![]() ![]() ![]() Originality/value – The paper combines practical concepts and frameworks (such as the Foresight Process and the Foresight Diamond) with innovative analyses to represent and visualise better the combination of methods in 886 case studies, for example introducing the Methods Combination Matrix (MCM) to examine the dynamics of a mix of methods. Practical implications – The results can be utilised by lecturers and students to describe and understand better the use of foresight methods, and by organisers of foresight (including practitioners) to better inform decisions during the design of (hopefully) more coherent methodological frameworks. This paper reveals that the selection of foresight methods (even if not always coherent or systematic) is a multi-factor process, and needs to be considered as such. Findings – So far the selection of foresight methods has been dominated by the intuition, insight, impulsiveness and – sometimes – inexperience or irresponsibility of practitioners and organisers. Here the question of selection is raised from a different perspective: how are foresight methods selected? Design/methodology/approach – The guiding ''theory'' is that a better understanding of the fundamental attributes of foresight methods and their linkages to the core phases of a foresight process, together with the identification of possible patterns in the selection of methods, will provide useful insights as to how the selection of methods is carried out. ![]() From that point of view researchers and consultants promote (even if unintentionally) the use of particular methods. #FORESIGHT INSTITUTE HOW TO#Purpose – This paper addresses a challenging topic, which in both academic and professional literatures has been widely discussed but mainly from one single angle – that is, how to select foresight methods. It is argued that systems methods and tools used with sufficient practitioner awareness of epistemological biases have an essential role to play in improving the quality of our futures perception and knowledge. Susanne Cook-Greuter, capacity to understand “system” itself is explored, looking at the way that humans make sense of reality and the stages through which this sense-making develops. It is argued, though, that Integral methodology requires more than methodological pluralism: some understanding of the structures of consciousness within which methodologies are conceived and applied is needed. The diversified methodologies that have developed within the systems practice field over the past 25 years are examined for their potential to address concerns about the field's reduction of interior realities to epiphenomena of systemic processes, articulated by Habermas in the 1970s, and more recently by Wilber from the perspective of his Integral Methodological Pluralism. This article considers the use of systems methodology in futures studies and foresight, in relation to Slaughter's call for Integral methodological renewal in futures studies. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |