This article was downloaded by: University of Bucharest On: 03 december 2014, At: 05:09 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1t 3jh, UK Technology analysis & Strategic management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www. tandfonline. com/loi/ctas20 Foresight for science and technology priority setting in a small country: the case of Luxembourg Frank Glod a, Carlo Duprel a & Michael Keenan b a Fonds national de la recherche, 6 rue Antoine de Saint-Exupéry , B. P. 1777, L-1017, Luxembourg b Manchester Institute of Innovation research (PREST), University of Manchester, M13 9pl, UK Published online: 12 oct 2009. To cite this article: Frank Glod, Carlo Duprel & Michael Keenan (2009) Foresight for science and technology priority setting in a small country: the case of Luxembourg, Technology analysis & Strategic management, 21:8, 933-951, DOI: 10.1080/09537320903262298 To link to this article: http://dx. doi. org/10.1080/09537320903262298 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be verified independently with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is forbidden expressly. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www. tandfonline. com/page/termsanndconditions Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 Technology analysis & Strategic management Vol. 21 No. 8 november 2009,933 951 Foresight for science and technology priority setting in a small country: the case of Luxembourg Frank Gloda*,Carlo Duprela and Michael Keenanb afonds national de la recherche, 6 rue Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, B . P. 1777, L-1017, Luxembourg; bmanchester Institute of Innovation research (PREST), University of Manchester, M13 9pl, UK This paper sets out to review the conduct and immediate impacts of a two-year national technollog foresight exercise (2006 2007) conducted in one of Europe's smallest and wealthiest countries, Luxembourg. The country's small size brings into sharp viewmany of the underlying tensions present in those foresight exercises that explicitly attempt to set national priorities. These tensions include the ability (or otherwise) to underpin the foresight process with sufficient and appropriate‘objectivised'knowledge (including national statistics, international benchmarking data, and future-oriented‘intelligence'),'the organisation of dialogic spaces that are hijacked not solely'by special interests and setting the‘granularity'of emergent priorities at a level that makes them‘operationalisable'in informing research and development fundiin programmes. The exercise was organised by the FNR (Fonds national de la recherche or National research Fund), the only research council in Luxembourg. The paper shows that the position of the FNR in the research landscape had both benefits and drawbacks during the conduct of the exercise as well as for the follow-up implementation. The paper builds upon an earlier paper which described the first phase of the FNR Foresight exercise. The current paper extends this analysis to the second and third phases of the exercise as well as to the immediate implementation phase after the publication of its results. By doing so, it covers the evolution of the foresight exercise over its two-year life span, highlighting the different meanings given to the exercise by different stakeholder groups as the process unfolded and interim results were made known. The paper draws lessons not only for other small countries and regions hoping to use foresight, but also highlights principles for using foresight for priority-setting more generally. Keywords: foresight; priority-setting; Luxembourg; research system 1. Introduction In 2005, Luxembourg began to embark upon a‘national'technology foresight exercise, with the primary aim of identifying newresearch domains for the National research Fund (FNR) to support*Corresponding author. Email: frank. glod@fnr. lu ISSN 0953-7325 print/ISSN 1465-3990 online 2009 Taylor & francis DOI: 10.1080/09537320903262298 http://www. informaworld. com Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 934 F. Glod et al. FNR 2006. 1 As with other small countries, Luxembourg has limited public resources devoted to research and has a small (and young) public research base. However, it is also rather unique in that it has enacted sizeable increases in spending on research and development (R&d) over the last decade and is set to increase budgets further over the next few years. Thus, the challenge for Luxembourg lies not in distributing limited funds among its existing science community. Rather, it is looking to identify new areas in which to invest much of the spending increases with a view to developing future‘competence niches'.'2 The paper has the following structure. In an opening section, the general contours of science, technology and innovation (STI) policy in Luxembourg are traced, with a view to contextualising the FNR Foresight experience. In Section 3, a number of generic priority-setting‘dilemmas'are set out, to be picked up again when considering the conduct of FNR Foresight. In Section 4, a brief outline description of FNR Foresight is provided, followed in Section 5 by a more detailed analysis of the conduct of the exercise. Section 6 considers the impacts of the foresight exercise, while a final section draws some summary conclusions and highlights lessons for future foresight practice. 2. STI Policy in Luxembourg Before the 1980s, Luxembourg lacked a public science, technology and innovation infrastructure. R&d carried out in Luxembourg was largely the preserve of the private sector particularly the steel industry and even today, a key feature of the research landscape remains the dominant role played by the private sector. Early public investments in R&d and innovation were influenced by private sector activities and largely sought to support them. These included the founding of Luxinnovation in 1984, an agency for supporting innovation; and the establishment of several public research centres in 1987, with the primary aim of supporting technological innovation in firms. However, with increased recognition of the role of research and innovation in contributing towards the future development of the country, the Luxembourg government decided in 1999 to increase the level of publicly funded research. Accordingly, the government went on to develop a focused STI policy, which began with the establishment of several new institutions, including: the Ministry of Culture, Higher education and Research (MCHER) as the key policy centre with respect to Luxembourg research; and the National research Fund (FNR) as a source of prioritised funding for multi-annual research programmes. These developments were followed up in 2003 by the establishment of the University of Luxembourg (UL. In addition, the government increased spending on publicr&dfrom 0. 08%of gross domestic product (GDP) in 1999 to 0. 3%in 2004 and plans a further increase to 0. 58%by 2010.3 Figure 1 outlines the increase in public funding for publli R&d in millions of Euros. These unprecedented budget increases possibly place Luxembourg in a unique position among its partners in Europe, although the level of gross expenditure on r&d (GERD) in Luxembourg at 1. 25%of GDP in 2006 still remains one of the lowest in the Europeea Union (EU). Afuller reviewof the evolution of the Luxembourg research system is offered by Meyer 2008. It is important to understand that the institutional changes and budget increases at the turn of the century represent attempts to shift public research away from a largely‘responsive'and mostly industrially-oriented mode to a more long-term, strategic mode. The establishment of the University is a clear sign of this, but other initiatives (see Box 1) are meant also to contribute to upgrading Luxembourg science, as well as to improving its governance. Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 Foresight for science and technology priority setting in a small country 935 Expenditure on Public research 0 20 000 000 40 000 000 60 000 000 80 000 000 100 000 000 120 000 000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Public research centres FNR UL Figure 1. Public funds to public R&d, 2000 2007(¤)Source: MCHER). ) Box 1. Parallel strategic initiatives. The OECD Review of Innovation policy was conducted in 2006 and commissioned by the MCHER. The Review report (see OECD 2007) suggested a number of needed reforms in the system of public sector research governance in order to better ensure that additional public investment in R&d will yield expected economic and social benefits. The central OECD recommendation was the establishment of multi-annual performance contracts between the MCHER and public research actors (including the FNR) with a view to enhancing the latter's accountability and efficiency. The University of Luxembourg was established in 2003 and implies a shift of paradigm, as it was considered always to be a national strategic advantage that Luxembourg students had to go to foreign countries to study. The University has been created by merging three existing higher education institutes and its remit has been shifted from an almost purely educational role to one that has a stronger focus on research. The City of Science is an initiative of the MCHER to regroup the University of Luxembourg and the Public research Centres on a single new site in the south of Luxembourg near the town of Esch-sur-Alzette. This site will accommodate the activities of more than 1600 FTE researchers and aims to house the related research activities of the various research actors in purpose-built infrastructures. The construction of this new quarter will be finished by 2013 with costs exceeding¤600 million. The Centre of Competence in Molecular Medicine was launched in 2008 as an initiative of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Ministry of Health and the MCHER. The Centre is to be set up in cooperation between three US institutions, three Luxembourg public research centres, and the University of Luxembourg. Research activities will mainly cover the topic of molecular diagnostics with a 5-year budget of¤140 million. Just as significant as all the developments set out in Box 1 is the establishment of the FNR. With an annual budget of 18 million in 2007 the FNR serves as Luxembourg's national funding agency in supporting the development of research competences in topics of national interest Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 936 F. Glod et al. through multi -annual programmes. It is mandated also to provide advice and suggestions for priority action that should be taken in order to achieve the objectives of national R&d policy. An important aspect of FNR support is its main conditionality on scientific excellence. In this way, FNR funding is intended to shift the Luxembourg research system towards conducting more leading-edge science and to improve its integration with leading centres of knowledge production from around the world. This is not to say that FNR support is without strategic direction; on the contrary, funding is directed through multi-annual research programmes. So the FNR has faced the challenge of identifying‘appropriate'programmes that will not only attract sufficient high-quality proposals from Luxembourg scientists but will also steer them to conduct more leading-edge research in topic areas that are likely to be important for Luxembourg's future socioeconnomi development. As we will show below, this was the original rationale for FNR Foresight: to identify topic areas around which newfnr programmes could be articulated. The identification of such‘priority'topic areas is rarely straightforward in any context, and Luxembourg has been no exception. In the section that follows, we discuss some of the generic dilemmas that characterise prioritisation processes before examining how these played out in the Luxembourg context. 3. Generic priority-setting dilemmas Priority setting is, more often than not, an implicit activity that permeates all policymaking and implementation. An important attraction of technology foresight has been its promise to make such processes more explicit, and, by extension better informed through the involvement of a wider set of actors taking into account longer-term futures. Explicit S&t priority setting is performed commonly at different levels, including the policy (government) level, the strategic research funding agency) level and the operational (research performing institutes) level (OECD 1991). Furthermore, different sorts of things might be prioritissed including scientific fields, industrial areas, research facilities, types of research performing institutes, and so on. The OECD (1991) has distinguished therefore between thematic priorities concerned with scientific fields, technology areas, industrial sectors, issues, etc. and structuura priorities concerned with issues such as research infrastructures, higher education teaching programmes, innovation promotion initiatives, venture capital markets, system networking and community-building, and so on. It is not unusual for these priority-setting exercises to set out to identify only thematic or structural priorities at the outset, but to then stray wider and consider both types of priorities. Keenan 2003 has identified the following‘dilemmas'around the framing and conduct of prioritisation:(1) Scope of prioritisation. Priority-setting exercises should include consideration of both themaati and structural priorities from the outset, given their close interdependence. Yet, this often fails to happen particularly when exercises profess to cover only thematic priorities and instead, structural priorities enter‘through the back door'later in the process. However, the type of priorities desired is not the only factor to consider when framing the scope of prioritisation. Another important consideration is whether the results of priority setting are intended to apply across the total funding landscape or whether they are meant to inform new or marginal funds. In reality it is more typical for the latter to occur, as mature S&t systems are marked by extensive‘lock in'that are suited better to evolution than revolution. In fact, what tends to happen is that priorities take account of this‘lock in 'when they are assessed for their‘feasibility 'so that evolution is nearly always the outcome, even if revolution might Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 Foresight for science and technology priority setting in a small country 937 have been intended! A further related consideration concerns the need to maintain‘variety'in the S&t system, so that there is flexibility to change and a capacity to absorb knowledge across a wide range of global knowledge networks. But in small countries, this is particularly difficult to achieve across the board as many S&t areas lack sufficient‘critical mass'to keep pace with all the latest developments. Variety therefore meets‘natural'limits and there is a tendency instead to speak of the need to identify‘niche areas'with the help of prioritisation processes. We will return to this point below. 2) Institutional positioning of prioritisation. Historically, institutions whether ministries, fundiin agencies, or research performers have tended to keep priority setting‘in-house'.'4 But with the use of techniques like foresight, these processes have been opened up more widely. However, many institutions feel uncomfortable to be bound by the results and recommendattion of such open exercises and therefore tend to position them as stand-alone and semidetaache from normal decision-making processes. This is often justified by the need to provide‘space'for free 'and open debate to take place, which might otherwise be constrained by politicca considerations within an organisational setting. Such positioning can also lead to certain implementation problems, as institutions are free to ignore priorities and recommendations, and in some instances, may not even have much sense of ownership of an exercise's findings. 3) Granularity of areas to be prioritised. There is an inherent tension between, on the one hand, a desire to identify topic areas sufficiently focused as to yield specific policy implications, and on the other hand, a need to avoid generating an inordinately long list of S&t topic areas requiring excessive amounts of effort to appraise. This tension is particularly acute at the national level, simply because of the breadth and possible number of potential topic areas. In setting thematic priorities, many exercises have had also difficulties in formulating topic areas of comparable granularity, an area where there tends to be extensive disagreement among foresight participants. 