Her research relates to future-oriented technology assessment and innovation studies. Her special interest lies in enhancing innovations provoked by societal concerns for the well-being of the ageing society and for cleaner environment.
It combines a range of Future-oriented technology analysis(‘FTA'TOOLS. These include innovation system modelling, text mining of Science, Technology & Innovation(‘ST&I')information resources, trend analyses, actor analyses,
FTA TOOLS have expanded from technology forecasting of incrementally advancing technologies (e g. consider Moore's law describing some six decades of continual advances in semiconductor capabilities)( Roper et al. 2011).
FTA increasingly includes science-based technologies with less orderly developmental trajectories (cf. Technology Futures analysis Methodsworking Group 2004;
) The analytical components that we address should be considered in the context of performing FTA (Porter 2010)
and national policy-makers as they formulate infrastructures to encourage innovation. 2. Background 2. 1. Tech Mining and FTAS Bibliometrics counting activity levels and identifying patterns in R&d bibliographic records,
In the other (our case), the analysts are conversant with the FTA, Competitive Technical intelligence, and innovation processes,
This paper pursues FTA pertaining to the development of DSSCS. DSSCS reflect a variety of component technologies,
Earlier papers have suggested how particular FTA techniqque can contribute to the FIP steps. We illustrate the use of multiple information resources in conjunction with expert opinion to inform FIP,
Future-oriented technology analysis: Strategic intelligence for an innovation economy. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-verlag. Chesbrough, H. W. 2006. Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation.
Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA: Impact on policy and decision making. Technological forecasting & Social Change 75, no. 4: 457 61.
‘‘The BMBF Foresight process'',paper presented at the 3rd International Seville Seminar on Future-oriented technology analysis, October 16-17, Seville.
''paper presented at the Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis, May 12-13, Seville. Fisher, R. and Ury, W. 1991), Getting to Yes Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, Penguin, New york, NY.
''paper presented at the Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis, May 12-13, Seville. Welp, M.,de la Vega-Leinert, A.,Stoll-Kleemann, S. and Jaeger, C. C. 2006),‘Science-based stakeholder dialogues:
or future-oriented technology analysis (FTA) used for research and innovation policy agenda-setting, conducted in Ireland. It describes the methodological approach taken by the project in identifying research implications of global drivers and trends,
ongoing role for FTA in critically evaluating continued support for the allocation of resources within the research and innovation system,
Georghiou, L.,Cassingena-Harper, J. and Scapolo, F. 2011),‘From priority-setting to societal challenges in future-oriented technology analysis'',Futures, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 229-31.
results of a national Delphi'',3rd International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA), 16-17 october, Seville, Book of Abstracts.
Future-oriented technology analysis: Its potential to address disruptive transformations Cristiano Cagnin a b,, Attila Havas c, Ozcan Saritas d, e a EU DG JRC-IPTS, Seville, Spain b Center for Strategic Studies and Management (CGEE), SCN
Received 14 may 2011 Accepted 18 september 2012 Available online 28 november 2012 This paper reflects on the potential of future-oriented analysis (FTA) to address major change
It does so by critically reflecting on the selected papers for this special issue as well as on the discussions that took place at the fourth Seville International Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis.
Considering the potential roles of fta in enabling a better understanding of complex situations and in defining effective policy responses leads to the understanding that appropriate FTA practices are needed to enable FTA to fulfil such roles.
