No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Foresight for science and technology priority setting in Korea
Abstract
The main purpose of Technology Foresight (TF) in Korea is to predict the development of S&T and use the results in developing S&T policies. However, informing the public about what the future holds based on the development of S&T is an equally important role of TF. Since the introduction of the first TF in 1994, Korea has conducted four such studies. TF in Korea has become a key process in setting S&T policy, such as the Science and Technology Basic Plan (S&T Basic Plan). The S&T Basic Plan determines the national strategic technologies by ref lecting on future technology. The S&T Basic Plan is a mandatory legal planning process established every five years by the Korean government. It is the top-level policy document affecting S&T-related policy making in Korea. TF in Korea primarily utilizes the Delphi method. The third and fourth TFs have strengthened the links between S&T and society by determining future technologies capable of solving future needs. The fourth TF presented scenarios and special illustrations to show members of the public the future technologies and their implications for society. Additionally, the fourth round of TF analyzed the potential negative impacts of future technologies.
... In a recent review of 63 Delphi studies, de Loë et al. (2016) reported a huge range of panel sizes, from fewer than 10 up to > 1000. In the field of technology foresight, national-level surveys can involve many thousands of expert panellists, for example in Japan (2900 participants -NISTEP, 2009), The Republic of Korea (5450 participants - Choi and Choi, 2015) and China (nearly 3000 - Li et al., 2017). ...
... In practice, Delphi surveys often form part of a larger process, as can be seen in the national-level foresight exercises used for Future-oriented Technology Analysis (e.g. Choi and Choi, 2015;Cuhls et al., 2002;Georghiou, 1996;Gheorghiu et al., 2017;Li et al., 2017;NISTEP, 2009). In such cases, the results of the Delphi survey must be analysed and presented in a format appropriate for the subsequent steps in that process, which may include workshops (Georghiou, 1996), a scenarios exercise (Choi and Choi, 2015), roadmapping and/ or other methods. ...
... Choi and Choi, 2015;Cuhls et al., 2002;Georghiou, 1996;Gheorghiu et al., 2017;Li et al., 2017;NISTEP, 2009). In such cases, the results of the Delphi survey must be analysed and presented in a format appropriate for the subsequent steps in that process, which may include workshops (Georghiou, 1996), a scenarios exercise (Choi and Choi, 2015), roadmapping and/ or other methods. ...
This paper provides a practical, systematic approach to the design and delivery of a Delphi survey. We prescribe a sequence of six steps to do with (i) setting up the Delphi process – including selecting respondents and generating a requisite number of focal issues, (ii) software/delivery choice, (iii) developing question items and response scales, (iv) providing feedback between a requisite number of Delphi rounds, (v) preventing and dealing with panellist drop out, and (vi) analysing and presenting the Delphi yield. At each step, the Delphi administrator has a range of choice options and we provide discussion of the pros and cons of each option - in order that the overall design and delivery of a particular Delphi survey is both well-founded and defensible.
... For example, Ji Ho Hwang, Young Jun Kim, Soekho Son and Jongmin Han (2011) [3], M. Choi and H. Choi (2015), [4] describing the development of the Korean Foresight, emphasize the processes of scientific and technological developments transforming into state innovation policy. An important research institution in this field is the Korea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning Marcio de Miranda Santos (2015) (Centre of Science, Technology, and Innovation Strategic Studies and Management, Brazil) gives the priority to improving the diagnostics and monitoring of global and national science, technology and innovation [5]. ...
... For example, Ji Ho Hwang, Young Jun Kim, Soekho Son and Jongmin Han (2011) [3], M. Choi and H. Choi (2015), [4] describing the development of the Korean Foresight, emphasize the processes of scientific and technological developments transforming into state innovation policy. An important research institution in this field is the Korea Institute of Science and Technology Evaluation and Planning Marcio de Miranda Santos (2015) (Centre of Science, Technology, and Innovation Strategic Studies and Management, Brazil) gives the priority to improving the diagnostics and monitoring of global and national science, technology and innovation [5]. ...
The study is aimed at methods and foresight project technologies systematizing on the basis of international and Russian experience. The necessity of applying adaptable forecasting techniques when working out foresight projects of controlled objects' sustainable development has been substantiated. It has been concluded that objective and reliable forecasting of the development of economic, technological, ecological, social, political, cultural and other spheres of public activities is an extremely important resource of public administration enhancement and achievement of the goals of economic entities and the society as whole.
... It is regularly used in Korea as a part of Technology Foresight, which is a key process for identifying science and technology policy priorities. As part of the first technology foresight, they used the Delphi method to determine the importance of future technologies, their implementation time, and technological level (Choi and Choi, 2015). According to Kuusi (1999), it is important not to confuse the Delphi method with the opinion poll, because Delphi should aim to find relevant arguments concerning future developments. ...
