Final Report Summary - RIF (Research and Innovation Futures 2030: From explorative to transformative scenarios)
Executive Summary:
The RIF project aims to a) systematize knowledge on emerging patterns, trends and drivers of change in STI, b) provide an outlook on future developments in STI by way of transformative scenarios, c) identify and assess perspectives as well as potential for conflict and cooperation among stakeholders, and d) to identify key challenges to be addressed by policy if the overarching goals of a) moving towards more responsible modes of research and innovation (RRI), b) fostering the development of the European Research Area (ERA, and c) tackling Grand Challenges (GC) are to be achieved.
RIF focuses on the dynamics of change resulting from the interplay of developments within STI systems and in their societal context. It is based on the assumption that current trends and developments in STI are likely to give rise to tensions that need to be addressed if STI is to continue to play key role for society. These tensions may be tackled within the confines of current institutional settings, but may also require a substantial transformation of our STI systems as well as of our research and innovation practices.
Five such transformative scenarios have been developed in the RIF project, each sketching a different future image and rationale behind its dynamics:
• Scenario I: Open Research Platforms – self-governance in a networked decentralized research landscape
• Scenario II: Knowledge Parliaments – the free negotiation of knowledge claims world-wide
• Scenario III: Grand Challenges for Real – collective experimentation in socio-technical labs
• Scenario IV: Knowledge Value Chains – research for innovation in a specialized and stratified research landscape
• Scenario V: Researchers’ Choice - autonomous researchers go for creativity and wellbeing
The analysis of the perspectives, strategic issues and strategic options of stakeholders allowed identifying six main themes around which joint agendas and action plans could be formulated. Based on an assessment of the scenarios from a European policy perspective, several policy challenges were identified in association with these six main themes; challenges that need to be tackled if the future development of STI practices and institutions is to be in line with the three overarching policy goals of RRI, ERA and GC. The policy challenges are structured in terms of the following six strategic policy packages:
• Towards science with and for society
• Research 3.0 careers - new competences and commitments
• A distributed and diversified research funding landscape
• IPR and open access of knowledge
• Towards the governance of science infrastructures 3.0
• EU and national policies on globalized R&I futures
Project Context and Objectives:
1.2.1 Context
The issue of knowledge dynamics and knowledge production in society has concerned social scientists for almost 50 years. Starting in the 1960s, it was concerned with the social consequences of the then prevailing “big science” model (de Solla Price, 1963; Ravetz, 1971). This debate gained new momentum in the 1990ies, when a number of new concepts were developed to capture the new relationship between science and society in the shaping of the dynamics of knowledge production. Among the most influential of these concepts are, e.g. ‘Mode 2’ of knowledge production, post-normal science or the triple helix concept (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993; Gibbons, Limoges et al. 1994; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000). They have been looking for new patterns of knowledge production, but also for new ways to analyse the complexity of knowledge dynamics and the relationship of scientific knowledge production with other forms of knowledge production in society. These concepts allowed also reflecting on the status of different forms of knowledge production and their relation to the context of application.
Similar developments could be observed with regard to innovation, where system concepts stressed the importance of collaboration between science, industry and society for creating novel solutions (Smits, Kuhlmann and Shapira 2010). More recently, the role of users and competitors in innovation has attracted much attention, giving rise to concepts such as open innovation, open science, collective experimentation, or innovation communities (Gangy and Wasko, 2009; Chesbrough 2003; Joly, Rip et al. 2010). This new openness competes with interests to protect intellectual property.
In parallel to academic debates, knowledge production in society has also been changing in practice. Participatory models of decision-making have become more prominent in many countries since then, aiming to bring considerations of societal relevance more prominently to the fore, alongside with scientific validity, up to the point of regarding science as a commodity (Gibbons and Wittrock, 1985).
While these debates on the general relationship between science and society have continued and have seen ups and downs over the past decades, we can see first of all a growing attention to the blurring boundaries between and the mutual influence of external drivers of science and internal dynamics in the scientific fields. As an example, the role of future-orientation in the form of promises, concerns and expectation dynamics in science and society as affecting STI has been increasingly recognised (Borup et al., 2006), and the convergence of expectations is crucial for achieving 'mutual reflexivity' in the cooperation of scientists, social scientists/humanities scholars, engineers and societal stakeholders (Rip 2009) and in the cooperation within the wider actor network involved in science, technology and innovation (STI). Secondly, there is growing attention paid to the consequences for the institutional foundations of science and research (Geuna, 1999; Van Looy, Ranga et al. 2004). For instance, the entire debate about the re-organisation of universities, their autonomy and novel forms of monitoring university performance gives evidence of the pertinence of these debates.
The practical relevance of these debates is also mirrored in the intensity of current debates about the directions along the lines of which STI systems and organisations should evolve in the future. The controversial nature of these debates can also be observed in European policy debates. Whereas the early years of the millennium saw a strong emphasis on scientific excellence, the prominence of the notion of Grand Challenges in the recent debates about the Innovation Union Flagship Initiative foreshadows the need for a re-positioning of the role of science for society, with inevitable institutional consequences for research funding, priority-setting and new collaborative models between science, society and industry. This process of change will take place against the background of the still ongoing construction of the European Research Area that is changing the landscape of funding and performing research.
