Reducing the democratic deficit in institutional foresight programmes: A case for critical systems thinking in nanotechnology Denis Loveridge, Ozcan Saritas Manchester Institute of Innovation research, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, M13 9pl Manchester, UK a r
Received 17 november 2008 Received in revised form 15 july 2009 Accepted 27 july 2009 The democratic deficit (the‘deficit'hereafter) in present institutional Foresight(‘Foresight'hereafter) lies in its participation regime.
In this paper practical ways to reduce the deficit are proposed that ought to increase the responsiveness of Foresight programmes to society's values, concerns and expectations.
The notions of‘situations'and Critical systems Heuristics (CSH) are combined into a metaphor to suggest how the deficit in Foresight might be reduced.
The notion of‘situations'and Critical systems Heuristics (CSH) represents an attempt to provide a metaphorical foundation for Inclusive foresight.
The paper suggests that Inclusive foresight, reinforced with the principles of CSH, can be of use in the nano-field providing wider stakeholder representation during the research and development processes.
Foresight Inclusivity Critical systems Heuristics Nanotechnology 1. Institutional Foresight Institutional Foresight programmes(‘Foresight'hereafter) now occupy a prominent position in the minds of public policy makers.
Despite this belief, almost all Foresight implied wider dimensions Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1208 1221 Corresponding author.
Because of their overt techno-economic purpose Foresight has relied on the opinions of a relatively narrow body of technologically oriented people.
how this may be reduced, through widening participation in public Foresight, is the purpose of this paper. 1. 1. History Current Foresight studies attempt to create collective anticipations, usually related to technology,
of important influences that may shape the future of research and indirectly society. It is far from clear that the sponsors of Foresight studies,
and those who execute them, have a particular model of what they expect of the outcome,
From their beginning in Japan in 1971 it was natural for Foresight studies to absorb many of the processes
As a result, there are two general shapes to Foresight studies that flow from early decisions about their procedures and management structure.
in Foresight narrow consultation needs to be recognised as a possibility but one that is employed sparingly.
but so far Foresight has depended on expert technological opinion where inclusivity has been interpreted as seeking opinions from a larger number of the typical experts.
Practical experiments to widen participation in Foresight studies vary from extensions of conventional approaches to entirely new ones.
Experiments such as the Futur programme 2 have revealed some of the problems that will have to be overcome for Foresight programmes to become inclusive.
an area ignored in all Foresight studies until now. Sponsors will need to put much effort into understanding these behavioural matters
and their role for Inclusive foresight to be achieved. The creation of new user-friendly ways of enabling participation, by all who wish to take part in every stage of a study,
from defining its purpose to implementing the outcome then becomes a major challenge. 1. 2. The case for Inclusive foresight Widening the scope of consultation and making Foresight into a much wider social process,
is prompted by (a) recognition of the restriction to participation in current Foresight (b) the lessons learned from the corporate sector regarding the benefits of stakeholder inclusion
and process needs if Foresight programmes are to be extended into the social sphere without becoming chaotic 3. Foresight ought to be concerned with three questions:
So far, Foresight has concentrated on the first two questions related to science and technology and has paid relatively little attention to the third.
In an example of foresight in this connection, Loveridge 7 outlined the way that computer and communication technologies might evolve into‘information technology',with its widespread adoption throughout society,
In this sense, the issue of inclusivity is not new. 1. 3. Some challenges to Inclusive foresight Creation of trust between all the parties involved is one of the major requirements of an effective Foresight programme, especially between the‘expert'community and the general public,
Increased inclusivity in the Foresight process is one way in which this can be addressed and trust may be reestablished,
providing another incentive for widening the scope and transparency of consultation and participation in Foresight.
All foresight has political dimensions simply because it is either agenda setting or is pounced upon as a means of prioritizing activities private and public.
The practicalities of bridging the gap between Foresight and the public political sphere are not of concern here where the emphasis is on outlining a practical process for widening participation in Foresight in a polity that largely does not know Foresight exists
and probably does not care whether it exists or not. The political machinations that follow Foresight are known well enough to be called‘common ground
'and include the call for sponsors to‘champion'the outcome of Foresight to see its outcomes through the labrynthine political undergrowth to some form of implementation.
