Third International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making – SEVILLE 16-17 OCTOBER 2008
FROM ORACLES TO DIALOGUE Ted Fuller1 and Peter De Smedt2 1.University of Lincoln, UK
[email protected] 2. DG Research, Brussels
1 Summary Foresight is a broad term that covers different ways to think about the future. The COST Action 22: Foresight Methodologies - Exploring New Ways to Explore the Future was initiated in 2002 with the main objective to develop certain aspects of foresight methodology so as to ensure their systematic use and optimisation of benefits. This paper will discuss the general themes that have arisen from the Action. Foresight is a professional practice that supports significant decisions, and as such it needs to be more assured of its claims to knowledge (methodology). Foresight is practiced across many domains and is not the preserve of specialised ‘futurists’, or indeed of foresight specialists. However, the disciplines of foresight are not well articulated or disseminated across domains, leading to re-inventions and practice that does not make best use of experience in other domains. The maintenance of a ‘futures’ elite will not serve the cause of society in producing and responding to forward looks. While the above implies the necessity for evaluation and dissemination of foresight practice, this Action chose to focus on the modernisation of foresight methodology. The main finding in this respect was that foresight methodology lacks reflexivity. Reflexivity is a relatively modern epistemological position in the social sciences. Its position is, simply, that social knowledge, including the interpretation and use of scientific knowledge, is created through the interactions between people (discourses, language, social action etc.), and this process gives rise to changes in self-identify, interpretation of meaning, practice and anticipations of the future. The methodological development of foresight in COST A22 is firstly to empower the actors within the Action to make explicit, and reflect on, their implicit methodologies; secondly to begin to critique current practice from this perspective and thirdly, to begin to design foresight practice with greater reflexivity. The characterisation of a social constructionist approach was the aphorism, “from oracles to dialogue”, used in the final conference, and indicating a move from ‘given’ expert-predicted futures to one in which futures are nurtured through the dialogue between “stakeholders”, i.e. those with a stake in the future of the particular issue under study.
2 Introduction This paper reflects on a four year programme of networking and sharing between foresight practitioners and academics. It is not an evaluation per se, but is written to enable readers to gain some understanding of the value created by this programme and issues for the future of foresight practice that arise from this study.
THEME: METHODS AND TOOLS CONTRIBUTING TO FTA -1-
Third International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making – SEVILLE 16-17 OCTOBER 2008
The programme was organised as an Action under the aegis of the Individuals, Societies, Culture and Health (ISCH) technical committee of COST (European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research). The main objective of COST Action 22 (COST A22), entitled “Foresight Methodologies - Exploring new ways to explore the future”, was “to “develop certain aspects of foresight methodology so as to ensure systematic use and optimum benefit”. The Memorandum of Understanding, which was written five years ago, described the foresight activities in Europe as fragmented. An imbalance was noticed between the widespread popularity of foresight exercises and the low level of research and development of foresight methodology. Hence, Cost A22 would concentrate on advancing methodology by bringing researchers and practitioners together and fostering cross-disciplinary communication and boundary-spanning co-operation. The perspective was the long-term well being of future generations, taking the training of new generations of foresight researchers and practitioners into special consideration. Starting with a draft proposal put forth by six organizations from a corresponding number of countries, Cost A22 had 24 country signatories after three years. This willingness to participate from a broad group around Europe also ensured the participation and support of more then 130 researchers and practitioners. This account of the programme is presented as part of the evolution of a discipline. Specifically, a discipline concerned with the practice of making ‘forward looks’, of anticipating change, or making studies of future possibilities. There exist acknowledged disciplinary norms associated with ‘Futures Studies’ while, at the same time, such ‘studies’ depend upon many academic disciplines. Futures Studies is a relatively unknown academic discipline and barely recognised in academic institutions, though many of its features are drawn from well established disciplines and philosophical areas. There are also standards of professional practice and rigour related to the techniques used in foresight, such as modelling or impact evaluation. Thus the term discipline is used here in the sense of a system of rules of conduct or method of practice, and of a field of related studies, rather than a branch of cognate knowledge.
