Discussion

Consensus (141)
Debate (139)
Dialogue (254)
Discussion (432)

Synopsis: Discussion:

the purpose of the analysis (awareness raising, envisioning, consensus building, corporate technology planning, etc; the reliability of source information;

The open discussion examined the role of experts in various methodologies and debated the question of the weight to be given to expert input

The discussion also addressed the wider issues of the broadening perspectives that are being introduced to future work beyond technology and its development.

There was no discussion of data based systems only judgement based systems. A wide range of F. Scapolo/Technological forecasting & Social Change 72 (2005) 1059 1063 1060 techniques and tools were used in complex combinations

The other major discussion focussed on experts, their orientation and the problems associated with their understanding of assumptions used in FTA

Important among the concerns expressed were avoidance of reaching consensus too quickly and constraining the development of emerging technologies,

The general consensus in the session was that FTA is a driver and an instrument for social change and as such will require high quality evaluation and at the same time within its own constructs,

In the discussion it was pointed out that the increasing complexity of the strategic approaches called for a more complex form of foresight.

the aim is to negotiate consensus on risks and opportunities or at least achieve transparency about conflicting viewpoints,

in order to contribute to a normative debate on desirable future development paths. Finally, we can today see a strong emphasis on

and 1980s were influenced strongly by the linear idea that the consensus achieved in Delphi could serve as a forecast and thus as a foundation for taking preparatory actions to exploit emerging technologies.

Subsequently, forms of Delphi have been developed that do not strive to achieve consensus on future forecasts,

Note that we have chosen to pursue this general discussion in the context of systems that deliver tangible products

unless accompanied by the flexibility inherent in a well-trained cadre of fire-fighters. 2. 2. 2. Sequential decision-making and adding adaptive options The fire example is also useful for starting off the discussion on one-shot vs. sequential

On the other hand, these debates are essential for consolidating forward-looking insights and making them effective in policy-making.

This phase is conducted through back-office work, discussions with the client and perhaps interviews with a limited number of other experts and stakeholders.

This can be done in a verbal dialogue where the facilitator (s) in a tour de table format asks each participant at a time to enter a new idea,

or enhanced by the use of electronic workshop tools. 30 After discussions in plenary and possibly syndicate work,

A possible starting point is therefore a debate on visions related to the focal issue of the exercise.

This discussion can be held already before the initial scenario work (Phase 2) or informed by the scenario ideas developed in that phase.

when workshop participants are feared to have a (too) high degree of initial consensus (e g.,the only thing we need to get innovation going is lower taxes;

Futur the German research dialogue, Res. Eval. 13 (3)( 2004) 143 153.14 PREST, Evaluation of the Hungarian technology foresight programme (TEP), Report of an International Panel, University of Manchester, Manchester, 2004.15 R. Slaughter, A new framework

the values served merely as one of the many inputs for discussion and the workshop participants were welcome to highlight any other issues that they regarded interesting on any other grounds. 3. 2. 2. 5. Workshops for researchers and industrial leaders.

iii) to suggest other research topics that were not among the proposed issues (approx. 2. 5 h). After these discussions,

sufficient time will be needed for deliberative discussions of intermediate results. In addition, there are many more interfaces to be accounted for (e g.,

Although these approaches largely failed, due to the inbuilt simplification of the actual dynamics of social, economic and technological developments, some studies nevertheless provoked a lively discussion about the future 14

, within informal discussions of participants in standardisation processes. Nevertheless, we could identify some activities attempting to determine the future demand for standards.

and software at first triggered off discussions about their patentability, before they appeared in the patent classifications.

or better the patent regime can be identified by respective discussions in the literature or by the creation of new classes in the international patent classification IPC.

revealing conflicting as well as consensus areas. Delphi-based foresight exercises, therefore, were used repeatedly and increasingly in the context of policymakking building on their capacity to facilitate an alignment of actors'expectations through interactions. 3. 3. 2. Examples