Indeed, the requirement for a‘championing department'is now common practice in the UK Government's Foresight activity.
The political view of Foresight was revealed in a short succinct article by The british politician Enoch Powell 8:
his view is universal, timeless and has never been surpassed even though the UK Government's current Foresight activity appears to bask in a more receptive Box 1 Taxonomy of policy maker's dilemmas.
Barker and Peters'5 taxonomy describes six levels of cognitive difficulty for public policy makers in terms of the policy field's character as follows:
these fields should be amenable to inclusivity in technology foresight studies. In field 4 the situation becomes increasingly incomprehensible to the polity in general and in many senses to scientists too.
lies in the same ground as GMOS. 2. Expectations of Inclusive foresight The sheer practical arduousness of attempting to run Inclusive foresight in the way outlined below means that expectations of it need to be modest,
the element of desirability in the earlier quoted triple set of concerns Foresight needs to address.
'Similarly, because the present ideas are concerned with the practical achievement, with all its shortcomings, of Inclusive foresight, innovation research,
with its concerns for the past, has little to offer to the practical intentions of Inclusive foresight.
In this apparently bleak atmosphere what may be expected to of Inclusive foresight? It ought to: Create greater public awareness
°‘Placing Foresight programmes in context and allowing participation in formulation ofline their content'°Choosing the methods to be used to enable the expression of public opinion with all its vagaries of expression concerning
what are and what are not desirable future situations°Prioritising the choices that have to be made among the outcomes of Foresight Avoid the assumption that people have infinite plasticity toward new technology Increase trust between policy makers, business and the general public,
How Inclusive foresight would meet these expectations will be outlined in the following section. 2. 1. Broadening the scope:
more Inclusive foresight All of the above expectations require contributions to Foresight to be made from a wider range of participants (than the conventional expert community),
2. 2. New groups of people to include Inclusivity ought to mean wider participation in the formulation of Foresight
though that brings severe practical concerns in the running of the Foresight. It is to these that the following sections are director. 1211 D. Loveridge,
O. Saritas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1208 1221 2. 3. Coping with social inclusion Wider participation in Foresight faces severe but not insurmountable obstacles.
The conscious and subconscious influence of the postmodern mindset on inclusivity in Foresight is considerable:
Foresight studies have so far been conceived for national or regional borders. The notions of‘sovereignty'and their influence nationally and locally have been strong
without this systemic appreciation, Foresight studies may be hopelessly misleading. 2. 5. Characteristics of Inclusive foresight As an initial hypothesis,
to be Inclusive foresight needs to be: Investigative it needs to be based on questioning of received wisdom;
acknowledging that inclusive foresight is: Characterised by systems with interactions involving feedback, feed-forward and other aspects of systems behaviour Likely to exhibit complexity Likely to exhibit aspects of trans science Influenced by the dynamic balance between the forces of modernity
and credible to Foresight sponsors and their audience Systemic in order to understand how systems work and behave.
This will inform the profiles of stakeholders/experts/lay people to be involved in Foresight, and will portray their relationships. 3. How Inclusive foresight might be achieved The steps that might be taken towards Inclusive foresight are:
Establish a baseline from what has been attempted to make Foresight programmes more inclusive in recent years The policy (or political) requirements:
i e. the influence of public institutions To set out indicatively process needs and their associated practical requirements. The FUTUR programme,
To summarise, the baseline from which Inclusive foresight will grow is fuzzy. All the experiments that have been made spread Foresight well beyond the conventional sphere of technology alone. 3. 1. Policy requirements for inclusivity For policy purposes the minimum conditions for Inclusive foresight then seem to be:
Participants: 1. The opportunity to participate by all who wish to and to contribute to as many themes as they wish 2. Acceptance of all participants as opinion givers this raises issues for the tradition of expertise,
as it lies at the heart of Foresight Environment of knowledge development: 7. Trust between organisers and all participants, even among those whose opinions may not be deemed to be‘influential'8. Establishment of a new balance between participants with special expertise
which the guiding principles of Foresight are laid clearly out so that individual participants feel that their participation is valued Simplicity of participation and transparency of outcome:
The influence of inclusivity on the output of Foresight will need to be as clear as possible
and technology have been the traditional focus for Foresight: even there inclusivity has not often been an important feature.
and its influence in Foresight studies The role of human behaviour in Foresight studies is ignored usually diminishing the understanding of the outcome.
and breadth envisaged in Inclusive foresight and this paper is not the place to give an extensive discussion them.
and robust enough to meet the needs of Inclusive foresight. Two typologies, Maslow's and Mitchell's VALS 1,
There is evidence that the participants in Foresight come from the left-hand arm of the VALS 1 typology:
The evidence for this lies in the age, occupation, gender and background of the majority of Foresight participants who have been middle-to late-middle aged, professional managers and scientists, male and university graduates.
