FUTURES Dealing with prognostic uncertainty (original) (raw)

Futures, 2007

How do professional futurists contend with prognostic uncertainty? There is an impressive body of medical-sociological research on how medical staff deals with uncertainty. We have used these insights to study patterns and manners in foresight practice that might not be evident otherwise. The question ''Do professional futurists use approaches to deal with uncertainty that resemble those of medical staff?'' is addressed by ongoing ethnographic research in Dutch foresight practice. The observed manners are grouped into four analytic categories: the construction of solidity, numeric discourse, communication habits and experience as anchor. In this paper, the construction of solidity and experience as anchor are described in detail. It is further more suggested that ''certainification'' is a possible upshot of these manners in use. r

Forward looking analysis: Investigating how individuals ‘do’ foresight and make sense of the future

Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2018

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the growing field of foresight process theory. Scanning the environment and assessing uncertainty are among the most important managerial activities in strategizing and decision-making. Although their significance in the strategy process is well documented, there is limited research on how uncertainty captured is analysed and interpreted by individuals without any formalised processes in order to anticipate the future. This paper examines how analysts from a professional service company, which specialises in forward-looking analysis, develop foresight, and how they determine the potential impact of their judgements. Within this in-depth inductive case study, firstly we explore forward-looking analysis as a foresight process. Secondly, we investigate how sensemaking takes place within forward-looking analysis. Thirdly, we advance the knowledge on the relationship between foresight and sensemaking; and specifically we show with empirical evidence that prospective sensemaking can be both 'future perfect' (Weickian) and 'future oriented' (post-Weickian).

Anticipation: The Discipline of Uncertainty

Futurists are haunted by an unresolved problem – how to deal with the unknowable and novelty rich future. Most futurists in the Association of Professional Futurists and elsewhere have accepted for some years now that prediction and probability are limited ways of thinking about the future. But knowing what does not work is not the same as knowing what does. The paradox of futures is that we can’t find ways to ‘know’ the future, but rather we need to find ways to live and act with not-knowing the future. This requires the discipline of anticipation (DOA).

Beyond the mundane: reconciling breadth and depth in futures enquiry

Futures, 2002

For some time there has been a need within Futures Studies (FS) to develop methods which go beyond the dominant empirical tradition. For many years there has been a near-exclusive emphasis on understanding the external world 'out there'. But as time has gone by, so it has become clear that our ability to understand the world 'out there' crucially depends on an underlying world of reference that is 'in here'. Understanding the near-future environment calls for a combination of 'inner' and 'outer' views which, for example, give as much credence to judgment as to calculation. This paper considers a way of considering these very different 'ways of knowing'. Overall, the aim is to go beyond what might be termed 'mundane' analysis, i.e. that which is preoccupied with surfaces, and to open out a broader arena for futures enquiry.

On inquiry in Futures and Foresight Science

2020

Two patterns of inquiry in futures and foresight science have been called into ques- tion, namely, the conflict of interest inherent in the practice of self-observation among facilitators and the inadequacy of retrospective scientific accounts by pro- ponents of their own methods. This is especially concerning as the broader manage- ment literature, in addition to numerous disciplinary areas, make the “practice turn,” which implies greater emphasis on enactment in practice, and therefore, greater scrutiny of the methods used to evaluate, examine, and explore those practices. In this piece, we reflect on the practice of inquiry in futures and foresight science. We fully and unambiguously acknowledge that there are many barriers to the empirical study, direct observation, and scholarly communication of futures and foresight prac- tices. We propose a “facilitator-observer” model of inquiry to obviate predictable critiques of futures research. One author facilitates; the other author observes. The fortunate upshot of this examination is insight associated with observing the enact- ment of ontology “in action” and a novel framework for the collaborative display of results that usefully differentiates the facilitator from the observer as authors. In the end, after sharing our inquiry practices, we recommend more analytical energy be devoted to reflecting on the conduct of science in futures and foresight in the widest sense. After all, our collective credibility is on the line in scientific circles beyond the close-knit futures community.

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