| About Us | Articles | Links | Events | Strategic Foresight | Futures Studies | منابع فارسی |
| |||
By: Alireza Hejazi It's a long time since two topics occupied my mind and I would like to develop new ideas and perhaps writing articles about them. I thought that these can be regarded as two sources of concern. It will be an honor of mine to be entitled to other futurists’ comments and views and be guided by their constructive directions. The topics are: 1. A
growing need for new ideas and theories in Futures Thinking (FT),
and As you know, a few months ago National Science Foundation invited individuals and groups to contribute whitepapers outlining grand challenge questions that are both foundational and transformative (http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2010/nsf10069/nsf10069.jsp). Regardless of such invitations, it seems that such subjects have an endless value and we may always propose our ideas about them. My goal is not participating in NSF program, rather developing new practical theories for the improvement of human's future life and world. You surely know that the history of institutes like Institute for the Future (http://www.iftf.org) is remarkable in this field and me or anyone else may follow the footprints of scholars active at such organizations. I do not mean just imitating their works in my writings and articles. I just want to develop new ideas or theories by which I may be able to make FS enough effective to solve universal problems. I'm not sure of social perspective in different countries regarding the futurists, but in my country, the futurists are still seeking for recognition by the society. In other words, in many fields the futurists are not considered as reliable as others experts. Although I'm really happy with my FS self-studies, I have some vague illusions in my mind concerning the future of my studies. Some time ago, a futurist friend told me about the importance of theoretical bases in FS. I thought on his perspective for a while and I found out the importance of this matter. Although I'm not a man of theory, I have to admit the vital role of theories in FS. How that is no significant theory (such as Einstein's relativity that is now challenged by many thinkers & philosophers) has been proposed in the field of FS in recent years? Don't you think that there is appearing an era of inactivity in this field? Some years ago, Sohail Inayatullah suggested the Casual Layered Analysis method. Do you personally remember any remarkable new method or theory? There are many combined methods and complex points of views, what about new independent FS theories? I think the development of futures studies and the ongoing advancement of its methodological basis is a consequence of the changing human needs in relation to thinking and acting about the future and its cultural and social foundations. Perhaps our needs have not changed very much in these years and we are yet capable of doing our responsibilities in the same old manners. This is just a personal view and I do not stick to that. I can imagine the appearance of a new generation of futurists and I have questions about this new generation as following: Who are they? What is the new generation of futurists like? What will be their contribution to futures studies and the society? And on transition between old and young generations of futurists, what can each generation offer to each other and the society? How the knowledge, skills and responsibilities are being transformed when passed to new generations? Again my concern is concentrated on new futures methods. Given that methods are different than theories, many times methods derive from theories. Example, CLA has derived, in part from qualitative understanding of systems. What techniques will assist the new generation in handling uncertainty and risks? What are the tools related to the spontaneity? How can we encourage greater questioning of the assumptions and questions that we ask about the future? Pardon me for so many questions. My mind is like a spring that spurts a question after another. 2 years ago Richard Slaughter mentioned [1] one of the failures of FS as the near-universal failure to have futures concepts, tools, thinking and appropriate methods incorporated into educational systems worldwide as part of their core studies. Today the situation is the same. I can imagine that today even the American high schools do not show any sign of interest in teaching FS basic concepts to the students. The reality is that FS can’t bypass the tertiary level; it must find a way to relate there, as these graduates end up teaching in the secondary school system. The lack of progress here (just as Slaughter reminds) does have profound social costs such as: lack of awareness of solutions to global problems; arrested capacity in succeeding cohorts of students to respond; lower levels of grassroots support in societies generally for those politicians who would act more effectively if they could and, overall, reduced ‘steering capacity’ for ‘real’, forward-looking, leadership at any level. I admit that even with forward capacity, there are global political and power realities that undercut long-range preparation. Overall, humanity is now set on an ‘overshoot and collapse’ trajectory and the sum total of futures and foresight work has thus far had little impact. The prospects for humankind and its world therefore grow ever more dystopian, especially when the repressive potentials of advanced technologies are come into account. It is possible our options are narrowing, but we still have choices at all levels. If ever there was a time for humans to ‘wake up’ and ‘pay attention’ to the changes being inscribed ever more deeply upon its world, then that time is now. In my point of view, the most useful role for FS is to assist in this process of ‘waking up’ to humanity’s self-constructed plight. One month ago Forbes magazine published an interesting special issue titled: "25 Ideas to Change the World" (http://www.forbes.com/ideas). It had interesting ideas from distinguished scientists. I read it completely and found out that the secret of offering new ideas is just laid in developing different outlooks and perspectives and looking differently at the same issues we had seen many times before. I do not want to broaden these 2 topics too much and I should concentrate on the first paragraph of this note. In fact, I can not divide "growing need for new ideas and theories in FT" from "making FS capable of solving global problems". As you know, the benefits of new theories should be directly applied in solving global problems. In order to achieve this goal, first of all a useful framework should be defined. My desired framework has a dual characteristic. In one hand, new ideas and theories should be practical and not just subjective concepts. On the other hand, the process of applying such ideas and theories should be defined in solving future challenges. How this framework should be effectively defined? What kind of name or title can we find for it? What functions can be considered for it? What is the final output of this framework? And even more clearly, how can we crystallize FS in different layers of the society. One may think that FS has an overall philosophy—i.e. future is open, we can influence it, etc as W. Bell laid out. But it should have many different frameworks. These arise in different social sciences and political contexts based on hope, vision, planning at national, regional and even personal levels. Other frameworks are prospective thinking, foresight, anticipatory systems, etc. Others are action learning, transformational leadership, etc. etc. There are dozens, even hundreds of frameworks we create to apply ourselves to change and create tomorrow. The important thing is that we reflectively focus on improving what is, in light of what should and can be.
Notes: | |||
