Evolution of controversial fields: lessons from the past for futures

Some intriguing analogies are drawn between futures studies today and the social sciences in their emergent period. Similar career trajectories are posited for such controversial fields of research, with their novel approaches in terms of claims advanced, and social reactions. The analogies cover the growth of professionalism, the development of internal self-criticism, and increasingly arbitrary boundaries. A distinction is made between English-speaking and Continental futures.     

New challenges for futures studies

Challenges coming from futures studies to other disciplines because of the rapidity and inter-relatedness of changes for which no discipline on its own can face the different correlated and global challenges, will be examined mainly in relation to social sciences. social sciences on the other hand reflect the need to overcome fragmentation within each discipline and between the various social sciences, in an effort at least of interdisciplinarity to face the growing uncertainty in decision making at every level: local, national and international. Social sciences are also slowly realising that a future oriented perspective is needed to empower analysis and actually reflect society in its continuous dynamicity. Citizens need the possibility to live within the rapidity of changes in the Information Society through the availability of futures studies in different forms as well as social analysis that is dynamic and interdisciplinary. The special link between society and ecological issues in a future oriented perspective will be the specific area to express the relevancy of the correlation between futures studies and social sciences.     

Exploring the future with complexity science: The emerging models

The ‘futures field’ can be divided into five major segments or futurist schools, together with their complementary but differing research methodologies and time horizons. These are generally subsumed under the terms ‘futures research’, ‘futures studies’ and ‘foresight’. Complexity science applications are outlined for each of the schools, and these provide evolving theories for futures thinking. (1) Environmental and geosciences treat the Earth and its various components as typical out-of-equilibrium systems with dissipative processes. (2) Infrastructure and socio-technological systems emerge through the diffusion of investment capital, with the endogenous transformation of the urban system. (3) Social, political and economic sciences are being reshaped away from the notion of economic equilibrium, and describe social emergence by means of agent-based models. (4) Human life, mind and information sciences are evolving with the development of complexity models in neuroscience, immune systems, epidemic modelling, social media technologies and artificial intelligence. (5) Business and management science involves examining the viability of successfully undertaking transactions in a complex adaptive system, in which the systemic structure evolves over time. Geographical information systems are integrated with agent-based modelling for corporate foresight.     

Epistemology, social technology, and expert judgement: Olaf Helmer's contribution to futures research

The article discusses Olaf Helmer's contribution to the development of futures studies by focusing on four basic theses defining his approach. (1) Quasi-laws in social sciences and futures studies can in fact be treated in the same way that the natural laws of the physical sciences. (2) In order to make predictions, one need not appeal to a strict logical derivation, as the “covering laws” doctrine of logical-empiricism suggests. (3) Prediction and explanation are not logically symmetrical as positivists believe, thus the conditions needed for explanation are not those required for prediction. (4) Local, tacit, personal and expert knowledge are crucial in developing a foresight methodology. In conjunction, these four theses open the way to a unique theory of social prediction and to variety of “unorthodox items of methodological equipment for the purposes of prediction in the inexact sciences.”     

Understanding rural change—demography as a key to the future

The last decades have seen a rapidly growing interest in foresight methodology. Methods have been developed in corporate and governmental communication exercises often labelled technology foresight. In reality, these foresights have often drifted into processes of social change, since technological change is hard to foresee beyond what is already in the pipe-line. Forecasting of social change, however, must be based on solid knowledge about the mechanisms of continuity and change. Virtually nothing can be said about the future without relating to the past; foresights and futures studies are about revealing the hidden pulse of history. Hence, the answer to forecasting the future is empirical research within the social sciences.Demographic change has been recognised as a key determinant for explaining social change. Population changes are fairly predictable and the age transition can explain a wide range of socio-economic changes. For rural futures, demographic change is a key issue, since age structure in rural areas is often uneven and also unstable due to migration patterns. A number of policy related questions as well as research challenges are raised as a consequence.     

Judgement research in policy analysis

A primary purpose of futures research is to assist the formulation of policy; as such, futures research is an instrument of policy analysis. A parallel field of research in the behavioural sciences-judgement research-is also potentially an important instrument of policy analysis. Practitioners and consumers frequently overlook both the extent to which futures research is based heavily on judgements, and, therefore, the extent to which it would benefit from incorporating the principles and techniques of judgement research. This article explores the relationships between futures research and judgement research (and their links with policy analysis, and planning) and discusses the gains to policy analysis and formation-notably in the creative aspect of policy invention -from a linking of, and interaction between, the two areas. Two recent developments in applied research, symmetrical linkage systems (judgement research) and interactive cross-impact modelling (futures research), are used as vehicles for the discussion ; and the practical value of the behavioural sciences approach is indicated in a discussion of group decision making.     

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.     

Futures studies and the policy sciences

Part of the current evaluation of the work of the Swedish Secretariat for Futures Studies focuses on the practicality and legitimacy of futures studies in relation to the policy sciences. Two crucial issues are focused on, first the justification and relevance of futures studies methodological approaches and their rigorous application to areas of public policy importance and second, the measures by which futures studies can be evaluated in the light of different time frames. Although there are differences between the policy sciences and futures studies approaches which require further analysis, there nevertheless is a symbiotic relationship between the two. The legitimacy of futures studies as a relevant public policy exercise should not be at issue.     

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.     

