Abstract:Scholars claim that futures and foresight science should overcome “confusion” regarding the definition of core concepts, for example, the scenario. Admittedly, defining scenario has been a challenge. Current practice, which results in repeated attempts to clarify said confusion with yet another new definition of scenario, has apparently not advanced the field. An alternative option is not to redefine scenario, but to, instead, create a shared definition composed of component parts of pre‐existing definitions. … Show more
“…Accepted narratives, in general, rapidly evolve to established archetypes (Eliade, ), and scenario narratives tend to be “scientifically” coherent narratives that follow the Newtonian chronotope. In Intuitive Logics, a central requirement is the “plausibility” of resulting scenarios and key authors in this tradition emphasize the importance of creating “good” scenarios (Spaniol & Rowland, ). For example, if a scenario would follow a chronotope of a Greek romance, it’s “suddenlys” and “at the last moments” would probably be considered unjustified, ad‐hoc, and lacking sufficient evidence.…”
Section: The Chronotope Of Possibilistic Futuresmentioning
The concept of chronotope was introduced in the 1920s by the Russian neurophysiologist A.A. Ukhtomsky, and extensively used by Mikhail Bakhtin in his analysis of the development of literary forms. Chronotope structures the possibilities for meaningful action and different chronotopes thus generate different forms of agency and future. In this paper, three approaches to foresight are analyzed, showing how their different chronotopes lead to different ways of understanding the future. We differentiate between probabilistic, possibilistic and constructivist frameworks for foresight. Probabilistic approaches are shown to rely on recursive chronotopes that capture future as a repetition of the past. Possibilistic approaches, here exemplified by the “gold standard” Schwartz/GBN scenario method, are shown to rely on narrative chronotopes that can tell stories of emergent futures and the impact of innovation. Scenario methods, however, describe changes in the environment as forces and trends in a recursive chronotope. As a result, they have limited capacity to address qualitative novelty. In contrast to possibilistic and probabilistic approaches, a constructivist dialogical approach described in this paper explicitly aims at integrating qualitative novelty and radical innovation as important elements of foresight. Constructivist foresight does not aim for “knowing” the future; instead, it aims at creating the future. Knowing when to use these different forms of foresight is an important element in strategy and policy development.
“…Accepted narratives, in general, rapidly evolve to established archetypes (Eliade, ), and scenario narratives tend to be “scientifically” coherent narratives that follow the Newtonian chronotope. In Intuitive Logics, a central requirement is the “plausibility” of resulting scenarios and key authors in this tradition emphasize the importance of creating “good” scenarios (Spaniol & Rowland, ). For example, if a scenario would follow a chronotope of a Greek romance, it’s “suddenlys” and “at the last moments” would probably be considered unjustified, ad‐hoc, and lacking sufficient evidence.…”
Section: The Chronotope Of Possibilistic Futuresmentioning
The concept of chronotope was introduced in the 1920s by the Russian neurophysiologist A.A. Ukhtomsky, and extensively used by Mikhail Bakhtin in his analysis of the development of literary forms. Chronotope structures the possibilities for meaningful action and different chronotopes thus generate different forms of agency and future. In this paper, three approaches to foresight are analyzed, showing how their different chronotopes lead to different ways of understanding the future. We differentiate between probabilistic, possibilistic and constructivist frameworks for foresight. Probabilistic approaches are shown to rely on recursive chronotopes that capture future as a repetition of the past. Possibilistic approaches, here exemplified by the “gold standard” Schwartz/GBN scenario method, are shown to rely on narrative chronotopes that can tell stories of emergent futures and the impact of innovation. Scenario methods, however, describe changes in the environment as forces and trends in a recursive chronotope. As a result, they have limited capacity to address qualitative novelty. In contrast to possibilistic and probabilistic approaches, a constructivist dialogical approach described in this paper explicitly aims at integrating qualitative novelty and radical innovation as important elements of foresight. Constructivist foresight does not aim for “knowing” the future; instead, it aims at creating the future. Knowing when to use these different forms of foresight is an important element in strategy and policy development.
“…This essay is a response to the “Defining Scenario” article, by Spaniol and Rowland that was published in the first issue of Futures & Foresight Science (2018). The core premise of the article is that “Despite claims to the contrary, the authors find that the academic community of futures and foresight science does not seem to suffer from so‐called confusion over the definition of scenario, and thus, it is time to sunset the use of claims to this end.” (Spaniol & Rowland, , p. 1). Since my own work on scenario definitions, development of theory, and my remark of “dismal theory” was cited, I will take advantage of the opportunity to further the conversation.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Spaniol and Rowland’s () article is a review of the various claims over the past decade (or more), leveling criticisms about a seemingly constant debate of defining the term scenario and/or scenario planning. Their article contains three main sections (relying heavily on Khakee’s, contribution throughout): definition confusion, dismal theory, and methodological chaos,a well‐defined method of searching, categorizing, and analyzing existing definitions of the term “scenario,” anda description of findings that the authors interpret to contradict the overall claim that there is definitional confusion, dismal theory, and methodological chaos in the field.…”
This article is a response to Spaniol and Rowland’s article “Defining Scenario”. Specifically this article responds to claims made in the categories of scenario definitions, scenario theory and scenario methods. The purpose is to engage in a thoughtful and collegial debate and it contains the raising of some issues the scenario community may wish to consider.
“…In response to “Defining scenario,” Chermack () indicates that there is considerable purchase in understanding the definition of scenario from a public perspective—or, in our view, there is utility in conducting research on the public understanding of futures and foresight science. There are many forms through which scenarios can be communicated to practitioners, academics, and the public, and, to this end, Spaniol () made a companion video for the article. Still, so much more could and should be done to address, understand, and shape public understanding of futures and foresight science.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In response to “Defining scenario,” Chermack () critically inquires: Why only search for and analyze definitions in the intuitive logics (IL) tradition? Referees also raised that question during the peer‐review process for this (Spaniol & Rowland, ) and other articles (Rowland & Spaniol, 2018a). In the letter to the editor for the former article, we, invoking Bradfield et al (), answer Chermack’s question, stating the discussion of scenario planning we contribute to is primarily oriented toward IL; on this point, we wrote to the referees:Many papers reference the competing traditions of la prospective and the probabilistic modified trends schools as identified by Bradfield et al (2005).…”
In this essay, which is a reply to Chermack’s (2019) response to our article, the authors develop the most constructive feedback in the aforementioned response essay and then respond to more critical comments. As we shall see, in parallel with science and technology studies (STS) literature on the public understanding of science, the authors propose the utility of research on the “public understanding of futures and foresight science;” after that, the authors defend and add context to some of the decisions that had to be made in establishing the scope and framework for the article “Defining scenario” (Spaniol & Rowland, 2019). [Correction added on 13 May 2019, after first online publication: typographical errors in the citations of Chermack (2019) and Spaniol & Rowland (2019) have been corrected.].
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
