Is seeking certainty in climate sensitivity measures counterproductive in the context of climate emergency? The case for scenario planning

Derbyshire, James; Morgan, Jamie

doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121811

Cited by 12 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some are invariant but many others are sometimes actualized and sometimes not. There is positive feedback and nonlinear interaction between these diverse causal factors, meaning they may combine to create ampliative and extreme effects and outcomes, which may extend far beyond what has occurred previously as captured by a measure such as variance, or as embedded in Bayesian priors (Derbyshire & Morgan, 2022). This openness results in uncertainty not least because it makes antecedent conditions a poor guide to the future.…”

Section: The Nature Of the World And Its Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

The value of experiments in futures and foresight science as illustrated by the case of scenario planning

Derbyshire

Dhami

Belton

et al. 2022

Futures & Foresight Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An already pressing need to evidence the effectiveness of futures and foresight tools has been further amplified by the coronavirus pandemic, which highlighted more mainstream tools' difficulty with uncertainty. In light of this, the recent discussion in this journal on providing futures and foresight science with a stronger scientific basis is welcome. In this discussion critical realism has been proffered as a useful philosophical foundation and experiments a useful method for improving this field's scientific basis. Yet, experiments seek to isolate specific causal effects through closure (i.e., by controlling for all extraneous factors) and this may cause it to jar with critical realism's emphasis on uncertainty and openness. We therefore extend the recent discussion on improving the scientific basis of futures and foresight science by doing three things. First, we elaborate on critical realism and why the experimental method may jar with it. Second, we explain why the distinction between a conceptual and a direct replication can help overcome this jarring, meaning experiments can still be a valuable research tool for a futures and foresight science underpinned by critical realism. Third, we consider the appropriate unit of analysis for experiments on futures and foresight tools. In so doing, we situate the recent discussion on improving the scientific basis of futures and foresight science within the much longer running one on improving the scientific basis of business, management and strategy research more broadly. We use the case of scenario planning to illustrate our argument in relation to futures and foresight science.

show abstract

Section: The Nature Of the World And Its Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

The value of experiments in futures and foresight science as illustrated by the case of scenario planning

Derbyshire

Dhami

Belton

et al. 2022

Futures & Foresight Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We could of course elaborate upon this analysis and try to break the problem into smaller parts, but there is a further consideration that must be mentioned here, namely the so-called precautionary principle. As in the context of climate change, where there are threats of very serious or irreversible damage, a lack of full scientific certainty about the possibilities and probabilities should not be used as a reason for postponing precautionary measures, but rather we should confront the reality of uncertainty in the form of known unknowns and genuine surprise (see Derbyshire & Morgan 2022).…”

Section: -2022mentioning

confidence: 99%

Debating the War in Ukraine

Forsberg¹,

Patomäki²

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Debating the War in UkraineDebating the War in Ukraine discusses whether the war could have been avoided and, if so, how? In this dialogical book, the authors discuss nodal points of history in terms of counterfactuals and contrastive explanations, concluding by considering future possibilities.They start in the 1990s where several causal elements of the war originate involving Russia's economic developments and Europe's security arrangements. Moving on to the next decade, they focus on the Iraq war, colour revolutions, and NATO's 2008 announcement that Ukraine and Georgia will become members. Finally, they explore the past decade, including the Ukrainian crisis of 2013-2014, the annexation of Crimea, and the consecutive war in east Ukraine. The current war can also be seen as a continuum of that war. The authors agree that NATO's 2008 announcement on Ukraine's and Georgia's NATO membership was an unnecessary provocation, and that the implementation of the Minsk agreement could have prevented the current war, but otherwise their analysis of counterfactual possibilities differs, especially when it comes to the actionpossibilities of the West (including diverse actors). These differences are not just dependent on different readings of relevant evidence but, importantly, stem from dissimilar contrast spaces and divergent theoretical understandings of the nature of states and mechanisms of international relations and political economy.This short, highly accessible book will be of great interest to all those studying and working in international relations and its various subfields such as peace and conflict studies and security studies, as well as all those wishing to understand more about the backdrop of Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

show abstract

“…Then, in Stage 4, two values are assigned to each higher level factor, representing the most extreme yet still plausible resolved outcomes associated with them. 2 For example, the two such values associated with the above cluster might be 20 and 100 m. These assignments are based on assessments of the combined impact of the driving forces in the cluster, including possible interactions, ampliative or otherwise (Derbyshire & Morgan, 2022), between individual or groups of driving forces.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Borrowing from Keynes' A Treatise on Probability: A non‐probabilistic measure of uncertainty for scenario planning

Derbyshire

Feduzi

Runde

2022

European Management Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scenario planning is a tool used to formulate contingent but potentially impactful futures to aid strategic decision-making. A crucial element of many versions of scenario planning is an assessment of levels of uncertainty about the broad drivers of change within the system under consideration. Despite the importance of this element, the scenario planning literature is largely silent on the appropriate conception of uncertainty to use, exactly what it attaches to and how it might be measured. This paper seeks to fill this gap by advancing a non-probabilistic measure of uncertainty based on the concept of evidential weight drawn from the economist John Maynard Keynes' 1921 A Treatise on Probability.

show abstract

Is seeking certainty in climate sensitivity measures counterproductive in the context of climate emergency? The case for scenario planning

Cited by 12 publications

References 57 publications

The value of experiments in futures and foresight science as illustrated by the case of scenario planning

The value of experiments in futures and foresight science as illustrated by the case of scenario planning

Debating the War in Ukraine

Borrowing from Keynes' A Treatise on Probability: A non‐probabilistic measure of uncertainty for scenario planning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About