The future revisited: Looking back at The next 25 years by the Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR)

Looking back at futures studies in the past (past futures) is perhaps the second nature of futures researchers. In this article we look back at a study that was conducted by the Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy in 1977. We considered it interesting to assess its value 25 years later since many changes have taken place in technology, society, economy, and in the science of futures research as well. From our analysis we have drawn the following conclusions: (1) instead of giving every topic the same time horizon more diverse time horizons should be included because of the different dynamics, (2) more attention for people and opinions outside the mainstream discourse, (3) more attention for thinking in multiple futures instead of predicting just one future outcome, (4) do not only look at the (possible) future of a specific topic, but assess if this topic in its whole will be relevant in the future important (meta-forecast), and (5) more attention for integrating topics for futures studies, but not fulfilling the impossible ambition to link everything to everything.     

Futurists and their schools: A response to Ziauddin Sardar's ‘the namesake’

A ‘futurist’ is the generic term for someone seriously engaged in the consideration of future conditions. ‘Futures research’ has a systems science orientation with a planning horizon in excess of 10 years. ‘Futures studies’ has a social science connotation and ‘foresight’ is the most popular term within the management science and corporate sectors. Five schools of futures researchers are defined: 1. Environmental and geosciences. 2. Infrastructure systems and engineering technology. 3. Social, political and economic science. 4. Human life, mind and information science. 5. Business and management science. The academic route to a futures qualification is outlined with a list of futures orientated organisations. The inclusion of urbanisation in the next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment, would involve replacing the notion of economic equilibrium by the concept of far-from-equilibrium stability. Finally futures research is described as an evolutionary science, which will possibly become integrated within complexity science by 2050.     

Predictions, past and present: World and Caribbean tourism

This paper argues that, given the complexity of the variables involved in tourism itself and the vast array of factors in the broader environment that can affect tourism, it is daring for anyone to try to predict the future of tourism, particularly on a regional scale, such as for the Caribbean. The paper begins with Burkart and Medlik's 1974 predictions about the future of global tourism, one of the first attempts to do so [A.J. Burkart, S. Medlik, Tourism: Past, Present, and Future, Heinemann, London, 1974]. When each of their predictions is evaluated in the current context, it is proposed that just over half of their predictions have come true. Given the vast number of knowns and unknowns affecting global tourism, their attempt was quite bold and instructive. A set of predictions concerning the future of Caribbean tourism is then presented, in an effort to demonstrate that predicting the future of tourism is akin to predicting the future of a “mess.”     

Researching the future: method or madness?

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 futures 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.

How does one research the future? The very notion of researching the future is a paradox. The word research lies within the time boundaries of the past and the present so to research the future appears a logical impossibility. Attempts to ground the methodology in any single paradigm or set of constructs proves a fruitless task. Indeed, it becomes apparent that when undertaking research into an area that is something new, in the future, which could constitute a new field of research, fundamentally a new methodology needs to be created. This paper discusses how the development of a futures methodology is an on-going process which cannot be bounded by the limitations of strict rigour, but is nevertheless a rigorously sound approach to carrying out research.

When researching the future, no one method is appropriate in isolation. While quantitative methods such as forecasting, extrapolation and time series may prove useful if there is raw numerical data to work with, a hypothesis cannot be tested and proven as is the case in many quantitative studies. Given the nature of ‘the future’ itself, raw quantitative analysis needs contextualising and interpreting in light of the assumptive future constructs, and the assumptions themselves need examining for ‘assumption drag’ so that underlying trends and wave patterns are accounted for [1].     

Learning ahead of time: how evaluation of foresight may add to increased trust,organizational learning and future oriented policy and strategy

Evaluation of futures research (foresight) consists of three elements: quality, success, and impact of a study. Futures research ought to be methodologically and professionally sound, should to a certain extent be accurate, and should have a degree of impact on strategic decision making and policy-making. However, in the case of futures studies, the one does not automatically lead to the other. Quality of method does not ensure success, just as quality and success do not guarantee impact. This article explores the new paths for understanding evaluating of futures studies that are provided by the various articles in this special issue and sets out an agenda for next steps with regard to evaluation of futures research. The more structural and systematic evaluation can result in an increased level of trust in futures research, which may in turn lead to more future oriented strategy, policy and decision making. Therefore, evaluation should be seen as more than a burden of accountability – albeit important as accountability is – but as an investment in the credibility and impact of the profession. It may set in motion a cycle of mutual learning that will not only improve the capacity of futures-researchers but will also enhance the capacity and likeliness of decision-makers to apply insight from futures research.     