Consequently, the circumstances prevailing at the time of a Foresight study can influence the outcome in ways that remain unknown. 2. Seeking opinions from a mixture of people from so many different levels in the typology will introduce new issues to be resolved to retain credibility between all the participants.
-Me's and Experiential's is large and likely to introduce many new factors into the day-to-day management of Foresight studies,
which is the eventual destination of all Foresight. In the political sphere the implications of the distribution of behavioural styles will feed right through to prioritisation and the identity of key concerns.
Foresight sponsors have the task of bridging the outcome into the political world so that they must ensure that inclusivity addresses the influence that the distribution of behavioural styles has on the study's credibility,
These behavioural influences are discussed rarely in Foresight studies though they are important in many respects, some
Methodological issues The behavioural aspects of inclusivity also have implications for the methods used in Foresight:
formal public enquiries of limited scope and invited workshops are the most frequently encountered processes used to extend the deliberations of the committee charged with the Foresight study.
Foresight programmes will become open to a far wider range of opinion than ever encountered before. While this is clearly the intention
Foresight programmes have been managed through a hierarchy of committees, in which the supra-committee is charged with overseeing the entire process
As indicated above Inclusive foresight programmes will elicit a far wider range of opinion than ever encountered before
though they have been worked out privately. 3. 2. 4. Pilot studies Nontraditional Foresight procedures need to be proved,
though the initial stages might well benefit from a testing programme using a well-structured closed user group. 4. Grounding Inclusive foresight The foregoing practical suggestions of the essentials of Inclusive foresight need some grounding beyond the simple expediency of practical
but no more than that, that a combination of the notion of‘situations'and Critical systems Heuristics (CSH) may contain the seeds of grounding Inclusive foresight within the ambit of (i) and (ii) above.
these are all behavioural components of participants in Foresight. CSH also seeks to give a voice in the decision making process to those who suffer the consequences.
For the management of Inclusive foresight situations are inevitable and their management is a strong feature of (ii) above.
In this way Inclusive foresight will involve fundamental reforms and changes in its current social approach. Ulrich 17 19 and more recently Dempster in her description of sympoiesis 20 extended systems thinking to provide a better understanding of the issues associated with determining system boundaries and the roles of values associated with the implementation and measurement of practical results.
The study context of application tends to affect citizens that have not been involved in the scientific justification of its propositions a key point already made with respect to Inclusive foresight.
like Foresight, differs from the deductive procedures of applied science that are concerned with well defined problems,
The cascade's fuzzy boundaries will be subject to intense philosophical debate that has much to learn from Dempster's sympoiesis. 4. 1. Evolution of a metaphor Inclusive foresight is
what might unwisely be called a theory for Inclusive foresight. CSH offers a starting framework from which to begin to build a metaphor based on twelve categories of heuristics grouped into four categories of intention as shown in Fig. 2 (overleaf) 22.
but have been modified here to be appropriate to the development of a metaphor for Inclusive foresight. There are some obvious linkages to behavioural matters.
The intentions of Inclusive foresight form the basis of a metaphor and can be described in the following way. 4. 1. 1. Motivation 1. Inclusivity ought to be serve as the way in
or diminishing civil and personal liberty. 3. Measurement of an improvement in participation in Foresight should be simple
O. Saritas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1208 1221 4. 1. 2. Sources of power 4. The management process of Inclusive foresight ought to be open for all to see
or inhibit the propagation of vested interests. 5. The resources needed to enable Inclusive foresight, and other conditions of success, ought to be controlled by the managers of the programme for reasons of operational effectiveness. 6. The conditions under
as the participant group will evolve rather than be selected as in current Foresight practice. 4. 1. 3. Sources of knowledge 7. The heuristic nature of Inclusive foresight places special emphasis on all opinions.
know-how or opinion relevant to the dynamics of the situation ought to be the judgemental criteria exercised by the programme managers with respect to the evolving population of participants. 9. The heuristic nature of inclusive foresight means that the implementation of proposals ought to be dynamic and relevant
The population of participants in Inclusive foresight and their knowledge, know-how or opinion relevant to the dynamics of the situation ought to represent, within statistical limits,
The design of Inclusive foresight ought to incorporate ways of enabling those affected by its outcome to criticize
and ought to involve the cognition of both those participating in the Inclusive foresight and those affected by it.