4) Criteria for prioritisation. Afurther tension revolves around the criteria for prioritisation, both in terms of their breadth and depth. In terms of breadth, for example, should participants be asked to assess S&t topic areas against nonscientific criteria? In terms of depth, to what level of detail should criteria be formulated? The finer the criteria, the better the assessment at least in theory. But in practice, too many criteria make assessment a mammoth task and few participaant will have the time (or patience) to devote to this. Furthermore, many participants will probably lack the requisite knowledge to make such detailed assessments. This is an important (and often under-reported) limitation in many priority-setting exercises. In addition to the contribbutio a particular thematic area might make to scientific understanding, socioeconomic development, etc. a further important factor to bear in mind when priority setting is a country's ability to make the most of this potential. This is often referred to as the‘feasibility'to exploit a thematic area, and it can also be assessed by a similar battery of broad and deep criteria and therefore involves a process with similar challenges to those just described. This is often the moment when the importance of structural priorities is discovered, 'since future investments in research infrastructures or future changes in policies/regulations, for example, can make a significant difference to a country's ability to exploit a particular S&t thematic area. 5) Whoprioritises. Finally, there is the dilemma around who should participate in priority-setting, and whether the views of chosen participants can be considered representative of their communiitie (and whether these individuals can carry their communities with them). In large S&t systems, this is particularly important, but is perhaps less important in small systems, such as Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 938 F. Glod et al. Luxembourg, where in theory, it is possible to engage almost everyone in the prioritisation proceess Rather, the major limit in places like Luxembourg is the breadth and depth of local expertiis to make prioritisation assessments. Arelated issue here is whether existing scientific communiitie alone are placed best to set S&t priorities. An emerging consensus seems to suggest not, and it is accepted now generally that the users of S&t knowledge and artefacts, including social and commercial interests, should somehow be engaged in priority-setting processes. 4. Outline of FNR Foresight FNR Foresight has been delivered as a two phase process (FNR 2006, 2007a, b) where the first phase consisted largely of defining the current position of the Luxembourg research landscape, analysing international trends in research priorities, and identifying possible priority tracks for research (see Glod, Duprel, and Keenan (2006) for a fuller account of the conduct of Phase 1). Based on these results, the second phase of the foresight focused upon a set of broad themes with the aim of identifying national priorities for research funding. The approach used is set out in Figure 2 and is described briefly below. In the first part of Phase 1 an initial‘diagnostic'step focused on mapping the Luxembourg research landscape. This consisted of several activities, including an evaluation of ongoing FNR programmes; the collection of statistical data and bibliometric data; and a series of face-to-face interviews with stakeholders, including senior researchers within Luxembourg and abroad, as well as companies and public administrators. These were focused all upon identifying future research directions for Luxembourg. In parallel, key trends and thematic research priorities were collected from 13 countries. The latter was combined with the findings of interviews to generate an initial‘long-list'of topics to be tested'by the research community. This list was supposed not to be definitive, but was intended rather to‘seed'discussion and debate in the following Step in the second part of Phase 1, the long list of research domains was tested first in five themaati junior researcher workshops, 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. Workshop Exploratory Workshop‘Long list'of research domains Initial assessment Selection of broad research fields Stakeholder workshops No formal input General Challenges for Luxembourg Expert workshops per field SWOT Analysis Initial assessment of domains Future trends Luxembourg context Research priorities candidates Conclusion & recommendations Phase 2: Setting Context/Identifying Priorities Data collection Bibliometrics Interviews International research trends Evaluation of FNR programmes Mapping of Lux. Research landscape‘Long list'of possible research domains Aims: Method: Input: Results: Phase1: Creating a Baseline Figure 2. Phases and steps of FNR Foresight. Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 Foresight for science and technology priority setting in a small country 939 where respondents were asked to rate research domains against a battery of‘attractiveness'and‘feasibility'criteria. 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 and validate the emerging analysis and ranking of the research domains. Phase 2 of the exercise was devoted to establishing possible priorities for public research in Luxembourg. For this purpose 13 workshops one Stakeholder workshop and two expert workshops for each of six thematic fields6 were conducted. As a starting point for assessing research domains, representatives from Luxembourg society, business and research were invited to the Stakeholderworkshop with the aim of identifying the main challenges facing Luxembourg over the coming decade. The subsequent series of thematic field workshops aimed to (redefine or review7 the research domains identified in Phase 1, to frame tentative research priorities in concrete terms, to finalise their definitions, to reviewthe underpinnings for their objectives and rationales in viewof the challennge identified in the stakeholder workshop, and to identify important implementation issues. 5. Conduct of FNR Foresight Foresight exercises tend to face a number of generic challenges in their conduct and the FNR Foresight has been no exception in this regard. Among these challenges are need the to keep within time and budget; to open up the process to genuinely new perspectives; to avoid shorttermmism to collect necessary background data and to ensure its use in the process; to minimise participants merely using the exercise to defend predefined territory; to instil creative thinking; to overcome suspicions of some of the methods common to foresight; to ensure sustained, consistent participation; to manage expectations of (policy) impacts; to identify and mobilise champions to drive the process forward and to help deliver on foresight's findings; and to remain relevant while pushing at the‘normal'boundaries of debate (Keenan and Miles 2008. Afewof these challenges are touched upon in this paper, but for the most part, we have sought to deliberately focus upon those that we feel have been more unique to Luxembourg. Accordingly, the following sections are limited to discussion of the various and changing meanings given to FNR Foresight by a mix of stakeholder groups; issues of granularity of S&t areas for prioritisation; the availability and use of background data; and the nature of processes of deliberation. 5. 