Understanding technology foresight: The relevance of its S&T policy context

International Journal of Technology Management

Volumn 21, Issue 7-8, 2001, Pages 661-679

  Sanz Menéndez, Luis ^a,c,d,e   Cabello, Cecilia ^a,c,g,h   García, Clara Eugenia ^b,f,g  

^a CSIC   (Spain)

^b DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION   (Spain)

^c Polytechnic of Madrid University   (Spain)

^d MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e Europ Commn's Inst Prospective T   (Spain)

^f UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID   (Spain)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^h UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

Information and decision making; Policy legitimation; Science and technology policy; Spain; Technology foresight

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; INFORMATION SCIENCE; PUBLIC POLICY;

POLICY LEGITIMIZATION;

TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING;

EID: 0035025534     PISSN: 02675730     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/ijtm.2001.002942     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. This paper was written in the second half of 1998, with final acceptance for publication in June 1999. Since then significant changes in the case taken as exemplar for our argument have occurred (the Spanish R&D political organizational setting). A new Ministry of Science and Technology was created merging the separate policy domains of research, technology and innovation policies. The fourth National R&D Plan was approved, and re-labelled as National Plan for Scientific Research, Technological Development and Innovation (2000-2003). Meanwhile, two industrial technology foresight, or more exactly technology watch reports (Informe de Prospectiva Technológica Industrial) have been published by the OPTI. However, the main analytical arguments established in the paper on the relationship between foresight and S&T policy context still hold (January 2001).
2. We understand foresight in a very general sense as those activities, promoted by any actor, that seek to determine future tendencies in science and technology which result either in isolated reports or documents or those that also include a formalized consultation and interaction process. However in this paper we concentrate our interest in government sponsored foresight exercises.
3. European Commission (1995) Green paper on innovation propose as the first action to 'develop technology monitoring and foresight', p.38.
4. Irvine, J. and Martin, B.R. (1984) Foresight in Science: Picking the Winners, Pinter Publishers, London.
5. Martin, B.R. and Irvine, J. (1989) Research foresight: Priority-setting in Science, Pinter Publishers, London and New York.
6. Cuhls, K. and Kuwahara, T. (1994) Outlook for Japanese and German Future Technology. Comparing Technology Forecast Surveys, Physica-Verlag.
7. Fraunhofer Institut für Systemtechnikand Innovationsforschung (1998) Delphi 1998, Zukunft Nachgefragt. Studie zur Globalen Entwicklung von Wissenchaft und Technik. Karlsruhe, FhG-ISI.
8. Loveridge, D., Georghiou, L. and Nedeva, M. (1995) United Kingdom Technology Foresight Program, Delphi Survey, HMSO, London.
9. Foresight Steering Committee (1996) A Vital Knowledge System. Dutch Research with a View to the Future, FSC, Amsterdam.
10. Ministère de l'Industrie (1995) Les 100 Technologies Clés pour l'Industrie Française, Ministère de l'Industrie, Paris.
11. Cameron, H. and Loveridge, D. et al. (1996) EC Report, Technology Foresight: Perspectives for European and International Coopération. EC/DGXII-PREST, Brussels and Manchester.
12. Martin, B. (1994) Report by OECD, 'Technology foresight: a review of recent government exercises', included in the Special Issue of the OECD Journal STI Review No. 17, 1996 on Government Technology Foresight Exercises, pp.15-50.
13. Gavigan, J.G and Cahill, E. (1997) IPTS Report, Overview of Recent European and non-European National Technology Foresight Studies, EC-JRC, Seville.
14. Fleissner, P. et al. (1998) IPTS Report, Recent National Foresight Studies. A Review, EC-JRC, Seville.
15. Fondazione, R. (1996) La Priorita Nazionali Della Ricerca Industriale. Primo Rapporto, D. Roveda, and R. Viale. (Eds.), Franco Angeli, Milano.
16. Aichholzer, G. et al. (1998) ITW-OAW, Technologie-Delphi, Vol. 3, Institut für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien.
