Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-02-26 05:41] – maja
+++ future_fabulators:scenario_methods [2014-03-01 05:29] – [Scenarios] maja
@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
   - Generating techniques: generation of ideas and collection of data (surveys, Delphi, workshops)
   - Integrating techniques: combining parts into wholes (time-series analysis, explanatory modelling, optimised modelling)
-  - Consistency techniques: checking the consistency of scenarios (cross impact analysis, morphological field analysis)</blockquote>
+  - Consistency techniques: checking the consistency of scenarios (cross impact analysis, morphological field analysis)
+</blockquote>
@@ Line 71: / Line 72: @@
 <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>
-==== Four Generic Futures ====
+=== Four Generic Futures ===
 <blockquote> Our use of "alternative futures" (or "scenarios") is usually within the context of helping an organization or community plan for and move towards its preferred future. (...) I have chosen to explain our use of alternative futures as though I were telling an interested community or organization what the components of a futures visioning process are in our understanding and experience, and how to conduct the various parts of an overall futures visioning process.</blockquote>
@@ Line 78: / Line 79: @@
 Dator discusses in length the process of creating four generic futures (Continue, Collapse, Discipline and Transform) - as four types of stories in which all/most future scenarios can be classified.
+<blockquote>
+) Continue: What are the ways in which the system in which we find ourselves could continue as it is?
+) Collapse: What are the ways in which it could fall apart?
+) Discipline: What are the ways in which it could be directed?
+) Transform: What are the ways in which it could change altogether?
+Phrased this way, each generic image of the future presents a challenge to test the boundaries of one’s expectations and understanding of the system.
+</blockquote>
+From Stuart Candy in his disertation [[http://www.scribd.com/doc/68901075/Candy-2010-The-Futures-of-Everyday-Life#|The Futures of Everyday Life]]
 === Cone of Plausibility ===
@@ Line 105: / Line 116: @@
-Anna Maria Orru and David Relan wrote [[:/resilients/scenario_symphony|The Scenario Symphony]] for the Resilients project, containing a whole range of scenario creation methods and techniques, including the dynamic [[:/resilients/from_pan_to_panarchy|panarchy]] and [[:/resilients/temporal model]].
+Anna Maria Orru and David Relan wrote [[:/resilients/scenario_symphony|The Scenario Symphony]] for the Resilients project, containing a whole range of scenario creation methods and techniques, including the dynamic [[:/resilients/from_pan_to_panarchy|panarchy]] and [[:/resilients/temporal model]]. It's interesting to compare it to the "Four Generic Futures" method above.
 <html><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/8480321093/" title="figure5 by _foam, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8505/8480321093_4d0379e220_c.jpg" width="800" height="354" alt="figure5"></a></html>
@@ Line 243: / Line 254: @@
 //How to better structure building scenario skeletons with guiding questions (which questions could be generalised)?//
+One suggestion (not sure about all of the focus on problems):
+<blockquote>
+A. General discussion of your future
+  * What will most people be doing in such a world?
+  * What economic problems that worry people now will be gone, or relatively minor?
+  * What environmental problems that worry people now will be gone, or relatively minor?
+  * What other problems that worry people now will be gone, or relatively minor? What new (economic, environmental, social, health, energy or other) problems will people have to worry about that are absent or unimportant now?
+B. How probable (likely to actually occur) is the future described in your scenario?
+C. How preferable is the future described in your scenario? That is, how close is it to your own preferred future?
+D. To the extent the future described in your scenario is judged preferable by your group, what five things need to be done now to move towards those desirable aspects of that future?
+E. To the extent the future described in your scenario is judged undesirable by your group, what five things need to be done now to see that those undesirable aspects not occur?
+</blockquote>
+From [[http://www.jfs.tku.edu.tw/14-2/A01.pdf|Alternative Futures at The Manoa School]] by Jim Dator
 have a look at the CLA or the [[http://www.slideshare.net/wendyinfutures/summary-of-verge-ethnographic-futures-framework-devised-by-richard-lum-and-michele-bowman|Ethnographic Futures Framework]] (Bowman & Schultz, 2005),
@@ Line 264: / Line 297: @@
 Backcasting starts with defining a desirable future and then works backwards to identify policies and programs that will connect the future to the present.
-However with retrocasting/retrotesting or scenario testing (as we also call it sometimes) we don't look at exclusively at a desirable future, but at different possible futures resulting from scenario building, and attempt to identify signals in the present that might point to the future moving in this or that direction.
+However with retrocasting/retrotesting or scenario testing (as we also call it sometimes) we don't look at exclusively at a desirable future, but at different possible futures resulting from scenario building, and attempt to identify signals in the present that might point to the future moving in this or that direction. This is perhaps similar to the work of Dator, Schulz and others related to the "four generic futures" (see above in scenario examples), known as deductive forecasting or [[http://www.infinitefutures.com/tools/inclassic.shtml|incasting]].