Futures studies comes of age: twenty-five years after The limits to growth

Twenty-five years ago, the publication of The limits to growth marked a period of accomplishments in the futures field. Today, futures studies is experiencing another burst of development and is ready to move more fully into mainstream intellectual life and the standard educational curriculum. In addition to continued work on methods, theory, and empirical research, the resolution of three issues might help persuade established academic communities of the serious purposes and sound intellectual contributions of futurists. They are (1) the adoption of an adequate theory of knowledge (critical realism is proposed), (2) the recognition that prediction does play a role in futures studies (so we can deal explicitly with the philosophical challenges it poses), and (3) the formulation and justification of core values (so we have a valid basis by which to judge the desirability of alternative futures). I propose a critical discourse among futurists in order to resolve each issue. The desire to make futures thinking a part of everyone's education is not, of course, mere futurist chauvinism, but is based on the conviction that futures studies has important contributions to make to human well-being.     

Creativity, skepticism, and visioning the future

Members of the World Futures Studies Federation share not only the usual professional goals of advancing and developing their field, but also an extraordinary commitment to envisioning and creating a future world of increasing human freedom and well-being. Both aims, obviously, would be moved forward if futurists could establish more futures studies courses, departments, and research centers than now exist at colleges and universities. To do so requires vigor, creativity, and élan, which futurists seem to have in abundance, but it also demands more logical and empirical rigor, skepticism, and critical capacity in futures work.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Memories and methods: conversations with Ashis Nandy, Ziauddin Sardar and Richard Slaughter

The history and development of futures studies is explored in interviews with three leading futurists. Ashis Nandy, Ziauddin Sardar and Richard Slaughter provide a personal perspective on their involvement in the field and the World Futures Studies Federation and reflect on future possibilities.     

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.     

New generations of futures methods

This paper presents and further explores the issues discussed during the “New generations of futures methods” session at the WFSF 19th World Conference, Budapest, Hungary. The generational interplay has many different facets and can be looked at from many various perspectives. This paper looks at a broader role of young people as agents of cultural change in societies, their relation to futures studies and the implications of their fresh ways of thinking for futures methods. Also, the past evolution of futures methods and the challenges facing the present and future generation of futurists in regard to methodological as well as general development are reviewed. In an effort to draw together these issues and provide practical ways forward for futurists and their field four integrating themes are addressed:

•

Allowing for differences, how do we develop solidarity between generations?

•

What does the near-future outlook tell us that might help to achieve this?

•

What personal, organisational and social capacities are needed?

•

What methods are available for building social foresight?

     

Futures research and the IPCC assessment study on the effects of climate change

Mainly based on a survey of the occurrence of futures research-related references in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, I have investigated the contribution of futures research to the IPCC assessments of the effects of climate change. The assumption I have made here is that, if futures research has made a contribution to the IPCC assessment work, it should also be reflected in the references quoted or cited. I have also briefly commented on the activities by the futurists themselves regarding the future challenge of climate change. As a complement to the contribution survey, I ask and discuss to what degree futures research could and should be participating in a study like that of the IPCC. The survey of the futures research contributions showed that, up to now, futures research has been only modestly represented in the IPCC climate change effect assessment studies. The contribution both could and should have been more extensive than it has been up to the present, a view to which I return in the final discussion.     

The future of foresight professionals: Results from a global Delphi study

How will foresight practice evolve into the next decade and beyond? How might its supply and demand factors self-organize? In 2012 a real-time Delphi study, entitled, “The Certification of Professional Futurists 2030,” was conducted among 142 experts from 29 countries to debate the forces that might diminish or enhance futures work. The study consisted of 14 projections out to the year 2030, ranging from whether the global futures field might “employ a viable form of certification for professional futurists,” to whether it might “share a common accepted understanding of futures assumptions, theory, methods, knowledge, and ethics.” Panelists identified themselves with various futures associations. This article presents the findings, including where there is dissent and consensus in the futures field over the likelihood, impact and desirability of the professionalization of its practice. Further scale development using factor analysis, ordered by the theory of competitive advantage, produced a scenario model of three market forces: assimilation, academicisation, or certification. The third force of professional certification by 2030 was deemed least likely and less desirable. This wide ranging survey therefore offers the futures field a common conversation protocol to rethink how it might redesign its value chain and differentiate itself against other professions.     

Epistemology and public policy: using a new typology to analyse the paradigm shift in Finnish transport futures studies

The aim of the article is to present a new typology of paradigms of futures studies with specific focus on decision-making. Possible roles of futurists and other actors in long-term planning and decision-making processes are formed using logical analysis. The resulting seven schools of thought are interpreted in the light of literature of futures studies and planning theory. Connections to the philosophical discussion on the role of knowledge and values in policy recommendations are presented as well. Some futures studies methodological applications are attached to the paradigms. The new typology forms a gradient from technocracy performed by professionals to direct citizen participation. Finally, the paradigm shift of Finnish national transport futures studies is analysed using the new typology.     

Macrohistory and futures studies

Through its delineation of the patterns of history, macrohistory gives a structure to the fanciful visions of futurists. Macrohistory gives us the weight of history, balancing the pull of the image of the future. Yet, like futures studies, it seeks to transform past, present and future, not merely reflect upon social space and time. Drawing from the book Macrohistory and Macrohistorians [Galtung, J. and Inayatullah, S. (eds), Praeger, New York, 1997], this article links macrohistory with futures studies. It takes the views of over 20 macrohistorians and asks what they offer to the study of alternative futures.     