17. The kind of questions that guide our search are: Is the growing relevance of foresight in different countries the result of some national preconditions or international diffusion? What forces explain the rapid diffusion of foresight as a practice or at least as a concept in the discourses of STI policy makers? Are the benefits of foresight the main causes of the successful diffusion? Is the spread of foresight the result of some isomorphic process of international diffusion of the STI rhetoric, organizational forms or tools? Did foresight exercises have any identifiable impacts either reshaping STI policies or modifying the strategies of the main innovation actors?
18. Kingdon, J.W. (1984) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, Little, Brown and Co., Boston, builds up a model based on the 'garbage can model of decision making'.
19. Cohen, M.D., March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1972) 'A garbage can model of organizational choice', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 1, March, pp.1-25).
20. Keeler, J.T.S. (1993) Opening in the window for reform. Mandates, crises, and extraordinary policy-making'. Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp.433-486.
21. Polsby, N.W. (1984) Political Innovation in America, Yale University Press, New Haven.
22. Such theoretical framework has a lot in common with the structural contingency theory of organization first developed by Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1967) Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
23. Riker, W.H. (1986) The An of Political Manipulation, Yale University Press, New Haven.
24. Carmines, E.G. and Stimsom, J.A. (1989) Issue Evolution, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
25. Hilgartner, S. and Bosk, Ch.L. (1988) 'The rise and fall of social problems: a public arenas model', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94, pp.53-78.
26. Weir, M. (1992) Politics and Jobs, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
27. Arthur, W.B. (1989) 'Competing technologies, increasing returns and lock-in by historical small events', Economic Journal, Vol. 99, pp.116-131.
28. David, P. (1985) 'Clio and the economics of QWERTY', American Economic Review Proceedings, Vol. 75, pp.332-337.
29. Collier, R.B. and Collier, D. (1991) Shaping the Political Arena, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
30. Rose, R. and Davies, P.L. (1994) Inheritance in Public Policy, Yale University Press, New Haven.
31. Thompson, J.N. (1994) The Revolutionary Process, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
32. See for example, Elzinga, A. and Jamison, A. (1995) 'Changing policy agendas in science and technology', in S. Jasanoff et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Sage, Thousand Oaks and London, pp.572-597.
33. Just see the titles of the publications from UK Office of Science and Technology DTI such as Winning Through Foresight, etc.
34. Wolman, H. (1992) 'Understanding cross national policy transfers: the case of Britain and the US', Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.27-45.
35. For a full description and analysis of the reforms in science and technology policy in Spain, see [36], in English see [37].
36. Sanz-Menéndez, L. (1997) Estado, Ciencia y Tecnología en España: 1939-1997, Alianza Universidad, Madrid, p.428.
37. Sanz-Menéndez, L. (1995) 'Policy choices, institutional constrains and policy learning: the Spanish science and technology policy in the eighties', Int. J. Technology Management, Special Issue on the Evaluation of Research and Innovation, Vol. 10, Nos. 4-6, pp.622-641.
38. Sanz-Menéndez, L., Muñoz, E. and García, C.E. (1993) 'The vicissitudes of Spanish science and technology policy: coordination and leadership', Science and Public Policy, Vol. 20, No. 6, December, pp.370-380.
39. OECD (1986) Innovation Policy: Spain. OECD, Paris.
40. Rip, A. (1990) 'Implementation and evaluation of science and technology priorities and programs', in S.E. Cozzens, P. Healey, A. Rip and J. Ziman (Eds.), The Research System in Transition, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp.263-280.
41. Under the umbrella of Prospectiva Tecnológica, a word that in Spanish has strong proximity with the French concept Prospective (see for example [42]) and is associated to planning in which we can identify activities of different nature.
42. Godet, M. (1985) Propective et Planification Strategique, Economica, Paris.
43. Although no overall or systemic approach to foresight was taken for general S&T policy, some sectoral R&D policies such as the Agriculture Research Policy (Programa Sectorial de Investigaciones Agrarias) had also a significant consideration of the future in their priority setting, or in the Ministry of Industry. Even though the rhetoric of the Prospectiva Tecnologica had been present, the real implementation had been weak, discontinuous and dispersed, always in a report form, of different stands: foresight with a highly scientific content, developed from either a very institutionalized administrative locus or big research institutions; or foresight with more focus on the competitiveness of the Spanish industry which involved a deep analysis of critical industrial sectors.
