| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revisionBoth sides next revision |
| future_fabulators:antipodean_musings [2014-03-10 02:16] – alkan | future_fabulators:antipodean_musings [2014-03-10 02:29] – [Scenario thinking] alkan |
|---|
| ==== Scenario thinking ==== | ==== Scenario thinking ==== |
| |
| The first week of our research was preoccupied with methodology, since many practice-oriented questions emerged from debriefs from our [[scenarios|scenario]] workshops. We had planned to investigate methods from various fields suitable for scenario development and prehearsals, but due to time constraints as well as the vastly disparate literature, we focused on [[scenario building]] and [[scenario methods|its methods]]. We had previously worked mainly with the [[http://lib.fo.am/future_fabulators/scenario_methods#x2_double_uncertainty|double uncertainty]] method, where four possible futures emerge from two 'critical uncertainties' selected from a range of local factors and macro trends (aka 'drivers of change'). Although this method has proven to work well in a range of situations, we were curious to expand our toolbox, increase our ability to adapt workshops to different groups and topics. After digesting several [[http://lib.fo.am/future_fabulators/scenario_methods#methods_comparisons|review articles]] comparing different methods, we dug deeper into those that resonated with our way of working. For example [[http://lib.fo.am/future_fabulators/scenario_methods#causal_layered_analysis|causal layered analysis]] suggests ways to have deeper conversation about social causes, worldviews and cultural myths (resonating with Stuart Brand’s [[http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/tools/pace-layering/|pace layers]]). Basically both Sohail Inayatullah and Stuart Brand talk about different layers that impact change – from the fast-paced and obvious (like fashions and technologies) to more fundamental, but also not easily measurable and often overlooked issues related to culture and nature. Jim Dator, one of the veterans of the futures field, who postulates that 'any useful idea about the future should appear to be ridiculous', has distilled a method called [[http://lib.fo.am/future_fabulators/scenario_methods#four_generic_futures|four generic futures]]. He found that most stories about the future fall into four categories: continued growth, total collapse, a disciplined society and a transformed society (usually through technology). This method provides means for creating more 'extreme' scenarios that can spark interesting discussions. A very different method emerging from astronomy and social sciences is the [[http://lib.fo.am/future_fabulators/scenario_methods#morphological_analysisfar|morphological analysis]], which looks at futures as a dynamic whole, and works with permutations and relationships between change drivers that can generate large numbers of divergent scenarios and possible paths between them. | The first week of our research was preoccupied with methodology, since many practice-oriented questions emerged from debriefs from our [[scenarios|scenario]] workshops. We had planned to investigate methods from various fields suitable for scenario development and prehearsals, but due to time constraints as well as the vastly disparate literature, we focused on [[scenario building]] and [[scenario methods|its methods]]. We had previously worked mainly with the [[http://lib.fo.am/future_fabulators/scenario_methods#x2_double_uncertainty|double uncertainty]] method, where four possible futures emerge from two 'critical uncertainties' selected from a range of local factors and macro trends (aka 'drivers of change'). Although this method has proven to work well in a range of situations, we were curious to expand our toolbox, increase our ability to adapt workshops to different groups and topics. After digesting several [[http://lib.fo.am/future_fabulators/scenario_methods#methods_comparisons|review articles]] comparing different methods, we dug deeper into those that resonated with our way of working. For example [[http://lib.fo.am/future_fabulators/scenario_methods#causal_layered_analysis|causal layered analysis]] suggests ways to have deeper conversation about social causes, worldviews and cultural myths (resonating with Stuart Brand’s [[http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/tools/pace-layering/|pace layers]]). Basically both Sohail Inayatullah and Stuart Brand talk about different layers that impact change – from the fast-paced and obvious (like fashions and technologies) to more fundamental, but also not easily measurable and often overlooked issues related to culture and nature. Jim Dator, one of the veterans of the futures field, who postulates that 'any useful idea about the future should appear to be ridiculous', has distilled a method called [[http://lib.fo.am/future_fabulators/scenario_methods#four_generic_futures|four generic futures]]. He found that most stories about the future fall into four categories: continued growth, total collapse, a disciplined society and a transformed society (usually through technology). This method provides means for creating more 'extreme' scenarios that can spark interesting discussions. A very different method emerging from astronomy and social sciences is [[http://lib.fo.am/future_fabulators/scenario_methods#morphological_analysisfar|morphological analysis]], which looks at futures as a dynamic whole, and works with permutations and relationships between change drivers that can generate large numbers of divergent scenarios and possible paths between them. |
| |
| Aside from these general methods, there are several specific techniques that we investigated to help us improve aspects of the scenario process. To begin with, we want to be able to ask better questions and encourage an [[inquiring mind]], while being aware of our [[cognitive bias|cognitive biases]] and [[affective forecasting|emotions]]. The questioning of questions led us towards action learning and education based on inquiry, but also to Zen Buddhists talking about the importance of preserving a beginner's mind throughout life. We also found some questioning games and tried them out in breakfast meetings. These resulted in much laughter, but also the affirmation that we want to continue scenario workshops that start with participants designing a core question, rather than bringing in a prepackaged 'burning issue’ from the outside that people might not identify with. The next step in a scenario workshop (after coming up with a good question) is understanding the past and the present of the participants' situations. We looked at how we could better structure a discussion about what is known and what is assumed