Future-oriented technology analysis Strategic intelligence for an Innovative economy, Springer, Berlin, 2008.34 D. Loveridge, P. Street, Inclusive foresight, Foresight 7 (3)( 2005) 31 47.35 H. A. Linstone, Multiple perspectives:
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.
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,
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,
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,
'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
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),
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 will portray their relationships. 3. How Inclusive foresight might be achieved The steps that might be taken towards Inclusive foresight are:
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,
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,
As indicated above Inclusive foresight programmes will elicit a far wider range of opinion than ever encountered before
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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:
the Futur process, Second International Conference on Technology foresight Tokyo, 27 28,february 2003. 3 D. Loveridge, P. Street, Inclusive foresight, Foresight:
Empirically, the case at hand illustrates the challenges posed by stakeholder participation based on the concept of‘Inclusive foresight'.
'A still understudied aspect of inclusive foresight is how these inclusion procedures are publically and politically legitimised, except with reference to the demand for more genuinely democratic decision-making.
The article contributes to discussions of inclusive foresight by showing how stakeholder image construction poses questions of power relationships in municipal long term governance.
and strategic decisions. 3 In their seminal paper on‘Inclusive foresight'Loveridge and Street (2005) argue that the credibiilit of foresight is dependent on extending participation to social stakeholders, especially those not normally seeking participation themselves.
A still understudied aspect of inclusive foresight however is the question:‘‘How are these inclusion procedures publically and politically legitimised, other than by the continual demand for more genuine democratic decision-making?'
and limits of inclusive foresight in municipal planning processes and expounds the challenges of our contemporary understanding of communicative planning tools as power instruments (Pløger 2002).
This paper argues that constructing a specific image of young people as stakeholders points towards a dilemma of inclusive foresight that cannot be rectified by specific management and process principles.
This case illustrates thus not only challenges of inclusive foresight taken up by Loveridge and Street (2005) but also much wider problems regarding good governance
Inclusive foresight. Foresight 7, no. 3: 31 47. Lynch, M. 2000. Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged knowledge.
Loveridge and Street 13 suggest that an Inclusive foresight may be expected to: -Create greater public awareness and understanding of new science and future technologies.
p. 72.13 D. Loveridge, P. Street, Inclusive foresight, Foresight 7 (3)( 2005) 31 47.14 D. Loveridge, Foresight:
899.10 D. Loveridge, P. Street, Inclusive foresight, Foresight 7 (2005) 31 47.11 K. De Moor, O. Saritas, Innovation Foresight for living labs, in:
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
< Back - Next >
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011
