首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 22 毫秒
1.
Anticipatory action learning: Theory and practice   总被引:2,自引:0,他引:2  
Sohail Inayatullah 《Futures》2006,38(6):656-666
Anticipatory action learning (AAL) draws from action learning/research traditions and Futures Studies to develop a unique style of questioning the future with intent to transform organization and society. Case studies from futures workshops are used to illustrate the main points of anticipatory action learning. These are: (1) sensitivity to the environment—workshop dynamics and ways of learning/knowing of participants, (2) questioning leads to anxiety in the organization, (3) anticipatory action learning can be easily appropriated, (4) resistance must be named, understood and transformed, and (5) the future is deepened by authentic understanding of the other.  相似文献   

2.
This paper looks at the internal paths people walk as they are engaged in learning about future generations. The deep personal relevance and immediacy of the topic engage students as whole persons in learning processes that transform their perspective on the world and on themselves. Facilitating students as they go through this transformative learning cycle is the task of the teacher. Furthermore, although not widely recognized as such, grief is a part of any learning process as people let go of one thought, perspective or behavior, and try on a different one. When the topic is emotionally loaded with such profound implications as that of the future of our planet, grief becomes even more intense for the learner. Thus educators benefit from an understanding of both learning and grieving processes as they teach courses about future generations. By acknowledging the mourning associated with transforming the learners' world view, educators may assist students to move beyond immobilizing blocks and despair to creative action. This paper explores the normal experiential learning cycle and natural grief processes as they are played out within students while learning about global futures.  相似文献   

3.
Jerome C Glenn   《Futures》1997,29(8):731-736
This paper explores ethical and psychological issues in teaching futures studies. A range of political, economic, religious, and philosophical assumptions are discussed in terms of how they influence one's view of the future. Special attention is given to the concept of future generations and its application in teaching about long-range implications of contemporary actions.  相似文献   

4.
5.
Dimensions in the confluence of futures studies and action research   总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1  
Jose M. Ramos 《Futures》2006,38(6):642-655
This article puts forward the proposition that the confluence of action research and futures studies can be seen across a number of domains: political, organisational, grassroots, global and individual. While this confluence embodies an heterogeneity of practices, it is their underlying approach, the processes used, which are shared. Identifying both the many distinctive practices in their unique contexts, and their more homogeneous processes is the primary task of this paper. Aspects of this confluence are explored as they relate to social change, empowerment, humanisation, ways of knowing and ethics.  相似文献   

6.
Debra Bateman 《Futures》2012,44(1):14-23
There is much rhetoric in education about the ways in which students are prepared for ‘the future’. The notion of the future in Australian education is dominantly singular, vague and abstract. This paper describes research which investigates changes which occur within teacher practices, enacted curriculum and student learning. The case study at the centre of this research focuses on a primary school south-east of Melbourne, Australia, which is internationally acknowledged as ‘innovative and leading’ in ‘educating for the future’. Initially, it was apparent that this notion of the future was assumed, and these specific teachers had given little thought to what that future looked like, or how that related to students’ learning requirements. As a result of professional learning, the teachers underwent temporal transformation, in integrating explicit futures dimensions within their curriculum. Arising from this research were significant key findings which highlight the need for a reconceptualisation of the ways in which curriculum and pedagogy are enacted in regards to notions of multiple futures. Furthermore, it generates renewed calls for futures perspectives to be addressed explicitly within education. Importantly it highlights a deficit in current teacher thinking about their roles in ‘educating for the future’.  相似文献   

