Future-oriented technology analysis Impacts and implications for policy and decision making The unfolding acceleration of global innovation is expected to become the hallmark of the first half of the 21st century.
These closely related communities play an important role in guiding policy and decision making to anticipate
Impacts and implications for policy and decision making 1, enabled FTA EXPERTS, practitioners, and policy and decision makers to share their ideas
and knowledge in order to make FTA more policy relevant. The rising importance of FTA is reflected in the interest for the Third International Seville FTA Conference.
In total, 180 participants attended the Conference, representing/covering all continents. Out of the 166 abstracts that were submitted (50 more than in 2006), the Conference Scientific Committee selected 56 papers in order to build a comprehensive Conference program.
The Conference program covered both FTA methodological aspects and application of fta to policy fields such as, research and innovation, security and sustainability.
thus following the example of the first special issue from the previous edition of the Conference 2. This issue offers the reader a unique opportunity to travel with the editors on a journey of discovery where new approaches to the development of policies for advancing societal
and who seem uncomfortable with the emerging complexity of innovation systems as the key target or client for adaptive policies and new approaches.
another Finnish team, bring this novel focus on tools further into the interface with policy approaches in their timely paper on the Role of Technology barometer in Assessing Past and Future development of National Innovation system.
As well, the interplay between foresight and policy is defined further and elaborated, wherein foresight engages policy-making on six levels (informing;
supporting new policy definitions; reconfiguring policy structures and as a dynamic process, symbolizing policy evolution-change.
In many respects the BMBF foresight demonstrates how in practice many of the new approaches are actively engaging a changing view of policy for the knowledge economy.
Volkery and Ribeiro address in their paper, Scenario planning in public policy: understanding use, impacts and the role of institutional context factors, the effectiveness of scenario planning in public policy-making.
Scenario planning still is executed often in a rather ad hoc and isolated manner and is geared mostly towards indirect decision support such as agenda-setting
The authors analyze the role of scenario planning to prepare public policy-making for the uncertainties and surprises of future developments and better manage complex decisions involving conflicting societal interests.
they develop the case for ensuring that foresight offers a democratic rather than just a technocratic input to the future and to the policy processes
when FTA enables more robust policy, things can improve. References 1 JRC-IPTS, European commission, Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA:
Impacts and implications for policy and decision making The 2008 FTA International Seville Conference. Online source:
impact on policy and decision making The 2006 FTA INTERNATIONAL SEVILLE SEMINAR, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 75 (4)( 2006) 457 582.
Analysis for radical design Scott W. Cunningham Policy analysis Section, Faculty of technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Postbus 5015,2600 GA Delft, The netherlands a r
This new standard for rich Internet applications was incorporated in a recent beta version of Internet explorer 8. 5. Policy impacts These developments in ARIA are less than a year old at the time this paper was written the W3c posted a working draft
new methods for quantitative long-term policy analysis, Santa monica: The RAND Pardee Center, 2003.6 L. Fleming, Recombinant uncertainty in technological search, Manage.
Policy 14 (1985) 235 251.17 J. P. Dismukes, Technologies of thinking'seen key to accelerated radical innovation, Res.
He currently works for the Faculty of technology, Policy and Management, of the Delft University of Technology,
their operation and maintenance are strongly dependent from policy and mostly delegated to the local or regional level.
In line with this shift of attention, foresight was conceived mainly as an informing policy task until the 1970s,
and has been expanded into a systemic support instrument for policy formulation and implementation more recently 20. More specifically, foresight related thinking was applied to three key elements of decision processes:
story of environmental policy making. Connection rates of households to centralized wastewater treatment plants rose from form 15%in 1965 to 97%in 2005.