The programme was not concerned per se with defining or establishing a particular disciplinary enclave; just the opposite. Its main concern was that foresight was being practiced in many domains, using many disciplinary norms. Most, if not all such disciplines are based on historic and empirical evidence and as such their philosophical and methodological orientation is only implicitly oriented towards the future and the yet-to-happen unknown. The focus of “COST A22” was on methodology. It is necessary to distinguish “methodology” from “method”. Method implies techniques or processes with some form of logical structure and activity, which can be carried out with a degree of consistency. Foresight practice, futures studies and technology evaluation each involve numerous well documented techniques. Methodology is a more substantial concept meaning ‘methods of knowing’, i.e. an explanation of ‘how we know’ something (Sayer 2000, p92), which demands an explicit epistemological account. This is a challenge when it comes to making sense of futures. A methodology needs to be appropriate to the nature of the object under study and the purpose and expectation of the study. In the case of foresight, the ‘objects’ of study involve extant known domains and future time. Methodologies require us to make explicit assumptions of what the world is and what stands for knowledge. The question of what stands for knowledge of the future is uncertain and requires the most rigorous explicit transparency of assumptions to be part of that knowledge. Foresight can be considered a field of applied research, i.e. where particular methods (and methodologies) are applied to ‘solve’ particular puzzles. As such it is necessarily multiTHEME: METHODS AND TOOLS CONTRIBUTING TO FTA -2-
Third International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making – SEVILLE 16-17 OCTOBER 2008
disciplinary because there are many different puzzles. Particular choices and uses of methodology will be influenced by the context in which applications are made. Contextual features will include, amongst other things, the morphology or physiology of the domain, the purpose of the study, the community of practice being informed and the values inherent in the process. In this sense, no one discipline or particular prescribed set of methods can be considered to be optimal. However, the commonality of foresight applications is the orientation to the future and that the knowledge produced is uncertain. It is this aspect for which some methodological characteristics might be considered disciplinary to foresight, i.e. commonly accepted across a variety of domains or areas of application. Thus the development or evolution of methodological underpinnings of the discipline of foresight seeks to improve the quality of “what stands for knowledge” (Sayer 2000), not the precision of forecasting or the accuracy of accounts of the future per se but its standing as knowledge, i.e. its ability to help society ask questions of and solve particular puzzles about the future. This paper discusses the ways in which the programme Foresight Methodologies - Exploring new ways to explore the future contributed to the evolution of a foresight discipline in this respect. It should be noted that the analysis in this paper are of the authors, and they do not necessarily concur with the views of other participants in this programme. Where possible, indications are given of the sources of the ideas arising from the various sub-group activities and, of course, specific publications.
3 Modus operandi The programme was operationalised through a series of eight workshops between April 2004 and March 2007, followed by a public conference in July 2007. A series of topics guided the activities, each of which was taken up by a substantial subgroup of people. The over-arching issue of methodology was inherent in the sub-group questions and also explicit in some workshops. The topics addressed generic features of foresight practice and the over-arching issue of methodology. The topics are re-stated here as research questions. Question 1: What methodological issues are salient in relation to the identification of emerging trends and change? This reflects one of the generic puzzles that foresight is used to address – how the early signs of changes in regularity are identified and assessed (whether as risks or opportunities or as ontological features). Typical areas of application are emerging technologies, social patterns of behaviour and evidence of new powers affecting the status quo. Concepts of ‘seeds of change’ and ‘weak signals’ were used as a focus for this question. Question 2: How commensurable are different modes of modelling and other forms of dynamical representation? Representations, whether as mathematic models, as ‘visions’ or as scenarios etc. are considered an essential part of the discipline of foresight. An assumed dichotomy between ‘numbers and narratives’ was used as a focus for this question in the first instance, i.e. how can numbers and narratives be ‘integrated’? Question 3: How can different communities of practice, each with a stake in the future, interact in an overall productive and interested way? This question recognises a stakeholder perspective in the process of decision making, informed by foresight activities. The focus for this question was on interaction between stakeholders, such as researchers, decision makers and the public. Complex social contexts are frequently and necessarily experienced by
THEME: METHODS AND TOOLS CONTRIBUTING TO FTA -3-
Third International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making – SEVILLE 16-17 OCTOBER 2008
actors in foresight programmes and indicate that foresight is a political as well as scientific endeavour. In examining these topics and questions, the sub-groups were also invited and challenged to consider the methodological features and assumptions inherent in the questions, the methods and the forms of analysis and interpretation used to address the questions.
4 Findings Findings are reported at three broad levels. Firstly indications of the nature of debate and the methodological conclusions arising from the three main research questions; Secondly some suggested underlying methodological issues and features relating to the discipline of foresight, which emerged from the programme of study; Thirdly, a reflection of the process of considering methodology by the participants, i.e. the finding that the programme was more a learning experience for the participants than the production of particular novel research findings or the construction of novel methods.