Time-scales in futures research and forecasting

In this article a study is presented of the ways in which some well-known futurists have considered time-scales in their central works, looking too at a few frequently applied forecasting methodologies. It is found, that there is obviously yet no common view of the extent of the time ahead meant for the terms future and futures and in using the time-horizon specifications, such as short-term and long-term. A survey of how time-scales are taken note of and presented in individual futures research articles is also given.On the basis of the study and survey made, the conclusions list three recommendations, which could be taken into consideration in futures studies.     

The future of health futures

Health futures represents the application of various futures tools to the arenas of health and health care. This special issue of Futures reflects the significant growth of health futures. Health and health-care systems can be far better by the early 21st century, or they could be worse. Health futures enables individuals, organizations and communities to understand better the threats and opportunities facing their health, both of which are profound. The International Health Futures Network is an indicator of the growth of this subfield of futures. The future of health futures will be shaped by the ability of futures techniques and those who use them to provide value to organizations and individuals. Better networking among health futurists, expert systems, and the ability to measure and communicate quality will be essential.     

Design futures in action: Documenting experiential futures for participatory audiences

The futures field demonstrates a willing openness in embracing methodologies, approaches, and influences from a diversity of disciplines and perspectives. This plurality of practice is evidenced in a growing body of work that increasingly embodies futures thinking in the design of everyday material and networked experiences. The intersection of design and futures produces artifacts, applications and interactions created to provoke dialog in an accessible manner. As part of the Futures special issue on the Emerge: Artists and Scientists Redesign the Future event, this article describes the documentation and public representation of the creative outcomes from nine Emerge design futures workshops. These workshops provided a rich opportunity to study how designers and futurists collaboratively engage, implement and communicate alternative futures. The goal of the documentation effort described is to capture the experience of creating experiential futures and extend the capacity for developing social foresight through a participatory exhibit and online social platform.     

Rethinking futures studies

The author traces the development of futures studies from the Second World war and considers its philosophical basis. Futures thinking is seen as vision; futurists have special responsibilities as they are part of the world they describe. Futures thinking is seen as a learning process.     

Teaching about the future

Since 1984 UNESCO has been developing a programme of prospective studies. This programme was re-named ‘future-oriented studies’ and is now centred around three groups of activities: a project on the futures of culture; the development of education and training with special emphasis on disseminating the methodology of future-oriented studies; and the creation of an international bibliographic database called FUTURESCO. An invitational seminar, ‘Teaching about the future’, held in Vancouver, 21–23 June 1992, was a direct consequence of the above. It was organized and hosted by UNESCO (with FUTURESCO and the Canadian Commission for UNESCO). It brought together about 20 professional futurists from Pacific Basin countries to consider a range of theoretical, practical and pedagogic issues associated with teaching futures, mainly at the tertiary level.     

Accommodating or compromising change? A story about ambitions and historic deterministic scenarios

Despite the basic idea of scenarios as providing a heuristic for identifying, understanding and responding to changed conditions, many scenario studies are criticized for treating the future as an incremental continuation of the past. To understand this discrepancy between theoretical ambitions and actual practice with regard to accommodating change we followed professional futurists around. We observed that futurist curtail and slice time and we identified two temporal repertoires that inhibit different views on how (academic) knowledge about past and present is used in assessing the future: historic determinism and futuristic difference. Our empirically informed analysis is a story about ambitions in line with the futuristic difference, the re-introduction and rise of historic determinism and finally the fall of futuristic difference. Our analysis of foresight in action and foresight output yields that the retreat to historic determinism is a major pitfall for futurists in general. Our story suggest that the futures studies community needs to develop and encourage more adequate responses to the ‘siren’ of historic determinism. Practitioners who aim to employ futuristic difference throughout the foresight endeavour would then be better equipped to succeed in their ambitions.     

Integral scenarios: Reframing theory, building from practice

Australian futurists have been working with a range of integral theories over the past decade to inform new approaches to scenarios. Chief among the integral theories explored is Wilber's All Quadrant, All Level, All Lines, All States, All Types (AQAL) meta-theory. This emerging and diverse set of scenario methods, falling under the term ‘integral scenarios’ as reviewed in this paper, have mostly been developed in practice and to date, have not been represented in futures journals. This paper contextualises integral scenarios with a summary of the theoretical background to their development before arriving at a generic scenario generation process together with a set of utility and quality criteria. This generic framework and criteria are then used to situate a range of case studies of integral scenarios, outlining their features, benefits and limitations. Finally, the areas of potential for further development are highlighted—for both refined and wholly new types of integral scenario methods.     

Everyday life's constraints on citizenship in the United States

Citizenship is a topic of important concern to the futures community. This paper discusses five serious kinds of constraints that people in the United States must overcome to meet their citizenship responsibilities. The constraints are: work (e.g. long hours, disruptive schedules, transfers); consumerism (e.g. time spent watching television, shopping, and engaging in entertainment activities); lack of social capital (e.g. social networks not `tight' enough to foster people working together to address community issues); personal fears and anxieties (e.g. fear of reprisals from neighbors); and the built environment (e.g. lack of meeting places, car- rather than people-oriented land uses). The charge to futurists is to image and work toward implementing futures that overcome these constraints.