Transcending flatland: Implications of Ken Wilber's meta-narrative for futures studies

The Western futures project was originally founded on empiricist notions of prediction, forecasting and control. While other approaches to futures work, other traditions and ways of knowing, have certainly become established, the early framing of Futures Studies arguably occurred out of this broadly reductionist framework—what Wilber has since termed `flatland'. As a result, current ideologies such as: economic growth, globalisation, the pre-eminence accorded to science and technology, and `man's conquest of nature'—were insufficiently problematised. Technology-led views of the future remain influential within Futures Studies, bureaucratic thinking and popular culture. In this view, the future is less open than it might be because it is seen merely as an extension of the present. Critical Futures Studies question such assumptions. The paper explores how the work of this leading transpersonal synthesist can contribute both to a broadening and deepening of Futures Studies and thus help to activate cultural options that are presently obscured.     

With both feet planted firmly in mid-air: Reflections on thinking about the future

This article reflects on over two decades of one individual's thinking about the future. Of central concern are the epistemological problems raised by futures studies and the role of the values and beliefs of both the producers and consumers (as well as anti-consumers) of futures studies. Increasingly Professor Michael has come to be concerned with the functions futures studies perform rather than the undertaking itself. Futures studies are seen essentially as storytelling-and various methodological injunctions and morals flow from this view.     

Dominance,stakeholders’ moves and leadership shifts: New directions for transforming futures

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.     

Futures studies and management development

Futures studies can make significant contributions to management by improving background information, stimulating new ways of thinking and providing decision inputs. Professor Dror shows how good futures studies, replacing the criterion of subjective certainty by that of objective uncertainty, pinpoint changes in management needed for long-term planning.     

Gender in futures: A study of gender and feminist papers published in Futures, 1969-2009

This paper reviews and discusses papers related to women's studies, gender or feminist perspectives, published in the scientific journal Futures. The aim is to provide new understandings and remapping of futures studies by capturing how gender is created and understood in this field. The gender/feminist criticism of futures studies mainly relates to the field being male-dominated and male biased, which means that the future is seen as already colonised by men. When synthesising the insights from all 78 papers focusing on futures studies and feminism, gender or women, four conclusions are especially striking: (1) Women and non-Westerners are generally excluded from professional futures studies activities and so are feminist issues or issues of particular relevance for women. (2) Futures studies usually make no attempts to reveal underlying assumptions, i.e. often lack a critical and reflexive perspective, which is needed in order to add a critical feminist perspective and envision feminist futures. (3) Feminist futures are needed as a contrast to hegemonic male and Western technology-orientated futures. Feminist futures are diverse, but focus the well-being of all humans. (4) Futures studies often view women as victims, rather than as drivers for change, which means that their alternative futures are often ignored.     

Integrating scenario planning and design thinking: Learnings from the 2014 Oxford Futures Forum

This issue of Futures has covered a lot of ground and much of it breaks new ground. It is not too bold to write that these articles have added new thinking to the scenario and design literatures. Even bolder, we believe that human existence and long-term sustainability are predicated in part on the ideas in this issue of Futures. In his recent book The Meaning of Human Existence, Pulitzer Prize winning Biologist E.O. Wilson wrote: premier among the consequences [of human existence] is the capacity to imagine possible futures, and to plan and choose among them. How wisely we use this uniquely human ability depends on the accuracy of our self-understanding. The question of greatest relevant interest is how and why we are the way we are, and from that, the meaning of our many competing visions of the future. Wilson, 2014, p. 14.     

Futures studies and public decision in Sweden

Futures studies are a decisive part of the public decision process in Sweden, where they appeared after World War II and gained momentum from the 1970s on.Based on a series of interviews conducted in Stockholm in December 2003, this paper presents the main players involved in futures studies in Sweden. It focuses especially on the activities of the Institute for Futures Studies, and that of the Lindbeck Commission on the Future of Sweden, which was a resounding success.The paper gives a detailed account of the interplay between this various actors. There is a strong independence between the public decision making system and the producers of futures studies. Nevertheless, futures studies prove an important instrument for public policy in Sweden, as they raise awareness in the public debate, serve as a tool for consultation, and help define scientific and technological priorities.     

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

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

Are futures organisations “ahead of their times”? A view of the World Futures Studies Federation in the 21st century

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.     

