- Email: [email protected]
Re-examining and renewing theoretical underpinnings of the Futures field: A pressing and long-term challenge
Futures 41 (2009) 67–70
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Futures journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/futures
Introduction
Re-examining and renewing theoretical underpinnings of the Futures field: A pressing and long-term challenge
Futurists build and discuss statements on future states of affairs. When their work is challenged, they cannot defend ‘‘what may come to be’’ with robust forms of proof. They have no direct observation, can design no experiments, and cannot accumulate data sets. All the work, all the discussions of validity, have to rely on indirect reasoning based on current and past observations, experiments and data. Such reasoning is fragile and subject to considerable uncertainty. Ever since the field emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, futurists have been acutely aware of the special challenge this implies, including two most obvious consequences. First, even the most serious work is vulnerable to potentially devastating criticism. This has triggered an on-going effort of theoretical justification that has accompanied the development of the Futures field. Second, in relation to this, sound methodology is crucially important to provide support when exploring such insecure ground as professional and academic speculation on possible futures. It is not surprising that methodology has constantly been one – and often the – central concern of the field, sometimes to a point of excess. As early as 1980, De´coufle´ could warn companion futurists against the urge ‘‘to jump steps in the long and difficult progression towards the still hypothetical scientificity of conjectural work by displaying inappropriate complacency for issues of method’’. Whether or not some futurists do ‘jump steps’, the Futures field has consistently shown much reflexivity on its theoretical foundations and its methodological procedures. However, the nature of the theoretical and methodological challenges to be addressed by such reflexivity changes over time. The doctrines, the methodological resources, the knowledge-base, the organisation of discussion in the field, that once provided the basis for successfully meeting the challenges of a given era may become inadequate or irrelevant if the context comes to change in a major way. Our argument in this special issue is that such a major change in the challenges that have to be met by our field is now well under way, calling for a major re-examination and renewal of the theoretical underpinnings of futures work.1 Deepening and refining the diagnosis of the changing context of FS is of course one part of the task ahead of us. But to launch the effort, and show its necessity, let us just sketch a rough picture of the situation, by reviewing three important aspects of the development of the Futures field: (1) practical necessity and finalisation, (2) peculiarity and separation, and (3) methodology-based development. Confronted with strident criticism on the possibility and legitimacy of any serious study of future situations, the strongest argument put forward by many pioneers of the Futures field was that studying possible futures was necessary for action and decision-making. As expressed by Bertrand de Jouvenel (1964): ‘‘One always foresees, without richness of data, without awareness of method, without critique nor cooperation. It is now urgent and important to give this individual and natural activity a cooperative, organised character, and submit it to growing demands of intellectual rigor’’. This has proved a decisive basis for the development of the field, from the 1960s to the present day. It has led to a situation where most works on futures are legitimised through their connection to business management, to public decision-making, or both. The success of foresight in the recent years is an illustration of the strength of this covenant between futures methodology and the needs of long-term, strategic, management and policy. The downside of thus using the contribution to decision-making as the main theoretical justification and as the backbone of methodological design in futures work has been, and is now, a constant weakening of the effort to explore and develop other bases for theoretical foundation and methodological development. Although many such avenues have been opened, they have not been explored very far, because the evaluation of new methods has been based on their adequacy in serving studies designed for the preparation of decision-making, or of collective action.
1 In this discussion, we will envisage the Futures field in a very broad way, so that we will make no distinction between Foresight, Futures Studies (FS), and other denominations that periodically redefine the perimeter of professional and academic work on futures.
