Accommodating or compromising change? A story about ambitions and historic deterministic scenarios (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Field of Scenarios : fuzziness as a chance for building appealing future visions
2009
Although thinking about the future is probably as old as mankind, systematic approaches to studying the future with the aim of informing debate and decision-making are essentially a post WWII phenomenon. The first scenarios are developed in the 1950"s, by the US military administration, notably in the RAND Corporation around Herman Kahn. After the WWII and at the beginning of the Cold War, the context of uncertainty leads to a focus on strategic innovations such as, amongst others, new types of weapons. While the initial focus was on technological developments with potential implications for national security, futures studies also start to look at society or some constituent sector from the 1960"s on. A famous example is The Year 2000 by Kahn and Wiener (1967). Rapidly, the scenario techniques enter the business world. The first documented experience is lead by the Royal Dutch Shell Company, with among others Pierre Wack. With the improvement of the computer performance and the arising of environmental concerns, global systemic models are elaborated, as the famous World3 which lead to the publication of The limits to Growth by the Club of Rome in 1972. This work applies a global perspective to development: population growth, production, consumption, resource use and environmental impacts are modelled as a dynamic system with feedback links. The report was criticised as alarmism but had an important role for the emerging environmental movement. After a relative gap in the utilisation of futures studies techniques (notably due to the fact that the prediction of World 3 turned wrong) 1 , the oil shocks and the economic crisis, scenarios made their way back as a tool for strategy building in business organisations and as a tool for R&D (technological forecast) (Bradfield et al., 2005). In France, the school of La Prospective was developed by Berger, Godet and others because of the alledged shortcomings of traditional forecasting (predictions based on quantitative modelling). This prospective approach can be described as holistic, mainly qualitative and taking structural change into account; there is also a strong emphasis on human volition. Another interesting "tradition" is a strand of futures thinking that emphasizes the role of "images of the future" for the intentions and actions of man. Pioneering work by Polak (1973) inspired several others (e.g. Boulding(1988) and Ziegler (1991)) particularly based on the presumed potential of optimistic and utopian images ("visions") of the future to inspire dedicated action. Today, there is a rich variety of futures study approaches, reflecting different aims and interests and the characteristics of different fields of application. Among others, two types of exercises brought the scenario technique at the forefront in recent years. On the one hand, we can observe the production of global scenarios, whether issue-based, mainly explorative scenarios around climate change, water, etc. (IPCC, EEA, etc.) or integrated normative visions of the future (Great Transitions), and on the other hand more local scaled scenarios focusing on the potential of development of a specific region or city, or on specific sectoral issues. 1.2. Three modes of thinking about the future Situating the field of futures studies in the research field is not easy. In terms of practitioners as well as in terms of actual scenario approaches, one is confronted with a wide variety which Marien (2002) has characterized as "a very fuzzy multi-field" of "disconnected bits-and-pieces" which is "changing in character, along with technology, politics and culture". A great variety of terms is used in the field of futures studies: anticipating, projecting, planning, imagining, … Marien states that most futurists should describe their activity as exploring probable, possible and preferable futures and/or identifying past trends. There is conflict between the categories, however: scenario-spinners often shun attempts to forecast probable futures, those who look at probable and possible futures are often at odds with those who focus on preferred or normative futures, and those who look at trends often dissociate with other futurists. Also, the study of the future is conducted at a wide range of instances in society such as universities, special research institutes and as part of the work of authorities and companies. According to numerous authors (Amara, 1981; Dreborg, 2004; Börjeson et al., 2006), studies of the future basically range into three categories: those that explore respectively (i) probable futures, (ii) possible future and (iii) preferable future. These three different "future approaches" respond to three questions someone may ask about the future: "What will happen?", "What can happen?" and "How can a specific target be reached?" (Börjeson et al., 2006). In response, three corresponding classical or even archetypal "modes of thinking" have developed: the predictive, the explorative (or eventualities), and the normative (or visionary) mode of thinking (Dreborg, 2004). The predictive mode of thinking attempts to get an indication of what will happen by trying to find the most likely development in the future, in order to be better prepared. The explorative (or eventualities) mode of thinking is characterised by the openness to several possible events and different developments. The-strategic-purpose is to be better prepared to handle emerging situations with the idea that it is impossible to predict what will actually happen. The normative mode (or visionary) mode of thinking means to envisage how society or some sector or activity could be designed in a better way than its present mode of functioning. This mode of thinking suggests solutions to fundamental societal problems by taking normative goals into account and exploring the paths leading to these goals. The three modes of futures thinking identified are regarded as fundamental by several authors and this view is also maintained here; we believe these categories reflect three basically different modes of thinking about the future. They will not only serve as a basis to distinguish between different types of scenarios (see Why?