| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revisionBoth sides next revision |
| future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-02-21 01:57] – maja | future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-02-21 07:02] – maja |
|---|
| Our filter is looking at approaches that can help us move from forecasting to embodiment, from story to experience. As in Ffab we are primarily focused on creating (immersive) situations where possible futures / parallel histories or presents can be experienced (and then reflecting on how this experience can affect our present behaviours), it isn't extremely important for us to have the most accurate representation of past, present and possible futures, but we're more curious to uncover conscious and unconscious assumptions that the participants might have about their lives and environments. The scenario process uses these assumptions as if they were clay, and shapes storyworlds out of them. In the process the awareness of the assumptions grows through a non-judgmental observation, through several waves of analysis and synthesis. The most rewarding moment in scenario building (in our experience) is when participants begin to recognise different scenarios as extreme versions or caricatures of their present, as if they have acquired a mysterious search-light, that can be used to illuminate different parts of an otherwise murky, entangled situation. Looking at existing scenario building methods, we'd like to amplify this moment of clarity, perhaps try to bring it forward in the scenario flow, as the whole process after it becomes more fluid, creative and mindful (of self, others and the environment. | Our filter is looking at approaches that can help us move from forecasting to embodiment, from story to experience. As in Ffab we are primarily focused on creating (immersive) situations where possible futures / parallel histories or presents can be experienced (and then reflecting on how this experience can affect our present behaviours), it isn't extremely important for us to have the most accurate representation of past, present and possible futures, but we're more curious to uncover conscious and unconscious assumptions that the participants might have about their lives and environments. The scenario process uses these assumptions as if they were clay, and shapes storyworlds out of them. In the process the awareness of the assumptions grows through a non-judgmental observation, through several waves of analysis and synthesis. The most rewarding moment in scenario building (in our experience) is when participants begin to recognise different scenarios as extreme versions or caricatures of their present, as if they have acquired a mysterious search-light, that can be used to illuminate different parts of an otherwise murky, entangled situation. Looking at existing scenario building methods, we'd like to amplify this moment of clarity, perhaps try to bring it forward in the scenario flow, as the whole process after it becomes more fluid, creative and mindful (of self, others and the environment. |
| |
| ==== Methods, techniques, comparisons ==== | ==== Methods, comparisons ==== |
| |
| An overview a simple description of a scenario building process can be found in [[http://www.wired.com/wired/scenarios/build.html|How to Build Scenarios]] by Lawrence Wilkinson. Interesting [[http://www.openthefuture.com/2012/08/ten_rules_for_creating_awful_s.html| Ten Rules for Creating Awful Scenarios]] by Jamais Cascio, can be used as a checklist of what NOT to do in scenario building. | An overview a simple description of a scenario building process can be found in [[http://www.wired.com/wired/scenarios/build.html|How to Build Scenarios]] by Lawrence Wilkinson. Interesting [[http://www.openthefuture.com/2012/08/ten_rules_for_creating_awful_s.html| Ten Rules for Creating Awful Scenarios]] by Jamais Cascio, can be used as a checklist of what NOT to do in scenario building. |
| Examples of (historical) scenario methods: | Examples of (historical) scenario methods: |
| |
| Joseph Coates wrote "Today the question of what scenarios are is unclear except with regard to one point-they have become extremely popular. Many people see scenarios as forecasts of some future condition while others disavow that their scenarios are forecasts. Yet looking at scenarios that do not come labeled as forecasts or non-forecasts. It is difficult to tell them apart. The purpose of the scenario is at a meta level, since the scenario usually does not speak for itself in terms of its purpose." [[http://www.josephcoates.com/pdf_files/232_Scenario_Planning.pdf|More in Scenario Planning]]. Another early in depth overview of [[http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fhz95g00/pdf;jsessionid=D034F49912B794C5CCE293059B4BA299.tobacco03|How Companies Use Scenarios]] was written by Mandel and Wilson. | The scenario building exercise (step 1-6) in the [[prehearsal pocket guide]] is based on the 2x2 method by Peter Schwartz in The Art of the Long View. On [[http://scenariosforsustainability.org/recipes/schwartz.html|this page]] Schwartz summarises the scenario building steps. |
| |
| <html><a href=http://horizon.unc.edu/courses/papers/Scenario_Figure2.gif"><img src="http://horizon.unc.edu/courses/papers/Scenario_Figure2.gif"></a></html> | <html><a href="http://lib.fo.am/_media/resilients/scenario-process-diagram.png?w=1000&tok=7eba6d"><img src="http://lib.fo.am/_media/resilients/scenario-process-diagram.png?w=1000&tok=7eba6d"></a></html> |