4.1 Methodological concerns arising from the particular research puzzles 4.1.1 The identification of emerging trends The following paragraphs reflect on (and to some extent paraphrase) the summary reports of the subgroup 1 addressing the issue of ‘seeds of change’. The paradox of emerging trends is this; if a force for change (Cf driving force) exists with sufficient power to influence social change or quality of life, or a trend in patterns of behaviour is strong, then it will be noticeable. If it is not noticeable, then it does not have power. Thus the very idea that it is possible to observe an ‘emergent’ phenomenon that has a stronger link to the future than any other observable phenomena is questionable. The ubiquitous question “what’s new?” is a reflection on the importance of recognising change within society. The qualifying of ad-hoc empirical evidence into meaningful knowledge is a process of construction and creativity, the degree of subjectivity involved in these processes is belied by metaphors associated with empirical certainly, such as (weak) signal or seed (of change). There was a strong thread in the work on the identification of ‘weak signals’. This area of study has been boosted by the powerful search engines and software tools making conceptual linkages. It is relatively easy to produce lists or networks of vaguely connected issues, but much harder to interpret these in meaningful ways. Interpretation and conceptualisation were significant themes running through the many working papers produced on this theme within the programme.
1
The group leaders and authors of the summary shown in the appendix are Pierre Rossel, Ulrik Jørgensen, Jari Kaivo-Oja and Sandro Mendonca
THEME: METHODS AND TOOLS CONTRIBUTING TO FTA -4-
Third International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making – SEVILLE 16-17 OCTOBER 2008
The focus shifted from weak signals to a broader research question of social change and how basic driving macro forces of change are recognized, framed and assessed. The main conclusion was for a need to open up the seeds of change perspective, as a question and methodological strand, to such considerations as multiple realities, ambiguity to be, not reduced, but framed and linked to specific (small) questions, not motivated by a predictability claim but by the idea of capacity building, which can be linked to variety exploration and analysis. Thus the methodological imperative is for explicit accounts of the sense-making used to identify and construct meaning from particular information. This reflective step requires explanations of contextual and epistemic underpinnings of such interpretation. Methodological approaches such as meta-framing, trans-systemic simulation and open-ended explanations to be “imagined” (envisaged as a rigorous process) were demonstrated on existing emerging realities in concrete sense-making tasks. The metaphor of seeds of change was found to be limiting to methodological development relating to this area of foresight activity. The consideration of the issues of sense-making, of concept production and of framing provided fruitful methodological results. In particular is the conclusion that diversity and creativity produce multiple realities, and therefore futures are created by the interplay between these realities, rather than some objective and scientifically feasible possibility to see the future from small beginnings. Methodologically the turn is therefore towards understanding inter-related systems that produce changes and futures, rather than abstract data. Examples described in the presentations and papers of the programme include technological road maps and war-gaming as examples modelling; studies of entrepreneurship, interactive technologies (Web2.0) and innovatory systems help understand systems of creativity. The use of “Arenas” has been developed from the programme. These frame creative “spaces” within their value and limits, by cross-examining premises, contextual factors and goals. The promotion of the (literacy of the) language of foresight, i.e. the concepts and ways of knowing is also developing from this programme.
4.1.2 The commensurability of different modes of modelling The following paragraphs reflect on (and to some extent paraphrase) the summary reports of the subgroup 2 addressing the issue of ‘Integrating Narratives and Numbers’. The underlying issue with respect to foresight practice is how we can make more useful representations of the dynamics of the inter-actions between phenomena that create futures. Assumption and descriptions about future states are produced in a number of ways, in particular through forms of rational logic. Some of this logic and descriptions are through (qualitative) narrative about the way phenomena interact and what is produced, and some through particular (quantitative) mathematical relationships between phenomena and what their conjunction produces. Qualitative scenarios can have a richness that is not bound by quantitative methods. They can explore relationships and trends for which little or no numerical data is available, including shocks and discontinuities; they can more easily incorporate motivations, values, and behaviour; they can create images that capture the imagination of those for whom they are intended. Quantitative scenarios, when done properly, provide a rigour, precision, and consistency that comes from their numerical and mathematical underpinnings. Their 2
The group leaders and authors of the summary shown in the appendix are Bartolomeo Sapio and Maria Giaoutzi.
THEME: METHODS AND TOOLS CONTRIBUTING TO FTA -5-
Third International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making – SEVILLE 16-17 OCTOBER 2008
assumptions are made explicit and are, therefore, open for critical examination; their conclusions can be traced back to the assumptions and the effects of changes in assumptions can be easily checked, pointing to important uncertainties. The programme of study led the sub-group to conclude that one way to integrate the different methodical traditions is on the level of the organization of forecast projects which allow the results of different quantitative and qualitative methods to be integrated. This is certainly a step forward but does not guarantee the mutual understanding of the reasoning behind these results - which is a severe shortcoming in the communication process. Therefore is valuable to look for or to develop methods at the interface between the qualitative and the quantitative tradition, combining their advantages. Methodologically therefore, the main contribution from this part of the programme was the exploration of the interfaces between various forms of representation within particular contexts. Examples of this include ‘qualitative differential equations’ (Luedeke), the integration of fuzzy sets and focus group in participatory methods (Andreatou), multidimensional analysis (Morato and Escobar). In all some 33 different methods were identified by the group. However, a significant aspect of the work was the insight that effective use of multiple methods requires considerable dialogue for the meanings to be shared. Thus the methodological turn is not so much in the creation of ‘new’ methods, though their use in different combinations was a valuable contribution, as in the assertion that all methods in foresight are ultimately both enhanced and constrained by the interpretative process of a diversity of stakeholders, i.e. it is the integration of diverse perspectives, rather then diverse methods that is the methodological issue. This finding is far from trivial because it absolutely affects the power generated by foresight processes, for example, whether there is shared understanding with resulting common efforts.