1. Variety and change in the meanings of Foresight The FNR Foresight was born out of the necessity for the FNR to define new research programmes. While some of the first generation research programmes (seven programmes were launched in the period 2000 2003) were still ongoing by 2007, the FNR needed to develop the next generation of programmes well before the first generation expired. The FNR therefore sought the help and advice of an international group of eight science policy experts (including one of this paper's authors) through a one day workshop. A two-pronged approach emerged: first, to call on the public research institutes to submit ideas for new research programmes; and second, to use a foresight exercise to identify and develop those domain areas that might be of interest, but that are developed still weakly in Luxembourg. The international group of experts also emphasised the need to balance any discussion of thematic priorities with a strong consideration of structural priorities. It is important to bear in mind that the FNR is not the only important actor in the formulation of FNR programmes. There is also the MCHER, which not only provides the budget for the Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 940 F. Glod et al. FNR but is also responsible for setting policy across the whole of the research system. Finally, there is the research community, which not only submits proposals, but also shapes the detail of programmes and their calls. As we will show, these different groups sometimes held varying views on priority-setting and the scope and conduct of the FNR Foresight exercise in particular, which often led to confusion and misunderstanding. Following its roadmap, the FNR first issued a call to the research community to submit ideas for new programmes. The FNR Board was critical of what they saw, particularly of the seeming lack of vision in the proposals and an apparent weakness in reflecting economic and societal needs. The research community's ideas were dismissed therefore and the proposed foresight exercise was given the go-ahead by the Board, on the understanding that it would provide a more participative (involving knowledge users as well as producers) and future-oriented (visionary) approach to identifying topic areas suitable for new FNR programmes. At the same time, and again following the advice of its international group of experts, the FNR proposed to use the foresight exercise to define not only thematic priorities, but also to consider the structural aspects and funding mechanisms and instruments of public research. Proposing this broad perspective rightly anticipated problems that would arise with any approach that sought only to identify thematic priorities without taking into account structural factors. These intentions were communicated to the MCHER at the outset, which was supportive of the idea of a foresight exercise. Later on, it even requested the Fund to broaden the scope of the analysis from the‘mere'definition of new FNR programmes to the identification of nationwide research priorities, i e.‘‘research domains in the public sector with short-term and/or long-term socioeconomic interest for Luxembourg society'.'In a coordinated approach with other elements8 of public policy, FNR Foresight was to provide the basis: To assist the development of outstanding centres of science and technology excellence in Luxembourg; To ensure the specialisation of public research centre facilities into centres with a limited number of specific areas of high level expertise; and To determine appropriate investment levels through support instruments such as the FNR programmes. However, the MCHER also asked the FNR to limit the exercise to identification of thematic priorities only with the argument that structural aspects would be analysed by the OECD. Thus, while the MCHER clearly expanded the scope of the exercise on the one hand, it also consciously restricted it on the other by carving off the structural aspects. This‘negotiation'around the remit of the exercise had some immediate effects on both its planning and execution. Moreover, since the MCHER's intentions emerged after the process had got underway the exercise blueprint had to be adapted on a number of occasions. These adaptations in approach and scope were sometimes misunderstood by the FNR Board and led also to a considerable amount of confusion in the research community. This was particulaarl apparent in the Exploratory Workshop (EWS), which presented the first opportunity that participants in the exercise had to discuss the future of the research system together. Several particiipant rightly made the point that consideration of domain priority areas could not be done in isolation from discussions of research infrastructures, the new University, and so on. This steering away from structural issues caused considerable discontent among participants of the exercise. Furthermore uncertainty around how MCHER planned to follow-up on the results of the exercise unnerved many researchers, who voiced their fears about running out of funding if their Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 Foresight for science and technology priority setting in a small country 941 research was not to fall under identified research priorities. In order to mitigate these fears, the FNR Secretariat assured participants that the foresight exercise was constructed not around a‘winner takes all'competition between research domains. Rather, all research domains presently investigated in Luxembourg would continue to benefit from at least current levels of financial support but that substantial budget increases were to be reserved for a few priority domains. Such assurances however, only partially abated researchers'fears, particularly as changes in the exercise's remit and scope created uncertainty around its consequences. 5. 2. Dealing with issues of granularity and identifying‘competence niches'The dilemma around the level of‘granularity'of research topics to be prioritised already highligghte in Section 3 was understood well by the FNR and its consultants from the outset. Thus, a four-level granularity schema quickly emerged during Phase 1 (FNR 2006) and was applied for‘nesting'research domains in the‘long list'(see Table 1). The FNR was interested most in Level 3 research domains as this was considered the most‘natural'level at which to formulate new FNR programmes. It was at this level that respondents to the online survey were asked to make their‘attractiveness'and‘feasibility'assessments, with a view to formulating a ranked list of research domains, but the FNR was interested also in Level 4 research axes since these could be used to structure and populate future FNR programmes. 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. To begin with, the‘long list'was prepared by the Phase 1 consultants, who generally lacked the breadth of domain knowleddg to reliably position S&t topics into the schema. While programme officers from the FNR Secretariat tidied up the schema the best they could domain expertise and deliberation would be required before the community could come to an agreement on appropriate positioning. 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, the ranked research domains within thematic fields were considered often to be framed poorly, incomparable for ranking purposes, unrepresentative of the interests of researchers, or even irrelevant to Luxemboourg In other words, the research community had difficulties relating to the ranked research domains being offered by the consultants, 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, larger freedom was given to the participants to deviate from the initial list and to reshape the research topics. Once the topics were established, Table 1. Levels of‘granularity'for mapping research areas (a few examples are shown). Thematic field Research area Research domain Research axis Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Environmental sciences Global change and ecosystem Water management Drinking water ICT Infrastructure Telecoms Voip Social & human sciences Economy, policies, institutional framework Economy and finance Dynamics of financial wealth creation Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 942 F. Glod et al. the panels were asked to build a case for the prioritisation of the topic using SWOT analyses and referring back to challenges identified in the stakeholder workshop. This process led to the selection and reformulation of the research topics into‘candidates'for national research priorities. These candidate priorities found the support of the FNR Board which presented them as the research priorities for Luxembourg to the MCHER. An even more fundamental problem lay with the widening of the exercise's scope to include identification of‘national'priorities (i e. beyond the identification of priorities needed to formulate new FNR programmes). Picking up on the OECD distinction between different levels of priorities (i e. policy, strategic and operational), the MCHER should have been interested naturally in Level 2 of the schema research areas. However, these were not explicitly prioritised by the FNR Foresight exercise; rather, prioritisation was being carried out at Level 3. In other words, the exercise was only able to identify Level 2 research area priorities insofar as Level 3 research domain prioritisation implied them. The extent of this problem became apparent only near the end of the exercise when the MCHER requested the FNR to provide a shorter list of priorities to the 18 presented by the FNR Board. Rather