Taken together, these developments that have emerged over the past decades and have been re-invigorated in recent years both by developments within STI and by a changing socio-political context are likely to give rise to major tensions and changes in our STI systems. The focal issue of the RIF project has been to explore whether these developments and tensions can be absorbed within the existing institutional regime of knowledge production or whether a more fundamental transformation of our institutional set-up will be needed. To explore this issue, the best available academic and forward-looking expertise have been mobilized, as well as the perspectives of the stakeholders that could possibly be affected by such transformation.
1.2.2 Objectives
The project RIF – Research and Innovation Futures 2030 deals with future developments in our ways of doing and organizing research. More specifically, it pursues the following main objectives:
1. Systematize knowledge of the emerging patterns, trends and drivers of change of ways of doing and organising research in our knowledge societies.
2. Develop medium-term explorative scenarios of possible future models of doing and organising research in our knowledge societies at a time horizon 2020
3. Anticipate and assess possible challenges and tensions resulting from these scenarios
4. Develop long-term transformative scenarios of alternative development paths of the way we will do and organize research and innovation in our societies at a time horizon of about 2030
5. Identify policy issues and strategic options for the actors and stakeholders affected, as resulting from the two types of scenarios
Create an open debate between different communities contributing to knowledge dynamics from their respective perspectives and explore room for joint action.
1.2.3 Approach and methodology
In order to reach these objectives, we build on a conceptual framework for analysing transformative change in science and research which is based on a multi-level perspective that distinguishes between actual changes in a) research practices, b) institutional settings for organizing research, and c) the societal context, in which science and research are embedded, and which raises requirements with regard to what science and research are supposed to deliver.
In methodological terms, the RIF project takes a comprehensive stocktaking of forward-looking activities from Europe and worldwide, and an analysis of the most recent findings from academic research as its starting points. This serves as the basis for a two-stage participatory scenario development process, involving experts and stakeholders in science and research. Current and emerging trends provide the basis for sketching explorative scenarios in the mid-term (i.e. in our case 2020), and in particular tensions that are likely to emerge if current trends continue to unfold. In a second stage of scenario development these tensions are taking as a starting point for identifying possible triggers and mechanisms that could drive processes of more radical change in the longer term (i.e. 2030), which then are elaborated further into transformative scenarios. These transformative scenarios thus go beyond sketching future images, and look also into the transformative dynamics and pathways, and the actor constellations and positions that would be compatible with the transformations explored.
Figure 1: From trends and drivers to transformative scenarios
The transformative scenarios represent first of all the basis for the analysis of actor positions and possible strategic issues with regard to which coherence as well as conflict is possible among the different stakeholders. The normative dimension of scenario development is thus not addressed for a scenario as a whole (i.e. in terms of an overall assessment along different dimensions), but from the perspective of the different stakeholders who may regard some scenarios (or specific features of them) more desirable than others. This approach delivers a matrix of strategic issues around which negotiation processes may be needed to agree either on joint actions or on ways of handling potential conflicts.
As a second normative element, the transformative scenarios are also assessed from the perspective of major European policy goals, namely those related to (a) Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), (b) European Research Area (ERA), and (c) Grand Challenges (GC). Issues for government policy in particular can be extracted from this analysis by contrasting the current situation with the necessity to prepare for a range of possible transformative futures.
In operational terms, and in line with the creative nature of the entire process, the methodology relies on a series of participatory workshops involving stakeholders from different realms. A certain degree of continuity of participants was sought (and achieved), but balanced with the integration of some newcomers at each workshop.
More specifically, the methodology developed proceeds along five main phases, namely a stocktaking and explorative phase, a phase of developing transformative scenarios, a phase of exploring stakeholder perspective, a phase of assessing the transformative scenarios in the light of European policy goals, and a phase of developing insights for strategy and policy:
Figure 2: Overview of RIF methodology
Phase I: Stocktaking and explorative scenarios
- The initial stocktaking of current trends and developments serves the purpose of providing the most up-to-date information on ongoing changes in practices and context developments by analysing foresight documents and scientific literature. It feeds into a process of
- Explorative scenario development and the identification of medium-term tensions. The key point behind this approach is that we expect tensions to arise from the extrapolation of current trends. Hypes are often based on the simple extrapolation of currently novel developments, but as soon as they are superposed by other (extrapolated) trends, contradictions, tensions and other limiting factors are likely to arise. Such tensions, so we argue, can be interpreted as productive forces that may give rise to transformative scenarios.
