Is the future a political economy? Functional analysis of three leading foresight and futures studies journals

Abstract

wordpress.com/2015/11/futures-1-s2-0-s0016328715001366-main.pdf Abstract: This article tests whether the field of foresight and futures studies shows significant variable selection biases in the modelling of the future in general and the impact of function systems in particular. We performed a word frequency analysis to measure the relative importance of the political system, the economy, science, art, religion, law, sport, health, education, and the mass media to three pertinent journals in the field of futures studies and foresight. The results show that Futures, Long Range Planning, and Technological Forecasting and Social Change have different and changing preferences for the above function systems, an information which authors may find helpful in supporting decisions on where to submit. Our results also show that all journals feature a highly significant bias to the triple helix systems -the political system, the economy, and science. While the latter bias may be adequate to scientific journals, the dominant focus on the political system and the economy as well as the corresponding neglect of the other systems points at implicit presumptions about the importance of the individual systems that may not be in line with their importance to the larger society. Highlights: This article• Shows that present visions of futures are predominantly visions of political economies, and how to change this.• Suggests that solutions to future political and economic key problems might also be in the so-far neglected further function systems.• Proposes a new systematic set of key variables for consideration and inclusion in models and simulations of futures.

From Nonprofit Diversity to Organizational Multifunctionality: A Systems–Theoretical Proposal

“…Interestingly, theories of functional differentiation and formal organization are often observed to be mutually supportive and interdependent (Ahrne, Brunsson, & Seidl, 2016; Bergthaller & Schinko, 2011; Leydesdorff, 2002; Luhmann, 1977, 1990, 1997; Roth, 2015; Roth & Schütz, 2015; Schoeneborn, 2011; Seidl, 2005; Vanderstraeten, 2005; Wetzel & Van Gorp, 2014). Yet, paradoxically, there has been little intersection between the streams of research on functional differentiation and formal organization (Roth & Kaivo-oja, 2016; Wetzel & Van Gorp, 2014). In fact, a large part of research in organization studies is flirting with categories associated with the earlier forms of differentiation such as gender, age, race, nationality, culture, class, or hierarchy, remaining unimpressed by the notions of functional differentiation and function systems.…”

“…The concept of multifunctional organization advocated here rests on the assumption that all organizations are, in principle, multifunctional (Roth, 2014). This is to say that organizations may feature biases to one or several function systems, but these biases are seen as changeable (Roth & Kaivo-oja, 2016; Roth, Sales, & Kaivo-oja, 2017; Roth & Schütz, 2015). Multifunctional organizations are, thus, assumed to be able to use the code of one or more function systems to bring their decision programs in congruence with the organizations’ mission, function, and culture.…”

Multiplying the Division of Labour: Functional Differentiation of the Next Key Variables in Management Research

“…Although functional differentiation may safely be assumed to be the primary form of social differentiation today (Baecker, 2007;Beck and Lau, 2005;Beck et al, 2003;Brier, 2007;Laermans, 2007;Roth, 2015;Roth and Schütz, 2015), research and practice in management and business shares with the broader context of social sciences a surprising disinterest for the key concept of modern societies (Roth, 2013;Roth and Kaivo-oja, 2016;Wetzel and Van Gorp, 2014), and thus for the corresponding key variables. In this sense, our fields -although forms of functional differentiation themselves-seem to imply rather than study functional differentiation.…”

“…The ambition in this context clearly is to avoid that many otherwise accurate business environment scans remain contingent on preconceived sets of variables and therefore run the third‐order risk (Godet 1986) of giving right answers to the wrong questions. In fact, recent interfunctional research on key variables in foresight and futures studies (Roth and Kaivo‐oja, ) supports the PEST‐bias not only still is dominant, but also is being projected into the future. Yet, who says that political and scientific issues are necessarily more critical for business success than artistic, sportive, or religious factors, e.g., in the context of a FIFA World Cup in the Middle East?…”

How pragmatism in environmental science and policy can undermine sustainability transformations: the case of marginalized mountain areas under climate and land-use change

“…The second reduction of surprises and complexities occurred when the whole spectrum of relevant issues (e.g. art, religion, law, sport, health, education, and the mass media) was truncated to a limited number of dimensions, such as science, policy and economy (Roth and Kaivo-Oja 2015). No interactions between the issues, nor their cumulative impacts, were considered.…”