Methods In Futures Studies

Problems And Applications

Brita Schwarz

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429716805
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Ciencias sociales
• Subtopic: Sociología

This book presents three examples of futures research that illustrate the problems of applying knowledge during the course of a futures research project, the ways in which different methodologies interact, and various means of combining and adapting methodological tools and techniques.

1
Introduction

There is a growing literature on the methodological issues of futures research. In recent years many examples of futures studies have also been published, ranging from global models of the world's future to studies of more limited problem areas. There is, however, a certain gap between these two kinds of literature, as the first usually deals separately with each type of method and the second seldom discusses the choice of methods in any detail. Ways of combining the various methods and approaches and the relationship between the choice of method and the organizational conditions are problem areas that as yet have recieved little attention. Nevertheless, such aspects can be important both to people working in the field of futures studies and to the users of their studies. This book represents an effort to bridge the gap. More specifically, it is the result of a discussion between the authors of their own experiences and studies in this area.

As a general introduction we briefly describe the characteristics of futures studies in Chapter 2. The type of problem area, the purpose and goals, and the available knowledge and methodological tools all combine to determine the boundaries of such studies. Futures studies represent a new field of intellectual endeavour and the development of a methodology in the field has not been in any way exceptional. It is thus not the methods in themselves that seem to us to merit special attention, but rather their focus: they are interesting because of the problems with which they are concerned, namely the future and the possibility we have of influencing it.

In Chapter 3 we give a brief expose of some of the methods and analytical techniques available. Terms such as scenarios, mathematical models etc have rather varying connotations in the methodological debate, and we therefore try to clarify our own use of these terms.

The advantages and disadvantages of specific techniques such as mathematical modelling and Delphi are frequently debated. We have chosen to examine questions of this kind on a basis of actual cases. We use the term methods of futures studies in a broad sense and discuss problems that arise in applying and organizing knowledge and competence during the course of a project, as well as various ways of combining and adapting tools and techniques. In Chapter 4 three case studies are presented. They describe how these methodological issues have been treated in three futures studies published in Sweden during the past two or three years. The studies concern energy, global resources and transportation systems. A reason for selecting these three futures studies was that they display enough similarities and dissimilarities to permit a fruitful comparative study.

In Chapter 5 the three case studies are compared. The discussion is geared to certain general issues and among other things we argue that:

• - Prediction is not the main role of futures studies.
• - The organizational setting of a futures study will affect the general conduct of the study as well as the choice of methods and techniques.
• - in a context of planning and policy-making, futures studies cannot be regarded as mere inputs into neatly ordered planning and decision-making systems. Often their most profound impacts are indirect, and sometimes conditioned by political controversy.
• - A fruitful way of approaching methodological choices may be by considering the acquisition and synthesis of various kinds of knowledge. Problems connected with the acquisition and integration of knowledge may well necessitate awkward choices between the risk of succumbing to methodological rigidity and the risk of failing to present a coherent analysis.
• - The discussion of the alleged superiority of formal models or of scenarios rests on misconceptions.
• - Finally, we agree with the commonly held view of the crucial role of values in futures studies, but argue that the focus has been too much on overtly political values at the expense of less salient but potentially more important values of a professional and paradigmatic nature.

In a concluding chapter we bring together some of the main themes of the entire volume in a discussion of three aspects of the legitimacy of futures studies: a section on intellectual legitimacy focusses on criteria of quality and adequacy, another focusses on professional legitimacy and summarizes some key professional roles that futurists might occupy, finally, we return to the societal and political legitimacy of futures studies as one of the many forms of social problem-solving.

2
Characteristics and Problems of Futures Studies

Interest in the future is nothing new. Prophecy seems to be an integral part of many religious, literary and political practices. However, the emergence of futures studies as a special field of interest for research institutions, governmental commissions and professional journals is largely a phenomenon of the last two decades. Futures studies can be characterized by the general ambition to support decision-making by supplying information of relevance in a long-range perspective (Boucher, 1977, pp.6-9). Thus, futures studies cannot be associated exclusively with any specific technique of analysis; they should be regarded rather as a task encompassing a series of activities and often calling for a broad approach. Nevertheless, these studies exhibit a number of distinguishing features and give rise to certain special problems. Generally speaking the function of futures studies, namely to provide information relevant in a very long-range perspective, accentuates many problems already familiar from various forms of policy analysis and planning. Important characteristics of futures studies can be described in the following dimensions.

