The resistance to scientific theory in futures and foresight, and what to do about it

Abstract

We offer an argumentative explanation of the reasons why the field of futures and foresight has not been successful at becoming part of the social scientific establishment. We contend that the very set of norms, beliefs, and epistemological foundations of futures and foresight are essentially self‐sabotaging as they resist the creation of scientific theory on futures and foresight practices and processes in organizations. Drawing from the tradition of management and organization sciences, we describe what scientific theory in the context of organizations is and is not, and how theory development contributes to the incremental progress of scientific fields. We then unpack the crux of the problem, deconstructing the resistance to scientific theory within our field into nine, closely related reasons. We offer solutions to the problem in the form of three sets of recommendations: for authors, journal editors, and practitioners. We conclude by responding to likely misunderstandings in advance.

Why appealing to the virtues of scientific theory (and method) is necessary but insufficient for effecting systemic change: Commentary on Fergnani & Chermack, 2021

“…I first encountered the psychological realities of this fundamental problem almost two decades ago, when I was invited to deliver a keynote speech at a futures and foresight conference convened at Strathclyde University (Hodgkinson, 2002). The attendees comprised several hundred of the world's leading practitioners and academic researchers and the primary aim of my speech, delivered in a plenary session at the end of the first day of this three‐day event, was rather similar to the primary aim of Fergnani and Chermack’s (2021) article, namely, to fuel a conversation with the aim of nudging practitioners to incorporate social and behavioral science insights into the design and implementation of their practices and processes, an issue that continues to occupy much of my scholarly attention (see, e.g Healey & Hodgkinson, 2008, 2017; Healey et al, 2015; Hodgkinson & Healey, 2008, 2011, 2018).…”

“…To this day, I remain troubled by this salutary experience, which I have reflected on many times, incorporating the insights it has given me into my broader theoretical contributions to the literature on why organizational decision makers resist evidence‐based approaches to informing their practices and what to do about it (Hodgkinson, 2011, 2012). On the basis of the now considerable literature amassed comprising similar scholarly reflections on the academic‐practitioner divide, it is clear that precious little has changed as a result of the efforts of numerous researchers, who, in similar vein to Fergnani and Chermack (2021), have sought to persuade practitioners to embrace the traditional scientist‐practitioner model (for reviews see Bartunek & Rynes, 2014; Hodgkinson & Starkey, 2011; Kieser et al, 2015). A case in point is the voluminous evidence demonstrating that the frequency of usage of personnel selection and assessment techniques is inversely proportional to their known reliability, validity, and utility, a finding which generalizes to many different types of organizations, applicant groups, and countries (see, e.g., Hodgkinson & Payne, 1998; Shackleton & Newell, 1994; Zibarras & Woods, 2010).…”

Advancing scenario planning theory: A commentary on Fergnani and Chermack, 2021

“…Fergnani and Chermack (2021) shine a befitting spotlight on the state of theory in the futures and foresight studies. I build on their arguments to discuss theory advancement in a narrower foresight domain: scenario planning.…”

Foresight and Roadmapping Methodology: Trends and Outlook

“…Other reviews of relevant methods are provided elsewhere [Bishop et al, 2007, Glenn, 2009bGordon et al, 2020;Popper, 2008a,b]. Historically the field of futures and foresight has been led by practitioner-focused approaches, with comparatively little effort given to theory and methodology development [Fergnani, Chermack, 2021;Kishita et al, 2021;Wilkinson, 2009]. Unlike the natural sciences, there is tremendous variance in methods and tools.…”