Search results

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.

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.

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.

The article highlights several frameworks that will help the foresight community demonstrate impact and prove the value of foresight.

The purpose of this paper is to provide information about the long-term ex-post impacts of Vision 2023 technology foresight (TF) on the defense sector and to identify critical success factors (CSFs) of impactful foresight.

In the present research, a theory-based evaluation approach was adopted with the logic-model of defense TF to identify the intended outcomes, impacts and leading mechanisms. The impact assessment framework developed by Johnston, R. (2012) was adopted to identify (un)intended impacts and possible measures.

TF had some effects on technological developments, foresight capacity and capability and skills on the sector. The overall impact was assessed at the “some contribution” level with 2.9 out of 5.0 points. It contributed to the development of science technology and innovation (STI) policies and research and development programs, awareness-raising in STI, increase in cooperation between government-university-industry and the development of foresight culture. However, the impacts were more visible in the early years of TF. Additionally, country/sector-specific CSFs were identified. In consequence, it was proposed to measure the maturity of strategic technologies with technology readiness level as a tangible indicator.

According to the authors, this is the first study to assess the long-term ex-post impact of TF in defense. An instrument was developed to assess TF’s contribution to impact measures. The constructs and weights of the instrument differentiated from the adopted framework/schema reflecting the national/sectoral context of TF. Additionally, the study revealed country/sector-specific CSFs and new tangible impact measures.

The objective of this paper is to contribute to improved practice and impact of foresight through the development and testing of a Foresight Impact Evaluation Schema. The schema is designed to guide foresight practitioners in the more effective design and conduct of foresight exercises to optimise impact.

The development of the schema is based on the significant previous work in this field, and the author's experience of designing and managing more than 100 foresight projects. It also takes into account accumulated experience with heuristics developed to guide foresight design and management, and with various approaches to evaluating the impact of social science knowledge on policy‐ and decision‐making.

A range of impacts identified from major foresight projects have been characterised according to four categories of impact ‐ awareness raising, informing policy, enabling greater capacity to address uncertainty, and influencing policy, strategy, investment, program delivery and public attitudes.

The schema needs to be tested against a variety of foresight projects to further refine its usefulness.

With the rapid growth of the application of foresight, it has become essential to guide practitioners in the appropriate design and management of all the processes associated with foresight to achieve maximum impact, and to demonstrate the value of the investment in foresight to consequent policy and planning.

This paper builds on earlier and contemporary work to develop a more refined and applicable schema to guide foresight impact evaluation.

Foresight often encompasses participative approaches for decision making. This paper aims to give a first overview of the authors’ research on immediate learning and networking in the context of foresight. The paper seeks to introduce a practical concept for an accompanying social research of a participatory foresight process for empirically identifying and mapping impacts; and to present empirical results from the study of a specific foresight process.

The authors apply three approaches to analyze impacts. Accordingly data were gathered in moderated workshops for process analysis; structured telephone interviews for qualitative analysis; and surveys for social network analysis.

The accompanying social research produced direct insights on experiences and knowledge acquisition of participants in a large, complex foresight process, as well as a measurable increase of personal ties in this process. This research shows that the perception of the wider spectrum of actors in a social system, as well as their rationales and approaches, are one identifiable and crucial achievement of participative foresight processes.

This research focuses on immediate learning impacts, while additional impacts of mid‐ or longer‐term scales were not captured in this study. Accompanying social research (e.g. longitudinal studies) of broader scale would be beneficial to foresight research and process design.

The authors use a specific foresight process to analyze its immediate impacts. They introduce and demonstrate ways forward to use practical concepts for impact description, empirical data acquisition, and how it relates to underlying process design. The results are relevant for foresight project managers, process counselors and accompanying social research.

This paper aims to assess recent foresight exercises applied to cities by evaluating three major issues. Have foresight practitioners understood cities complexity? Have urban planners used adequate tools to generate plausible future visions? Are city policy makers using foresight studies to limit urban uncertainty?

In total, 20 city foresight examples were selected which either have international relevance or which constitute good examples of future-oriented initiatives. Case studies were classified into five taxonomies: European Union initiatives; local initiatives; academic initiatives; corporate initiatives; and architectural initiatives. A set of assessment criteria was established: city complexity conceptualization; methodological approach; and study impact.