0016-3287/$ – see front matter ß 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2008.07.040
68
Introduction / Futures 41 (2009) 67–70
Another strong impact of basing most developments of futures on the idea of contributing to decision-making has been the deep hybridisation between practioners and academics within the futures community, including the various intermediary consulting arrangements. The existence and work experience of networks of practitioners, academics and consultants is a major asset of the field, but it may also become, as we shall see, a source of rigidity and vulnerability. In the same context, academic disciplines in general have declined to study futures, and left to futurists a field most disciplines felt was too unscientific for academic comfort. As a result, those interested in the eccentric effort of studying futures could function as a rather autonomous community, occupying a niche in which they could exercise a very high degree of freedom. They came to the Futures island from various disciplines, each one bringing their background as a contribution to the melting-pot of theory, methodology and practice of the Futures field. As a result, the field operated in comparative isolation, enjoying a sort of exclusivity on a subject of practical importance that provided funding, exciting challenges and the incentive for people of very different backgrounds to function as a community of research, consulting and practice. These characteristics of the field result in a pattern of work where visibility and discussions are largely centered around ‘‘flagship methodologies’’ (prospective strate´gique, participatory foresight, integrated assessment, to name but a few). Each such methodology provides inter alia a package of procedures and methods adapted to a certain type of problem-situations, a clearly identifiable and often ‘‘branded’’ product for the paying client, a training and quality control reference for a network of practitioners and trainers, an academically defensible product to derive from otherwise difficult to publish (even when highly interesting) futures interventions and a source of emulation for innovation within the field. There are also downsides to this focus on methodological and process codification, such as a tendency towards the proliferation of approaches and to a relative devaluation both of substantive productions, e.g. a critique and examination of scenarios, and of more theoretical work, e.g. a theoretical analysis of procedural activity. These major traits of the Futures field are both the result of, and an adaptation to, a situation where academic disciplines carry epistemological beliefs that lead them to eschew both the study of futures and specific collaboration between researcher and practitioner. In the last 20 years however, this context has been undergoing an important gradual transformation, the consequences of which are now starting to affect the Futures field in a major way. The field of environment and sustainable development provides good examples. On issues such as climate change or the evolution of land use, the production and discussion of simulations and scenarios has become a large-scale industry with heavy involvement of academic communities. Publishing on possible futures has moved from an eccentric type of research to a mainstream activity in some sectors of academia and research institutes. Of course, by no means all academic disciplines or fields of interest have yet followed this direction. But the movement is starting; it must, and probably will, continue. It is already advanced enough to confront the Futures field with major challenges to its strongpoints as we reviewed them briefly above. (a) There is little serious challenge left today as to the necessity and the possibility of researching the future. Academic institutions and disciplines increasingly engage in works on future issues. Even if the evolution is not very fast, due to numerous stumbling blocks in most disciplines, the trend should continue—and should be encouraged to do so. This evolution has a high potential to destabilise the current implicit compact under which the Futures field enjoys a comparative exclusivity. Indeed, in complex decision-making arenas futures work with strong academic roots and credentials tends to be seen not as less, but as more relevant and powerful than efforts centered directly on decisionmaking (e.g. trend analysis and scenarios). Furthermore, the academic world can mobilise resources (intellectual, human, institutional) incomparable to those of the comparatively marginal Futures field, for the production of a wide range of theories, methods, and elaborated conjectures on the futures. (b) The relation between academia and civil society, including the public, has evolved dramatically, both in practice (again, many examples can be found in the field of sustainable development) and, most importantly here, in the way they are viewed. Three decades of intense activity in the sociology of science and of innovation has opened wide breaches in the (largely imaginary) walls between academia and the world of action, by showing that research has always been (and is now more than ever) supported by hybrid networks of research and societal action. Under such influences, practice is evolving so fast that the practitioner/theoretician collaboration as it prevails in the Futures field is no longer original and audacious, but quaint when compared with the complex, large scale procedures currently developed for involving practitioners in the study of global futures problems. (c) The increasing involvement of academia in the production and discussion of work on futures increases the demand for and possibilities of in-depth discussion of results and of theories the work is based on. This is promising for the evolution of quality in futures work. But approaches based mostly on sharing the know-how of experienced practitioners and on standardised methodologies that leave little room for innovation or for discipline- or field situation-specificity, when put to the test are likely to be found wanting. In a context where academic institutions invest increasingly in studying futures, the Futures field as we know it is threatened by marginalisation and unhealthy fragmentation. Even though it posesses very rich intellectual resources, accumulated through a five-decade long history of dealing with futures issues, and reflecting on how to deal with them, these may be left fallow if the aims and the modus operandi of the various networks constituting the Futures field do not rise to the new challenges. We think there is an urgent need to start a transformation that will take years and lead
