‘‘roundtable discussions''and interviews. Twelve roundtable discussions were facilitated with senior representation from a cross-section of policy areas, mainly from government ministries and agencies (approximately 90 participants in total.
Each discussion had four to five focus questions to ascertain the degree to which these drivers
and trends were visible and relevant for their thematic areas, the potential impact they might have on The irish national context over the coming ten to 15 years,
and the degree to which organisations were already addressing issues raised by them (see Table II for focus questions used in the roundtable discussions).
The participants in the roundtable discussions were grouped into common areas of interest. Half a day was allocated to each discussion
and participants were asked to focus on three or four key thematic groups of drivers (briefing material on the drivers had been distributed to participants ahead of discussions).
The roundtables provided immediate calibration and focus in analysing the drivers. There were instances in which participants did not feel that certain drivers
These were produced by synthesising the Table II The roundtable discussion focus questions 1 The initial drivers work has identified some global drivers that may be relevant.
anticipation of likelihood and impact Participants in the roundtable discussions were given time individually to appraise the drivers
Even where there is a consensus on grand challenges, connecting them with niche areas of opportunity and development can be a very difficult task.
One potential disadvantage of the latter approach is that it may limit discussions and neglect potentially important national RTDI issues.
there is a relatively strong consensus on the definition of several of them especially energy, climate change, demographics, etc.
It is important not to impose excessive constraints on innovation policies that do not overtly fulfil societal needs in the conveyed by debates on grand challenges.
a contextualist analysis and discussion'',Technological forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 74 No. 8, pp. 1374-93.
and B discussion and dissemination of results. More than 2, 000 experts from 40 Russian regions took part in the Delphi survey,
Delphi is a subjective-intuitive research method that aims at a consensus PAGE 56 jforesight jvol. 15 NO. 1 2013 on a particular topic among a group of experts,
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.
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,
Creating spaces for dialogue between key players from different domains, with diverging views and experiences. Vision-building and consensus-building for considering
and inducing guided processes of transformation. Shaping and defining dialogues on transformations and policy discussions on tackling these major changes,
as well as research and innovation agendas to support these dialogues and policy discussions. Innovation is both a source of,
and possible key response to, disruptive transformations, if broadly conceived in technological, social, organisational and institutional terms.
Participatory processes build consensus when assessing the current situation and devising recommendations; create ownership of joint visions;
Even if the required consensus generated and resources allocated for intervention to address grand challenges, FTA still needs to develop mechanisms for orchestrated innovation activities and policy action.
/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
,(g) developing forms of dialogue and communication between the two communities, and (h) fostering collaboration at the earliest possible stage,
and legitimate a chosen course of action through engagement and dialogue. The underlying claim is that innovation itself needs to be oriented along more sustainable pathways enabling transformations of socio-technical systems.
since the first edition of the International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA), there is still little dialogue
since the beginning, provided an avenue to debate methodological aspects and this paper summarises and furthers the discussion developed during the 2011 edition,
building on the debates at the conference and between members of the conference Scientific Committee, to which the authors of this paper belong.
In particular this paper describes the methodological state of the field through a tripartite taxonomy of increasing levels of qualitative and quantitative integration.
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
in the social sciences the mixing-methods debate has advanced considerably 2 6 and is illustrated well by the existence of dedicated publication outlets such as the Journal of Mixed Methods.
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.
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
As such the paper aims to be a stimulus to further dialogue rather than providing an empirical stocktaking or a systematic and comprehensive review of literature.
or even tap different domains of knowing 8. A detailed discussion on the reasons for applying a combination of methods in social sciences goes beyond the scope of this paper,
Agami et al. 29 show the use of fuzzy logic for trend impact analysis combining surprise-free forecasts and consensus-based experts'judgments.
there is a longstanding debate in social sciences (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.
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,
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.
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 386 397 Finally, in this debate, there is a tendency to equate qualitative with participatory.
The discussion and interpretation of results (including devising recommendations 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.
Much can also be learnt from the experience that the field of foresight has developed in dialogue and communication in support of building trust amongst stakeholders.
For instance, the consultative dimension of SEA (Strategic Environmental Assessment) has proven essential to build consensus amongst stakeholders around the long-term effects of large infrastructure projects.