than further prioritise the 18 (Level 3) research domain areas, 11 the natural FNR response was to provide the MCHER with a list of six (Level 2) research areas (essentially headings) under which the 18 research domains fell (see Table 2, FNR 2007a. As we will discuss in Section 6, this was unacceptable to the MCHER, which took matters into its own hands and sought to re-prioritise the research domain areas itself. To understand why 18 research domains should be considered too many by the MCHER, it is necessary to take into account recurring discussions in Luxembourg on the need to identify Table 2. National research priorities in the shape of research areas and research domains. National priorities National priorities (Research areas)( Research domains) Innovation in services Business service design and innovation Fostering the economic and legal environment for Innovation performance and development of the financial systems Information security and trust management Telecommunications and multimedia Sustainable resource Managing sustainable development management in Understanding ecosystems and biodiversity Luxembourg Sustainable management of water resources Sustainable uses and sources of energy Sustainable agro-systems management Spatial and urban development Identities, diversity and integration Identities, diversity and integration Labour market, educational requirements and social protection Labour market, educational requirements and social protection New functional and intelligent New functional and intelligent materials and surfaces materials and surfaces New sensing applications Age-related biomedical Regenerative medicine in age-related diseases research Public health, including aspects of environmental health Translational biomedical research Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 Foresight for science and technology priority setting in a small country 943 so-called‘competence niches'i e. areas of potential economic success which may only be achieved through a knowledge base developed in Luxembourg. This expectation is informed by the so-called‘sovereignty niches'areas where the traditional wealth of Luxembourg has been built owing to geographical (steel) or legislative (banking industry) specificities, but it is influenced also by the country's small size and a belief that this implies the need for specialisatiio in order to compete. Thus, the expectation of the MCHER was for the exercise to identify a much smaller number of research areas/domains perhaps just two or three in which high levels of new investment could be targeted, but this was always going to be near impossible for the FNR Foresight exercise to achieve, for several reasons. To begin with, the exercise was designed first and foremost to identify several domain areas around which to formulate new FNR programmes. It was supposed not to identify just two or three‘competence niche'areas, since the FNR is mandated to serve all of the national research community. Perhaps more fundamentally, niches tend to be difficult to plan and their top down identification is unlikely to lead to success. Instead, niches are emergent and depend upon a specific constellation of economic, technological, legislative and societal factors. Foresight exercises might provide a platform for nascent niche areas to gain greater prominence, but foresight is unsuited often to the identification of niche areas de novo. Instead, a better STI policy strategy is to foster an innovation system that is sufficiently flexible to support such areas at their time of emergence. 5. 3. Deliberative processes Foresight exercises are characterised by deliberation between various stakeholders, often in workshhop and working groups. However, such deliberative forums require careful planning and must be scheduled appropriately. While this was understood by the FNR Secretariat the exercise quickly started to accumulate delays, owing in large part to the aforementioned misunderstandinng between the FNR Board, the MCHER, and the Secretariat on the exercise's scope and remit. As originally planned, the exercise was supposed to have just a single phase now known as Phase 1 which was to last about six months and deliver a list of ranked priorities. As we will argue below, this unrealistic time scheduling had major consequences for the scale and quality of deliberative processes. The consultants employed to coordinate the exercise in Phase 1 did a sterling job in such a limited time to collect baseline data 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. In such situations it takes time for people to develop a rapport and for mutual trust to grow between participants. On top of this, the workshops were often the first opportunity that people had to discuss the future of the research system together and they understandably tended to veer towards wider discussion of a whole range of structural issues which, as we have argued above, is in any case a natural tendency when thematic domain areas are being prioritised. Finally, as discussed earlier, EWS participants challenged the validity and reliability of the domain rankings they were being offered, which paralysed the expected ranking process in at least two of the thematic groups. Thus a major weakness in Phase 1 was the overriding focus on obtaining priorities without due regard to the processes necessary for this to happen in a legitimate and credible way. Indeed, it would be fair to say that there was a questionable commitment to a deliberative and discursive Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 944 F. Glod et al. process, perhaps with too little appreciation of the process benefits associated with foresight. Instead, the focus was solely upon the identification of priorities in as quick a time as possible. On reflection the baseline phase should not have attempted to identify priority areas at all. Instead, full attention should have been given to ensuring the validity of baseline and benchmarking data and more time spent on data collection and analysis. Similar shortcomings have also been noted by Meyer 2008 who comments that Luxembourg's‘current science policy appears to be almost too ambitious,..too impatient in wanting to implement change'.'Everyone (finally) realised that further discussions would be needed with the research communnit before agreement could be reached on priorities although this would also cause delays in the formulation of new FNR programmes. Accordingly, a second phase of the exercise was instigated with a stronger deliberative process. This involved further thematic group meetings, a change of consultants, and a greater emphasis placed upon validating priorities with the necessary analysis and discursive processes built in. Along with a shift in approach came a host of new challenges that typically characterise group work. First, it was apparent that the course and the outcomes of the workshops depended on the composition of the workshop participants. In some areas the existence of one (or few) dominant actors influenced the process right from the outset (Thorsteinsdottir 2000. In these areas, the composition of workshop participants was much more uniform and the level of personal conflicts (trench wars) was much lower. In other sectors where the FNR Secretariat could not draw upon a local‘champion, 'the interests of the participants were more widely spread (reflecting the reality of Luxembourg's research in that area) and consensus was much more difficult to obtain. This might have been alleviated somewhat by holding more than just two meetings for each thematic area. It is characteristic of small or micro-countries that there is‘compacting'of policy levels together with the‘many hats syndrome 'whereby stakeholders are playing a range of roles and representiin different interests at the same time. However contrary to previous findings (Crehan and Cassingena-Harper 2008), this did not make coordination easier in Luxembourg but tended to render the conduct of the foresight exercise more difficult as a considerable number of participaant defended the interests of their various affiliated organisations. Again, further thematic group meetings might have reduced this behaviour over time. Many participants also had difficulty in engaging in a visioning dialogue. This might have been due to their unfamiliarity with foresight, but was made perhaps difficult by a perceived situation where stakes were felt to be high (national research priorities were being determined) and people wanted to avoid being left out. Also for the political entities (Ministries chamber of commerce, etc. more immediate issues prevailed and seemed to be the main focus for them. 6. Foresight impacts Given the wide scope of participation in foresight exercises, there is expectation that processes and findings will have some effects on a wide array of stakeholders. In the case of FNR Foresight, these include the FNR itself, the MCHER, the research community and, to a lesser extent, the business community. Each of these is covered below. A word on impacts of foresight: first, there may be impacts from the process alone, which means they can conceivably appear before an exercise produces its findings; second, distinction needs to be made between foresight outputs and impacts and it should be acknowledged that there is rarely a direct cause effect link between the two; third, just as impacts might appear before the generation of final results, they also often appear a long time after the exercise has been completed and are therefore difficult to measure and to attribute to foresight; finally, foresight findings are implemented rarely in a top down, rational Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 Foresight for science and technology priority setting in a small country 945 manner instead, their implementation depends upon enrolment and mobilisation of advocaac coalitions around emergent agendas. This involves processes of persuasion and negotiation on the part of‘champions, 'as foresight results rarely‘speak for themselves'(Georghiou and Keenan 2006). 6. 1. Sense-making and the construction of political ownership As the main S&t policy body in Luxembourg, we have seen that the MCHER played its part in shaping the scope of FNR Foresight. Moreover, as the exercise was broadened to identify‘national'priorities, the expectation was that MCHER would use the results to inform a wide array of policies beyond the formulation of new FNR programmes. A couple of problems were encountered, however: first, the number of priority research domains at 18 went beyond the expectations of the MCHER, which had hoped for a much smaller number of priorities around which to build‘competence niches';'second, there was something of a lack of ownership of the priorities on the part of the MCHER no doubt because of the fact that the process was organised and driven solely by the FNR. We will now deal with each of these issues in turn. First, the number of priorities: we have highlighted already the fact that the MCHER was unhappy about the number of priorities identified by the exercise and that the FNR‘repackaged'the 18‘domain priorities'into six‘area priorities'.'The purpose of this repackaging was not only to present the results at a granularity level perceived to be more useful to the MCHER, but also to highlight the interdisciplinarity among them. 13 This repackaging was rejected by the MCHER as subterfuge on the part of the FNR. Subsequently, the MCHER asked the FNR to present the 18 domains identified along 11‘new'criteria of attractiveness and feasibility so that it could see for itself where the most important priorities lay. These criteria, which were assembled jointly by the MCHER and the FNR, were not particularly‘new','but had already been employed in one form 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. An advantage of this late stepwas that the results were owned nowpartly by the MCHER, which had not been the case previously. Up until this point, the exercise had been conceptualised largely by the FNR, executed by the FNR and remained, in name,‘FNR Foresight'.'In this way, the‘new'assessment can be viewed as a‘sense-making'process that conferred ownership of foresight results to the MCHER. At the same time, the MCHER also came to understand that choices were now largely political in nature. Accordingly, it organised a consultation among the various ministries with a stake in the research domains, offering them the opportunity to further shape (and by implication, further prioritise) the results. It is fair to say that this consultation exercise resulted in little change of the content of the priorities, 14 testifying to the robustness of the original results. The process did result however, in the categorisation of the priorities into two classes‘essential'and‘priority'domains, where the latter constitutes the more important class although it remains unclear as to how domains were assigned across the two classes. The FNR largely adopted these changes when it developed its thematic programmes but chose not to widen the Biomedical Programme to Chronic, Regenerative and Infectious diseases but instead to develop this programme along the lines of the topics originally identified by the Foresigght The FNR felt that these topics, being a subsection of the wider topic, were a better means of focusing its resources. This of course begs the question of what other instruments might support the wider development of this particular topic and of the domain priorities as a whole. This is of particular interest since the FNR represents only about 20%of the public investment in research Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 946 F. Glod et al. see Figure 1). So far, beyond the formulation of new FNR programmes, no re-alignment of resources in money or kind by other actors is knownto the authors. Moreover, the performance contraact signed between the research performers and the ministry of research do not mention directly the national priorities or the Foresight results, leaving the degree of ownership within the research institutions and themchersomewhat unclear for the moment. This might reflect the institutional positioning of the exercise and the questionable ownership by the relevant stakeholders. 6. 2. Impact on FNR One of the main objectives of the Foresight was to inform new FNR programmes in order to replace the existing multi-annual programmes which were about to expire. The internal decision bodies of the FNR were satisfied quite with the results presented at the end of the exercise and thus pressed to develop new programmes on that basis . While the whole process was delayed by the late ministerial intervention, the FNR was, in parallel, developing a new clearly defined strategy in order to sharpen its impact on the Luxembourg research landscape. After the Government's agreement on the list of national priorities, this new strategy and the foresight results were then put together in a new approach: a single framework programme reflecting the strategic positioning of the FNR, with the results of the Foresight providing thematic orientation. A first call for project proposals was launched in early 2008, some two years after the initial deadline, with a budget amounting to 12%of the national public R&d budget for this sole programme. The FNR, as the prime executor of the exercise, also benefited in other respects. Within the research community, the reputation of the FNR in matters of transparency and openness was enhanced further, with some describing FNR as the‘union'of researchers. Thus the exercise strengthened the link between research performers and the research funder. The exercise also helped the FNR to better comprehend the Luxembourg STI environment while strongly highlighhtin the dearth of statistics and analyses. The latter is associated with the system's novelty. Furthermore, the FNR and the other public research actors benefited from a strong presence in the national media, thus familiarising the wider public with the stakeholders as well as with the role of science in a modern society. 6. 3. Impacts on the research community As mentioned in the previous section, the FNR launched a call for project proposals based on the Foresight results at the beginning of 2008. The FNR received the highest number of proposals (in absolute terms and in relation to the available budget) across all priorities. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the number of proposals in domains newly identified by the Foresight exercise was lower in comparison to the domains where there have been research activities for several years, but as we indicated earlier, foresight is more about evolution than revolution and shifts towards new areas understandably take time. Besides the identified priorities, the exercise in itself has produced associated process benefits for example, in terms of networking between participants and agenda-building by coalitions of participants which will help to sustain the development in the domains identified. Furthermore some of the public research centres have conducted their own mini-foresight studies, influenced and inspired by the FNR exercise. Overall, the successful conduct of the Foresight exercise and its implementation, together with all the other ongoing structural changes, indicate a growing maturity of the Luxembourg STI environment, particularly around public governance. Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 Foresight for science and technology priority setting in a small country 947 6. 4. Impacts on the private sector It is unclear whether the private sector will find direct use for the results of the Foresight exercise and to what extent the exercise has influenced its strategic aims. However the private sector clearly welcomed the opportunity for dialogue with public sector researchers and some consortia seem to have spun out of the exercise that have gone on to submit proposals to the European commission. The exercise has demonstrated clearly the need and fruitfulness of such dialogue platforms between the private and public sector. The exercise has exploded also the myth that the private sector is interested only in short-term research. Many senior scientific personnel from the private sector used the exercise to underline the need for high quality public research as a prerequisite for innovation and mutually rewarding cooperation between both sectors. 7. Conclusions For those familiar with running foresight exercises the experiences of Luxembourg are likely to be all too familiar, but the small size of Luxembourg also brings into sharp view many of the underlying tensions present in those foresight exercises that explicitly attempt to set national priorities. Some of these are summarised below. 7. 1. Setting the scope of prioritisation Restricting the exercise to the identification of only thematic priorities was a mistake, since consideration of structural aspects is necessary to set priorities. Moreover, this restriction also tended to isolate the exercise from the other strategic initiatives highlighted in Box 1, when in fact there should have been stronger integration. As it happens participants in the exercise could not resist sometimes identifying structural priorities; moreover, they often raised parallel structural developments when discussing thematic priorities in theirworking groups. Nevertheless, the exercise's compartmentalisation almost certainly weakened its potential to directly inform developments in other parts of the research system. This is also related to the issue as to whether the exercise was intended to set FNR or national priorities. If the latter, then it needed to be integrated much better with parallel initiatives going on elsewhere. Despite claims to the contrary, the exercise was in reality about little more than identifying FNR priorities, a fact confirmed by the scope of priorities implementation seen to date. A final issue concerns the degree to which the exercise was supposed to identify new domains (regardless of existing competences) or to build on existing strengths. Discussion around this point tended to get tied up with the idea of identifying new‘competence niches'for Luxembourg to exploit. A related point was the apparent tension between the need to maintain thematic‘variety'in the research system and the need to build‘critical mass'in a few selected niches. This issue was resolved never satisfactorily, owing to a lack of common vision among the various stakeholders on the position and contribution of S&t to Luxembourg's socioeconomic development. 7. 2. Setting the‘granularity'of priorities The priorities identified by the exercise were set at a level of granularity that made them suitable for informing FNR's R&d funding programmes, but confusion set in when the status of the priorities as‘national'priorities was challenged by the MCHER. Expectations around competence niches Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 948 F. Glod et al. dictated that national priorities had to be fewer in number and the FNR sought to comply by repackaging its programme priorities into higher level national priorities. However, this was unacceptable to the MCHER, which wanted fewer priorities at the same level of granularity as the FNR programme priorities. 7. 3. Setting the criteria for prioritisation The criteria for prioritisation were borrowed largely from international practice (imported by the various consultant groups brought in to help deliver the exercise) and were framed broadly to assess the attractiveness and feasibility of‘candidate'research domains. There were, however, a couple of major weaknesses: first, the already-mentioned lack of vision of the role of S&t in Luxembourg's development meant that some of the criteria were used rather blindly. Second, it is clear that a forward-looking process like foresight needs to be underpinned by sufficient and appropriate‘objectivised'data, e g. publication data, statistics on the national R&d environment, reports on the state of economy, environment or society , outcomes of comparable foresight exercises, etc. This was problematic in the Luxembourg setting, as much national data was missing while international benchmarking was limited of use owing to Luxembourg's small size. This therefore made assessment against some of the criteria very difficult and probably unreliable. 15 7. 4. Who prioritises? A further tension appeared in discussions of who should be involved in the process. Some particiipant particularly those who were already critical of the performance of the public research centres believed that the exercise was flawed by relying so heavily upon the ideas and visions of existing researchers. Some even went so far as to claim the exercise had been hijacked'by the special interests of such researchers and that it should have started with a stronger voice from knowledge users both societal and commercial. While the exercise did bring in the latter, the levels of engagement by the private sector and other branches of government were disappointing, though perhaps unsurprising, as they saw little stake in the direct outcomes of the exercise. The exercise also brought in foreign experts to challenge any‘narrow'thinking on the part of local researchers, though with mixed results. The importance of‘champions'in the thematic groups also became apparent. These individuals (or sometimes groups) were able to channel a strong idea into the exercise and push it to the end. The results (ideas) of an exercise can only be translated into reality if there is somebody ready to act on it, either directly if the champion is a research performer or indirectly if the champion is a ministry or a funding organisation. Of course the foresight practitioners need to channel and control the influence of such local champions during the conduct of the exercise, in order to challenge their views and to increase consensus and commitment. Then again, the champions are the sole guarantors of a truly effective implementation of results. In research domains that are identified newly (where there are few activities and little resources), an important role of champions is to mobilise the necessary support and resources. 7. 5. The institutional positioning of prioritisation The position of the FNR in the research landscape had both benefits and drawbacks during the conduct of the exercise, as well as for the follow-up implementation, but the expanded scope of the exercise has raised the question whether the FNR was the appropriate executor or whether the Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 Foresight for science and technology priority setting in a small country 949 MCHER would not have been suited better to perform the study itself. This point was made by some participants in the exercise, as well as by the OECD (2007), which recommended a clearer distinction between policy formulation (the preserve of the MCHER and other ministrries and policy implementation (reserved for agencies such as FNR and Luxinnovation). As previously highlighted, such decoupling of the foresight process from centres of policy formulattionimplementation is not unusual, but the risk associated with this is loss of some sense of ownership. 7. 