Dealing with disruptive changes and grand challenges in particular therefore, raises several conceptual, methodological and operational issues. Two of them are general,
These present various methodological aspects of FTA APPROACHES as well as some advances needed in practice to assist FTA practitioners
FTA practices Fundamental change and transformations Grand challenges 1. Introduction Drawing upon a critical reflection on the selected papers for this special issue as well as on the discussions that took place at the fourth Seville International Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis,
this paper discusses the potential of future-oriented analysis (FTA) to address major change and to support decision-makers
The first part of this introductory paper considers the potential roles of fta in enabling a better understanding of complex situations and fundamental transformations,
Through the identification that appropriate FTA practices are needed to enable FTA to fulfil its potential roles
These present some advances needed in practice to assist FTA practitioners and stakeholders in comprehending transformations
when analysing the potential of future-oriented technology analysis (FTA) to assist societies, decision-makers and businesses to tackle fundamental, disruptive transformations, in general,
and call for appropriate FTA ACTIVITIES to support and enable large entities such as nations and group of nations, businesses and other organisations,
FTA has a potentially useful role to play in enabling a better understanding of complex situations and in defining effective policy responses
In this context, FTA can contribute not only to the steering of innovation systems, but also to their adjustment, adaptability and ability to shape responses to fundamental changes.
At the same time, FTA can contribute to building‘change'capacities that allow organisations to become capable of anticipating
This can be achieved through regular FTA ACTIVITIES, assisting networking and co-operation within and across organisations,
Appropriate FTA practices are essential to enable FTA to fulfil such roles. These should follow certain principles to ensure quality in both processes
Hence, devising an FTA project requires careful planning, and well-reasoned decisions on its main features/elements:
when considering what FTA APPROACHES and tools would be appropriate to address certain policy needs. The first two are general ones,
unknown knows and unknown unknowns The three phases above denote three levels of ignorance that FTA deals with 1,
2. Considering that FTA is an imaginative projection of current knowledge, FTA's practical outcomes are characterised by human behaviour under subjective opinion.
The subjectivity and associated ignorance due to the choices and decisions made will increase as the FTA begins to deal with more complex and uncertain issues
such as the ones involved in grand challenges 2, p. 753. The example of Fukushima nuclear disaster exemplifies the levels of ignorance respectively (i e. the likelihood of an earthquake;
when framing and managing an FTA ACTIVITY within the fuzzy boundary between what can be known and what cannot be at the time 2, p. 765.
The information, knowledge and interpretation and resultant subjective opinion of FTA participants are decisive when dealing with grand challenges 3. Thus,
when designing and running an FTA ACTIVITY that the selection of experts 4, 5 would strongly influence the analytical results and recommendations. 380 C. Cagnin et al./
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 379 385 3. Combining quantitative and qualitative approaches FTA is an umbrella term to denote several decision-preparatory tools (technology foresight,
All three components of FTA draw on the theoretical framework of several disciplines. Further, actual FTA projects exploit results of scientific research
and also use scientific methods when analysing the past and the present in order to consider future options
The main objective of FTA projects is to assist decision-makers with relevant analyses, observations and new ideas to be prepared better for the future (assuming that it can be predicted)
In other words, while FTA ACTIVITIES generate new knowledge, actually both practical and scientific knowledge, these are not scientific projects per se.
FTA EXPERTS and other policy analysts, nonetheless, aim at distilling scientific results from FTA projects and publish them in journals or books.
Given the nature and diversity of FTA APPROACHES, one can think of an FTA toolbox, but not a uniform and proven FTA methodology, to be followed by all FTA projects.
All FTA projects are given unique their context: the issues to be tackled; the main objectives; the time horizon to be considered;
the desire of their sponsors/clients; the number, experience, analytical and methodological skills and value system of their participants;
the level of socioeconomic development of the country (ies), region (s), sector (s) or city (ies) in which they are conducted;
time and other resources available for FTA, etc. In other words, it would be a mistake to search for a fixed set of methods in the sense of one size fits all (or best practice.
systems in which FTA is conducted; and policy governance sub-systems in which FTA is embedded (or on the contrary, with
which certain FTA APPROACHES would clash). By putting together these major building blocks, one can better devise
and conduct an FTA project. This claim is based on the assumption that the closer the fit between
(i) the perceived policy needs/opportunities to be tackled by FTA,(ii) the chosen FTA APPROACH and its methods and (iii) the policy governance sub-system,
the higher/more favourable impacts of FLAS can be expected (assuming an appropriate quality and methodological rigour of conducting FTA) 6. Against this backdrop,
the guest editors of this special issue would stress that one needs to be careful before proposing the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods as the way forward,
human resources and funds required to conduct an FTA project. Excessive use of quantitative methods is likely to severely constrain participation.