A classical feature of the Delphi methodology is the promotion of a convergence process leading to a consensus by surveying the experts at least twice

and semiquantiitativ data from Delphi surveys Consensus-building to reduce uncertainty about regulatory priorities and impacts Impossibility to detect major technological breakthroughs and their regulatory requirements Semiquantiitativ In case of conflicting interests, missing-consensus about priorities Identification of experts Uncertainty increases with complexity of the context (technology, markets

) and future time horizon 513 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 representatives of public organisations and regulatory bodies,

theoretical discussion and empirical test, Serv. Ind. J. 26 (4)( 2006. 38 European commission Enterprise Directorate-General, Programming Mandate Addressed to CEN, CENELEC and ETSI in the Field of Services, European commission, Brussels, 2003.39 K. Blind, S. Gauch, Frictions

We close with a discussion and outlook for the multi-path mapping approach. 8 Robust in the sense that it is informed by knowledge of path dynamics of new

Which can have unintended consequences as Anthony Giddens 40 points out Merton has provided perhaps the classical discussion of the issue.

much of the discussion of cell-on-a-chip development remains at the level of projections and claims.

and builds its network around them with a view to transition to a company after proof of concept. 6. Discussion

The project to which the tool development was linked was characterised by interactions with practitioners around forward-looking discussions.

This allowed discussion to go ahead on forms of innovation chain and ways of bridging 534 D. K. R. Robinson, T. Propp/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 517 538 the gaps.

strengthening their communication and collaboration via constructive discussions and joint decision-making. It enables the alignment of all stakeholders'endeavours such that they can influence underlying trends.

Based on the above discussion, foresight processes contribute to the emergence of‘knowledge societies'in terms of: Knowledge creation, absorption and diffusion and through these to the increasingly dominant role of knowledge;

The organisers regarded the results of the first round as a starting point for wider discussion of more social orientation This meant,

which echoed political discussions that were occurring more widely in Sweden at the time, did not manage to attract the same level of publicity

Important factors in Sweden were the fact that the value of a consensus view is considered higher than in other political systems (a positive factor;

however, that sociocultural factors made the implementation of consensus-building quite challenging. In particular, Maltese society is characterised as highly divisive and individualistic.

The raised awareness of the need for consensus-building approaches in long-term vision-setting exercises in order to ensure the sustainability of resultant polices was acknowledged as another unforeseen impact of the exercise.

A great deal of discussion has taken place about whether networks are a new form of governance coordination,

which does not necessarily mean consensus.‘Perception-alignment'is established when the parties accept each other's interpretations of their respective motives and goals,

There seems to be a subtle psychological transition from making positive contributions to the discussions to becoming active members of the constituency.

the above discussion can shed some light firstly on the criteria/principles that should govern the elements of a Foresight (internal) System,

‘Futur the German research dialogue',Research Evaluation 13 (3)( 2004) 143 153.3 R. Barre, Synthesis of technology foresight, in:

I. Miles, O. Saritas, Evaluation of the United kingdom Foresight programme, Final Report, 2005.6 E. Arnold, S. Faugert, A. Eriksson, V. Charlet, From foresight to consensus?

tools to inform debates, dialogues and deliberations, Technikfolgenabschatzung, Theorie und Praxis 2 (14)( 2005) 74 79.14 R. Barre, M. Keenan, FTA Evaluation, Impact and Learning,

and initiate meaningful and lively dialogues among stakeholders. Their diverse accumulated knowledge and experience, as well as distinct viewpoints are indispensable for building policy-relevant visions.

and economy in the 12th to 15th century in Europe as this major institutional innovation is described by P. A. David, masked in the language of our contemporary discussions of university research and training policies 1,

there appears to be a strong consensus on the need for a new round of fundamental reforms from all corners:

and found extensive discussion and study of this topic, but limited instances of clearly documented FTA3 activities (p. 2). Although the‘sponsors'of the reviewed exercises range from a single university to international organisations (the EU, OECD and UNESCO),

as well as distinct viewpoints and approaches so as to enrich the discussion and analysis. Further, the shared visions and policy recommendations, stemming from the dialogue among participants,

offer a basis for faster and more efficient implementation. In contrast, futures developed by individuals can only experiment with new methods,

or spark dialogues, by offering food for thought, at best. The theoretical framework of this article rests on the innovation systems school 10 15),

and the discussion moved on to analyse broader issues, like knowledge (types and sources of knowledge), knowledge production and use,

For a proper policy dialogue it is crucial to use appropriate terms, but it would go beyond the scope of this paper to discuss these competing terminologies in detail.

