Survey

Online survey (64)
Survey (267)
Survey respondent (9)
Survey response (7)

Synopsis: Survey:

Moreover, because survey-like results are obtained from heterogeneous participants through a relatively narrow communication channel (in terms of media richness),

Second, survey approaches are displayed which enable regulatory bodies to identify future needs for regulations. Finally the usability of the Delphi methodology is discussed

The analysis of regulatory foresight in the narrow sense is based, first, on a broad survey of literature databases and the internet regarding regulatory impact assessments in general,

matching policy instruments and methodologies Innovation surveys Econometric models Control group approaches Cost benefit analysis Expert panels/peer review Field/case studies Network analysis Foresight/Technology assessment

indicator-based approaches surveys Delphi studies. 3. Methodologies 3. 1. Indicator-based approaches 3. 1. 1. Introduction and definition New developments in science and technology

e g. surveys or Delphi studies. 503 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 3. 2. Surveys 3. 2. 1. Introduction and definition

in this section we cover surveys which aim to identify future needs regarding regulations and standards.

The following operational steps for the performance of surveys to identify future demand for regulations

and regions Collection of survey and preparation of data set; Definition of goal variables of the organisation depending on the possible requirements for regulations and standards;

Statistical or econometric data analysis and interpretation of results. 3. 2. 2. Examples Although we cannot refer to a large number of regulation-and standard-related surveys,

we are able to report on some surveys, whose data permits the assessment of the future needs for and impacts of regulations and standards.

In a European-wide company survey, companies were asked about the relevance of different types of regulations for the market introduction of new products and services and the various aspects of innovation activities 8. In addition,

Further more technology specific surveys focusing on the future regulatory requirements to react to progress in science

we are able to reference a series of relevant surveys. We start with some studies performed in Germany or German-speaking countries.

In a survey conducted in 1998 among companies of 12 manufacturing sectors in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, 2 Nevertheless,

the results of the surveys conducted within the framework of the Community Innovation Survey also contain information about regulations and standards as obstacles for innovation and sometimes their role as source for information.

The survey approach by Blum et al. was replicated for Denmark, integrating also service companies 31. This leads us to the studies on standards focusing on services or service companies.

In a survey among German service companies, Mörschel and Schwengels 35 present a ranking of future standardisation areas according to their priority,

CENELEC and ETSI published by the European commission 38 to develop a standardisation work programme to support the internal market for the service sectors. 3. 2. 3. The future needs for standards in nanotechnology based on a survey among stakeholders

we present another example of a survey, which allows future needs for standards in an emerging technology to be identified.

Blind and Gauch 39 conducted a survey among the stakeholders of nanotechnology research and standardisation in Germany.

and experimental development. 506 K. Blind/Technological forecasting & Social Change 75 (2008) 496 516 Summarising the results of the survey and relating them to the conceptual framework,

especially regarding quality and compatibility standards. 3. 2. 4. General assessment In general, there is only limited experience in the use of surveys for identifying future needs for standards and regulation.

Surveys are rather time-intensive, since they require the development of a questionnaire, the performance of a survey either via traditional postal mail or via online survey, the collection and cleaning of the data and finally, the analysis of the data.

Surveys can be used to ask stakeholders about future needs for standardisation and regulation activities. Finally, surveys have a high acceptance as a methodology

if certain aspects and shortcomings are considered adequately. Data requirements/indicators: The main advantage of surveys is that they allow the consideration of very specific regulatory challenges in the future,

which cannot be covered by indicator-based methodologies. Hence, they are able to provide unique data in this respect.

Depending on the size of these surveys, there should be the possibility to distinguish the future needs for standards

and regulations differentiated into different types of stakeholder groups, which allows comparative analyses. If surveys address the universe of organisations, e g. firms,

and lead to representative results, the data can be combined with indicator-based approaches representing the universe in science and technology.

Surveys are probably not the best tool to collect information about the future needs for standards and regulations.

It is structured based on a survey of expert groups and makes use of the implicit knowledge of participants.

but all agree that a Delphi study requires an expert survey in at least two or more rounds.

The survey results could be used to identify those areas which are hampered either by regulation or

we can only list some exercises, like surveys and trend workshops, which tried to identify future needs in regulation in already existing

NO-REST ITU Survey Fraunhofer ISI 2005)( 1=low importance to 5=high importance) Year Importance R&d Regulation Deregulation Standardisation Widespread use

Based on the few existing experiences with surveys, it can be concluded that this methodology allows the identification of very specific future regulatory issues.