Practical experience clearly shows that the potential participants of an FTA exercise are simply too busy to attend training courses just for the sake of being sophisticated familiar with FTA METHODS.
an important part of the FTA toolkit, namely foresight, would be eclipsed in case the use of advanced quantitative methods is declared'always necessary,
In sum, the relevance and appropriateness of FTA METHODS to tackle the perceived needs should have a much higher weight when designing an FTA project than the‘elegance'of methods.
Simply, it would be a gross mistake trying to establish a hierarchy of particular FTA METHODS/techniques based on their‘absolute advantages'(that is,
Also, when evaluating an FTA project, costs and benefits of certain methods (their‘fit'to the context), on the one hand,
In other words, the‘quality'of an FTA project is a complex issue, and it cannot be reduced to the question of its level of methodological sophistication.
In that sense dealing with grand challenges introduces new conceptual, methodological and operational challenges for FTA. Energy, climate change, natural resources, food, water,
The challenge for FTA lies in the fact that the unstructured nature of grand challenges may not fit with the existing thematic structures of decision-making.
The role of FTA in this case is to achieve articulation and orchestration of activities 3. Policy-makers are concerned naturally with changes
Therefore, it is the task of FTA to (i) identify challenges;(ii) align actors around the challenge;(
and practical work to establish what FTA METHODS would be useful and feasible to facilitate co-ordination of tools/actions used in various policy domains,
Are multilevel FTA projects that is, those that address an issue that needs to be tackled at the level of nations and world regions,
do need we FTA (more precisely: foresight as part of the broader set of FTA) on innovation systems and governance structures?
To what extent the current decision-makers and other major‘gatekeepers'would be open to launch and finance such exercises,
FTA still needs to develop mechanisms for orchestrated innovation activities and policy action. Systemic action is required for a collective transformation through the coordinated application of scientific/technological,
Understanding the difficulties for FTA to dealing with the grand challenges of humanity helps therefore, improve the FTA practice in developing its approaches,
where FTA needs to demonstrate that there might be opportunities for innovation and new markets in grand challenges.
For instance, 14 give waste-based innovation as an example of such opportunity, which appears to be suitable for aligning scientific/technological
and social innovations to achieve a structural transformation. 6. Papers in this special issue The papers in this special issue of TFSC discuss various methodological aspects of FTA APPROACHES as well as some advances needed in practice to assist us in comprehending transformations.
The papers discussed below have been selected initially by the scientific committee of the fourth Seville International Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis to be considered for publication with several other papers.
and influenced the practice of FTA to show that alignment of approaches, consideration of users'perspectives and divergence,
and the need for social shaping seem critical to advance FTA practice in light of anticipating disruptive innovations and events. 382 C. Cagnin et al./
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 379 385 In more detail, Haegeman et al. 4 depart from the methodological debate that has been a relevant element of the International Seville Conference series on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA
They claim that current trends in FTA and the increasing policy demand for robust evidence for decision-making indicate that there may be a momentum for pushing FTA towards integrating qualitative (QL) and quantitative (QT) approaches,
and thus increasing the relevance of FTA for policy, businesses and society by addressing the so-called grand challenges.
They introduce a three-level taxonomy independent use of QL and QT approaches for their combination at a later stage
(b) use of new disciplines entering FTA to exchange practices and increase synergies,(c) support of mutual understanding by clarifying strengths and weaknesses of QL and QT methods,(d) sharing
Technology assessment activities part of the FTA family can also influence technological trajectories. Two papers from the same school Hamarat et al. 11 and Kwakkel and Pruit 12 address the need for novel methods and techniques to support adaptive policy-making.
In light of these two interrelated papers, FTA can benefit from EMA applications as it allows the:
or on the communication of EMA results to policy makers and FTA practitioners. De Smedt et al. 5 claim that grand challenges require policy-makers to address a variety of interrelated issues
She explores the role that different types of FTA played in the development of nanotechnology governance in the USA and in Germany.
