Among the central discoveries of the Integral approach is that is it 'depth within the practitioner that determines how well or badly any particular method is used'. This is one of those rare 'new ideas' that changes everything. Among many other things it directs attention back and away from methods per se to the personal (and to some extent, social) interiors from which they emerged in the first place and upon which they entirely depend. Being a 'good futurist' or an 'effective foresight practitioner' is no longer a question that hinges on a one-dimensional concern for cognitive capacity! Many other lines of capability are involved along with requisite stages of development. A corollary is that the kinds of answers, solutions, that are now required cannot, in principle, be found in the domain of conventional thinking, conventional work (what I call 'problem oriented' futures). The latter has run its course and is now exhausted for non-trivial uses.

http://www.foresightinternational.com.au/previous-works/integral-futures-methodologies

Both forecasting and scenarios focus largely on the external world. (…) If we direct our attention mainly to the external aspects of the human predicament then ways forward will forever elude us. The global context becomes a trap for humanity. In practice such conventional ‘exterior’ approaches to world issues cover only part of the territory. Critical Futures Studies, on the other hand, examined what might be called the ‘social interiors.’ That is, it saw the familiar exterior forms of society (populations, technologies, infrastructure and so on) as grounded in, and dependent upon, powerful social factors such as worldviews, paradigms and values. (…) Critical futures work, however, itself lacked something essential – deeper insight into the nature and dynamics of individual agency. By addressing this missing element Integral Futures has, in a sense, completed a long process of disciplinary development, perhaps resulting in a new phase of innovation and change. According to Wilber, “the upper half of the diagram represents individual realities; the lower half, social or communal realities. The right half represents exterior forms – what things look like from the outside; and the left hand represents interior forms – what things look like from within.” Post-conventional work recognizes that the entire external world is constantly ‘held together’ by interior structures of meaning and value. (…) human activities everywhere are supported by subtle but powerful networks of value, meaning and purpose that are socially created and often maintained over long periods of time. Post-conventional work draws on these more intangible domains and certainly demands more of practitioners. It means, for example, that a focus on various ‘ways of knowing’ (e.g. empirical, psychological, critical) becomes unavoidable. The next step was to begin to correlate different approaches and methods in futures/ foresight work with a new appreciation of the ‘individual interiors,’ the unique inner world of each person. One widely known approach was through ‘spiral dynamics,’ based on the work of Clare Graves. Such developments imply that successful practice involves more than mastering some of the better-known futures techniques. One of the most striking discoveries is that it is levels of development within the practitioner that, more than anything else, determine how well (or badly) any particular methodology will be used or any practical task will be performed. Integral Futures frameworks acknowledge the complexity of systems, contexts and interconnected webs of awareness and activity. Integral Futures practitioners will therefore not be content with merely tracking external ‘signals of change.’ They will also become proficient in exploring different perspectives to find approaches that are appropriate to different situations.

From Integral Futures by Richard Slaughter

A key concept underlying Integral Theory is to include as many perspectives, styles, and methodologies as possible when exploring a topic Integral Theory suggests that four irreducible perspectives (subjective, inter-subjective, objective, and inter-objective) should be consulted when attempting to fully understand any topic or aspect of reality. The upper left Intentional (subjective) is the individual’s interior world, which can only be accessed via interpretation. The concerns are individual motivation, changes in people’s values, perceptions, and goals, and the meaning of life. The upper right Behavioural (objective) is the individual’s exterior world, in which individual behaviour can be observed. The concerns are changes in the ways people act externally, e.g. voting patterns, consumer behavior, reproductive practices, etc. The lower right Social (inter-objective) is the collective exterior world, often referred to as the physical world, or the world of systems and infrastructure. The concerns are objectively measurable changes in natural and constructed external environments. The lower left Cultural (inter-subjective) is the collective interior world of the shared meaning of groups, as expressed in the culture. The concerns are shared collective structures, such as changes in languages, cultures, and institutions. Chris Stewart applied Integral Theory to scenario planning. He suggested that the two most important criteria for scenarios are relevance and diversity of worldviews to provide appropriate depth and breadth. He proposed a generic scenario method using Integral and provided case study examples. His article provided the foundation for the four quadrant model along with principle of practice (POP) for incorporating them into a generic scenario method model. Slaughter (…) imparts an observation of how Integral Theory has enhanced the futurist’s techniques for scenarios, environmental scanning, the T-cycle, and causal layered analysis. For scenarios and scenario planning, ‘In summary, the integral approach allows us to take scenario planning to a new and more capable stage of development. It means that we can go a long way beyond simple, pragmatic ‘mental models’ and the ‘generic business idea’ (themselves innovations in their time) to framing perceptions and the developmental capacities that underlie them. It also means that researchers and scenario planners can be more aware of the multitude of ways in which their own enculturation and interior development directly and profoundly affect everything they do.’

From: The Evolution of Integral Futures: A Status Update by Terry Collins & Andy Hines

Reading list: http://integralfutures.com/wordpress/?page_id=11

Embodied Foresight and Trialogues: http://www.jfs.tku.edu.tw/13-2/E01.pdf

Integral Scenario Development: http://www.integralworld.net/pdf/stewart2.pdf