New directions for futures research —setting the stage

Futures research is currently in a state of abeyance and may well be approaching a critical crossroad. In order to survive it needs to dispense with its tendency to be ‘all things to all people’, dealing with almost any activity that involves the future, and define for itself a unique and synthesizing role within a larger forecasting and planning framework. The primary focus of futures research in the next decade should be in the public sector where the need is greater, however a clear separation must be maintained between its advocacy (value-driven) activities and those that are conceptual and analytical.     

The ethnographic futures research method: An application to Thailand

Ethnographic Futures Research (EFR) is a method invented in 1976 which futures researchers employing a sociocultural approach can use with a sample of interviewees to elicit their perceptions and preferences among possible and probable alternative futures for their society and culture. EFR is an adaptation of the spirit and method of cultural anthropology and ethnography to the needs and constraints of futures research.     

Energy futures: Diversity and the need for assessment

In energy policy and energy research, decisions have to be made about the technologies and infrastructures that may be used to provide and distribute energy in future times, some of which are very distant. Frequently, energy futures such as predictions of the energy demand or energy scenarios are used for decision-support in this field. The diversity of energy futures, however, threatens any possibility for orientation, could lead to disorientation instead of helping more rational decision-making and could be used for ideological purpose. In this paper, we investigate concepts and approaches for scrutinizing, comparing and assessing the various energy futures from an epistemological point of view. Following the analysis of the structure of (energy) futures we will conclude that comparisons and assessments of energy futures should be made through processes of scrutiny and assessment, looking into the ingredients which have been used in constructing the respective futures, and into the process of their composition. Providing much more insight into the cognitive and normative structure of energy futures is required for allowing a more transparent and deliberative societal debate about future energy systems.     

Emerging pathways for critical futures research: Changing contexts and impacts of social theory

There has always been a critical, emancipatory tradition within futures studies. Although those voices can still be heard, there has been a growing tendency for futures studies to be driven by more utilitarian needs in business and government. Whilst it is positive that futures thinking and research is increasingly valued within corporate and policy-making settings, much of that work appears to lack genuine plurality of worldviews and interests.The paper traces the changing contexts for futures research over the past 25 years. It argues that futures research needs to be viewed as part of the re-politicisation – in the Habermasian sense – of technocratic decision-making. It suggests that there are three particular reasons for revisiting the need for criticality in futures research: the increasing acknowledgement of systemic interrelatedness (ecological, social, economic), a growth in the forward-looking socio-economic paradigm that permeates both business and policy, and the challenge of theory development. Drawing on social theory and futures research, we suggest three pathways for revived critical futures research: socio-technical practices, future-oriented dialectics, and socio-economic imaginaries. As a result, the paper calls for development in futures studies that would dialectically integrate and overcome the dichotomy between instrumentalisation and (critical) theorising that can be currently understood as somewhat antagonistic. In order to find a balance between these antagonistic dimensions, futures research should be more engaged in enabling critique and revealing assumptions and interests.     

Integral futures based on the paradigm approach

The study discusses the interpretation of integral futures in the context of paradigm. The dynamic matrix model of futures paradigm has been developed for carrying out meta-analysis of futures. As a result of meta-analysis integral futures and its new paradigms are defined by way of reconstructing futures paradigm history as responses to changing societal needs and through the outcomes of dynamic and comparative analysis of futures paradigms. The study sets the argument that integral futures: (a) is entering a new phase in development of futures that responds to societal demands for sustainability, democratic participation and continuous knowledge production and integration, (b) it is the phase of cooperation building between theoretical and practical futures, (c) it is the complementary development of co-evolutionary and participatory paradigms, and (d) it unfolds further research perspectives for futures.     

