Comparing recent technology foresight studies in Korea and China: towards foresight‐minded governments?

Abstract

PurposeThis paper seeks to compare recent third generation technology foresight studies in South Korea and mainland China. Both studies were released in 2005.Design/methodology/approachReview of the foresight reports released by the Chinese and Korean governments (not available in English), interviews with the project leaders of foresight studies.FindingsChina is relatively behind Korea in the sophistication of its technology foresight methodology. Chinese foresight is second generation (technology focus) whereas Korea's is third generation (society focus). There is no example of policy up‐take of TF results in China so far but there was one very recent example in Korea. There was no private sector participation in using Chinese foresight results; however, there was limited participation in Korea. Foresight methodology should be generally enhanced.Practical implicationsA better link between policy‐making and foresight process is needed. This requires changes at both ends. Governance issues of foresight are addressed towards the end of the paper.Originality/valueOriginal, unpublished competitive paper for the ASIALICS 2006 International Conference, Shanghai, April 2006.

Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co-occurrence: a first look at journal papers in Technology Foresight

“…The German (Cuhls et al 1995) and British Technology Foresight (Loveridge et al 1995) were analyzed in order to prepare for the Austrian Delphi in 1997 (Wild and Torgersen 2000). In addition, some research has some international comparisons (Martin and Johnston 1999;Schlossstein and Park 2006;Keenan and Popper 2008) on Technology Foresight activities. The two-dimensional knowledge maps proposed in this study provide a quick way for international benchmarking or potential partnership identification.…”

“…territorial scale, foresight sponsors, participation scale, time horizon, target groups, domain coverage, methods used, and codified outputs, Gavigan and Scapolo (1999) discuss recent trends in public-administration-led foresight exercises from the perspective of how the choice of objectives and scope is reflected in the methods used. Schlossstein and Park (2006) compare Technology Foresight studies in Korea and China. Alsan and Oner (2003) proposed Integrated Foresight Management Model (IFM) to review national foresight studies to understand the nature of comparative national foresight studies.…”

“…Japan, Korea, etc. (Havas 2003;Saritas et al 2007;Yang et al 2004;NISTEP 2005;Schlossstein and Park 2006;Czaplicka-Kolarz et al 2009;Mu et al 2008).…”

Model of Technology Foresight: An innovative approach

“…(i) National and industry approaches to TF have been amply documented (see: [3], [4], [5], [6] to state a few). "During the early 1990s, technology foresight has become much more widespread.…”

Identifying and prioritizing the factors influencing the success of science and technology foresight in the field of economy

“…For several decades, this method has been used in public and private firms in various fields such as science, technology, culture, environment, etc. (Schlossstein & Park, 2006). Technology foresight is a systematic tool for scientific and technical research on the development of intelligence and experience of the transplant team, men's work and public institutions, which could have a profound influence on industrial competitiveness, wealth creation and quality of life (Becker, 2002).…”