The responses of the survey are only valid indications if all relevant stakeholder groups are addressed adequately

and private companies, is an option to improve the reliability and the validity of survey results.

and to integrate them into survey and Delphi approaches. The same is true for Table 3 Overview

and even stakeholders Influence of non-technology-related factors cannot be considered Surveys Quantitative Micro data of the respondent

The Fifth Technology Forecast Survey Future technology in Japan (NISTEP Report No. 25, English translation of the 5th Japanese Delphi Report, abridged version), Tokyo. 44 Bundesministerium

The Sixth Technology Forecast Survey Future technology in Japan toward The Year 2025, No. 52, NISTEP Report, Tokyo,(1993.

, Comparing Technology Forecast Surveys, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1994.48 Science and Technology foresight Center (NISTEP), The Seventh Technoloy Forecast Future technology in Japan toward the Year 2030, No. 72

A survey, Calif. Manage. Rev. 43 (2)( Winter 2001) 139 160.19 D. Rigby, C. Gillies, Making the most of management tools and techniques:

A survey from Bain & Company, Strateg. Change 9 (2000) 269 274.20 P. Savioz, M. Blum, Strategic forecast tool for SMES:

a critical survey, Camb. J. Econ. 18 (5)( 1994) 463 514.14 B.-Å. Lundvall, S. Borrás, The Globalising Learning Economy:

Proposed Standard practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental development, OECD, Paris, 2002.25 D. E. Stokes, Pasteur's Quadrant:

and complementing these with information from future-oriented stakeholder surveys, the Technology barometer can be regarded as a new tool for managing strategic investments in R&d,

Clauset 21 for instance, provides a useful survey article on the random hierarchical graph. We see to complement the technical literature with the following interpretive and example-oriented discussion of the methodology.

The goal in doing this survey is neither to validate the use of the model,

composite indicators or survey based studies providing comparisons in a wide range of fields like economy, society, education, innovation system, or sustainable development.

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 second, to a technology barometer based on a survey study of the visions and attitudes of relevant national key actor and interest groups.

whereas the forward-looking survey enquires and identifies possible areas for development activities in national innovation policy in the future.

the technology barometer includes a forward-looking survey of future expectations of relevant target groups. The survey is based on a questionnaire directed to four relevant target groups,

i e. the members of the Finnish association of graduate engineers TEK, young people studying at the senior secondary school level, political decision-makers and business decision-makers.

The information obtained from the survey is analyzed and interpret interpreted in parallel with the results of indicator-based comparisons.

The combination of the indicator-based comparative study and the future-oriented survey into one instrument creates a unique platform for the further analyses of the economic

as clearly expressed in the questionnaire survey, ties in with this. Judging by the indicators of the next phase, knowledge society,

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1177 1186 3. 2. Survey study of future visions In addition to indicator-based comparison the technology barometer instrument includes a survey about people's expectations regarding the future development trends.

and whether any improvement or deterioration has taken place (the x axis) in comparison to the previous survey.

such as Eurostat surveys, were included in order to ensure consistency, and to allow later comparisons between different countries and surveys.

The exact questions and formulations used can be found in the full barometer report 7. The purpose of the survey is to cast light onto the respondents'valuations regarding technology, perception about current state of affairs,

as well as their expectations for the foreseeable future. By doing this, the survey complements and diversifies the results of the indicator study by allowing the mutual comparison of the four respondent groups'views

and results of indicator study obtained in 2005 and 2007. Standard statistical practices such as the Mann Whitney U test, were applied to analyze the results.

The fourth part in the survey sets out assessments of sustainable development focusing on environmental threats the state of the environment,

the survey supplements the barometer by providing a forwardloookin element to complete the overall view.

As the results of survey study indicate, the identification of innovation is not a straightforward process for the businesses involved.

and this was indicated also in results of survey study. However, new kinds of challenges were also emerging in the questionnaire study,

allowing the identification of changes occurred in the course of time both in indicator study as well as in survey study.

and survey studies of technology barometer. The further development of barometer to respond to the above mentioned challenges is already in process.

of water Biological diversity 4. Survey, questionnaire results 4. 1. Material 4. 2. Competence and knowledge generation 4. 2. 1. Prospects regarding techno-scientific competence 4. 2. 2

and explains one of the methods the future online survey in more detail. The German Foresight process of the BMBF delivers results on different levels:

This was the basis for an online survey but also the pre-judgements of the selection phase.

An online survey among experts from the German innovation landscape was performed in September 2008 in order to get broader assessment on the topics,

Especially the online survey which had the function of focussing the topics as well as an assessment function is described in more detail (Fig. 3). 3. 1. Starting phase of the process The process started with 14 broader topic fields that were derived from the German High-tech Strategy 2,

a nationwide online survey was carried out in September 2008. The results from this survey, expert interviews and a set of criteria were supposed to be inputs to select interesting candidates for BMBF relating to the targets 1) and 2) of the process. 3. 3. The online survey Intentionally

the whole foresight process did not start with asking for the demand as e g. the predecessor process Futur 13,14

The online survey was designed as a check if the topics that were already found as future-relevant for German science

The principle of the concept of the online survey questionnaire is shown in Fig. 4. The first page of the online survey explained the BMBF Foresight process and the online survey in general.

The selection of the topics for the survey were not all topics regarded as relevant in general those topics,

which are worked already currently out intensively were not in the focus of the survey. The second page of the online survey was shown

when the participants had chosen their field. In the first evaluation part the relevancy of the topic area was judged upon.

The last part of the survey concerned the single research questions in the areas. Again it was asked for a judgement on a fivestteplikert scale (from very important to unimportant.

/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1187 1197 For the survey, in September 2008 altogether 19.365 persons from German companies, academia, associations and single persons (consultants or persons

and the survey was finished on October 22, 2008. The survey was accessed via the code we sent to the participants.

If someone else wanted to participate, it was necessary to contact the project office to receive a new code. 2659 persons filled in one of the questionnaires,

On the basis of the survey, topics that will no longer be on the research agenda in 10 years'time,

The online survey is a contribution to the assessment phase, but cannot be a static selection mechanism for BMBF (see also 11).

Fig. 4. Principle of the survey design (questionnaire concept. 1192 K. Cuhls et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1187 1197 3. 4. Some results In the end, eight new future fields (broader fields) with a different perspective as well as single future topics in all 20

For this, in a broad online survey, many participants are approached to involve more persons than the well-known lobbies in the definition and the assessment of new topics.

Nevertheless, because of the workshops, interviews and survey, it was known in the research scene. It was very important to include BMBF from the start

National Institute of Science and Technology policy (NISTEP (Ed.),Kagakugijutsu no chûchôki hatten ni kakawaru fukanteki yosoku chôsa (The 8th Science and Technology foresight Survey Future science and Technology

National Institute of Science and Technology policy (NISTEP (Ed.),Kyûsoku ni hattenshitsutsu aru kenkyû ryûiki chôsa (The 8th Science and Technology foresight Survey Study on Rapidlydevellopin Research area

National Institute of Science and Technology policy (NISTEP (Ed.),Kagakugijutsu no chûchôki hatten ni kakawaru fukanteki yosoku chôsa (The 8th Science and Technology foresight Survey, Needs Survey

Nevertheless, the work included seems to provide a reasonable survey of the main themes in the literature.

citizen juries and mass surveys but these have attracted a small set of people and none of the procedures is free of the dominance of‘experts'.

and survey work confirmed the appropriateness of the separation. However, there were also some discrepancies that led to the idea of a bifurcation above the Belonger level,

Public opinion surveys based on: Telephone surveys The Internet Postal surveys Public meetings Public enquiries Invited workshops Interactive television Videoconferencing Electronic meetings or surveys based on:

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

5 but their full assessment was undertaken through an online questionnaire survey of much of the Luxembourg research landscape (around 300 participants), Online Questionnaire Young Res.

The results of this survey were fed then into an Exploratoryworkshop (EWS), where researchers and research users were brought together in broad S&t area groupings for the first time to discuss

It was at this level that respondents to the online survey were asked to make their‘attractiveness'and‘feasibility'assessments,

Accordingly, the online survey and subsequent workshops invited participants to nominate new research axes as well. Despite its apparent elegance, there were problems with this schema.

