Synopsis:
Future(s):
ART1.pdf
but very necessary to embed futures analysis into the strategic decision-making process. The issue related to combination of methods was reviewed and
The discussion also addressed the wider issues of the broadening perspectives that are being introduced to future work beyond technology and its development.
and more focused on how technology should be used to meet emerging future needs. The longstanding issue of the need for involvement (and engagement) by decision makers in the study were stressed also.
and consequently narrowing the range of futures considered. On the other hand, a consistent success factor was found in the communication
and thereby encouraging widespread innovation in organisational responses to the challenges of the future. 6. Importing ideas As might be expected of a session dealing with new ideas on FTA there was a wide diversity of suggestions and issues presented.
Other developments deal with reducing the domain of unknowable that play an important role when dealing with the future
ART10.pdf
if taken some future time. This does not mean that all strategic decisions should be deferred. Rather it is the careful combining of commitment
Adaptive foresight thus favours a more modest interpretation of the collective ability to shape the future
One of the industrial participants spelt out very explicitly that by participating in the process his firm became aware of a mis-perception of the future potentials of the technological trajectory they had pursued so far
and modification of actual policy strategies because the perception and the expectations of actors with respect to future developments have changed as a result of the process.
Other criteria such as a better understanding of future challenges and pathways or the formulation of alternative decision options are mere ancillary arguments.
This obviously makes the anticipation of future developments and their consequences more difficult than ever before.
Conventional forecasting approaches with their aim of predicting the future were based on a linear understanding of processes of socio-technical change that is simply an inappropriate representation of reality and thus misleading rather than enlightening with respect to informing decisions.
it strongly stresses the collective ability to shape the future and tends to underestimate the limitations to which decision-making is subject in the face of interactive and globalised innovation processes.
To be able to shape the future to some degree, actors need to be able to adjust to external developments
The ability to shape the future is limited by the extent to which external developments (such as the strategies of other actors but also exogenous developments) can vary.
it implies a need to accept a quite limited power to control the future. The foresight tradition has embraced some of these insights.
or at least a single desirable future, to capture possible future pathways. Over the past few years, a number of general trends in foresight practices can be observed that reflect what could be regarded the mainstream of foresight.
in order to contribute to a normative debate on desirable future development paths. Finally, we can today see a strong emphasis on
and controlling the future. The Delphi exercises in the 1970s and 1980s were influenced strongly by the linear idea that the consensus achieved in Delphi could serve as a forecast and thus as a foundation for taking preparatory actions to exploit emerging technologies.
Subsequently, forms of Delphi have been developed that do not strive to achieve consensus on future forecasts,
but in particular also decisionmakker from research, industry, policy-making and society, a shared understanding of current problems, goals and development options is expected to emerge among those actors that have an important role to play in shaping the future.
In other words, it is expected that the future be shaped by aligning expectations and thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
and collaborators 11.5 Obviously, there are also certain types of foresight exercises that have a less pro-active intention by concentrating on the identification of future challenges
Secondly, as regards the demand to provide advice on how to actively shape the future,
Adaptive planning (AP) as one of the constituents of Adaptive foresight belongs to a strand of strategic planning that stresses the limitations to both foreseeing and controlling future developments.
one is led to an approach that first tries carefully to map available decision options as well as possible future developments.
if adopted, can be expected to work reasonably well across the whole identified span of possible future developments.
or in the sense that they do not require (human) monitoring of future developments in order to function under different future developments.
In the face of the uncertainty that a fire might break out in one's house at some future point in time,
respectively, technologies that can be seen to be useful for a wide range of future conditions
because they are valuable in certain futures but not in others. But here too the reality is often more complex.
and the need to adapt to the future. This is a key tenet of adaptive planning. Conventional foresight approaches have tended to stress the ability to shape the future by initiating participatory processes involving key actors,
while underestimating the influence on the future course of events of external developments that are beyond the influence of these actors.
Especially from the perspective of small countries the adaptive element is crucial for devising policy strategies.
and assess future developments in their socioeconomic and technological dimensions. At later stages however, when individual actors need to make up theirminds about their strategies and concrete decisions,
dealing for instance with the future positioning of a firm or key investments to be made. Secondly, the analytical boundaries of the innovation system that determines the evolution of the focal issue need to be clarified.