Phase II: Transformative scenarios
- Moving from tensions to transformative scenarios is based on argument that the tensions serve as triggers that lead to a search for alternative pathways, including radical ones. Continuing along the lines of ongoing trends is not possible any more. Often specific triggering events may lead to the unfolding of new mechanisms of change, and ultimately to the emergence of transformative scenarios. Key to imagining transformative scenarios are plausible self-reinforcing mechanisms that enhance the dynamics of change. These transformative storylines are at the heart of the longer-term scenarios, which taken together, should ensure that the scenario space is sufficiently stretched to speak of radically transformative change processes, affecting all three levels of analysis considered, i.e. specific practices, organisational and institutional frames, and even the embedding of the phenomenon studied in society.
Phase III: Stakeholder perspectives
The challenge of this third phase consists of the anticipation of stakeholder positions and assessments in a context that is radically different from today’s. It is well known that it is difficult to make participants and stakeholders in a participatory workshop think about radically different worlds, but it was crucial to achieve this as part of our methodology.
- As a first step, participants were asked to specify their respective stakeholder positions with regard to the different scenarios, i.e. to identify advantages and disadvantages that these scenarios might bring about for them. This approach implies that the diversity of stakeholder positions is taken seriously; there is no overall assessment of the desirability or undesirability of scenarios made, but each stakeholder groups (i.e. in our work science, industry, policy, society) could formulate its respective perspectives and arguments. In particular in qualitatively different scenarios, it would be pretty useless to develop overall scenario assessments; a much more differentiated picture is needed to give justice to the diversity of openness of future perspectives; up to the point of imaging new stakeholders that are currently not yet affected by developments in the science and research system. Accepting this diversity of stakeholder perspective is more useful.
- The next step consisted of extracting and assessing strategic issues and options from the stakeholders’ perspective, i.e. issues around which they can make choices in each scenario, as well as the options associated to these issues that are available to each stakeholder. The main “issues” tend to be similar in all or most scenarios, but the options, and in particular the preferred options are likely to differ, as reflected in the stakeholder-specific assessment of options. The options available to a stakeholder for addressing a specific issue need to be assessed across scenarios. Given the high degree of diversity of options in transformative scenarios, it is quite difficult to find “robust” options for a stakeholder, i.e. options that would work out reasonably well across different scenarios. Adaptive options that are specific to some scenarios are more frequent.
Phase IV: Assessment of transformative scenarios with regard to European policy goals
In parallel to Phase III, a normative stance was taken in order to assess how the different transformative scenarios relate to over-arching policy goals, in particular those defined at European level. In the RIF project, three such goals have been stressed: (a) the strengthening of a more responsible mode of conducting research and innovation (RRI) ; (b) the development of an efficient, effective and well-resourced European Research Area (ERA); (c) the ability to address different types of Grand Challenges (GC).
In methodological terms, the following steps were pursued:
- An analysis of the implications that the different transformative scenarios raise with regard to a number of core dimensions likely to be relevant to the three aforementioned policy goals.
- This analysis forms the basis for a more focused assessment of the scenarios with regard to the three European policy goals, captured in terms of opportunities, limitations and strategic policy options at European level that the scenarios raise respectively.
- In order to complement the single-scenario assessment, a cross-scenario analysis has been conducted in order to identify strategic policy concerns in a robust manner, i.e. taking into account that different scenarios might be realized.
Phase V: Strategy and Policy
While the preceding steps of Phase 3 and 4 were focusing on individual stakeholders’ perspectives and the perspectives from a European policy angle, Phase 5 concentrates on strategic considerations of two kinds. First all, the stakeholder-specific options were analysed whether they offer the possibility to be made compatible with those of other stakeholders or not, i.e. whether there is scope for collaboration and/or conflict. This analysis also allows highlighting those issues that – from a cross-scenario perspective – appear to be most important to tackle in the future. The kinds of feasibility considerations are essential, if any of the scenarios is supposed to be realised. Second, the European policy perspective points to areas where policy action is needed, bother related to the issues highlighted in the stakeholder analysis and specifically with a view to ensuring that we move towards achieving the European policy goals associated to R&I. In concrete terms, the following steps were made:
- The compatibility analysis of options to point to issues on which cooperation is possible, or conflict likely. Conflict-prone matters will then require negotiations, trade-offs or policy choices to be made if the corresponding scenarios is to be realized.
- On this basis, strategies of cooperation and conflict were sketched for each scenario as well as across scenarios. The cooperative options were identified and possible coalitions of interest sketched for each transformative scenario. But also likely conflict lines were identified. Overall, this delivered packages of strategic options for each scenario, as seen from the stakeholder perspective. At a meta-level, it is possible to add some cross-scenario considerations regarding strategy, for instance along the lines of robust and adaptive strategies.
- While the assessment of the individual transformative scenarios has delivered a comparative assessment, the cross-scenario analysis allows pointing out robust as well as flexible or adaptive elements of a future R&I policy strategy that aims to balance the goal-oriented transformation of R&I practices and systems with the need to respect the inherent openness of the future of R&I. This leads to the formulation of six “robust” packages for strategic policy action, as well as some flexible options that take care of specific risks and opportunities in individual scenarios.