FTA was used to create visionary concepts and to promote co-operation between various actors. In Germany, FTA was used mainly to shape
and define research and innovation agendas. In both countries, public policy activities to foster nanotechnology were accompanied by efforts to establish governance structures to coordinate interactions between actors of the innovation system.
The FTA TOOLS used to develop governance frameworks for nanotechnology in these two countries differ along time.
In Germany, FTA is used mainly for addressing the future of existing areas of strength with FTA ACTIVITIES being governed by one ministry (BMBF),
focused largely on science-industry relations, and moving from forecasting activities and expert-driven identification processes towards the inclusion of expertise from a broader range of disciplines, a wider range of stakeholders and sometimes also the knowledge of lay people.
In both countries, early FTA envisioned innovative future nanotechnologies, but did not support guidance either for future innovative governance or for using nanotechnology for disruptive innovation in order to address grand societal challenges.
and knowledge gained in distributed FTA ACTIVITIES. Further in Germany the process is less coordinated and does not involve heterogeneous stakeholders nor make use of the knowledge gained in various FTA.
Hence, the implication for future emerging technologies is that the methodology and practice of FTA should consider the governance dimension from the beginning by acknowledging that monitoring
and identifying a broad field implicitly include the shaping of the field and its governance structure by including
The notion of FTA addressing research and innovation policy through priority-setting and articulation of demand has shifted to the search of breakthrough science
according to Georghiou and Harper 3. We can further extend this broader understanding by stressing that FTA can be highly relevant beyond the domain of STI policies.
In this context, Georghiou and Harper 3 provide an account of the implications for the practice of FTA in periods of instability
and influenced the practice of FTA. They outline that the main exception to mainstream practice has been the emergence of horizon scanning activities.
This has doomed such activities to a relatively small part of the picture of FTA practice. Moreover, it happens
while there is as yet no clear methodological answer to the identification issue there has been some institutionalised responses and new organisational models of FTA,
FTA clearly has a role in articulating recognised grand challenges and if approached correctly, instead of seeking to manage away uncertainty,
FTA can accommodate it. Hence, alignment of approaches and consideration of users'perspectives, as well as divergence and the need for social shaping seem critical to advance FTA 384 C. Cagnin et al./
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 379 385 practice and assist in considering transformations that are going to take us closer to anticipating disruptive innovations and events.
influences on future-oriented technology analysis, Tech. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 24 (8)( 2012) 753 767.3 L. Georghiou, J. C. Harper, Rising to the challenges Reflections on Future-oriented technology analysis, Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Chang. 80 (3)( 2013) 467 470 (this issue. 4 K. Haegeman, E. Marinelli, F. Scapolo, A. Ricci, A. Sokolov, Quantitative and qualitative approaches in Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA:
From combination to integration? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 80 (3)( 2013) 386 397 (this issue.
The 4th International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA), 2011,12 13 may. 7 L. Gao, A l. Porter, J. Wang, S. Fang, X. Zhang, T. Ma, W. Wang, L. Huang, Technology life cycle analysis method
. Keenan, Orienting European innovation systems towards grand challenges and the roles that FTA can play, Sci. Public policy 39 (2012) 140 152.10 M. Boden, C. Cagnin, V. Carabias, K. Haegeman, T. Konnola, Facing the Future:
13 P. Shaper-Rinkel, The role of future-oriented technology analysis in the governance of emerging technologies: The example of nanotechnology, Technol.
