打破常规:情景规划者如何提高对社会想象的反思能力

IF 3 3区 管理学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Lucas Rutting, Joost Vervoort, Heleen Mees, Peter Driessen
{"title":"打破常规:情景规划者如何提高对社会想象的反思能力","authors":"Lucas Rutting,&nbsp;Joost Vervoort,&nbsp;Heleen Mees,&nbsp;Peter Driessen","doi":"10.1016/j.futures.2024.103395","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Futures imagined in scenario processes reflect both stakeholder perspectives and broader societal imaginaries: collectively-held, institutionally-stabilized visions of the future. The presence of imaginaries has mostly remained implicit in studies of scenario planning, especially in development contexts. We argue that scenario planning will benefit from reflexivity regarding imaginaries. Here, reflexivity refers to an awareness regarding different perspectives, assumptions, values, and—oft-hidden—politics at play. We developed a framework of relevant imaginaries and assessed how and to what extent these are expressed in scenario narratives, through analyzing seven scenario sets focused on agriculture, food security and climate change in the Global South. Our results show that neoliberal and sustainable development imaginaries are dominant in these scenarios. Imaginaries from the Global South are scarcely represented—arguably because of that, we observe few regional perspectives on potential challenges in these scenario sets. We conclude that the scenario sets offer effective critique on neoliberal mechanisms and global development dynamics, but do not provide significant room for transformational alternatives from the Global South. We argue that opening up explorative scenario planning to more pluralistic conceptions of the future can greatly enhance its reflexivity, and a representative mix of imaginaries allows for scenario planning that leads to more transformational policies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48239,"journal":{"name":"Futures","volume":"160 ","pages":"Article 103395"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Breaking out of conventions: How scenario planners can increase their reflexivity regarding societal imaginaries\",\"authors\":\"Lucas Rutting,&nbsp;Joost Vervoort,&nbsp;Heleen Mees,&nbsp;Peter Driessen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.futures.2024.103395\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Futures imagined in scenario processes reflect both stakeholder perspectives and broader societal imaginaries: collectively-held, institutionally-stabilized visions of the future. The presence of imaginaries has mostly remained implicit in studies of scenario planning, especially in development contexts. We argue that scenario planning will benefit from reflexivity regarding imaginaries. Here, reflexivity refers to an awareness regarding different perspectives, assumptions, values, and—oft-hidden—politics at play. We developed a framework of relevant imaginaries and assessed how and to what extent these are expressed in scenario narratives, through analyzing seven scenario sets focused on agriculture, food security and climate change in the Global South. Our results show that neoliberal and sustainable development imaginaries are dominant in these scenarios. Imaginaries from the Global South are scarcely represented—arguably because of that, we observe few regional perspectives on potential challenges in these scenario sets. We conclude that the scenario sets offer effective critique on neoliberal mechanisms and global development dynamics, but do not provide significant room for transformational alternatives from the Global South. We argue that opening up explorative scenario planning to more pluralistic conceptions of the future can greatly enhance its reflexivity, and a representative mix of imaginaries allows for scenario planning that leads to more transformational policies.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48239,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Futures\",\"volume\":\"160 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103395\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Futures\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724000788\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Futures","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724000788","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在情景规划过程中想象的未来既反映了利益相关者的观点,也反映了更广泛的社会想象:即集体持有的、机构稳定的未来愿景。在情景规划研究中,尤其是在发展背景下,想象力的存在大多是隐性的。我们认为,情景规划将受益于对想象力的反思。在这里,反思性指的是对不同观点、假设、价值观以及--往往是隐藏的--政治的认识。我们制定了一个相关想象力框架,并通过分析七个以全球南部农业、粮食安全和气候变化为重点的情景集,评估了这些想象力在情景叙述中的表达方式和程度。我们的结果表明,新自由主义和可持续发展的想象在这些情景中占主导地位。来自全球南部的想象几乎没有得到体现--可以说正因为如此,我们在这些情景集中很少看到关于潜在挑战的地区视角。我们的结论是,这些情景方案对新自由主义机制和全球发展动态提出了有效的批评,但没有为来自全球南部的转型替代方案提供重要的空间。我们认为,将探索性情景规划开放到更多元化的未来概念中,可以极大地增强其反思性,而具有代表性的想象力组合可以使情景规划产生更具变革性的政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Breaking out of conventions: How scenario planners can increase their reflexivity regarding societal imaginaries

Futures imagined in scenario processes reflect both stakeholder perspectives and broader societal imaginaries: collectively-held, institutionally-stabilized visions of the future. The presence of imaginaries has mostly remained implicit in studies of scenario planning, especially in development contexts. We argue that scenario planning will benefit from reflexivity regarding imaginaries. Here, reflexivity refers to an awareness regarding different perspectives, assumptions, values, and—oft-hidden—politics at play. We developed a framework of relevant imaginaries and assessed how and to what extent these are expressed in scenario narratives, through analyzing seven scenario sets focused on agriculture, food security and climate change in the Global South. Our results show that neoliberal and sustainable development imaginaries are dominant in these scenarios. Imaginaries from the Global South are scarcely represented—arguably because of that, we observe few regional perspectives on potential challenges in these scenario sets. We conclude that the scenario sets offer effective critique on neoliberal mechanisms and global development dynamics, but do not provide significant room for transformational alternatives from the Global South. We argue that opening up explorative scenario planning to more pluralistic conceptions of the future can greatly enhance its reflexivity, and a representative mix of imaginaries allows for scenario planning that leads to more transformational policies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Futures
Futures Multiple-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
124
期刊介绍: Futures is an international, refereed, multidisciplinary journal concerned with medium and long-term futures of cultures and societies, science and technology, economics and politics, environment and the planet and individuals and humanity. Covering methods and practices of futures studies, the journal seeks to examine possible and alternative futures of all human endeavours. Futures seeks to promote divergent and pluralistic visions, ideas and opinions about the future. The editors do not necessarily agree with the views expressed in the pages of Futures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信