4.1.3 How can different communities of practice, each with a stake in the future, interact in an overall productive and interested way The following paragraphs reflect on (and to some extent paraphrase) the summary reports of the subgroup 3 addressing the issue of ‘Interactions between Researchers, Decision Makers and the Public’. By making explicit the theme of interactions between researchers, decision makers and the public, the programme acknowledge from the outset the applied nature of foresight, and the multi-stakeholder contexts in which it is practiced, or necessarily should be practiced. This made clear an acknowledge problem (another puzzle to solve) that often in practical situations the ‘experts, decision makers and those affected by decisions are a) different sets of people and b) have difficulty in inter-acting meaningfully. The aim of the sub-group’s work was to improve our understanding of interaction processes in foresights and investigate implications for foresight methods and practice The work focussed on ten case studies from which to draw its conclusions. The main features which require methodological attention are reported as being a) Dialogue, b) Dissemination and Implementation and c) Vision. The findings suggested that it is valuable to design and
3
The group leaders and authors of the summary shown in the appendix are Kristian Borch and Serge Stalpers.
THEME: METHODS AND TOOLS CONTRIBUTING TO FTA -6-
Third International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making – SEVILLE 16-17 OCTOBER 2008
encourage the interconnections between these aspects of decision-taking to generate possibilities and to motivate action. The work identified the value of creative tension between stakeholders as a motivator of change. The work has taken a normative approach in suggesting that structurally, foresight projects should be designed to facilitate these key features. Dialogue should be facilitated to produce mutual exchanges of ideas, learning and negotiation, across stakeholders, disciplines and institutions. The work suggests that a mixture of conflict & consensus is needed to allow constructive dialogue in foresight. Changes in policy rarely result from a linear process but come through interactions between three flows of activity: defining the problem, identifying solutions, and achieving commitment for action. Thus foresight project designs should enable iterating processes that enable feedback. This is not universal practice in foresight at present. Dissemination and implementation was considered to be part of the foresight process in the context of policy making. It can be the case that foresight exercises run parallel to, or ahead of particular policy making processes. The process of foresight, with its richness of scenarios and visions, can produce compelling cases for particular policies and action. By the time the process reaches a policy level, the rhetorical power of these cases can disappear. As the meaning behind policies is lost is this process, the performative power is dissipated. In short, the wider public may not understand the purpose or the benefit arising from the whole picture. The subgroup’s work confirmed the significance of the visionary aspects of foresight, including insights in the role visions can have: as a given framing of the dialogue, the development of detailed visions and strategy development; as a tool in opening participants mindset towards discussions about future development; and as a product of stakeholder dialogue. In this context visions are instrumental in developing intentionality; inspiring people towards action and mobilizing resources and change agents. The main contribution of this work to foresight methodology was two-fold. As will be described later, the group made explicit theoretical links in understanding these significant themes, demonstrating methodological reflexivity. In normative terms, this work moved the conceptual orientation of foresight from being some form of rarefied specialist analytical activity to a process of integration, largely through discourse, of stakeholder groups and of this integration being for the purposes of decision implementation, rather than for informing decisions.
4.2 Emerging methodological issues As can be seen from the section above, the main methodological issues that became prominent concerned the way that meaning is created and performed from the interaction between stakeholders; “the interplay of diverse realities”, “the language of foresight”, “use in different combinations”, “inter-related systems that produce changes and futures”, “the integration of diverse perspectives” “enable iterating processes” “integration [for] decision implementation”. As methodology was the underlying rationale for this study, the participants spent time in sharing their perspectives. A number of papers were contributed at an early stage which addressed the broad methodological issues. Later in the programme, the different subgroups absorbed the task of examining their respective methodological areas.
THEME: METHODS AND TOOLS CONTRIBUTING TO FTA -7-
Third International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making – SEVILLE 16-17 OCTOBER 2008
The presentations and articles published on methodology from this work reflect precisely the issue that emerged from the subgroups, namely that foresight practice involves the creation and sharing of knowledge from interactions. Although participative approaches is a well established genre of foresight activity, these are methodical, albeit with clear rationale, rather than methodological. The methodological implications operate at two levels. The first is a set of implications for what stands for knowledge relating to particular characteristics of foresight practice and the second relates to the modus operandi of foresight by its practitioners. Both of these levels were surfaced during the research programme.
