Futures studies

Futures research quarterly, 1997

Social Sciences 12(3), 192., 2023

This article presents the almost century-long history of the development of futures studies in a comprehensive review. Futures studies, rooted in sociology and policy sciences, had become an academic discipline by the 1960s. One of the major global communities representing the discipline, the World Futures Studies Federation (WFSF), celebrates its 50th anniversary in 2023. In the 1970s, the focus was placed on discourses on global problems and preferred futures. Futures studies then developed a global institutional community and become a mature discipline by the 1980s and 1990s. Futurists by then had already mutually shared theoretical perspectives, objectives, ethics, and methods, and had produced empirical results. A wide range of comprehensive publications at that time synthesized the foundations and preceding results of futures studies. From the turn of the millennium, active discourse took place on the forthcoming role of futures studies. By that time, the theoretical, methodological, and practical knowledge foundations of the discipline had also appeared in internationally well-documented curricula. Since around 2010, the discipline has been characterized by the development of practical foresight projects. Based on notable trends and identified research gaps, this article formulates up-to-date expectations and research directions within which futures studies might develop in the future.

Handbook of Futures Studies, 2024

The chapter presents an overview of the history of Futures Studies and the main problems of periodization and defining the origin of the discipline. The history of Futures Studies is traced back to the early 20th century, when two distinct objects of analysis--prediction of the future and visions of the future--began to converge. Nevertheless, a direct filiation of mid-20th-century futurology from 19th-century positivism can be traced. Modern Futures Studies grew out of a move away from the naive approach of futurology and an understanding that there is no ontological symmetry between past and future. Nonetheless, the empirical-predictive component has never been completely overcome and continues to resurface even after the postmodern turn and the emergence of critical and normative approaches. While the 1960s and 1970s saw the institutionalization of Futures Studies, beginning in the 1980s the professionalization of futurists became the most prominent trend. This now risks bringing back the old polarization between positivists and declinists that lies at the origins of the discipline.

Futures, 2009

Reexamining and renewing theoretical underpinnings of the Futures field: A pressing and long-term challenge Futurists build and discuss statements on future states of affairs. When their work is challenged, they cannot defend ''what may come to be'' with robust forms of proof. They have no direct observation, can design no experiments, and cannot accumulate data sets. All the work, all the discussions of validity, have to rely on indirect reasoning based on current and past observations, experiments and data. Such reasoning is fragile and subject to considerable uncertainty. Ever since the field emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, futurists have been acutely aware of the special challenge this implies, including two most obvious consequences. First, even the most serious work is vulnerable to potentially devastating criticism. This has triggered an ongoing effort of theoretical justification that has accompanied the development of the Futures field. Second, in relation to this, sound methodology is crucially important to provide support when exploring such insecure ground as professional and academic speculation on possible futures. It is not surprising that methodology has constantly been one-and often thecentral concern of the field, sometimes to a point of excess. As early as 1980, Dé couflé could warn companion futurists against the urge ''to jump steps in the long and difficult progression towards the still hypothetical scientificity of conjectural work by displaying inappropriate complacency for issues of method''. Whether or not some futurists do 'jump steps', the Futures field has consistently shown much reflexivity on its theoretical foundations and its methodological procedures. However, the nature of the theoretical and methodological challenges to be addressed by such reflexivity changes over time. The doctrines, the methodological resources, the knowledge-base, the organisation of discussion in the field, that once provided the basis for successfully meeting the challenges of a given era may become inadequate or irrelevant if the context comes to change in a major way. Our argument in this special issue is that such a major change in the challenges that have to be met by our field is now well under way, calling for a major re-examination and renewal of the theoretical underpinnings of futures work. 1 Deepening and refining the diagnosis of the changing context of FS is of course one part of the task ahead of us. But to launch the effort, and show its necessity, let us just sketch a rough picture of the situation, by reviewing three important aspects of the development of the Futures field: (1) practical necessity and finalisation, (2) peculiarity and separation, and (3) methodology-based development. Confronted with strident criticism on the possibility and legitimacy of any serious study of future situations, the strongest argument put forward by many pioneers of the Futures field was that studying possible futures was necessary for action and decision-making. As expressed by Bertrand de Jouvenel (1964): ''One always foresees, without richness of data, without awareness of method, without critique nor cooperation. It is now urgent and important to give this individual and natural activity a cooperative, organised character, and submit it to growing demands of intellectual rigor''. This has proved a decisive basis for the development of the field, from the 1960s to the present day. It has led to a situation where most works on futures are legitimised through their connection to business management, to public decision-making, or both. 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. The downside of thus using the contribution to decision-making as the main theoretical justification and as the backbone of methodological design in futures work has been, and is now, a constant weakening of the effort to explore and develop other bases for theoretical foundation and methodological development. Although many such avenues have been opened, they have not been explored very far, because the evaluation of new methods has been based on their adequacy in serving studies designed for the preparation of decision-making, or of collective action. Futures 41 (2009) 67-70 1 In this discussion, we will envisage the Futures field in a very broad way, so that we will make no distinction between Foresight, Futures Studies (FS), and other denominations that periodically redefine the perimeter of professional and academic work on futures.

Futures, 2002

The paper considers the emergence of two recent perspectives in futures work. One is evolutionary futures studies. The other is critical futures studies. After describing aspects of each, the paper considers them as alternative rival paradigms in relation to criteria that include: the role of the human being as a subject, the role of interpretation and differences in methodological premises. It concludes that both have contributed to the development of futures methods but that a number of theoretical and methodological problems still remain unsolved.

Futures, 2007

The Futurist, 2011

Developing frameworks for new theories in Futures Studies (FS) has been a field of interest among the futurists. They usually make different efforts in finding new ways to deal with this interest. One of the reasons that made this sound as an increasing tendency is the enthusiasm of empowering contemporary FS so that it may be able to solve societies' today and tomorrow problems. This has been appeared as a growing need and has been reflected in many futurists' works in recent years. This article has discussed the need for improving futures thinking through establishing frameworks for new theories in FS.

Futures, 2021

This chapter examines and critiques the changing socio-political implications that accompany the shift from the concept of a singular future to the pluralization of futures. From the 1960s onwards, the emergence of multiple futures enabled larger sections of society to envision and create ‘alternative futures’ to the status quo. In this chapter Gidley brings to bear the democratizing effect of multiple possible futures upon the evolution of theory and practice across academic disciplines. In particular, Gidley illuminates how the theory and practice of futures studies has paralleled developments in the evolution of science and the social sciences, to incorporate critical futures, cultural futures, participatory futures, and integral futures. She concludes with reflections about how the field of futures studies will continue to evolve so that it can diversely represent the future conceptualizations and actions of scholars, practitioners and researchers, globally.

World Futures Review

This article reflects on four decades of activity in the futures arena. Overall, it tracks a process of deepening insight and growing appreciation for the richness and complexity of life in all its myriad forms. Coupled with this is what I have come to regard as our inescapable responsibility for being active in ways that protect and nurture our natural and cultural heritage, both of which are under-sustained and ever-deepening threat. To do so, we need to recover a clear perception of how extreme and “abnormal” our present situation vis-à-vis Planet Earth really is. This entails removing the veils from our eyes, setting aside convenient fictions, and gaining the courage to face reality. This view can also be framed as “finding ways forward in impossible times.” It is a kind of “sub-text” for the kind of Futures Studies I have pursued. Part 1 provides an overview of early influences and experiences. Part 2 summarizes some core learnings. Part 3 provides examples of the kinds of “dep...

Futures, 2002