Even though scenarios depict future developments it is current policy-making they shall inform. Plausible in the sense that they start from (aspects of) the current situation and develop in ways consistent with established knowledge.
it strengthens the rational basis of decision-making by capturing often implicit assumptions, expectations and underlying values about the future explicitly in different scenario images and corresponding pathways;
it makes forward-looking policy strategies more realistic by acknowledging the limitations to actively shaping the future,
One implication of this is the tendency to use forecasts i e. a predicate, rather than an explorative approach to future uncertainties.
for environmental scanning, foresight, J. Futures Stud. Strateg. Think. Pol. 1 (5)( 1999) 441 451.16 J. Voros, Reframing environmental scanning:
an integral approach, foresight, J. Futures Stud. Strateg. Think. Pol. 3 (6)( 2001) 533 551.17 J. Gavigan, F. Scapolo, M. Keenan,
Nordic and European future-oriented projects in defence, security, energy and transportation, typically with innovation and major investment decisions as important aspects.
ART11.pdf
accepted 1 february 2008 Abstract In this paper, we address challenges of organizing future-oriented consultation processes within European coordination tools for‘Open Method of Coordination'such as ERA NETS
iii) identification of practical networking and opening mechanisms for future cooperation, iv) implementation of joint evaluation and foresight activities,
it also shed light on possible modes and conditions for future collaboration, even though these were not at the nexus of the broader consultation. 3. 1. Management of multiple interfaces
foresight in the risk society, Technovation 19 (6 7)( 1999) 413 421.2 T. Jewell, International foresight's contribution to globalisation, Foresight The Journal of Futures studies, Strategic thinking and Policy
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 483 495 4 TFAMWG Technology Futures analysis Methods Working group, Technology futures analysis:
investigating future governance, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 70 (2003) 619 637.14 J. S. Metcalfe, Technology systems and technology policy in an evolutionary framework, Camb.
as well as various projects for industrial firms, the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Committee for the Future of the Parliament.
ART12.pdf
accepted 1 february 2008 Abstract This paper on regulatory foresight addresses approaches which allow future fields for regulatory action to be identified.
which enable regulatory bodies to identify future needs for regulations. Finally the usability of the Delphi methodology is discussed
but also an improvement of the design and implementation of future policies. So far, we observed a strong focus on ex ante impact assessments,
and tries to address especially approaches which allow the identification of future fields for regulatory action,
Foresight exercises are ways of obtaining opinions about future developments. Foresight is different from prognosis or prediction.
it means taking an active role in shaping the future. As a possible result, our prognosis of today may be falsified in the future because of a new orientation resulting from foresight.
Older attempts at planning the future by developing heuristic models (in the sense of futurology) were based on the assumption that the future is predefined as a linear continuation of present trends 12,13.
Although these approaches largely failed, due to the inbuilt simplification of the actual dynamics of social, economic and technological developments, some studies nevertheless provoked a lively discussion about the future 14
In reality, future developments underlie reciprocal influences which cannot be assessed exhaustively in advance, thus not predicted. There is, nevertheless, a need to monitor the future prospectively:
the accelerating changes that individuals as well as societies must adapt to socially and psychologically make Fig. 1. Regulatory foresight vs. regulatory impact assessment. 498 K. Blind/Technological forecasting
and Martin 17 made clear that a targeted shaping of future developments is limited strictly and that the potential impacts of decisions can only partially be estimated.
and chances, discuss desirable and undesirable futures, prospect the potential impacts of current research, technology and regulatory policy, focus selectively on economic, technological,
which focus directly or indirectly on the future need and role of regulations. The crucial difference of our understanding of regulatory foresight is the main focus on the challenges for the regulatory regimes,
Regulatory foresight in our perception is an instrument for regulatory bodies to identify future challenges for their regulatory regimes in advance
and policy-makers responsible for regulatory regimes but not for science and technology policy in the narrower sense to identify future requirements for regulations
Nevertheless, we could identify some activities attempting to determine the future demand for standards. In addition, we developed methodologies and approaches which represent revisions or adjustments of existing foresight methodologies,
but also completely new approaches to identify ex ante major future challenges for regulatory policies. The overview of methodologies in Section 2 starts with a list of possible methodologies which are also relevant for assessing the impact of public R&d policies.
