ Innovation policy roadmapping as a systemic instrument for forward-looking policy design',Science and Public policy, 39
: 178 90..(2011)‘ Constructing systemic transformation capacities in a research and technology organisation: Applying diversified roadmap concept at VTT, Finland,
'Paper presented at the FTA 2011 Conference, held 12 13 may, Seville, Spain.<<http://foresight. jrc. ec. europa. eu/fta 2011/Programmeandpapers. htm>accessed 15 dec 2011.
Amanatidou, E. 2008)‘ Joint foresight':'towards a mechanism for joint programming in Europe? Foresight, 10: 103 17.
Amanatidou, E.,Butter, M.,Carabias, V.,Ko nno la, T.,Leis, M.,Saritas, O.,Schaper-Rinkel, P. and van Rij, V
. 2012)‘ On concepts and methods in horizon scanning: Lessons from initiating policy dialogues on emerging issues',Science and Public policy, 39: 208 21.
Brummer, V.,Ko nno la, T. and Salo, A. 2008)‘ Foresight within Era nets: Experiences from the preparation of an international research programme',Technological forecasting and Social Change, 75: 483 95.
Butter, M.,Brandes, F.,Keenan, M.,Popper, R.,Giesecke, S.,Rijkers-Defrasne, S.,Braun, A. and Crehan, P. 2009)‘ Monitoring foresight activities in Europe and the rest
of the world',Final Report of the European foresight monitoring Network EFMN. EUR 24043 EN. Brussels: European commission.
Cachia, R.,Compan o, R. and Da Costa, O. 2007)‘ Grasping the potential of online social networks for foresight',Technological forecasting & Social Change, 74: 1179 203.
Cagnin, C.,Amanatidou, E. and Keenan, M. 2012)‘ Orienting European Innovation systems towards grand challenges and the roles that FTA can play',Science and Public policy, 39: 140 52.
Calof, J. 2012)‘ Towards developing an instrument to evaluate Future technology Analysis A Canadian case study',Technological forecasting and Social Change (forthcoming.
Calof, J.,Miller, R. and Jackson, M. 2012)‘ Towards impactful foresight: Viewpoints from Foresight consultants and academics',Foresight (forthcoming.
Cuhls, K. 2001)‘ Foresight with Delphi surveys in Japan',Technology analysis & Strategic management, 13: 555 69. Daheim, C. and Uerz, G. 2008)‘ Corporate foresight in Europe:
From trend based logics to open foresight',Technology analysis & Strategic management, 20: 321 36. Dervin, B. 1998)‘ Sense-making theory and practice:
An overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use',Journal of Knowledge management, 2: 36 46.
2006)‘ Creating an Innovative Europe, 'Report of the Independent Expert Group on R&d and Innovation appointed following the Hampton Court Summit
<http://ec. europa. eu/invest-inreseearchpdf/download en/aho report. pdf>accessed 15 dec 2011..(2008)‘ Challenging Europe's Research Rationales for the European research area (ERA)',Report of the ERA Expert Group, EUR 23326 EN.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European communities.<<http://ec. europa. eu/research/era/pdf/eg7-era-rationales-final-report en. pdf>accessed 15 dec 2011.
European research area Board. 2009)‘ Preparing Europe for a new Renaissance. A strategic view of the European research area',First Report of the European research area Board.
Directorate-General for Research, EUR 23905 EN. Brussels: European commission.<<http://ec. europa. eu/research/erab/pdf/erab-first-annual-report-06102009 en. pdf>accessed 15 dec 2011.
European Science Foundation. 2010)‘ Contribution to Developing voluntary guidelines on framework conditions for joint programming in research Foresight activities'(28 june 2010.
Strasbourg: European Science Foundation. Ferna'ndez Gu ell, J. M. and Redondo Go'mez, L. 2012)‘ Linking territorial foresight and urban planning',Foresight (forthcoming).
Funtowitz, S. and Ravetz, J. R. 1994)‘ Emergent complex systems',Futures, 26: 568 82. Geels, F. W. and Schot, J. 2007)‘ Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways',Research policy, 36: 399 417.164.
K. M. Weber et al. Georghiou, L. and Cassingena Harper, J. 2010)‘ Policy dialogue brief on innovation policy',Report from the ERAPRISM Project.<
<http://www. eraprism. eu/work packages. asp? Subfolder=WP2>accessed 15 dec 2011..(2011)‘ From priority-setting to societal challenges in future-oriented technology analysis',Futures, 43: 229 31.
