© European Communities, 2011 The last 2 to 3 years the EC has funded a serie of blue sky projects...
1
© European Communities, 2011 The last 2 to 3 years the EC has funded a serie of blue sky projects on foresight. A part of these projects were devoted to the improvement of our methodological knowledge around scanning. These projects delivered not only evaluations of new methods to obtain and process scan data but also new conceptual thinking that may bridge the gap between scanning activities and policymaking. In this session we will give an overview of the conceptual thinking that leads to some recommendations concerning horizon scanning practice. An important aspects is the way in which results of scanning can compete with the stream of information and ideas that arrive in the decision makers brains and debates Main recommendations In scanning activities there are in principle two ways to obtain issue description and related signals. You can collect existing ideas/descriptions of issues and wild cards by scanning of sources , like internet and libraries and you can evoke people to create them. In the first approach the sources and the selected signals are chosen by the scanners. To limit the effect of biases by the scanners it is necessary to develop criteria on forehand and to work with a multidisciplinary scanning team and to validate results in broad assembled workshops . In the second way the select or a-select “chosen” respondents choose the sources and transfers their signals which may be partly based on the same sources as where the scanner search. 2011 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE To limit the effect of biases or advocacy in the second approach, it is important to develop criteria on forehand for the selection of respondents and of the signals. To validate results it is best to use both approaches independently and to compare results In the first approach the search usually delivers more full descriptions of emerging issues and potential wild cards which makes the approach suitable for issue centered scanning. In this approach it is important to identify the exact sources of the identified issues and wild cards and to analyze the interests as well as emotional aspects that are implied. The second approach usually delivers less full descriptions. Which makes the approach more suitable for exploratory scanning . This approach requires additional attention for clustering and deeper analysis of data In scanning it is important to distinguish between “natural”’ and “human” caused issues and wild cards, since they require not only different methodological approaches but also other policy answers. Overstressing the “hard”’ evidence may distort the scan view on those issues or wild cards that are deliberately human caused. Because of the effect that interests, path dependencies, emotions and connections to the present situation may be more important indicators for the emerging or occurrence of human caused issues and wild cards than the factual information on its contents To improve the scanning of emerging issues and potential wild cards for governance, more research is needed to answer the question : -What constitutes the strength of the deliberately human caused issues and wild cards ? For this we need more historical analysis of proven strong issues and past wild cards. Discourse analytic work, on implicit and explicit future reference used in political debate and decision making and its potential relation to foresight/horizon scanning Sociological and mass psychological knowledge on the main question, how future narratives influence public opinion and decision makers? (crowd influencing Wild cards as future shakers and shapers Scanning forem erging science and technology issues Projectfunded underthe Socio- econom icSciencesand Hum anities SESTI Presentation forSTOA 7 april2011 3 Lobbyists Advisory boards Planning agencies Voters Decisions forthe Future Media Info and Issues Contact Victor van Rij Ministry of education, culture and Science, Netherlands Tel. +00 31704122036 • E-mail: [email protected]
-
Upload
ashley-davies -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of © European Communities, 2011 The last 2 to 3 years the EC has funded a serie of blue sky projects...
© E
uro
pe
an
Co
mm
un
itie
s, 2
01
1
The last 2 to 3 years the EC has funded a serie of blue sky projects on foresight. A part of these projects were devoted to the improvement of our methodological knowledge around scanning. These projects delivered not only evaluations of new methods to obtain and process scan data but also new conceptual thinking that may bridge the gap between scanning activities and policymaking. In this session we will give an overview of the conceptual thinking that leads to some recommendations concerning horizon scanning practice. An important aspects is the way in which results of scanning can compete with the stream of information and ideas that arrive in the decision makers brains and debates
Main recommendations In scanning activities there are in principle two ways to obtain issue description and related signals. You can collect existing ideas/descriptions of issues and wild cards by scanning of sources , like internet and libraries and you can evoke people to create them.
In the first approach the sources and the selected signals are chosen by the scanners. To limit the effect of biases by the scanners it is necessary to develop criteria on forehand and to work with a multidisciplinary scanning team and to validate results in broad assembled workshops . In the second way the select or a-select “chosen” respondents choose the sources and transfers their signals which may be partly based on the same sources as where the scanner search.
2011 INTERNATIONALCONFERENCE
To limit the effect of biases or advocacy in the second approach, it is important to develop criteria on forehand for the selection of respondents and of the signals. To validate results it is best to use both approaches independently and to compare results
In the first approach the search usually delivers more full descriptions of emerging issues and potential wild cards which makes the approach suitable for issue centered scanning. In this approach it is important to identify the exact sources of the identified issues and wild cards and to analyze the interests as well as emotional aspects that are implied. The second approach usually delivers less full descriptions. Which makes the approach more suitable for exploratory scanning . This approach requires additional attention for clustering and deeper analysis of data
In scanning it is important to distinguish between “natural”’ and “human” caused issues and wild cards, since they require not only different methodological approaches but also other policy answers.
Overstressing the “hard”’ evidence may distort the scan view on those issues or wild cards that are deliberately human caused. Because of the effect that interests, path dependencies, emotions and connections to the present situation may be more important indicators for the emerging or occurrence of human caused issues and wild cards than the factual information on its contents
To improve the scanning of emerging issues and potential wild cards for governance, more research is needed to answer the question :
-What constitutes the strength of the deliberately human caused issues and wild cards ?
For this we need more historical analysis of proven strong issues and past wild cards.
Discourse analytic work, on implicit and explicit future reference used in political debate and decision making and its potential relation to foresight/horizon scanning
Sociological and mass psychological knowledge on the main question, how future narratives influence public opinion and decision makers? (crowd influencing knowledge)
Wild cards as future shakers and shapers
Scanning for emerging science and technology issues Project funded under the Socio-
economic Sciences and Humanities
SESTI Presentation for STOA 7 april 2011
3
Lobbyists
Advisory boardsPlanning agencies
Voters
Decisions for the Future
Media
Info and Issues
Contact
Victor van RijMinistry of education, culture and Science, NetherlandsTel. +00 31704122036 •E-mail: [email protected]