Finally, we derive requirements for future research. 2. Overview of regulatory foresight methodologies In order to provide a first overview of methods to conduct regulatory foresight,
Since research activities only being performed in basic research are less likely to create challenges for the regulatory framework in the near or mid-term future
and technology indicators in order to explain future challenges for regulatory authorities, including standardisation organisations. Blind 25 shows, based on international and inter-sectoral cross-section data, that the output of formal standardisation bodies can be explained significantly by the patent applications as a reliable indicator for the dynamics in the respective technologies.
The simple quantitative use of science and technology indicators in order to detect future challenges for the regulatory framework is not sufficient.
Within potential technological fields relevant for future regulation, regulation-relevant contents and possible stakeholders have to be identified,
in order to be able to provide lists of challenges and areas for future regulatory action. General assessment of the scope and limits of methodology:
Nevertheless, complementary content and stakeholders analyses allow a further specification of possible fields of future regulation and the identification of stakeholders.
which aim to identify future needs regarding regulations and standards. The following operational steps for the performance of surveys to identify future demand for regulations
and standards have to be distinguished: Elaboration of questionnaire (including the definition of questions on participation in standardisation and involvement in setting up regulatory frameworks, the relevance of regulations, the use of existing standards, the relevance of current regulations, future needs for standards
and regulations and possible impact dimensions; Definition/construction of target population in terms of type of organisation, sectors, size classes,
whose data permits the assessment of the future needs for and impacts of regulations and standards.
but especially general aspects of the future regulatory system. Most efficient are assessed the requirement to use plain language when drafting regulations, the harmonisation and coordinnatio of the regulatory policies of different regulation bodies, the instalment of One-Stop Shops responsible for all regulation
Further more technology specific surveys focusing on the future regulatory requirements to react to progress in science
In a survey among German service companies, Mörschel and Schwengels 35 present a ranking of future standardisation areas according to their priority,
also in order to identify their future needs regarding service standards (see Fig. 3). As most important aspects,
CENELEC and ETSI published by the European commission 38 to develop a standardisation work programme to support the internal market for the service sectors. 3. 2. 3. The future needs for standards in nanotechnology based on a survey among stakeholders
which allows future needs for standards in an emerging technology to be identified. Blind and Gauch 39 conducted a survey among the stakeholders of nanotechnology research and standardisation in Germany.
which indirectly indicates their future relevance due to the long-lasting standardisation processes. The figure confirms that in current standardisation activities,
The comparison between actual standardisation activities and the general assessment of the future relevance of the different types of standards exposes some discrepancies,
especially regarding quality and compatibility standards. 3. 2. 4. General assessment In general, there is only limited experience in the use of surveys for identifying future needs for standards and regulation.
Surveys can be used to ask stakeholders about future needs for standardisation and regulation activities. Finally, surveys have a high acceptance as a methodology
there should be the possibility to distinguish the future needs for standards and regulations differentiated into different types of stakeholder groups,
& Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 General assessment of the scope and limits of methodology In contrast to other strategic aspects of organisations, assessing the future needs for standards
and regulations and their possible future impacts is rather difficult even for experts, because standards and regulations contain technical,
Surveys are probably not the best tool to collect information about the future needs for standards and regulations.
Although Delphi studies are also capable of identifying promising fields or future needs for regulation, the issue of regulation was taken only into account in the large national Delphi exercises in Japan 43,
The relatively small importance of the regulatory framework for the future development of new issues in science and technology compared to other policy instruments is confirmed in the follow-up studies,
but also in the field business regarding e-commerce-related issues. 4 In summary, Delphi exercises focusing on the future of science and technology take the general regulatory framework into account as one kind of obstacle,
However, the role of regulatory frameworks for the realisation of progress in future sciences and technologies compared to other types of obstacles is limited rather.
and to assess the future impacts of regulations in rather future sciences and technologies. However, surveying the activities in the last years,
which tried to identify future needs in regulation in already existing or emerging markets. 3. 3. 3. A Delphi survey among telecommunication experts Whereas in most of the previous selected examples of Delphi studies regulation was a side aspect of secondary relevance,
In the first section, the respondents were asked to assess a selection of future technical and business developments taken from the Seventh Japanese Technology foresight Report 48,
One of these case studies focused on the future regulatory framework for the use of smart cards. 509 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 Table 2 Future
we could identify only very few and not very systematic foresight exercises regarding future priorities for regulations and standards.
