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.     

Near-future landscapes as a futures tool

Insights created within futures studies (FS) and written up in the futures literature may be too abstract and diverse to fulfil the goal of FS to provide clear ‘maps’ to non-specialists of the near-term future. However, graphics and images may help to make futures concepts and emerging insights easier to grasp. The paper surveys a little used and under-studied approach: that of near-future landscapes (NFLs). Several examples are considered. Useful as they may be, they are viewed as transitional forms that will be improved upon by greater interest in futures imaging processes and further developments in the technologies of graphic representation.     

From metaphoric litany text to scenarios—How to use metaphors in futures studies

Metaphor and metonymy belong to the key concepts of semiotics and general linguistics. As illustrations of scenarios, metaphors already have a long history in the futures studies, too. Metaphors were discussed in the CLA Reader 1.0¹ (Inayatullah ed., 2004) but the CLA Reader 2.0 edited by Inayatullah and Milojevic (2015) gives metaphors the central role in futures research² that they deserve. The article compares the approaches of semiotics and the CLA and suggests practical steps for the analysis of metaphoric futures oriented texts and their use in the construction of scenarios. Assuming that the litany is a text, metaphors may be present on all levels of the CLA: litany, systemic causes, worldview and myth/emotion. Metaphors are suitable even for the illustration of the CLA second level quantitative causal relations between variables. As an illustrating case study, we analyze a text that suggests the great future of the Northern Sea Route. The deconstruction of the litany results in two narratives or scenarios. They are constructed utilizing proverbs and other metaphoric sayings that get many citations on the Internet.     

Macrohistory and futures studies

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

Choosing diverse sets of plausible scenarios in multidimensional exploratory futures techniques

Morphological analysis allows any number of dimensions to be retained when framing future conditions, and techniques within morphological analysis determine which combinations of those dimensions represent plausible futures. However, even a relatively low number of dimensions in future conditions can lead to hundreds or even thousands of plausible future scenarios. Creating highly diverse but conceivable visions of the future in which to explore decision-making, exploratory futures techniques rely on the selection of a small number of plausible scenarios from the larger set. In this paper we describe a new method for finding maximally diverse sets containing a small number of plausible scenarios from a multi-dimensional morphological analysis. It is based on a mathematical optimization of diversity that is robust to the uncertainty in the framing of future factors and states and in what stakeholders might consider diverse combinations of those factors and states. We also describe implementation of the method as a software tool and its performance in recent exploratory scenario development by CGIAR and partners for regional environmental change, food security and livelihoods.     

Anticipatory action learning: conversations about the future

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.

Ethical dilemmas: Teaching futures in schools

Educational policy is implicitly futures oriented, yet in most instances fails to engage learners with explicit futures tools and concepts at a school level. Futures studies in education, or futures education has the potential to reposition learning as purposeful and mobilizes the lives of participants by connecting the curriculum of schools with the multifaceted futures of learners. This is a complex task within the tensions often existing between: the cultural role of a school, the expectations of a society, the expertise of teachers, and the increasingly diverse needs of learners (Bateman, 2012). It is between the tensions of these things that the ‘ethical’ issues of what is taught, or omitted as content in a classroom and the consequences of these choices are evident.This paper highlights ethical and moral dilemmas, as they were apparent in two futures education projects. In the first study, the teachers discuss the inherent limitations of offering a broader and more futures oriented curriculum. In the second study, teachers reflect upon their students’ anxiety with regards to futures images as they are interrogated within a curriculum study. Each of these studies highlights the ethical challenges that arise, when possible, preferable and probable futures are developed as part of learning in school settings, which are culturally and demographically diverse.Tirri and Husu (2002) highlight the ethical dilemmas, which emerge in classrooms around the world, based on conflicts in values and competing intentions between key stakeholders. In the studies which contribute to this discussion, there is evidence to suggest that futures thinking causes conflict within an individual's perception of how the world should be, or their worldview as a result of futures imagining which goes beyond what is taken for granted, or is an assumed future eventuality. In the same way, Carrington, Deppeler, and Moss (2010) argue that all curriculum choices about what is taught (or not taught) in a classroom reflect an ethical decision made by a teacher, with regards to what is foregrounded for learning and what is omitted.It is crucial to re-examine the role of a school in educating students for their futures, as opposed to educating students with an aim of furthering governmental agendas. More significantly, however, as this paper highlights, it is exploring the boundaries of what is acceptable or unacceptable, appropriate or inappropriate to teach in a classroom, given the changing diversities of schools and education systems throughout the world.     

Images of the future: a historical perspective

In an attempt to create a futures philosophy, this paper analyzes and critiques Fredrich Polak’s Image of the future, a philosophy of history that contends that the image of the future of a society or culture defines a particular era and is the key to understanding of the rise and fall of civilizations. Polak’s view is compared with J.B. Bury’s ideas expressed in The idea of progress. The paper also illustrates how Max Weber’s The protestant ethic and the Spirit of capitalism contributes to an understanding of the progressive image of the future which, along with utopian images of the future, composes the dialectic of futures images. It shows how progressive and utopian images of the future have been expressed in dialectical world history and how they are still relevant today to serve as an insight for prognosis. Finally, it examines and answers Polak’s charge that existentialism is the cause for the destruction of the modern image of the future.     