In the longer term, the conditions must be created (through education, information sharing, cultural dialogue) for a more integrated community of FTA EXPERTS
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.
a discussion paper, NCRM Methods Review Papers, NCRM/005. Unpublished, 2005. Available at: http://eprints. ncrm. ac. uk/89/1/Methodsreviewpaperncrm-005. pdf, last accessed July 2012.4 J. E. M. Sale, L. H. Lohfeld,
K. Brazil, Revisiting the quantitative qualitative debate: implications for mixed-methods research, Qual. Quant. 36 (1)( 2002) 43 53.5 C. Teddlie, A. Tashakkori, Foundations of Mixed Methods Research:
Res. 17 (1988) 10 16.53 K. R. Howe, Getting over the quantitative qualitative debate, Am.
and we are witnessing today an intense debate on duniversal Darwinismt as a broad theoretical framework for the analysis of the evolution of all open,
This debate has been in great part centered on the striking similarities between biological evolution and technological/cultural evolution.
intends to present the state-of-the-art on this debate and tries to answer the question on the validity of evolutionary models of technological change.
Both cases borrow necessarily the discussion of methods and tools that have grown explosively in recent years related to the biosciences, bioinformatics and evolutionary approaches.
The present paper intends to present the state-of-the-art on this debate and to address some important considerations necessary to answer the question above.
and misinterpreted in this exciting debate. 2. Some missing pieces...It is said usually that some biological evolution-related concepts like mutation, selection, adaptation, life cycle, survival of the fittest, etc.
are still not well taken in account in the variety of discussions found in the literature.
It is impossible to accomplish the full discussion of all these points in a short paper planned to a seminar talk.
and we are witnessing today an intense debate on duniversal Darwinismt as a broad theoretical framework for the analysis of the evolution of all open,
and still absent from much of this discussion. To begin with it should be stand out that the notion of innovation belongs itself to that collection of fuzzy concepts,
and complexity, are the currency of contemporary economic and scientific debates. Everyone knows intuitively what they are,
business or politics (as in the case of globalization) or restricted to more scientific discussion rounds (the case of complexity),
when we focus the evolutionary analysis on technological innovations we are not necessarily simplifying the field of discussion,
This upswing in evolutionary economics was in great part due to the renewed interest in the discussion on long waves in economics during the last two decades
I have mentioned in this paper (see further discussion in the next section) and the necessary bridge to the danthropology of Techniquet discussed previously. 4. 3. To point 4:
The most important arguments introduced by Campbell in this discussion can be resumed: unlike biological evolution, characterized by direct trial and error adaptation processes,
To finalize the present discussion on point 4 I would like to add some other further aspects equally not yet considered as well:
and the lack of consensus on the valuation of model outcomes, i e. in case of‘deep uncertainty',then traditional modeling and model-based policy-making tends to fail.
Section 4 includes the discussion. Concluding remarks are made in Section 5. 2. Methodology: the adaptive policy-making framework and the Adaptive Robust Design approach 2. 1. The adaptive policy-making framework Under deep uncertainty,
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 408 418 4. Discussion and implications for Future-oriented technology analysis (FTA) In this paper we proposed an iterative computational approach for designing adaptive policies that are robust
Several of our findings warrant further discussion. An important issue relates to the hedging action and the monitoring of the costs.
three case studies are reported in Section 3. Section 4 is a discussion of the results of these cases and their implications for FTA.
Knowing that a system can exhibit such behavior can change the debate or open up new directions for the design of targeted solutions.
the debate can then shift to the development of policies or plans that produce satisfying results across the alternative sets of data.
E. Pruyt/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 419 431 that policy or planning debates can often be served even by the discovery of thresholds, boundaries,
The prime example being the role of uncertainty in relation to models used in the context of climate change debates.
and decision-making and by facilitating dialogues between various stakeholders 4. The value of the scenario exercise depends on the ways in
and supporting fruitful debates among stakeholders. Although the use of scenarios has gained much adherence, its subjective and heuristic nature leaves many academics
if they are used as predictions. 1. 2. Grand challenges The aim of this paper is to initiate a discussion on how scenario analysis can help to better cope with the grand challenges
the focus tends to shift towards building consensus within the scenarios, missing the opportunity to explore the potential for innovation in conflicting views.
for example building a common platform for dialogue, a focus on consensus can take up too much resources 62,
with a risk of diluting a sense of urgency. In addition, our analysis indicates that scenarios with a strong focus on consensus during the development are often too vague and too broad for defining tangible innovation opportunities.
By reshaping the scenarios to reach consensus, they are limited often to accepted statements about the obvious.
Some examples of national foresights are known to have experienced problems linked with a dominance of consensus see for instance 63.
This is in contrast with scenario exercises, where the motivation is oriented towards using the future scenarios for strategic discussions.