Reclaiming the future : Futures studies in Africa

This article considers the status of futures studies and research in Africa. Compared to the position two decades ago, African planning services today represent a real achievement, and can act as the basis for advanced public policy analysis. Futures studies in Africa can act to stimulate and extend the national planning function, and also provide a unified approach at the regional and continental levels. Futures studies can never be value-free—Africans embarking on futures studies must first rediscover their past and assert their present before they are able to ‘reclaim their future’.     

Internationalisation and a post-development vision

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

Beyond epistemological pluralism: Towards an integrated vision of the future

This paper is a response to Epistemological Pluralism in Futures Studies, featured as a special edition of Futures (42:2). Since that special edition was a response to Integral Futures, a previous special edition of Futures (40:2), this paper begins with a treatment of some of the critiques of IF, as well as the critiques of Ken Wilber and integral theory. I examine the validity of those critiques, focusing in particular on the accuracy of the “portraits” given of Ken Wilber and his contribution to integral theory. I also examine the claims of “epistemological pluralism” to determine whether it is a more appropriate framework for futures inquiry and practice. In this consideration, I treat epistemological pluralism (devoid of an “integrating” theory) as an expression of skeptical postmodernism. Finally, I conclude with a historical overview of integral theory.     

The past and the possible futures of Futures Studies: Some thoughts on Ziauddin Sardar's ‘the namesake’

The need to explain the concepts and terms used in Futures Studies, as in other sciences, has existed for a long time. But the necessity to do so has increased since the Second World War and is clearly important in recent debates among different groups involved in the field. This article traces the historical timeline of some of these terms in relation to the social and cultural contexts in which they were coined and first used. It argues that concepts and terms used in Futures Studies are mainly of Western origin and suggests that research should be conducted in different social and cultural contexts for concepts and terms embedded, and possibly used, in cultures different from that of the West. The article also suggests that some sort of ‘liberation movement’ should be started in this direction.     