In this sense, the methodology sketched here elaborates on earlier attempts of adaptive foresight methodologies (Eriksson and Weber 2008), but here more attention is paid to the elaboration of how to deal with specific options of individual stakeholders or stakeholder groups in a context of rather extreme scenarios in scenario space.
Project Results:
1.2.1 Context
The issue of knowledge dynamics and knowledge production in society has concerned social scientists for almost 50 years. Starting in the 1960s, it was concerned with the social consequences of the then prevailing “big science” model (de Solla Price, 1963; Ravetz, 1971). This debate gained new momentum in the 1990ies, when a number of new concepts were developed to capture the new relationship between science and society in the shaping of the dynamics of knowledge production. Among the most influential of these concepts are, e.g. ‘Mode 2’ of knowledge production, post-normal science or the triple helix concept (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993; Gibbons, Limoges et al. 1994; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000). They have been looking for new patterns of knowledge production, but also for new ways to analyse the complexity of knowledge dynamics and the relationship of scientific knowledge production with other forms of knowledge production in society. These concepts allowed also reflecting on the status of different forms of knowledge production and their relation to the context of application.
Similar developments could be observed with regard to innovation, where system concepts stressed the importance of collaboration between science, industry and society for creating novel solutions (Smits, Kuhlmann and Shapira 2010). More recently, the role of users and competitors in innovation has attracted much attention, giving rise to concepts such as open innovation, open science, collective experimentation, or innovation communities (Gangy and Wasko, 2009; Chesbrough 2003; Joly, Rip et al. 2010). This new openness competes with interests to protect intellectual property.
In parallel to academic debates, knowledge production in society has also been changing in practice. Participatory models of decision-making have become more prominent in many countries since then, aiming to bring considerations of societal relevance more prominently to the fore, alongside with scientific validity, up to the point of regarding science as a commodity (Gibbons and Wittrock, 1985).
While these debates on the general relationship between science and society have continued and have seen ups and downs over the past decades, we can see first of all a growing attention to the blurring boundaries between and the mutual influence of external drivers of science and internal dynamics in the scientific fields. As an example, the role of future-orientation in the form of promises, concerns and expectation dynamics in science and society as affecting STI has been increasingly recognised (Borup et al., 2006), and the convergence of expectations is crucial for achieving 'mutual reflexivity' in the cooperation of scientists, social scientists/humanities scholars, engineers and societal stakeholders (Rip 2009) and in the cooperation within the wider actor network involved in science, technology and innovation (STI). Secondly, there is growing attention paid to the consequences for the institutional foundations of science and research (Geuna, 1999; Van Looy, Ranga et al. 2004). For instance, the entire debate about the re-organisation of universities, their autonomy and novel forms of monitoring university performance gives evidence of the pertinence of these debates.
The practical relevance of these debates is also mirrored in the intensity of current debates about the directions along the lines of which STI systems and organisations should evolve in the future. The controversial nature of these debates can also be observed in European policy debates. Whereas the early years of the millennium saw a strong emphasis on scientific excellence, the prominence of the notion of Grand Challenges in the recent debates about the Innovation Union Flagship Initiative foreshadows the need for a re-positioning of the role of science for society, with inevitable institutional consequences for research funding, priority-setting and new collaborative models between science, society and industry. This process of change will take place against the background of the still ongoing construction of the European Research Area that is changing the landscape of funding and performing research.
Taken together, these developments that have emerged over the past decades and have been re-invigorated in recent years both by developments within STI and by a changing socio-political context are likely to give rise to major tensions and changes in our STI systems. The focal issue of the RIF project has been to explore whether these developments and tensions can be absorbed within the existing institutional regime of knowledge production or whether a more fundamental transformation of our institutional set-up will be needed. To explore this issue, the best available academic and forward-looking expertise have been mobilized, as well as the perspectives of the stakeholders that could possibly be affected by such transformation.
1.2.2 Objectives
The project RIF – Research and Innovation Futures 2030 deals with future developments in our ways of doing and organizing research. More specifically, it pursues the following main objectives:
1. Systematize knowledge of the emerging patterns, trends and drivers of change of ways of doing and organising research in our knowledge societies.
2. Develop medium-term explorative scenarios of possible future models of doing and organising research in our knowledge societies at a time horizon 2020
3. Anticipate and assess possible challenges and tensions resulting from these scenarios
4. Develop long-term transformative scenarios of alternative development paths of the way we will do and organize research and innovation in our societies at a time horizon of about 2030
5. Identify policy issues and strategic options for the actors and stakeholders affected, as resulting from the two types of scenarios
Create an open debate between different communities contributing to knowledge dynamics from their respective perspectives and explore room for joint action.
1.2.3 Approach and methodology
In order to reach these objectives, we build on a conceptual framework for analysing transformative change in science and research which is based on a multi-level perspective that distinguishes between actual changes in a) research practices, b) institutional settings for organizing research, and c) the societal context, in which science and research are embedded, and which raises requirements with regard to what science and research are supposed to deliver.
