Networks and the future: A new methodological approach to envision and create the network society of tomorrow

This paper aims to illustrate how the combination of Network Analysis and Futures Studies becomes a powerful instrument for envisioning and analyzing futures and social change. The study of three cases shows network analysis becoming an analytical tool in futures studies while, at the same time, acquiring the dimension of change and dynamics steaming from the futurist perspective.     

Futures studies as a civilizational catalyst

By the early 21st century, Futures Studies (FS) had developed into a globe-spanning meta-discipline with a range of methodologies, a rich literature and a substantial knowledge base. A small, but growing, number of universities around the world provided advanced degrees in FS. Yet, in spite of the wide use of futures methods such as the Delphi technique, trend analysis and scenario planning in pursuit of corporate strategies, substantive futures perspectives focused on long-range civilizational concerns remained underdeveloped or absent within most organizations and environments. This paper considers the rise of FS during the 20th century, some implications for FS of what I have called the ‘civilizational challenge’ and a number of strategies that may be used to increase the take-up and effectiveness of futures work over coming decades. The paper takes the view that the ultimate goal of FS at this time is to help create the foundations of a new civilization.     

The implications,challenges and benefits of a complexity-orientated Futures Studies

Complexity science is increasingly cited as an essential component of a Futures Studies (FS) capable of assisting with the wide-ranging and complex societal problems of the 21st century. Yet, the exact implications of complexity science for FS remain somewhat opaque. This paper explicitly sets out the challenges for FS that arise from six complexity science concepts: (1) irreversibility of time (2) path dependence 3) sensitivity to initial conditions (4) emergence and systemness (5) attractor states (6) complex causation. The discussion highlights the implications of these challenges for FS tools such as horizon scanning and weak signals, and sets out the benefits of overcoming the challenges to create an explicitly complexity-orientated FS. The discussion concludes with a set of questions summarising the challenge for FS from complexity science with the aim of stimulating a discussion as to how they can be met. The concluding remarks make some initial suggestions in this regard.     

Futures studies in the 21st Century: a reality-based view

Futures-thinking in various ways may or may not be expanding. But it is clearly an ever-changing activity, and appears to be ever more fragmented by culture, subject matter, style, and ideology. ‘Futures Studies (FS)’ as a subset of this larger activity is highly problematic as a viable entity, due to seven disabling myths: that FS is a field, that futurists are generalists, that futurists are primarily ‘futurists’, that FS does what no one else does, that FS is generally understood and appreciated, that FS is static, and that FS is a community. In contrast to these idealized but unsupported myths, the world of futures-thinking is presented as it really is, based on the author’s preparation of over 20,000 abstracts of futures-relevant literature over the past 30 years. Underlying complexity and wide diversity are sketched in three synoptic charts on the six purposive categories of futures-thinking (and 115 different terms that have been used), 17 general topical categories, and 12 generic continua on which futures-thinkers can be located. Based on this complex and fuzzy reality, futures studies should embrace its distinctiveness and strive to be a horizontal field connecting all others—a visible, respected, and ever-renewing network of humble hubs for integrative ‘big picture’ thinking about trends and visions of probable, possible, and preferable futures. To attain this status in the decades ahead, FS must communicate a shared and frequently-revised vision, emphasize all six purposive categories (especially integration and questioning), develop a serious global information system (and use it), establish an academic presence at leading institutions, fight back against ignorant futurist-bashers, promote multiple excellences, engage in ‘second profession’ recruitment and training, and secure adequate funding. These actions are necessary for establishing any meaningful ‘futures studies’ community.     

The state of future in international relations

This paper elaborates the state of Future in International Relations from a comparative theoretical perspective with regard to the selected methodological tools of Futures Studies. It, first, looks into the development of International Relations and Futures Studies to point out, how their contextual, conceptual and epistemological similarities and dissimilarities emerged in due course. It, then, analyses to what extent the methodological differences between selected Futures Studies techniques (e.g. forecasting, trend analysis, Delphi, backcasting, causal layered analysis and integral futures approach) intersect with the conceptual and normative differences between contemporary theories of International Relations stemming from Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism, Post-structuralism, Normative Theory and Critical Theory. The paper characterizes the relevant futures techniques with reference to the theories of International Relations, and scrutinizes selected futuristic narratives of International Relations from a methodological perspective. It, then, elaborates how Futures Studies and International Relations can benefit from each other’s strengths in terms of their methodologies and assumptions. The article finally explores to what extent the promises of Futures Studies techniques conjure up a convergence between different theories of International Relations.     