Prediction, explanation and the epistemology of future studies

This article is a contribution to the development of the epistemological foundations of Futures Studies. The article starts by presenting the conventional “covering-law” model asserting the symmetry between prediction and explanation, a model that continues to undermine the authority of Futures Studies as a discipline despite the fact that Logical Positivism, the epistemological paradigm that inspired it, is no longer dominant. Then the article outlines the fatal weaknesses of that model showing how out of its criticism emerges the prospect of a coherent and robust epistemology of prediction. Two major points are made: First that predictive argumentation is not demonstrative but merely evidential. Therefore formal logic argumentative structures of the “covering law” type are inadequate in giving a complete and accurate account of predictive argumentation and practice. If the nature of predictive arguments is evidential then the epistemology of prediction should be based not on mere formal logic but on a larger theory of argumentation. Second, the criticism illuminates the complex problem of the types of knowledge and information used in predictive arguments to build up evidence. Explicit and formalized knowledge and statistical evidence are not enough for a successful predictive procedure. Background information and personal, local and tacit knowledge play a surprisingly major role in predictive arguments and procedures and that has very important epistemological consequences.One of the most challenging difficulties Futures Studies had to face since its inception as a discipline has been the fact that in an era dominated by the legacy of Logical Positivism the Futures Studies project seemed epistemologically odd and not quite matching the rigid standards of scientific investigation imposed by the mainstream Positivist cannon. In spite of its impressive advances in theory, methodology and applications, the shadow cast on it by the fact that it was epistemologically suspicious to the philosophic mainstream undermined a good deal of its credibility and authority as a discipline. Even in the wake of the retreat of Positivism as a dominant paradigm the situation in this respect remained frustratingly dysfunctional. Thus there is no surprise that many preeminent scholars in the field argued that an epistemology of Futures Studies was long overdue and that given the current intellectual circumstances, the effort of developing it came to represent one of the major priorities of the field at this point [1, 9, 14 and 15]. Futures Studies had to establish its epistemological credentials in a clear and robust way and thus to claim its clout and legitimacy undermined by Logical Positivism in front of the scholarly community.Undoubtedly the main source of the damage done by Logical Positivism to the epistemological foundations of Futures Studies was neither the rigid methodology implied by it nor its ultra-empiricism but its widely accepted and influential theory of explanation. The crux of that theory is that explaining and predicting events are logically and methodologically identical. It is true that positivists were interested in developing a theory of explanation and not of prediction but due to the alleged logical symmetry between the two, a complete and analogous theory of prediction emerged in a natural way by implication from the theory of explanation. This model and the relationship between prediction and explanation implied by it have raised to dominance and become the backbone of epistemology and the theory of sciences for a couple of decades. The problem is that the account it has given to both explanation and prediction is incomplete and in many respects harmful to the explanatory and predictive practice. By tying the two too close together in a rigid conceptual framework it has arbitrarily constrained their domains and undermined the epistemological legitimacy of many of the methods, practices and approaches associated to them.In the case of explanation, the model, while adequate for many important types of scientific explanations is not at all applicable to all scientific domains. It is definitely not a complete account of explanation and the consequences of the straightjacket it has imposed to scientific inquiry are appreciable. Imposing prediction as a fundamental concept and criteria for explanation the positivist epistemological model sets standards that many disciplines could never achieve by their very nature. As such they were arbitrary relegated outside the proper domain of science. The result was an unnecessary long and painful debate in all the disciplines affected by that demarcation criterion, a sterile debate that rages to this day in, for instance, political science or sociology.But the impact of the model on prediction was even worse. The spread of the belief in the identity of predictive and explanatory scientific procedures undermined at a fundamental level the efforts to reflect on the nature and potentialities of predictive procedures different from those used for explanation. The legacy of this state of affairs continues to be felt very strongly in Futures Studies. Nevertheless it is interesting to stress that doesn’t happen due to the embrace of the positivist model by the discipline. Familiar with the complexities of future oriented thinking, Futures scholars never took the model seriously. But outside the sphere of its own theorists and practitioners, the Futures Studies field has been still perceived through the epistemological lenses shaped by the positivist model. The truth is that the legitimacy and status of Futures Studies rest with the position the field manages to validate for itself in the mainstream epistemological and scientific methodology forum. And the reality is that the epistemological asymmetry between explanation and prediction has not been adequately recognized and considered outside the field in epistemology or social theory, and that the Futures Studies scholars haven’t made and drawn that distinction convincingly enough.The discussion of the specific methodology of prediction—a theme that with very few exceptions has been neglected by the philosophers of science themselves—failed to enter the mainstream epistemological and philosophy of knowledge debates. And the crucial obstacle to that development continues to be the myth reigning in mainstream social sciences that explanation and prediction are or should be symmetrical processes. It is interesting to note that disentangling the models of predictions from those of explanation, and making the case for a solid epistemological argument remains today a priority for the futures research community as it was 30 years ago. In a path-breaking article written in 1964 Hellmer and Rescher wrote: “As long as one believes that explanation and prediction are strict methodological counterparts, it is reasonable to press further with solely the explanatory problems of a discipline, in the expectation that only the tools thus forged will then be usable for predictive purposes. But once this belief is rejected, the problem of a specifically predictive method arises, and it becomes pertinent to investigate the possibilities of predictive procedures autonomous of those used for explanation” [5].During the last decades Futures Studies made important progress in theory, methodology and applications. But it is still to make a convincing case to gain epistemological legitimacy outside its own field. The task is clear: translating into the mainstream’s epistemological terms the insights gained by the discipline and placing them within the ongoing debates in philosophy of science and theory of knowledge. That effort and the epistemological battle for the future and status of the field are even more urgent today when the place of logical positivism is filled by a number of scattered approaches that may lead to a broader and more realistic view of explanation but that continue to neglect the issue of prediction. Thus in spite of the change of the climate of philosophical opinion, the prediction issue is in danger of remaining strongly tied in its entanglement with explanation, and to unwittingly carry on the legacy of the positivist model.Therefore it is even more important today to disentangle the theory of prediction from the theory of explanation and thus to contribute to the elaboration of a strong case for an autonomous and specific epistemology for Futures Studies. This paper is a contribution to this effort of carving a firm epistemological ground for Futures Studies. As such it continues by presenting the classical model of the symmetry between prediction and explanation and then outlines its fatal weaknesses showing how out of its criticism emerges the possibility of a coherent, robust, original and very interesting epistemology of prediction. All these are done being aware of the fact that the epistemology of Futures Studies could not be reduced to a mere extension of a theory of prediction and that themes such as conditionals, counterfactuals and scenario-related analytic narratives that carry on their own epistemological load are as important as prediction is. However given he external perception of Futures Studies, a perception that is defined and shaped by the notion of prediction, the issue of prediction should be addressed with priority.     