A futures perspective in Dutch geography education

Geography education offers many possibilities for futures education. In The Netherlands, a future perspective is obvious in the vision behind the curriculum for secondary education, but this perspective becomes thinner and less open when elaborated in the syllabus, textbooks and examinations. From an intended ideal curriculum with challenging future relevant issues and a call for scenario thinking, it changes into a presentation of a fixed and often negative future in the perceived implemented curriculum. In a focus group meeting with stakeholders of the geography educators’ community, there is recognition of the importance of a futures perspective. But there is also uncertainty and unfamiliarity, when it comes to implementing a futures perspective in geography education. Moreover, the institutional constraints, with an output testing regime, prevent the geography educators from making substantial room in their implemented curriculum for futures education. To enable geography teachers to implement or improve a futures perspective in their education, more clarity about the function and form is necessary. By researching and supporting good teaching practice, the expertise needed can be built, extended and used to empower a lobby advocating a more supportive national policy.     

The futures of the colonised

A reading of Rabindranath Tagore’s last testament—Sabhyatar Sankat [11] (published in English as Crisis in Civilization [12])—reveals that it is an instance of how the colonised have shown at times astonishing capacity to make a transition from realistic criticisms to utopia, which serves as the most volatile critique of the colonial situation. Utopian thinking in the colonial world counters the reality of power, inspires and becomes the basis of hope and resistance. Dissolution and farewell—the two recurrent strains in Tagore’s essay—express the meaning of the rite of dreaming by the colonised. They also spiritualise the dangerous act of dreaming the future by those who feel their fate to be sealed. While politics of the present goes on, all along that, and all through that time, parallel attempts go on to re-make the nation into a new political society based on the incipient ideas of those times of justice and freedom. An overlapping historical sense prevails in a critical time, as it prevailed at the time Tagore wrote his last testament, and the clue to the overlap can be found only in an awareness of the contentious politics of the present, which a later-day chronicler will read as an act of seeing the future. History’s excess is future—the excess that defies rationality, like Tagore’s expectation of the advent of the Man from the East that defied logical explanations about the politics of his time.     

Applying Foucault to a future-oriented layered analysis in a post-bubble Japanese community

In this paper I argue that a hybrid research methodology that integrates Foucauldian post-structuralist approaches and concepts enhances future-oriented layered analyses. This hybrid application of post-structuralism in conjunction with Causal Layered Analysis to a real-world problematic facilitated greater depth of understanding of and insight into the specified futures problematic, augmenting the repertoire of identifiable preferred futures. Using this approach I present a retrospective account of an actual case study within the context of a post-bubble Japanese community revitalisation program and the community’s struggle to articulate and communicate preferred images of the future. I conclude with a post-investigation critique scrutinising this research methodology and offer suggestions for the futures of layered analyses.     

A vision of futures studies

The article looks at futures studies from the point of view of the author who has spent over 30 years in the field, with special reference to the World Futures Studies Federation. It suggests that visions are essential for conducting futures studies and education in futures studies is vital for preparing future oriented new generations. The author points out that around the world women are developing silent alternatives to the present societies geared to conflict and violence; this may lead to non-violent changes of which many are not aware. Futures studies will also benefit from examining futures of cultures as we seem to be developing a new culture of peace.     

Futures of integral futures: An analysis of Richard Slaughter's analysis of Causal Layered Analysis

By way of exemplifying the problematisation of particular uses of Wilber's integral approach and its address of postformal thought, this paper analyses Slaughter's “integral” analysis of Inayatullah's Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) which forms part of Slaughter's article, “What difference does ‘integral’ make?” Futures 40 (2) (2008). Evidence given for Slaughter's assertions is investigated. His assertions are then analysed partly by way of hermeneutics, CLA and deconstruction including address of Koestler's holon theory, Jung's archetypes, and Lakoff and Johnson's conceptual metaphor. The potential of Slaughter's analysis involves the opening up or furthering of generative dialogue, specifically through extending the possibilities of CLA. As instituted, however, it enacts a premature foreclosure of such potential, partly through offering an inadequate and inaccurate evaluation of CLA. This paper specifically problematises the notion that CLA is not substantively postconventional, whilst pointing to unproductive modernistic tendencies in Slaughter's analysis. In so doing, it opens up new avenues for integral futures.     

