Foresight impacts from around the world: a special issue

Abstract

Purpose -The aim of this article and special issue is to propose a framework for foresight impacts on policy and decision making. The need to identify direct impacts, measure them and identify the factors that lead to impact is the primary objective of the special issue and, as outlined in the article, represents a critical addition to the foresight field. On the basis of case studies, experience, and theoretical-evaluative frameworks this issue seels to offer suggestions regarding the factors that may help policy makers, academics, consultants, and others involved in foresight produce impactful results.Design/methodology/approach -The methodology deployed for this article is both empirical and meta analysis. This introductory article is based on the special issue articles as well as the authors' extensive practical experiences in foresight.Findings -Foresight does impact policy. Case studies and experiences in Europe, North America, Africa and Asia identified in the special issue provide support for this. Also, as difficult as it is to measure impact, the authors explore several frameworks that will help the foresight community demonstrate impact and prove the value of foresight.Originality/value -The article highlights several frameworks that will help the foresight community demonstrate impact and prove the value of foresight.

But do they deliver? Participatory agenda setting on the test bed

“…While comparing national foresight reports, Gavigan and Scapolo [55] answered to these challenges with applying a national objectives analytical model, while Alsan and Atilla Oner [56] developed comparative matrices. Other authors have compared methodologies [57], or participants, organizers, and the difficulty to measure policy impacts [58]. While none of those comparative approaches showed the necessary specifications to be applied in comparing CIMULACT results to those of expert-based foresight studies, we applied some of their components.…”

Key factors of the foresight method integration in the system of research and development management

“…По мнению ряда исследователей 3 , для получения политической поддержки также требуется объяснение преимуществ форсайта государственным чиновникам: такая «разъяснительная работа» специалистов по форсайту дает ЛПР представление о сути метода и тех задачах, которые он может решать, а также позволяет № 4(6) 2014 заинтересовать их в проведении форсайта. Кроме того, у чиновников формируются реалистичные ожидания относительно материальных (документов, отчетов, списков приоритетов, др.)…”

“…По мере того как популярность форсайта в научном сообществе росла, а число таких исследований увеличивалось, у исследователей и/или организаторов появился соблазн выдавать за форсайт проекты, которые по сути таковыми не являются (не основаны на базовых принципах методологии форсайта) и скорее соответствуют традиционным подходам к прогнозированию 4 . Появление таких псевдофорсайтов в разных предметных областях и широкое распространение информации о них дискредитирует метод форсайта как среди заказчиков таких проектов (поскольку результаты не соответствуют ожиданиям), так и среди общественности.…”

Evaluation of technology foresight projects

“…Problems with measuring the impact, including the time lag between the foresight project and the occurrence of its results, as well as the possibility of direct and indirect impact, were stressed by C. Cagnin et al [5], J. Calof and J. Smith [8], and A. Havas et al [25] and others. Furthermore, it was stressed that the impact of foresight depends on the relevance to major problems faced by society, as well as foresight timing and the quality of the achieved results.…”

“…for shaping national and regional policies on innovation and planning, e.g. in Japan and South Africa [8], launching new research programmes at the national or regional level, e.g. in Great Britain, The Czech Republic, Poland (e.g., [9][10][11]).…”