However, the sound experiences of the Japanese and German Delphi studies underline that foresight methodologies can be applied for the identification and setting priorities of future areas of regulation and therefore also of standardisation
Furthermore, the small-scale Delphi survey focusing on the future demand for standards in the ICT area confirmed the general applicability of this approach,
which is required to detect fields where regulations can help to increase the acceptance of future technologies and innovative products.
Information about the future developments of the factors should also be available. Then consistency checks have to be made,
in order to identify different future scenarios. For each scenario, the respective relevance and impacts of the selected regulation have to be determined.
and can be applied in all areas, covering all possible future driving forces, but also possible impacts of regulations and standards.
or influence future regulations. 4. Comparison and assessment of methodologies Although we cannot refer to a broad sample of regulatory foresights,
and to conduct several studies trying to determine the future needs for regulations and standards,
and a need to look for further methodological improvements towards regulatory foresights focusing on future strategies and actions concerning regulation and the special needs of regulatory bodies.
Especially the use of science and technology indicators to detect future challenges for and fields of regulations is developed not yet.
Based on the few existing experiences with surveys, it can be concluded that this methodology allows the identification of very specific future regulatory issues.
and the organisation Detect insights of specific needs for future regulation High cost and time-consuming Qualitative Assessment of future relevance of regulation,
) and future time horizon 513 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 representatives of public organisations and regulatory bodies,
and weaknesses of using this approach to identify future trends in science and technology. In addition
However, this dimension is compared underemphasised to the objective to identify future priorities for public R&d funding
A first approach was launched in Germany by a study to identify future themes for standardisation based on the negative experiences in the case of nanotechnology,
in which Germany did not leverage its excellent position in research and development into a leading position in setting the necessary framework conditions for future research and market introduction via standardisation 39.
The new developed systematic approach to identify future fields for standardisation combines both an indicator-based approach with a Delphi exercise
, New york, 1972.16 O. Helmer, Analysis of the Future: The Delphi method, Rand Corporation, Santa monica, 1967.17 J. Irvine, B. R. Martin, Foresight in Science, Picking the Winners, London, Dover, 1984.18 P. Swann:
A Guide to Futures research, Beverly hills/London/New delhi, 1983.42 K. Cuhls, Technikvorausschau in Japan. Ein Rückblick auf 30 Jahre Delphi-Expertenbefragungen, Physica Verlag, Heidelberg, 1998.43 National Institute of Science and Technology policy (NISTEP:
The Fifth Technology Forecast Survey Future technology in Japan (NISTEP Report No. 25, English translation of the 5th Japanese Delphi Report, abridged version), Tokyo. 44 Bundesministerium
The Sixth Technology Forecast Survey Future technology in Japan toward The Year 2025, No. 52, NISTEP Report, Tokyo,(1993.
Zukunft nachgefragt, Studie zur globalen Entwicklung von Wissenschaft und Technik, Karlsruhe, 1998.47 K. Cuhls, T. Kuwahara, Outlook for Japanese and German Future technology
, Comparing Technology Forecast Surveys, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1994.48 Science and Technology foresight Center (NISTEP), The Seventh Technoloy Forecast Future technology in Japan toward the Year 2030, No. 72
ART13.pdf
Forecasts of the likely future development of S&t are generated; then research and development (R&d) efforts necessary to realize various goals are backcast.
We then apply these insights to lab-on-a-chip devices for cell analysis. Dynamics of emerging paths can be used to articulate a future structured in terms of prospective innovation chains and potential paradigms.
In some MNCS separate roadmaps are developed based on anticipation of multiple future scenarios 13 cf. also 26.
but at a too general level. 7 3 We note in passing that‘roadmaps'in the public sector often seem to be no more than outlooks on the future of a field or sector,
/7 Cf Rip et al 2005 30‘Assessment'and‘alignment'can be used somewhat interchangeably where they refer to tools that help assessing actions on the way to an anticipated future-tools for‘anticipatory coordination'(learning curves of‘disruptive technologies';‘
multiple actors follow their own paths-as-strategies towards a future of possible (if competing,
Thus, for developing an FTA relating to paths into the future, knowledge of path dynamics need to be integrated into a process of controlled speculation in combination with other analyses.
and path as micro-level actor strategies projected towards a future paradigm. 11 Which can have unintended consequences as Anthony Giddens 40 points out Merton has provided perhaps the classical discussion of the issue.
