{"title":"Rigor and diversity in the futures field: A commentary on Fergnani and Chermack 2021","authors":"Matti Minkkinen","doi":"10.1002/ffo2.69","DOIUrl":"10.1002/ffo2.69","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The focal paper “The resistance to scientific theory in futures and foresight, and what to do about it” by Fergnani and Chermack is a welcome challenge to introduce more rigor into the futures field. The paper raises numerous issues that hinder incremental theory development in the futures and foresight field together with proposed solutions, and it provides an excellent starting point for discussion.</p><p>In this commentary, I would like to raise two general questions: the choice of reference fields and levels of theory. The first question concerns the use of the management and organization sciences as a reference point for considering theory in the futures and foresight field. I would like to discuss whether other reference points may lead to different lines of theorizing. Historical institutionalism and science and technology studies (STS) are presented as complementary reference fields. This discussion is intended as a reminder about the interdisciplinary nature of the futures field without succumbing to what the authors of the focal paper call “the enjoyment of being outliers.”<sup>1</sup></p><p>The second question is the consideration of different levels of theory and how this can contribute to discussions in the futures field. This issue is raised as a reminder that studies in the futures and foresight field may concern different kinds of phenomena at different levels of complexity.</p><p>Fergnani and Chermack take management and organization sciences as natural reference points for considering theory in the futures field. While this choice is valid, other reference points may illuminate equally important aspects of the interdisciplinary futures field. Several fields could be used, but two social scientific areas are chosen here: historical institutionalism and STS. These fields are selected because they are broad and relatively well-established, and because they are expected to complement the management and organization perspective.</p><p>Fergnani and Chermack focus on theory <i>of</i> foresight (cf. Piirainen & Gonzalez, <span>2015</span>), that is, “scientific theories about futures and foresight interventions,” rather than theory <i>within</i> futures work. Without delving into the long-standing debate whether futures studies is art, science, or something else (Bell, <span>1997</span>, Chapter 4), I claim that rigorous scholarly work can be pursued also beyond organizational theorizing.</p><p><i>Historical institutionalism</i> is a social science approach within so-called new institutionalism in sociology, political science, and economics. This is an interesting parallel because Ossip Flechtheim, who coined “futurology,” likened the new field to historical sociology (quoted in Masini, <span>2010</span>). Historical institutionalists emphasize historical path dependencies, the openness of outcomes, and critical junctures in historical development (e.g., Capoccia & Kelemen, <span>2007</span>; Hall & Taylor, <span>1996</sp","PeriodicalId":100567,"journal":{"name":"FUTURES & FORESIGHT SCIENCE","volume":"3 3-4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/ffo2.69","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84998423","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The simulation manifesto: The limits of brute-force empiricism in geopolitical forecasting","authors":"Ian S. Lustick, Philip E. Tetlock","doi":"10.1002/ffo2.64","DOIUrl":"10.1002/ffo2.64","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Intelligence analysis has traditionally relied on inside-view, case-specific modes of thinking: why did this actor—say, the USSR—do that and what might it do next? After 9/11, however, analysts faced a vastly wider range of threats that necessitated outside-view, statistical modes of reasoning: how likely are threats to emerge from actors of diverse types operating in situations of diverse types? Area-study specialists (who staffed most geopolitical desks) were ill-equipped for answering these questions. Thanks to advances in long-range sensing, digitization, and computing, the intelligence community was flooded with data, but lacked clear ideas about how to render it relevant. Empiricism, whether grounded in deep inside-view knowledge of particular places or broad outside-view knowledge of statistical patterns across the globe, could not and cannot solve the problem of anticipating high-impact, rare events, like sneak attacks and pandemics. Contingency planning for these threats requires well-calibrated conditional forecasts of the impact of policy interventions that in turn require synthesizing inside- and outside-view analytics. Such syntheses will be best achieved by refining computer simulations that permit replays of history based on the interplay among initial conditions, chance, and social-science models of causation. We offer suggestions for accelerating the development and application of theory-guided simulation techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":100567,"journal":{"name":"FUTURES & FORESIGHT SCIENCE","volume":"3 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/ffo2.64","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86273777","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The resistance to scientific theory in futures and foresight, and what to do about it","authors":"Alessandro Fergnani, Thomas J. Chermack","doi":"10.1002/ffo2.61","DOIUrl":"10.1002/ffo2.61","url":null,"abstract":"<p>We offer an argumentative explanation of the reasons why the field of futures and foresight has not been successful at becoming part of the social scientific establishment. We contend that the very set of norms, beliefs, and epistemological foundations of futures and foresight are essentially self-sabotaging as they resist the creation of scientific theory on futures and foresight practices and processes in organizations. Drawing from the tradition of management and organization sciences, we describe what scientific theory in the context of organizations is and is not, and how theory development contributes to the incremental progress of scientific fields. We then unpack the crux of the problem, deconstructing the resistance to scientific theory within our field into nine, closely related reasons. We offer solutions to the problem in the form of three sets of recommendations: for authors, journal editors, and practitioners. We conclude by responding to likely misunderstandings in advance.