In methodological terms, the RIF project takes a comprehensive stocktaking of forward-looking activities from Europe and worldwide, and an analysis of the most recent findings from academic research as its starting points. This serves as the basis for a two-stage participatory scenario development process, involving experts and stakeholders in science and research. Current and emerging trends provide the basis for sketching explorative scenarios in the mid-term (i.e. in our case 2020), and in particular tensions that are likely to emerge if current trends continue to unfold. In a second stage of scenario development these tensions are taking as a starting point for identifying possible triggers and mechanisms that could drive processes of more radical change in the longer term (i.e. 2030), which then are elaborated further into transformative scenarios. These transformative scenarios thus go beyond sketching future images, and look also into the transformative dynamics and pathways, and the actor constellations and positions that would be compatible with the transformations explored.
Figure 1: From trends and drivers to transformative scenarios
The transformative scenarios represent first of all the basis for the analysis of actor positions and possible strategic issues with regard to which coherence as well as conflict is possible among the different stakeholders. The normative dimension of scenario development is thus not addressed for a scenario as a whole (i.e. in terms of an overall assessment along different dimensions), but from the perspective of the different stakeholders who may regard some scenarios (or specific features of them) more desirable than others. This approach delivers a matrix of strategic issues around which negotiation processes may be needed to agree either on joint actions or on ways of handling potential conflicts.
As a second normative element, the transformative scenarios are also assessed from the perspective of major European policy goals, namely those related to (a) Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), (b) European Research Area (ERA), and (c) Grand Challenges (GC). Issues for government policy in particular can be extracted from this analysis by contrasting the current situation with the necessity to prepare for a range of possible transformative futures.
In operational terms, and in line with the creative nature of the entire process, the methodology relies on a series of participatory workshops involving stakeholders from different realms. A certain degree of continuity of participants was sought (and achieved), but balanced with the integration of some newcomers at each workshop.
More specifically, the methodology developed proceeds along five main phases, namely a stocktaking and explorative phase, a phase of developing transformative scenarios, a phase of exploring stakeholder perspective, a phase of assessing the transformative scenarios in the light of European policy goals, and a phase of developing insights for strategy and policy:
Figure 2: Overview of RIF methodology
Phase I: Stocktaking and explorative scenarios
- The initial stocktaking of current trends and developments serves the purpose of providing the most up-to-date information on ongoing changes in practices and context developments by analysing foresight documents and scientific literature. It feeds into a process of
- Explorative scenario development and the identification of medium-term tensions. The key point behind this approach is that we expect tensions to arise from the extrapolation of current trends. Hypes are often based on the simple extrapolation of currently novel developments, but as soon as they are superposed by other (extrapolated) trends, contradictions, tensions and other limiting factors are likely to arise. Such tensions, so we argue, can be interpreted as productive forces that may give rise to transformative scenarios.
Phase II: Transformative scenarios
- Moving from tensions to transformative scenarios is based on argument that the tensions serve as triggers that lead to a search for alternative pathways, including radical ones. Continuing along the lines of ongoing trends is not possible any more. Often specific triggering events may lead to the unfolding of new mechanisms of change, and ultimately to the emergence of transformative scenarios. Key to imagining transformative scenarios are plausible self-reinforcing mechanisms that enhance the dynamics of change. These transformative storylines are at the heart of the longer-term scenarios, which taken together, should ensure that the scenario space is sufficiently stretched to speak of radically transformative change processes, affecting all three levels of analysis considered, i.e. specific practices, organisational and institutional frames, and even the embedding of the phenomenon studied in society.
Phase III: Stakeholder perspectives
The challenge of this third phase consists of the anticipation of stakeholder positions and assessments in a context that is radically different from today’s. It is well known that it is difficult to make participants and stakeholders in a participatory workshop think about radically different worlds, but it was crucial to achieve this as part of our methodology.
- As a first step, participants were asked to specify their respective stakeholder positions with regard to the different scenarios, i.e. to identify advantages and disadvantages that these scenarios might bring about for them. This approach implies that the diversity of stakeholder positions is taken seriously; there is no overall assessment of the desirability or undesirability of scenarios made, but each stakeholder groups (i.e. in our work science, industry, policy, society) could formulate its respective perspectives and arguments. In particular in qualitatively different scenarios, it would be pretty useless to develop overall scenario assessments; a much more differentiated picture is needed to give justice to the diversity of openness of future perspectives; up to the point of imaging new stakeholders that are currently not yet affected by developments in the science and research system. Accepting this diversity of stakeholder perspective is more useful.
- The next step consisted of extracting and assessing strategic issues and options from the stakeholders’ perspective, i.e. issues around which they can make choices in each scenario, as well as the options associated to these issues that are available to each stakeholder. The main “issues” tend to be similar in all or most scenarios, but the options, and in particular the preferred options are likely to differ, as reflected in the stakeholder-specific assessment of options. The options available to a stakeholder for addressing a specific issue need to be assessed across scenarios. Given the high degree of diversity of options in transformative scenarios, it is quite difficult to find “robust” options for a stakeholder, i.e. options that would work out reasonably well across different scenarios. Adaptive options that are specific to some scenarios are more frequent.