Preliminary research outcomes show growing doubts about the appropriateness of the foresight tools used in cities and about the competency of foresight practitioners in understanding the complex and dynamic nature of contemporary cities. Furthermore, policy makers do not seem to grasp the potential of foresight to formulate urban strategies.

Some of the initiatives studied are relatively recent, so impact analysis has been limited by available data. Mostly, secondary documented sources were used to validate cases’ assessment. Research suggests a number of areas in which foresight studies may have a practical application to the urban realm.

The value of the present work lies in the effort for assessing and improving forward-looking activities undertaken at cities through a set of criteria which take into consideration the complexity and diversity of contemporary cities.

This article aims to focus on how to ensure that Future‐Oriented Technology Assessment (FTA) activities have an impact on decision‐making. On the basis of the extensive experience of the authors, this article seeks to offer suggestions regarding the factors that may help policy makers, academics, consultants, and others involved in FTA projects, to produce useful and meaningful contributions to decision‐making processes.

The methodology deployed for this article is empirical. It is based on the lessons extracted and evidence produced by the authors' hundreds of diverse global consulting engagements as well as their analytical work on the subject. Added together the authors of this paper have engaged in over 80 years of professional practice. The article summarizes the results of presentations given by the authors and the ensuing discussion that occurred at the conference: Futures Oriented Technology Analysis 2011, held at the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) in Seville on 13 May.

Impactful FTA starts with the selection of the appropriate methodologies and skills for the specific anticipatory task. Arguing on the basis of experience, the authors point out that the effective impact of FTA projects on decision‐making depends on a strong grasp of the principles of foresight and project design, an educated client with clear expectations and a strong commitment, well‐developed communication efforts throughout, and considerable managerial capacity both on the demand and supply sides of the process.

By bringing the evidence of experience to bear, this article adds value to existing academic and practitioner discussions of the effectiveness of FTA for decision‐making. The article provides an original vantage point on key questions being posed by both users and suppliers of forward‐looking activities.

The Foresight Future Flooding (FFF) project researched flood risk in the UK to the year 2100 for central government, using scenarios and a national risk assessment model backed by qualitative analysis from panels of some 45 senior scientists. The purpose of this paper is to assess the impact of the project, both nationally and internationally.

This paper assesses the impact of the FFF project, both nationally and internationally, using web searches, document analysis, and a questionnaire survey of key actors in the flood risk management policy field.

It was found that the penetration of the project into professionals' consciousness was high in relation to other comparable projects and publications, and its impact on policy – both immediately and continuing – was profound. The FFF initiative did not create policy change, however, but facilitated its legitimation, adding impetus to what was already there, as one element of a part‐catalytic and part‐incremental process of policy evolution.

Special circumstances, internal and external to the project, mean that this cannot be a simple model for matching research to policymakers' needs in the future.

Important lessons may be learnt from this project about both the methods of forward‐looking foresight‐type research, and the way that its results are disseminated to its target audiences.

This is an innovative attempt to assess the impact of a new type of foresight project.

The 9th S&T Foresight for Japan has recently been completed. A key element of this Foresight is that S&T is now expected to indicate solutions for broad social issues and global issues (climate change, etc.) including those that address Japan's most urgent challenges (e.g. energy, aging population). This mission‐oriented foresight is novel for the Japanese, since prior foresight exercises have been done with a technology focus. This paper aims to address how the new view of foresight – as more than mere technical potentials – has resulted in several types of foresight impacts, which are noted in the main text.

The 9th Delphi Survey involved two types of interdisciplinary perspectives related to Japan's social future (Safe, Secure, Cooperation and Collaboration) and 12 S&T fields. The committees discussed what could emerge within 30 years and involved 26 domains of social expertise and 140 specialists.

The 9th S&T Foresight investigation consists of an integration of three foresight methods – Delphi survey, scenario writing, and capability of local regions for green innovation – regarding sustainable development. Each method provides clear messages, and has unique impacts.

Overall, a major foresight impact has been to enable a broader view of innovation to prevail in this ninth foresight, where social‐scenario insights and more socially adaptive policies complement the traditional S&T focus developed by Delphi surveys 1‐8. This shifted the policy discourse toward societal innovation from technical innovation.