Beyond the mundane: reconciling breadth and depth in futures enquiry

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.     

Food in the future: Does futures studies have a role to play?

Futures studies (FS) has not taken up food as a topic to any degree perhaps because of complexity, gender, urban bias, professional bias, cultural diversity, and fear. But there is a need and responsibility for FS scholars and practitioners to consider the growing and preparation of food in our work. Today's movements in food security, organic farming and Slowfood can direct us towards futures based in healthy, diverse, and joyful communities.     

From change to progress: critical spirituality and the futures of futures studies

This paper argues that for futures studies (FS) to have a future that is relevant to current shifts in meaning and consciousness, then it must incorporate into its methods and practices a sense of mystery founded on a critically spiritual sensibility. Critical spirituality redefines rationality and empiricism by including within their framework both the somatic and the meditative as valid and necessary components of any research activity. In the short term this means a shift away from the current Western obsession with change and a stepping back to allow for critical distance in order to understand that it is in the appreciation of progress — a fundamental shift in consciousness to include the spiritual dimensions of human experience — that discourse will emerge to take FS to the heart of civilisational renewal. In allowing for mystery, silence and the meditative empiricism required to access these categories, critical spirituality lessens the gap between thought and action and thus enables truly transformative academic practice to emerge.The idea of progress has been central to the unfolding of the modernist project over the previous century. Yet as the century drew to a close it became increasingly hard to keep faith with the idea in the face of growing disillusionment and the obvious failure of modernism to deliver what people most wanted: happiness born of personal fulfillment. A growing range of voices in the critical futures field have been questioning the assumption that change in material terms equates with progress.These voices fall into four main areas.

• Post modernist and post structuralist thinkers;

• Feminists empowering postmodern discourse with value laden analyses of power;

• Post colonial thinkers with a debt to neo-Marxist and critical theorists;

• Neo-humanist thinkers with an investment in all three of the above, who work from a critically spiritual perspective.

In this paper I am going to argue that a Neo-humanist vision of the futures of Futures Studies is one which will fully engage the human potential by activating a critically spiritual methodology. This is important as many of the tools of futures work are actually intended for use in anticipating and managing change (uncritically) but have little relevance when considering the nature of progress. Those methods and techniques which engage with the less analytic more visionary process of futures are much more relevant to progress because they actively involve the individuals in the act of ‘futures building’ as opposed to ‘futures scanning’.‘Progress’ here is used to mean fundamental change in the consciousness of both the individual and collective mind. It is essentially spiritual and has no clear temporal or spacial restrictions being timeless, or as Joanna Macy would have it, anchored in “deep time” [1]. Change, on the other hand, is very much associated with technical and material movement, having no connection with the inner fabric of the human psyche. There is no appreciation of spirit here, though great attention is paid to gross national product and the latest technical innovation to hit the market.Futures Studies has the potential to be responsive to future human dilemmas. But to be so it will need to make the effort to embrace tools and concepts that lie beyond the narrow pall of academic rationality as it is currently constituted. A greater space is already emerging within the field that not only tolerates but promotes imaginative and creative processes that break down the intellectual prudery of those who are attached to their own discipline and have little capacity to envision beyond narrow and self imposed confines. Thus we find music and song, poetry and story, art and theatre effective vehicles for work on deeper forms of consciousness. Visioning and imaging workshops such as those run by Joanna Macy, Elise Boulding, John Seed and Warren Ziegler (to name but a few) are growing in power and sophistication. Meditation and other reflective practices — the spiritual quest — seeking to plumb the depth of the human soul become relevant when seen within a broadened definition of rationality and research.Clearly futurists need to be able to assess and describe likely changes in the short, medium and long term but their central goal should be to facilitate areas of human endeavor which can benefit from a closer linkage between action, the consciousness that informs and directs the action and the spirit that underwrites the consciousness. Equally clear is the fact that not all futures trends are as relevant to this deeper layer of operation within Futures Studies.     