Phase IV: Assessment of transformative scenarios with regard to European policy goals
In parallel to Phase III, a normative stance was taken in order to assess how the different transformative scenarios relate to over-arching policy goals, in particular those defined at European level. In the RIF project, three such goals have been stressed: (a) the strengthening of a more responsible mode of conducting research and innovation (RRI) ; (b) the development of an efficient, effective and well-resourced European Research Area (ERA); (c) the ability to address different types of Grand Challenges (GC).
In methodological terms, the following steps were pursued:
- An analysis of the implications that the different transformative scenarios raise with regard to a number of core dimensions likely to be relevant to the three aforementioned policy goals.
- This analysis forms the basis for a more focused assessment of the scenarios with regard to the three European policy goals, captured in terms of opportunities, limitations and strategic policy options at European level that the scenarios raise respectively.
- In order to complement the single-scenario assessment, a cross-scenario analysis has been conducted in order to identify strategic policy concerns in a robust manner, i.e. taking into account that different scenarios might be realized.
Phase V: Strategy and Policy
While the preceding steps of Phase 3 and 4 were focusing on individual stakeholders’ perspectives and the perspectives from a European policy angle, Phase 5 concentrates on strategic considerations of two kinds. First all, the stakeholder-specific options were analysed whether they offer the possibility to be made compatible with those of other stakeholders or not, i.e. whether there is scope for collaboration and/or conflict. This analysis also allows highlighting those issues that – from a cross-scenario perspective – appear to be most important to tackle in the future. The kinds of feasibility considerations are essential, if any of the scenarios is supposed to be realised. Second, the European policy perspective points to areas where policy action is needed, bother related to the issues highlighted in the stakeholder analysis and specifically with a view to ensuring that we move towards achieving the European policy goals associated to R&I. In concrete terms, the following steps were made:
- The compatibility analysis of options to point to issues on which cooperation is possible, or conflict likely. Conflict-prone matters will then require negotiations, trade-offs or policy choices to be made if the corresponding scenarios is to be realized.
- On this basis, strategies of cooperation and conflict were sketched for each scenario as well as across scenarios. The cooperative options were identified and possible coalitions of interest sketched for each transformative scenario. But also likely conflict lines were identified. Overall, this delivered packages of strategic options for each scenario, as seen from the stakeholder perspective. At a meta-level, it is possible to add some cross-scenario considerations regarding strategy, for instance along the lines of robust and adaptive strategies.
- While the assessment of the individual transformative scenarios has delivered a comparative assessment, the cross-scenario analysis allows pointing out robust as well as flexible or adaptive elements of a future R&I policy strategy that aims to balance the goal-oriented transformation of R&I practices and systems with the need to respect the inherent openness of the future of R&I. This leads to the formulation of six “robust” packages for strategic policy action, as well as some flexible options that take care of specific risks and opportunities in individual scenarios.
In this sense, the methodology sketched here elaborates on earlier attempts of adaptive foresight methodologies (Eriksson and Weber 2008), but here more attention is paid to the elaboration of how to deal with specific options of individual stakeholders or stakeholder groups in a context of rather extreme scenarios in scenario space.
Potential Impact:
2.1 Introduction
In recent years increasing attention has been paid to interaction between researchers and policy-makers in EU-funded projects. Tackling socio-economic challenges is a collective effort requiring effective communication from researchers to make research results and new ideas available to policy-makers. This effort is especially important in projects which have high socio-economic relevance.
It has been observed that the most effective way of communication is a dialogue between researchers and policy-makers (European Commission 2010). This dialogue with and engagement of the stakeholders should start in the beginning of the project and continue throughout the life-time of a project. By this way the stakeholders have a true interest to follow the project and use its results.
The RIF project follows this way of action. The stakeholder involvement has been built into the project from the very beginning especially via stakeholder participation in workshops which are integral part of the project and its knowledge formation. Communication is further supported by specific interactive web-platform targeted to stakeholder involvement.
In the following the strategy and implementation plan of the RIF is introduced in detail by starting with definition of relevant stakeholder groups and communication goals, followed by discussion of strategic level actions, their implementation and schedule for the actions.
2.2 Target groups and communication goals
The communication framework is challenging as it involves a number of various stakeholders from various organizations and from various national contexts to international policy environment. Each of them has specific interests and perspectives. The project is based on strong and continuous stakeholder involvement throughout its lifecycle as stakeholders are actively engaged all work packages. Active communication with stakeholders is at the heart of the RIF project.
The project has developed a specific approach to identify various stakeholder groups (UNIMAN / MIoIR). The approach is used to help to map the stakeholders systematically. Stakeholders can be defined e.g. as “individuals or groups that are or perceive themselves as being affected by or interested in the decision-making on a certain issue” (van der Kerkhof, 2001). Variables for stakeholder mapping include their power and influence, legitimacy and urgency of claims, sector, level of influence (national, EU, international), their legal and financial position, and centrality of actors in knowledge flows. On the basis of stakeholder analysis conducted in RIF the major stakeholder groups are:
• The policy formulation and coordination bodies; (E.g. relevant ministries and government agencies as well as advisory bodies set up to support policy-making on national and international levels)
• The academic and research community (E.g higher education institutions, public research institutions, virtual laboratories, special research groups, and think-tanks).
