 |
BY Rafael Popper
PREST, Manchester Institute of Innovation Research,
MBS, University of Manchester, United Kingdom
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
This paper is based on – and slightly updates
– the “How are foresight methods selected?”
publication (Popper, 2008). The original paper
was published in the foresight journal and in
2009 was chosen as an Outstanding Paper
Award Winner at the Literati Network Awards
for Excellence. The paper uses key outputs of the
European Foresight Platform (EFP) 1 activities –
especially the Mapping Foresight report (Popper,
2009)2 – and a sister initiative carried out in
Spanish by the SELF-RULE network 3. After four
years of systematically researching nearly 2,000
foresight exercises from around the world, these
monitoring activities have built up databases4
of case studies that offer tremendous potential
to better understand global foresight practices.
This research process, here and after referred to as
mapping, has consisted of four major activities:
- In the first instance, foresight studies were
identified by dedicated network partners,
who continuously searched the Internet, public
reports, etc. In addition, national
correspondents were mobilised and invited to
suggest studies on an annual basis.
- The second activity was the actual mapping
or data entry, using a set of indicators to capture
the different elements of a foresight process
(e.g. methods, country or world region,
territorial scale, time horizon and type of
sponsorship, among others). From the almost
2,000 cases identified, about half have been
fully mapped against the majority of
indicators.
- The third activity was the quality control of the
data. This task involved sending automated
emails with a direct link to the database so that
national correspondents could update and
improve the quality of mapped cases. This
approach had mixed results, so that some
exercises are much better mapped than
others.
- Finally, the fourth activity involved processing,
experimentation and analysis of the data set.
These analyses have been used to prepare
annual mapping reports (ibid.) which have
been openly shared with the foresight
community and have set the basis for the
questions and hypotheses addressed in this
article.
|
|
HIGHLIGHTS
Objective – This publication deals with a challenging topic, which in both academic and professional
literatures have been widely discussed but mainly from one single angle, that is, how to select foresight
methods? From that point of view researchers and consultants promote (even if unintentionally) the
use of particular methods. Here the question of selection is raised from a different perspective: how
are foresight methods selected?
Scope – The guiding ‘theory’ is that a better understanding of the fundamental attributes of foresight
methods and their linkages to the core phases of a foresight process, together with the identification
of possible patterns in the selection of methods, will provide useful insights as to how the selection
of methods is carried out.
Results – So far the selection of foresight methods has been dominated by the intuition, insight,
impulsiveness and – sometimes – inexperience or irresponsibility of practitioners and organisers.
This paper reveals that the selection of foresight methods (even if not always coherent or systematic)
is a multi-factor process, and needs to be considered as such.
Potential uses – The results can be utilised by lecturers and students to better describe and
understand foresight methods use, and by organisers of foresight (including practitioners) to better
inform decisions during the design of (hopefully) more coherent methodological frameworks.
Main contributions – The paper combines practical concepts and frameworks (such as the SMART
Foresight Process and the Foresight Diamond) with innovative analyses to better represent and
visualise the combination of methods in 886 case studies, e.g. introducing the Methods Combination
Matrix (MCM) to examine the dynamics of methods mix.
Key terms: Research methods, Design, Forward planning, Strategic planning, Creative Thinking,
Decision making, SNA
Read Full Article
Back to Insights Area |