References 1 I. Dyner, E. R. Larsen, From planning to strategy in the electricity industry, Energy Policy 29 (13)( 2001) 1145 1154.2 D. Dominguez
Telecom, Land Transport, Water and Electricity, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2006.4 B. Flyvbjerg, Policy and planning for large-infrastructure projects:
Water Policy (submitted for publication. 6 R. Popper, M. Keenan, I. Miles, M. Butter, G. Sainz, Global Foresight outlook 2007, Mapping Foresight in Europe and the rest of the World, EFMN, Manchester, 2007.7 E. A. Eriksson, K
navigating the complex landscape of policy strategies, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 75 (4)( 2008) 462 482.8 A. Salo, K. Cuhls, Technology foresight past and future, J. Forecast. 22 (2 3)( 2003) 79 82.9 P
Pract. 2 (3)( 1989) 307 331.36 S. S. Gezelius, K. Refsgaard, Barriers to rational decision-making in environmental planning, Land use Policy 24 (2
Policy 13 (3)( 2006) 254 264.41 Vision 2030 Consortium, Vision 2030 Final Report. An Investigation into the Long-term challenges and Opportunities for the UK's Strategic Highway Network, Highway Agency for England, London, 2003.42 Office of Science and Technology, Intelligent Infrastructure Futures, Foresight Directorate
transport policy, in: European commission (Ed.),The European forseight monitoring network. Collection of EFMN Briefs Part 1, Office for Official Publications of the European commission, Luxembourg, 2008.47 H. J. van Zuylen, K. M. Weber, Strategies for European
Change 70 (4)( 2003) 359 384.54 O. Renn, Participatory processes for designing environmental policies, Land use Policy 23 (1)( 2006) 34 43.55 B. Truffer, Wissensintegration
and policy from linear to systemic innovation models has challenged the conventional technocratic and technology oriented forecasstin practices and called for new participatory and systemic foresight approaches 3. Also the R&d functions are moving from the basic science
as well as the examination of the technology, its impacts and related policy, are all important in this respect.
when technology-related legislative policy options were considered. 1166 R. Koivisto et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1163 1176 analytic way to assess
In addition, business, policy making and the whole broad spectrum of decision making call for future-oriented technology analysis as well as risk assessment. Foresight methods and activities approve the uncertainty linked to the different futures
Policy 1 (1)( 2004) 4 32.4 K. Smith, Innovation as a systemic phenomenon: rethinking the role of policy, Enterp.
Innov. Manag. Studies 1 (9)( 2000) 73 102. Table 2 The main characteristics, differences, similarities and future expectations.
She graduated in environmental engineering (M. Sc. 1996) and in environmental policy (M. Sc. 1997, Lic.
She was first working as an environmental policy researcher at the University of Tampere. In 1999 she joined VTT to work in developing the management of environmental risks.
the use of large numbers of computer generated scenarios to optimize policy choices 2, and the creation of credible indices of progress across countries, companies and groups with common assumptions to measure progress. 3. Reducing the domain of the unknowable It is hard to imagine the consequences of a new breakthrough before it occurs.
The policy sciences teach us to identify optimum policies by testing a set of prospective policies on models that simulate the real world
and choosing the policy that brings the model outcome closest to the desired outcome. But if the model and the real system are in a chaotic state,
the results of a policy may be exquisitely dependent on a number of factors other than the policy itself.
quite different results might be obtained on successive runs of a model (or in two bplaysq of reality) with the same policy,
therefore, predicting the outcome of contemplated policies is equally impossible. In addition, historical precedent fails for systems that are operating in the chaotic mode.
and policy research are dead? We think not, but a whole new set of approaches to planning and systems management need to be invented.
it is no longer adequate to say bchoose a policy that brings the expected future close to the desired future.
policies can be found that move the system back toward stability. One of the authors (Gordon) found that slowing down the feedback tends to stabilize social systems exhibiting chaotic behavior.
New methods for Quantitative, Long-term Policy analysis, RAND Corporation, 2003.3 Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, 1970.4 Theodore J. Gordon, Chaos
can convey misleading policy messages 1, 2. For example composite indicators illustrate complex and sometimes even elusive issues and they often seem easier to interpret by the Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186 Corresponding author.
Although Finnish policy-makers, industrial community, scientists and citizens have followed international comparisons and related discussion with great interest,
and challenges associated with their use for national policy purposes. The criticism is related to the ways data
as well as a future-oriented survey exploring future visions of relevant national actors like industries, policy-makers and politicians, research community and future generations,
and making interpretations and policy implications on the basis of the barometer results. 2. 1. Theoretical framework It is important for composite indicators,
This feature enabled by the composite structure has proven vitally important for both synthesis-making as well as drawing meaningful and relevant conclusions for policy-makers.