Prediction, explanation and the epistemology of future studies

This article is a contribution to the development of the epistemological foundations of Futures Studies. The article starts by presenting the conventional “covering-law” model asserting the symmetry between prediction and explanation, a model that continues to undermine the authority of Futures Studies as a discipline despite the fact that Logical Positivism, the epistemological paradigm that inspired it, is no longer dominant. Then the article outlines the fatal weaknesses of that model showing how out of its criticism emerges the prospect of a coherent and robust epistemology of prediction. Two major points are made: First that predictive argumentation is not demonstrative but merely evidential. Therefore formal logic argumentative structures of the “covering law” type are inadequate in giving a complete and accurate account of predictive argumentation and practice. If the nature of predictive arguments is evidential then the epistemology of prediction should be based not on mere formal logic but on a larger theory of argumentation. Second, the criticism illuminates the complex problem of the types of knowledge and information used in predictive arguments to build up evidence. Explicit and formalized knowledge and statistical evidence are not enough for a successful predictive procedure. Background information and personal, local and tacit knowledge play a surprisingly major role in predictive arguments and procedures and that has very important epistemological consequences.One of the most challenging difficulties Futures Studies had to face since its inception as a discipline has been the fact that in an era dominated by the legacy of Logical Positivism the Futures Studies project seemed epistemologically odd and not quite matching the rigid standards of scientific investigation imposed by the mainstream Positivist cannon. In spite of its impressive advances in theory, methodology and applications, the shadow cast on it by the fact that it was epistemologically suspicious to the philosophic mainstream undermined a good deal of its credibility and authority as a discipline. Even in the wake of the retreat of Positivism as a dominant paradigm the situation in this respect remained frustratingly dysfunctional. Thus there is no surprise that many preeminent scholars in the field argued that an epistemology of Futures Studies was long overdue and that given the current intellectual circumstances, the effort of developing it came to represent one of the major priorities of the field at this point [1, 9, 14 and 15]. Futures Studies had to establish its epistemological credentials in a clear and robust way and thus to claim its clout and legitimacy undermined by Logical Positivism in front of the scholarly community.Undoubtedly the main source of the damage done by Logical Positivism to the epistemological foundations of Futures Studies was neither the rigid methodology implied by it nor its ultra-empiricism but its widely accepted and influential theory of explanation. The crux of that theory is that explaining and predicting events are logically and methodologically identical. It is true that positivists were interested in developing a theory of explanation and not of prediction but due to the alleged logical symmetry between the two, a complete and analogous theory of prediction emerged in a natural way by implication from the theory of explanation. This model and the relationship between prediction and explanation implied by it have raised to dominance and become the backbone of epistemology and the theory of sciences for a couple of decades. The problem is that the account it has given to both explanation and prediction is incomplete and in many respects harmful to the explanatory and predictive practice. By tying the two too close together in a rigid conceptual framework it has arbitrarily constrained their domains and undermined the epistemological legitimacy of many of the methods, practices and approaches associated to them.In the case of explanation, the model, while adequate for many important types of scientific explanations is not at all applicable to all scientific domains. It is definitely not a complete account of explanation and the consequences of the straightjacket it has imposed to scientific inquiry are appreciable. Imposing prediction as a fundamental concept and criteria for explanation the positivist epistemological model sets standards that many disciplines could never achieve by their very nature. As such they were arbitrary relegated outside the proper domain of science. The result was an unnecessary long and painful debate in all the disciplines affected by that