Introduction / Futures 41 (2009) 67–70
69
the field to somewhere quite different from where it is now. Where to go? And how to get there? These questions can only be answered by collective discussion—which is precisely what we are trying to encourage through this special issue of Futures. But let us suggest some orientations, based on the sketch of the situation we proposed above. (1) We ought to focus less exclusively on the more directly finalised forms of Futures work (i.e. relating to particular decisions) and, while obviously continuing with it, at the same time also encourage the development of other, less directly finalised, or application driven, forms of Futures work; there is high potential for this in the field. (2) We should consider raising our game by making strategic developments in the area of organising collaboration between researchers, experts, practitioners, field actors, and the public. Getting them to overcome their prejudice and communicate is no longer something new. What needs to be achieved is building and holding viable connections between credible and active research, efficient expertise, and action arenas that make a difference. (3) Instead of being rather disconnected from the academic disciplines and institutions through the isolation of the Futures issue, the Futures field should aim to become a major connector between fields of studies that are embarking in the study of futures. There is an important role to play, since academic areas of studies tend by construction to remain more or less disconnected, whereas the serious study of futures requires specific connections to be made. The connections with disciplines needs to be active: and this represents a major turn from relative isolation based on the rapidly vanishing para-academic idiosyncracy of futures work. (4) Rather than giving central attention to the codification of flagship methodology, we ought to move towards a position where the normal focus would be on the in-depth, critical discussion of the practice and results of studies and of their theoretical bases, strengths and weaknesses. How to get there? Certainly there are several complementary approaches, to be discussed on further occasions. Here, we would like to focus on the last point – promoting innovation in, and critical discussion of, theoretical underpinnings – both because we think it is a major aspect of the situation of the field, and because it can also help to advance the other three issues (expanding beyond the most directly finalised approaches, raising the game in discussion between practice and research, intensifying connections to academic disciplines investing in futures). This basically involves two kinds of endeavour. The first is to develop theoretical underpinning through a critical consideration and mobilisation of theories from other fields, aiming either at strengthening theory, methodology and practice of studies on futures, or at analysis and critique of futures work. The second endeavour is the continuation and renewal of work developed mostly from within the Futures field, with efforts bearing on the theorisation of futures studies practice, methods and results. The papers gathered in this special issue illustrate these approaches. We hope to show the relevance of each individually, and their complementarities. The first contribution, by Ted Fuller and Krista Loogma, draws on constructionist and constructivist theories in sociology, theories that examine how both knowledge and social reality are not just discovered and disclosed, but actively, socially, constructed. The idea per se that our understanding of possible futures is a construct is not new to futurists and was already stressed by the pioneers of the sixties—their question was rather how do we construct relevant, useful, conjectures? What the paper shows is rather (1) that in the meantime, ideas and theories in sociology have undergone evolutions and developments such that the constructionism inherent in the Futures field is no more an atypical premise, but rather a widely shared paradigm, and (2) that by increasing their knowledge of the constructivist and constructionist theories and approaches developed in sociology in the last two or three decades, futures specialists could deepen their work, and the discussion of it. The second contribution, by Michael Søgaard Jørgensen, Ulrik Jørgensen and Christian Clausen, provides a more specific example of this. They show how a Social Shaping of Technology approach (SST) from the sociology of science and technology, can be used in foresight. This approach can provide a critique of those foresight approaches which assume that technological research and advances linearly determine long term evolutions, and thus insufficiently recognise the decisive influence of the interplay between social and technological factors on those evolutions. The authors also show how SST approaches can help design foresight methodologies that take fuller account of such interplay. This kind of methodological development, by being explicitly based on theories borrowed from – and shared with – the sociology of science and of innovation, prepares the ground for richer interaction between those experts engaging in futures work on technology and the wider communities of those studying and discussing technology and society. In the third contribution, Charles Booth, Michael Rowlinson, Peter Clark, Agnes Delahaye and Stephen Procter draw from a different set of disciplines to re-examine the theoretical underpinnings of scenario methodologies. Scenarios, the authors argue, can be viewed as modal narratives, that is, narratives built to explore issues of possibility and necessity. Counterfactuals (narratives on historical events that might have unfolded, provided that a given event in history had turned out differently than it did) are another sort of modal narrative. Mobilising the theory of modal narratives produced by their research, the authors propose to embed scenario design and evaluation in the wider interdisciplinary field of possible worlds (a field they introduce to the reader). The approach provides opportunities to benefit from theories and insights recently gained in some very specialised fields of disciplines like history, management theory, and philosophy. Reading the paper, one gains an insight of how theory from other domains can strengthen the Futures field. The concepts and elements of theories thus made available, being very relevant to the kind of issues scenario methods tackle and firmly based in theoretical backgrounds not yet used in scenario activities, provide new opportunities both for deeper critical discussion of scenarios and, most probably, for new and deeper scenario design methods.
70
Introduction / Futures 41 (2009) 67–70
These three papers illustrate different variants of the first of the two kinds of efforts in re-examining and renewing theoretical underpinnings in Futures work: establishing new links and mobilising theoretical resources from other fields. The last two papers of the special issue illustrate the other kind of effort: the continuation and renewal of the enduring programme of the Futures fields to theorise its own practice, and explain its underpinnings. Ruud van der Helm’s contribution on the ‘‘vision phenomenon’’ focuses on those approaches in the Futures field that rely on the development of visions of the future to inspire action, to mobilise, to trigger discussion, etc. He shows the diversity and importance of such methods in the history of studies on futures, but that overall little attention has been devoted to exploring and strengthening the theoretical bases they rest on. This is precisely what the author has set out to do in his research. The paper presents a clarification of the different types of vision-based futures works, and an analysis of the various assumptions vision-based works can choose to build on. It shows the importance of some of the theoretical issues – such as the choice of a theory of change – that are of major importance when discussing the design or the impact of a futures exercise based on one or another vision-based approach. In the fifth – and last – paper of the special issue, Laurent Mermet proposes orientations for expanding the perimeter of the Futures field, to make it more theory-based and to connect it better with works on futures emerging in other academic fields. Based on developments in the field of environment and sustainable development, the paper first presents a critique of the consequences of the overactive promotion of flagship methodologies in the Futures field—a syndrome he proposes to name the metonymical hustle. It then states the new challenge of the field as being to transform and expand itself so that it may serve as an open construction site and discussion arena, shared by more and more numerous, diversified and academically ambitious communities of academics and/or experts undertaking futures work. To help the movement in that direction, the paper proposes an ‘‘open framework’’. This is an organised system of basic concepts and orientations, made as generic as possible. It provides a common set of concepts which can be used by futurists, adopting completely different theoretical underpinnings and methodological tools, to discuss their major theoretical and methodological choices without allegiance to any single school of thought. Within the scope of this growing internal reflexivity, there are two elements that remain under-exposed in the current special edition, but which are part of a general reflection on theoretical underpinning: (1) a historical perspective, and (2) a linguistic perspective. The first offers the potential of learning from what the major ‘futurists’ have offered to the field. Rereading and critically re-examining groundbreaking works by De Jouvenel, Berger, Polak, Boulding, Jungk, Kahn, etc. (including their relevant biographies) may be a valuable source for grounding futures research. Attempts in this direction have been made, but most of them are limited in scope or are only instrumental in defending an idea. The second, the linguistic (semantic) perspective, underscores the importance of language as the major, if not only, tool of futures research. This linguistic perspective demands a reflexive approach to the way we use language to explore the future and the vocabulary that is needed to do so (see for example Van der Helm, 2006). This special edition has been developed within the framework of and was sponsored by the European COST Network ‘‘Foresight Methodologies. Exploring new ways to explore the future’’ (COST A22; European Co-operation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research is a European research facility funded by the European Commission; http://cordis/ europa.eu/cost or www.costa22.com). The work was initiated by the working group on Concepts and Vocabulary, whose members have contributed through debate and discussion to the outcome of this effort. The editors like to thank in particular Maria Giaoutsi, Jari Kaivo-Oja, Hubert Kieken, Bruce Lloyd, Eleonora Masini, Bart van Steenbergen, Ku¨lliki Tafel, Erik Terk, and Se´bastien Treyer who contributed to the quality of the special edition as reviewers of one or several papers. Furthermore, the edition benefited from the facilitating work by the COST A22 chairs: Dale Rothman, Philip van Notten, and later Peter de Smedt (working with Ted Fuller). Their zeal in getting the network functioning has been an important inspiration for bringing this particularly piece of output into existence.