University education in futures studies: A Mark III survey

Following two earlier analyses (1970 and 1972), the Mark III survey of 1974 explores the extent and quality of university education in disciplines identifiable as future-oriented. The initial research revealed a somewhat stagnant situation. There is a decline in systematic futures courses at the university level, while there is now a stronger trend towards “futurisation” of conventional subjects on one hand, and to practice-oriented non-university educational activities on the other. The most significant developments appeared in long-range planning, policy studies and peace research. Representation of methodologies shows systems research as perhaps the most, and social sciences as a less important contributor. Identification of “futurism” and clarification of the concept remains the dominant problem.     

Is it possible to make scientific forecasts in social sciences?

This article attempts to answer the question, whether and how it is possible to make scientific forecasts in social sciences through the investigation of the actual scientific-philosophical problems and methodological aspects of futures studies.¹ Following a critical analysis it describes the scientific-philosophical features of uncovering and forecasting the possible futures from the classic predictions to the latest approaches. In the methodological chapter it turns its attention to the impossibility of making scientific predictions and demonstrates the methods with the help of which—reacting to the challenges of uncertainty, instability and various changes—futures studies can perform its original function, i.e. supports present decisions providing information about the future.     

Reconceptualizing the cultural dynamics of the future

Many futures approaches are based on ethnocentric factors which do not apply outside their western contexts. This article summarizes critiques of current care theories of social sciences which takes into account some of this ethnocentricity. Finally, the article presents an alternative view of the dynamics of the future based on culture as a variable     

The dynamics of volunteer participation in futures research

This article is based on the author's professional experience of using volunteers in a futures research capacity. It focuses on the social, psychological and methodological dynamics of volunteer participation in futures research.     

Action research cycles for multiple futures perspectives

This paper focuses on the cyclical and iterative processes of action research and their usefulness in enabling participants in futures work to expand their images of futures. The author has been developing a participatory method of scenario development, based on action research, using cycles within cycles, thus allowing multiple opportunities for reflection and reperception. Because people can find it difficult to perceive their potential futures, to examine possibilities from different angles can clarify problems and help participants develop their reactions to various futures. This paper presents a case study of the new method, working through a series of cycles with a credit union, arguing that a cycles-within-cycles-within-cycles process has the potential to help make explicit the concealed and subconscious forces affecting the future of the participants' social entity.     

A futures research outline of a post-modern idea of progress

Post-modernity in the social sciences may be recognised as an intellectual attitude of “anything goes” or “end of everything characterising the modernity”. At the extreme it seems that post-modern deconstruction, not aiming at anything, dissolves everything into meaningless residuals of merely individual peculiarity. The very idea of progress is one of the things not to be sustained by the intellectual forces of deconstruction. The author agrees on the necessity of de-constructing the prevailing modern idea of progress in the sense of revealing the pitfalls of modernity, but maintaining the idea of progress beyond modernity and recognising sustainable development as an intellectual and ethical challenge in this respect. To meet the challenge, futurology is needed to provide perceptional knowledge of reality whereby the whole field of scientific enquiry needs to be generalised. A methodological approach of futures research called dialectical deconstruction is outlined.     

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.     

Characterizing desired futures of Canadian communities

In sustainability research and practice, one method widely used in exploration is visioning, in which desirable sustainable futures are articulated and explored in depth. Communities across Canada have used this method to develop collective desirable futures, in many cases to provide an end goal for local sustainable development. In this paper, we conduct a meta­-analysis of desired futures created by communities across Canada with the aim of identifying regional commonalities according to the three pillars of sustainability, social, environmental, and economic. Although sustainability demands a balance between its social, economic and environmental components, Canadians futures apparently place the greatest importance on social aspects with 338 desires against 222 and 230 respectively for economic and environmental sustainability. Community (105); Infrastructure, development, and transportation (126); and Natural environment (157) are the categories most frequently recorded within each of the three components of sustainability. The meta­analysis also noted significant differences amongst regions. The study was conducted in the context of an initiative known as the Sustainable Canada Dialogues that mobilized 60+ scholars from across the country around a consensus on science ­based, viable solutions for greenhouse gas reduction. Our results suggest that climate policy that simultaneously reduces greenhouse gas emissions while enhancing some of the key aspects of social sustainability would be attractive to many Canadians.     

Reconstructing “behavioural accounting”

This paper adopts a critical stance towards behavioural accounting research methodology. It is argued that most accountants have based their behavioural research on the natural scientific approach, a paradigm whose relevance and suitability for conducting social research has been increasingly questioned in recent years. The author discusses some alternatives to the positivistic research methodology of the natural sciences as a way of developing social science and the implications these have for providing a coherent theoretical and methodological perspective for future “behavioural accounting” research.It is the contention of this paper that the study of the behavioural aspects of accounting has largely failed to develop into a coherent theoretical or practical body of knowledge. In an attempt to overcome this state of affairs, there is an increasing trend to employ organizational and sociological theory as a basis for research, as opposed to psychology and social psychology which informed earlier conceptual thinking and research. While accountants may see this conceptual development as an advancement in that it locates accounting processes in their organizational and social contexts, the way in which it is being conducted is criticized in this paper because, like psychology, it is characterized by an essentially positivistic methodology.This article will first provide a broad overview of the relationship between accounting research and the behavioural sciences. From that overview it will be argued that accounting researchers are unlikely to make much progress by borrowing behavioural scientific concepts unless they develop a deeper understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of these concepts and the competing schools of methodological thought which exist within the behavioural sciences. In an attempt to fill this apparent gap in understanding, the paper will discuss the scientific approach of the natural sciences, why it is felt to be inappropriate for the behavioural sciences and what alternatives exist.