Predictions and projections of all sorts can be made (as in roadmaps) outlining the future path of socio-technical development.
a plan to connect the present to the future. In both cases managing for the most desirable path is the goal,
1. explore and develop tools to map possible futures for the field of cell-on-a-chip with a focus on single cell analysis
what we show here as the possible future path/paradigm at the level of an application area (drug discovery) may also be called an innovation system.
the future path of drug delivery can either be dominated by MCA or SCA. However, it is only the aggregate effect of actors linking up with visions of application,
this map (and any future evolution) is and will be integrated in the Frontiers Roadmapping Initiative. The initiative is a programme focusing on aiding research foci in the link to applications.
futures studies; organization studies; the S&t policy literature; and bibliometrics, scientometrics, and patent analysis. For the conceptual developmeen of MPM, our self-set task was to integrate insights from roadmapping, dynamics of Emerging s&t and expectations,
MPM-1 was developed to map technology-based complexitiie of future projections from various communities and for various phases of a prospective innovation chain.
The MPM-2 project involved a collective mapping of projected actor strategy paths (or actors'paths-into-the-future) and a reflection on the future socio-technical path or entanglements
how organizations talk about the future, J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 18 (2001) 39 50.10 R. N. Kostoff, E. Geisler, Strategic management and Implementation of Textual Data mining in Government Organizations, Technol.
ART14.pdf
of the future, thus facilitating the design of several plans for dealing with the consequences of different scenarios should they materialise.
Apart from trying to identify potential future risks, foresight also facilitates the adoption of a holistic approach in terms of identifying possible impacts within and among different scenarios.
and analyse weak signals to‘foresee'changes in the future Produce future oriented material for the system to use AP:
and practice for thinking about the future Overcome path dependency and lock ins Collective learning through an open exchange of experiences Accumulation of experience in using foresight tools and thinking actively about the future Lower level goals:
Intermediate impacts included the development of visions of the future; recommendations and options for action;
New technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods, Seville, May 13 14 2004.16 Technology Futures analysis Methods Working group, Technology Futures analysis:
New technology Foresight, Forecasting & Assessment Methods, Seville, May 13 14 2004.17 M. Ladikas, M. Decker, Assessing the Impact of future-Oriented Technology assessment, Paper 1 in proceedings EU
ART15.pdf
Devising futures for universities in a multilevel structure: A methodological experiment Attila Havas Institute of Economics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budaörsi út 45.
Thus, it is timely to consider alternative futures for them, to be prepared better for their new roles.
A review of recent works on the future of higher education shows that the starting point in these exercises is either an existing or an abstract university.
First, alternative futures are developed for the EU by considering (i) the overall rationale of EU policies;
futures are built for the universities themselves, focussing on their research activities. The modest intention of the futures presented in this paper is to demonstrate how to use the proposed new approach,
and initiate meaningful and lively dialogues among stakeholders. Their diverse accumulated knowledge and experience, as well as distinct viewpoints are indispensable for building policy-relevant visions.
The proposed three-level structure of futures or‘cascading'visions offers several advantages for policy-makers at various Available online at www. sciencedirect. com Technological forecasting & Social Change 75
Alternative futures for the EU; The European research and Innovation Area (ERIA) and universities; Trends and drivers for changes;
thanks to the richness of literature and the number of projects and workshops analysing the future of universities:
it is of crucial importance to underpin the proposed new round of reforms by thorough and systematic prospective analyses, e g. by developing‘futures'(‘visions'or‘scenarios').
'2 Yet, a number of important and potentially influential proposals or policy documents do not discuss the future at all 2, 6,
i e. do not consider alternative futures; a striking example of that approach is the recent EU Green Paper on the European research area 3. Georghiou
and Cassingena Harper 9 have reviewed recent works on the future of higher education, and found extensive discussion and study of this topic,
when devising futures for them. Yet, the likely impacts of potential changes in these broader systems are analysed not at all in the reviewed FTA ACTIVITIES.
