Evolution of futures studies

This article discusses the evolution of futures studies. The article starts with an evaluation of the different rival taxonomies and definitions for futures studies, and proceeds to discuss the very concept of paradigm. Are there paradigms in this discipline? If we think there are, what kind of arguments can we use to define those? I argue that there have been two paradigms in the evolution of futures studies so far, and there are signs of emergence of a new one. Both of the existing paradigms have had many rival macro-level methodological approaches, ontological and epistemological branches, and phases of evolution. The first paradigm is the age-old prediction tradition that combines thinking about the future into mystic explanations. This line of thinking bases its argument on the deterministic future and effects of the world of spirits. The second paradigm was basically started in the U.S. military after World War II. This modern line of thinking bases its argument on indeterministic futures, probabilities, aim to control and plan, modelling and systems thinking, and the effects of external trends. The new emerging paradigm may base its line of thinking on disconnecting from the western control based technical thinking, and accepting internal dynamic fluctuations, paradoxes and dialectic thinking.     

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.     

Scenarios to challenge strategic paradigms: Lessons from 2025

As a process looking for alternative visions of environment and corporate futures, scenario planning challenges strategic paradigms. In that way, scenario planning is dealing with the different beliefs of the many actors who make the organization and its global and business environments. Among these beliefs, emerging ideologies are one of the main shaping factors for the construction of new visions of corporate environment and corporate futures. To analyse the interaction between scenario planning and emerging ideologies, this paper will first propose a conceptual framework based on the dynamics of strategic paradigms. Second, it will discuss Electricité de France 2025 scenarios longitudinal case study in the context of the diffusion process of the French so called prospective approach to show interests and traps of scenario planning to manage paradigm shifts.     

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].     

Complexity science and theory development for the futures field

Complexity science unifies some forty diverse features that arise from the evolution of the civil system and these underlie theory development in the futures field. The main features of an evolutionary methodology deal with emergence, macrolaws, civil or societal transitions, macrosystem design, and the absorption of extreme events. The following principles apply: (1) The civil system is an open system in which investment capital is the system growth parameter that drives it away from equilibrium, with the formation of spatial structure. (2) The historical circumstances of human settlements provide a path dependency in respect of natural resources, defence, energy, transport, or communications. (3) Emergent properties arise within a complex adaptive system from which a theory of the system can be formulated, and these are not deducible from the features of the transacting entities. (4) Futures research identifies the conditions that will lead to an irreversible civil or societal phase transition to a new stage of development. (5) Emergent behaviour in the macrostructure at regional or continental levels can be influenced through critical intervention points in the global macrosystems.     

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.     

Movements toward holism in futures inquiry

This article takes up the question of the various movements toward holism in futures inquiry. The Ken Wilber inspired integral futures, developed by Richard Slaughter and others, and put forth as the most comprehensive approach to-date, is critiqued and assessed. While Wilber's integral and the variant it has inspired in futures represent significant innovations, it also contains the tendency to un-necessarily close down, lock out or to sub-ordinate alternative conceptions of holism, what I term ‘Wilber-ism’. Wilber's ‘theory of everything’ and integral futures are analysed, re-assessed and re-situated in the context of the alternative approaches to holism that exist. What emerges is a rich view of potential genealogies and ontogenies as movements toward holism. One variant from the action research tradition, which I call ‘integrative foresight’, is put forward as an example of an alternative. The article concludes by proposing a process of dynamic dialogue between diverse conceptions of holism, which can at once honour the great diversity of approaches, while likewise continuing the journey of creating shared meaning and common understandings of the complex contexts in which futures inquiry works.     

