Advertisement

Designing a Foresight Analysis Exercise on Audiences and Emerging Technologies: CEDAR’s Analytical-Intuitive Balance

  • Ranjana Das
  • Brita Ytre-Arne
  • David Mathieu
  • Miriam Stehling
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter presents the methodological foundations for a foresight analysis exercise, the findings of which are presented in this book. We do this through a detailed discussion of three distinct exercises in foresight methodology which were adapted to a critical academic purpose. We discuss our understanding of foresight and our reasons for conducting such an analysis. The chapter argues that the idea of systematic intuition has been important to this book, as we have strived for a balance between analysis and intuition, and for the network conducting this work to function as an intellectual hive-mind. The chapter goes on to present a detailed account of the exercises trend analysis, stakeholder consultations and horizon-scanning, to present the methodological framework for our approach.

References

  1. Ashton, K. (2009). That ‘internet of things’ thing. RFID Journal, 22(7), 97–114.Google Scholar
  2. Bjur, J., Bolin, G., & Nyre, L. (2014). The anticipated, co‐creative, and co-designed nature of researcher-stakeholder relationships: Building bridges with stakeholders. In G. Patriarche, H. Bilandzic, N. Carpentier, C. Ponte, K. C. Schrøder, & F. Zeller (Eds.), Building bridges. Pathways to a greater societal significance for audience research (pp. 14–29). COST Action IS0906. Brussels: s. n. Retrieved from http://www.cost-transforming-audiences.eu/node/1687.
  3. Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., & van Lente, H. (2006). The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(3–4), 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradfield, R., Wright, G., Burt, G., Cairns, G., & Van Der Heijden, K. (2005). The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning. Futures, 37(8), 795–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bronwen, G., & Gawler, M. (2005). Cross-cutting tool. Stakeholder analysis. World Wildlife Fund. Retrieved from https://intranet.panda.org/documents/folder.cfm?uFolderID=60976.
  6. Das, R. (2017). Audiences: A decade of transformations–reflections from the CEDAR network on emerging directions in audience analysis. Media, Culture and Society, 39(8), 1257–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Das, R., & Graefer, A. (2017). Provocative screens: Offended audiences in Britain and Germany. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Das, R., & Ytre-Arne, B. (2016). After the excitement: An introduction to the work of CEDAR. Participations, 13(1).Google Scholar
  9. Habermas, J. (1989 [1969]). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of Bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Jorge, A., Cardoso, D., Ponte, C., & Haddon, L. (2010). Stakeholders’ consultation 2: General report. EU Kids Online, London. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/42877/.
  11. Livingstone, S. (2005). On the relation between audiences and publics. In S. Livingstone (Ed.), Audiences and publics: When cultural engagement matters for the public sphere (pp. 17–41). Bristol: Intellect Books. ISBN 1841501298.Google Scholar
  12. Mansell, R. (2012). Imagining the internet: Communication, innovation, and governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Mathieu, D., Brites, M. J., Chimirri, N., & Saariketo, M. (2016). In dialogue with related fields of inquiry: The interdisciplinarity normativity and contextuality of audience research. Participations, 13(1), 462–475.Google Scholar
  14. Patriarche, G., Bilandzic, H., Carpentier, N., Ponte, C., Schrøder, K. C., & Zeller, F. (Eds.). (2014). Building bridges. Pathways to a greater societal significance for audience research. COST Action IS0906. Brussels: s. n. Retrieved from http://www.cost-transforming-audiences.eu/node/1687.
  15. van Notten, P. (2006). Scenario development: A typology of approaches. In OECD, Think scenario, rethink education (pp. 69–84). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ranjana Das
    • 1
  • Brita Ytre-Arne
    • 2
  • David Mathieu
    • 3
  • Miriam Stehling
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK
  2. 2.Department of Information Science and Media StudiesUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  3. 3.Department of Communication and ArtsRoskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark
  4. 4.Institut für MedienwissenschaftUniversity of TuebingenTuebingenGermany

Personalised recommendations