As the above list of factors that shape the future of universities reveals, a number of trends or challenges are international in their very nature,
and‘relative weight'of stakeholders to be involved in a participatory prospective analysis on the future of universities:
the role of university staff, students and the civil society at large, policy-makers or businesses might differ significantly in distinct‘futures'for the EU. Hence,
It is followed by futures for the European research and Innovation Area (ERIA), 5 as the more immediate surroundings for universities,
futures are devised for universities. 4 The most visible ones are the so-called Bologna process, the regular meetings of education ministers,
The futures developed here are just to demonstrate how to use these proposed methods, and its potential benefits for various stakeholders.
and future-oriented academic or consultancy projects, on the other. The very idea behind participatory programmes is to bring together different stakeholders with their diverse sets of accumuulate knowledge and experience,
In contrast, futures developed by individuals can only experiment with new methods, or spark dialogues, by offering food for thought, at best.
and its standing vis-à-vis the Triad regions are considered as major‘variables'of the alternative futures for the EU. At the second,
the diversity of universities can be explored by devising futures for different ideal types of universities,
In other words, this third level, itself, is consisted of a set of futures. Finally, methodological and policy conclusions are drawn.
the futures devised for universities (Section 4) only consider their research activities. No doubt, it is a somewhat artificial‘partitioning,
'but the main purpose of this paper to experiment with the proposed 3-level structure for building futures, rather than to offer fully fledged visions, covering all aspects.
they consider alternative futures (as opposed to e g. forecasting exercises; they are oriented action (unlike e g. academic papers in the tradition of futures studies;
and participatory, that is, they involve the representatives of relevant stakeholders, disseminate their results among the wider public affected by the changes/actions in the field/theme analysed,
training the future generation of researchers, engineers, managers (including R&d managers), experts, and policy-makers (among many other fields, for STI policies);
training of future generations of researchers is understood to have overriding importance among the other benefits of basic science,
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 thus will be used to underpin the futures for universities, presented in Section 4. 21 The order, in
as well as the findings presented at workshops organised by EC JRC IPTS on the Future of European University. 564 A. Havas/Technological forecasting
and as the training of the future generation of researchers. 565 A. Havas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 558 582 The most important driving forces can be derived by considering the increasingly intense global competition in research activities;
and regulations may give rise to a number of future trends, some of which are briefly summarised below. 1. Intensifying international mobility of postgraduate students and researchers.
different possible future states can be considered:(a) nonacademic sources of knowledge are considered fully legitimate, i e. academic research loses its power to validate knowledge;(
let alone among different types of them. 568 A. Havas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 558 582 4. Futures for universities Vision-building requires an intense dialogue among stakeholders for two reasons:(
when contemplating about the future;(ii) the links, communication, interactions, and co-operations among the various players are key aspects of the future shape and performance of universities.
The ideas presented here, therefore, can only be taken as points of departure for two types of activities.
First, they are aimed at triggering a debate among experts on the relevance of the proposedmethod, that is, the 3-level structure for devising futures.
Second, the content or some elements of the futures drafted here can be used as one of the inputs for dialogues among stakeholders in actual foresight processes.
Futures for universities can be devised by using various starting points. One possibility is to take the perspective of the sector,
Finally, the most important trends and drivers are addressed at the level of universities. 25 These futures (visions
or stories of a future world) are meant to present a number of different possible future roles, missions, organisational forms, strengths and weaknesses for universities.
These visions offer a description of future states in 2020 2025 rather than fully fledged or path scenarios
The modest aim is to sketch consistent and coherent descriptions of alternative hypothetical futures that reflect different perspectives on past, present,
and future developments, which can serve as a basis for action. They are tools for thinking about the future,
which will be shaped partly through deliberate strategies and actions, partly by factors beyond the control of decision-makers. 4,
p. 1. In brief, visions should highlight the role of policy in realising the desired and feasible future. 25 Note that the national
569 A. Havas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 558 582 Futures developed in genuine foresight processes can be direct (or positive) inputs for policy preparation or strategy building processes:
once a favourable future (future state) is identified among the feasible ones, the path (s) leading to that specific future state can be designed,
e g. by using backcasting methods. More precisely, a series of actions can be determined, which are likely to increase the probability of achieving the desired future.
Equally, futures developed by foresight processes can be indirect (or negative) inputs, a sort of wake up call: in case the current trends continue
because no actions are taken to change the course, we arrive at such an undesirable future state.
