A research question inspiring the work of the iknow project (www.iknowfutures.eu) and the Mapping activities of the European Foresight Platform (EFP) What is the role of social sciences and humanities (SSH) in Futures Research? This presentation is based on the Mapping Foresight (Popper, 2009) research carried out for the European Foresight Monitoring Network (EFMN) now transformed into the EFP (2009-2012) Rafael Popper rafael.popper@manchester.ac.uk
Outline 1. Is futures research a fashion? How to map interdisciplinarity in futures research? What is the role of SSH in futures research? Final remarks and recommendations for the future of SSH? References and further reading
Section 1: Is futures research (foresight) a fashion?
About futures research & foresight The future s not what it used to be As argued in Miles (2005, 2008) and Miles and Keenan (2002), Foresight is a set of approaches to bringing longer-term considerations into decision-making, with the process of engaging informed stakeholders in analysis and dialogue being important alongside the formal products that can be codified and disseminated. Policy-making Participative FORESIGHT Prospective Policy-making approaches adopt a longer-term perspective in the form of strategic planning, allowing flexibility and preparedness to deal with uncertainty, disruptive events and innovations. Participative approaches involve interaction of wider ranges of stakeholders and experts in envisioning the future. Prospective (forward-looking) approaches involve traditional forecasting efforts, using systematic methods to explore future dynamics, enabling development of coping strategies.
Key features (phases & elements) of a systematic foresight process Popper (2008) Today s futures research is increasingly becoming a key and systematic instrument for the development and implementation of research and innovation policy
Key features of foresight methods: The Foresight Diamond (Popper, 2008) SSH s role SSH s role What Creativity? What Evidence? What Expertise? What Interaction? R. Popper (2008) C O N T E X T U A L I S A T I O N
Evolution of national (technology) foresight programmes Futures research (foresight) is not a mere fashion! Year Country Exercise/Programme Method(s) Year Country Exercise/Programme Method(s) Since Japan 7th STA Survey Delphi Japan 1st to 4th STA surveys Delphi 1971 Brazil Prospectar Delphi Japan 5th STA survey Delphi 2000 Brazil TFP Brazil (UNIDO/MDIC) Delphi + Others 1991 France 2nd 100 Key Technologies Others USA Critical Technologies Others Portugal ET2000 Others 1992 New Zealand Public Good Science Fund Others Venezuela TFP Venezuela 1st cycle Delphi + Others Germany BMFT, T 21 Others Chile TFP Chile Delphi 2001 South Korea Foresight Exercise Others Germany FUTUR Others 1993 Germany Delphi 93 Delphi Czech Republic TF Exercise Others UK 1st TF Programme Delphi + Others Turkey Vision 2023 Delphi + Others 1994 Colombia TFP Colombia 1st cycle Delphi + Others France Technology Delphi Delphi UK 3rd UK Foresight Programme Others 1995 France 100 Key Technologies Others 2002 Cyprus, Estonia, Malta eforesee Others Japan Germany Mini-Delphi Delphi Denmark National TF Denmark Others Austria Delphi Austria Delphi USA NIH Roadmap USA Others 1996 Japan 6th STA survey Delphi China TF Towards 2020 Delphi + Others Greece Technology Foresight Greece Others Australia Matching S&T to futures needs Others 2003 Norway Research Council 2020 studies Others Spain ANEP Delphi + Others Sweden 2nd Swedish TF Others 1997 Hungary TF Programme (TEP) Delphi + Others Japan 8th Japanese Programme Delphi + Others Netherlands Technology Radar Others South Korea Korea 2030 Delphi + Others Finland SITRA Foresight Others Ukraine Ukranian TF Programme Delphi + Others South Africa Foresight Exercise Delphi + Others 2004 France FuturRIS Others France AGORA Others Germany Delphi 98 Delphi 1998 Venezuela TFP Venezuela 2nd cycle Others Ireland Technology Foresight Ireland Others Russia Key Technologies Others New Zealand Foresight Exercise Others Colombia TFP Colombia 2nd cycle Delphi + Others UK 2nd UK Foresight Programme Others Brazil Brazil 3 Moments Delphi + Others Sweden 1st Swedish Foresight Others Romania Romanian S&T Foresight Delphi + Others 2005 Spain OPTI Technology Foresight Delphi Finland Finnsight Others 1999 South Korea Korean Technology Delphi Luxembourg FNR Foresight Others Delphi USA 21st Century Challenges GAO Others Thailand ICT Foresight Delphi + Others Finland SITRA Foresight Others China TF of Priority Industries Delphi + Others 2006 Poland Poland 2020 TF Programme Delphi + Others Others include: scenarios, panels, roadmapping, critical technologies, etc. Others include: scenarios, panels, roadmapping, critical technologies, etc.
Mapping Foresight (Popper, 2009) EFMN Mapping has produced a vast amount of information on foresight unprecedented in the world It has been useful to understand foresight practices in Europe and other regions of the world 767 cases L2 > 1400 L0 & L1 846 cases L2 > 1600 L0 & L1 > 1000 cases L2 > 2000 cases in Levels 0 & 1 100 cases 437 cases L2 > 800 L0 & L1 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Section 2: How to map interdisciplinarity in futures research?
Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5: mapping foresight practices linking practices to Frascati research areas identifying key areas knowledge hubs knowledge junctions recognising key sub-areas knowledge maps mapping foresight outputs (e.g. recommendations, wild cards, weak signals, roadmaps, scenarios, etc) linking outputs to EC FP7 research areas & GCs recognising emerging and interdisciplinary issues
mapping linkages to research areas using the FRASCATI taxonomy In total, we mapped 841 cases against the Frascati taxonomy The results show that Engineering and Technology (44%), Social Sciences (40%), and Natural Sciences (32%) are by far the most popular categories characterising our foresight sample. These results reveal the existence of uneven or asymmetric interconnections between research areas at an aggregated level. Engineering and technology 370 117 17 213 79 Social sciences 117 335 25 Humanities 25 26 Humanities 25 26 Natural Sciences 213 92 17 270 Medical sciences 79 75 11 140 Agricultural sciences 62 13 132 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Engineering and technology Social sciences Humanities Natural Sciences Medical sciences Agricultural sciences
Identifying key research areas knowledge hubs The figure shows very strong linkages between: Engineering & Tech., Natural Sciences, and Social Sciences. These three areas can be considered as the main knowledge hubs of futures research. These results simply confirm the interdisciplinary nature of foresight.
Identifying key research areas knowledge junctions A Natural sciences A06 Biological Science B Engineering & Technology B09 Environmental Engineering B13 Communications Technologies C Medical sciences C12 Public Health and Health Services D Agricultural sciences D01 Crop and Pasture Production E Social sciences E04 Policy and Political Science
Policy and Political Science plays a significant role in SSH Futures Top 10 linkages between futures research & social sciences (335 cases) Policy and Political Science 66% Studies in human society Economics Commerce, management, tourism and services Education Policy and Administration 34% 32% 26% 22% 21% Political Science Law, justice and law enforcement Demography Sociology 9% 8% 8% 7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Recognising key sub-areas in the foresight knowledge maps In a way, Social Sciences functions as the binder of research topics in foresight studies. This is quite the opposite with Humanities. A Natural sciences A04 Chemical Science (key broker) A06 Biological Science B Engineering & Technology B02 Industrial Biotechnology & Food Sciences B04 Manufacturing Engineering B09 Environmental Engineering (key broker) B10 Materials Engineering B11 Biomedical Engineering B12 Electrical and Electronic Engineering B13 Communications Technologies (key broker) C Medical sciences C01 Medicine General C05 Pharmacology & Pharmaceutical Sciences C12 Public Health & Health Services (key broker) D Agricultural sciences D01 Crop and Pasture Production (key broker) E Social sciences E01 Education E02 Economics E03 Commerce, management, tourism & services E04 Policy and Political Science (key broker) E05 Studies in human society
Linking outputs to EC FP7 research areas and Grand Challenges (GCs) 2009 2010 interviews Etc. interviews social networks blogs journals
recognising emerging and interdisciplinary issues iknow Oracle interconnecting knowledge (convergence-interdisciplinary) new research questions impact on Grand Challenges identification of problems identification of solutions relevance to FP7 research pattern recognition emerging issues informing policy possible futures Popper prototype (2009) sense-making www.iknowfutures.eu
Section 3: What is the role of SSH in futures research?
The role of SS&H in Futures Research / Foresight Areas with more than 100 interconnections E Social sciences E01 Education E02 Economics E03 Commerce, management, tourism & services E04 Policy and Political Science E05 Studies in human society E06 Behavioural and cognitive sciences E07 Law, justice and law enforcement F Humanities F01 Journalism and curatorial studies F02 The arts F03 Language and culture F04 History and archaeology F05 Philosophy and religion B Engineering & Technology
The role of SS&H in Futures Research / Foresight Areas with more than 75 interconnections E Social sciences E01 Education E02 Economics E03 Commerce, management, tourism & services E04 Policy and Political Science E05 Studies in human society E06 Behavioural and cognitive sciences E07 Law, justice and law enforcement F Humanities F01 Journalism and curatorial studies F02 The arts F03 Language and culture F04 History and archaeology F05 Philosophy and religion B Engineering & Technology A Natural sciences C Medical sciences
The role of SS&H in Futures Research / Foresight Areas with more than 50 interconnections E Social sciences E01 Education E02 Economics E03 Commerce, management, tourism & services E04 Policy and Political Science E05 Studies in human society E06 Behavioural and cognitive sciences E07 Law, justice and law enforcement F Humanities F01 Journalism and curatorial studies F02 The arts F03 Language and culture F04 History and archaeology F05 Philosophy and religion B A C D Engineering & Technology Natural sciences Medical sciences Agricultural sciences