The role of innovative entrepreneurship within Colombian business cycle scenarios: A system dynamics approach

Since the advent of public and private initiatives in Colombia, there has been interest in exploring the possible future pathways of the Colombian business cycle. Based on a foresight analysis, it has been identified on the one hand that it is necessary to achieve greater productivity and competitiveness and on the other hand, collective intentionality towards progress must be encouraged. Using these analyses, new Colombian scenarios are discussed, taking into account intentionality towards entrepreneurship and innovation. Following the entrepreneurship research, it is suggested that innovative entrepreneurial activity is linked to long-term economic growth. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to identify the role of innovative entrepreneurship in Colombian business cycle scenarios using system dynamics (SD) modelling. Here, we approach futures studies, testing dynamic hypotheses concerning development based on societal and socioeconomic integration, in which innovative entrepreneurship is highly relevant. The model, supported by circular flow analysis and Schumpeterian theory, shows how this type of entrepreneurship contributes to sustainable economic growth during the simulation period (2003–2032). To achieve a 6.77% average growth rate (the higher scenario), policies regarding knowledge transfer from specialized foreign individuals, incumbent firms and universities, as well as incentives for entrepreneurial societies and collectivism, are discussed.     

Implications of two new paradigms for futures studies

The paper considers the emergence of two recent perspectives in futures work. One is evolutionary futures studies. The other is critical futures studies. After describing aspects of each, the paper considers them as alternative rival paradigms in relation to criteria that include: the role of the human being as subject, the role of interpretation and differences in methodological premises. It concludes that both have contributed to the development of futures methods but that a number of theoretical and methodological problems still remain unsolved.     

Models and methods in motion: Declining the dogma dance

I take a communicative pragmatist and realist approach to futures studies. This implies a sensitivity to understanding what the audience can absorb and using futures methods effectively to create spaces for new futures. While Wilber's work affords us with new insights to engage with methodology, is not the only path. Indeed, it is intellectual bigotry to demand that everyone master the tools one personally deems most appropriate. Critical conversations about futures must remain open, where post-modernist and integral thinking widen our horizons, they are welcomed, where they straitjacket our thoughts, they are not.     

Futures research and social decision making: Alternative futures as a case study

This article clarifies some basic features of futures research in order to make explicit the relation between futures research and social development in general as well as political planning and decision making in particular. Three paradigms for futures research are described and, as an example of an emancipatory futures research project, ‘Alternative futures’ will be introduced.     

A systemic evaluation framework for futures research

Evaluation of futures studies is a topic that has frequently aroused discussion. Futures studies often deal with great societal or strategic business issues, and thus the validity and reliability of the results is of great interest to stakeholders. Existing literature contains discussions of such important issues as ethics of futures studies, the nature of knowledge about the future, and futures methodology, which together contribute to the quality, validity and credibility of futures studies, but discussion on the evaluation of futures studies is more scant.Thus, the main research question that guides our study is: “how should we evaluate futures studies to ensure the reliability and credibility of the results?” We answer the question by deriving a systemic framework for evaluation following the input-process-output schema to ensure that the whole chain from the data to reporting and implementation contributes to the quality and impact of the study.The main contribution is the systemic evaluation framework. The framework will contribute to the evaluation of existing and ongoing studies by offering guidelines for evaluation, and as a net effect, we propose, it will increase the impact of futures studies by making the practices more transparent and thus generating more confidence in the results.     

A new paradigm for risk analysis

A novel paradigm for risk analysis is proposed and illustrated. The rationale is to engage with five self-evident observations about the nature of risk that have as yet been insufficiently absorbed within current risk paradigms. The five observations are: (1) that people's knowledge is what determines the way they perceive, define and assess risk issues; (2) that risk issues are a combination of physical and social qualities and properties; (3) that risk issues are pervaded by uncertainty and crises of trust; (4) that risk issues are intrinsically dynamic, changing in profile over time and across geographical and cultural space; (5) that the effectiveness of risk management interventions rests on the quality of the knowledge (scientific and social) on which they are based, and on the internal congruence of that knowledge. Complementary elements of a proposed meta-theory of risk (a new risk paradigm) are set out below with respect to each of these five aspects in turn. The paper is offered as a stimulus to think about the possible existence of a unified paradigm that can span all the various spheres of interest of risk analysis, and as a specific proposal for the possible nature and scope of such a paradigm.     