The focus here is less on which scenarios are right but is oriented more to whether the scenarios delineate the range of possible futures appropriately 64.
the strategic discussion has its origin in uncertainty, both in the external environment and within the organization.
For example, by analyzing the dominant motivation of the scenario cases we found a tension between incentives for consensus building and incentives for discovery.
Thus the scenario process can be seen as frame for dialogue, not to reach consensus but to recognize other parties'point of view.
Recognition then, is a heuristic that leads away from conflict into a broader understanding of the complexity of a disputed subject 62.
Although consensus can identify common grounds in contested territory it should not be the primary goal of scenario processes.
/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 432 443 5. Discussion Due to the social dynamic characteristic of innovation, new socio-technical subsystems are emerging 24.
and consensus increases a risk of diluting a sense of urgency. During the scenario exercise, consensus may not be appropriate to promote differences
and to stimulate novel ideas. Based on this observation (sub-section 4. 1), two groups of practice can be distinguished:
In the first group, we found that the scenarios are used for supporting strategic discussions about futures that are shaped by surprise and confrontation.
and confrontation Uncertainty matrix Intuitive Developing scenarios Shaped by convention Consensus (Delphi) Convention Legitimacy for action
IPTS and different past and present foresight network initiatives such as the European foresight Platform and Forlearn for organizing creative discussion platforms on foresight and scenario initiatives.
Research Dialogue in Germany E. Göll, Futur the Research Dialogue in Germany, in: K. Borch, S m. Dingli, M. S. Jorgensen (Eds.
COOL Project S. Stalpers, C. Kroeze, Dialogues in the COOL Project, in: K. Borch, S m. Dingli, M. S. Jorgensen (Eds.
Chang. 39 (1991) 253 263.61 T. Fuller, P. De Smedt, From oracles to dialogue, in:
Impacts and Implications for Policy and Decision-making Seville 16 17,october 2008, 2008.62 K. Borch, F. Mérida, Dialogue in foresight:
consensus and negotiation, in: K. Borch, S m. Dingli, M. S. Jorgensen (Eds. Exploring the future, The role of interaction in foresight, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, in press. 63 E. Göll, Futur-the research dialogue in Germany, in:
K. Borch, S m. Dingli, M. S. Jorgensen (Eds. Exploring the future, The role of interaction in foresight.
Participatory formats such as dialogues on ethical legal and social aspects (ELSA) became more important only later on.
After the establishment of public funding programs in some countries and increasing risk debates, anticipatory activities included a wide range of stakeholders from politics, academia, industry and NGOS,
Examples of these participatory and future-oriented activities include consensus conferences in the US 24 and a consumer conference in Germany 25.
In addition, the term also encompasses new participatory types of future-oriented nanotechnology-related studies and activities, such as dialogues on ethical, legal and social aspects cf. 31.
and his ideas became a disputed reference point in the debate around nanotechnology in the late 1980s and the 1990s.
para-scientific media and the Drexler Smalley debate about nanotechnology, Soc. Stud. Sci. 41 (2011) 457 485). 4 Participating agencies included the Department of commerce (DOC), Department of Defence (DOD), Defence Advanced Research projects Agency (DARPA), Department of energy (DOE), Department of transportation
conducting studies on specific nano-subfields and by bringing together relevant actors from science and industry through workshops and expert discussion 6. Technology intelligence, technology assessment,
identified more than 25 examples of German dialogue processes concerned with the potential benefits and risks of nanotechnologies.
These unrelated processes cover dialogues at the federal and state levels as well as stakeholder dialogues and processes of public understanding of science and technology 50.
The Nanokommission itself organized a dialogue where representatives of environmental and consumer organizations a women's association and a medical practitioners'organization, trade unions, churches, academia, industry and government bodies (such as federal ministries and agencies as well as ministries on the regional and state level) discussed their positions 51.
and research to pool the distributed strategic knowledge gained from different activities such as technology intelligence, parliamentary technology assessment, technology monitoring and dialogue processes.
and became the subject of global discussion among NGOS 54 and reinsurance companies 55. These interventions can be characterized as uninvited participation 56
Participatory processes as well as different concepts of responsible research and innovation in nanotechnology were triggered by global debates on the risks of nanotechnology. 4. 2. International screening
as well as how the public is constructed in such settings cf. 60,61. 5. Discussion and conclusion FTA ACTIVITIES were used to shape the emerging field of nanotechnology in the early stages (priority-setting
or dialogues organized by the German Nanokomission were involving increasingly other stakeholders such as non-governmental organizations and citizens.