(1) Time horizon. Sometimes the time horizon of futures studies is indicated in terms of a time span, perhaps "from five to fifty years" (or sometimes even longer), or in terms of a time period such as "beyond the next two or three decades". However, it is not the time horizon as such which is the distinguishing feature of futures studies; it is rather the emphasis on the way conditions and situations change over time. The chosen time horizon is often so distant that a number of different "futures" are possible, and the alternative that emerges will be dependent on decisions made today. In some Swedish futures studies a time horizon defined by "the relative lack of major commitments so that consideration can be given to qualitative changes" has been suggested, thus implying an obvious orientation towards policy-making and action.

(2) The problems which the futurists treat tend to have an openended character in at least three respects. (i) The problems do not often fall directly within the area of responsibility of any existing administrative or policy-making unit, but instead cut across several boundaries - the more fuzzily the more distant the time horizon. (ii) An interdisciplinary approach is often recommended in connection with complex real-world problems. For emerging problems of the future there is an even more pronounced need to draw upon competence from a number of different disciplines, and to utilize any kind of knowledge which might bear on the problem. (iii) The problem formulation itself may constitute a major part of the analysis, and definite solutions cannot usually be expected. In other words futures problems are wicked problems, to use the Rittel-Webber distinction between tame and wicked problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Thus, in several important fields of interest to futures studies, well-established scientific theories are simply non-existent. Our knowledge is partial and will have to remain so, although some improvements are possible.

(3) Uncertainties and discontinuities. Uncertainties are common both in everyday life and in many problems and processes that are empirically studied. However, we generally know what variables we are interested in, i.e. the dimension, and we may also know something of the probability distribution, if the phenomenon is of a statistical nature. Usually the term risk is used when we know the probability distribution but not the outcome. A situation in which the dimension is known but not the probability distribution is sometimes said to exhibit pure or "secondary" uncertainty (Dror, 1971, p. 64; Strangert, 1977, p. 153). In a long-term perspective several of the assumptions underlying short- and medium-term forecasting may become invalid, and new variables often become important. We are thus sometimes faced with "primary" uncertainty, i.e. when the dimensions of possible results are unknown. In the case of pure or primary uncertainty we are faced with the problem of proceeding "with the identification of discontinuous changes and innovations" (Shani, 1974, p. 643). Some authors claim this kind of identification to be a main element of futures studies. In this context it may be illuminating to recall that one of the origins of what is nowadays termed futures studies was the development of the Delphi technique, and its use for obtaining the opinion of a group of experts about possible future technological breakthroughs and their probable occurence in time.

(4) Criterion of adequacy. The future is uncertain because of our limited knowledge of the world in general and because the future itself will evolve as a result of decisions not yet made. Futures studies do not therefore aim primarily at producing predictions of future events; their aim is rather to provide an overall picture which is relevant to the problem at hand. Hence futures studies often deal with the design of alternative futures.' The picture of the future given in a futures study has to be adequate in the sense that it permits the identification of "thresholds which would dictate that qualitatively different allocation of resources should be made" (Cole, 1976, p. 310).

(5) The role of theory. It has already been noted that futures studies are often unable to rely on established theories defining relevant sets of causal relations. This, however, should not be taken to imply that futures studies are inherently atheoretical in the sense that they use some sort of "naive" forecasting methodology (Edman, 1976). But the hypothetical nature of many of the relationships and sequences dealt with in futures studies seems to make futurists feel more free in the choice of theoretical assumptions than traditionally appears to be the case among most social scientists. Futures studies thus involve an effort not only to use but also to reconstruct theories and theoretical assumptions. In this way futures studies may have an effect on the development of theories within various disciplines.

(6) Techniques of analysis. It is sometimes suggested that futures studies involve the use of so-called intuitive forecasting techniques in contradistinction to more formal and rigorous methods. Examples of such intuitive techniques are scenario construction, Delphi techniques, brainstorming and morphology. However, the utilization of intuitive techniques does not necessarily exclude the use of formal or quantitative techniques within the same study. On the contrary, some of the more interesting experiences, at least in Swedish futures studies, have been connected with a combination of, for example, normal econometric modelling and scenario writing. Moreover, various general approaches, such as systems analysis and policy analysis, which are often associated with futures studies, incorporate the use of analytical techniques of both the intuitive and the more rigorous kind.