On applied science, prediction and contingency

Like any other science, to remain a worthwhile scientific discipline, futures research needs to reflect on itself. It needs to do so from three perspectives: 1) futures research is regarded as an applied science: a closer connection between studying the future in an academic manner and conducting futures research can improve the quality and subsequently the use and impact of futures research, since this will set a cyclic process between theory and practice in motion. An important condition for ensuring this is to increase the amount of empirical research concerning the way futures research is carried out in real life; 2) a reappraisal of predicting the future: although history has shown that predicting the future is difficult, stating that, in the future, predictions will not be a part of futures research is in itself a prediction. In fact, predictions can serve as valuable starting points for discourses on the future; 3) the context of futures research: futures researchers should be more aware of the context in which they do their work. This can significantly enhance the usability of futures research but it also means that futures researchers should become more flexible in applying their methods and processes.     

Demography as a forecasting tool

The European population is rapidly ageing. This implies changing economic and social relations between the generations. In turn this precipitates economic change. In particular the welfare bill in the future needs to be paid for more dependants by a smaller working population. This fundamental shift also changes the conditions for productivity growth, trade and even monetary policy. Using demographic projections to forecast these changes and integrate them into futures scenarios contributes to realism in the futures envisioned. Demographic processes can be influenced by policy, but the feedback is slow. This ensures the usefulness of demographic forecasting but it also implies that policy decisions need to be taken well in advance of the problems that ageing will cause. At horizons beyond 10–20 years there are ample opportunity to adapt the society to avoid unacceptable scenarios. Before that the scope for action is much less and much more constrained. The inertia of the demographic structure is such that it is hard and probably costly to turn unwanted trends caused by unbalanced age structures. For example, a likely consequence of the developing scarcity of labour in Europe is that the demand for education goes down in spite of the desirability for society to expand higher education.     

Preparing for the millennium : Reflections on the need for futures education

What does education for a just and sustainable future look like and how might it be implemented in the classroom? This article is an introduction to the work of one particular curriculum project in the UK which is working with teachers on this issue. First, the broader educational context is described both in terms of the author's personal and professional interests and in relation to existing good practice in global education. Attention is then drawn to various formative influences on the project's design, both from futures education and from the futures field more generally. Finally, the aims of the project are outlined together with details of current work in progress.     

An Integral extension of causal layered analysis

Causal layered analysis (CLA) is a futures method developed by Sohail Inayatullah and since applied by numerous futurists across multiple content areas. The central assumption of CLA is that there are different levels of reality and ways of knowing; beneath the popular conceptions of an issue (the litany) and more academic analysis of systemic causes are deep worldview commitments, discourses, myths and metaphors. This layered understanding of reality initially seems to resonate with ideas from Ken Wilber's Integral Theory, which identifies developmental levels across behavioural, social, psychological and cultural quadrants. On closer inspection, there are some important theoretical and conceptual differences between CLA and Integral Theory; from an Integral perspective, the layers in CLA confuse quadrants, developmental levels and developmental lines. In this paper, I explore these differences in search of a resolution that will allow the fruitful application of CLA within an Integral Futures framework. I find that CLA, as currently conceived, is not an Integral method in its own right. However, CLA has great value for Integral Futures work as a way of drawing attention to the neglected cultural dimension of futures. Further, with some modifications and extensions, a more Integral application of CLA seems possible.     

Retrieving the dream: How students envision their preferable futures

This article begins by recalling the crucial role that popular images of the future play in societal development. It notes the apparent dearth of positive images as we approach the millennium and highlights the value of futures workshops as a procedure for enabling participants to envision the future more clearly. In particular attention is drawn to the work of Elise Boulding and her findings in this field. A pilot-study is then described which used the process developed by Boulding to help students identify the key features of their preferable futures. Some support is found for her contention that a ‘baseline’ future often emerges from such work.     

Beliefs about human extinction

This paper presents the results of a web-based survey about futures issues. Among many questions, respondents were asked whether they believe humans will become extinct. Forty-five percent of the almost 600 respondents believe that humans will become extinct. Many of those holding this believe felt that humans could become extinct within 500–1000 years. Others estimated extinction 5000 or more years into the future. A logistic regression model was estimated to explore the bases for this belief. It was found that people who describe themselves a secular are more likely to hold this belief than people who describe themselves as being Protestant. Older respondents and those who believe that humans have little control over their future also hold this belief. In addition, people who are more apt to think about the future and are better able to imagine potential futures tend to also believe that humans will become extinct.     

“Every today was a tomorrow”: An integral method for indexing the social mediation of preferred futures

The visions we hold of the future, whether they are of utopias or dystopias, are not simply a matter of personal imagination. Our conceptions of the future are mediated to us as much as they are privately created by us. To this point, futures studies have not developed an integrative and broad-based framework for considering the social mediation of futures. Understanding how social mediation impacts on our futures visioning requires an interpretive framework that can cope with the multilayered nature of futures visions, the worldviews that are associated with them and a theory of mediation that can be applied within such a context of ‘depth’. Using theory-building methodology, the current paper attempts this task by describing a theory of social mediation that builds on the integral futures framework. An application of the framework explores the relationship between various scenarios of health care futures, their associated worldviews and the mediational factors that influence our visions of future health care systems.