Futures-thinking and identity: Why “Futures Studies” is not a field, discipline, or discourse: a response to Ziauddin Sardar's ‘the namesake’

The term we use to describe the study or research of the future or futures is indeed important, and “futures studies” is preferable, although there is considerable dispute as to who and what is involved. Even more important is the far deeper problem of defining the “we” and what “we” in fact do. Futures studies not only considers wickedly complex problems, but it is itself a wicked entity, with many puzzles and contradictions. To illustrate, a taxonomy of 12 types of futurists, first articulated in 1985, is revisited, with special emphasis on the relative handful of Synoptic Generalists, the larger category of Specialized Futurists, the still larger entity of Futurized Specialists, and the largest entity of Closet Futurists who think about futures-often in a leading-edge way-but do not identify at all with futures studies, or are seen as futurists. Most contributors to Futures and other futures journals, as well as listees in the 2000 Futurist Directory, appear to have a secondary “futurist” identity at best. The fuzzy entity of “futures studies” is thus quite unlike any field or discipline, because it is easily entered by specialists who identify with the entity weakly, while many of the most important futures-thinkers are outside the entity. Instead of denying this paradox, the reality should be acknowledged, and an alterative paradigm for “futures studies” should be seriously considered.     

Causal layered analysis: Poststructuralism as method

Causal layered analysis is offered as a new futures research method. It utility is not in predicting the future but in creating transformative spaces for the creation of alternative futures. Causal layered analysis consists of four levels: the litany, social causes, discourse/worldview and myth/metaphor. The challenge is to conduct research that moves up and down these layers of analysis and thus is inclusive of different ways of knowing.     

The Namesake: Futures; futures studies; futurology; futuristic; foresight—What's in a name?

The term we used to describe the study of alternative futures is important. Disciplines and discourses do not emerge from a vacuum but have a history and a cultural context; and their names can hide as much as they reveal. This paper examines such terms as ‘futurology’ and ‘foresight’, and argues that to emphasise plurality and diversity the study of the future is best served by the moniker ‘futures studies’. It suggests that remembering the history of futures discourse is necessary to resolve the crisis of identity and meaning, and frequent fruitless reinvention, of the field. Finally, it presents Sardar's four laws of futures studies: futures studies are wicked (they deal largely with complex, interconnected problems), MAD (emphasise Mutually Assured Diversity), sceptical (question dominant axioms and assumptions) and futureless (bear fruit largely in the present).     

Assessing the future of futures studies in management

It can be observed that a growing number of German corporations are using futures studies and its methods in various ways. This evidence suggests that there is a strong ongoing interest in the field of management in futures studies. To assess how the future of futures studies might look like a Delphi study was carried out. The experts in this Delphi study were asked not only to state how futures studies are used in corporations but also what futures studies need to accomplish in order to find more acceptance.The Delphi study suggests that futures studies will become more important in German corporations. In particular, the improvement of methods like environmental scanning, trend research, trend monitoring, strategic early warning and the scenario technique were suggested. While the results of the Delphi study do not suggest that new methods are needed, implementation remains a major concern.     

Multiple pasts, converging presents, and alternative futures

This paper introduces a variant of scenario planning, supported by some related new concepts in futures studies. The traditional snapshot and chain portrayals of scenarios are replaced by a network, which enables the consideration of multiple views of the present and the past, occurring in multiple systems (e.g. global and local). A fractal “leaf of goals” metaphor is developed, illustrating the argument that activities, events and objectives lie on a continuum: any one event is itself a composite of an indefinite number of component events.Using this concept, network scenarios are developed, consisting of nodes (representing events) and links (representing influences). Because events are socially constructed, each node can be seen as an end-state summary of a smaller network scenario. The networks are created (typically in workshops with participants from the systems being studied) using modified versions of the futures wheel and backcasting, as well as a new variant entitled middlecasting. By working iteratively between past and future events, the networks are steadily refined.A further departure from conventional scenario planning is that scenario networks do not begin at the present time, but extend about as far into the past as they do into the future. By beginning in the past, the roots of network fragments can be identified more clearly in the context of their multiple presents.The method is illustrated with an example of a project to democratize public radio in Indonesia. A scenario network was successfully created, but the delineation of multiple pasts and presents turned out to need further clarification.     