• The businesses; (Firms and ‘social entrepreneurs’).
• The civil society and NGOs (Citizens and their organizations, e.g. NGOs active in the areas of environmental protection, human rights, ethics in research, etc., user organisations, patients’ associations, open science and innovation movements and communities and citizen science activists, employment and labour unions as well as foundations and philanthropic bodies).
In addition, there are also groups that do not fit the above mentioned taxonomy due to their “hybrid” nature. Such stakeholder groups are at least intermediary organisations (facilitating links between research and industry) and joint research – industry ventures (e.g. joint Technology Initiatives, European Technology Platforms). In addition, the media as a specific stakeholder group should be mentioned. This includes both so called general media as well as media targeted e.g. to specific professional groups.
The overall communication goals for all the groups are:
• To build awareness for the future challenges and developments of the STI activity and their possibilities to pay attention to those aspects in their own work
• To make possible their engagement into and active contribution to discussions and scenario building processes
Specific targets and emphasis in communication (“spearhead” in addition to general communication) for each group should be:
• Policy-making and formulation: To ensure the availability of project results in policy-making. In communication policy relevant aspects of the results are emphasized. The future developments have major consequences for the policy-making and these aspects should be especially clarified in this group.
• Academic and research community: To make academic and research community more aware of the existing trends and especially of the aspects relevant for this group. The communication strategy is twofold. First, general communication of the results to the academic and research community. Second, academic communication and debate in academic journals.
• Business sector: Emphasis of the communication should be in issues which are especially relevant from the perspective of industrial and business related R&D like e.g. IPR issues.
• Civil society: Especially issues which relate to the role and position of civil society organizations in STI in the future.
• “Hybrid” groups: The communication should address the aspects which are relevant in each case. E.g. for intermediaries both trends in the academic and business research are of importance.
2.3 Strategy
The stakeholder groups are engaged to the project from the very beginning through workshop participation and by using web-pages to support participation.
The project organizes altogether 6 workshops, in which it is planned approximately 200 stakeholder representatives to participate (total number of participants). The essence of the project is in various workshops in which stakeholders are given an opportunity to participate in scenario-building and to assess them. At the same time participation enhances communication among key actors and their engagement in dialog with the project and future pathways of STI in Europe.
An additional medium for the multifaceted communication are the web-pages which are used for communication with stakeholders before and after workshops. Earlier there was a closed platform (required registration) for stakeholder communication, but due to less active participation, there was a need to find ways to support more active participation. From December 2012 onwards deliverables are made public and it is possible to comment them on the project’s public web-site. As it is easier to come to public pages than register to protected pages, the procedure is expected to encourage more active participation.
The project’s pages were established at www.rif2030.eu. in the spring 2012, and they involve all the essential information of the project including e.g. target, steps, schedule, people, and reports. The pages will involve also e.g. power point slides, interview clips and snapshots from workshops in order to disseminate major issues and discussions on the topics of the project in various forms and make the pages more attractive.
Other actions supporting dissemination are the following.
• A flyer and a brochure on project will be designed in order to address the general information needs. The flyer was delivered in the spring 2012. Brochure is meant to inform also of the results of the project and will be delivered in the spring 2013.
• A special issue of the results and topics relevant for RIF will be edited in the end of the project. The journal is Foresight.
• Basic “visibility” of the project is increased on country, regional and international level by informing interested stakeholders of the project and its results directly e.g. via e-mail newsletters.
• The project informs the press (press releases) on the results of the project.
• The project partners will actively participate in scientific conferences and write papers on issues related to RIF.
• The project is organizing a specific dissemination event in the end of the project: Policy brief event for policy-makers and stakeholders on the EU-level (participants from European, regional and national levels).
The project delivers at least three wp-related reports and in the end of the project the key results will be published in a synthetic form of a “Futures Brief”. All the reports are delivered to involved stakeholders already during the project. The final report and “Futures Brief” will be freely available to everybody. A press release is given on major trends in the end of the project.
Academic dissemination focuses on journal papers and conferences. Especially appropriate forums are STI-studies journals and conferences. Besides the Foresight journal mentioned above e.g. such journals as Science and Public Policy, Foresight, and The Journal of Higher Education can be mentioned. Examples of such conferences which are organized in year 2013 are EU-SPRI and Triple Helix conferences.
Attention is also paid to the way messages are delivered to each stakeholder group (previous chapter).
Collaboration possibilities are also sought with Vera-project (e.g. seminars, journal special issue). Vera (Forward Visions on the European Research Area) is an EU-funded project focusing on the future of ERA, and thus having thematic topic, which is close to RIF’s targets.