4.2.1 Implications for ‘what stands for knowledge’ in foresight practices The general epistemological framework that recognises the role of interaction in the creation of knowledge is social constructionism. Social constructionism does not focus on an ontological reality, but instead on the constructed reality; it does not deny reality, it accommodates the human and social power to generate meaningful reality. The approach draws from, amongst other influences, Symbolic Interactionism, a theory that meaning being constituted through symbols (for example, inherent in language). As Mead (1934, p78) wrote “Symbolization constitutes objects not constituted before, objects which would not exist except for the context of social relationships wherein symbolization occurs…” The full implications of this perspective cannot be elaborated in this short paper, indeed it can only be discovered by a process of reflexivity within the foresight research process, and thus relates to the modus operandi. However, outcomes from the reflective sessions within the programme and the published papers on methodology provide some indications of ways in which foresight practice can make claims as to what stands for knowledge that it produces. Examples of critical issues arising from a constructionist perspective when related to substantive methodological characteristics of foresight practice are given in Fuller and Loogma (2008) and paraphrased below: Time (past/present/future). A pre-requisite for futures work is one or more conceptions of future time. Following the work of Barbara Adam (Adam 1991), it is clear that time has many meanings beyond ‘clock time’. Adam argues that the meaning of time is socially constructed and that such meaning is performative. Futurists are of course used to dealing with short, medium and longterm perspectives, but it has been shown (Selin 2006) that differences in the construction of time play a significant role in the construction of meaning about the future (e.g. of nanotechnologies). The generic methodological requirement from this perspective is an explicit account of the construction of time within the context of the study at hand. Descriptive difference: Futures work is concerned largely with changes or differences from the status quo or present. Thus a methodological characteristic of the work is description of change, i.e. real or imagined changes in ontology. Abstraction from whole worlds and re-categorising of concepts or events are fundamental to producing descriptions of different futures. From a social constructionist perspective the processes of abstraction and classification are not dealing with the real, but with constructions of the real. A legitimate part of a methodology is that such conceptions may be challenged with regards to their power relative to alternatives. Representation: it is typical of futures work to produce symbolic texts as representations of generated knowledge about futures, often in the form of scenarios and stories, with illustrations.
THEME: METHODS AND TOOLS CONTRIBUTING TO FTA -8-
Third International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making – SEVILLE 16-17 OCTOBER 2008
Saussure suggests that the relationship between the linguistic signifier and the object signified is ultimately arbitrary, and thus meaning, as Gergen points out, relies on ‘local conventions’ (Gergen 1999, p25). What is important is not correspondence but the adequacy of the concept or theory relative to observed world to provide explanation and a predictive capability, if conditional. Methodologically, the implication of this perspective is that any implicit or explicit claims that texts and symbols about the future represent or correspond to the future are false. Instead, such representations can be understood as having performative potential, i.e. may change understanding and activity through the way that people interact with and interpret such symbols, and change expectations about the future. Production of difference. Explaining reasons for described differences involves articulating theories and practice of causality, power and influence, i.e. what produces (or is capable of producing) the difference. It is necessary therefore to consider the ways in which knowledge is produced and legitimated by different communities. Rom Harré makes the point clearly when he says: “Context by context the balance between constructionism and essentialism and between realism and relativism, and how each pair maps on to the other, will be decided in different ways in different contexts.”… “How can [I] be a social constructionist in psychology and a realist in physics?” (Harré 1998, p xi-xii) Methodologically, context is important, because dynamical properties of different contexts operate in different ways, for instance, a political party acts differently from a waterfall. Different theories and explanations, even different epistemological assumptions apply to different contexts, as the quotation from Harré (above) exemplifies. If a social constructionist perspective is taken, then such knowledge is considered to be socially produced. The production of domain knowledge is different in different contexts; socio-political knowledge is produced differently from knowledge about the flow of water. This would suggest that in the study of the future of a particular domain, the mode by which domain knowledge about the future is produced (i.e. socially constructed) should be explicit, though not necessarily reproduced. Simulation: Studies of futures usually involve the generation of alternative worlds (from micro to macro). Examples include alternative scenarios, counter-factual reasoning (Booth, Rowlinson et al. 2008), role-playing and computer based models. In typical simulations, knowledge is generated first by modelling possible structures and then by playing out and interpreting what is generated dynamically, i.e. a simulation of events through time, generating (new) meaning from the known through social interaction. From a social constructionist perspective the model is not a representation but a construction that