For a more detailed discussion, see, e g. 31.562 A. Havas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 558 582 As for the third aspect, the very fact that universities'research efforts lead to rather diverse outputs (outcomes

micro-level discussion would be needed, and on that basis comparative analyses can be conducted either at regional/national level,

universities vs. other players There is a rather strong consensus in the literature on the rationale to spend public money on basic science:

From a different angle, this consensus suggests a very close link between higher education and research.

there are two reasons to revisit the aforementioned, widely held, consensus on the rationale for funding‘basic'science by public money:(

let alone among different types of them. 568 A. Havas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 558 582 4. Futures for universities Vision-building requires an intense dialogue among stakeholders for two reasons:(

First, they are aimed at triggering a debate among experts on the relevance of the proposedmethod, that is, the 3-level structure for devising futures.

Second, the content or some elements of the futures drafted here can be used as one of the inputs for dialogues among stakeholders in actual foresight processes.

shared visions and consensus on the actions need to be taken; commitment to act upon the recommendations emerging from the process.

in itself would be a subject of an intense discussion: different parties are likely to have rather diverse views on this question.

This problem obviously cannot be solved here. 28 In launching the discussion on the priorities for the new generation of cohesion policy programmes,

and that would lead to a Successful multi-speed EU. Not all of these questions can be discussed here as appropriate answers to them would require a dialogue among the key players,

To keep the discussion relatively simple and short, only two types of universities are considered here:

Yet, the widely held consensus in the literature on the rationale for funding‘basic science'by public money still rests on the Humboldtian model:

especially in terms of time needed for background analyses and then discussions among the participants. It has several advantages, too;

who do not want social dialogues on clearly formulated alternative strategies, given the time needed for these processes,

as are promoting strategic dialogues among the stakeholders, initiating pilot foresight (prospective) projects; etc. The national 579 A. Havas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 558 582 governments, international organisations and associations of universities can provide methodological and financial support for these initiatives.

as well as distinct viewpoints and approaches of the major stakeholders involved in these strategic dialogues, enrich the prospective discussion

and analysis. Participation is particularly important in the case of universities: given their vital roles in generating,

References 1 P. A. David, Europe's Universities and Innovation Past, Present and Future, SIEPR Discussion paper No. 06-10,2006. 2 EC, The role of universities in the Europe

We the editors believe this is a positive development as it signifies the potential of opening up a fruitful dialogue between the relatively young

In particular, under deep uncertainty, there is little agreement or consensus about system structure. Thus, exploratory modeling is used to explore Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1138 1149 E-mail address:

We see to complement the technical literature with the following interpretive and example-oriented discussion of the methodology.

It is useful to examine a consensus diagram showing the major shared features shown across multiple solutions.

Such a consensus diagram helps identify robust features of the hierarchical structure, structures which may remain stable even as the network changes

This is shown in Fig. 6. Major features of the maximum likelihood solution are preserved in the consensus diagram.

The consensus diagram makes it clear that there are two sets of technologies technologies which are external

but not yet observed in the Wikipedia knowledge base are shown below in Table 2. Fig. 6. Consensus diagram for Ajax Technologies. 1145 S w. Cunningham/Technological forecasting

Rather, by confronting observations with the context of discussion provided by philosophy, a stronger basis for interpreting the results of the hierarchical random graph may be formulated.

The status of knowledge is a matter of prolonged and fundamental discussion in philosophy of science.

which is subject to discussion or refutation. Derrida's ideas informed Callon and others who developed actor network theory as a vehicle for research in science and technology 33.

and the innovation policy literature, do offer such discussions, even going so far as to prescribe effective means of social organization.