Quantitative and qualitative approaches in Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA: From combination to integration? Karel Haegeman a,, Elisabetta Marinelli b, Fabiana Scapolo c, Andrea Ricci d, Alexander Sokolov e a European commission, JRC-IPTS, Edificio Expo WTC, C/Inca
Received 14 may 2011 Received in revised form 9 july 2012 Accepted 3 september 2012 Available online 8 november 2012 The FTA COMMUNITY relies on a set of disciplines and methods,
since the first edition of the International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA), there is still little dialogue
The FTA events have, since the beginning, provided an avenue to debate methodological aspects and this paper summarises and furthers the discussion developed during the 2011 edition,
and misconceptions within the FTA COMMUNITY are amongst the factors undermining further methodological integration. The paper concludes by suggesting some steps
Qualitative Quantitative Barriers Combination Integration FTA Epistemological divide 1. Introduction The methodological debate has been a relevant element of the International Seville Conference series on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA
qualitative and participatory FTA METHODS. We define data as quantitative when consisting of numerical information and a methodology as quantitative when applying statistical/mathematical tools.
It is acknowledged that, within the FTA COMMUNITY (which comprises Foresight, Forecasting and Technology assessment), 1 foresight practitioners have concentrated traditionally on participatory methods based on qualitative data,
Another part of the FTA COMMUNITY, constituted by Forecasting and Technology assessment practitioners, holds an opposite standpoint, considering qualitative and participatory approaches as a second best option, to which we are compelled somehow to refer until adequate quantitative methods arise.
Whilst these two branches of the FTA COMMUNITY operate largely separately, in the social sciences the mixing-methods debate has advanced considerably 2 6
Nevertheless in the discussions at the 2011 FTA Conference some trends were identified suggesting that methodological combination may potentially become more common amongst FTA scholars and practitioners.
as well as on the reasons why, such combination, within the FTA COMMUNITY, seems to proceed at a lower rate than in other fields.
which is used then as a framework for classifying current FTA practices. Section 4 reflects on the obstacles that may be preventing a faster
It is important to stress that the reflections in this paper are elaborated on the basis of discussions at the FTA conference and the debate (both before and after the event) between members of the Scientific Committee, to
although the reflections in this paper originate from inside the FTA COMMUNITY, they are addressed to a broader audience, based on the awareness that other branches of social sciences,
could also become more connected to FTA. It is in this sense an invitation to other communities to join
and share their views on this topic at future FTA conferences. 2. Sense or nonsense of applying qualitative
and quantitative approaches in FTA In social sciences alternative methods may encourage or allow expression of different facets of knowledge or experience 2,
In FTA one of the main arguments for more use of quantitative approaches may come from policy-makers, who,
the 2011 FTA Scientific Committee argued that the exclusive use of qualitative methods can lead to partial views on possible futures,
They see FTA (both quantitative and 1 The interested reader is referred to Scapolo and Cahill 1 for further details on the origin and definition of the acronym FTA. 2 Quantitative participatory methods could for instance relate to the online sharing of big amounts of data,
the development of online models accessible to a whole community, or the engagement of a wider group of participants in data analysis (for the latter, see Cooke and Buckley 7). 3 In this regard,
Unsurprisingly, several authors plea for a stronger emphasis on creativity and exploration in future-oriented technology analysis, in order to identify truly alternative future developments
who see FTA EXERCISES as attempts to collect knowledge about‘posits'or possible futures, their plausibility and limits, their internal consistency and conformity with models and data, their consistency with expert judgement,
we look in the next section at some current FTA practices. 3. A taxonomy of methodological combinations as a basis for identifying current FTA practices
and analysis on the consequences and outcomes of applying specific techniques in the course of FTA. 5 Scapolo
and Porter 27 argue that this absence of stocktaking analysis is mirrored also in the lack of guidance on how to evaluate FTA projects that combine different methodologies.
'and to contribute to the robustness of FTA, in terms of process, content, and impacts. Since its first edition the International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis devoted part of its attention to the development of new tools and methods, novel use of existing methods and (new) disciplines applied by FTA.
Despite the lack of systematic investigation, there are clear signs of interest from the FTA COMMUNITY in combining methods.
There are obviously many ways to look at current practices. An interesting one is to group FTA EXERCISES based on the level of integration of qualitative and quantitative methods.