Joos, W.,Carabias, V.,Winisto rfer, H. and Stu cheli, A. 1999)‘ Social aspects of public waste management in Switzerland',Waste Management, 19: 417 25.
Keenan, M.,Cutler, P.,Marks, J.,Meylan, R.,Smith, C. and Koivisto, E. 2012)‘ Orienting international science co-operation to meet global
grand challenges',Science and Public policy, 39: 166 77. Ko nno la, T. and Haegeman, K. 2012b)‘ Embedding foresight in transnational research programming',Science and Public policy, 39: 191 207.
Ko nno la T.,Carrillo Hermosilla, J.,Loikkanen, T. and van der Have, R. 2009) Governance of energy system transition:
Analytical framework and empirical cases in Europe and beyond, VTT Technical research Centre of Finland Working papers 134,2009.
Ko nno la, T.,Salo, A.,Cagnin, C.,Carabias, V. and Vilkkumaa, E. 2012a)‘ Facing the future:
Loveridge, D. and Street, P. 2005)‘ Inclusive foresight',Foresight, 7: 31 47. Nehme, C. C.,de Miranda Santos, M.,Fellows Filho, L. and Massari Coelho, G. 2012)‘ Challenges in communicating the outcomes of a foresight study to advise decision-makers on policy and strategy
',Science and Public policy, 39: 245 57. Nordmann, A. 2004)‘ Converging technologies Shaping the future of European societies',Report of an Expert Group to the European commission.
Brussels: European commission.<<http://ec. europa. eu/research/conferences/2004/ntw/pdf/final report en. pdf>accessed 15 dec 2011.
Rijkens-Klomp, N. and van der Duin, P. 2012) Evaluating local and national public foresight studies from a user perspecctive Futures (forthcoming.
Rotmans, J.,Kemp, R. and van Asselt, M. 2001)‘ More evoluttio than revolution: transition management in public policy',Foresight, 3: 15 31.
Salo, A. and Kuusi, O. 2001)‘ Developments in parliamentary technology assessment in Finland',Science and Public policy, 28: 453 64.
SEC. 2010)‘ Commission Staff Working Document A rationale for action, accompanying the Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union',COM (2010) 546, pp. 9 and 89,
<http://ec. europa. eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/rationale en. pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none>accessed 15 dec 2011.
Skoufias, E. 2003)‘ Economic crises and natural disasters: Coping strategies and policy implications',World Development, 31: 1087 102.
Taleb, N. N. 2007) The Black swan: The Impact of Highly Improbable. New york: Random House. Thompson, M.,Ellis, R. and Wildavsky, A. 1990) Cultural Theory.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Tiits, M. and Kalvet, T. 2011)‘ Foresight as an innovation policy tool in smaller catching-up economies:
Grand narratiive or intelligent piggybacking?''Paper presented at the FTA 2011 Conference held 12 13 may, Seville, Spain.<
<http://foresight. jrc. ec. europa. eu/fta 2011/Programmeandpapers. htm>accessed 15 dec 2011. Tukker, A. and Butter, M. 2007)‘ Governance of sustainable transitions:
about the 4 (0) ways to change the world',Journal of Cleaner Production, 15:94 103.
Van Rij, V. 2010)‘ Joint horizon scanning: identifying common strategic choices and questions for knowledge',Science and Public policy, 37:7 18.
Warnke, P. 2011)‘ Implementing systemic RTI priorities Recent experience from Germany, 'Paper presented at the FTA 2011 Conference, held 12 13 may, Seville, Spain.<
<http://foresight. jrc. ec. europa. eu/fta 2011/Programmeandpapers. htm>accessed 15 dec 2011. Weber, M. and Georghiou, L. 2010)‘ Dynamising innovation policy:
Giving innovation a central role in European policy',Farhorizon project report.<<http://farhorizon. portals. mbs. ac. uk/Portals/73/docs/Farhorizon%20dynamising%20inno vation%20policy. pdf>accessed 15 dec 2011.
Weber, M.,Havas, A. and Schartinger, D. 2011)‘ Exploring the potential impact of FLA on national innovation systems,
'Paper presented at the FTA 2011 Conference held 12 13 may, Seville, Spain.<<http://foresight. jrc. ec. europa. eu/fta 2011/Programmeandpapers. htm>accessed 15 dec 2011.
Coping with a fast-changing world. 165
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011