... It is regularly used in Korea as a part of Technology Foresight, which is a key process for identifying science and technology policy priorities. As part of the first technology foresight, they used the Delphi method to determine the importance of future technologies, their implementation time, and technological level (Choi and Choi, 2015). According to Kuusi (1999), it is important not to confuse the Delphi method with the opinion poll, because Delphi should aim to find relevant arguments concerning future developments. ...
... • Framework para grandes projetos governamentais que envolvam tecnologias complexas (McDowall, 2012) em países em desenvolvimento Pretorius, 2022;Proskuryakova, 2017). • Nova abordagem de roadmapping para promover a criação e desenvolvimento de ecossistemas por agências públicas de inovação (Gomes et al., 2021;2009), para cooperações de P&D no setor público Choi, 2018;Sokolov;Chulok, 2016;Cho;Kim, 2016;Choi;Choi, 2015;Hwang;Han, 2011;Kostoff;Schaller, 2001;Philip, 1999) Fonte: Dos autores ...
... ژاپن مانند کشبورها از بعضبی م،نا این بر (Urashima, Yokoo, & Nagano, 2012) کره پ جنوبی ( Choi & Choi, 2015 ) روسببیه و ( • Hellstrom, T., Jacob, M., & Sjoo, K. (2017). From thematic to organizational prioritization: the challenges of implementing RDI priorities. ...
The purpose of this study is to present a future-oriented model for prioritizing S&T in accordance with Iran's needs. The data collection tools are interviews, questionnaires and documents. In this research, using the method of content analysis, factors affecting the prioritization of S&T were identified. After that, the national requirements of the initial model of prioritizing S&T were examined with the help of interviews with experts, the initial future-oriented S&T prioritization model in accordance with Iran's conditions was presented. After that, the model was validated with the help of an expert questionnaire and the experts confirmed the desirability of the model from the perspectives of accuracy, comprehensiveness and constraint, simplicity and ease, balance and balance, applicability, and finally innovation. The results show that this model includes four steps: " pre-prioritization", "determining the initial list of priorities", "identifying the priority space" and " future-oriented prioritizing ". Also, the components of this model include functional priorities in addition to thematic priorities, prioritizing based on non-economic approaches, no conflict of interests of individuals and institutions, no path dependency, vertical policy coordination, long-term approach, participatory, systemic, the use of quantitative methods of futures studies, qualitative methods and robust planning method.
... The main objective of technology foresight activities in Korea is to forecast the science and technology developments and use these results in creating science and technology policy and strategies (Choi & Choi, 2015). Table 13 (KISTEP, 2017). ...
In this thesis, information about technology foresight and cybersecurity is given through a detailed literature review and with the examples from all over the world. Two round Delphi survey, focus group, and scenario methods were mainly performed in order to develop Turkey’s national cybersecurity technology foresight. In the study, a new technology foresight model and framework created by the researcher and thesis supervisor were followed to keep up with an optimum approach. The thesis is concluded by the concrete policy suggestions based on the foresight outputs.
... Companies are increasingly engaging in collaborative innovation-development activities that frequently require partners with special competencies. Additionally, in this regard many companies are monitoring the global science, technology and innovation (STI) landscape in search of potential opportunities (Gokhberg and Meissner 2013; Cervantes and Meissner 2014;Choi and Choi 2015). The latter is commonly characterised as foresight activities conducted at different levels with the aim to remaining informed about potential STI developments and partners. ...
... The second goal was to increase the overall public funding of R&D and innovation. Third, all countries 35 tried to define technological priorities, but this often led to "bucket lists" of tens of overlapping and competing technologies supported and funded by different government agencies and difficulties in setting clear priorities (on Japan, see Stenberg and Nagano, 2009; on South Korea, see Choi and Choi, 2015). In Japan and South Korea, these formal policies and strategies were paralleled throughout the 1990s and 2000s by several administrative reforms of new public management influenced by Western best practices. ...
This article tackles two "how" questions of mission-oriented innovation policies in East Asia: How do these economies legitimize their mission-oriented innovation policies in the public discourse? and How do they create dynamic capabilities for implementing these policies? The article shows that although on the level of policy choices and design, the global-Western discourse has also entered the East Asian mission-oriented innovation policy rhetoric, this has not stopped the policymakers in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan from relying on old "developmentalist" logics for legitimizing these policies. This also influences actual policy implementation styles: as opposed to Western models of peripheral Schumpeterian agencies offering dynamic capabilities, the East Asian innovation bureaucracies seem to rely on more visible and "politicized" organizations for such capabilities. We also discuss the strengths and weaknesses of this model. © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Associazione ICC. All rights reserved.