We therefore propose a taxonomy of methodological combinations at three different levels of interaction and use this as a basis for looking at current practices in combining qualitative and quantitative FTA APPROACHES. 3. 1. Independent (parallel
or sequential) use of qualitative and quantitative approaches In this type of FTA exercise qualitative and quantitative approaches are applied in parallel or sequentially,
but separately from each other. Typically, when different methods/tools are applied within the same project, links consist mainly of using the results of one part as an input into another part.
which is a suboptimal use of available FTA APPROACHES. Examples of current and upcoming FTA practices Output of qualitative approaches as input to quantitative approaches New indicators:
Qualitative data can provide additional evidence to quantitative models by inclusion of new indicators created from quantified expert judgments.
Output of quantitative approaches that feeds into qualitative FTA Use of bibliometric and patent analysis as an input for further qualitative FTA:
Comparison of outcomes of qualitative and quantitative approaches Participants at the 2011 International Seville Conference on FTA raised the potential of the use of qualitative and quantitative methods for identifying
or disciplines that are traditionally not related to FTA and function as an integrator between qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Examples of current and upcoming FTA practices Internet-based tools allowing for integration of data of various sorts Online sharing of perspectives on different data types:
new technologies such as web 2. 0 can be used by FTA to streamline operations by increasing interactive participation of stakeholders, speeding-up the provision of information and feedbacks and integrating data of different sorts (pictures
both in FTA practices and in linking policy and research in general (for an example, see Haegeman et al. 39). 389 K. Haegeman et al./
During the 2011 International Seville Conference on FTA, the use of images and visualisation techniques was suggested as a tool,
Further exploring synergies between FTA and strategic design could offer opportunities for more integrated use of methodologies. 7 3. 3. Full integration of qualitative and quantitative FTA A third type of exercise goes beyond the use of interfaces,
and relates to an integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches at all stages of the FTA PROCESS. In this case results of qualitative and quantitative techniques feed into each other at several stages of the process
or pass through several iterations. This is expected to generate dynamic cross-methodological learning processes as at each phase or iteration of the exercise ideas flow between different domains of knowledge.
not only within the FTA COMMUNITY, but more generally also in social science where most reports of mixed methods studies report either parallel
the authors believe that such deep integration of methods can potentially enhance both the analytical depth and the policy impact of fta activities.
Examples of current FTA practices Examples of research with deep integration of qualitative and quantitative FTA APPROACHES are not many.
it was possible to identify where advancements are needed in terms of model developments. 4. Barriers to integrating FTA METHODS The above taxonomy
This section elaborates on these aspects by discussing some of the barriers that may hamper a deeper integration of quantitative and qualitative FTA METHODS. 4. 1. Barriers stemming from an epistemological divide in social sciences The main barrier to a full methodological integration is epistemological
(which is confined not to the FTA COMMUNITY) on the type of knowledge that qualitative and quantitative methodologies can produce and on the value of combining them 45 49.
indicating that the lack of quantitative and qualitative integration in FTA stems from more fundamental barriers outside the community.
this method is more suitable for FTA for businesses. However, it has been applied by the Finnish innovation Fund to develop holistic understanding of a challenge with issues related to ageing, education,
with some kind of bridging mechanism to connect the respective outcomes. 4. 2. Cultural differences in FTA A layer of complexity is added to this methodological debate in the case of FTA,
Still today the different FTA COMMUNITIES are perceived as rather competing than collaborating in exploring the future.
Misconceptions within the FTA COMMUNITY In order to better understand the pros and cons of different methodologies, three implicit misconceptions within the FTA COMMUNITY need to be addressed.
Firstly, it is assumed often that models belong exclusively to the quantitative domain and have objective predictive power.
and ignorance typically issues being dealt with by FTA the value of models is (at least) as much in the process as in the output. 8 Another common misconception associates subjectivity and value judgement to qualitative processes,
a value judgement is involved in any FTA exercise. The distortion of such subjectivity can be reduced by the legitimacy of the persons making the judgement
Second, when FTA and especially foresight is addressing the intrinsically uncertain challenge of devising possible futures,
Capturing the subjectivity of FTA contributors, i e. their valuable yet tacit (not codified) knowledge, is therefore of the essence. 9 8 During the 2011 FTA Conference a lively discussion was devoted to the shift of FTA usage from exploring potential risks to inspiring sustainable innovation.