23.1217 D. Loveridge, O. Saritas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1208 1221 5. Foresight's democratic deficit and nano artifacts The root of Foresight's deficit lies
and forms the basis of the Motivation part of the Inclusive foresight metaphor. The Sources of Knowledge part of the metaphor draws attention to the use of the term nano artifacts.
Furthermore, the omnibus term‘nanotechnology'misleads the participants in any Foresight study into believing that they are confronting a homogeneous and coherent technology
The Motivation and Power aspects of Inclusive foresight become more evident in the interaction between: The public and corporate worlds The public acceptance of nano artifacts Public participation in Foresight.
Much of this interaction concerns the current drive toward regulation and codification of the research and technological development needed for the creation of desirable artifacts.
technological feasibility and artifact desirability of a nano artifact. 1218 D. Loveridge, O. Saritas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1208 1221 participation in Foresight relating to these issues.
and patenting are major themes for Foresight relating to the dynamic evolution of nano artifacts and the situations that arise as a result.
Foresight then needs to appreciate how public acceptance or rejection of nano artifacts may shift according to the nature of the artifacts presented to the public.
Public participation in Foresight is necessary for this kind of adaptive behaviour to occur. Consensus is not necessarily the best arbiter in many circumstances,
The principles of precaution and parsimony are likely to be ever present in Foresight where public participation
Foresight needs to follow how the critical mass evolves as this is a critical part of its context that follows from the kind of processes that enable public participation some
of which featured in the earlier discussion of inclusiveness. 6. Epilogue The paper has described a metaphor for Inclusive foresight rather than to be a definitive exposition of future situations
as practiced, institutional Foresight contains a democratic deficit characterised by exclusivity as the extent of public participation is restricted.
which the metaphor for Inclusive foresight can be tested. Some of these steps have been described by Loveridge and Street 3 but much remains to be done capitalising wherever possible on the experience built up in the German Futur programme.
By suggesting mechanisms to achieve Inclusive foresight the aim is to contribute to the discussions on the future of the nano-field.
and the Emerald Group Publishing, for their permission to use significant extracts from their paper‘Inclusive foresight'in‘Foresight:
European knowledge society foresight: The EUFORIA Project synthesis report, Report to the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living Conditions, Working Conditions and Industrial Relations, October, 2003.2 K. Cuhls, Government foresight activities
in Germany: the Futur process, Second International Conference on Technology foresight Tokyo, 27 28,february 2003. 3 D. Loveridge, P. Street, Inclusive foresight, Foresight:
The Journal of Futures studies, Strategic thinking and Policy 7 (3)( 2005) 31 47.4 A m. Weinberg, Science and trans science, Minerva 10 (1972) 209 222.5 A. Barker, B
1978 95, Futures 14 (3)( 1982) 205 239 June 13 D. Loveridge, Foresight seven paradoxes, International Journal of Technology management 21 (7/8
)( 2001) 781 791.14 D. Loveridge, Foresight: The Art and Science of Anticipating the Future, Routledge, NY, 2009.15 H. G. Daellenbach, Systems thinking & Decision making:
In this way, Constructive TA is an instance of the general shift in management (and tailored foresight) away from prediction towards reflexive anticipation and strategy making.
only its odds 5 then this implies a shift from deterministic approaches to foresight and strategy towards the creation of circumstances and conditions which enhance the chance of success. Good preparation
foresight, engagement, and integration, The Handbook of Science and Technology studies, 2007.2 H. te Kulve, A. Rip, Engagement Requires Investment in Pre-engagement:
Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, Routledge, London, 1991, pp. 132 161.23 B. de Laat, Scripts for the future technological foresight, strategic analysis and socio technical networks:
Andersen and Borup's paper addresses the issue of foresight and strategy processes of national research councils and research programmes.
and the Danish energy research programme and find that the impact of foresight exercises can be improved with a better understanding of the traditions
Also that a more formal use of foresight elements could improve the legitimacy and impact of the strategic considerations of research councils and research programmes.
and immediate impacts of a recently completed two-year national technology foresight exercise conducted in Luxembourg. The paper covers the evolution of the foresight exercise over its two-year life span,
highlighting the different meanings given to the exercise by different stakeholder groups as the process unfolded and interim results were made known.