7.
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?
  相似文献   

8.
This paper proposes the need for change in how managers in international business (IB) determine organisational objectives and what criteria they use in addressing complex problems. We propose a move from a largely firm-centric focus; on profit maximization and shareholder value; to a broader societal and environmental view. We see the educational context as the locus for initiating such a shift. However, we see obstacles within the canon of mainstream IB textbooks, with their focus on exposition of normative models of managerial action, illustrated by case studies of successful multinational enterprises (MNEs). Whilst we acknowledge their incorporation of critical issues, we view the lack of substantive critical reflection on the wider implications of IB activity as underpinned by an implicit assumption of the ‘good’ of IB. We posit that the normative structure of mainstream texts militates against students understanding the full range of possible futures for IB practice, and against developing the capability to cope with situations of uncertainty and ambiguity. Seeking to promote a critical pedagogy that accommodates consideration of both mainstream approaches and critical responses to these, we propose one approach to teaching and learning about IB futures that is based upon development of what we term ‘critical scenario method’. This offers a basis for active investigation of complex problems in the ‘real’ world from a range of perspectives, beyond that of profit maximization. We provide a worked, case example of our new method and demonstrate how it will enhance perceptions/understandings of involved and affected actors’ interests and their likely (re)actions as a particular scenario unfolds. The theoretical grounding for this approach is based upon contemporary social science interpretation of the Aristotelian concept of phronēsis, or ‘practical wisdom’.  相似文献   

9.
Sohail Inayatullah 《Futures》1998,30(8):815-829
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.  相似文献   

10.
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.  相似文献   

11.
This paper explores the idea of what it means to be “ahead of the times.” In doing so the paper looks at new generations of ideas; new generations of individualism; and new generations of organisational structures and cultures. Weak signals can already be identified from a century ago indicating new ways of thinking within several disciplines such as science, philosophy, psychology and education. These signs of what many regard as evolutionary change in human thinking run parallel with many of the exponential changes manifesting in the external world. The paper argues for a shift beyond egotistic individualism to collective individualism, laying foundations for major organisational transformation to meet the needs of uncertain futures. The paper suggests that futures studies as a field needs to be sensitive to the developmental and paradigmatic changes that have been occurring both within and across the knowledge spectrum. Finally, the World Futures Studies Federation is examined as a case study to determine whether it is, indeed, ahead of its times.  相似文献   

12.
This article critically examines ways in which futures are conceptualized in the language of Australian education. From an analysis of selected examples of research reports, policy documents and other texts, it is suggested that futures in Australian educational discourse are often conceived in terms of (1) tacit inferences, (2) token invocations or (3) taken for granted assumptions. Conceptualizing futures in such ways may be disempowering and allows education in Australia to be vulnerable to forces of economic and technological determinism.  相似文献   

13.
T. Stevenson   《Futures》2002,34(5):417-425
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.

Article Outline

1. Democratising the future
2. Learning to participate
3. Anticipatory action learning
4. Beyond planning
5. Freeing the mind
6. Reimagining conversation
7. Global multilogue
8. Questioning the future
References

1. Democratising the future

Creating the future can be controlled by the wealthy, powerful and famous, and their minders and lackeys. But in the spirit of democracy, future-creating would seek to ensure that people who have a stake in the future, either through their likely habitat there, or their successor generations, should be able to participate in that creation. This does not happen with the more traditional methodologies of futures studies, where experts stand aside from the vast majority of other citizens.A methodology, a procedure even, that permits such participation can generically be termed as participatory action research. It allows relative freedom from structure and process to encourage invention and more diverse exploration of the perspectives and issues than are often allowed with any other single methodology. In fact, participatory methods usually employ a range of other methodologies, to input data for analysis and critical reflection.But participation is not without its limits, which could be why so much futures work is done by experts. We have limited opportunities, in even the most so-called democratic societies, for participation in action research by more than a chosen handful of people. It is therefore not surprising that most action research happens within small, discrete communities, be they villages, classrooms, or even prisons.In fact, participative activity is valued less highly than adversarial competition, and this could be a good argument against its use. It can be threatening to the controlling elite. But have we given it a fair trial?

