Managing Transdisciplinarity in Strategic Foresight

Abstract

Strategic foresight deals with the long term future and is a transdisciplinary exercise which, among other aims, addresses the prioritization of science and other decision making in science and innovation advisory and funding bodies. This article discusses challenges in strategic foresight in relation to transdisciplinarity based on empirical as well as theoretical work in technological domains. By strategic foresight is meant future oriented, participatory consultation of actors and stakeholders, both within and outside a scientific community. It therefore allows multiple stakeholders to negotiate over how to attain a desirable future. This requires creative thinking from the participants, who need to extend their knowledge into the uncertainty of the future. Equally important is skilled facilitating in order to create a space for dialogue and exploration in a contested territory. Although strategic foresight has now been widely accepted for strategy-making and priority-setting in science and innovation policy, the methodologies underpinning it still need further development. Key findings are the identification of challenges, aspects and issues related to management and facilitation of strategic foresight exercises in complex systemic contexts that transcend science in relation to both the persons and problems involved. IntroductionS trategic orientation and priority setting in science and innovation are high on the political agenda. One key issue concerns the involvement of non-academic stakeholders in discussions on governments' strategic research initiatives. Another key issue is the emphasis on long-term societal interests and future possibilities for innovation, i.e. the 'societal relevance of science', at the expense of more purely scientific criteria, with their focus on the scientist's historical scientific qualifications and achievements, i.e. the 'quality of science'. This calls for a transdisciplinary approach to science and innovation based on an exhaustive contextual understanding of interplay, divergences and relationships between stakeholders and methods for transparent strategic priority setting in research. One of the approaches is the concept of strategic foresight. Strategic foresight works systematically with a long-term perspective on societal needs and emerging research in science and technology, as well as systematically approaching the wider inclusion of creative and innovative stakeholders in strategyand priority-setting processes. Methods for foresight have been developed over a long period of time, and their use in strategy making and in priority setting in science and innovation has become more important as the knowledge base for new technologies and their application are becoming more transdisciplinary. Strategic foresight is not only a method for dealing with the future in strategy processes, but also a tool for developing ideas to work on emerging technologies, which makes it relevant for other practitioners working with creativity and innovation.In this light, the aim of this arti...

Team science for science communication

“…Although agreeing before such conflicts arise as to how a team will proceed in such cases is ideal, there may be instances in which bringing an outside person to mediate might be warranted. In transdisciplinary research, mediators have helped collaborators to define what could and should be done (51), as well as to note and vocalize points of consensus (52), thereby helping the team overcome intragroup conflict.…”

Interactive foresight simulation

“…CSA is characterized by the use of text, images, and numbers in a sequential and/or interactive manner. Finally, a participatory approach, regardless of whether narrative or numerical data is used, is one by which the outcome requires interactions between the foresight practitioners and relevant types of decision makers and stakeholders [1,37]. How participatory CSA was executed is explained later on in this paper.…”

“…A more beneficial approach that will motivate participants to think creatively and constructively is to provide an explicit contextual understanding of why and how their knowledge is important. This means that, throughout all of the different phases, the foresight process must remain transparent and contextualized [37][38]1]. This also includes the validation [39][40][41] aspects of the modelling process, because the output from the different steps of the combined simulation approach is discussed on an ongoing basis with the stakeholders [38].…”

Realistic Creativity Training for Innovation Practitioners: The Know–Recognize–React Model

“…The current study builds on these three previous research efforts by developing a training program that would enable creative awareness of creativity-related processes. By adapting methods from transdisciplinary strategizing (e.g., Rasmussen et al, 2010) and co-creation (Sanders & Stappers, 2008), we developed a creativity training program specifically designed for innovators. The overall research process can be seen in Figure 1 below, with the current study and its five interventions (IVs) being delimited to the "co-creation" section of the figure.…”

“…This question was addressed at three different levels of stakeholders (see Figure 1) in a creativity training context: The preliminary program design, resulting from the first three interventions, was then introduced to educational researchers for validation through two additional interventions to ensure a robust design (Rasmussen et al, 2010). The purpose of this article is to describe our transdisciplinary study and the co-creation process we designed to investigate these aspects, as well as the resulting conceptualization of our creativity training program: "Creative Awareness Training".…”