Laurent Mermet Ecole Nationale du Ge´nie Rural, des Eaux et des Foreˆts (ENGREF), 19 avenue du Maine, 75015 Paris, France Ted Fuller* Lincoln Business School, University of Lincoln, LN6 7TA, UK Ruud van der Helm Zoutmanstraat 55, 2518 GN The Hague, The Netherlands *Corresponding author E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L. Mermet) [email protected] (T. Fuller) Available online 3 August 2008
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Futures journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/futures
Introduction
Re-examining and renewing theoretical underpinnings of the Futures field: A pressing and long-term challenge
Futurists build and discuss statements on future states of affairs. When their work is challenged, they cannot defend ‘‘what may come to be’’ with robust forms of proof. They have no direct observation, can design no experiments, and cannot accumulate data sets. All the work, all the discussions of validity, have to rely on indirect reasoning based on current and past observations, experiments and data. Such reasoning is fragile and subject to considerable uncertainty. Ever since the field emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, futurists have been acutely aware of the special challenge this implies, including two most obvious consequences. First, even the most serious work is vulnerable to potentially devastating criticism. This has triggered an on-going effort of theoretical justification that has accompanied the development of the Futures field. Second, in relation to this, sound methodology is crucially important to provide support when exploring such insecure ground as professional and academic speculation on possible futures. It is not surprising that methodology has constantly been one – and often the – central concern of the field, sometimes to a point of excess. As early as 1980, De´coufle´ could warn companion futurists against the urge ‘‘to jump steps in the long and difficult progression towards the still hypothetical scientificity of conjectural work by displaying inappropriate complacency for issues of method’’. Whether or not some futurists do ‘jump steps’, the Futures field has consistently shown much reflexivity on its theoretical foundations and its methodological procedures. However, the nature of the theoretical and methodological challenges to be addressed by such reflexivity changes over time. The doctrines, the methodological resources, the knowledge-base, the organisation of discussion in the field, that once provided the basis for successfully meeting the challenges of a given era may become inadequate or irrelevant if the context comes to change in a major way. Our argument in this special issue is that such a major change in the challenges that have to be met by our field is now well under way, calling for a major re-examination and renewal of the theoretical underpinnings of futures work.1 Deepening and refining the diagnosis of the changing context of FS is of course one part of the task ahead of us. But to launch the effort, and show its necessity, let us just sketch a rough picture of the situation, by reviewing three important aspects of the development of the Futures field: (1) practical necessity and finalisation, (2) peculiarity and separation, and (3) methodology-based development. Confronted with strident criticism on the possibility and legitimacy of any serious study of future situations, the strongest argument put forward by many pioneers of the Futures field was that studying possible futures was necessary for action and decision-making. As expressed by Bertrand de Jouvenel (1964): ‘‘One always foresees, without richness of data, without awareness of method, without critique nor cooperation. It is now urgent and important to give this individual and natural activity a cooperative, organised character, and submit it to growing demands of intellectual rigor’’. This has proved a decisive basis for the development of the field, from the 1960s to the present day. It has led to a situation where most works on futures are legitimised through their connection to business management, to public decision-making, or both. The success of foresight in the recent years is an illustration of the strength of this covenant between futures methodology and the needs of long-term, strategic, management and policy. The downside of thus using the contribution to decision-making as the main theoretical justification and as the backbone of methodological design in futures work has been, and is now, a constant weakening of the effort to explore and develop other bases for theoretical foundation and methodological development. Although many such avenues have been opened, they have not been explored very far, because the evaluation of new methods has been based on their adequacy in serving studies designed for the preparation of decision-making, or of collective action.
1 In this discussion, we will envisage the Futures field in a very broad way, so that we will make no distinction between Foresight, Futures Studies (FS), and other denominations that periodically redefine the perimeter of professional and academic work on futures.