2. Learning to participate

Whatever, we should not be blind to the problems of action research, flagged elsewhere: [[2]], including:
• the difficulty of finding participants willing and able to engage in protracted and intense inquiry, including particularly the people who hold power and decision authority;
• the difficulty of building mutually inclusive communication frames of meaning between participants, including the experts and others; and
• the necessity to maintain vigilantly the distinction between action that advances open inquiry and decision, and instrumental action for its own sake.
Participatory methods also require careful attention so that the participants who are actively most vocal or articulate, and experienced in such processes, do not block out people who are more passive. This requires sound moderation or facilitation of the discussion processes.Further, there is the difficulty of uninformed opinion from the lay people who participate, as compared with the experts. Care needs to be taken to encourage equitable, active participation by those with the competence as well as those with the right to help change their own social situation, their own future. Experts should be prepared to help other citizens understand and access specialist information needed to inform the discussion, another responsibility for the skilled facilitator. With participatory processes, there is not the usual separation of the expert researcher from those being studied, or those wanting to learn from the results of the study. All should be full participants, including the experts.Despite these barriers, and there other administrative matters to be addressed later, I will argue for serious experimentation with a type of informed, democratic participation in futures creation, termed here anticipatory action learning. It builds on action research, and forms of participatory action learning, calling in the dimension of anticipation and foresight.

3. Anticipatory action learning

Anticipatory action learning seeks to link inquiry, anticipation and learning with decisions, actions and evaluation, during an openly democratic process. The communication style needs to be what Lee Thayer [[3]] once called diachronous, as opposed to synchronous. By diachronous Thayer means that the goals and the means for achieving them are decided during the participation process itself. With synchronous or top-down communication, the goals and the means are imposed before the participation begins.Anticipatory action learning, as proposed here, borrows from the seminal concepts of Morgan and Ramirez [[4]]. They see action learning as holographic, as a means of developing capacities for people to investigate and understand their own situations, and to go further, to decide and act within an ongoing social context.This stands in contrast to the approach of more conventional methodologies where research seeks primarily knowledge and understanding. Important as these needs are, they can be taken out of their social context into that of the expert researcher.As with Morgan and Ramirez, anticipatory action learning needs to meet certain criteria. It should be democratic, multilateral and pluralistic. It needs to empower and be proactive, linking individual with social transformation. Thus, it would integrate different levels of understanding in an evolving and open-ended way. In this sense, creating intelligent and humane action is more important than contributing to formal knowledge.I would change this slightly, first by saying that it should be anticipatory and interactive, or preactive, rather than proactive. What is envisaged is a collaborative, anticipatory activity. The term “proactive” most often suggests a determinism that I doubt is intended by Morgan from his successive writing. Proaction is a notion that has been appropriated by can-do marketing, among others, to impose preordained change.Second, I would prefer to use the term coevolutionary, again to stress pluralistic mutual adjustment, since one criticism of evolution suggests it is still based in a progressive determinism.Simply put, anticipatory action learning is a matter of taking one of the many well-developed action learning processes, such as that of Peter Checkland [[5]], and adding the anticipatory component. In such a case, it is important that the spirit and integrity of exploring alternative futures be observed.