the democratic virtues of the consensus conference model, Public Underst. Sci. 17 (2008) 329 348.25 R. Zimmer, R. Hertel, G.-F. Böl, Bfr Consumer Conference Nanotechnology, Federal Institute for Risk assessment, Berlin
para-scientific media and the Drexler Smalley debate about nanotechnology, Soc. Stud. Sci. 41 (2011) 457 485.37 NSTC, National science and Technology Council, Nanostructure Science and Technology, R&d Status and Trends in Nanoparticles, Nanostructured Materials,
Concerning the novelty of the visions there was no consensus among the experts (Fig. 6). This result is quite striking
P. Warnke/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 453 466 the scenario building activity is looking for a consensus building process among the participants
and consensus, avoid early closure and prolong the phase of divergence and openness, aiming at the assessment of diverging rather than converging elements of changing innovation patterns.
innovation) and group phone discussion 3. New spatial distribution of innovation innovation chain management Anna Trifilova and Bettina von Stamm Professors, Innovation Management;
However, it is to be noted that among the around 80 actors involved directly in the INFU futures dialogue
The INFU visions gave rise to fundamental discussions among stakeholders regarding possible cultural transitions, new economic principles,
The discussion among policy makers went beyond simple priority setting within today's strategies. The debate tackled fundamental concerns such as adequate consultation procedures
new types of R&d projects and pathways for integration of policy strategies across diverse policy realms.
We feel that these fundamental discussions were triggered because to some extent the INFU perspectives were transcending the underlying assumptions dominating today's perception of innovation.
They serve very well to mobilise debates and engagement of the actors dealing with the topic,
Innovation futures scripts nodes of change in innovation patterns emerging from the explorative dialogue on the 19 INFU visions (deliverable D 3. 1), www. innovation-futures. org
Consensus is something to work towards 469 L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena Harper/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 467 470 but may not be desirable to achieve.
including the authors of the papers in this special edition but going well beyond and into the discussions, formal and informal,
''Based on three case studies they suggest that FTA could help overcome some of the limitations of management approaches by setting up stakeholder dialogues
if presentations and debates at FTA contribute to a deeper understanding of far-flung experiences and research or,
Certainly, over time the proportion of papers and discussions preoccupied with forecasting and deterministic roadmapping approaches to the future gave way to a growing awareness and acceptance of other methods,
and debates lagging behind. This, in turn, makes it more difficult to ensure that the design
It requires leadership and adequate platforms for discussion. However not unexpectedly, the appearance of this kind of gap also spurs efforts to find solutions.
Among the contributions to this discussion, the key conclusion is that there is no one-size-fits-all'approach to foresight.
In a discussion of the use of the concept of systems thinking in foresight, Saritas distinguishes between external and internal context 6. The external context is the set of STEEPV factors (Social, Technological, Economical, Environment, Political
Hence, the aim of this paper is to contribute, in general, to the discussion of national (or political, governing,
Section 2 briefly resumes the discussions on national culture and introduces a conceptual framework for analysing cultural differences in foresight and planning.
Section 4 concludes with a discussion of the findings in the two cases. In Section 5
whereas stakeholders in societies that display less uncertainty avoidance are more likely to seek consensus. However,
Conversely, Consensus Conferences and User Panels are used widely in Denmark, which has a lower uncertainty avoidance index.
First, due to the dense economic and social relationships between public and private organisations, participatory and consensus seeking approaches have more appeal to policy makers than deep, scientific expert analysis of available knowledge.
and companies in Denmark support the initiation of participatory consensus approaches 2. 4. National styles in foresight and foresight methods In a recent paper,
Thus, in Danish political contexts, participatory and consensus elements have, most likely, more appeal to policy makers than systematic and analytical elements.
such as futures workshops, citizen panels and consensus conferences. It must also be noted that together with the other Nordic countries,
In this study, technology foresight was defined as‘‘dialogue activities and analyses of long-term developments in science, technology, economy and society with the aim of identifying technologies which may have economical and/or societal significance''29.
The intermediate meetings involved the discussion of nine themes. For each meeting and each theme
a discussion paper was prepared that contained the government's overall objectives for the theme and key data and prerequisites.
and dialogue processes with ministries, institutions and non-governmental organisations, for example. Every four years, such a process should result in a catalogue of important themes for strategic research.