| |
| The scenario building exercise (step 1-6) in the [[prehearsal pocket guide]] is based on the method by Peter Schwartz in The Art of the Long View. On [[http://scenariosforsustainability.org/recipes/schwartz.html|this page]] Schwartz summarises the scenario building steps. | |
| |
| <html><a href=http://lib.fo.am/_media/resilients/scenario-process-diagram.png?w=1000&tok=7eba6d"><img src="http://lib.fo.am/_media/resilients/scenario-process-diagram.png?w=1000&tok=7eba6d"></a></html> | "Causal layered analysis is offered as a new futures research method. It utility is not in predicting the future but in creating transformative spaces for the creation of alternative futures. Causal layered analysis consists of four levels: the litany, social causes, discourse/worldview and myth/metaphor. The challenge is to conduct research that moves up and down these layers of analysis and thus is inclusive of different ways of knowing." -Sohail Inayatullah in [[http://www.metafuture.org/Articles/CausalLayeredAnalysis.htm|CLA: poststructuralism as method]] and the [[http://metafuture.org/cla%20papers/Inayatullah%20%20Causal%20layered%20analysis%20-%20theory,%20historical%20context,%20and%20case%20studies.%20Intro%20chapter%20from%20The%20CLA%20Reader..pdf|CLA Reader]] |
| | |
| | <html><a href="http://thinkingfutures.net/wp-content/uploads/cla1.jpg"><img src="http://thinkingfutures.net/wp-content/uploads/cla1.jpg" width="600"></a></html> |
| | |
| | |
| | CLA simplified: |
| | * define the issue (or question) |
| | * discuss each layer separately |
| | * cluster into themes |
| | * after reaching the bottom layer, pick a different myth/narrative and create a scenario by moving up the other layers, up to the new events and behaviours in 'litany' |
| | |
| | The [[http://www.infinitefutures.com/essays/prez/sandw/sld032.htm|Manoa approach]] "assumes that actual futures are generated by the turbulent intersection of multiple trends, and the interplay of their cascading impacts. Thus each Manoa scenario requires a base of at least three orthogonal drivers of change, preferably emerging issues or 'weak signals.' The design is best suited to creating scenarios 25+ years out, maximally different from the present: it aims to produce surprising scenarios that shake current working assumptions/ (...) Five steps: |
| | [1] choose 3-5 significant emerging issues of change ('weak signals'); \\ |
| | [2] brainstorm or mindmap the potential impact cascades of each, working one by one; \\ |
| | [3] consider the cross-impacts arising from the 3-5 drivers and their impacts working together; \\ |
| | [4] doublecheck the depth of detail using an ethnographic inventory; \\ |
| | [5] develop a summary metaphor or title \\ |
| | |
| | <html><a href="https://www.emeraldinsight.com/content_images/fig/2730110302004.png"><img src="https://www.emeraldinsight.com/content_images/fig/2730110302004.png" width="400"></a></html> <html><a href="http://www.mepss.nl/tools/w07-fig1.gif"><img src="http://www.mepss.nl/tools/w07-fig1.gif"></a></html> |
| | |
| | |
| | Joseph Coates wrote "Today the question of what scenarios are is unclear except with regard to one point-they have become extremely popular. Many people see scenarios as forecasts of some future condition while others disavow that their scenarios are forecasts. Yet looking at scenarios that do not come labeled as forecasts or non-forecasts. It is difficult to tell them apart. The purpose of the scenario is at a meta level, since the scenario usually does not speak for itself in terms of its purpose." [[http://www.josephcoates.com/pdf_files/232_Scenario_Planning.pdf|More in Scenario Planning]]. Another early in depth overview of [[http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fhz95g00/pdf;jsessionid=D034F49912B794C5CCE293059B4BA299.tobacco03|How Companies Use Scenarios]] was written by Mandel and Wilson. |
| | |
| | <html><a href="http://horizon.unc.edu/courses/papers/Scenario_Figure2.gif"><img src="http://horizon.unc.edu/courses/papers/Scenario_Figure2.gif"></a></html> |
| |
| |
| * should we make our own STEEP (or related) cards to avoid the 'business bias'? probably, if we have the time - and focus on long term trends only + add wild cards (random images/words/tarot/playing cards...). | * should we make our own STEEP (or related) cards to avoid the 'business bias'? probably, if we have the time - and focus on long term trends only + add wild cards (random images/words/tarot/playing cards...). |
| * 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)? see [[horizon scanning]] and [[http://www.slideshare.net/wendyinfutures/summary-of-verge-ethnographic-futures-framework-devised-by-richard-lum-and-michele-bowman|Ethnographic Futures Framework]] | * 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)? see [[horizon scanning]] and [[http://www.slideshare.net/wendyinfutures/summary-of-verge-ethnographic-futures-framework-devised-by-richard-lum-and-michele-bowman|Ethnographic Futures Framework]] |
| * is there another way to look at large scale changes aside from trends (without having to do a PhD in each of the changes)? | |
| | //Is there another way to look at large scale changes aside from trends (without having to do a PhD in each of the changes)?// |
| | |
| | (the Manoa approach supposedly looks at emerging issues rather than drivers of change - ref. needed...) |
| * how effective are these methods and how can we usefully evalute them? | * how effective are these methods and how can we usefully evalute them? |
| |
nik