The topical collection on quality criteria for futures research: a short introduction

Kuusi, Osmo; Cuhls, Kerstin; Steinmüller, Karlheinz

doi:10.1007/s40309-015-0075-8

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several examples for such sets of rules have been published in the last years (cf. e.g., [8,9]). However, the outcome of the narrative phase is a piece of literature in a certain way.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On some fundamental methodological aspects in foresight processes

Michael

Hansen-Casteel

2018

Eur J Futures Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The question whether foresight processes are scientific procedures at all is still under lively discussion. In this article, we shall try to give an answer by creating a generic model of such processes and compare it to a widely accepted set of conditions characterizing scientific disciplines. The model developed here shows a similar structure, as some technology assessment procedure given by the German VDI, and is therefore one of the two major parts of a holistic approach to solving strategic decision problems. The detailed analysis will show how foresight fits to a fundamental model of sciences and reveals possible deficits and perils. Some recommendations are given for the development of quality assurance measures for foresight products. Special emphasis is laid upon the role of fallibilism and the applicability of Popper's mechanism of falsifying hypotheses.

show abstract

“…Several examples for such sets of rules have been published in the last years (cf. e.g., [8,9]). However, the outcome of the narrative phase is a piece of literature in a certain way.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On some fundamental methodological aspects in foresight processes

Michael

Hansen-Casteel

2018

Eur J Futures Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Specifically, as the future does not now exist, no one can experience it directly and claims about its truth-value can only be determined later. In the final analysis, then, the claims produced from futures studies can never be knowledge because one critical requirementthat the claim be truecan never be determined in the present (Gabriel, 2014;Kuusi et al, 2015a). This does not mean, though, that all claims about the future are simply random opinions not deserving any serious attention or alternatively, that any claim is just as good as any other.…”

Section: Epistemology and The Quest For Certain Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Where there are similarities, scientific criteria can be adapted to futures studies to minimize uncertainty and improve the credibility of the claims (Bishop, 2017;Sonk, 2015). Several authors have offered criteria or standards in this regard as ways to build credibility (Amara, 1981;Bell and Olick, 1989;Kunseler et al, 2015;Kuusi et al, 2015aKuusi et al, , 2015bShala, 2015;Wiberg, 1976) [6].…”

Section: Futures Studies and The Scientific Benchmark For Knowledge P...mentioning

confidence: 99%

What can we know about the future? Epistemology and the credibility of claims about the world ahead

Clardy

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the results of futures studies are knowledge or if not, what it is that futures studies actually produce. Five types of representations of the future are the result of these studies. As the value of futures studies depends on no small measure of their credibility, the standards for carrying out and reporting these studies are identified along with a description of how Toulmin’s model of informal logic can be used to best improve their credibility. Design/methodology/approach This paper is based on a multi-disciplinary literature review and integrative analysis. Findings Using epistemological criteria for knowledge as truth, belief and rationale, the results of futures studies are not and cannot be knowledge. Instead, futures studies produce five kinds of “representations of the future”: predictions, projections and forecasts, scenarios, visions and structures for action. Six standards for conducting and reporting the results of futures studies are provided which will increase the credibility of these studies. Toulmin’s informal logic format will provide the foundation for the most persuasive basis of such studies. Practical implications Futurists will understand that the products of their studies are not knowledge and why this is the case. They will also understand that the type of futures studies they are conducting are either conditional, contingent propositions or normative prescriptions in nature. There are six guidelines for carrying out and reporting futures studies which can also be used to assess the quality of published studies. They will see how the use of a certain kind of informal logic can establish the most credible foundations for their studies. Originality/value As an integrative literature review, it incorporates and simplifies widely disparate existing contributions to the topic of the nature of knowledge regarding futures studies and the criteria for making such studies as credible as possible.

show abstract