This phase consisted of dialogue meetings between the expert panel and the Strategic research Council, the Council for Independent Research, Individual Ministries,
P. D. Andersen, L. B. Rasmussen/Futures 59 (2014) 5 17 13 4. 3. Discussion of the cases Neither Research2015 nor the Globalisation Strategy was recognised by their key
Nevertheless, the Globalisation Council's process included both expertiseorieente foresight methods (expert panels, expert discussion papers), evidence-oriented foresight methods (indicators and fact reports) and interaction-oriented foresight methods
The Research2015 process included foresight methods such as horizon scanning, expert panels, user panels, dialogue meetings, conferences and workshops.
Final proposal Dialogue with stakeholder organisations, ministries and research councils Reduction to 21 themes for strategic research Strategic research council (14) Independent research council (18) Contacts in ministries (15
L. B. Rasmussen/Futures 59 (2014) 5 17 15 5. Conclusion and perspectives This paper aims to contribute to the discussion of national cultures'effects on national foresight exercises.
and organises debates and workshops to increase awareness about possible future changes. We used an independent evaluation that was conducted in 2010 by the University of Twente 21, based on interviews with 21 politicians and civil servants and a document analysis. Furthermore,
and serve as a source of inspiration for new dialogues within the foresight research community. 3 Results The insights from the local
stimulating interdepartmental dialogue gathering support for ideas and policies developing a common cognitive frame of reference (a common ground of understanding)( see also 5, 11) Finally,
Nevertheless, there is a consensus among the same civil servants that there is a definite need to adopt a structured approach to long-term developments.
This means that relevant stakeholders should be involved in some form of dialogue (methods vary) across different stages of the process to share their views regarding achievements and their meaning,
In the international setting, those involved in the discussions may not be acquainted with foresight, or have different interpretations of it.
when organising the debate on the relevance 1 In reference to existing and emerging innovation capabilities based on technological (social and technological artefacts and infrastructures) options,
and expectations To kickoff the project-design together with consortia partners most of the initial debate centred on methodological aspects.
The JRC-IPTS presented a framework for the initial discussions in order to shape the key questions to be addressed (Fig. 1) and alternative ways to answer these.
Also, the idea was to involve the European commission (client) to debate all milestone results to ensure ownership and commitment,
It would also ensure that a consensus among project partners and between these and the Commission would emerge along the way.
During the initial discussions many project partners argued that the best way to engage with their informal network of contacts would be through methods other than those initially proposed, such as interviews and smaller workshops.
and special attention was given in the discussion to those features which were desired (desirability=3) and somewhat likely to happen by 2020 (likelihood>2). Based on the results of the vision building workshop a first draft of the IMS2020 Vision was developed by JRC-IPTS.
i) promotion through flyers, the project's website and marketing material distributed in both academic conferences and policy debates;(
The framework also helps to focus discussions related to the design and implementation of the project by bringing together the identification and discussion of intended impacts with efforts to define each operational step and question related to guiding the process.
Initial efforts to arrive at a systemic understanding of the process, when combined with both open consultations
The framework10 used in the initial discussions (Fig. 1) was critical to link the strategic objectives of the project to the operational activities.
and selecting methods for structuring the dialogues. Table 1 Lessons learned. Activities conducted within IMS 2020 Guiding principles for global foresight Understanding interconnected innovation systems Responsiveness towards diverse languages and cultures Capacity to reconfigure international networks A glocal impact orientation
and has proved useful to kickoff discussions with diverse stakeholders with different or no understanding of foresight.
and to reach consensus among partners and collaborators. Although the diversity of stakeholders involved across the exercise
which required returning to previous discussions, clarifying decisions already taken and, most importantly, showing how elements would fit together within a bigger picture
These combined presentations, roundtable discussions and small groups'debates, always brought in different views on the same topic.
and discussions enabled through a wiki tool. As mentioned, the scenario and vision building process required considerable behaviour and expectation management.
In the first scenario building workshop a discussion of how scenarios could be deployed and the variables to be selected had to take place.
Here, although JRC-IPTS was facilitating and giving direction to the discussions, it asked project partners to rotate in chairing
and steering the discussions. Again this worked very well and partners felt very motivated during the two-day discussions,
which was critical to build ownership of results. 4. 4. A‘glocal'impact orientation The management of the exercise integrated discussions on the outcomes of the exercise from the very first project meetings.
The objectives of the exercise as well as the expected impacts on industry and policy were discussed also in meetings with the European commission.
Only after a debate on the nature of innovation and on how to solicit creative future ideas did partners achieve a common understanding and,
therefore, a consensus on the questionnaire used for the first online survey. Debate among partners took place through different communication channels:
face-to-face meetings and Skype. A final meeting between JRC-IPTS and those responsible for conducting the survey took place to jointly design the questionnaire.
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011