0016-3287/$ – see front matter ß 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2008.07.040
68
Introduction / Futures 41 (2009) 67–70
Another strong impact of basing most developments of futures on the idea of contributing to decision-making has been the deep hybridisation between practioners and academics within the futures community, including the various intermediary consulting arrangements. The existence and work experience of networks of practitioners, academics and consultants is a major asset of the field, but it may also become, as we shall see, a source of rigidity and vulnerability. In the same context, academic disciplines in general have declined to study futures, and left to futurists a field most disciplines felt was too unscientific for academic comfort. As a result, those interested in the eccentric effort of studying futures could function as a rather autonomous community, occupying a niche in which they could exercise a very high degree of freedom. They came to the Futures island from various disciplines, each one bringing their background as a contribution to the melting-pot of theory, methodology and practice of the Futures field. As a result, the field operated in comparative isolation, enjoying a sort of exclusivity on a subject of practical importance that provided funding, exciting challenges and the incentive for people of very different backgrounds to function as a community of research, consulting and practice. These characteristics of the field result in a pattern of work where visibility and discussions are largely centered around ‘‘flagship methodologies’’ (prospective strate´gique, participatory foresight, integrated assessment, to name but a few). Each such methodology provides inter alia a package of procedures and methods adapted to a certain type of problem-situations, a clearly identifiable and often ‘‘branded’’ product for the paying client, a training and quality control reference for a network of practitioners and trainers, an academically defensible product to derive from otherwise difficult to publish (even when highly interesting) futures interventions and a source of emulation for innovation within the field. There are also downsides to this focus on methodological and process codification, such as a tendency towards the proliferation of approaches and to a relative devaluation both of substantive productions, e.g. a critique and examination of scenarios, and of more theoretical work, e.g. a theoretical analysis of procedural activity. These major traits of the Futures field are both the result of, and an adaptation to, a situation where academic disciplines carry epistemological beliefs that lead them to eschew both the study of futures and specific collaboration between researcher and practitioner. In the last 20 years however, this context has been undergoing an important gradual transformation, the consequences of which are now starting to affect the Futures field in a major way. The field of environment and sustainable development provides good examples. On issues such as climate change or the evolution of land use, the production and discussion of simulations and scenarios has become a large-scale industry with heavy involvement of academic communities. Publishing on possible futures has moved from an eccentric type of research to a mainstream activity in some sectors of academia and research institutes. Of course, by no means all academic disciplines or fields of interest have yet followed this direction. But the movement is starting; it must, and probably will, continue. It is already advanced enough to confront the Futures field with major challenges to its strongpoints as we reviewed them briefly above. (a) There is little serious challenge left today as to the necessity and the possibility of researching the future. Academic institutions and disciplines increasingly engage in works on future issues. Even if the evolution is not very fast, due to numerous stumbling blocks in most disciplines, the trend should continue—and should be encouraged to do so. This evolution has a high potential to destabilise the current implicit compact under which the Futures field enjoys a comparative exclusivity. Indeed, in complex decision-making arenas futures work with strong academic roots and credentials tends to be seen not as less, but as more relevant and powerful than efforts centered directly on decisionmaking (e.g. trend analysis and scenarios). Furthermore, the academic world can mobilise resources (intellectual, human, institutional) incomparable to those of the comparatively marginal Futures field, for the production of a wide range of theories, methods, and elaborated conjectures on the futures. (b) The relation between academia and civil society, including the public, has evolved dramatically, both in practice (again, many examples can be found in the field of sustainable development) and, most importantly here, in the way they are viewed. Three decades of intense activity in the sociology of science and of innovation has opened wide breaches in the (largely imaginary) walls between academia and the world of action, by showing that research has always been (and is now more than ever) supported by hybrid networks of research and societal action. Under such influences, practice is evolving so fast that the practitioner/theoretician collaboration as it prevails in the Futures field is no longer original and audacious, but quaint when compared with the complex, large scale procedures currently developed for involving practitioners in the study of global futures problems. (c) The increasing involvement of academia in the production and discussion of work on futures increases the demand for and possibilities of in-depth discussion of results and of theories the work is based on. This is promising for the evolution of quality in futures work. But approaches based mostly on sharing the know-how of experienced practitioners and on standardised methodologies that leave little room for innovation or for discipline- or field situation-specificity, when put to the test are likely to be found wanting. In a context where academic institutions invest increasingly in studying futures, the Futures field as we know it is threatened by marginalisation and unhealthy fragmentation. Even though it posesses very rich intellectual resources, accumulated through a five-decade long history of dealing with futures issues, and reflecting on how to deal with them, these may be left fallow if the aims and the modus operandi of the various networks constituting the Futures field do not rise to the new challenges. We think there is an urgent need to start a transformation that will take years and lead