-typology); to each of these modes, scenario methodologies will be related which are thus regarded as an elaborate way of utilising these modes of thinking (see How?-typology). Also, content-related items will be discussed along this line. 1.3. Scenarios Within the field of futures studies a lot of concepts appear which are quite contested: planning, foresight, vision, image of the future… One of the most basic, but also contested concepts in this field is "scenario". Early scenario developers such as Kahn and Wiener distinguish scenarios from alternative images of the future (Kahn & Wiener, 1967). Scenarios denoted a description of a future course of events, sequence of developments, often highlighting key events, decisions, or turning points (future history), whereas images of the future emphasize the final state, they describe a future set of circumstances, a portrait of the state of affairs (at a specified date or period). Nowadays both alternatives would be included under the heading of the scenario approach: some practitioners view scenarios as descriptions of possible future states, others as descriptions of future developments. Pioneer scenario developers such as Kahn and Wiener would also reject the use of scenario term in the case of predictive approaches. The fact that many practitioners use this term in a predictive sense leads us to keep a broad view on the scenario concept covering predictive approaches (based on e.g. trend extrapolation) as well as explorations of alternative futures (states as well as developments). In summary, it is impossible to univocally delineate the field of scenario-practice mainly because it is not always clear what is done and for what reason. In the following, we will try to give a tentative answer to these questions based on different "scenario-typologies". Several classifications or "typologies" of scenarios can be developed based on the questions Why?, How? and What? A first
Oxford University Press eBooks, 2002
Does history have to be only about the past? "History" refers to both a subject matter and a thought process. That thought process involves raising questions, marshalling evidence, discerning patterns in the evidence, writing narratives, and critiquing the narratives written by others. Whatever subject matter they study, all historians employ the thought process of historical thinking. What if historians were to extend the process of historical thinking into the subject matter domain of the future? Historians would breach one of our profession's most rigid disciplinary barriers. Very few historians venture predictions about the future, and those who do are viewed with skepticism by the profession at large. On methodological grounds, most historians reject as either impractical, quixotic, hubristic, or dangerous any effort to examine the past as a way to make predictions about the future. However, where at one time thinking about the future did mean making a scientifically-based prediction, futurists today are just as likely to think in terms of scenarios. Where a prediction is a definitive statement about what will be, scenarios are heuristic narratives that explore alternative plausibilities of what might be. Scenario writers, like historians, understand that surprise, contingency, and deviations from the trend line are the rule, not the exception; among scenario writers, context matters. The thought process of the scenario method shares many features with historical thinking. With only minimal intellectual adjustment, then, most professionally trained historians possess the necessary skills to write methodologically rigorous "histories of the future."
Futures, 2009
Reexamining and renewing theoretical underpinnings of the Futures field: A pressing and long-term challenge Futurists build and discuss statements on future states of affairs. When their work is challenged, they cannot defend ''what may come to be'' with robust forms of proof. They have no direct observation, can design no experiments, and cannot accumulate data sets. All the work, all the discussions of validity, have to rely on indirect reasoning based on current and past observations, experiments and data. Such reasoning is fragile and subject to considerable uncertainty. Ever since the field emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, futurists have been acutely aware of the special challenge this implies, including two most obvious consequences. First, even the most serious work is vulnerable to potentially devastating criticism. This has triggered an ongoing effort of theoretical justification that has accompanied the development of the Futures field. Second, in relation to this, sound methodology is crucially important to provide support when exploring such insecure ground as professional and academic speculation on possible futures. It is not surprising that methodology has constantly been one-and often thecentral concern of the field, sometimes to a point of excess. As early as 1980, Dé couflé could warn companion futurists against the urge ''to jump steps in the long and difficult progression towards the still hypothetical scientificity of conjectural work by displaying inappropriate complacency for issues of method''. Whether or not some futurists do 'jump steps', the Futures field has consistently shown much reflexivity on its theoretical foundations and its methodological procedures. However, the nature of the theoretical and methodological challenges to be addressed by such reflexivity changes over time. The doctrines, the methodological resources, the