44. Sanz-Menéndez, L. (1995) 'Research actors and the state: research evaluation and evaluation of science and technology policies in Spain', Research Evaluation, Vol. 5, No. 1, April, pp.79-88.
45. In fact, the organizational infrastructure created at the ANEP - a database of more than 6.000 experts in scientific areas - was extremely biased to academic and basic researchers with very little presence of engineers or researchers working at firms.
46. IPTS Report by Fleissner, P. et al. (1998) Recent National Foresight Studies, A Review, EC-JRC, Seville.
47. There are also some regional level initiatives, which include a Foresight Program in the Basque Country (northern region of Spain) and Strategic Technology Plans (RIS-RITTS). These initiatives are seriously associated with policy making, and involve a very broad 'consultation' process with stakeholders in the regions.
48. Rip, A. and van der Meulen, B.J.R. (1996) 'The post-modern research system', Science and Public Policy, Vol. 23, No. 6, December, pp.343-352.
49. Bounded rationality models have relaxed the assumptions of pure rational models, to accept that decision makers face vital limitation in attention, memory, comprehension and communication, and to help confront them they develop a simplification process and editing, decomposition, heuristics and framing.
50. Feldman, M.S. and March, J.G. (1981) 'Information in organizations as signal and symbol', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, pp.171-186.
51. Feldman, M.S. (1989) Order Without Design, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
52. Lowi, T.J. (1972) 'Four systems of policy, politics and choice', Public Administration Review, Vol. XXXII, No. 4, July-August, pp.298-310.
53. As has been said "gathering information and making decisions are signals and symbols of competence. The possession and exhibition of information symbolizes (and demonstrate) the ability and legitimacy of decision makers" [54].
54. March, J.G. (1994) A Premier on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen, Free Press, New York, p.226. See Sanz-Menéndez, L. and Cabello, C. (2000) 'Expectations and learning as principles for shaping the future', in N. Brown, B. Rappert and A Webster (Eds.) Contested Future: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp.229-249.
55. March, J.G. (1994) A Premier on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen, Free Press, New York, p.226. See Sanz-Menéndez, L. and Cabello, C. (2000) 'Expectations and learning as principles for shaping the future', in N. Brown, B. Rappert and A Webster (Eds.) Contested Future: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp.229-249.
56. This is the approach of the project FORMAKIN that involves teams from Spain, The Netherlands and United Kingdom led by Sanz-Menéndez, L., van der Meulen, B. and Webster, A. who is acting as coordinator. Information on the project may be obtained on the web site http://www.iesam.csic.es/proyecto/pr-forme.htm. See Sanz-Menéndez, L. and Cabello, C. (2000) 'Expectations and learning as principles for shaping the future', in N. Borwn, B. Rappert and A. Webster (Eds.), Contested Futures: a Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp.229-249.
57. This is the approach of the project FORMAKIN that involves teams from Spain, The Netherlands and United Kingdom led by Sanz-Menéndez, L., van der Meulen, B. and Webster, A. who is acting as coordinator. Information on the project may be obtained on the web site http://www.iesam.csic.es/proyecto/pr-forme.htm. See Sanz-Menéndez, L. and Cabello, C. (2000) 'Expectations and learning as principles for shaping the future', in N. Borwn, B. Rappert and A. Webster (Eds.), Contested Futures: a Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp.229-249.
58. See for example Lane, D., Malerba, F., Maxfield, R. and Orsenigo, L. (1995) 'Choice and action', Santa Fé Institute, working paper 95-01-004.
59. March, J.G. (1973) 'Model bias in social action', Review of Educational Research, Vol. 42, pp.413-429.
60. Denzau, A.T. and North, D.C. (1994) 'Shared mental models: ideologies and institutions', Kyklos, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp.3-31.
61. Rosenberg, N. (1976) On technological expectations', Economic Journal, Vol. 86, pp.523-535.
62. van Lente, H. and Rip, A. (1998) 'The rise of membrane technology', Social Studies of Science. Vol. 28, No. 2, April, pp.221-254.