demarcation criterion, a sterile debate that rages to this day in, for instance, political science or sociology.But the impact of the model on prediction was even worse. The spread of the belief in the identity of predictive and explanatory scientific procedures undermined at a fundamental level the efforts to reflect on the nature and potentialities of predictive procedures different from those used for explanation. The legacy of this state of affairs continues to be felt very strongly in Futures Studies. Nevertheless it is interesting to stress that doesn’t happen due to the embrace of the positivist model by the discipline. Familiar with the complexities of future oriented thinking, Futures scholars never took the model seriously. But outside the sphere of its own theorists and practitioners, the Futures Studies field has been still perceived through the epistemological lenses shaped by the positivist model. The truth is that the legitimacy and status of Futures Studies rest with the position the field manages to validate for itself in the mainstream epistemological and scientific methodology forum. And the reality is that the epistemological asymmetry between explanation and prediction has not been adequately recognized and considered outside the field in epistemology or social theory, and that the Futures Studies scholars haven’t made and drawn that distinction convincingly enough.The discussion of the specific methodology of prediction—a theme that with very few exceptions has been neglected by the philosophers of science themselves—failed to enter the mainstream epistemological and philosophy of knowledge debates. And the crucial obstacle to that development continues to be the myth reigning in mainstream social sciences that explanation and prediction are or should be symmetrical processes. It is interesting to note that disentangling the models of predictions from those of explanation, and making the case for a solid epistemological argument remains today a priority for the futures research community as it was 30 years ago. In a path-breaking article written in 1964 Hellmer and Rescher wrote: “As long as one believes that explanation and prediction are strict methodological counterparts, it is reasonable to press further with solely the explanatory problems of a discipline, in the expectation that only the tools thus forged will then be usable for predictive purposes. But once this belief is rejected, the problem of a specifically predictive method arises, and it becomes pertinent to investigate the possibilities of predictive procedures autonomous of those used for explanation” [5].During the last decades Futures Studies made important progress in theory, methodology and applications. But it is still to make a convincing case to gain epistemological legitimacy outside its own field. The task is clear: translating into the mainstream’s epistemological terms the insights gained by the discipline and placing them within the ongoing debates in philosophy of science and theory of knowledge. That effort and the epistemological battle for the future and status of the field are even more urgent today when the place of logical positivism is filled by a number of scattered approaches that may lead to a broader and more realistic view of explanation but that continue to neglect the issue of prediction. Thus in spite of the change of the climate of philosophical opinion, the prediction issue is in danger of remaining strongly tied in its entanglement with explanation, and to unwittingly carry on the legacy of the positivist model.Therefore it is even more important today to disentangle the theory of prediction from the theory of explanation and thus to contribute to the elaboration of a strong case for an autonomous and specific epistemology for Futures Studies. This paper is a contribution to this effort of carving a firm epistemological ground for Futures Studies. As such it continues by presenting the classical model of the symmetry between prediction and explanation and then outlines its fatal weaknesses showing how out of its criticism emerges the possibility of a coherent, robust, original and very interesting epistemology of prediction. All these are done being aware of the fact that the epistemology of Futures Studies could not be reduced to a mere extension of a theory of prediction and that themes such as conditionals, counterfactuals and scenario-related analytic narratives that carry on their own epistemological load are as important as prediction is. However given he external perception of Futures Studies, a perception that is defined and shaped by the notion of prediction, the issue of prediction should be addressed with priority.     