to be the current circumstances. This would allow participants to 'vent' their frustrations and talk about things they appreciate in the present, but also expose assumptions and point towards effective actions. We found interesting possibilities in the [[KPUU framework]], where a discussion is structured around what is known, presumed, unknown and unknowable in the present. A much bigger framework, [[integral scenario development]] talks about how to broaden and deepen perceptual filters both of facilitators and participants, with some evocative principles of practice, such as non-exclusion, unfoldment, enactment and uncomfort. | Aside from these general methods, there are several specific techniques that we investigated to help us improve aspects of the scenario process. To begin with, we want to be able to ask better questions and encourage an [[inquiring mind]], while being aware of our [[cognitive bias|cognitive biases]] and [[affective forecasting|emotions]]. The questioning of questions led us towards action learning and education based on inquiry, but also to Zen Buddhists talking about the importance of preserving a beginner's mind throughout life. We also found some questioning games and tried them out in breakfast meetings. These resulted in much laughter, but also the affirmation that we want to continue scenario workshops that start with participants designing a core question, rather than bringing in a prepackaged 'burning issue’ from the outside that people might not identify with. The next step in a scenario workshop (after coming up with a good question) is understanding the past and the present of the participants' situations. We looked at how we could better structure a discussion about what is known and what is assumed to be the current circumstances. This would allow participants to 'vent' their frustrations and talk about things they appreciate in the present, but also expose assumptions and point towards effective actions. We found interesting possibilities in the [[KPUU framework]], where a discussion is structured around what is known, presumed, unknown and unknowable in the present. A much bigger framework, [[integral scenario development]] talks about how to broaden and deepen perceptual filters both of facilitators and participants, with some evocative principles of practice, such as non-exclusion, unfoldment, enactment and uncomfort. |
| \\ | \\ |
| |
| The question how to construct rich [[http://lib.fo.am/future_fabulators/scenario_methods#scenarios|scenarios]] lead us deeper into the territory of axes, branches, layers, fans and cones (no specialist field is complete without a working vocabulary) - all of which can represent different relationships between (elements) of possible, probable and/or preferred futures. It is interesting that several researchers warn that different methods will produce different types of future scenarios. This is something that we intuitively grasped after facilitating several workshops. The research confirmed that we have to be very careful about not just the methods we use, but also of our influence as facilitators on the process and outcome of the scenarios. A lot of the [[integral futures]] research talks about the inclusion of the practitioner as part of scenario creation. Our personal development, history, worldviews, presence and other factors has an impact on the content and the process of the workshop. This lead us to search for different ways to ask questions during the constructions of scenario skeletons, that might lead to different answers and therefore different stories, than if we intuitively ask questions that interest us. | The question how to construct rich [[http://lib.fo.am/future_fabulators/scenario_methods#scenarios|scenarios]] led us deeper into the territory of axes, branches, layers, fans and cones (no specialist field is complete without a working vocabulary) - all of which can represent different relationships between aspects of possible, probable or preferred futures. Interestingly, several researchers warn that different methods will produce different types of future scenarios. This is something that we intuitively grasped after facilitating several workshops. The research confirmed that we have to be very careful not only of the methods we use, but also of our influence as facilitators on the process and outcome of the scenarios. A lot of the [[integral futures]] research talks about the inclusion of the practitioner as part of scenario creation. Our personal development, history, worldview, and other factors all have an impact on the content and process of the workshop. This made us search for different ways to ask questions during the construction of scenario skeletons that could lead to different answers and therefore different stories, rather than if we just asked the questions that interested us alone. |
| |
| What we have previously called 'retrocasting' or 'scenario testing' (probing the paths from "here" to various projected futures) goes by several names in the futures field, the most widespread being "[[http://lib.fo.am/future_fabulators/scenario_methods#retrocasting|backcasting]]" and/or "incasting". The difference between backcasting and retrocasting (if we understood this correctly) is that backcasting envisions a preferred future and asks what would have to be done in the present to get to that future, while incasting looks at finding signals of emergence different possible or probable futures (preferred and otherwise). | What we have previously called 'retrocasting' or 'scenario testing' (probing the paths from 'here' to various projected futures) goes by several names in the futures field, the most widespread being '[[http://lib.fo.am/future_fabulators/scenario_methods#retrocasting|backcasting]]' or 'incasting'. The difference between backcasting and retrocasting (if we understood this correctly) is that backcasting envisions a preferred future and asks what would have to be done in the present to get to that future, while incasting looks at finding signals of emergence different possible or probable futures (preferred and otherwise). |
| |
| Exploring each of these methods and techniques has of course revealed many promising leads, some of which have been left unexplored for now. However, our initial collection of [[scenario methods]] is now more extensive and has already sparked ideas about how we could use or adapt some of them in our work. | Exploring each of these methods and techniques has of course revealed many promising leads, some of which have been left unexplored for now. However, our initial collection of [[scenario methods]] is now more extensive and has already sparked ideas about how we could use or adapt some of them in our work. |
nik