4. Beyond planning

Anticipatory action learning differs from much of the scenario planning that happens today, even if conducted in a participatory way. There needs to be more deliberate attention to exploring a full range of alternative futures, from the probable to the possible, the preferred to the undesirable, not forgetting the futures that are not easily seen from a conventional mindset. Scenario planning still tends to extrapolate from the past more than work back from the future. Anticipatory action learning does use trend analysis for suggesting certain alternative futures, but seeks to backcast from future visions to infer the actions along the way, including the first steps to be taken in the present.Characteristics of the process, include:
• Identifying the people who will take part in the activity, hopefully as many of the social unit as possible, and inclusive of as many views as possible.
• Defining the scope of the anticipation.
• Collaboratively agreeing on what is to be explored and how, during the process itself, not as preordained objectives.
• Collecting data, via an appropriate variety of methods and procedures, with agreement on who gathers what.
• Analysing and critically deconstructing the data, with particular attention to the consequences of trends and changes.
• Developing alternative futures, scenarios or visions (plural).
• Reflecting on the alternative futures envisioned.
• Deciding which futures to prevent and which to pursue actively.
• Developing actions for participants to create preferred futures.
• Re-evaluating early action.
• Reiterating the process.
Conversation lies at the very core of anticipatory action learning. It 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. Since conversation is usually face-to-face, it allows for immediate feedback, verbal and otherwise, and revision of thought among participants, a critical aid to reaching understandings.However, my friends in the Philippines, for example, remind me that oral communication is not valued as highly as performance arts in some communities. Thus the use of conversation as a methodology is culture bound, as with any other.Where used, the conversation needs to proceed openly, in a spirit of collaboration and tolerant pluralism, without demanding that people compromise their beliefs, but helpfully and supportively challenging long-held assumptions.There should be a wide variety of participants, representing the main perspectives of the social unit for or about which the anticipation is being conducted. The facilitator needs to beware the tendency within groups, where members get used to each other, to lapse into convergent thinking, groupthink.Conversation can construe a community of diverse meanings, so that each understands more clearly the others’ points of view. But when conformity sets in, it can drastically act against exploration and innovation.

5. Freeing the mind

Human groupings show a tendency to stay in the conventional wisdom, or slip back into it for comfort, whether in small groups or the wider society. Scott Burchill [[6]] suggests that defining the ‘spectrum of permitted expression is a highly effective form of ideological control’, even in so-called free societies.He evokes George Orwell’s warning in Animal Farm [[7] that, in a democracy, an orthodoxy is a body of ideas which it is assumed all ‘...right-thinking people will accept without question...’. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself (sic) silenced with surprising effectiveness.More work needs to be done on how to encourage divergent thought in conversation to ensure that a range of alternative future options emerges, including some off-the-wall thinking. One suggestion that can be helpful is to ensure a range of different perspectives is present.As with participatory processes, conversation has its limitations and problems.The act (or is it art?) of conversation is often discounted, even ridiculed, in contemporary scholarly inquiry perhaps because it appears to lack the formality of structure and process that characterise most traditional methodologies. Is this because we take conversation for granted, and have not adequately studied it, or because we intend respectfully to value the systematic methodological processes we spend so much hard time mastering in the academy? Or are both factors at work? The answers beg further research elsewhere.

6. Reimagining conversation

In a series of broadcast talks, historian Theodore Zeldin [[8]] argues for the value of conversation, in certain forms, though neither specifically for research—nor, perhaps more accurately, for futuring; for search. The kind of conversation he is interested in begins with a ‘willingness to emerge a slightly different person’. The really big scientific revolutions have been the invention not of some new machine, but of new ways of thinking, as with the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.But can an individual expect to have an impact on other than oneself, if the world is controlled by powerful economic and political forces, as we see in the new globalisation? Does that justify not trying?Zeldin points out that revolutions such as the Renaissance and the Enlightenment are not the inventions of some machine but of the ways we talk about things. To him, the world is made of ‘individuals searching for a partner, for a lover, for a guru, for God’. But he calls for a new conversation that develops equality, opening up to each other in an entirely natural way. And further, ‘we need a new kind of novel and film to create visions of how people can live together as equals, with humour’.It seems that conversation can aid the search for a compelling image of the future, which, if we follow Johan Galtung, can be a potent force for change.Compelling images can be constructed autocratically or democratically. If the process is democratic, it allows the unbridled negotiation of meaning in order to construct images or visions in a collaborative way. It allows people to generate understandings that help them act in their own situation.Thus anticipatory action learning, incorporating conversation as it does, partly systematic and open, should ideally enable a rich exploration of a range of visions of the future from multiple perspectives, including the undesirable. There is nothing likely to be so compelling as the obverse of the undesirable future.