In order to reach this aim it is essential to strengthen the links between foresight activities, policy development, and actual technological development.
Fromthe policy-makers'point of viewthere is a clear demand for an instrument providingwell argued, sound and tangible results to serve as the basis for informed action.
and have an impact on strategic policy-making all the way up to the highest levels in the decision-making processes.
The feedback and requests from policy-makers for further information regarding the results of the barometer indicate that there is a call for means of bringing the expertise of the technoscienntifi community to the use and utilization of political decision-makers.
Recent relatively radical changes of Finnish innovation policy are challenging data basis and indicators of research and innovation,
risk analysis, and foresight approach into one anticipatory methodological concept of strategic policy intelligence. In principle, this concept could be applied in the study of different kinds of societal objects and objectives, related to national innovation system, regions, research programmes or societal actors, engaging private enterprises and public organizations.
(Parker) Index of Environmental Friendliness (Puolamaa) Environmental policy Performance Index (Adriaanse) Globalization Global Competitiveness Report (World Economic Forum) Transnationality Index (UNCTAD) Globalization
He, as well as his background organization is maintaining a sustained effort in developing new instruments for informed action for policy-makers.
Some of the results of this foresight process will be integrated directly into national policy activities, others are just more indirectly filtered into the innovation system of the specific sectors in the country.
The process had impacts along the six functions of Foresight for policy-making that recently emerged in the Foresight debate (informing policy,
facilitating policy implementation, embedding participation, supporting policy definition and reconfiguring policy structures, as well as the symbolic function, see 1). Accordingly,
the German BMBF Foresight process addressed all these dimensions, albeit with different emphases and in different stages with a new combination of methods.
and implementation phase An international workshop at the beginning of October 2008 marked the link to generate ideas for recommendations concerning policies
if it matches the different policy dimensions identified in the Forlearn Guide 1, 18. The dimensions and specific functions discussed there are Informing policy:
generating insights regarding the dynamics of change, future challenges and options, along with new ideas, and transmitting them to policy-makers as an input to policy conceptualisation and design.
Facilitating policy implementation: enhancing the capacity for change within a given policy field by building a common awareness of the current situation and future challenges,
as well as new networks and visions amongst stakeholders. Embedding participation in policy-making: facilitating the participation of civil society in the policy-making process,
thereby improving its transparency and legitimacy. Supporting policy definition: jointly translating outcomes from the collective process into specific options for policy definition and implementation. 1194 K. Cuhls et al./
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1187 1197 Reconfiguring the policy system: in a way that makes it more apt to address long-term challenges.
Symbolic function: indicating to the public that policy is based on rational information. Informing policy is one of the major features of the B MBF Foresight process.
Gaining an overview about topics that are relevant for and in science and technology with a longer-term view
and codifying this knowledge in reports for BMBF contributes directly to the first two objectives of the process (objectives no. 1 and 2). It is expected that policy implementation will be facilitated by this information, by defining strategic partnerships and recommendations,
as well as by including BMBF as one of the participants in the later phases of the process.
Participation is supposed to be broadened by involving very different kinds of experts in the process. Expert means a person knowledgeable about the topic, it can be someone from industry, policy-making itself, academia or the civil society in general.
Most foresight processes include a very broad definition of experts but the discussion is still going on.
Objective no. 4 directly addresses the support of the policy definition. The workshop in autumn 2008 is supposed to directly contribute to the theoretical and case study discussion for the translation of outcomes from the collective process into specific options for policy definition and implementation.
Later in the process this will be performed very concretely in the thematic cases which are identified. Also for them, in joint workshops and discussions, the topics and outcomes will be worked into recommendations for policy options.
Foresight is performed never in a vacuum but is a living system. Therefore, every foresight exercise has an impact on the system the foresight is performed in, in this case the BMBF and the policy as well as the innovation system.
It can be doubted, however, whether the policy system can be directly reconfigured by such a foresight process.