Foresight defined as a component of Strategic Management

This paper explores basic theoretical affinities between Foresight and Futures and Strategic Management, arguing that at this point in its development, Foresight can best be understood and deployed as an explicitly managerial discipline.The growth of Foresight and Futures Studies as a discipline has been less robust than the internal logic of the field would predict, potentially indicating an opportunity for theoretical renewal. Foresight is often justified on managerial grounds, with the argument that a discipline is needed to guide decision-making in a technologically aggressive, post-industrial society. Some within Foresight and Futures Studies have argued for the active development of alternatives to these managerial justifications. However, the links between Strategic Management and Futures Studies are robust and the embrace of cross-disciplinary dialogue has proven invigorating in some other disciplines. An evaluation of the goals and logic of Foresight from the standpoint of mainstream Strategic Management gives a novel perspective on the field, highlighting its importance to information processing. Finally, Foresight speaks to well-established normative problems with short-term biases in managerial contexts. For the purposes of this article, the terms “Foresight” and “Futures Studies” are used interchangeably to refer to the general study of futures.     

Managing a sphere of influence: WFSF and its institutional members

The World Futures Studies Federation has nearly seventy Institutional Members from around the world. Combined, Institutional Members' day-to-day endeavors span an assortment of professional, academic, governmental and research areas. The activity and visibility of the Institutional Members was informally monitored during a nine-month period in 2002-2003 which resulted in a strong impression that, despite abundant access to Institutional Members, the WFSF is underutilizing its sphere of influence. The WFSF should initiate a strategy of outreach to Institutional Members that maximizes relationships and is mutually beneficial for everyone involved in the organization. The basis of this outreach should be focused on fulfilling WFSF's stated mission to promote Futures Studies and awareness for the future. WFSF is also strongly committed to promoting democracy, which must also underlie any effort in this context. In addition to the internal state of affairs there needs to be consideration of trends and current conditions outside the field of Futures Studies. By examining four scenarios this essay suggests ways in which WFSF can anticipate the future and increase its impact.     

Futures Studies in Iran: Learning through trial and error

Futures Studies is a recent addition to the academic/intellectual/policy making life in Iran. Despite the fact that publication/launch dates of the first books/research projects on Futures Studies go back to few decades ago, it is only in the past few years that promotion of this discipline has gained momentum. Our aim in this paper is to present an overview of the development of Futures Studies in Iran since 1960s. We briefly explore the history of Futures Studies in Iran and explain why it has taken a technocratic line, as opposed to other possibilities (e.g. corporatist, environmentalists, citizen visioning (anticipatory democracy), etc.). In particular, we present an analysis of an ongoing and comprehensive foresight project whose objective is to provide Iranian top decision makers with a set of scenarios concerning future developments in a number of areas of science and technology until 2025. The main argument of the paper is that in response to the demands made by the policymakers, Iranian scholars, academics and technologists are trying to equip themselves with the latest techniques and know how for long-term planning and vision-building. However, due to various limitations the ride has not been an easy one. To overcome the obstacles, those who are at the forefront of developing indigenous versions of technological and theoretical aspects of Futures Studies have resorted to the method of trial and error and learning through doing. The paper critically examines the weaknesses and points of strength of this approach in the context of Iran.     

Transcending flatland: Implications of Ken Wilber's meta-narrative for futures studies

The Western futures project was originally founded on empiricist notions of prediction, forecasting and control. While other approaches to futures work, other traditions and ways of knowing, have certainly become established, the early framing of Futures Studies arguably occurred out of this broadly reductionist framework—what Wilber has since termed `flatland'. As a result, current ideologies such as: economic growth, globalisation, the pre-eminence accorded to science and technology, and `man's conquest of nature'—were insufficiently problematised. Technology-led views of the future remain influential within Futures Studies, bureaucratic thinking and popular culture. In this view, the future is less open than it might be because it is seen merely as an extension of the present. Critical Futures Studies question such assumptions. The paper explores how the work of this leading transpersonal synthesist can contribute both to a broadening and deepening of Futures Studies and thus help to activate cultural options that are presently obscured.     

WTI crude oil Futures in portfolio diversification: The time-to-maturity effect

The aim of the paper is to analyze the diversification effect brought by crude oil Futures contracts, the most liquid commodity Futures, into a portfolio of stocks. The studies that have documented the very low- and essentially negative-correlations between commodities and equities typically rely on normally distributed returns, which is not the case for crude oil Futures and stocks indexes. Moreover, the particular time-to-maturity chosen for the Future contract used as an investment vehicle is an important matter that needs to be addressed, in presence of forward curves switching between backwardation and contango shapes.Our goal in this paper is twofold: (a) we introduce copula functions to have a better representation of the dependence structure of oil Futures with equity indexes; (b) using this copula representation, we are able to analyze in a precise manner the “maturity effect” in the choice of crude oil Future contract with respect to its diversification benefits. Our finding is that, in the case of distant maturities Futures, e.g., 18 months, the negative correlation effect is more pronounced whether stock prices increase or decrease. This property has the merit to avoid the hurdles of a frequent roll over while being quite desirable in the current trendless equity markets. Empirical evidence is exhibited on a database comprising the NYMEX WTI crude oil Futures and S&P 500 index over a 15 year-time period.     