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.     

The history of Western futures studies: An exploration of the intellectual traditions and three-phase periodization

The main purpose of this paper is to present a three-phase periodization of modern Western futures studies to construct historical classification. In order to reach this goal, the following intellectual traditions are introduced to review the philosophical and historical contexts that affect the very foundations of futures studies: (a) religions, (b) utopias, (c) historicism, (d) science fiction, and (e) systems thinking. The first phase (beginning in 1945 to the 1960s) was the era of scientific inquiry and rationalization of the futures characterized by the prevalence of technological forecasting, the rise of alternative futures in systematic ways, and the growth of professionalization of futures studies. In the first phase, futures had become objects of rationalization removed from the traditional approaches such as utopia, grandiose evolutionary ideas, naive prophecies, science fiction, religious attitudes, and mystical orientation. The second phase (the 1970s and the 1980s) saw the creation the global institution and industrialization of the futures. This era was marked by the rise of worldwide discourse on global futures, the development of normative futures, and the deep involvement of the business community in futures thinking. In the second phase, futures studies-industry ties were growing and the future-oriented thoughts extensively permeated the business decision-making process. The third phase (the 1990s – the present) reflects the current era of the neoliberal view and fragmentation of the futures. This phase is taking place in the time of neoliberal globalization and risk society discourses and is characterized by the dominance of foresight, the advance of critical futures studies, and the intensification of fragmentation. In the third phase, futures practice tends to be confined to the support of strategic planning, and hence is experiencing an identity crisis and loss of its earlier status of humanity-oriented futures.     

Pathways to integral perspectives

An integral approach to futures inquiry has been described as the next distinct tradition. That form of inquiry is predicated upon the use of an integral perspective. This paper explores the nature of such a perspective and also relates recent research that sheds light upon that perspective's development. It also suggests methodological pathways that can be explored in order to evoke an integral approach to futures inquiry.     

Some reflections on the high expectations as formulated in the Internet Bubble era

Since the breakthrough of the Internet to the broader public in the 1990s, expectations of the converging information technology, telecommunication and media industries and technologies as a catalyst for economic growth and social welfare have been high. Futures scientists were involved in predicting the future of these technologies during the Internet bubble. In this paper, we use a meta-analysis approach to examine how well futures studies have been able to describe future reality. We limit our studies to futures research in the ICT and Internet domain that were published between 1995 and 2000. Because the number of relevant studies can hardly be called impressive, we selected a number of available futures studies that were conducted by official government bodies and individual companies, based on various approaches, ranging from technology forecasts [1] to highly creative visions [2], and from predictions [2] to essays [4]. These studies were carried out by Dutch as well as by international organizations. Based on a framework we developed for the analysis of business models, we wanted to see whether technological drivers, regulatory/policy issues and market development as well as competitive behavior, on the input side, and the way value for customers and providers is provided, on the output side, were discussed. Our analysis made it clear that, looking back with what we know now about business models, futures studies and recently developed tools like road mapping, developments in futures studies have made tremendous progress since the Internet Bubble. However, here is still room for more rigor when it comes to methodology and reporting. More recently, there has been a promising integration of scenario analysis and business model approaches that opens new avenues for futures studies.     

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.     

Explicit versus Implicit Contracts: The Case of DIFF and CROSS Futures

This paper investigates the potential success of an explicit futures contract when an implicit one, which can duplicate it, exists. It is hypothesized that the success of the explicit futures contract depends on its value added being greater than that of its implicit counterpart given that sufficient hedging demand exists for it. Following a discussion of value added analysis, hedging effectiveness of the Euro-rate Differential (DIFF), the Currency Cross-rate (CROSS) futures contracts, and their implicit counterparts are calculated and tests of relative hedging effectiveness of these contracts are performed. Test results support the hypothesis of the paper and their implications for new futures contract development are discussed.