Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
| future_fabulators:confabulation [2014-02-11 07:05] – maja | future_fabulators:confabulation [2014-02-13 03:56] – nik | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| {{future_fabulators: | {{future_fabulators: | ||
| + | |||
| + | “Any useful idea about the future should appear to be ridiculous” Dator’s 2nd Law of the Future (Dator 1995) | ||
| ==== external / rational ==== | ==== external / rational ==== | ||
| Line 12: | Line 14: | ||
| ==== internal / irrational ==== | ==== internal / irrational ==== | ||
| * divination / invocation | * divination / invocation | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== physical narratives ==== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Christine Wilks talking about text as a way for developing character depth; [[http:// | ||
| + | * performing text on screen | ||
| + | * Varytale | ||
| + | * "Text becomes the equivalent of subtitles" | ||
| + | * Very based around computer games. | ||
| + | * " | ||
| + | * Note: Prehearsals are first person narratives, PNs are third person. Thus a Prehearsal can have " | ||
| Line 41: | Line 53: | ||
| Preparation beforehand | Preparation beforehand | ||
| * what can participants prepare for a scenario workshop beforehand? | * what can participants prepare for a scenario workshop beforehand? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Commonly the people organising the workshop will "Work on identifying major drivers, trends and events should be initiated ahead of the first workshop: this is an opportunity to draw on relevant horizon scanning work and other analysis. Ideally this work will be synthesised into a format which can be accessed easily by workshop participants, | ||
| * what are the ideal settings (e.g. room size per person) for a scenario workshop? | * what are the ideal settings (e.g. room size per person) for a scenario workshop? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Millenium project used questionnaires and interviews, then a computer analysis of answers to get to the | ||
| Key question | Key question | ||
| Line 50: | Line 66: | ||
| * how can we encourage an ' | * how can we encourage an ' | ||
| * why does it seem more difficult to phrase questions rather than stating problems? | * why does it seem more difficult to phrase questions rather than stating problems? | ||
| + | |||
| + | "In nearly all cases it should be possible to formulate the purpose of the scenarios work as a question. If this proves difficult, this is often an indication that the work will not be taken up when completed, even if it is of a good quality." | ||
| Mapping the present situation | Mapping the present situation | ||
| Line 69: | Line 87: | ||
| * how do we look at drivers as dynamic forces? should we be looking at responses to trends rather than trends in general? (nouns -> verbs) | * how do we look at drivers as dynamic forces? should we be looking at responses to trends rather than trends in general? (nouns -> verbs) | ||
| * what are existing ways of discussing trends with groups of people? | * what are existing ways of discussing trends with groups of people? | ||
| + | * [[horizon scanning]] | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| * should we make our own STEEP cards to avoid the ' | * should we make our own STEEP cards to avoid the ' | ||
| * are there other well understood methods to group trends other than the customary STEEP (in which cultural changes seem to be clumped in with social or political)? | * are there other well understood methods to group trends other than the customary STEEP (in which cultural changes seem to be clumped in with social or political)? | ||
| Line 80: | Line 104: | ||
| Scenarios | Scenarios | ||
| * when to use one, two, three or more axes? | * when to use one, two, three or more axes? | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Two axes method: Scenarios generated using the ‘two axes’ process are illustrative rather than predictive; they tend to be high-level (although additional layers of detail can subsequently be added). They are particularly suited to testing medium to long-term policy direction, by ensuring that it is robust in a range of environments. Scenarios developed using this method tend to look out 10-20 years.[[http:// | ||
| + | * Branch analysis method: The ‘branch analysis’ method is suited to developing scenarios around specific turning-points that are known in advance (e.g. elections, a referendum or peace process). This approach works best for a shorter time horizon: generally up to five years.[[http:// | ||
| + | * Cone of plausibility method: offers a more deterministic model of the way in which drivers lead to outcomes, by explicitly listing assumptions and how these might change. Of the three techniques, this approach is most suitable for shorter-term time horizons (e.g. a few months to 2-3 years), but can be used to explore longer-term time horizons. It also suits contexts with a limited number of important drivers.[[http:// | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| + | * [[http:// | ||
| + | |||
| * how to better structure building scenario skeletons with guiding questions (which questions could be generalised? | * how to better structure building scenario skeletons with guiding questions (which questions could be generalised? | ||
nik