provides a degree of adequacy in explaining the nature of the phenomena being explored. What is important and salient is the meaning generated by the community that engages with the simulation, and what performative power such engagement has. Communication of meaning: It is usual for the outcomes of futures work to be communicated to others. One could argue that foresight, as a project, cannot carry social meaning unless its results are communicated to or with others. As social constructionism places knowledge neither within individual minds nor outside them, but between people, it is the acts of communication and the meaning negotiated in those process that constitute knowledge, not the symbols used. One significant issue arising from this is the degree of responsibility taken or given to foresight as a separate project from its constituency. As a separate project, i.e. acts that ‘inform’ policy makers or citizens, foresight cannot be responsible for the meaning that emerges amongst its
THEME: METHODS AND TOOLS CONTRIBUTING TO FTA -9-
Third International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making – SEVILLE 16-17 OCTOBER 2008
constituency as a result of being informed. If foresight is expected to produce responsible action, then the production of meaning must be embedded in its constituency. Reflexivity, i.e. reconstructing meaning from a process of interpreted feedback. Wendell Bell suggests that Futures Studies is ‘self consciously reflexive’ (Bell 1996, p 237), i.e. the production of descriptions of alternative futures can shape and change everyday understanding and performance. Methodologically, reflexivity is a description of the performative power of social discourse. It suggests that by engaging in reflections of futures, which directly challenge self and community identity, people can produce change. Whether such change is directed outwardly or inwardly depends on the agency and power available. It also suggests how the power of information can work, and furthermore that reflexivity is an ongoing process, producing ever-changing ontologies and discourses, and that any captured articulation of a view of the future is an abstraction of time and space. Participation. A central tenet of social constructionism is that without participation between people in making meaning (or sense-making) no meaning exists. However, ‘participation’ in this sense has a wide meaning, for instance it can take place through languaging and discourses. If the results of foresight activities are discourses and actions about the future, then who participates in creating and performing in these discourses has methodological implications. In this respect a significant methodological issue is perspectivism, i.e. the conception according to which the world is inhabited by different sorts of subjects or people…which apprehend reality from distinct points of view' (De Castro 1998, p 469). There are, Gergen suggests, great dangers involved in fixing a particular version of the real and the good (Gergen 1999, p 235). Participation by people who share a particular perspective is more likely to maintain particular versions of the ‘real and the good’. If the future is created by a diversity of perspectives and the performances arising from these, then any look-ahead to the future should, presumably, acknowledge, synthesise and assimilate the paths that such diversity is in the process of creating. At the very least, foresight methodology should reflect explicitly the perspectives it is taking in ‘fixing’ the real and the good related to the future. Thus it is banal to suggest that the inclusion of ‘stakeholder groups’ in workshops is effecting participation. It may, or it may not. What is important is that the methodology makes explicit the dominant discourses and languages through which participation in the generation of knowledge actually occurs – often done outside such workshop activities. Similarly the extent to which multi perspectives are somehow reduced to a single ‘consensus’, of a (temporary) fixed future is of methodological significance as is the way that this is achieved. This is not just a political issue – though has political consequences – but a question of the degree to which claims to knowledge can be made from single perspectives. Action: There is a strong rhetorical connection between futures work and actions. Often the explicit purpose of investigating futures is to help choices to be made about what actions are likely to lead to desired futures. Action produces futures and also knowledge about futures. Knowledge about futures produces action. Therefore, futures are produced through acts in which knowledge is inherent and co-produced by the actors. Separation of action from knowledge reifies one or other. It seems therefore that producing knowledge about futures is part of the act of producing futures. Methodologically, an expression and understanding of the inter-action between knowledge and action and how one is shaped by the other in particular
THEME: METHODS AND TOOLS CONTRIBUTING TO FTA - 10 -
Third International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making – SEVILLE 16-17 OCTOBER 2008
contexts is significant. This issue is wider than the use of anticipatory action learning methods (Ramos 2006) (Inayatullah 2006, .p658) but such methods are useful as a way of examining the relationship. Values: There is a strong normative element in foresight and futures studies, when its purpose is to critique present trajectories, propose better futures, or elaborate expected or desired futures. The methodological concern is about how such knowledge is produced and how it is legitimised, not the legitimacy (i.e. correspondence) of the knowledge per se. Foresight requires a methodology that makes explicit the values that accompany the interpretation of meaning. This requires an exploration of the dominant values of the people or organisations that produce and validate knowledge about the future. This is far from easy to achieve because many values are inherent in the language and concepts used to frame interpretation.
