Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore responses of older workers and of managers to the call from the authorities to extend working life.

Data are from the Norwegian Senior Policy Barometer with interviews with samples of about 750 managers and 1,000 workers each year from 2003. There is no panel data.

Older workers increasingly prefer to extend their working career. The preferred age for exit has increased from 61 years in 2003 to 66 years in 2018. Managers seem less interested in expanding their older workforce. A majority of managers expressed quite positive conceptions of older workers' performance, but less often they liked to recruit older workers. As an average, managers told that they would hesitate to call in applicants above 58 years of age to job interviews. Age for hesitation is only moderately correlated (r = 0.29) to managers' beliefs about older workers’ performance at work. Thus, the managers' beliefs about older workers’ performance made only a small difference for their willingness to hire older workers.

The results suggest that counteracting stereotypes, prejudice and age discrimination in working life needs a broad approach, including attention to the affective component of ageism. For research, the measurement of the affective component needs consideration and further exploration.

The article brings data from a distinctive Norwegian context and approaches the rarely studied affective component of ageism in working life.

To analyze several complex issues which are being addressed by biotechnological research and identify possible solutions to some concrete problems.

The objectives are achieved by the use of detailed data and literature search, decision analysis, case studies and personal involvement in research conferences on this and closely related problem areas. The approach to the topic is critical and constructive based on own work and that of colleagues and other analysts.

Significant issues are waiting to be properly addressed in decision making within the field of modern biotechnology; this applies to the USA as well as Europe. However, controversies about insufficient risk assessments, inadequate risk management or ethical acceptability in different applications of biotechnology co‐exist with controversies about their needs. Technology, politics and values must be integrated. Inadequacies in decision making may be at least partly resolved by proper planning mechanisms, the use of think tanks and applied foresight analysis.

Better understanding of a more general problem, i.e. gaps in the framework in the introduction of biotechnology into the food sector must be pursued, as public reactions to this new technology and its usage will likely increase, as will fears associated with it. New ideas are needed. Future work must identify ways and means for assessment and evaluation of “think tanks” and their proper use if these are to be applied.

This paper will provide a very useful source of information on a complex and increasingly important subject for a target audience consisting of: decision makers in government, biotech companies, international and national experts, researchers and graduate students. It will broaden the practical understanding in the use of biotechnology.

The paper fulfils an identified information/resources need and offers insight and practical help to organizations and individuals involved with biotechnological research, applications and decision making.

The purpose of this paper is to examine and explain the role of foresight in government, while making an attempt to ascertain why foresight is both necessary and rare. The paper aims to identify main areas where foresight is needed as well as the constraints that it faces. It also aims to provide some prescriptions and recommendations for improving both system and process.

The methodology is based on case studies and literature search on futures/forecasting. Furthermore, analysis and observations are based on the author's own participation in different governmental and research environments; in several academic circles; within “think tanks” and on the international circuit (mostly at the UN, NATO, IAEA, IIASA and OECD) as well as within the Scandinavian scene.

Several methodologies and techniques that are identified here may allow people to help perceive, evaluate and control the effects of their actions, present as well as future. However, they have, so far, only been used spasmodically. One reason for this state of affairs is that the difference between “well‐structured” (normal) and “ill‐structured” (futures type)problems has not been properly identified or satisfactorily solved. The political system faces three major problems: the problem of competence; the problem of deliverability; and the problem of legitimacy. All of these can be helped by the understanding and application of proper foresight methods and techniques.

From the design/methodology point of view, this paper draws on the combined sources of international practice and theoretical implications. Its findings are easily comprehended and hence useful for their practical application for decision making on global as well as regional problems. The concept of fully “learning to unlearn” is of primary importance, as well as that of not “discounting the future”, for which several methods and techniques have been analyzed and suggested.