Quantitative and qualitative approaches in Future-oriented Technology Analysis (FTA): From combination to integration?

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Volumn 80, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 386-397

  Haegeman, Karel ^a   Marinelli, Elisabetta ^a   Scapolo, Fabiana ^b   Ricci, Andrea ^c   Sokolov, Alexander ^d  

^a JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

^b EUROPEAN COMMISSION   (Belgium)

^c ISIS   (Italy)

^d NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (Russian Federation)

Author keywords

Barriers; Combination; Epistemological divide; FTA; Integration; Qualitative; Quantitative

Indexed keywords

BARRIERS; COMBINATION; EPISTEMOLOGICAL DIVIDE; FTA; QUALITATIVE; QUANTITATIVE;

INNOVATION; TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING;

INTEGRATION;

CONFERENCE PROCEEDING; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 84873999304     PISSN: 00401625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2012.10.002     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Scapolo F., Cahill E. New horizons and challenges for future-oriented technology analysis: proceedings of the EU-US scientific seminar: new technology foresight, forecasting & assessment methods. JRC Technical Report, EUR 21473 EN 2004, European Commission, Available at: http://forera.jrc.ec.europa.eu/fta/Proceedings%20short%20version.pdf. Last accessed July 2012.
2. Bazeley P. Issues in mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. Applying Qualitative Methods to Marketing Management Research 2004, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, United Kingdom. R. Buber, J. Gadner (Eds.).
3. J. Brannen, Mixed methods research: a discussion paper, NCRM Methods Review Papers, NCRM/005. Unpublished, 2005. Available at: last accessed July 2012. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/89/1/MethodsReviewPaperNCRM-005.pdf.
4. Sale J.E.M., Lohfeld L.H., Brazil K. Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: implications for mixed-methods research. Qual. Quant. 2002, 36(1):43-53.
5. Teddlie C., Tashakkori A. Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences 2009, Sage Publications.
6. Wood M., Welch C. Are qualitative and quantitative useful terms for describing research?. Methodol. Innov. Online 2010, 5(1):56-71.
7. Cooke M., Buckley N. Web 2.0, social networks and the future of market research. Int. J. Mark. Res. 2008, 50(2):267-292.
8. Mathison S. Why triangulate?. Educ. Res. 1988, 17(2):13-17.
9. Rossman G.B., Wilson B.L. Numbers and words revisited: being "shamelessly eclectic". Qual. Quant. 1994, 28(3):315-327.
10. Caracelli V.J., Greene J.C. Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. Advances in Mixed-method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms 1997, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. J.C. Greene, V.J. Caracelli (Eds.).
11. Goodwin P. Why hindsight can damage foresight. Int. J. Appl. Forecast. 2010, 17:5-7.
12. Linstone H.A. Three eras of technology foresight, keynote speech. Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis, May 12-13 (2011) Seville 2011, Available at: http://foresight.jrc.ec.europa.eu/fta_2011/documents/download/PRESENTATIONS/Keynotes/FTA%202011%20%205-9%20%20HL%20%20%20%20%20ppt%20%20copy.ppt. Accessed July 2012.
13. Linstone H.A. Three eras of technology foresight. Technovation 2011, 31:69-76.
14. Tuomi I. Foresight in an unpredictable world. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manage. 2012, 24(8):735-751.
15. Calof J., Smith J.E. Critical success factors for government-led foresight. Sci. Public Policy 2010, 37(1):31-40.
16. Georghiou L., Keenan M. Evaluation and impact of foresight. The Handbook of Technology Foresight: Concepts and Practice 2008, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. L. Georghiou, J. Cassingena Harper, M. Keenan, I. Miles, R. Popper (Eds.).
17. Havas A., Schartinger D., Weber M. The impact of foresight on innovation policy-making: recent experiences and future perspectives. Res. Eval. 2010, 19(2):91-104.
18. FTA Scientific Committee Call for papers. The 4th International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA): FTA and Grand Societal Challenges-Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations 2011, Available at: http://foresight.jrc.ec.europa.eu/fta_2011/FTA2011_call_final.pdf. Accessed August 2012.
19. Van Lente H. Navigating foresight in a sea of expectations: lessons from the sociology of expectations. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manage. 2012, 24(8):769-782.
20. Loveridge D., Saritas O. Ignorance and uncertainty: influences on FTA. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manage. 2012, 24(8):753-767.