It highlights the underlying tensions present in those foresight exercises that explicitly attempt to set national priorities.
the paper draws lessons not only for other small countries and regions hoping to use foresight,
but also highlights principles for using foresight for priority setting more generally. Weber et al. discusses the trade-offs between policy impacts of FTA with the experience gained from the innovation policy foresight
and strategy process conducted in the city of Vienna. The paper gives a comprehensive review of the foresight and the assessment of its impacts on policy.
With the case of the city ofvienna, it is demonstrated that short-term, medium-term and long-term success of policy translation may vary.
and outcomes of the foresight and strategy process were translated successfully into policy decisions immediately after the exercise.
Jenssen discusses the challenges of inclusivity in a participative foresight process in terms of achieving genuinely democratic decision making.
so that they can be involved in a foresight process representing a stakeholder group. Amunicipal foresight activity in Lundal is described to illustrate how an image for young people was created to endow them to be represented as stakeholders in the process.
Salo, Brummer, and Könnölä describe and analyses Finnsight 2015, a joint foresight exercise that took place in Finland
and that would provide inputs for the country's national strategy, foster collaboration between the two main funding agencies the Academy of Finland and the Finnish funding agency for technology and Innovation (Tekes) and promote foresight and innovation activities at large.
Such a description shows how Internet-based tools were critical to support the achievement of expected results within the tight schedule available.
what policy developments have taken place after to the publication of foresight results. The exercise has identified through its panels about 6 10 focal competence areas and, for each of these,
The objective of encouraging other actors of the R&i system to initiate foresight activities has lead to many spinoof activities,
and the analysis portrayed in this paper is instructive for the planning of large-scale foresight exercises that need to serve high-level policy objectives subject to demanding time constraints and expectations.
http://www. tandfonline. com/loi/ctas20 Foresight and strategy in national research councils and research programmes Per Dannemand Andersen a & Mads Borup a a Department of Management Engineering, Technical University
Per Dannemand Andersen & Mads Borup (2009) Foresight and strategy in national research councils and research programmes, Technology analysis & Strategic management, 21:8, 917-932, DOI:
8 november 2009,917 932 Foresight and strategy in national research councils and research programmes Per Dannemand Andersen*and Mads Borup Department of Management Engineering
Technical University of Denmark, Produktionstrovet 424, DK-2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark This paper addresses the issue of foresight and strategy processes of national research councils and research programmes.
The actors'understanding of strategy was included also in the analysis. Based on these analyses we argue that the impact of foresight exercises can be improved
We also argue that a more formal use of foresight elements might improve the legitimacy and impact of the strategic considerations of research councils and research programmes.
public research organisatioons foresight; science and technology and innovation policy studies 1. Introduction The setting of priorities in science
and innovation policy is one of the most important rationales for implementing national foresight activities. Important users of this type of foresight activity are often national research and innovation councils,
national research programmes and similar entities involved directly in prioritising public expenditure on research and development (R&d). Research and innovation councils and programmes play a significant role in the development of science
and sponsoring foresight activities as a strategic input to funding activities. In other countries foresight exercises have been carried out on the national level by entities (private or public) other than research councils and related organisations.*
*Corresponding author. Email: pean@man. dtu. dk ISSN 0953-7325 print/ISSN 1465-3990 online 2009 Taylor & francis DOI:
and M. Borup However, there is often great uncertainty about how to implement foresight exercises within research councils and how to use the results.
Many reports from foresight exercises are ignored and foresight practitioners can become frustrated following comprehensive exercises when recommendaation based on solid reasoning are implemented not.
Analysing and improving the impact of foresight exercises in policy and decision-making are two key issues in the field of foresight studies.
