Evaluation of national foresight activities: Assessing rationale, process and impact

Abstract The paper addresses the question of what constitutes an appropriate evaluation strategy for national foresight activities in different situations. The variety of rationales for foresight is explored, ranging from a desire to set priorities through to participation-oriented goals and building new networks around common visions and strategies. A generational model of foresight is used to show the evolution of key evaluation issues. The generic motivations for evaluation of accountability, justification and learning are discussed in the context of foresight. Evaluation grounded in the concept of behavioural additionality and the systems failure rationale is shown to be more suited as a rationale for foresight as public policy. Assessing the effects of foresight requires an understanding that it is only one of several influences on public policy. To be effective it needs to be tuned into the strategic behaviour and cycles of policy and economic actors. Cases are presented of evaluation of foresight programmes in the United Kingdom, Germany and Hungary. It is concluded that there is no “one-size-fits-all” evaluation approach and that the method selected is conditioned by motivation, timing and the level of aggregation. Foresight cannot be fully evaluated independently from its context. Foresight is being strengthened by the emergence of rigorous and systematic knowledge to assist learning and improvement.

[1]  Keith Smith Innovation as a Systemic Phenomenon: Rethinking the Role of Policy , 2000 .

[2]  L. Georghiou,et al.  Third Generation Foresight - Integrating the Socio-economic Dimension , 2001 .

[3]  Ben R. Martin,et al.  Technology foresight for wiring up the national innovation system: experiences in Britain, Australia and New Zealand , 1999 .

[4]  Thomas Durand,et al.  Twelve lessons from ‘Key Technologies 2005’: the French technology foresight exercise , 2003 .

[5]  Daniel L. Stufflebeam,et al.  The Metaevaluation Imperative , 2001 .

[6]  Terutaka Kuwahara Technology Forecasting Activities in Japan , 1999 .

[7]  Michael Scriven,et al.  An Introduction to Meta-Evaluation. , 1969 .

[8]  Arie Rip,et al.  Improving Distributed Intelligence in Complex Innovations Systems , 1999 .

[9]  L. Georghiou,et al.  Evaluating a participative foresight process: ‘Futur - the German research dialogue’ , 2004 .

[10]  Hariolf Grupp,et al.  National Technology Foresight Activities Around the Globe , 1999 .

[11]  J. S. Metcalfe Science policy and technology policy in a competitive economy , 1997 .

[12]  Technologies in transition, policies in transition: foresight in the risk society , 1999 .

[13]  K. Arrow Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention , 1962 .

[14]  M. Scriven Evaluation thesaurus, 4th ed. , 1991 .

[15]  L. Georghiou,et al.  Evaluation of Research: A Selection of Current Practices , 1987 .

[16]  Attila Havas,et al.  Evolving Foresight in a Small Transition Economy: The Design, Use and Relevance of Foresight Methods in Hungary , 2003 .

[17]  Luke Georghiou,et al.  Impact and Additionality of Innovation Policy , 2002 .