The major underlying assumptions for building visions for EU universities should be spelt out before addressing the more detailed issues,
and should not preclude competition among universities. 4. 1. Futures for the EU and ERIA The point of departure is a highly selective set of fundamental features of the EU:(
c Two types of EU behaviour can lead to this future state:(i) a conscious strategic choice to use available funds and other policy tools (e g. regulation) exclusively or excessively for boosting competitiveness,
and project the future repercussions of the strategic choices made now. In that way, these visions can inform present-day decisions,
and also show the possibilities to shape our future. From a different angle, it is both an opportunity for,
but the main features of the types of ERIA‘fitting'to the broad visions of Double success and Successful multi-speed EU are presented in Table 2. 4. 2. Futures states of universities
future sates of universities can be elaborated, depending on the extent to which the diversity of universities e g. in terms of the composition of various roles they play, their attitudes, norms and strategies,
In this logic, a third option to emphasise the possibility for fundamentally different futures, and thus encourage‘outside the box'thinking could be that universities disappear
regional, national or EU (ERIA) policies, a much more refined set of ideal types should be developed, based on a thorough understanding of the main features of existing and hypothetical future universities.
'As already mentioned, visions for universities are built on alternative futures for the EU and ERIA, that is, Double success and Successful multi-speed EU, respectively.
the alternative futures devised at EU and ERIA levels. Thus, their impacts should be discussed separately. As for legitimisation and validation of knowledge
which would also enhance their visibility and social esteem. 34 5. Conclusions This article considered alternative futures for EU universities.
however, concerns the present, rather than the future: several commonly used notions and widely held beliefs are out of Table 4 Driving forces
For sensible future-oriented public policies and sound university strategies a better understanding of the current situation is needed,
training of future generation of researchers is of overriding importance among the benefits of basic science,
although not a trivial task to start this exercise by devising alternative futures (visions) on their broader socioeconomic context.
considering different future states first for the EU and the European research and Innovation Area, and then for universities themselves.
and broadly shared strategic actions might lead to a completely different, much more favourable future state,
‘switching'between different EU futures), or the actual STI policy tools, as well as the links between STI policies, per se,
and hence the need for a set of structured futures, representing the various levels of governance.
EU policy-makers might also use this structured way of futures-building as one of the tools assisting their initiatives to align national policies;
including the alternative future states, towards which these broader systems might evolve, and hence they might be equipped better to devise‘future-proof',robust strategies.
In brief, they can‘hold'their own strategic parameters fixed, and juxtapose that set of features with different environments.
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,
which consider alternative futures in a transparent and systematic way. Foresight is among these techniques, and it offers additional advantages, too,
Acknowledgements This article draws on a report prepared for an expert group on The Future of Key Research actors in the European research area
References 1 P. A. David, Europe's Universities and Innovation Past, Present and Future, SIEPR Discussion paper No. 06-10,2006. 2 EC, The role of universities in the Europe
new perspectives, Green Paper, COM (2007) 161,4 April 2007.4 OECD, Four Futures scenarios for Higher education, OECD CERI, presented at the meeting of OECD Education Ministers, Athens
Trends and futures scenarios, Eur. J. Educ. 41 (2)( 2006) 169 202.6 P. H. Aghion, et al.
Current Trends and Challenges for the Near future, Final Report, EC DG Research Unit RTD-K. 2 october, 2002.8 LERU, Universities and Innovation:
Status and Impact of future-Oriented Technology analysis, Anchor Paper for the Second International Seminar on Future-oriented technology analysis: Impact of fta Approaches on Policy and Decision-making, Seville, 28 29,september 2006 available at:
Policy 30 (6)( 2001) 891 903.20 S. Kuhlmann, Future governance of innovation policy in Europe three scenarios, Res.
Policy 30 (6)( 2001) 953 976.21 A. Havas, Futures for Universities, paper presented at the Second International Seminar on Future-oriented technology analysis:
http://forera. jrc. es/documents/papers/Futures%20of%20universities paper. pdf. 22 Richard R. Nelson, The market economy,
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 Knowledge, Sage Publications, London, 1994.31 L. Sanz-Menéndez, The Future of Key Actors in the European research area:
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.
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.
< Back - Next >
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011