In this respect taking into account expert opinions is also important for the identification of key clusters
and addressing different types of innovation. 9 A good example is the contribution that FTA can provide to policy and decision makers in charge of the prioritisation of alternative technological options.
On the other hand, qualitative approaches have been adopted for many decades (e g. scenarios) with no other involvement than that of the FTA EXPERTS.
and reinforced by, the lack of researchers, practitioners and evaluators skilled in both quantitative and qualitative FTA APPROACHES. 10 It is for instance neither common, nor easy,
and lack of trust occurs not only within the FTA COMMUNITY, but also amongst its clients (in particular policy-makers.
Trust from policy-makers in outcomes from an FTA exercise may be undermined by differences between the expectations of decision-makers who should ultimately use the outcomes of FTA,
and what FTA can really deliver. For example, Georghiou and Harper 66 point at the concern that administrations may want to harness FTA
in order to constrain uncertainty to the point where traditional tools may be used. This is however not what the FTA COMMUNITY is set out to provide.
Similarly, decision-makers can claim that the wrong people were involved in a Delphi survey, or they simply distrust the foresight process,
with longer-term priorities for research and policy that address more fundamental barriers to methodological integration. 5. 1. Overcoming short-term barriers One way to extend the application of quantitative methods in FTA
is their gradual integration into existing practices of FTA and their convergence with qualitative techniques.
Addressing practical incompatibilities between both approaches may also gradually change preferences of FTA practitioners for specific methods in favour of integrated approaches.
Below we sketch a possible agenda to overcome the main short-term barriers regarding methods selection and misconceptions. 5. 1. 1. Methods selection The selection of methods in FTA remains largely a context-driven issue,
content and approach of an FTA project 68 70. This is even more the case when different types of methods are applied where it is important to combine
which can also be applied in the field of FTA: perceptions on the expectations of different audiences, methodological preferences of the (mixed methods) researcher, structure of the research project, different timelines for different method types, skill specialisms, the nature of the data, ontological differences,
It could be adapted to serve as an FTA starter kit for combining methods. In addition, a short-term research agenda could help addressing practical incompatibilities that hamper the combination of different methods.
A possible item on such research agenda could be screening specific sectors where quantitative FTA APPROACHES are represented traditionally stronger, in view of identifying good practices.
In particular, from the start of an FTA PROCESS, it is necessary to clarify the definition of terms used and the basic set of assumptions, on which the exercise (in its quantitative and qualitative components) rests.
The initial identification of issues is one of the stages where the involvement of stakeholders is essential as it allows collecting the views of those who will play an active role in the decision-making process supported by FTA.
and experts in the specific sector (s) subject to FTA can contribute to significantly increasing the quality of FTA results.
when sharing FTA findings with stakeholders who are expected to follow up with action are essential for building ownership whilst providing decisionmakker with insights on the limits of the FTA results.
thus also decreasing the risk of stakeholders dominating the FTA PROCESS. 14 The importance of this in the context of this paper lies in keeping a balance in participation of stakeholders
and below we suggest some of the steps that could be taken in such direction. 5. 2. 1. Lack of identified good practices In light of the growing volume and variety of FTA practices,
Such stocktaking endeavour should compare FTA EXERCISES according to a set of variables (such as goals, methodologies, time horizon15) and provide both methodological and evaluation guidelines.
and provide accordingly differentiated support to FTA practitioners. They should also pay particular attention to validity and uncertainty of its main subjects.