7. Global multilogue

An example of the use of conversation for exploring alternative futures can be found in UNESCO’s 21st Century Dialogues in Paris, in September 1998. Compared with anticipatory action learning, the UNESCO event represented a relatively more ceremonially moderated use of conversation in global futures studies. The dialogues did not intentionally use action learning or action research, although that does not say the event was not thoughtfully designed.The UNESCO experience did show how the process of human dialogue—or better, multilogue—as an alternative to more formal methodologies, becomes problematic because of our epistemological distances from one another. Such distances are the result of often dramatic variations in culture, language, gender, history, attitudes towards subjectivity, objectivity and intersubjectivity, and our understandings and misunderstandings of the future.Conversation, especially when multicultural and interdisciplinary, also poses a dilemma. While cultural, linguistic and epistemological diversity ideally allow a rich array of perspectives on issues about the future, and thus a plurality of meanings, the very difference in perspectives contributes to difficulties in understanding each other. We only have to look at other cultures’ metaphors to realise this. And conversation which starts with the clean slate of a relatively distant future, say 50 or more years ahead, is not immune to conflict, even psychological and other forms of violence—interinstitutional and interpersonal.Events such as the 21st Century Dialogues will most likely be replicated in a variety of forms as we settle into a new “millennium”, unless futures interest has faded with millennial madness. In such dialogues, futurists would have an ideal opportunity to experiment with inclusive multicultural conversations as the means of navigating and negotiating through the differences that result from our divergent thoughts and proposals. But discrimination needs to be minimised against participants who do not speak or understand the main international languages.Other things that need to be taken into account when facilitating conversation are the structure, including the setting, and the process of conversation. Relative lack of structure, with minimum control of process, now sits quite comfortably with many people from American and Australian cultures, for example, while Russians and East Asians demand mandated structure and process. Timetabling, seating, ambience and allowing for the inarticulate to participate are also considerations.These requirements vary according to one’s cultural experiences and we need to experiment with ways to make people comfortable and to encourage their participation in open conversation when they come from a variety of backgrounds, including those that have experienced severe oppression. A big, echoing assembly hall with theatre-style seating is no longer necessarily the ideal venue for certain contemporary global citizens. But then again, it is for others, and we are still building plenty of such halls.

8. Questioning the future

Conversation, also, needs to encourage the asking of questions, as well as the advocacy of ideas and ideals. It seems important, too, that we find new questions to ask, not simply the same, tired questions founded in the much-discussed issues derived from well-identified problems and categories often determined by academic disciplines and other vested interests.21st Century Dialogues did ask some important new questions, such as: what is the new social contract for the third industrial revolution and accompanying globalisation? We need more such questions, especially about emerging issues—those that are not yet in common currency—across a variety of categories, civilisational perspectives, worldviews and images of the future, especially long-term.One question for futurists is: how do we ensure adequate, inclusive or democratic participation in global conversations about the future when the planet is so vast and culturally diverse?Perhaps futurists need to become activists more than they already are, to step outside the academy more often and to go beyond merely esoteric writing. Futurists may need to become active advocates for the use of anticipatory action learning, or other participatory futures-creating processes, in real-life situations. As well, futurists may need to speak out more as public intellectuals in order to initiate and enrich public conversations about emerging issues and alternative futures.Certainly, further research is recommended on how to apply anticipatory action learning to ensure that meaning is shared with sensitivity and accuracy in multicultural situations. And, also, on how better to bring divergent perspectives to conversational situations that tend to reward convergent thinking.In these pursuits, futurists should not forget the potential of the Internet for global conversations about the future. However there is a long way to go before the Net can be relied on for non-discriminatory, intercultural and intercivilisational multilogue. More than 93 percent of today’s Internet users live among the world’s richest 20 percent, and most of these users are in the social elite that can converse in English; many are experts.The world’s poorest 20 percent, discriminated against because so very many lack an international language, still account for less than one percent of current Internet users [[9]].  相似文献   