Although the use of foresight exercises as a tool has become widespread over the latest 10 15 years
there are still also many research councils and programmes that do not use foresight exerciise in their work.
The analysis in this paper builds on the basic observation that all research councils and research programmes foresight or not do strategic thinking and set up smaller or larger, formal or informal,
strategy definition processes supporting the practical decision making on funding. In some form or another there are always strategy processes in national research councils and research programmes.
Instead of analysing directly the difficulties with using foresiigh as a strategic input to research council funding activities,
Our analysis makes a departure in the contemporary foresight literature and the discipline of strategy.
Based on this it is the aim of the article to investigate how foresight exercises can be improved
if more formal use of foresight elements might improve strategic consideration by research councils and research programmes. 2. Foresight and strategy processes in Research strategy and priority-setting processes have probably always been used by research communities,
but the area has attracted increased interest in the last 10 or 20 years. However a significant difference between today's knowledge-based economies and the industrial economies of 30 or 50 years ago is that technological development has become crucial for economic development
Hence, many countries have initiated technology foresight exercises and other activities for prioritising strategic research. Sociologists have noted this development,
We see foresight as a specific type of strategy activity. Foresight is a part of the much larger area of strategy activities in general,
and of the range of methods and systematic approaches existing in the strategy field. With its long-term perspective and its emphasis on connecting perspectives of different knowledge areas and different actors and stakeholders, foresight differs from corporate strategic planning,
which typically looks three, five or maybe eight years ahead and involves only a very limited number of stakeholders.
An oft-cited definition of foresight in science and technology was formulated by Ben Martin as‘the process involved in systematically attempting to look into the longer-term future of science, technology,
the economy and society with the aim of identifying the areas of strategic research Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 Foresight
but it is acknowledged generally that foresight is concerned with a broader, cross-societal discussion of the future prospects for science and technology and with implementing the results of such discussions in priorities for public expenditures on research.
Hence, foresight challenges traditional-thinking (or Mode 1-oriented) research communities in at least two ways. First, foresight exercises include future societal and economic needs and possibilities in the setting of priorities.
Traditional priority-setting in research focuses on‘scientific quality',usually measured in such terms as novelty of the research field
Using foresight the focus is shifted from science-internal quality terms and evaluating past performance to identifying possibilities in the future.
Second, foresight exercises usually include actors in the priority discussion other than scientists. In some cases only industry representatives are included in the process
but usually foresight involves a cross-societal discussion of needs, possibilities and priority-setting. Therefore, it seems obvious why many traditional research communities take a reluctant stance on foresight exercises. 2. 1. Rationale
and objectives for foresight The rationale for carrying out public foresight exercises is often related to the political goal of increasing economical competitiveness by means such as technological or societal innovation.
As neither research councils nor national research programmes by themselves create technological innovation, the concepts of national innovation systems (NIS) and technology innovation systeem (TIS) are important in understanding how new technologies emerge
It is acknowledged generally that the theoretical rationale for foresight exercises is supported by the perspective (or school) of evolutionary economics (Georghiou and Keenan 2006.
The rationales and objectives of foresight programmes are of course wider than just deciding how to distribute public funding to R&d,
With roots in evolutionary econommic and their understanding of national innovation systems, Georghiou and Keenan compiled a list of‘common stated goals for foresight,
and M. Borup 2. 2. Foresight approaches and methods Whereas the rationale for foresight gets its legitimacy from the tradition of evolutionary econoomi foresight,
the methods and approaches used in foresight activities have their basis in the academic discipline of strategy.
Foresight and similar future-oriented technology analysis methodds such as trend extrapolation, scenarios, Delphi analysis, focus groups, cross-impact analyses and roadmapping, can be found in traditional business-school
and journal articles have provided lists of foresight methods and discussed them in light of, for example, technology foresight, technology forecasting and technology assessment (Martino 1983;
Millet and Honton 1991. Many of these methods were developed between the 1940s and 1970s, often in the USA and often in affiliation with defence-related analyses or strategic intelligence in large firms.
Following foresight exercises in many countries during the 1990s, there now seems to be a new wave of research
The COST A22 Action on Foresight methodologies and the appearance of several journals dedicated to this area are just a few indicators of this.
and lists of approaches and methood for foresight have been suggested by different authors in review articles on foresight and future-oriented technology assessment methods (Technology Futures analysis Methodsworking Group 2004).