WTI crude oil Futures in portfolio diversification: The time-to-maturity effect

The aim of the paper is to analyze the diversification effect brought by crude oil Futures contracts, the most liquid commodity Futures, into a portfolio of stocks. The studies that have documented the very low- and essentially negative-correlations between commodities and equities typically rely on normally distributed returns, which is not the case for crude oil Futures and stocks indexes. Moreover, the particular time-to-maturity chosen for the Future contract used as an investment vehicle is an important matter that needs to be addressed, in presence of forward curves switching between backwardation and contango shapes.Our goal in this paper is twofold: (a) we introduce copula functions to have a better representation of the dependence structure of oil Futures with equity indexes; (b) using this copula representation, we are able to analyze in a precise manner the “maturity effect” in the choice of crude oil Future contract with respect to its diversification benefits. Our finding is that, in the case of distant maturities Futures, e.g., 18 months, the negative correlation effect is more pronounced whether stock prices increase or decrease. This property has the merit to avoid the hurdles of a frequent roll over while being quite desirable in the current trendless equity markets. Empirical evidence is exhibited on a database comprising the NYMEX WTI crude oil Futures and S&P 500 index over a 15 year-time period.     

Foresight defined as a component of Strategic Management

This paper explores basic theoretical affinities between Foresight and Futures and Strategic Management, arguing that at this point in its development, Foresight can best be understood and deployed as an explicitly managerial discipline.The growth of Foresight and Futures Studies as a discipline has been less robust than the internal logic of the field would predict, potentially indicating an opportunity for theoretical renewal. Foresight is often justified on managerial grounds, with the argument that a discipline is needed to guide decision-making in a technologically aggressive, post-industrial society. Some within Foresight and Futures Studies have argued for the active development of alternatives to these managerial justifications. However, the links between Strategic Management and Futures Studies are robust and the embrace of cross-disciplinary dialogue has proven invigorating in some other disciplines. An evaluation of the goals and logic of Foresight from the standpoint of mainstream Strategic Management gives a novel perspective on the field, highlighting its importance to information processing. Finally, Foresight speaks to well-established normative problems with short-term biases in managerial contexts. For the purposes of this article, the terms “Foresight” and “Futures Studies” are used interchangeably to refer to the general study of futures.     

What foresight! Understanding Australia's housing future

Futures analysis has been little used to inform housing policy debate, despite the fact that historical precedent is becoming increasingly limited as a guide for policy direction. This paper examines the potential utility of ‘strategic foresight’ in considering possible housing futures for Australia. It examines the particular foresight methods employed, and processes used, to develop possible housing futures in the year 2025 and their policy implications. The paper concludes that foresight analysis, although not without its problems, creates the opportunity to move beyond current thinking and ‘path dependent’ policy parameters, enabling discussion of housing futures in a way that prompts critical discussion of the institutional arrangements and policies that shape housing policy in the present.     

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

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

论期货公司业务创新空间

本文在<期货交易管理条例>的法律框架内,从两个方面对我国期货公司的业务创新机遇进行分析:一是在现行金融市场和期货监管制度下期货公司的业务创新空间,二是在<期货交易管理条例>规制内,期货业务的制度创新空间.本文认为,在法规允许范嗣内积极开展与银行、信托公司、券商等金融机构的业务合作,是期货业务创新的现实突破口;以制度创新推动期货公司的业务创新,逐步扩大期货公司在境外期货、期货投资咨询与顾问、期货公司受托理财、期货交易顾问与期货基金等业务以及自有资本使用范围等方面的行政许可范围,将能真正打开期货公司业务创新的新天地.     

Futures Studies in Iran: Learning through trial and error

Futures Studies is a recent addition to the academic/intellectual/policy making life in Iran. Despite the fact that publication/launch dates of the first books/research projects on Futures Studies go back to few decades ago, it is only in the past few years that promotion of this discipline has gained momentum. Our aim in this paper is to present an overview of the development of Futures Studies in Iran since 1960s. We briefly explore the history of Futures Studies in Iran and explain why it has taken a technocratic line, as opposed to other possibilities (e.g. corporatist, environmentalists, citizen visioning (anticipatory democracy), etc.). In particular, we present an analysis of an ongoing and comprehensive foresight project whose objective is to provide Iranian top decision makers with a set of scenarios concerning future developments in a number of areas of science and technology until 2025. The main argument of the paper is that in response to the demands made by the policymakers, Iranian scholars, academics and technologists are trying to equip themselves with the latest techniques and know how for long-term planning and vision-building. However, due to various limitations the ride has not been an easy one. To overcome the obstacles, those who are at the forefront of developing indigenous versions of technological and theoretical aspects of Futures Studies have resorted to the method of trial and error and learning through doing. The paper critically examines the weaknesses and points of strength of this approach in the context of Iran.