14.
Futures studies intend to structure our knowledge and our judgement about the future by handling facts and values in a certain way. In other words, futures studies frame futures. These frames might be powerful, triggering social action and societal transformation, yet they risk to be criticised and provoke scepticism. The environmental field has a long tradition in futures studies: environmental outlooks. Some of these outlooks, e.g. those published by the IPCC are among the most prominent examples of outlooks that provoke scientific, social and political debate, create commotion and provoke action. Part of these discussions deal with how outlooks frame the future and how they handle the uncertainty inevitably linked to framing futures. The way these challenges are dealt with may affect the overall assessment of an environmental outlook. This article attempts to identify the way environmental outlooks frame futures. We do not strive for exhaustiveness, but deliberately restrict to an in-depth analysis of a handful of recent environmental outlooks. We conclude that environmental outlooks reflect a lack of clarity and argumentation upon how they frame futures and how they deal with uncertainty. This epistemological and methodological ambiguity risk to affect the outlooks’ credibility and impact.  相似文献   

15.
Futures literature invites researchers to investigate stakeholders’ interests, actions and reactions, as well as to introduce an analysis of power and influence in scenario thinking. The purpose of this paper is to assess how the concept of dominance can help to improve scenario building and futures thinking as dominance transforms leadership within action processes. First, we examine power at work at different levels using concepts that relate to dominance and leadership shifts. Secondly, we discuss methodological proposals to implement the concepts of weak and strong dominance in action-based scenarios design and the implications of theses concepts for refining the approach of leadership in futures thinking. We conclude that paying attention to dominance transformations in scenarios is a promising direction to develop stakeholder and leadership analysis in scenario thinking. We suggest further research on the connection between history and futures thinking.  相似文献   

16.
We analyze how gender and age, internal characteristics of retail futures traders—one that remains fixed while the other changes over a lifetime—and the security being traded and bull–bear market conditions, two external factors, are related to the disposition effect by separately tracking their trade-by-trade transaction histories over a period of close to six years on the Taiwan Futures Exchange (TAIFEX). We show that women and mature traders, compared with their male and younger counterparts, exhibit a stronger disposition effect. The effect is also stronger among traders who trade financial-sector futures contracts than among those who trade electronic-sector futures contracts. We further demonstrate that a bear market sees a stronger disposition effect.  相似文献   

17.
In this paper we examine the conceptual and political work that metaphors do, with particular regard to how they construct problems and thus in turn limit the range of solutions.1 Common metaphors in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia are examined (war, disease and crime metaphors, and the economy and nation as a body) by analysing historical and modern texts about the policy issues of tuberculosis, immigration, asylum seeking, welfare, obesity and food insecurity. Through this we show that metaphors, in conjunction with discourses, may work to: naturalise and privilege certain constructions of problems; attribute blame and responsibility; support claims about the urgency and extent of required intervention (and who should deliver it, to whom and how); influence the identification and consideration of solutions by constructing the problem in particular ways; intentionally or unintentionally result in stigmatisation and non-trivial discrimination (social and workplace); and erase or highlight the role of actors, processes, social relations and systems. Vallis has developed the analysis, the bulk of the paper, and Inayatullah has articulated the theoretical links to causal layered analaysis (CLA). While there are multiple ways to use CLA, in this paper we use CLA to map a number of issues accross perspectives and frames, and to deconstruct creating the possibility for alternative futures. We do not explore alternative or preferred futures.  相似文献   

18.
Jan Oliver Schwarz 《Futures》2008,40(3):237-246
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.  相似文献   

19.
20.
Allen Tough 《Futures》1997,29(8):707-713
If future generations could speak to us, what might they say to us about our efforts to learn and teach about them? Probably they would ask us to understand their perspective, to feel connected to them, and to care deeply. When we teach about future generations we should affect the head, heart, soul and hands. This learning and teaching should include inspiration, transpersonal bonding, empowerment, a personal affirmation or pledge, a sense of meaning and purpose, and a commitment to action. Certain books and journals can be especially useful for gaining the perspective of future generations.  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号