A critical flaw in Phase 1 was to present a ranked list of research domains an apparent fait accompli based mostly on the results of the online survey to the community in the EWS without giving them the opportunity to debate the integrity of the domains included in the list. 9 Subsequently,

even though the list was derived almost solely from the responses of that same community to the online survey. 10 In the subsequent workshops held in Phase 2,

conduct interviews and carry out the online survey, but with so little time to work with, they decided to rely upon a single deliberative forum the Exploratory Workshop (EWS) near the end of the process to validate the domain rankings derived from analysis of the online survey. 12 This was always going to be problematic as it left too much to be achieved in a single one-day

meeting. For a start, despite the small size of Luxembourg, it was apparent that many people in the same thematic areas did not know one another.

or another in the online survey (Phase 1) and in the thematic group workshops (Phase 2). This meant that expert assessments of domain areas against the criteria were readily available to draw upon.

Furthermore, the initiative has been welcomed broadly by the research communiit (in a survey of participants at the EWS,

In September 2005, the municipal administration conducted a survey measuring their inhabitants'satisfaction with the community services provided.

The results of the survey showed an overall satisfying result, except for one group of inhabitants, young people between 14 and 19 years of age.

According to the survey this social group was satisfied least with communal offers for social and cultural engagement.

adding survey data and material from other sources. These future pictures were presented then in a workshop with communal and cultural organisations to discuss which of these were most desirable.

L. M. Galitsky, W. M. Pottenger, S. Roy, D. J. Phelps, A survey of emerging trend detection in textual data mining, in:

M. W. Berry (Ed.),Survey of Text mining: Clustering, Classification, and Retrieval, Springer, New york, 2004, pp. 185 224.11 See http://www. kdnuggets. com/.12 C. Chen, Mapping Scientific Frontiers:

Third, results from the internet surveys were made available to all panels which could thus monitor what topics the other panels were considering

In this survey more than 95%of the respondents9 indicated that the foresight process had been rewarding to them (in the sense that responded with a 5,

The survey responses provide a rich and diverse array of issues that could be dissected further and analysed by future foresight activities.

roadmapping, surveys and creative methods are used widely. Key Foresight concepts such as‘‘vision''that were used previously in a rather broad and all encompassing manner have been deconstructed

surveys and Delphi studies are reviewed in the light of experience. An important finding in relation to the interest of this paper is that a simple transfer of the methodologies to identify emerging science

Known as the market survey or technical dialogue, this stage takes place priori to the procurement process.

and a survey was launched to opinion-formers leaders in business, government, media, NGOS and academia.

Fixed Robust portfolio modelling, online surveys. Autonomous Stakeholder workshops. Extensive Wide stakeholder participation in online surveys. Exclusive Limited but open stakeholder participation in the workshops.

T. Ko nno la et al.//Futures 43 (2011) 252 264 256 Table 1 (Continued) Project Outcomes Future perspectives Management Stakeholder engagement FISTERA:

and by commissioning a survey that is consulting leaders in governments, business NGOS and the academic sector.

/visions/scenarios/roadmaps/and/or action recommendations Reports on desktop surveys Background reports for focused workshops Reports on the results of SWOT/scenario/roadmap/action Integrative reports

held oral evidence sessions and workshops (aiming to include key stakeholders) and elicited public views via survey research and qualitative workshop methodologies.

''This Big Picture Survey (BPS) was designed primarily to address this concern. It has been structured to allow the Conference attendees, mainly the organizers and practitioners of Foresight,

discontinuities and weak signals likely to shape the future through the Big Picture Survey. The survey was launched 6 months prior to the Conference.

More than 250 responses were submitted by the Conference date. The results collected were synthesised and presented back to the attendees in a plenary presentation by the authors.

The paper then presents the rationales of conducting the Big Picture Survey (BPS presents its methodology and discusses the results of the survey in a greater extent. 2010 Elsevier Ltd.

All rights reserved.**Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: ozcan. saritas@manchester. ac. uk (O. Saritas), jack. smith@drdc-rddc. gc. ca (J. E. Smith.

The originators of this survey used the responses to lead a plenary discussion at the 2008 FTA Conference,

an open-ended survey with compilation, grouping responses, and a general analysis of the five areas.

For this purpose, looking at the survey results we suggested a STEEP (Social-Cultural, Science & Technology, Energy, Ecology and Economy,

Then, in the third section, the survey methodology and method of analysis are described. The fourth section presents the respondents'profile summary with a set of descriptive statistics including (i) the country of residence (

because it was considered that a clear definition of the terms supported with examples would help the participants in completing the survey, particularly those with less Foresight experience,

Subsequently in conducting the survey it was nevertheless still evident that at least perceptually on the part of many respondents overlap exists,

while clearly valid, were deemed too complicated for purposes of the survey. Mega-trends Trends come in different sizes.

so for this survey it will not be possible to rigorously provide a single definition that fits all situations so the following examples are useful to guide those seeking to imagine what could shock the systems of incremental change.

