回到未来?一个警告

IF 6.4 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Alex Wright
{"title":"回到未来?一个警告","authors":"Alex Wright","doi":"10.1111/joms.13226","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This <i>Counterpoint</i> cautions that future making research treats <i>the future</i> too simplistically and fails to acknowledge the fundamental uncertainty inherent in all futures work. First, future making scholarship overlooks existing academic research, in which similar concerns have been pursued, empirically and conceptually, for years. Second, utopian futures are considered achievable if only actors have a vision of what they wish to create. Finally, most future making statements around grand challenges rely on little more than hope, failing to account for the complex relationalities shaping them. I substantiate my argument by drawing on the scenario planning literature, Knightian uncertainty, and anthropology of future research. I also critique the <i>Point's</i> call for future making scholars to adopt practice-based approaches (Wenzel et al., forthcoming) in their empirical inquiries, arguing that the ‘as Practice’ move in management studies is yet to achieve its aspirations. Additionally, I caution against the other <i>Counterpoint</i> in this debate that future making requires the realization of desired and emancipatory futures (Comi et al., forthcoming), as this view is too restrictive for broad and deep future making theorizing to emerge.</p>","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":"62 6","pages":"2452-2466"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joms.13226","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Back to the Future? A Caution\",\"authors\":\"Alex Wright\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/joms.13226\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This <i>Counterpoint</i> cautions that future making research treats <i>the future</i> too simplistically and fails to acknowledge the fundamental uncertainty inherent in all futures work. First, future making scholarship overlooks existing academic research, in which similar concerns have been pursued, empirically and conceptually, for years. Second, utopian futures are considered achievable if only actors have a vision of what they wish to create. Finally, most future making statements around grand challenges rely on little more than hope, failing to account for the complex relationalities shaping them. I substantiate my argument by drawing on the scenario planning literature, Knightian uncertainty, and anthropology of future research. I also critique the <i>Point's</i> call for future making scholars to adopt practice-based approaches (Wenzel et al., forthcoming) in their empirical inquiries, arguing that the ‘as Practice’ move in management studies is yet to achieve its aspirations. Additionally, I caution against the other <i>Counterpoint</i> in this debate that future making requires the realization of desired and emancipatory futures (Comi et al., forthcoming), as this view is too restrictive for broad and deep future making theorizing to emerge.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48445,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Management Studies\",\"volume\":\"62 6\",\"pages\":\"2452-2466\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/joms.13226\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Management Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joms.13226\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management Studies","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joms.13226","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇对位文章警告说,未来研究过于简单地对待未来,未能认识到所有未来工作中固有的基本不确定性。首先,未来制造奖学金忽视了现有的学术研究,在这些研究中,类似的问题已经在经验上和概念上进行了多年。其次,只要参与者对他们希望创造的东西有一个愿景,乌托邦式的未来就被认为是可以实现的。最后,大多数关于重大挑战的未来声明仅仅依赖于希望,而没有考虑到塑造它们的复杂关系。我通过借鉴情景规划文献、奈特不确定性和未来研究人类学来证实我的论点。我还批评了Point呼吁未来的学者在他们的实证调查中采用基于实践的方法(Wenzel等人,即将出版),认为管理研究中的“实践”运动尚未实现其愿望。此外,我对这场辩论中的另一个对立观点提出了警告,即未来的制定需要实现期望的和解放的未来(Comi等人,即将出版),因为这种观点对广泛而深刻的未来制定理论的出现过于限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Back to the Future? A Caution

This Counterpoint cautions that future making research treats the future too simplistically and fails to acknowledge the fundamental uncertainty inherent in all futures work. First, future making scholarship overlooks existing academic research, in which similar concerns have been pursued, empirically and conceptually, for years. Second, utopian futures are considered achievable if only actors have a vision of what they wish to create. Finally, most future making statements around grand challenges rely on little more than hope, failing to account for the complex relationalities shaping them. I substantiate my argument by drawing on the scenario planning literature, Knightian uncertainty, and anthropology of future research. I also critique the Point's call for future making scholars to adopt practice-based approaches (Wenzel et al., forthcoming) in their empirical inquiries, arguing that the ‘as Practice’ move in management studies is yet to achieve its aspirations. Additionally, I caution against the other Counterpoint in this debate that future making requires the realization of desired and emancipatory futures (Comi et al., forthcoming), as this view is too restrictive for broad and deep future making theorizing to emerge.

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
CiteScore
16.40
自引率
5.70%
发文量
99
期刊介绍: The Journal of Management Studies is a prestigious publication that specializes in multidisciplinary research in the field of business and management. With a rich history of excellence, we are dedicated to publishing innovative articles that contribute to the advancement of management and organization studies. Our journal welcomes empirical and conceptual contributions that are relevant to various areas including organization theory, organizational behavior, human resource management, strategy, international business, entrepreneurship, innovation, and critical management studies. We embrace diversity and are open to a wide range of methodological approaches and philosophical perspectives.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信