Nevertheless, even if this is not directly intended the system will react and change. There will therefore be an effect on the policy system itself,
which makes it more apt to address long-term challenges. In the BMBF Foresight process, an impact is expected on the interdisciplinary
so that finally strategic partnerships and policy recommendations can be made. These will help to implement the longer-term topics directly,
2000, pp. 78 92.8 Horizon scan Report, Towards a Future Oriented Policy and Knowledge Agenda, COS, The hague, 2007, www. horizonscan. nl. 9 K. Cuhls
new foresight on science and technology, Technology, Innovation and Policy, Series of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research ISI no. 13, Physica, Heidelberg, 2002.17 Bundesministerium für Forschung und
Navigating the Complex Landscape of Policy strategies, Technological forecasting & Social Change, vol. 75,2008, pp. 462 482.20 J. C. Harper, K. Cuhls, L. Georghiou, R. Johnston
, Future-oriented technology analysis as a Driver of strategy and Policy, Technology analysis & Strategic management, vol. 20,2008, pp. 78 83,1. 21 K. Cuhls, Changes in conducting foresight in Japan, in:
A. Tübke, J. Gavigan, P. Moncada-Paterna-Castello, Strategic policy Intelligence: Current Trends, the State of Play and Perspectives, EUE 20137 EN, IPTS Technical Report Series, Brussels, 2001.28 K. Cuhls, Foresight in Germany, in:
new foresight on science and technology, Technology, Innovation and Policy, Series of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research ISI no. 13, Physica, Heidelberg, 2002.30 Science and Technology foresight Center, Ministry
Scenario planning in public policy: Understanding use, impacts and the role of institutional context factors Axel Volkery, Teresa Ribeiro European Environment Agency, Strategic Futures Group, Kongens Nytorv 6, DK 1050
This article combines preliminary findings from a review of evaluative scenario literature with workshop discussions among scenario practitioners, using environmental relevant policies as a case study. Subject to the nascent evaluative scenario literature
but the potential of scenario planning to prepare public policy-making for the uncertainties and surprises of future developments and better manage complex decisions involving conflicting societal interests is clearly not fully utilized.
Scenario planning Decision support Political and institutional context Evaluation 1. Introduction Policy-makers and business leaders often face strategic decisions with uncertain future outcomes.
Their use and impacts in the realm of public policy is treated, however, often perfunctorily. Environmental policy-making is a good example.
As a field of policy action it is characterized by a high degree of problem complexity and uncertainty about long-term future developments.
Problems often do not only unfold over several decades, but also cut across spatial scales which are influenced by a myriad of driving forces.
a systematic analysis of its use, impacts and effectiveness in environmental policy-making is still missing. This article aims to contribute to this discussion through a review of
or several aspects of using scenario planning 2. This article merges the findings from this review with the results from a workshop with environmental scenario practitioners and policy-makers.
Our analysis is informed predominantly by a focus on scenario planning in environmental policy and other environmental relevant policy fields.
evaluation and learning amongst environmental scenario practitioners and policy-makers about new forms of long-term strategic policy-making and their enabling conditions.
describe a range of possible consequences for candidate policies, help discover policy options demonstrably robust to long-term uncertainties and surface some of the blind-spots of an organisations'policy,
or strategy 4, 5. Broad participation of societal stakeholders is not an essential requirement, but is becoming more and more a standard practice. 4 At the same time covering a broader range of important social,
or if relevant specifics of the policy-making process have not been taken into account. The distinction between scenarios as products and scenarios as processes is relevant in this context.
and sketches a first analysis of success factors and barriers to scenario planning in public policy. Section 5 discusses the main findings
and Section 6 synthesizes implications for the future development of the evaluative scenario literature. 2. Functions of scenario planning in the policy-making process The scenario planning literature highlights a wide range of decision support functions 8,
9. Ideally, scenario planning helps policy-makers making better sense of changes in their external environment, spotting early warning signals and refining perceptions of existing or emerging problems and corresponding problem-solving strategies 10.
One conceptual framework to structure the oftentimes messy processes of policy-making is the concept of the policy cycle 14.
