FNR Foresight: Evaluating Phase 1 and Prospects for Phase 2 Dr. Michael Keenan PREST, University of

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 ST
  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 gt led to some
  misunderstanding
• Unrealistic expectations?

9
Challenges for Phases 2 and 3

• How to shift debates on what RD 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
atMichael.Keenan_at_manchester.ac.uk