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.     

The brain, the mind, and societal and cultural learning: the emergence of a new paradigm of futures research

Research reveals that historical episodes of societal and cultural change have always been mediated by out groups which seek direct experience of reality and the personal transformation it entrains. The strictly rationalist model of cultural change used in Futures Research is out of step with this fact. A new model of cultural change is proposed and its implications for Futures Research discussed. The main implications are: Futures Research should be layered, in the sense that the various levels of mental modality should be made explicit in any piece of research; the dynamics of interaction between these layers needs to be explored: a complete Futures program would combine analysis of the inner lives of humans with scientific and social scientific data.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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: From individual to social capacity

Futures study is not yet well established at the social level. Given the unstable conditions of the late 20th century, and the challenging outlook of the early 21st, this is a serious oversight. The article considers how futures studies can be progressively developed through five distinct layers, or levels. First is the natural capacity of the human brain/mind system to envisage a range of futures. Second, is the clarifying, enlivening and motivating role of futures concepts and ideas. Third are analytic gains provided by futures tools and methods. Fourth are a range of practical and intellectual applications, or contexts. When each of these levels functions in a coordinated way, grounds for the emergence of futures studies at the social level can clearly be seen. The article concludes with a brief summary of a preferred future which would arguably be within reach if futures studies were to progress along such a path from individual to social capacity.     

European management: Steering the future towards the present

This article examines European management methods. While acknowledging that particular countries' cultural bedrock should be taken into account in attempting to change management style, the transformation of the economic, social and cultural contexts represented by the single European market may enable the future to be a guiding support in contributing to modifying firms' and public authorities' systems of relations and organization.     

School, images of the futures and social processes in classrooms

Futures studies express a deep concern for the negative effect school education has on young people's images of the future and their proactive attitude to the future. Here, images are regarded as cultural maps and the article attempts to outline a model of interaction in the classroom, which may be useful for understanding how school practices affect images.Given the cultural perspective on images, the analysis focuses on the social processes that organise the creation, negotiation, and distribution of cultural inventories in the classroom, including the meanings and meaningful expressions about future.

Whenever a culture is understood to be a collective phenomenon, it needs a sociology. When this sociology is left implicit, the danger is greater than it is a weak sociology.Ulf Hannerz

     

The evolution of futures in school education

School education seems to be mostly stuck in an outdated industrial era worldview, unable to sufficiently address the significance and increasing rapidity of changes to humanity that are upon us. An integrated forward-looking view should, now more than ever, be of central importance in how we educate. Yet there is little sign that—unlike corporations—school systems are recognising the true value of futures studies. A brief history of futures in school education shows the significant role played by the World Futures Studies Federation in its evolution to date. The article also introduces integral analysis as a way of opening up new possibilities to help school education develop due foresight and to more fully realise its potential as a prime facilitator in individual and cultural evolution.     

An Integral extension of causal layered analysis

Causal layered analysis (CLA) is a futures method developed by Sohail Inayatullah and since applied by numerous futurists across multiple content areas. The central assumption of CLA is that there are different levels of reality and ways of knowing; beneath the popular conceptions of an issue (the litany) and more academic analysis of systemic causes are deep worldview commitments, discourses, myths and metaphors. This layered understanding of reality initially seems to resonate with ideas from Ken Wilber's Integral Theory, which identifies developmental levels across behavioural, social, psychological and cultural quadrants. On closer inspection, there are some important theoretical and conceptual differences between CLA and Integral Theory; from an Integral perspective, the layers in CLA confuse quadrants, developmental levels and developmental lines. In this paper, I explore these differences in search of a resolution that will allow the fruitful application of CLA within an Integral Futures framework. I find that CLA, as currently conceived, is not an Integral method in its own right. However, CLA has great value for Integral Futures work as a way of drawing attention to the neglected cultural dimension of futures. Further, with some modifications and extensions, a more Integral application of CLA seems possible.     

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.     

Theme: Whole of government accounting— international trends

This article reconstructs the literature on corporate turnaround in terms of its recurring features. It then tests these against the experience of four very different cases of the turnaround or attempted turnaround of public and non-profit organizations. It concludes that while some concepts from the corporate literature usefully highlight important aspects, other critical complicating features of what is needed to achieve a turnaround in public and non-profit contexts would be overlooked or poorly treated if the situation were considered simply in these terms. These complicating features deserve the attention both of practitioners and researchers.     

What's Different About Public and Non-Profit 'Turnaround'?

This article reconstructs the literature on corporate turnaround in terms of its recurring features. It then tests these against the experience of four very different cases of the turnaround or attempted turnaround of public and non-profit organizations. It concludes that while some concepts from the corporate literature usefully highlight important aspects, other critical complicating features of what is needed to achieve a turnaround in public and non-profit contexts would be overlooked or poorly treated if the situation were considered simply in these terms. These complicating features deserve the attention both of practitioners and researchers.     

The first WFSF Asia—Pacific course: the futures of development

Is development theory dead? It seems to be, if the thinking of some young people at a futures course in Bangkok is any indication. The course, ‘The futures of development: historical roots, present trends and alternative futures’, was held in Bangkok 23–30 August 1992 by the World Futures Studies Federation (WFSF), with sponsorship from UNESCO and the Communication Centre of the Queensland University of Technology, Australia.     

Solving the futures challenge - all you need is a 3LA

In this article, the author responds to a number of claims regarding the Integral Operating System, Causal Layered Analysis and the field of Futures. In particular, the author takes aim at those who claim that the reason the futures field has been lacking in influencing change towards more positive world is the result of not having an effective tool kit. To the contrary, the author suggests that the Futures community's failure at changing the existing ‘market driven paradigm’ has more to do with “… an unwillingness to get our hands dirty and to play in the same sandbox as our clients.” To that end the author targets in particular, a piece suggesting that making the Causal Layered Analysis more complex, exclusionary and ‘new and improved’ is the best way to make inroads into the economic liberalism model now in control. In counterpoint the author suggests that not only is this a flawed approach, it is unlikely to assist those with greatest need - the wider Futures Community.     

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.     

Internationalisation and a post-development vision

The best futures concepts are simple and can be taken up by many people to help create much-needed shifts in perception.[1]However, the change process is not easy. Futures concepts and techniques continue to challenge my thinking and my work in the professional development of academic staff. From a basis in multicultural education and cross-cultural curriculum development, this article explores some issues of internationalisation of education within the context of a post-development vision of the future.[2]Despite the current emphasis on internationalisation as educating for profit, it remains an opportunity to develop education with the planet in mind.     

Futures research report card—quantity: A; quality: C; and impact: F

Futures research has at best only a slight influence on public and private sector decision-making. Bridging the wide gap between analysis and action means reexamining how we are looking and what we are looking at. The ability to deal with multiple, even conflicting, perspectives simultaneously and to focus on vital substantive problem areas should help. The traditional ‘rational actor’ approach must be augmented and balanced with organizational/societal and personal/individual perspectives. Priority attention should be placed on prevention of a nuclear holocaust, exploration of new social system alternatives, and probing of the next technological innovation cluster.