This pathway of small wins may also have potential for increasing trust, commitment and shared understanding between methodologically different FTA COMMUNITIES,
closing the epistemological gap In the long run the clash of cultures could be transformed into an asset by developing the right skills to improve the community's work, the level of trust and, ultimately, the policy impact of fta.
within and beyond the FTA COMMUNITIES. 6. Conclusions and further steps Although systematic integration of quantitative and qualitative methods in FTA is not a standard practice so far,
The different and highly heterogeneous contributions to the 2011 International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis in this area share a common bottom line:
In trying to push forward the field of FTA towards methodological integration, this paper has explored possible barriers hampering such development,
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 386 397 identification of the features that may help the organisers of FTA projects in the selection of the most appropriate set of tools (characterising
and joint practice between the different FTA COMMUNITIES. As this is rooted in deep epistemological differences, it can hardly be reconciled on pure theoretical grounds.
In the short term, efforts must be made to reduce the divide by promoting joint practice within actual FTA EXERCISES,
In the longer term, the conditions must be created (through education, information sharing, cultural dialogue) for a more integrated community of FTA EXPERTS
which can only be reached through strong interactions within the FTA COMMUNITY and between it and the relevant stakeholders from education, policy and society at large.
and both the Scientific Committee and the participants of the 2011 Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis for the fruitful discussions that helped shaping and refining it.
E. Cahill, New horizons and challenges for future-oriented technology analysis: proceedings of the EU US scientific seminar:
http://forera. jrc. ec. europa. eu/fta/Proceedings%20short%20version. pdf. Last accessed July 2012.2 P. Bazeley, Issues in mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis, May 12 13 (2011) Seville, 2011, Available at: http://foresight. jrc. ec. europa. eu/fta 2011/documents/download/PRESENTATIONS/Keynotes/FTA%202011%20%205-9%20%20hl%20%20
%20%20%20ppt%20%20copy. ppt. Accessed July 2012.13 H. A. Linstone, Three eras of technology foresight, Technovation 31 (2011) 69 76.14 I. Tuomi, Foresight in an unpredictable world, Technol.
Eval. 19 (2)( 2010) 91 104.18 FTA Scientific Committee, Call for papers, in: The 4th International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA:
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic transformations, 2011, Available at: http://foresight. jrc. ec. europa. eu/fta 2011/FTA2011 CALL FINAL. pdf. Accessed August 2012.19 H. Van Lente,
Navigating foresight in a sea of expectations: lessons from the sociology of expectations, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manage. 24 (8)( 2012) 769 782.20 D. Loveridge, O. Saritas, Ignorance and uncertainty:
influences on FTA, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manage. 24 (8)( 2012) 753 767.21 K. Haegeman, K. M. Weber,
the role of future-oriented technology analysis in anticipating and shaping structural and systemic changes, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manage. 24 (8)( 2012) 729 734.22 A. Eerola,
I. Miles, Methods and tools contributing to FTA: a knowledge-based perspective, Futures 43 (2011) 265 278.23 For-Learn, Online foresight guide, European foresight platform.
Guide to Research infrastructures Foresight, European commission, Brussels, 2007.27 F. Scapolo, A l. Porter, New methodological developments in FTA, in:
Future-oriented technology analysis: Strategic intelligence for an Innovative economy, Springer verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg, 2008.28 S w. Cunningham, T. E. van der Lei, Decision-making for new technology:
Papers in Memory of Everett C. Hughes, Aldine, Chicago, 1968.66 L. Georghiou, J. C. Harper, Rising to the challenges Reflections on Future-oriented technology analysis, Technol.
http://ec. europa. eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/efmnmapppingforesight en. pdf, last accessed July 2012.70 M. Rader, A l. Porter, Fitting future-oriented technology analysis methods to study
Future-oriented technology analysis: Strategic intelligence for an Innovative economy, Springer verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg, 2008.71 R. Cameron, Mixed methods research:
and in organising several foresight trainings and International Seville Conferences on Future-oriented technology analysis. He has been publishing articles and reports on anticipatory and analytical research in support of European RTDI policy and on new methods and tools for FTA.
Elisabetta Marinelli is a scientific officer at JRC-IPTS (Grant Holder 30. She is an economist by training
She is involved currently in several FTA ACTIVITIES including the European foresight Platform and the ERA NET Rus project. 396 K. Haegeman et al./
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011