We all know that using a method or relying on just a method, would not bring us satisfactory results in studying the state of the future. So it seems that always a combination of methods would be preferred option because they complete each other's probable shortcomings.

I should say that I'm not an advocate of conservative attitude on Futures Studies; rather I think that sometimes it is necessary to have a vivid and distinct identity in our way of futuristic thinking. Thus if I'm talking about a balanced view on methodologies, my intention is focused upon providing a realistic attitude regarding the mixed usage of those methods which can provide us the maximum capability in studying the future.

Although the future may not be essentially the extended form of our present time, we may sometimes get so much hypnotized by the changes of the future that become unintentionally blind with current trends leading us toward a better knowledge about the future.

If we consider trends and mega trends as signs pointed toward the future, then we may find a kind of value in studying them. There has been a great interest and tendency toward wild cards, weak signals and many other factors which may help us in knowing unexpected futures in recent years, but ignoring past and old approaches is also becoming a usual behavior among the futurists.

Since we love everything new, then new approaches and methodologies naturally become lovely for us. But can we take every new thing, as helpful too? Surely thinking in new ways can and even must be the ambition of every futurist, especially when this new way is characterized with innovative and initiative signs. For instance, using Artificial Intelligence as a supplementary tool in futurological methods has become a new trend particularly in commerce and economy.

Now, how about methods such as "Trend Analysis" which have long history in Futures Studies? Surely when Mr. John Naisbitt published "Megatrends" in 1982 didn't know that the method he and his colleagues had been pursuing for years, I mean TA would become a normal in the years to come. But this happened and many come to know the value of TA although the limitations that this method was and is suffering from, such as viewing progress as a linear phenomenon (onward and ever upward) and relatively impervious to external shocks!

Today we understand the shortcomings of Naisbitt's method and also its capabilities, but when we come to the "Content Analysis" we do the same that Naisbitt and his fiends unconsciously: "Choosing and providing supporting evidence"!

Should we remember again that a trend starts in local communities not in New York and Washington or remain hypnotized with new methodologies?