4.3 Modus operandi of actors in the programme The concept of reflexivity is consistent with a constructivism, and in particular that our selfidentities and social identity are shaped through the interaction with others and the knowledge available to us. Such identities are the result of how people meaningfully regard their actions, and how their identities and interpretations of the external world are constructed and reconstructed from their continuing experiences of that world. This provides what Maturana and Varela called ‘structural plasticity’, i.e. the power of individual interactions to reshape and create meaning in and of society. For the sake of robustness, the production of knowledge through foresight practice demands explicit reflexivity, as inherent in the implications for the methodological characteristics described above. Within this (COSTA22) research study, participants were encouraged to be reflexive; that is to ask how knowledge related to their research question and topics was produced, i.e. the interpretative processes involved and the epistemological grounds upon which interpretation is made. These two aspects of reflexivity are consistent with personal and epistemological reflexivity. See for example Willig (2001, p10). The orientation of the programme was towards epistemological reflexivity. At the beginning of the process, in 2004, the participants addressed the question of ‘which theories or principles underpin our foresight activity?’ through a series of discussion groups and feedback. This was followed by designated periods in further workshops (in 2005) where a number of presentations were made on particular theoretical and methodological perspectives; for example Actor Network Theory (Jørgensen, Jørgensen et al. 2008) and Modal Narratives (Booth, Rowlinson et al. 2008). Theoretical stratification (Mermet 2008) Epistemological underpinning (Tapio and Hietenan 2002) Concepts of Methodology’ [Alacs: working paper] A workshop at the end of 2005 focussed the subgroup leaders on the specific issue of the theoretical underpinnings of their research questions and related contexts, i.e. theory-methodpractice relationships. It was from this point, that methodology was subsumed (back) into the contextual workings of the subgroups and not treated as a separate issue. As the work developed through 2006, the presentations related to foresight practice became more reflexive, alongside and integral to papers on the specific areas of research. For example presentations included: ‘metaphor as method’ [Ruttas-Küttim] , ‘framing issues’ [Rossel], ‘ what is participation?’[Saritas], consensus theory [Borch], By the end of the programme, the project reports and the articles published from the work of the programme demonstrates the reflexivity within the analysis of particular methods and THEME: METHODS AND TOOLS CONTRIBUTING TO FTA - 11 -
Third International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making – SEVILLE 16-17 OCTOBER 2008
methodologies. What is demonstrated is that the various participants involved in a range of foresight projects were able to articulate and develop methodological dimensions to their work; through critical perspectives (e.g.” “encompass contexts of interpretation”), self awareness, (e.g., “investigated … inherent ontological and epistemic premises), articulation of relevant theory (e.g. taxonomies… classification… constructivist theory…sense-making…learning theory”, and reconceptualisation e.g. “futures literacy”, “Arenas”, “complementarities”. All in all, as one report mentions, the participants were enabled to “raise challenging questions that by no means will leave the state of the art as it was before”.
5 Implications for foresight practice Two particular issues are drawn from this work. The first follows on from the discussion above, i.e. how critical open reflexivity might be made operational in a given foresight programme or project. The second is a wider issue on how the quality of foresight work can be developed structurally, given the emphasis on interdisciplinary developments and learning via open critical reflexivity.
5.1 The quality of foresight knowledge The Introduction to the COST A22 first special issue of Futures (Mermet, Fuller et al. 2008) stated that two kinds of endeavour are necessary to develop methodology, and hence the robustness of claims to knowledge . The first is to develop theoretical underpinning through critical consideration and mobilisation of theories from other fields, aimed 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. Both approaches require researchers to give explicit attention to methodology and in particular on how knowledge is produced and what is taken for knowledge. While the COST study by no means gives a complete answer to the production of rigorous knowledge about the future, it does suggest that quality can be improved by explicit reflexivity. One document created in the COST Action 22 (by Fuller and De Smedt) suggests that the following questions, when informed by previous sections of this paper, are helpful in guiding a process of reflexivity with respect to particular projects or activities. 1. How does your reflection on practice or methodology help you to articulate the explanation as to “how we know?”, or the limitations on “how we know” in the context of your foresight study or practice? 2. What critical reading can you give to the knowledge produced as an outcome of your foresight practice, For example, if one takes the perspective that knowledge of the future is socially constructed, then the following questions are relevant: •
Which particular groups were privileged or dominant in the establishment of the terms of reference of the study, the problem articulated, the questions asked?
•
By whom and in what ways were the analytical frames of reference and patterns established?
THEME: METHODS AND TOOLS CONTRIBUTING TO FTA - 12 -
Third International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making – SEVILLE 16-17 OCTOBER 2008
•
Similarly, by whom and in what ways were the conceptualisations used in synthesising results developed? What discourses were inherent in the dissemination of these?
3. To what extent was there a generative process of knowledge creation as a result of the combinations (and dialogue) of stakeholders, i.e., the emergence of ideas and practice – solutions to puzzles perhaps – that were uniquely developed from the interactions? For instance, a cross-over or cross-fertilisation of methods or ideas from one domain to another (e.g. social to scientific) 4. What reflexivity (for instance, reconstructing meaning from a process of interpreted feedback) is apparent in the way in which the creation of knowledge by participants gave rise to meaning, which in turn had performative effects on those participants, i.e. changed their sense of priority, or practice, or identity?