Overcoming stagnation in the scientific and technological system or, more broadly, in the national innovation ecosystem, which can be described as “the right researchers in a faulty system”, implies, as a start, an analysis of the existing structure, status and roles of its key elements. Strategic and framework planning as a way to allocate resources and determine actions to achieve national or regional goals can be undermined if national policies on the legal and regulatory environment, improvements in physical and institutional infrastructure, support programs and funding mechanisms do not provide a push in the right direction or, moreover, it does not develop and implement a comprehensive framework for innovation. By analyzing the traditional aspects of the state and recent changes in the country’s scientific and educational system and relying on independent opinions and a survey of primary sources conducted in 2022, in the context of international experience, we identify its current values and the models that produce these values in a mixed economy.
In this paper, we investigate the effect of Delphi group size and opinion diversity on group members’ information load as well as on their overall experience of the Delphi process - in terms of task involvement (enjoyment and interest) and in terms of group sway (the influence and helpfulness of others’ rationales). For Delphi applications involving the exchange of rationales between participants, we found no evidence that group sizes of up to 19 participants cause information overload or de-motivation and disengagement of participants.
International cooperation in science, technology and innovation (STI) plays an increasingly significant role as it allows one to gain access to new knowledge, increase national competitiveness, jointly respond to Grand Challenges, and contribute to overall bilateral and multilateral political cooperation. International alliances aim to establish a win-win system of common STI priorities in order to coordinate their research efforts in a wider political context. Within such a system, individual countries have to use different policy instruments for achieving their own benefits via STI collaboration with foreign partners. The paper addresses the following research question: “How can quantitative analysis help better identify priorities for STI collaboration that provide additional benefits for a country participating in such work?”.
A set of common STI priorities for BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) has been identified based on the analysis of strategic, Foresight, and STI policy documents and expert consultations. It includes a number of STI areas with a wide range of practical applications. Additional quantitative analysis shows how an individual member country can build its cooperation strategy by selecting particular thematic areas and relevant instruments for STI collaboration.
This article presents a methodology for the selection of priorities for science and technology (S & T) cooperation among the BRICS countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa based on an analysis of international and national strategic documents of BRICS countries and a bibliometric analysis of joint publications by researchers from BRICS countries indexed in the Scopus database. The national S & T priorities for countries are systemized and a comparative assessment of capacities for S & T development in BRICS countries is developed. Indicators of publication activity of all BRICS countries have significantly increased since 2000. Analysis shows that Russia must pay particular attention to the development of cooperation with China, which is already one of the leaders on the global S & T stage. Cooperation with India, Brazil and, in some research areas, with South Africa could also have a positive impact on the performance of research and development in Russia. A list of 14 thematic priorities for S & T cooperation for BRICS countries is presented in the paper based on the analysis of a set of national, bilateral and multilateral strategic and forward-looking documents. Priorities of S & T development create a basis for more efficient and mutually beneficial cooperation between BRICS countries and allows individual scientists to broaden the range of research, use new tools for S & T cooperation and share best practices.
The article identifies how the combination of concepts drawn from foresight and foresight networks can be used to help open innovation. We found that foresight can support open innovation by providing analysis that looks at key open innovation questions such as those around technology selection, identifying future customer needs and scanning for disruptions. Foresight can also help open innovation address some of the challenges that have been identified in the open innovation literature as barriers to effective open innovation. Foresight has experience around obtaining access to appropriate external experts and their knowledge; making sense of the mass of information that can emerge through a more open process, both areas that the open innovation literature has identified as being challenges to effective open innovation. Finally, a concept explored in this paper, foresight networks offer’s open innovation new ideas in innovative collaboration forms and how they can be pivotal in innovation and in assisting open innovation.
Foresight, a science and art, that helps human beings to know the future events, opportunities, and threats and to wisely choose the optimal futures from among possible (exploratory) ones and to consider future as an uncertain and instable setting. Foresight is the process of developing a range of views of possible ways in which the future could develop, and understand these sufficiently well to be able to decide what decisions can be taken today to create the best possible tomorrow. Scientometrics addresses science measurement in different areas and its overall objective is measuring the creation, distribution and consumption of science both quantitatively and qualitatively. Both scientometrics and foresight are interdisciplinary and are quite similar in observing scientific activities, analyzing the trends, scientific prospective and predictions. Indeed, making use of foresight means taking action for making policies in order to realize an optimal future through which a number of other helpful results would be obtained: developing new networks and communications, goal-setting and enhancing the sense of shared commitment, publishing the information, and prioritizing the options and actions. In this paper, the authors try to examine and elaborate the mutual relationship between scientometrics and futurology in different scientific texts then they will discuss the status and role of scientometrics as a tool for foresight-related studies.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.