The author appreciates helpful discussion from Jan Kwakkel on the epistemology of knowledge networks. References 1 M. C. Roco, Key note address:

and that consensus between the stakeholders is often lacking The onsite treatment option received highly diverse assessment scores.

but reached high desirability and consensus in the RIF process. The other case study was run in a suburb of the city of Zurich with a high pressure of settlement growth

Opening up a fruitful dialogue among the FTA researchers and professionals facilitates also mutual learning across the FTA and risk assessment communities.

networking, consultation and discussion, leading to the joint refining of future visions 9. Pre foresight, recruitment, generation,

discursive technology assessment, consensus conferences, brainstorming, expert workshops, Delphi questionnaires and expert Fig. 1. Popper's diamond 9. 1165 R. Koivisto et al./

and consensus conferences have emerged, and both technology-driven and problem-driven approaches are taken 1. It is stressed also that it is important to see technology as part of a whole technological and societal system 11.

The discussion and dialogue between people is considered thus important when analysing new technologies and the impacts of their market introduction.

e g. spring floods or ice cover freezing over the river in the 2 E-mail discussions with Pasi Valkokari in INNORISK project March 6th 2009.3 E-mail discussions with Pasi Valkokari in INNORISK project March 6th

and field building, dialogue and interaction. The core idea is to share the knowledge and create in that way developed knowledge

Mr. Pekka Maijala and Mr. Pasi Valkokari (INNORISK project) from VTT for providing valuable discussions and material concerning the case projects.

discursive technology assessment, consensus conferences, brainstorming, expert workshops and interviews Development and future expectations of the approach New approaches like inherent safety and resilience engineering address the complex nature of industrial processes.

This attainment raised national interest and critical debate of the reliability of the data basis and methodologies used in comparisons.

In The Finnish association of graduate engineers (TEK) this discussion led to a decision to develop an own comparative exercise together with VTT.

and a wide interest and emerged discussion of barometer proves that a social interest and order exists for the barometer.

The article presents the background, methodology and results of technology barometer, discusses its impacts on national discussion,

Accordingly composite indicators must be seen as starting points for initiating discussion and attracting public interest 1, 2. Finland has improved her positionamong developed nations according to several internationalperformance comparisons since the latter part of 1990s,

Although Finnish policy-makers, industrial community, scientists and citizens have followed international comparisons and related discussion with great interest,

Gradually this debate led in The Finnish association of graduate engineers (TEK) to the decision to develop an own national performance comparison.

UK and USA. 2. 2. Computation techniques There is an ongoing discussion of the merits of different techniques applied in indicator-based comparisons

like the idea of including interactive and mobile media skills to science education curriculum at the elementary level. 3. 3. Synthesizing discussion Each technology barometer consists of concluding discussions of certain topical issues

The second themeof discussion ismore comprehensive and concerns the future development of innovation and business activities.

and especially the followed media discussion with a broad coverage, has generated a vivid national discussion of the strengths and weaknesses as well as the future directions of the Finnish economy and innovation system.

Accordingly, there appears to be a strong demand, 1182 T. Loikkanen et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186 most notably in terms of social needs and innovation policy interest, for the kinds of insights that the technology barometer exercise can deliver.

Technology barometer aims at a contribution to related national discussion. Fromthe policy-makers'point of viewthere is a clear demand for an instrument providingwell argued,

but furthermore the related national comparative examination gives additional and more detailed insights into the discussion of the future development of the national economy and innovation system.

society 1. Introduction 2. Key results 2. 1. Barometer structure 2. 2. Key results 2. 3. Discussion 3. Indicators 3. 1

and distributed as an input to the discussions. The milestones of the process are described in Fig. 2. The first workshop was held as a starting point in the process to define those topics which should be elaborated in more detail,

Expert discussions and interviews, also in the first wave of the Monitoring Panel interviews confirmed that the following thematic fields are of relevance for Germany:

Organisation of scientific communities Establishment of research alliances Research programmes and initiatives Innovation policy instruments Ideation A round-table discussion enhanced this discussion

if further searches and a deeper discussion on the topics and their specific areas are necessary

but the discussion is still going on. The predecessor process of BMBF (Futur 13,14) tried to involve more persons from civil society,

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.