2.4 Action Plan and Timetable
For the effective implementation of the strategy the communication and dissemination issues have been largely concentrated into one WP, one organization (VTT) together with coordinator (AIT) bearing the main responsibility for planning and actions. The concrete actions and timetable for them are the following (with updated dates of execution).
Public website
Purpose To provide an easy access to project information, to inform stakeholders and wider public of project and its advancement, to deliver reports and working papers
Audience All the stakeholders and wider public
Schedule First version on-line in the mid-January 2012, final version during spring 2012, regular subsequent updates
Flyer
Purpose To provide general information of the project, to support the dissemination of information among stakeholders, public, and media. Short Information about the project for mass distribution to capture an audience´s attention.
Audience All the stakeholders and wider public
Schedule March 2012
Brochure
Purpose To provide detailed information of the project, to support the dissemination of information among stakeholders, public, and media.
Audience All the stakeholders and wider public
Schedule Spring 2013
Stock-taking review workshop
Purpose Exploration of results of stocktaking, validation, learning
Participants Key stakeholders from research, industry, civil society with experience in new forms of research; 20-25 participants
Schedule May 2012
Stocktaking report on results of FLAs and State-of-the-Art in research
Purpose To gather together existing research on changes in STI activity
Audience Stakeholders, academic community
Schedule June 2012
Scenario-building workshop
Purpose Scenario development
Participants Open source activists NGOs, community based research actors, TA/CTA/ELSA professionals, social entrepreneurs, research Councils, ESF, ERC, scientific publishers, ETPs, FP, JRC, RTOs and companies; 30 participants
Schedule June 2012
World cafe
Purpose Aims at elaborating the transformative scenarios
Participants 50 participants on the basis of earlier long-term (transformative) scenario work
Schedule October 2012
Modular Scenario Report: New ways of doing research: Pathways from exploration to transformation
Purpose To document the scenarios; provide in-depth information on the scenario storylines
Audience Stakeholders
Schedule Winter 2013
High-level stakeholder brainstorming workshop
Purpose Aims at identifying key policy issues and implications
Participants Representatives of research organisations, industries, society, and national and European RTI policy
Schedule March 2013
Strategic policy document on future scenarios for research and innovation policy, ERA development and Grand Challenges policies.
Purpose Summarizes the results and insights of the wp3
Audience Stakeholders
Schedule Spring 2013
Stakeholder workshop on strategic options
Purpose Aims to elicit and discuss the strategic options of different stakeholders in the context of the different scenarios
Participants 30 participants (policy makers, administration, research, industry, civil society from European and national level)
Schedule June 2013
Final report “Futures Brief”
Purpose Key results of the project in a synthetic form
Audience Stakeholders, wider public
Schedule January 2014
Final seminar for policy-makers and stakeholders
Purpose Dissemination of project results and further dialogue with stakeholders
Audience Policy-makers and stakeholders from EU and national levels
Schedule October 2013
Press release
Purpose Dissemination of project results
Audience National and European media
Schedule At the same time with policy brief event
Editing a special issue of a peer reviewed journal
Purpose Dissemination of project results
Audience Academic and research community
Schedule Forthcoming Autumn 2014
Papers in scientific conferences
Purpose Dissemination of project results
Audience Academic and research community
Schedule 2012-2014
Planned Papers and Conferences
During 2014 the project participants will present papers on various conferences including e.g. EU-Spri conference in Manchester and EASST conference in Torun in 2014. In both conferences a special session on future of research has been suggested by RIF coordinator. Some of the papers presented during the project have already been accepted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. Others, in particular those relating to the later work packages, are planned to be published in journal in the course of 2014/15.
Planned National Dissemination Events
Two national dissemination events are foreseen in the first half of 2014:
• Austria: AIT is organizing a seminar with the central funding agency and other stakeholders in March 2014.
• Finland: VTT is organizing a workshop with the major funding and policy organization in Finland in summer 2014.
List of Websites:
For further Information:
http://www.rif2030.eu
Project Coordinator:
Dr. Matthias Weber, Beatrice Rath
AIT Austrian Institute of Technology
Innovation Systems Department
Donau-City-Straße 1
1220 Vienna (Austria)
Email: Matthias.weber@ait.ac.at; Beatrice.rath@ait.ac.at
The RIF Project Team
AIT Austrian Institute of Technology
Matthias Weber, Karin Bichler, Petra Schaper-Rinkel, Wolfram Rhomberg, Beatrice Rath, Dana Wasserbacher
Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research
Lorenz Erdmann, Elna Schirrmeister, Philine Warnke
University of Twente
Kornelia Konrad, Stefan Kuhlmann, Gonzalo Ordenez, Peter Stegmaier and Ellen van Oost, Arie Rip
University of Manchester
Ozcan Saritas, Effie Amanatidou, Deborah Cox, Denis Loveridge
VTT
Mika Nieminen, Torsti Loikkanen, Riitta Nieminen-Sundell, Heli Järventie-Ahonen, Antti Pelkonen, Timo Tuomisto