Introduction / Futures 41 (2009) 67–70
69
the field to somewhere quite different from where it is now. Where to go? And how to get there? These questions can only be answered by collective discussion—which is precisely what we are trying to encourage through this special issue of Futures. But let us suggest some orientations, based on the sketch of the situation we proposed above. (1) We ought to focus less exclusively on the more directly finalised forms of Futures work (i.e. relating to particular decisions) and, while obviously continuing with it, at the same time also encourage the development of other, less directly finalised, or application driven, forms of Futures work; there is high potential for this in the field. (2) We should consider raising our game by making strategic developments in the area of organising collaboration between researchers, experts, practitioners, field actors, and the public. Getting them to overcome their prejudice and communicate is no longer something new. What needs to be achieved is building and holding viable connections between credible and active research, efficient expertise, and action arenas that make a difference. (3) Instead of being rather disconnected from the academic disciplines and institutions through the isolation of the Futures issue, the Futures field should aim to become a major connector between fields of studies that are embarking in the study of futures. There is an important role to play, since academic areas of studies tend by construction to remain more or less disconnected, whereas the serious study of futures requires specific connections to be made. The connections with disciplines needs to be active: and this represents a major turn from relative isolation based on the rapidly vanishing para-academic idiosyncracy of futures work. (4) Rather than giving central attention to the codification of flagship methodology, we ought to move towards a position where the normal focus would be on the in-depth, critical discussion of the practice and results of studies and of their theoretical bases, strengths and weaknesses. How to get there? Certainly there are several complementary approaches, to be discussed on further occasions. Here, we would like to focus on the last point – promoting innovation in, and critical discussion of, theoretical underpinnings – both because we think it is a major aspect of the situation of the field, and because it can also help to advance the other three issues (expanding beyond the most directly finalised approaches, raising the game in discussion between practice and research, intensifying connections to academic disciplines investing in futures). This basically involves two kinds of endeavour. The first is to develop theoretical underpinning through a critical consideration and mobilisation of theories from other fields, aiming either at strengthening theory, methodology and practice of studies on futures, or at analysis and critique of futures work. The second endeavour is the continuation and renewal of work developed mostly from within the Futures field, with efforts bearing on the theorisation of futures studies practice, methods and results. The papers gathered in this special issue illustrate these approaches. We hope to show the relevance of each individually, and their complementarities. The first contribution, by Ted Fuller and Krista Loogma, draws on constructionist and constructivist theories in sociology, theories that examine how both knowledge and social reality are not just discovered and disclosed, but actively, socially, constructed. The idea per se that our understanding of possible futures is a construct is not new to futurists and was already stressed by the pioneers of the sixties—their question was rather how do we construct relevant, useful, conjectures? What the paper shows is rather (1) that in the meantime, ideas and theories in sociology have undergone evolutions and developments such that the constructionism inherent in the Futures field is no more an atypical premise, but rather a widely shared paradigm, and (2) that by increasing their knowledge of the constructivist and constructionist theories and approaches developed in sociology in the last two or three decades, futures specialists could deepen their work, and the discussion of it. The second contribution, by Michael Søgaard Jørgensen, Ulrik Jørgensen and Christian Clausen, provides a more specific example of this. They show how a Social Shaping of Technology approach (SST) from the sociology of science and technology, can be used in foresight. This approach can provide a critique of those foresight approaches which assume that technological research and advances linearly determine long term evolutions, and thus insufficiently recognise the decisive influence of the interplay between social and technological factors on those evolutions. The authors also show how SST approaches can help design foresight methodologies that take fuller account of such interplay. This kind of methodological development, by being explicitly based on theories borrowed from – and shared with – the sociology of science and of innovation, prepares the ground for richer interaction between those experts engaging in futures work on technology and the wider communities of those studying and discussing technology and society. In the third contribution, Charles Booth, Michael Rowlinson, Peter Clark, Agnes Delahaye and Stephen Procter draw from a different set of disciplines to re-examine the theoretical underpinnings of scenario methodologies. Scenarios, the authors argue, can be viewed as modal narratives, that is, narratives built to explore issues of possibility and necessity. Counterfactuals (narratives on historical events that might have unfolded, provided that a given event in history had turned out differently than it did) are another sort of modal narrative. Mobilising the theory of modal narratives produced by their research, the authors propose to embed scenario design and evaluation in the wider interdisciplinary field of possible worlds (a field they introduce to the reader). The approach provides opportunities to benefit from theories and insights recently gained in some very specialised fields of disciplines like history, management theory, and philosophy. Reading the paper, one gains an insight of how theory from other domains can strengthen the Futures field. The concepts and elements of theories thus made available, being very relevant to the kind of issues scenario methods tackle and firmly based in theoretical backgrounds not yet used in scenario activities, provide new opportunities both for deeper critical discussion of scenarios and, most probably, for new and deeper scenario design methods.