5.2 Foresight as a structural connector Fuller et al (2008) also note the significant change in the legitimacy of foresight work; is has become a substantive area of study in many domains and disciplines, rather than “a rapidly vanishing para-academic” domain 4 . However, they suggest, most works on futures are legitimised through their connection to decision-making. 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. This narrowness in framing legitimacy has weakened efforts to explore and develop other bases for theoretical foundation and methodological development. This has been accompanied by hybridisation between practitioners and academics within the futures community, including various intermediary consulting arrangements. The existence and work experience of networks of practitioners, academics and consultants is a major asset of the field, but also a source of rigidity and vulnerability. While this trend has developed, 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. The result of this pattern is that theoretical and conceptual developments in academic disciplines, which inherently reflect contemporary knowledge of what our world is, have not been used to systematically and explicitly to develop the futures field as a whole. While disciplines have developed, futures activity has been dominated by pragmatic and often proprietary ‘flagship’ methods, which eschew critical open development. 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. Such development does need to be interdisciplinary, with all its problems of hermeneutic interpretation, because the puzzles of the future require multidisciplinary approaches. The domain futures and foresight could become a major connector between fields of studies. 4
Meaning that, with notable exceptions, futures is not normally a disciplinary domain but in most academic institutions, its legitimacy relies on its relationship with other disciplines
THEME: METHODS AND TOOLS CONTRIBUTING TO FTA - 13 -
Third International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making – SEVILLE 16-17 OCTOBER 2008
The implication of this is that structures need further development. The theoretical structures and related discourses can be developed by extending the perspective from directly finalised forms of Futures work (i.e. less immediately applied and relating to particular decisions). The structures of intercourse can be developed strategically by organising collaboration between researchers, experts, practitioners, field actors, and the public. Resource structures can be developed by building and holding viable connections between credible and active research, efficient expertise, and action arenas that make a difference. Without a firm disciplinary and methodological grounding the burgeoning field of foresight is open prey to political and disciplinary critique which can destroy such a young and tender contribution to responsible futures. The COST Action 22 demonstrated an example of this while its funding support lasted. For the sake of their sustainability, relevance and legitimacy, communities engaged in foresight / futures work need to continue this methodological development.
6 References Adam, B. (1991). Time and Social Theory. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers in association with Polity Press. Bell, W. (1996). Foundations of Futures Studies; Human Science for a New Era. New Jersey, Transaction Publishers. Booth, C., M. Rowlinson, et al. (2008). "Scenarios and counterfactuals as modal narratives." Futures 41(2). De Castro, E. V. (1998). "Cosmological Deixis and Amerindian Perspectivism." Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4(3): 469-. Fuller, T. and K. Loogma (2008). "Constructing Futures; a social constructionist perspective on foresight methodology." Futures; Journal of Policy, Planning and Futures Studies 41(2). Gergen, K. (1999). An Invitation to Social Construction. Thousand Oaks and London, Sage. Harré, R. (1998). Foreword. Social contructionism, discourse and realism. I. Parker. London, Sage. Inayatullah, S. (2006). "Anticipatory action learning: Theory and practice." Futures 38(6): 656666. Jørgensen, U., M. S. Jørgensen and C. Clausen (2008). "The Social Shaping Approach to Technology Foresight." Futures; the journal of forecasting, planning and policy 41(2). Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist Chicago, University of Chicago. Mermet, L. (2008). "Extending the perimeter of reflexive debate on Futures research : an open framework." Futures; the journal of forecasting, planning and policy 41(2). Mermet, L., T. Fuller and R. van der Helm (2008). "Introduction." Futures; Journal of Policy, Planning and Futures Studies 41(2). Ramos, J. (2006). "Dimensions in the confluence of futures studies and action research." Futures 38(6): 642-655. Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and Social Science. London, Sage. Selin, C. (2006). "Time Matters: Temporal harmony and dissonance in nanotechnology networks." Time Society 15(1): 121-139. Tapio, P. and O. Hietenan (2002). "Epistemology and public policy: using a new typology to analyse the paradigm shift in Finnish transport futures studies." Futures 34(7): 597-620.
THEME: METHODS AND TOOLS CONTRIBUTING TO FTA - 14 -
Third International Seville Seminar on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis: Impacts and implications for policy and decision-making – SEVILLE 16-17 OCTOBER 2008
Willig, C. (2001). Introducing qualitative research in psychology : adventures in theory and method. Buckingham, Open University Press.
THEME: METHODS AND TOOLS CONTRIBUTING TO FTA - 15 -
