Workshop 7:
Foresight Theories, Foresight Knowledge
Friday 9 June at 9.15-11.30
Chair: Sylvia Karlsson
Regional Foresight as a Special Level of Future Activities
Tamás Gáspár (Futures Studies Department, Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary)
The paper is rooted in the problem that in a globalising world an individual should perform his/her futures visions at different levels at the same time: a person cannot separate his being himself, being a father, an inhabitant of a region, a member of a club, a committed person of his country or a continent as well as being a member of an international organisation. However, representing the aims and aspects of the individual, micro, mezzo (regional), macro, international regional and global levels hardly any times coincide.
So as to contribute to regional foresight the paper investigates how to distinguish among the different levels. The idea is that it is the intensity of relations rather than the extension of the territory which defines levels. Moreover, the paper highlights some characteristics of regional level and how it is determined from the aspect of change. Also, the intensity of change and its relation to the different levels receives much attention. Finally, the space and time dynamics of regional future among the different levels is discussed. The research reveals why regional foresight is an adequate and effective level of future activities. This aspect, as far as I know, has not yet been discussed and hence regional foresight itself as well as its acceptance and support may benefit from the results.
From Futures Studies towards Futures Research as Science
Part 1. Context of discovery
Timo Sneck (Pori Unit, Pori University Consortium, Turku School of Economics, Finland)
If futures research will ever be established as a science, it can only be classified as a planning science (Niiniluoto). Several trials were made until 1990’s to find out the real nature of futures studies, which Mannermaa (1991) described as three paradigms. One more was added Sneck (2002) to utilize the planning science thinking (Niiniluoto) and policy science orientation (Borg 1994). The Futures studies present scenarios and visions. The basic idea is to improve total awareness concerning factors important in sustainable development etc. 1. Descriptive future studies (statistical forecasts, time-series) 2. scenario paradigm (alternative, logical development paths) 3. evolutionary futures studies (evolutionary processes, complexity and non-linear processes) 4. the functional paradigm of futures research
The fourth paradigm raises up futures research from several perspectives: The earlier futures studies have not focused on the continuous transformation of the future oriented knowledge into practice. A clear market for this was discovered. The attitude that accurate predictions are impossible has decreased the utilization of futures research. The lack of proper paradigm has hindered the futures researchers to build proper relation between the accuracy of results and the decision-making situation. Therefore, a new method to make accurate forecasts for the very moment the decision has to be done was created. The method includes cooperation in creating and using knowledge. The joint forecasting and guidance system for creating and using future oriented knowledge leads to a new paradigm, functional futures research. The functional paradigm of futures research connects global responsibilities to joint short-term activities.
Functional paradigm of futures research has several preconditions: Accuracy of hypothesis and forecast results Joint and coordinated user activities in creating and using future oriented knowledge Platforms for using forecast results
In these two papers only the first perspective or scientific condition is discussed, namely context of discovery and context of justification. The earlier work has concentrated on future oriented hypothesis construction and their testing benches (tools of enterprise and employment developers). They are explained in the first paper. In the second paper the Satakunta region as full-scale test field is described.
From Futures Studies towards Futures Research as Science
Part 2. Context of justification in prospective analysis
Outi Seppä (Pori Unit, Pori University Consortium, Turku School of Economics, Finland)
Futures studies do not present their results in a verified form partly because verification of future phenomena is supposed to be carried out by retrospective inquiries. However, prospective means are possible, too. Only after functional paradigm of futures research serious projects to establish then can be started.
One of the first full-scale test fields is called 5satatop. My task is to simultaneously construct the conditions for scientific prospective ”context of justification” philosophies and enterprise networks enabling anticipated innovations in global competition. The methods and enterprise networks have to be developed as concurrent processes in the long run (principles of theoretical discussions connected with principles of 5satatop)
The parallel lines will give background for proposals concerning context of justification in prospective analysis. Therefore, the research field in the first tests is very narrow (competitive products and high regional employment). One of the criteria will be the ability in planning stages (VTT PRS) to get both future market and technology risks low enough. What is low enough will be seen only after the tests.
The presentation discusses mainly three topics:
Task 1. The description of the 5satatop test environment, which consists of successful product orientated new SME networks active year 2012.
Task 2. How the innovative ideas have to be presented in order that new enterprises can start to develop them as part of their business plan. This requires 12-18 month long test period, which has been started in the beginning of 2006.
One of the psychological breakthrough points: how can the entrepreneur attitudes be kept open for propositions concerning successful products? How should the innovation ideas be formulated as an “easy access platform” for the enterprises?
Task 3. How to formulate fruitful and effective research questions in test environment?
Business as Usual or Business as Optimal — Scenarios for the Development of Knowledge, Values and Institutions
Sylvia I. Karlsson (Finland Futures Research Centre, Turku School of Economics, Finland)
This papers explores two alternative scenarios of how three key aspects of human society — knowledge, institutions and values — could develop until 2050, one business as usual scenario and one business as optimal scenario. Each of these arenas can either foster progress towards sustainable development or effectively prevent it depending on its content. The best as optimal scenarios builds on research showing the directions that is likely to serve sustainability better. The development of knowledge could go along the path of commodification with increasing knowledge divides rising between the North and the South, the experts and the public, the producers of knowledge and the consumers, or it could go along the path of universalising the access to knowledge through bridging the gaps between local and global knowledge, indigenous and scientific learning, and scientists and policymakers’ understanding of what is useful knowledge. The development of values could go into the backlash of isolationist nationalism, cultural and religious intolerance and unbridled consumerism with increasing clashes of civilizations and between civilisations and nature or it could move towards expanding value spheres, tolerance and less materialist focus on human development allowing bridges to be built between nations, cultures and religions, and between man and nature. The development of institutions could develop towards an increasing plethora of issue specific laws and rules governing every small sector of society, with local, national and global policies going in different directions or they could develop towards a system of co-ordinated, collective governance across sectors and levels.
[An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2005 Club of Rome Conference, Norfolk, Virginia, 3 October]