Abstract
PurposeThe purpose of this article is to identify points of conceptual conflict between evidence‐based policy research and horizon (environmental) scanning.Design/methodology/approachThe paper begins with a brief history of foresight in UK government, then describes the current government context for horizon scanning. Next, it defines horizon scanning as a method; highlights the contradictions between horizon scanning and more traditional empirical research; and offers suggestions to improve the rigor of horizon scanning.FindingsIncreased focus on defining the rules for source identification and scan data validation can enhance credibility.Research limitations/implicationsCurrent horizon scanning work in the UK government suggests these methodological improvements, but proof will wait upon completion and deployment of several ongoing horizon scans.Practical implicationsProvides improved acceptability and dissemination of horizon scanning as a tool, as well as heightened engagement of policy‐makers, planners, and leaders with horizon scanning output.Originality/valueThere has been little previous work exploring the cultural constraints on adoption of horizon scanning within the evidence‐based polity context.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