6. Mistakes were made, but the exercise has been a success Thus, conducting foresight in smaller countries is neither easier nor more difficult than in larger countries. Many of the challenges are the same, though perhaps exaggerated in some respects by the system's small scale. In the context of the FNR Foresight, it is clear that more time should have been devoted to setting its objectives and agenda. The exercise should also have employed a more realistic timeframe as well obtaining better buy in from MCHER. Nevertheless, despite these problems, the exercise is viewed widely as a success . Although a lot of difficulties were encountered, for example, in terms of scope, conduct, ownership and implementation, the exerciis has become a success due to the commitment of the FNR. There was simply no fall back solution for the FNR and it relied solely on the exercise for the development of its new thematic programmes. Furthermore, the initiative has been welcomed broadly by the research communiit (in a survey of participants at the EWS, more than 80%expressed a positive opinion of the exercise) and has received also favourable press coverage. Finally there is a strong commitmeen from policy makers to build a more forward-looking and strategic culture across the public research base and an acknowledgement that the FNR Foresight has contributed to this goal in no small part. Notes on contributors Frank Glod is senior programme manager at the National research Fund of Luxembourg and was responsible for the conduct of the FNR Foresight study. Carlo Duprel is senior programme manager at the National research Fund of Luxembourg and was involved in the conduct of the FNR Foresight study. Michael Keenan is Senior Research fellow at the Manchester Institute of Innovation research and acted as adviser to the FNR Foresight study. Notes 1. As part of the general interest in technology foresight many small countries have also set up and run exercises. Notable examples from Europe include Ireland, Hungary, Czech republic, Slovenia and the Nordic countries. The EC has sponsored also pilot foresight exercises in Malta, Cyprus and Estonia as part of the eforesee project (see Crehan and Cassingena-Harper 2008). Outside of Europe, the Commonwealth Science Council has funded work examining design and implementation of foresight in small islands, using Jamaica and the Seychelles as pilot countries (see Wehrmeyer et al. 2004). 2.‘Competence niches'refer to areas of potential economic success that develop from the establishment of an exceptionally strong knowledge base in a particular domain. 3. As the GDP of Luxembourg has increased by 50%(from¤22 to 33.1 billion) between 2000 and 2006, these are sizeable budget increases for public research. Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 950 F. Glod et al. 4. The use of the term‘in-house'can refer to actors beyond the officials of a ministry or agency to include expert advisory boards and the like. As such bodies tend to perform important governance functions they can be considered to be part of the organisation. 5. The following groupings were used: environmental sciences, biomedical sciences, information and communication technologies, physical sciences and engineering, social sciences and humanities. 6. The single Social sciences and Humanities group of the first phase was replaced by two groups: Law, Economy and Finance and Social sciences and Humanities. 7. Since the thematic fields had been analysed and structured to different levels of depth during the first phase, the workshops had unequal starting points and their methodology had to be adapted to the degree of progress made up to that point. 8. Other elements included the review analysis by the OECD on Luxembourg's public research apparatus, the multiannnua development programmes of the public research centres and the University of Luxembourg, and the economic development priorities in the various sectors of the economy. 9. The rationale for presenting EWS participants with a list of‘ready-made'research domains was to prevent discussions starting from scratch. While this would seem to be given sensible particularly the limited time available asking participants to rank such a list without giving them the time to debate and agree upon its contents was always going to be a step too far. See Section 5. 4 below. 10. In fact, a significant problem lay with the latter despite its respectable response rate, it was answered still only by a few hundred people across all thematic areas, with most domain areas assessed by no more than a few dozen researchers at most and usually by far fewer people. The assessment was deemed therefore to be an unreliable basis upon which to rank research domains. 11. For the FNR there seemed little basis for choosing between the 18 areas. Moreover, this number of priorities across the whole of the research system seemed reasonable and was considered a suitable basis upon which to formulate new FNR programmes. 12. In addition, a series of young researchers'workshops were held earlier in the process, but these were judged to have been largely a failure, with the wrong questions asked and an inappropriate workshop format used (see Glod, Duprel, and Keenan 2006). 13. In fact, interdisciplinarity had been underplayed somewhat throughout the conduct of the exercise. It was felt, rightly or wrongly, that the weakness of many of the existing disciplines needed to be addressed first before discussions could fruitfully move to discussion of interdisciplinary opportunities. 14. An exception was the Biomedical domain where the focus of the initial Foresight results lay largely on Public health, Regenerative Medicine and Translational Research and which was renamed subsequently Regulation of Chronic, Degenerative and Infectious diseases. 15. At the same time, however, overwhelming participants with large amounts of generic datawould have lead to confusion and frustration. A productive use of data requires a thorough scanning of what's available; its analysis and preparation in order to capture its essence; and its introduction into the foresight process at specifically designed points in order to supply participants with the necessary data as and when required. References Crehan, P, . and J. Cassingena-Harper. 2008. Technology foresight in smaller countries. In The handbook of technology foresight, eds. L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena-Harper, M. Keenan, I. Miles, and R. Popper, 216 36. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. FNR. 2006. FNR Foresight Baseline Report. Luxembourg: Fonds National de la Recherche (unpublished. FNR. 2007a. FNR Foresight Final Report. National priorities for public research and other findings. Luxembourg: Fonds National de la Recherche. FNR. 2007b. FNR Foresight Final Report. Thinking for the future today. Luxembourg: Fonds National de la Recherche. Georghiou, L, . and M. Keenan. 2006. Evaluating national technology foresight exercises. Technological forecasting and Social Change 73: 761 77. Glod, F.,C. Duprel, and M. Keenan. 2006. Luxembourg Foresight a‘standard'exercise in a‘peculiar'setting? Paper presented at the Second FTA Conference, 28 29 september, Sevilla, Spain. Keenan, M. 2003. Identifying emerging generic technologies at the national level: the UK experience. Journal of Forecasting 22: 129 60. Keenan, M, . and I. Miles. 2008. Scoping and planning foresight. In The handbook of technology foresight, eds. L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena. Harper, M. Keenan, I. Miles, and R. Popper, 342 75. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014 Foresight for science and technology priority setting in a small country 951 Meyer, M. 2008. The dynamics of science in a small country: the case of Luxembourg. Science and Public policy 35, no. 5: 361 71. OECD. 1991. Choosing priorities in science and technology. Paris: OECD. OECD. 2007. Reviews of innovation policy: Luxembourg. Paris: OECD. Thorsteinsdottir, H. 2000. Public sector research in small countries: does size matter? Science and Public policy 27, no. 6: 433 42. Wehrmeyer, W.,J. Chenoweth, A. Clayton, M. Fernandez-Lopez, and K. Lum. 2004. Foresighting and technology choice in small developing countries. In Paper presented at the EU US Seminar: New technology Foresight, Forecasting and Assessment Methods, 13 14 may, Sevilla, Spain. Downloaded by University of Bucharest at 05:09 03 december 2014

< Back - Next >

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