(7) Proximity to the application of results. The proximity to the application of the results of futures studies may vary considerably. In Sweden the Alva Myrdal commission on futures studies made a distinction between three categories which can be defined as follows: (1) studies that may serve fairly directly as inputs into existing public planning and decision-making; (2) research which may indirectly help to improve future planning and decision-making processes; and (3) autonomous futures studies governed neither directly nor indirectly by the requirements of existing government bodies.

(8) Linkage to planning processes. Hence, futures studies may be geared more or less closely to planning and decision-making processes. Planning is sometimes described as a process involving the preparation of a set of decisions such that a "system" or "planning object" can be adapted to its "environment" in a way that is consistent with prevalent goals and values (see e.g. Ingelstam, 1977, pp. 127-145). From this description it thus follows that planning has to be based on information about the future development of the environment of the planning object. Studies of such developments can be considered as a form of futures studies. In this case the role of futures studies is to generate direct inputs into the planning process.

However, long-range planning sometimes involves the design of alternative futures for the planning object itself. When this is the case, the actual planning can be regarded as a form of futures study, so that there is no clear borderline between the two. However, Shani has developed a conceptual framework intended to distinguish between planning and futures studies and which thus seems relevant to an exploration of their relationship (Shani, 1974). As far as organizational matters are concerned, Shani argues that futures studies "should be liberated from ways of thinking conditioned by existing, organizational patterns. Thus, while in planning reference to the future would have inevitably to be from the organization outwards, in futures studies the orientation would be from the environment to the organization". Needless to say, these orientations refer primarily to shifts in emphasis: any realistic process of planning or futures studies will have to consider the interplay between environment and organization from both perspectives.

(9) Values, goals, and norms. It is often said that values and norms should be explicitly stated in futures studies - a recommendation that is partly related to the idea that futures studies should, directly or indirectly, influence planning and policy-making. However, given the complexity of planning processes and the changeability of values and goals over time, the role of values in futures studies cannot but be ambiguous. It is sometimes argued that the generation of alternative futures from widely different value-premises may lead to insights into the range of real uncertainty (Cole, 1976, p. 314; Clark & Cole 1975, p. 114). Experiences from the Swedish studies described in Chapter 4 indicate, however, that the nature of the more precise relationships between value dimensions and the actual activities of futures studies is far from clear. This remains true even if we restrict ourselves for instance to some specific version of scenario-writing. Hence, different values and norms may be considered in each scenario or all scenarios presented may involve the satisfaction of certain values. Furthermore, in some scenarios the values and norms of a group or of a whole society may be assumed to change and the assumed implications of such changes can then be described in the scenario. Finally, and perhaps of most importance, is the role that values may play as a source of discussion and conflict within a given project group. And this may be so even if the group never actually engages in any kind of explicitly normative futures studies (cf. Wittrock, 1979).

References

BOUCHER, W.I., "Introduction", in W.I. Boucher (ed), The Study of the Future: An Agenda for Research (Washington, D.C., National Science Foundation, 1977).

CLARK, J. & S. COLE, Global Simulation Models - A Comparative Study (John Wiley & Sons, London, 1975).

COLE, S., "Long-term Forecasting Methods: Emphasis and Institutions", Futures 8 (August 1976).

DROR, Y., Design for Policy Sciences (Elsevier, New York, 1971).

EDMAN, M., "There is no naive way of making forecasts", in S. Schwarz (ed), Knowledge and Concepts in Futures Studies (Westvi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• About the Book and Authors
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• PREFACE
• 1. INTRODUCTION
• 2. CHARACTERISTICS AND PROBLEMS OF FUTURES STUDIES
• 3. METHODS OF FUTURES STUDIES
• 4. THREE STUDIES OF THE FUTURE: SWEDISH EXPERIENCES OF FUTURES STUDIES AND POLICY-MAKING
• 5. PROBLEMS AND EXPERIENCES
• 6. THE LEGITIMACY OF FUTURES STUDIES
• ABOUT THE AUTHORS