knowledge-base, the organisation of discussion in the field, that once provided the basis for successfully meeting the challenges of a given era may become inadequate or irrelevant if the context comes to change in a major way. Our argument in this special issue is that such a major change in the challenges that have to be met by our field is now well under way, calling for a major re-examination and renewal of the theoretical underpinnings of futures work. 1 Deepening and refining the diagnosis of the changing context of FS is of course one part of the task ahead of us. But to launch the effort, and show its necessity, let us just sketch a rough picture of the situation, by reviewing three important aspects of the development of the Futures field: (1) practical necessity and finalisation, (2) peculiarity and separation, and (3) methodology-based development. Confronted with strident criticism on the possibility and legitimacy of any serious study of future situations, the strongest argument put forward by many pioneers of the Futures field was that studying possible futures was necessary for action and decision-making. As expressed by Bertrand de Jouvenel (1964): ''One always foresees, without richness of data, without awareness of method, without critique nor cooperation. It is now urgent and important to give this individual and natural activity a cooperative, organised character, and submit it to growing demands of intellectual rigor''. This has proved a decisive basis for the development of the field, from the 1960s to the present day. It has led to a situation where most works on futures are legitimised through their connection to business management, to public decision-making, or both. The success of foresight in the recent years is an illustration of the strength of this covenant between futures methodology and the needs of long-term, strategic, management and policy. The downside of thus using the contribution to decision-making as the main theoretical justification and as the backbone of methodological design in futures work has been, and is now, a constant weakening of the effort to explore and develop other bases for theoretical foundation and methodological development. Although many such avenues have been opened, they have not been explored very far, because the evaluation of new methods has been based on their adequacy in serving studies designed for the preparation of decision-making, or of collective action. Futures 41 (2009) 67-70 1 In this discussion, we will envisage the Futures field in a very broad way, so that we will make no distinction between Foresight, Futures Studies (FS), and other denominations that periodically redefine the perimeter of professional and academic work on futures.
Researching the future: method or madness?
Futures, 2003
This paper examines the methodological issues behind futures studies, questioning whether it is possible to claim a futures study as methodologically 'sound'., and critiquing how futures methodology fits within the methodological paradigms currently recognised in the research field. The extent to which futures methodology can be considered a paradigm in its own right is also examined as are the assumptive foundations of future studies. While all the evidence raises many questions as to the form of futures methodology, the lack of clarity does not make a futures study invalid or unreliable, and hence sensemaking from the chaos of futures 'data' does ensure that futures studies can be based on method rather than madness.
Developing Frameworks forNew Theories in Futures Studies
The Futurist, 2011
Developing frameworks for new theories in Futures Studies (FS) has been a field of interest among the futurists. They usually make different efforts in finding new ways to deal with this interest. One of the reasons that made this sound as an increasing tendency is the enthusiasm of empowering contemporary FS so that it may be able to solve societies' today and tomorrow problems. This has been appeared as a growing need and has been reflected in many futurists' works in recent years. This article has discussed the need for improving futures thinking through establishing frameworks for new theories in FS.
About the History of Futures Studies
Handbook of Futures Studies, 2024
The chapter presents an overview of the history of Futures Studies and the main problems of periodization and defining the origin of the discipline. The history of Futures Studies is traced back to the early 20th century, when two distinct objects of analysis--prediction of the future and visions of the future--began to converge. Nevertheless, a direct filiation of mid-20th-century futurology from 19th-century positivism can be traced. Modern Futures Studies grew out of a move away from the naive approach of futurology and an understanding that there is no ontological symmetry between past and future. Nonetheless, the empirical-predictive component has never been completely overcome and continues to resurface even after the postmodern turn and the emergence of critical and normative approaches. While the 1960s and 1970s saw the institutionalization of Futures Studies, beginning in the 1980s the professionalization of futurists became the most prominent trend. This now risks bringing back the old polarization between positivists and declinists that lies at the origins of the discipline.
Implications of two new paradigms for futures studies
Futures, 2002
The paper considers the emergence of two recent perspectives in futures work. One is evolutionary futures studies. The other is critical futures studies. After describing aspects of each, the paper considers them as alternative rival paradigms in relation to criteria that include: the role of the human being as a subject, the role of interpretation and differences in methodological premises. It concludes that both have contributed to the development of futures methods but that a number of theoretical and methodological problems still remain unsolved.