Also for them, in joint workshops and discussions, the topics and outcomes will be worked into recommendations for policy options.

The process is a fully fledged process that takes into account the sponsor and implementor of the results in different feedback loops, different internal discussions and internal workshops.

and discuss if the topics of the discussion are more crosscutting in nature and do not lie in the focus of the department's own responsibilities.

Cuhls, N. Ludewig, Introduction to futur the German Research Dialogue about the Futur process, in:

‘Futur the German Research Dialogue',Research Evaluation, vol. 13,2004, pp. 143 153,3. 15 M. J. Bardecki, Participant's Response to the Delphi method:

We synthesize our analysis with a discussion of further research needs. 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

and the participants of the 3rd International Seville Conference on Future-oriented technology analysis which took place in October 2008 for useful discussions and comments.

This article aims to contribute to this discussion through a review of what we call the evaluative scenario literature,

It has been written in the context of the BLOSSOM project of the European Environment Agency. 3 The project aims at building a platform for discussion

Section 4 complements this discussion with the findings from workshop discussions and takes the discussion one step further

Here is an opportunity for broader participation of societal stakeholders and open-minded discussions. Increasing the information base supports identifying

A couple of questions arise from this discussion: 1. How is used scenario planning: is geared it more towards indirect forms of decision support

Much of this literature highlights the need for consensus on the scenario axes in order to foster a common basis of understanding.

The project nonetheless proceeded without consensus by producing multiple publications that treated the axes in different ways.

and a greater willingness and patience to engage in creative discussions. These conditions are met oftentimes not in the sphere of policy-making,

Methods that work well in developing scenarios for small groups, well known to the scenario developers, may not work well in developing scenarios that can be used by large organisations or in broad political debates 37.

and interests faced by public agencies may make impossible any consensus about the meaning of scenario axes 26.

Stimulating wider debates about possible futures and clarifying an issues importance were ranked as the objectives of highest relevance.

This perhaps reflects the view expressed in the workshop that a simple tool discussion is not possible as the very notion of an appropriate methodology is contested complex

Discussions pointed to recent approaches to strengthen capacities for scenario planning and foresight within governments. Examples include:

Discussion of findings The evaluative scenario literature remains nascent, making it difficult to come to an elaborated discussion.

While there seems to be embedded a lot of tacit knowledge in government and public administration related efforts are reported seldom

and issue-framing were raised in discussions. A lot of progress needs to be Fig. 2. The key success factors of scenarios and other futures methodologies. 1204 A. Volkery

Our discussions with scenario practitioners pointed into the different direction. Having an impact on the design

broad discussions with requests for clear and targeted input into processes of decision-making is apparent.

a more systematic debate around options for the better institutional embedding of those approaches is still largely missing 12.

Soft links are concerned with creating more informal spaces for discussion and exchange between policymakker and their key stakeholders, in an ongoing mode with few official outputs.

which they are empowered formally to take participants through novel and provoking discussions. Getting policy-makers to trust the credibility,

Institutional capacities are treated often superficially in the discussion. Further efforts should be directed to learn more systematically from cases of good practice

Inclusivity is a matter of creating trust across a wide range of communities in discussions of future developments, especially in science and technology.

Weinberg 4 expressed his concerns in this context in a discussion of trans science which he described as...

These attempts have included consensus conferences, citizen juries and mass surveys but these have attracted a small set of people

and this paper is not the place to give an extensive discussion them. What is needed is a typology that is easily understood,

which evolved from Maslow will now be described briefly as they form the basis of the ensuing discussion.

The Internet including VOIP Asynchronous e-mail Telephone conferencing Consensus conferences Social accounting and auditing. Behavioural traits (see the VALS 1 hierarchy) will have marked a influence on

In the following discussion it is suggested, but no more than that, that a combination of the notion of‘situations'and Critical systems Heuristics (CSH) may contain the seeds of grounding Inclusive foresight within the ambit of (i) and (ii) above.

