1 / 11

Outline

FNR Foresight: Evaluating Phase 1 and Prospects for Phase 2 Dr. Michael Keenan PREST, University of Manchester, UK FNR Foresight Workshop Luxembourg, 16 October 2006. Outline. Revisiting the rationales for FNR Foresight Taking into account the local context Successes and problems so far

shaquille-charles
Download Presentation

Outline

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FNR Foresight: Evaluating Phase 1 and Prospects for Phase 2Dr. Michael KeenanPREST, University of Manchester, UKFNR Foresight WorkshopLuxembourg, 16 October 2006

  2. Outline • Revisiting the rationales for FNR Foresight • Taking into account the local context • Successes and problems so far • Challenges for Phase 2 • Evaluating FNR Foresight – some proposals

  3. Rationales for FNR Foresight • In the context of the need to identify new FNR programmes, the rationale for using foresight includes the following: • Disrupt ‘more of the same’ tendencies • Introduce other actors and agendas into FNR funding • Bring to bear future trends with implications for research • Need for more active direction setting by FNR • Assessment of impacts of FNR programmes so far • Expanded scope, with input from MCHER, to provide: • Identify a handful of key strategic areas for Luxembourg to excel • Specialisation of PRCs • Inputs to developments at the City of Science

  4. Context • A public research system that is small, young, but still expanding • Significant budget increases by 2009 – challenge of absorption • Proposed reform of the research system – OECD findings • Desire to identify a few leading areas for heavy support • Few centres of excellence • Up until now, few opportunities for research actors to come together to discuss future shape and priorities of the system • Lack of statistical data and analyses of the system

  5. The challenge for Luxembourg lies not in distributing limited funds among its existing science community. Rather, it is looking to identify a few areas in which to invest much of the spending increases with a view to developing future S/T centres of excellence

  6. Approach • Three phases: • Phase 1: baseline data gathering and identification of broad research areas for Phase 2. Use of interviews, documentary analysis, international comparative review, online questionnaire survey, and small no. of workshops • Phase 2: identification of strategic research priorities that take account of the future needs of Luxembourg. Use of stakeholders forum, thematic working groups, visioning workshops, and data analysis • Phase 3: take-up of results in decision-making processes, realignment of research system, embedding foresight

  7. Successes so far . . . • Exercise broadly welcomed – more than 80% positive about exercise in questionnaire survey • A lot of useful baseline data generated • Preliminary list of research topics generated • Debate around strategy options for research system and prioritisation • High proportion of research actors informed of exercises and mobilised to participate • Networking of stakeholders-much more to follow • Provision of ‘hybrid’ forum to exchange ideas • Foresight as a tool in the new governance of S&T in Luxembourg

  8. Problems • Data gathering anticipated to be difficult, but also some unexpected problems • Long list of technologies very long – and disagreements over the labels used and their ‘granularity’ • Workshops too ambitious • Balance between priorities and process? Cart before the horse? • Very tight time frame, to meet spending cycle • Research community not kept informed as well as it should have been => led to some misunderstanding • Unrealistic expectations?

  9. Challenges for Phases 2 and 3 • How to shift debates on what R&D to perform to a more future-oriented plane? • How to reduce the influence of existing research agendas on the determination of domain areas? • How to inform and take into account developments at the University of Luxembourg and the new City of Science? • How to build capacity in the top priorities, even if some human resources and infrastructures already exist, never mind a situation where little capacity might currently exist? • How to absorb the significant spending increases proposed? • How to ensure critical mass whilst maintaining sufficient variety for new opportunities to emerge? • How to build a foresight ‘habit’?

  10. Evaluation approach • Phase 1: participant observation and workshop survey • Phases 2/3: experimental in nature and focused upon three elements: • Process: participant rating, appropriateness, timeliness, etc. • Outputs: quality in terms of acceptability, ability to provoke and stir, learning, etc. • Impacts: on decision-making, on the formation of new agendas, on the development of linkages, etc.

  11. Thank you!Dr. Michael KeenanPREST, University of Manchester, UKFurther enquiries at:Michael.Keenan@manchester.ac.uk

More Related