21. Haegeman K., Weber K.M., Könnölä T. Preparing for grand challenges: the role of future-oriented technology analysis in anticipating and shaping structural and systemic changes. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manage. 2012, 24(8):729-734.
22. Eerola A., Miles I. Methods and tools contributing to FTA: a knowledge-based perspective. Futures 2011, 43:265-278.
23. For-Learn Online foresight guide, European foresight platform Available at:, Accessed August 2012. http://www.foresight-platform.eu/community/foresightguide/.
24. Smith J.E., Saritas O. Science and technology foresight baker's dozen: a pocket primer of comparative and combined foresight methods. Foresight 2011, 13(2):79-96.
25. Popper R. How are foresight methods selected. Foresight 2008, 10(6):62-89.
26. Guide to Research Infrastructures Foresight 2007, European Commission, Brussels. M. Keenan, R. Popper (Eds.).
27. Scapolo F., Porter A.L. New methodological developments in FTA. Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Strategic Intelligence for an Innovative Economy 2008, Springer Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg. C. Cagnin, M. Keenan, R. Johnson, F. Scapolo, R. Barré (Eds.).
28. Cunningham S.W., van der Lei T.E. Decision-making for new technology: a multi-actor, multi-objective method. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2009, 76:1037-1050.
29. Agami N., Saleh M., El-Shishiny H. A fuzzy logic based trend impact analysis method. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2010, 77:1051-1060.
30. Kemp-Benedict E. Converting qualitative assessments to quantitative assumptions: Bayes' rule and the pundits wager. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2010, 77:167-171.
31. Bryant B.P., Lempert R.J. Thinking inside the box: a participatory, computer-assisted approach to scenario discovery. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2010, 77:34-49.
32. Rossetti di Valdalbero D. The Power of Science-economic research and European decision-making: the case of energy and environment policies. Peter Lang 2010, ISBN 978-90-5201-586-6 pb.
33. Shibata N., Kajikawa Y., Takeda Y., Sakata I., Matsushima K. Detecting emerging research fronts in regeneration medicine by the citation network analysis of scientific publications. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2011, 78:274-282.
34. Järvanpää H.M., Mäkinen S.J., Seppänen M. Patent and publishing activity sequence over a technology's life cycle. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2011, 78(2):283-293.
35. Thorleuchter D., Van den Poel D., Prinzie A. A compared R&D-based and patent-based cross-impact analysis for identifying relationships between technologies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2010, 77:1037-1050.
36. Popper R. Foresight methodology. Concepts and Practices 2008, Edward Elgar, UK. L. Georghiou, J.C. Harper, M. Keenan, I. Miles, R. Popper (Eds.).
37. Curran C.S., Leker J. Patent indicators for monitoring convergence-examples from NFF and ICT. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2011, 78:256-273.
38. Lee P., Su H., Wu F. Quantitative mapping of patented technology-the case of electrical conducting polymer composite. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2010, 77:466-478.
39. Haegeman K., Cagnin C., Könnölä T., Collins D. Web 2.0 foresight for innovation policy: a case of strategic agenda setting in European innovation, innovation: management. Policy Pract. 2012, 14(3):449-469.
40. Jin F.K., Fah W.R., En N.D., Wei L.M., Wai L.H. Developing a horizon scanning system for early warning. 12th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, US Naval War College, Newport R.I. USA, June 19-21, 2007 2007, Available at: http://www.dodccrp.org/events/12th_ICCRTS/CD/html/papers/053.pdf. Accessed July 2012.
41. Soojung-Kim Pang A. Future 2.0: rethinking the discipline. Foresight 2010, 12(1):5-20.
42. Nugroho Y., Saritas O. Incorporating network perspectives in foresight: a methodological proposal. Foresight 2009, 11(6):21-41.
43. Boyer B., Cook J.W., Steinberg M. Studio: Recipes for Systemic Change, Helsinki Design Lab Powered by Sitra 2010, Available at: http://helsinkidesignlab.org/peoplepods/themes/hdl/downloads/In_Studio-Recipes_for_Systemic_Change.pdf. Last accessed July 2012.
44. J. Alcamo, D. van Vuuren, C. Ringler (Coordinating lead authors), Methodology for Developing the MA Scenarios, in: S.R. Carpenter, P.L. Pingali, E.M. Bennett and M.B. Zurek (Eds), Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Scenarios, Volume 2, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Washington: ISLAND PRESS, 2005.
45. Campbell D.T. A Study of Leadership Among Submarine Officers 1953, Ohio State University Res. Found, Columbus.
46. Campbell D.T., Fiske D.W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait multimethod matrix. Psychol. Bull. 1959, 56(2):81-105.