Anticipatory action learning: conversations about the future

This paper proposes experimenting with anticipatory action learning for helping to create the future. It is an interactive process that relies strongly on a central thread of conversation among a variety of participants, from multiple perspectives, concerned with the social unit or project. Basically, anticipatory action learning is action research modified for foresight. It integrates research/search with decision and action, and downgrades the prerogative of a research elite, empowering all participants. Conversation allows meaning from a range of different worldviews to be shared and negotiated for studying, theorising and otherwise engaging the future—and more importantly, for helping to create it. Criteria are proposed for anticipatory action learning and procedural and administrative limitations are addressed.The visions we have about our own futures vary according to the mindset each of us stands in. It would be fascinating to compare the personally envisioned futures of everyone at an international meeting of futurists. Our futures should converge in some way where we share common interests as futurists, and diverge on the point of intercultural variety. But, would they differ from each other as widely as those of Aung San Suu Kyi and the Burmese generals?It would be even more telling to compare the range of alternative futures envisioned by world leaders with the visions of their constituents and especially, say, with the visions of a woman in Africa’s Central Lakes region and of the homeless in Osaka.In a similar way, the means of engaging the future in order to study it, and its uncertainties, and the way people think about it, are variously dependent on the mindsets of the scholars and researchers, and the realities they find themselves in. Methodologies of futures studies range across the predictable: from empirical quantitative projection (linear and non-linear); to qualitative interpretation and critical analysis; and to participatory action research or its associate, action learning.Then, futures studies differs according to the disciplinary framework of the researcher, whether in physics, ecology, complexity science, social science and the humanities, critical cultural theory or philosophy. Further, there is the division of the pragmatic and academic perspectives.Actually, the very fact of having a formal methodology is itself derived from a dominant civilisational and ethical perspective, mainly Western.There is another important distinction in futures studies. On the one hand, there is the perspective from which futurists research, analyse and critique the future, or more precisely what other people think and say about the future. On the other, there is the perspective from which people in the focal social unit may think and act to create their own futures.Then, acting to create a future poses at least two further distinctions depending on whether one believes the future is structurally preordained, or whether human interaction and intervention play a significant part.It is from the perspective of participative human agency acting to create one future or another, at least partially, that this paper proceeds.Before going further, let us address the question of whether future-creating can rightly be claimed to constitute the study of the future, or future studies. If it is not part of futures studies, then at least future-creating activity does rely on input from the field, the results of studying and reflecting on alternative options for the future—futures, plural. Whatever way we look at creating the future, as opposed to merely researching data about it, the activity does represent a fairly direct, personal engagement of the future, as much as anyone can do about a time–space that has yet to arrive. This is an important distinction, since many empirical futures studies do not so directly engage the future, well not personally. Rather, they examine stated opinions of others about future options, and other people’s preferences, emerging issues and the like, themselves all valuable activities.

If, as Michel Godet has said, ‘...the future is not written anywhere and has still to be built...’ [[1]], creating the future is a central activity which at least deserves full consideration by the field of futures studies, especially if it relies on the analysis and critique of data generated or accessed around the activity itself.

Integrating futures studies with organizational development: Design options for the scenario project ‘RWS2020’

Most futures studies are not used by managers and strategists and do not influence the direction of organizational development. Although the contribution of future studies to management is in theory all but self-evident, the practice in organizations is that futures knowledge is hardly used, or at most, is used selectively and strategically (‘politically’). This article acknowledges that gap and claims that it is a fundamental divide between to very different domains. However, out of that re-conceptualization of the relation between futures studies and management, a new direction for an integrated praxis arises. In an empirical case study, we show that by means of an intelligent process-design and professional balancing of several key-dilemmas, futures studies can be connected to management processes and organizational development. The future can be brought back into the everyday practice of management. However, in order to do so, the futures field needs to set aside some of its methodological claims and move towards the field of strategic management. Not because futurists need to abandon their specific knowledge and expertise, but to make the most of it.     

Metaphors in futures research

This special issue, as might be expected in a networked world, searching for proof that collaboration can work, is edited by four of us. It began with a conversation in 2014 over bland conference food in Helsinki between Osmo Kuusi, Matti Minkkinen and Sohail Inayatullah about the need to highlight metaphors in futures research. We noted that while extensively used, they remain inadequately theorized and lacking mindfulness. Further conversations between Inayatullah and Aleksandra Izgarjan focused the issue. We introduce the special issue with short openings by each one of us, theorizing in a biographical context. These are followed by a summary of the articles, essays, and reports, written by Minkkinen. Our intent is not just to focus on metaphors in futures research, but as well to see futures research as narrative-based itself: as not just describing reality and possibility but creating new worlds, on opening up of shared pathways.