The role of SS&H in Futures Research / Foresight Areas with more than 25 interconnections E Social sciences E01 Education E02 Economics E03 Commerce, management, tourism & services E04 Policy and Political Science E05 Studies in human society E06 Behavioural and cognitive sciences E07 Law, justice and law enforcement F Humanities F01 Journalism and curatorial studies F02 The arts F03 Language and culture F04 History and archaeology F05 Philosophy and religion B Engineering & Technology A Natural sciences C Medical sciences D Agricultural sciences F Humanities
Research areas Internat. Europe Latin A. North A. Asia Oceania 935 cases mapped 56 599 101 92 75 13 The role of SSH in Foresight is not only an European phenomenon. In particular, Latin America has much in common with Europe, and the role of SSH is one of those commonalities. Natural Sciences Mathematical science Information, computing and comm. science Physical science Chemical Science Earth Sciences Biological Sciences Engineering and technology Architecture, urban and building Industrial Biotechnology and Food Sciences Aerospace Engineering Manufacturing Engineering Chemical Engineering Resources Engineering Civil Engineering Geomatic Engineering Environmental Engineering Materials Engineering Biomedical Engineering Electrical and Electronic Engineering Communications Technologies Interdisciplinary Engineering Other Engineering and Technology Medical sciences Medicine general Immunology Medical Biochemistry and Clinical Chemistry Medical Microbiology Pharmacology and Pharmaceutical Sciences Medical Physiology Neurosciences Dentistry Optometry Clinical Sciences Nursing Public Health and Health Services Complementary/alternative Medicine Human Movement and Sports Science Other Medical and Health Sciences Agricultural sciences Crop and Pasture Production Horticulture Animal Production Veterinary Sciences Forestry Sciences Fisheries Sciences Land, Parks and Agriculture Management Other Agricultural, Veterinary and Env. Sciences Social sciences Education Economics Commerce, management, tourism and services Policy and Political Science Studies in human society Behavioural and cognitive sciences Law, justice and law enforcement Humanities Journalism and curatorial studies The arts Language and culture History and archaeology Philosophy and religion
Section 4: Final remarks and recommendations for the future of SSH
Final remarks (1/2) Research Areas A B C D E F A B Natural Sciences 79% 26% 27% 34% 6% Engineering & Technology 58% 21% 20% 32% 5% C Medical Sciences D Agricultural Sciences E Social Sciences Social Sciences 50% 56% 27% 54% 8% 55% 56% 29% 47% 10% 27% 35% 22% 19% 7% F Humanities 65% 65% 42% 50% 96% Research Areas A B C D E F A B Natural Sciences 79% 26% 27% 34% 6% Engineering & Technology 58% 21% 20% 32% 5% C Medical Sciences D Agricultural Sciences E Social Sciences Humanities 50% 56% 27% 54% 8% 55% 56% 29% 47% 10% 27% 35% 22% 19% 7% F Humanities 65% 65% 42% 50% 96% Social Sciences plays a vital role in futures research on Humanities (96%), an important role in foresight on Medical (54%) and Agricultural (47%) sciences, and a moderate role in foresight on Natural Sciences (34%) and Engineering and Technology (32%) Engineering and technology plays a moderate role in futures research on Social Sciences (35%) Humanities seems to play an insignificant (!) role in futures research on Social Sciences (7%) All research areas play an important role in futures research on Humanities (from 42% to 96%)
Final remarks (2/2) Social Sciences is the binder of most research topics in foresight Except for Behavioural and Cognitive Sciences and Law, Justice and Law Enforcement, most SS topics are highly interconnected with other areas of the Frascati taxonomy. The results highlight the cohesive role of foresight on sub-areas of the SS This is mainly because foresight projects are designed in such a way that, at some time in the process, linkages are established with the policy dimension or (using the Frascati terminology) with sub-area Policy and Political Science. This is quite the opposite with research within Humanities, which have the least salient links to other research topics.
Recommendations These findings suggest the need: 1. To promote futures research on Social Sciences areas, such as: behavioural and cognitive sciences and law, justice and law enforcement; and Humanities areas, such as: journalism, religion or history, for example. 2. To involve SSH researchers in activities aimed at informing and shaping foresight practices, for example: By challenging and enriching the relevance of research methods By continuously contextualising research processes and products 3. To inform SSH researchers, policy-makers and business communities about the role of SSH in futures research, such recognition could: increase the profile of SSH; increase the interdisciplinary nature of research, networking and co-operation; and help identify more coherent and bottom-up Grand Challenges by interconnecting knowledge from a wide range of domains.
References and further reading
References & further reading The Handbook of Technology Foresight (2008) Luke Georghiou, Jennifer Cassingena Harper, Michael Keenan, Ian Miles and Rafael Popper (Eds) EFP Mapping Foresight: Revealing how Europe and other world regions navigate into the future (2009) Rafael Popper Foresight, Volume 10, Number 6, 2008 Editors introduction to the European Foresight Monitoring Network Maurits Butter, Felix Brandes, Michael Keenan and Rafael Popper Comparing foresight style in six world regions Michael Keenan and Rafael Popper How are foresight methods selected? Rafael Popper
Thank you! Rafael Popper rafael.popper@manchester.ac.uk