47. Denzin N.K. The Research Act 1978, McGraw-HilI, New York. 2d ed.
48. Jick T.D. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action. Adm. Sci. Q. 1979, 24(4):602-611.
49. Webb E., Campbell D.T., Schwartz R.D., Sechrest L. Unobtrusive Measures. Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences 1966, Rand McNally, Chicago.
50. Sarantakos S. Social Research 1993, Macmillan, Basingstoke.
51. Silverman D. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction 1993, Sage, London.
52. Howe K.R. Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis, or, Dogmas die hard. Educ. Res. 1988, 17:10-16.
53. Howe K.R. Getting over the quantitative-qualitative debate. Am. J. Educ. 1992, 100:236-256.
54. T. D. Jick, Process and Impacts of a Merger: Individual and Organizational Perspectives. Doctoral dissertation, New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations. Cornell University, 1979.
55. Lawson T. Developments in economics as realist social theory. Rev. Soc. Econ. 1996, 405:422.
56. Olsen W.K. Triangulation in social research: qualitative and quantitative methods can really be mixed. Developments in Sociology 2004, Causeway Press. M. Holborn, Haralambos (Eds.).
57. Sayer A. Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach 1992, Routledge, London, (orig. 1984).
58. Bǎban A. Reconceptualisation of the division between quantitative and qualitative research methods, cognition, brain, behavior. Interdiscip. J. 2008, XII(4):337-343.
59. Castro F.G., Kellison J.G., Boyd S.J., Kopak A. A methodology for conducting integrative mixed methods research and data analyses. J. Mixed Methods Res. 2010, 4(4):342-360.
60. Johnson R.B., Onwuegbuzie A.J. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ. Res. 2004, 33(7):14-26.
61. Tashakkori A., Teddlie C. Mixed Methodology, Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series 1998, 46. Sage Publications.
62. Bryman A. Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. J. Mixed Methods Res. 2007, 1(1):8-22.
63. Mahoney J., Goertz G. A tale of two cultures: contrasting qualitative and quantitative research. Pol. Anal. 2006, 14:227-249.
64. Lüdeke M.K.B. Bridging Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Foresight 2006, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Available at http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~luedeke/lit/springer12_ch4.pdf. Last accessed July 2012.
65. Reiss A.J. Stuff and nonsense about social surveys and participant observation. Institutions and the Person: Papers in Memory of Everett C. Hughes 1968, Aldine, Chicago. H.S. Becker, B. Geer, D. Riesman, R.S. Weiss (Eds.).
66. Georghiou L., Harper J.C. Rising to the challenges-Reflections on Future-oriented Technology Analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2013, 80(3):467-470. (this issue).
67. Wehnert T., Jörß W. Evaluation paper: foresight and decision-making. Deliverable 3.1 of EFONET-Energy Foresight Network 2009, Available at: http://www.efonet.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=215&Itemid=41. Accessed July 2012.
68. Popper R., Keenan M., Miles I., Butter M., Sainz G. Global Foresight Outlook 2007: mapping foresight in Europe and the rest of the world. The EFMN Annual Mapping Report 2007, Report to the European Commission 2007, University of Manchester, TNO, Manchester/Delft.
69. Popper R. Mapping Foresight-revealing how Europe and other world regions navigate into the future. EUR 24041 EN 2009, European Commission, Directorate-General for Research, Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities, Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/efmn-mapping-foresight_en.pdf, last accessed July 2012.
70. Rader M., Porter A.L. Fitting future-oriented technology analysis methods to study types. Future-oriented Technology Analysis: Strategic Intelligence for an Innovative Economy 2008, Springer Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg. C. Cagnin, M. Keenan, R. Johnson, F. Scapolo, R. Barré (Eds.).
71. Cameron R. Mixed methods research: the five ps framework. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 2011, 9(2):96-108.
72. Da Costa O., Warnke P., Cagnin C., Scapolo F. The impact of foresight on policy-making: insights from the FORLEARN mutual learning process. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manage. 2008, 20(3):369-387.
73. Hughes B.B., Johnston P.D. Sustainable futures: building policy options into a scenario for development in a global knowledge society. Futures 2005, 37:813-831.
74. Johnston R. Developing the capacity to assess the impact of foresight. Foresight 2012, 14(1):56-68.
75. White H. Combining quantitative and qualitative approaches in poverty analysis. World Dev. 2002, 30(3):511-522.
76. Ansell C., Gash A. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2008, 18(4):543-571.