The past and the possible futures of Futures Studies: Some thoughts on Ziauddin Sardar's ‘the namesake’

The need to explain the concepts and terms used in Futures Studies, as in other sciences, has existed for a long time. But the necessity to do so has increased since the Second World War and is clearly important in recent debates among different groups involved in the field. This article traces the historical timeline of some of these terms in relation to the social and cultural contexts in which they were coined and first used. It argues that concepts and terms used in Futures Studies are mainly of Western origin and suggests that research should be conducted in different social and cultural contexts for concepts and terms embedded, and possibly used, in cultures different from that of the West. The article also suggests that some sort of ‘liberation movement’ should be started in this direction.     

A vision of futures studies

The article looks at futures studies from the point of view of the author who has spent over 30 years in the field, with special reference to the World Futures Studies Federation. It suggests that visions are essential for conducting futures studies and education in futures studies is vital for preparing future oriented new generations. The author points out that around the world women are developing silent alternatives to the present societies geared to conflict and violence; this may lead to non-violent changes of which many are not aware. Futures studies will also benefit from examining futures of cultures as we seem to be developing a new culture of peace.     

Dogs don't bark at parked cars

The following essay, by the Past President of the World Futures Studies Federation (WFSF), was presented as the Opening Keynote Address to the WFSF World Conference ‘Coherence and Chaos in our Uncommon Futures’, Turku, Finland, 23 August 1993.     

Extending the perimeter of reflexive debate on futures research: An open framework

Theoretical and methodological crossover between the field of Futures Studies and environmental research has proven instrumental in understanding environmental long-term dynamics. However, the scale taken today by studies and research on such dynamics creates a new challenge for futurists and environmental scientists, as many set patterns of thought or research in both communities will have to be re-examined. For futurists, it will be necessary to go beyond attempts to standardize Futures Studies methods. The alternative is to promote theoretical and methodological reflexion within the rapidly expanding life-size (and not workshop size) fora of scholarly and policy debate. It will also mean overcoming the regime of metonymical hustle whereby once and again, a new school of thought tries to redefine the entire field and reduce it to its own purpose, concepts and toolkit. This paper proposes an “open” framework as a guide for each study on futures to make explicit the specific and fundamental choices it rests on. It is meant as an invitation to step back and consider new beginnings in a workspace open to the widest possible diversity and scale of approaches, as will be necessary if studies on futures are to rise to the challenges of research for sustainable development.     

Beyond epistemological pluralism: Towards an integrated vision of the future

This paper is a response to Epistemological Pluralism in Futures Studies, featured as a special edition of Futures (42:2). Since that special edition was a response to Integral Futures, a previous special edition of Futures (40:2), this paper begins with a treatment of some of the critiques of IF, as well as the critiques of Ken Wilber and integral theory. I examine the validity of those critiques, focusing in particular on the accuracy of the “portraits” given of Ken Wilber and his contribution to integral theory. I also examine the claims of “epistemological pluralism” to determine whether it is a more appropriate framework for futures inquiry and practice. In this consideration, I treat epistemological pluralism (devoid of an “integrating” theory) as an expression of skeptical postmodernism. Finally, I conclude with a historical overview of integral theory.     

Eleonora Masini: Nurturing visions of the future

This profile is an overview of the remarkable career of Eleonora Barbieri Masini, the mother of Futures Studies, who dedicated her professional life to nurturing hopeful visions of the future. She was a leading proponent for studying the future and a reviewer of the field. An Italian sociologist, Masini was first influenced by French thinkers, then by the advocacy of Aurelio Peccei, co-founder of the Club of Rome, with whom she became a close friend. During the change swirling around her beloved Europe, as it struggled for post-war reconstruction, she helped establish the World Futures Studies Federation, taking this global network of futurists behind the Iron Curtain and into the developing world. She was always on the move, particularly seeking out and encouraging women to take seriously their special role in both envisioning and creating the future. Her own hope for the future, which she held against the tide, helped lift her beyond a bleak present.