Foresight J's journey started in 1999, and in 2022, it marked the conclusion of its 24 years of publication. This paper aims to provide an overall overview of important research trends published in Foresight J between 1999 and 2022 by conducting a quantitative analysis of the journal’s literature. The overarching goal is to provide valuable insights into the dynamics of scholarly communication, aiding researchers, institutions and policymakers in assessing the significance and influence of academic work, guiding future research directions and academic evaluation.

The two bibliometrics methodologies that make up the methodology of this article are scientific mapping and performance analysis. Authors have explained the development and composition of the Foresight J using these methods. The SCOPUS database is being used in current research to analyse several dimensions, such as the evolution of publications by year, the most cited papers, core authors and researchers, leading countries and prolific institutions. Moreover, the conceptual structure, scope, burst detection and co-occurrence analysis of the journal are mapped using network visualization software such as VOSviewer, CiteSpace and RStudio.

With a strong track record of output over the years, Foresight J has continued to develop in terms of publications. It is determined that “Saritas” is the author with the greatest overall impact. However, according to SCOPUS bibliometric data, “Blackman” and “Richardson” are the authors with the greatest relevance in terms of the quantity of articles. In addition, it becomes apparent that the USA, Australia and the UK are very productive nations in terms of publications. The most popular fields of the journal have always been forecasting, foresight, scenario planning, strategic planning, decision-making, technology and sustainable development. These are also the author keywords that appear the most frequently. In contrast, new study themes in the Foresight J include digital technologies, innovation, sustainability, blockchain, artificial intelligence and sustainability.

Several noteworthy research implications are provided by the bibliometric study of Foresight J. “Saritas” is the author with the most overall impact, indicating that the precise contributions and influence of this researcher in the fields of forecasting, foresight and related fields. Given that “Blackman” and “Richardson” are well-known writers, it is also critical to examine the scope and complexity of their contributions to potentially identify recurring themes or patterns in their writing. The geographic productivity results, which show that the USA, Australia and the UK are the top three countries for Foresight J publications, may encourage more research into regional differences, patterns of collaboration and the worldwide distribution of research endeavours in the context of forecasting and foresight. Popular fields including scenario planning, forecasting, foresight and sustainable development are consistent, indicating persistent research interests. Examining the causes of these subjects’ ongoing relevance can reveal information about the consistency and development of scholarly interests over time.

Foresight J’s bibliometric analysis has real-world applications for many stakeholders. It helps editors and publishers make strategic decisions about outreach and content by providing insights regarding the journal’s influence. Assessing organizational and author productivity helps institutions allocate resources more effectively. Policymakers acquire an instrument to evaluate research patterns and distribute funds efficiently. In general, bibliometric study of a journal helps decisionmakers in academic publishing make well-informed choices that maximize the potential of options for authors, editors, institutions and policymakers.

The societal ramifications of bibliometrically analysing Foresight J from 1999 and 2022 are substantial. This analysis highlights, over the past 24 years, research trends, technological developments and societal priorities have changed by methodically looking through the journal’s articles. Gaining knowledge about the academic environment covered by the journal can help raise public awareness of important topics and promote critical thinking. In addition, the analysis can support evidence-based decision-making by alerting decision makers to the influential research that was published in Foresight J. This could have an impact on the course of policies pertaining to innovation, technology and societal development.

This study presents a first comprehensive article that provides a general overview of the main trends and patterns of the research over the Foresight J’s history since its inception. Also, the paper will help the scientific community to know the value and impact of Foresight J.

This paper aims to argue that innovation system foresight (ISF) can significantly contribute to the third mission of universities by creating an active dialogue between universities, industry and society.

This paper’s approach is conceptual. The authors analyse the third mission and relevant literature on innovation systems and foresight to explain how and why foresight contributes to the third mission.

The authors propose that foresight contributes to the third mission of universities, particularly to the research and development and innovation dimensions through the development of joint understanding of the agendas and future needs of stakeholders. In addition, foresight enables education to be designed to address identified needs.

The findings are both conceptual and exploratory in nature. Thus, the argument needs further examination through a broader study on foresight in the university–industry context and/or longitudinal research on the outcomes and impact of foresight in this context.

The findings highlight the importance of understanding the systemic nature of innovation and its role in economic development. Universities must understand their role within the larger innovation system to fulfil the potential of economic development and by extension, their third mission.

The paper outlines a novel approach of using ISF to promote university–industry partnerships and the growth of innovation systems. The paper also contributes to the discussion of the third mission by outlining that mission in practical terms.