/O. Saritas, J. E. Smith/Futures 43 (2011) 292 312 297 3. Big Picture Survey 3. 1. Motivation and approach Up until the Future-oriented technology analysis

As a result, the Big Picture Survey was designed and implemented with the following key premises:

2. Building on a survey of FTA Conference attendees-experts about critical trends, drivers, shocks-wildcards, discontinuities and weak signals, new insights can be gained about the state of Foresight and future uncertainties,

which should be useful to the community. 3. 1. 1. The structure of the survey The survey consisted of two main parts.

Data set Total surveys submitted: 293; substantive completion: 106 (about 50%of FTA Conference attendees;

Results can serve as baseline for a more quantitative-reactive survey next year likely generating a higher return rate requiring less time to formulate original ideas. 3. 2. Analysis of the results 3. 2. 1. Descriptive statistics

The majority of respondents engaged in Foresight activity 5 10 years as expected a quite experienced group of professionals (Fig. 2). The survey respondents were mainly from Academia and Governmental bodies (Fig. 3). 3. 2. 2

The trends obtained from the survey were mapped on the STEEP map for the Domains of Interest.

We believe that this strong contribution from the more experienced contributors supports the basic assumption behind the survey that such a gathering of experts would constitute a uniquely defined relevant cohort worthy of sampling

According to the survey respondents the majority of trends identified contain medium to high level possibility of controversy.

the survey respondents generally expect that the highest controversies are likely to emerge from 2016 to 2025.3.2.2.3.

Almost all the survey respondents considered that the drivers will have medium to high impact on the STEEP systems with the large majority of the experienced respondents (73%)considered high impact.

Suggest the possibility of probing deeper in subsequent surveys to extract a more complete picture of the provocative edge.

These differences suggest some further survey or focus group opportunities to probe the differences in perception of discontinuities. 3. 2. 5. 3. Joint assessment of Foresight affiliation and discontinuities.

3. 2. 6. Weak signals The radar diagram below (Fig. 12) shows the orientations of the 171 weak signals identified by the respondents of the Big Picture Survey.

Also worthy of deeper probing in subsequent surveys. Fig. 13 shows the frequency distribution of weak signals identified by the survey respondents and the most widely cited ones.

Table 6 gives the examples of weak signals by category. Compared to the previous elements, the distribution of weak signals appears to be balanced more

J. E. Smith/Futures 43 (2011) 292 312 310 4. Conclusions and implications on policy and strategy The following implications from the outputs of the Big Picture Survey

The survey responses provide a rich and diverse array of issues that cover most of the provocative policy issues now engaging public debate and offer a new set of prospective future issues as well;

Further assessment of survey variables has indicated that there are no dramatic surprises, but there seem to be emerging several instances of avenues that could benefit from further discussion,

focus groups or another survey that invites respondents to elaborate upon their choices. The results reveal that the data is both useful and quite insightful and diverse.

More data and analysis will be required to fully develop the potential of this survey but an excellent base now exists,

and insights that can be used to guide future Foresight work and additional FTA surveys of this type or building upon this base.

Our primary conclusion is that it will be very useful to repeat the survey with FTA 2010 if possible,

Acknowledgement We are grateful to our colleague Phd researcher Ms. Graciela Sainz de la Fuente for her valuable contribution to the analysis of the Big Picture Survey data.

A wide range of stakeholders have been involved as well as, on a smaller scale, the wider public in form of an online survey.

online survey targeted for expert group (with Webropol survey software) Inviting the expert group to the process

online survey targeted for expert group (with Webropol survey software) Testing and specifying the development paths constructed in the first futures workshop:

These surveys constitute adequate tools to collect information and to provide a range of different ideas based on which scenarios can afterwards be designed and presented.

case studies and surveys as the most commonly used approaches (Blind, 2006), FTA would add to this methodological list other approaches that could render the evaluation of current laws,

surveys and foresight studies Delphi methodology and scenarios) that are adequate to conduct regulatory foresight, and which allow the identification of future fields for regulatory policy intervention.

< Back - Next >

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