2. 3. Foresight seen in different strategy perspectives Strategy, strategic planning or strategic management is established a well academic discipline that is taught at most business schools
Foresight is not to the same extent established as an academic discipline. Rather, foresight is a field of practice with origins in several other more or less established academic disciplines such as evolutionary economy, strategy, technology assessment or social studies of science, futures studies.
Most foresight practice in Europe has been focussed on public policy making and especially policy making in science and technology
even though by some authors the term‘foresight'has also been used regarding prospective thinking in corporate strategy.
Literature describes how foresight has changed scope since the 1960s from the first generation of technology-oriented forecasting to the current third-or fourth-generation activities that also include wider social dimensions (Reger 2001;
Georghiou 2001. A similar evolution has happened in the field of strategy (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand, and Lampel 1998.
Some authors have suggested that foresight has emerged from the convergence of the three disciplines and practices of policy development, strategic planning and futures studies (Gavigan et al. 2001),
different approaches to foresight and strategy coexist. There exists no clear and generally accepted distinction between foresight and strategy,
but it seems generally accepted Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 Foresight
and strategy in national research councils and research programmes 921 that the field of foresight is indebted more to the field of strategy than vice versa.
In this article we anticipate that the literature has refined a more view on what strategy is than on
what foresight is and based on this assumption we will discuss how different understandings of strategy
and decision processes affect the understanding of foresight. Concepts such as strategy methods priority-setting and foresight are not always familiar to scientists.
Large parts of the science community often associate such terms with administration, bureaucracy, political intervention in science and similar, negatively associated terms,
However, foresight seen in the light of three of the traditions are described in the following:(
whether foresight or strategy processes can be designed as a so-called decision machine, which, if designed well enough
Also, the definition of foresight given by Martin 1995, cited above, gives probably unintentionally the impression that he understands foresight as a rational-analytical process,
but the idea of the rational decision has been challenged for decades by decision theorists (Lindblom 1959;
To these authors there seems to be a relationship between Martin's definition of foresight
In the same way, foresight exercises and similar strategic activities aim to position national research optimally in relation to future opportuniitie in the strategic environment of national research programmes:
and Lampel 1998), the premises of foresight are as follows: Foresight is about priority-setting and there exists identifiable positions for research activities.
The context of science is strategic research and emerging technologies, and it is economical and competitive (and not to better understand nature and humankind).
Foresight practitioners (process consultants or core groups) play a major role in these processes, feeding results to decision-makers in charge of implementing the choices.
This element is partly present in the emphasis in foresight exercises on participatory processes and societal dialogue.
It is obvious that such elements are present in foresight and strategy processes. Delphi studies and other judgemental methods can be perceived as a systematic way of dealing with political interests,
In this perspective the premises for foresight might be that: Foresight and strategy are also about priority-setting;
The context is not related to any particular understanding of science or technological development but to powers and political interests in the affected areas of science and technology;
foresight practitioners (process consultants or core groups) and formal processes play relatively minor roles. Foresight methods preferred under this approach focus on key actors and their viewpoints, for example stakeholder analyses and Delphi studies.
Whereas the Porter-inspired understanding of foresight focuses on the strategic environment, a contrasting understanding focuses on an organisation's internal resources,
or on competencies and learning. This is often referred to as the resource-based view of strategy.
In particular, Finnish and other Nordic foresight communities have analysed and utilised foresight from this perspective (Eerola et al. 2004;
Karlsen and Karlsen 2007. In this perspective the premises for foresight might be that: The focus is less on priority-setting as a result of a foresight process and more on knowledge creation and knowledge sharing by the various actors during the process;
The context for science is that research and technological development are unpredictable; in this sense it is almost a Mode 1 understanding of science and technology;
Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 Foresight and strategy in national research councils and research programmes 923 Foresight and strategy focus on competencies and visions for defining future development;
Whatever priority-setting research councils undertake in this perspective it is based on competeenc (scientific strengths or weaknesses),
and the methods for determining this come from the usual techniques for evaluating scientific merit:
but quite a few also included thoughts on education and on the potential industrial and societal Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 Foresight and strategy in national research councils and research programmes 925 impacts of the suggested research.
but the Ministry did not approve this Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 Foresight and strategy in national research councils and research programmes 927 suggestion.