This concept breaks the policy-making process down into several phases: 1. Policy issue identification, i e. to recognize that there is a problem;
2. Policy issue-framing and agenda-setting; i e. to highlight the societal relevance of the problem and underline the need for a response from the political system;
3. Policy measure development, i e. to check for the strengths and weaknesses of different problem-solving strategies, make a final selection
and formulate the concrete shape of the measure; 4. Policy measure implementation, i e. to put the measure into practical action;
5. Policy measure effectiveness assessment or policy termination, i e. to identify the effects of the policy measure
and evaluate to which degree they deliver according to their objective, and, if necessary, redesign or terminate the measure,
which would start a new cycle. 3 The European Environment Agency is a specialised agency of the European union with the prime task of providing targeted, timely, relevant and reliable data and information on the state and prospects of Europe's environment.
and vice versa 13.1199 A. Volkery, T. Ribeiro/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1198 1207 The limitations of the policy cycle concept have been discussed widely.
but also actor constellation and related conflict constellations, differ with regard to the framing, design or implementation of policies.
and framing issues of policy relevance. Moreover, scenario planning can offer a policy risk-free space to visualize,
rehearse and test the acceptability of different strategies without being implicated by the actual constraints of day-to-day policy-making.
The picture changes when it comes to the phase of policy design and implementation. Notwithstanding the fact that many strategic policy documents extend their validity beyond legislative cycles (take the case of national sustainable development strategies for example) a short-term,
budget-or policy-cycle related perspective frequently prevails in this phase, alongside serious time and resource constraints and the need to fix working compromises between conflicting societal interests.
Policy-makers ask for concrete advice and operational benefits taking into account the limitations to shaping the future 18.
These direct forms of scenario planning require delivery of more targeted information and insights on the candidate policies or strategies in questions, eliminating less favorable alternative options and focusing on the preferable ones.
Moreover, opportunities for broad-scale participation of societal stakeholders are limited, as the choice among policy-alternatives is politicized a highly process in the end.
A couple of questions arise from this discussion: 1. How is used scenario planning: is geared it more towards indirect forms of decision support
How can those in charge of setting up a scenario planning exercise in public policy effectively proceed? Which institutional arrangements might be beneficial to the purposes of scenario planning and
This process resulted in a selection of fifty-two sources from academic journals, books and book chapters, working papers, policy papers, and research reports.
international organisations, private sector, public advisory bodies and research organisations as well as a couple of policy-makers to discuss current practice, success factors,
A limited relevance for decision-making in policy processes is recognized by a review of practice in the broader area of foresight:
and policy-makers the authors conclude that new approaches are necessary to increase the relevance and impact of foresight exercises 31.
however, rather slightly, confirming insights from the policy analysis literature that it is very difficult to change core belief systems in the short term.
However, one might argue that the higher costs of inductive approaches in the beginning might pay off later in the process given the fact that unmet expectations about the ability of scenarios to deliver novel insights about future developments oftentimes lead to frustration or rejection of the approach by policy-makers.
It aligns very much with the information requirements of the early phases of the policy cycle.
Scenario planning can easily clash with established routines of political decision-making which are informed by policy path-dependencies.
as they touch upon a number of vested interests around policies, both within government and its core target groups.
Those networks of actors are seldom willing to accept changes in core aspects of relevant policies.
Furthermore, the overall rationale of scenarioplannnin logic might be at odds with the rationale of policy deliberation:
In reality, policy deliberations are shaped oftentimes by power, specific interests and conflict constellations. Resulting decisions might appear irrational
and information demands by policy-makers. The literature discusses the notion of scenarios often being hollow diamonds that sparkle alluringly
additional policy instruments and measures that could help reaching the objectives. In Finland, a national foresight reporting mechanism has been institutionalized,
ex-post or midterm policy evaluation could make long-term scenario planning become a more integrated component of the policy cycle.
different ex-ante evaluations procedures have been integrated into one regulatory policy appraisal approach to improve the quality of regulation,
As a consequence, those in charge of scenario planning in public policy, but also those trying to evaluate ongoing practice,
Scenario planning is geared more towards indirect forms of decision support in the early phases of the policy cycle,
however, towards getting scenario planning more fully incorporated into processes of policy design, choice and implementation. While many studies report on individual learning effects, there is a larger gap
The compartmentalized structure of modern governments is a key barrier to more integrated policy thinking and decision-making
In addition, policy-makers and strategists often have not only different time horizons than scenario planners, but also very different attention foci.
and choice of policies remains a litmus test for the relevance of scenario planning. Current conditions in many governments and public administrations constrain the ability to effectively pursue direct forms of scenario-based decision support.
