Search

As a particular subfield of futures studies, foresight evaluation has not yet been thoroughly studied. This paper investigates research on foresight evaluation, reviewing authors, articles, journals, topics, evaluative elements, and foresight frames. We analyzed 186 academic papers published over the past 30 years. The analysis shows that foresight evaluation, which originated in Europe and partly diffused to North America and Asia, is still an emerging discipline. Research on the evaluation of foresight has covered four topics: 1) Project for Policy, 2) Future Methodology, 3) Technology, and 4) Future Impact; studies in these areas show that there is currently no active research on topics other than technology. Each of these four topics encompasses traditional evaluative elements, such as impact and quality, but few studies reflect the hopeful element of learning. Also, the results of our analysis show that the predictive and planning frames are in high demand, while less predictable frames are not. This study elucidates the reasons behind the inactive state of foresight evaluation research. This paper argues that both researchers and decision-makers have an important role in overcoming this inertia and finding new paths for continuing the development of foresight evaluation. ● Investigates the research on foresight evaluation over the past 30 years. ● No currently active research on topics other than technology. ● Among the evaluative elements, quality and impact are more prevail than learning. ● Predictive and planning are more active than others among the six foresight frames. ● Suggest a new path for continuing the development of foresight evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]