</p>","PeriodicalId":100567,"journal":{"name":"FUTURES & FORESIGHT SCIENCE","volume":"3 3-4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/ffo2.61","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91209303","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Thematic reflections on 18 expert commentaries","authors":"Paul J. H. Schoemaker","doi":"10.1002/ffo2.57","DOIUrl":"10.1002/ffo2.57","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":100567,"journal":{"name":"FUTURES & FORESIGHT SCIENCE","volume":"2 3-4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/ffo2.57","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"110648198","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Mont Fleur scenarios and particular histories: Commentary on Schoemaker 2020","authors":"Pieter le Roux","doi":"10.1002/ffo2.54","DOIUrl":"10.1002/ffo2.54","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":100567,"journal":{"name":"FUTURES & FORESIGHT SCIENCE","volume":"2 3-4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/ffo2.54","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"92999964","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Past‐future synergies: Commentary on Schoemaker 2020","authors":"D. Önkal, Shari De Baets","doi":"10.1002/ffo2.51","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ffo2.51","url":null,"abstract":"Historical Analysis Can Scenario the differences and similarities between historical analysis and historians are on the Schoemaker an informative analysis of how operate and the with a scenario planning exer cise on South Africa's post-apartheid the notion that and planners very much learn each other” with the and","PeriodicalId":100567,"journal":{"name":"FUTURES & FORESIGHT SCIENCE","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86628212","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Past-future synergies: Commentary on Schoemaker 2020","authors":"Dilek Önkal, Shari De Baets","doi":"10.1002/ffo2.51","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ffo2.51","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Schoemaker's paper “How Historical Analysis Can Enrich Scenario Planning” expertly portrays the differences and similarities between historical analysis and scenario planning. While both fields study developments over time, historians are focused on looking backward while scenario planners look forward. Examining the parallels, Schoemaker gives an informative analysis of how both fields operate and illustrates the challenges with a 1992 scenario planning exercise on South Africa's post-apartheid future. He concludes with the notion that “..historians and scenario planners can very much learn from each other” with the qualifier that this will be challenging, as both disciplines are still developing learning and research methods within their own respective fields.</p><p>The paper is extremely timely as academics and practitioners are trying to make sense of (and learn from) the unexpected developments perturbing world platforms via Covid-19. Ironically, many countries and organizations have had scenarios for pandemic outbreaks for years. Still, COVID-19 came as a surprise. It appears that no effective planning was done, no proactive measures were taken and governments were overwhelmed while experts warned for similarities to historical outbreaks and drew attention to lessons learned from past epidemics (Snowden, <span>2020</span>). The turbulence surrounding Covid-19 presents a productive living and learning laboratory that confirms the importance of how historical analysis can enrich scenario planning as suggested by Schoemaker; and it also highlights how constructing scenarios are not sufficient if they do not translate to forecasts and actions.</p><p>Our efforts to better understand how historical analysis-scenario planning dynamics could lead to improved forecasts and decisions will need to include studies on biases and informational asymmetries that permeate past–future synergies. Biases are systematic deviations from norm or rationality in judgment, influenced by the context and framing of information (Hasselton, Nettle, & Andrew, <span>2005</span>). The literature on biases is extensive and reaches back to Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman's seminal work (Tversky & Kahneman, <span>1974</span>). Biases play a key role in the context of foresight and scenario processes (Bradfield, <span>2008</span>; Schirrmeister, Göhring, & Warnke, <span>2019</span>; Schoemaker, <span>1993</span>; Wack, <span>1985</span>), while also affecting the way we view historical events (Mccullagh, <span>2002</span>; Mukharji & Zeckhauser, <span>2019</span>).</p><p>The work on biases can provide an additional perspective to Schoemaker's portrayal of similarities and differences between the two fields. One crucial lesson learned from this paper is that we will be better in looking forward (scenario planning) if we learn how to look back (historical analysis of information). While this is a valid point, historical analysis can be subject to misinformati","PeriodicalId":100567,"journal":{"name":"FUTURES & FORESIGHT SCIENCE","volume":"2 3-4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/ffo2.51","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91852433","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Historical methods in the social sciences: Commentary on Schoemaker 2020","authors":"Johann Peter Murmann","doi":"10.1002/ffo2.55","DOIUrl":"10.1002/ffo2.55","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":100567,"journal":{"name":"FUTURES & FORESIGHT SCIENCE","volume":"2 3-4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/ffo2.55","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"98148899","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}