Actor dialogues, partnershhip consensus seeking Advisory Council for Energy Research Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 Foresight
and strategy in national research councils and research programmes 929 Although there is a rich and growing application-oriented literature on foresight in science
One presenttatio was intended to initiate a discussion of how foresight methods could enrich strategy processes within the councils and programmes.
As the two strategy cases were analysed in the context of foresight parameters for comparing the case studies draw partly from contemporary discussions of foresight typology.
The case studies revealed many different rationales for and understandings of the strategy processse that were undertaken (see Table 2). In the case of the Technical research Council a variety of rationales
), but also have a strong element of prospective outlook similar to foresight exercises. The processes can be improved by implementing the procedural elements of foresight exercises,
especially with respect to elements such as the legitimacy of discussing long-term future perspectives and the inclusion of actors.
Our study indicates that the impact of foresight exercises on strategic decisions in research councils and programmes can be improved
First, foresight exercises that take national policies into account as a boundary condition are easier to implement than those challenging national policies.
Of course, awareness rising or advocacy might also be the reasons behind foresight exercises, but implementation and impact must be measured in other ways.
The implementation phase is a key element in any foresight exercise, but the process should also be designed to include thoughts about the‘policy toolbox'in the process itself.
Furthermore, the scientific community is not always familiar with common foresight terminology; in some cases such‘business-school language'even disturbs meaningful strategic discussion.
'Fourth, foresight exercises are understood often and outlined according to rational-analytical models of decision processes whereas research councils seem to follow other models.
Also here the foresight practice offers procedures and tools. For example, Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 Foresight
and strategy in national research councils and research programmes 931 a full Delphi survey could be applied, but the process could also benefit from just getting inspiration from formulation of Delphi statements.
In any case it is a long-term venture to improve academia's and the science communities'understanding of foresight and of strategy in general.
Therefore, a special obligation rests upon the foresight practitioners to take this into account when planning foresight exercises.
Acknowledgements The work behind this article received funding from the Danish Social science Research council through the project,‘Strategies and identity of science a study of strategy processes in national research programmes'.
and Foresight section at thetechnical University of Denmark's Department for Management Engineering. His main areas of research are technology foresight, strategy in science and innovation, technological innovation, the interaction between industry and science,
and future energy technologies. He has headed and participated in numerous national and international studies. Mads Borup is a senior scientist at the Innovation systems
and Foresight section at the Technical University of Denmark's Department for Management Engineering. His areas of work are systems of innovation and governance of research and innovation in the fields of eco-innovation and energy innovation.
An important part of his work is also strategic foresight on environment and technology. Notes 1. The two electricity grid operators were at that time Eltra and Elkraft System.
Nordich2energy foresight complementary contribution of expert views and formal analyses. In Proceedings from the EU US Scientific Seminar:
New technology foresight, forecasting and assessment methods, 13 14 may, Seville, Spain. EU DG Research. 2005. Final Report.
A practical guide to regional foresight. European commission Research Directorate General, STRATA Programme. Brussels: European communities Report EUR 20128 EN.
Third generation foresight integrating the socioeconomic dimension. In The approach to and the potential for new technology foresight, The Proceedings of an International Conference on Technology foresight, Tokyo, Japan. http://www. nistep. go. jp/achiev/ftx/eng/mat077e/html/mat077oe
. html. Georghiou, L, . and M. Keenan. 2006. Evaluation of national foresight activities: assessing rationale, process and impact.
Technological forecasting and Social Change 73: 761 77. Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 932 P. D. Andersen and M. Borup Gibbons, M.,C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott,
Expert groups as production units for shared knowledge in energy foresight. Foresight (Emerald) 9, no. 1: 37 49.
Lindblom, C. E. 1959. The science on muddling through. Public Administrative Review 19:79 88. Lundvall, B.-Å..1992.
Foresight in science and technology. Technology analysis & Strategic management 7, no. 2: 139 68. Martino, J. P. 1983.
Technology foresight in companies: from an indicator to a network and process perspective. Technology analysis & Strategic management 13, no. 4: 533 53.
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011