IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v13y2004i3p143-153.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating a participative foresight process: ‘Futur - the German research dialogue’

Author

Listed:
  • Kerstin Cuhls
  • Luke Georghiou

Abstract

The paper describes the design and implementation of an evaluation of a participative foresight process, Futur — the German Research Dialogue. Futur aims to enrich the process of strategy development for research priorities by involving a broad array of actors in a combination of different instruments to develop ‘lead visions’. The process of a strategic intelligence exercise that combined elements of ex ante evaluation, technology assessment and foresight is summarised, along with key findings from the evaluation. The modified peer review approach employed to evaluate Futur was structured along lines of accountability to support a continuation decision and also had a learning orientation. This evaluation approach is contrasted with the ambitions of the process being evaluated, notably the emphasis upon stakeholder participation and transparency. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Kerstin Cuhls & Luke Georghiou, 2004. "Evaluating a participative foresight process: ‘Futur - the German research dialogue’," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 143-153, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:13:y:2004:i:3:p:143-153
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154404781776437
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ekaterina Makarova & Anna Sokolova, 2012. "Foresight Evaluation: Lessons from Project Management," HSE Working papers WP BRP 01/MAN/2012, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    2. Attila Havas & Doris Schartinger & Matthias Weber, 2010. "The impact of foresight on innovation policy-making: recent experiences and future perspectives," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 91-104, June.
    3. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Apreda, Riccardo & Fantoni, Gualtiero, 2020. "Expert biases in technology foresight. Why they are a problem and how to mitigate them," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    4. Maxim A. Afanasyev & Mario Cervantes & Dirk Meissner, 2014. "Towards FET Concept: Pathway To Evaluation Of Foresight Effectiveness, Efficiency And Validity," HSE Working papers WP BRP 31/STI/2014, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    5. Rhisiart, Martin & Jones-Evans, Dylan, 2016. "The impact of foresight on entrepreneurship: The Wales 2010 case study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 112-119.
    6. Mauksch, Stefanie & von der Gracht, Heiko A. & Gordon, Theodore J., 2020. "Who is an expert for foresight? A review of identification methods," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:13:y:2004:i:3:p:143-153. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.