Creating the right incentives for policy-makers to engage in scenario planning gain trust into the process
Hard links relate to institutional links and formal, discrete inputs to the policy-making process. Ministries can be obliged by regulation, cabinet decision or voluntary agreement, for example,
If and how probabilistic information should be used with scenario planning in public policy would be another concern.
diverse audiences for public policy scenarios often require some type of information about relative risks. In addition, the question of a potential correlation between scenario approaches and impacts and effectiveness of use require further evaluative efforts.
Getting policy-makers to trust the credibility, relevance and legitimacy of the approach will require more than methodological refinements.
Sound process management needs to exploit existing routes to influence, such as policy networks, the media, business schools or schools of government.
New methods for Quantitative, Longer-Term Policy analysis, 2003, RAND MR-1626-RPC. 11 C. Selin, Trust and illusive force of scenarios, Futures 38 (1
navigating the complex landscape of policy strategies, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 75 (4)( 2008) 462 482.13 A. Volkery, T. Ribeiro, T. Henrichs, Y. Hoogeveen, Your vision or my model?
Action Res. 21 (6)( 2008) 459 477.14 M. Howlett, M. Ramesh, Studying public policy, Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems, Oxford university Press, Oxford
, 2005.15 T. R. Dye, Understanding Public policy, Prentice hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984.1206 A. Volkery, T. Ribeiro/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1198
P. Sabatier (Ed.),Theories of the Policy Process, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.,1999, pp. 117 166.17 E. A. Parson, V. R. Burkett
G. Ringland (Ed.),Scenarios In public Policy, John Wiley, Chichester, 2002.39 D. G. Groves, R. J. Lempert, A new analytic method for finding policy-relevant
and New york. 41 J. Hertin, K. Jacob, A. Volkery, Policy appraisal, in: A. Jordan, A. Lenschow (Eds.
Innovation in Environmental policy? Integrating the Environment for Sustainability, Edgar Elgar Publishing, London, 2008, pp. 114 133.42 Scottish government, National Planning Framework 2 SEA Annex to the Environmental Report:
Axel Volkery, Phd, is a project manager for policy and scenario analysis at the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen, Denmark.
His research interests are integrated environmental assessments, long-term policy analysis and institutional arrangements for effective scenario planning. He has authored
Teresa has worked in environmental policy issues for over 20 years in various countries and for European union Institutions.
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.
and (c) trends for increased inclusivity across all areas of policy making. Inclusivity is a matter of creating trust across a wide range of communities in discussions of future developments, especially in science and technology.
In the 1950s outsiders to whatever policy making processes there were began to reject the notion of infinite plasticity toward the adoption of new technology.
Scepticism about the role of science in policy making has not been limited to the outsiders referred to above.
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:
and there are no claims from experts The first three enable study by non-expert policy and decision-makers;
or soon afterwards Create policy processes amenable to current and future issues within the characteristics of trans science (Weinberg ibid.)
The public's realisation of the limitations of policy making is built unconsciously on the advance of a‘postmodern'philosophy 9 characterised by believing that:
Establish a baseline from what has been attempted to make Foresight programmes more inclusive in recent years The policy (or political) requirements:
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:
which inclusiveness is being achieved and the consequences of that for the way policy making proceeds. 1216 D. Loveridge,
the journal of futures studies, strategic thinking and policy,'7, 3, 31 47. We also wish to thank SRI Business intelligence for permission to reproduce the VALS 1 in Fig. 1. Appendix A a summary of the VALS 1 Lifestyle Hierarchy (with acknowledgements to Arnold Mitchell
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
Creating, Using and Manipulating Scientific knowledge for Public policy, Edinburgh University Press, 1993.6 J. Stiles, Neural plasticity and cognitive development, Developmental Neuropsychology 18 (2)( 2000) 237 272.7 D
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011