70
Introduction / Futures 41 (2009) 67–70
These three papers illustrate different variants of the first of the two kinds of efforts in re-examining and renewing theoretical underpinnings in Futures work: establishing new links and mobilising theoretical resources from other fields. The last two papers of the special issue illustrate the other kind of effort: the continuation and renewal of the enduring programme of the Futures fields to theorise its own practice, and explain its underpinnings. Ruud van der Helm’s contribution on the ‘‘vision phenomenon’’ focuses on those approaches in the Futures field that rely on the development of visions of the future to inspire action, to mobilise, to trigger discussion, etc. He shows the diversity and importance of such methods in the history of studies on futures, but that overall little attention has been devoted to exploring and strengthening the theoretical bases they rest on. This is precisely what the author has set out to do in his research. The paper presents a clarification of the different types of vision-based futures works, and an analysis of the various assumptions vision-based works can choose to build on. It shows the importance of some of the theoretical issues – such as the choice of a theory of change – that are of major importance when discussing the design or the impact of a futures exercise based on one or another vision-based approach. In the fifth – and last – paper of the special issue, Laurent Mermet proposes orientations for expanding the perimeter of the Futures field, to make it more theory-based and to connect it better with works on futures emerging in other academic fields. Based on developments in the field of environment and sustainable development, the paper first presents a critique of the consequences of the overactive promotion of flagship methodologies in the Futures field—a syndrome he proposes to name the metonymical hustle. It then states the new challenge of the field as being to transform and expand itself so that it may serve as an open construction site and discussion arena, shared by more and more numerous, diversified and academically ambitious communities of academics and/or experts undertaking futures work. To help the movement in that direction, the paper proposes an ‘‘open framework’’. This is an organised system of basic concepts and orientations, made as generic as possible. It provides a common set of concepts which can be used by futurists, adopting completely different theoretical underpinnings and methodological tools, to discuss their major theoretical and methodological choices without allegiance to any single school of thought. Within the scope of this growing internal reflexivity, there are two elements that remain under-exposed in the current special edition, but which are part of a general reflection on theoretical underpinning: (1) a historical perspective, and (2) a linguistic perspective. The first offers the potential of learning from what the major ‘futurists’ have offered to the field. Rereading and critically re-examining groundbreaking works by De Jouvenel, Berger, Polak, Boulding, Jungk, Kahn, etc. (including their relevant biographies) may be a valuable source for grounding futures research. Attempts in this direction have been made, but most of them are limited in scope or are only instrumental in defending an idea. The second, the linguistic (semantic) perspective, underscores the importance of language as the major, if not only, tool of futures research. This linguistic perspective demands a reflexive approach to the way we use language to explore the future and the vocabulary that is needed to do so (see for example Van der Helm, 2006). This special edition has been developed within the framework of and was sponsored by the European COST Network ‘‘Foresight Methodologies. Exploring new ways to explore the future’’ (COST A22; European Co-operation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research is a European research facility funded by the European Commission; http://cordis/ europa.eu/cost or www.costa22.com). The work was initiated by the working group on Concepts and Vocabulary, whose members have contributed through debate and discussion to the outcome of this effort. The editors like to thank in particular Maria Giaoutsi, Jari Kaivo-Oja, Hubert Kieken, Bruce Lloyd, Eleonora Masini, Bart van Steenbergen, Ku¨lliki Tafel, Erik Terk, and Se´bastien Treyer who contributed to the quality of the special edition as reviewers of one or several papers. Furthermore, the edition benefited from the facilitating work by the COST A22 chairs: Dale Rothman, Philip van Notten, and later Peter de Smedt (working with Ted Fuller). Their zeal in getting the network functioning has been an important inspiration for bringing this particularly piece of output into existence.
Laurent Mermet Ecole Nationale du Ge´nie Rural, des Eaux et des Foreˆts (ENGREF), 19 avenue du Maine, 75015 Paris, France Ted Fuller* Lincoln Business School, University of Lincoln, LN6 7TA, UK Ruud van der Helm Zoutmanstraat 55, 2518 GN The Hague, The Netherlands *Corresponding author E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L. Mermet) [email protected] (T. Fuller) Available online 3 August 2008