Critical thinking is then reflexive allowing debate about alternative assumptions. The latter is an essential feature as there is no single‘right'way to decide interventions in situations as their context

The cascade's fuzzy boundaries will be subject to intense philosophical debate that has much to learn from Dempster's sympoiesis. 4. 1. Evolution of a metaphor Inclusive foresight is

Consensus is not necessarily the best arbiter in many circumstances, particularly when it is forced say, through the processes of a consensus conference.

Recognition of a distribution of opinions is probably of more use to a policy maker particularly

of which featured in the earlier discussion of inclusiveness. 6. Epilogue The paper has described a metaphor for Inclusive foresight rather than to be a definitive exposition of future situations

Underlying the discussion is the contention that, as practiced, institutional Foresight contains a democratic deficit characterised by exclusivity as the extent of public participation is restricted.

By suggesting mechanisms to achieve Inclusive foresight the aim is to contribute to the discussions on the future of the nano-field.

governance of new and emerging nanotechnologies has become a highly visible debate, disagreements on efficacy of current governance arrangements proliferate,

and the discussions and interactions in the workshop will, in a sense, be a further, albeit small, element in the co-evolution of innovation and the surrounding selection landscape.

In this paper, we shift discussions to the journeys themselves and the arenas that will shape

At the time of the workshop (December 2007) the situation in and around nanotechnology involved mostly the discussion of Environment, Health and Safety aspects (EHS/HES) and other nanotoxicity related discussions,

and a willingness to participate in discussions and workshops on the nano governance issue. 9 For example the nanoelectronics industry coordination efforts described in 34 which would lie in the coordinating bodies box of the IC+diagram.

At the micro-level these broad discussion are termed as a separate issue for longer term speculation.

named Nanodiablog it is created as a web-based discussion forum (based on awikipedia model transparency is enhanced).

in addition it forms a community of scrutiny and debate, both positive and critical. Although not an official body, the Nanodiablog community is deemed a high quality indicator of the populace (in any case the populace who takes an interest) and principles such as precaution, inclusiveness (transparency), integrity (protection for whistle blowers), ongoing

Although no linkages between the projects occurs there the ethical and risk debate begins to separate to real issues (of health,

environmental and safety issues of nano production) and speculation on broader ethical debates around Human Enhancement, Justice,

The scenario in Box 4 will be shown in more detail in Section 5. 4. 2. The effect of these scenarios in the workshop The three scenarios together covered the various positions and expectations of those actors active in the debate around RRI.

These provided the basis for the discussions in the workshop which covered locating the responsibility of risk evaluation in the value chain,

but stemming from the discussions) where including NGOS and civil society in research agenda setting causes tensions for the R&d agents (who work in an open-ended manner,

although not directly quoted in the discussions, the co-evolutions described in all three scenarios where picked up

In debates I have observed, code promoters argue that the broadness is the reason why codes are good.

environmental and safety issues of nano production) and speculation on broader ethical debates around Human Enhancement, Justice,

observed in many discussions of voluntary codes..Code initiators attempt yearly monitoring through direct contact to signatories,

This was placed in the text to provoke a discussion..Innovation actor's quality not assured. Voluntary codes align best practice

Taken from a discussion with a representative of Greenpeace UK..Codes are intended not to supplant regulation

The issue of MRSA links up to discussions on new standards for medical devices. This example is linked to a presentation given by manufacturing firm in the London meeting November 2007 on Nanomedicine.

6. Evaluation and discussion These co-evolutionary scenarios can prepare the ground for discussion of complex potential radical technologies via the combination of endogenous futures, the IC+framework and deep case research into actors

fears of being locked out of the debate through lack of transparency, of maintaining a patchwork of soft law options to facilitate nanotechnology innovation,

The scenarios also worked well in terms of stimulating productive discussion in the workshop. This can be seen as a stakeholder endorsement of the approach (which is an important indicator how well workshops like these are working.

these types of scenarios do stimulate discussions, and provide both a place for exploring different actors'positions

Akademische Verlagsanstalt, 2009.37 Mayer Brown, Minutes of Debate on Governance Initiatives for the European Nanotechnology Community in the Public and Private Sectors European commission, Brussels, December 5th 2007.38 Investing

< Back - Next >

Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011