Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- future_fabulators:antipodean_musings [2014-03-10 01:55] – alkan
+++ future_fabulators:antipodean_musings [2014-03-10 02:16] – alkan
@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 During February 2014 we spent a few weeks on research for Future Fabulators. We wanted to gain a better understanding of the techniques, tools and theories of 'futures studies' and if they could be applied to our work in future pre-enactments. After much practice-based research in [[:/resilients/future_preparedness|future preparedness]], we found that a more theoretical underpinning was needed, which meant that our focus was primarily on the literature. We spent the retreat in more or less uninterrupted reading, following interesting leads down often fractal rabbit holes. We attempted to answer questions that had arisen from the last few years of experiments in [[prehearsing the future]]. Our starting points were of both methodological and philosophical nature: on the one hand we wanted to know how to improve our practice of scenario building and pre-enacments with new, transdisciplinary techniques, and on the other hand we were wondering what would happen if foresight became a part of everyday life, where uncertainty is not seen as a threat but an opportunity.
-To ease ourselves into the researcher's mindset, we began by seeking answers to a number of methodological questions, first related to scenario building, then to inspiration for designing better prehearsals (including improv theatre, role playing games, disaster drills and simulations). We discovered many promising tools gleaned from a variety of fields that we’re keen to start experimenting with. Through investigating these methods we began to grasp the full shape and size of futures studies as a field: hovering at the edges of a (consulting) practice and an academic discipline, with a strong focus on methodology. We read about the history, current developments and future aspirations of the field and came to the happy conclusion that, from its origins in systems theory and the culture of prediction some fifty or sixty years ago, it seemed to be converging with our own areas of interest: complexity, experience, awareness, uncertainty, anti-fragility, among others. The final phase of our research focused on these kindred developments in the work of such futurologists as Stuart Candy and Jose Ramos, who merge futures with design, politics and action research. Their writings helped us contextualise our work with experiential futures, understanding what has been done so far and which questions still remain open. By the end of this short period of literature research we feel we stand on much firmer ground, with new potential allies and clearer future directions. What follows is an overview of our process and findings, and can serve as an alternative way to navigate the [[background]] material on the Future Fabulators wiki.
+To ease ourselves into the researcher's mindset, we began by seeking answers to a number of methodological questions, first related to scenario building, then to inspiration for designing better prehearsals (including improv theatre, role playing games, disaster drills and simulations). We discovered many promising tools that we’re keen to start experimenting with. Through investigating these methods we began to grasp the full shape and size of futures studies as a field: hovering at the edges of a (consulting) practice and an academic discipline, with a strong focus on methodology. We read about the history, current developments and future aspirations of the field and came to the happy conclusion that, from its origins in systems theory and the culture of prediction some fifty or sixty years ago, it seems to be converging with our own areas of interest: complexity, experience, awareness, uncertainty, anti-fragility, among others. The final phase of our research focused on these kindred developments in the work of such futurologists as Stuart Candy and Jose Ramos, who merge futures with design, politics and action research. Their writings helped us contextualise our work with experiential futures, understanding what has been done so far and which questions still remain open. By the end of this short period of literature research we feel we stand on much firmer ground, with new potential allies and clearer future directions. What follows is an overview of our process and findings, and can serve as an alternative way to navigate the [[background]] material on the Future Fabulators wiki.
 {{>http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/12979291555/}}\\
@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 ==== But why…? ====
-Since we began working with what we now call 'speculative culture' (~2009), we have crossed paths with people like Bruce Sterling, Anab Jain, Chris Luebkeman, Scott Smith, Justin Pickard, Maya van Leemput, Stuart Candy (amongst others) who are more directly involved with futures and future studies, and may even call themselves futurists. We have seen many points of contact (and departure) with their work. Our literature survey has allowed us to see where our own endeavours stand in relation to these and other futurists, situating our practice in the wider context of futures studies. It has helped us understand where we can stand on others' shoulders, and where we have stumbled consciously or unconsciously on possible solutions or new avenues of exploration. It has helped us begin to answer why we might want to work more explicitly with futures, and given us a glimpse of solutions to such queries as:
+Since we began working with what we now call 'speculative culture' (~2009), we have crossed paths with people like Bruce Sterling, Anab Jain, Chris Luebkeman, Scott Smith, Justin Pickard, Maya van Leemput, and Stuart Candy (amongst others) who are more directly involved with futures and future studies, and may even call themselves futurists. We have seen many points of contact (and departure) with their work. Our literature survey has allowed us to see where our own endeavours stand in relation to these and other futurists, situating our practice in the wider context of futures studies. It has helped us understand where we can stand on others' shoulders, and where we have stumbled consciously or unconsciously on possible solutions or new avenues of exploration. It has helped us begin to answer why we might want to work more explicitly with futures, and given us a glimpse of solutions to such queries as:
   * how do we foster a sense of agency when faced with volatile, unknowable futures?
@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 ====Studying Futures====
-From our rather idealistic starting point, we delved into the literature of future studies, in order to generate more coherent mental maps of the field. This has lead us down labyrinths of military strategy and around corporate think tanks, with pathways through academic paper factories and glitzy design [[:/forecasting]] blogs leading us towards [[the future of futures]] and [[non predictive strategy]]. We learned buckets of jargon and came to see that futures studies has many faces, as well as curious histories and promising futures. The field seems somewhat fragmented, comprised of various schools of thought and modes of action (which in fairness, is true of many academic disciplines with one foot in the practice-based). There are some obvious geographic and linguistic differences; the Europeans (in France, Netherlands, Germany, UK…) and the Americans (such as RAND or the Global Business Network), some with quite formalised methods designed for policy and strategic planning originating in the (cold) war era of the 40s and 50s and more recently looking at digitally enhanced [[crowdsourced futures]]; there is the Pacific strand with the Manoa School in Hawaii and several Australian futurists enclaves, proposing methods that are perhaps more culturally and philosophically closer to what we’re interested in (such as causal layered analysis, or [[integral futures]]) and finally there are interesting futurists from Mexico, India, the middle east and parts of the Global South, with interesting views on de-colonising futures.
+From our rather idealistic starting point, we delved into the literature of future studies, in order to generate more coherent mental maps of the field. This led us down labyrinths of military strategy and around corporate think tanks, with pathways through academic paper factories and glitzy design [[:/forecasting]] blogs leading us towards [[the future of futures]] and [[non predictive strategy]]. We learned buckets of jargon and came to see that futures studies has many faces, as well as curious histories and promising futures. The field seems somewhat fragmented, comprised of various schools of thought and modes of action (which in fairness, is true of many academic disciplines with one foot in the practice-based). There are some obvious geographic and linguistic differences; the Europeans (in France, Netherlands, Germany, UK) and the Americans (such as RAND or the Global Business Network), some with quite formalised methods designed for policy and strategic planning originating in the (cold) war era of the 40s and 50s and more recently looking at digitally enhanced [[crowdsourced futures]]; there is the Pacific strand with the Manoa School in Hawaii and several Australian futurist enclaves, proposing methods that are perhaps culturally and philosophically closer to what we’re interested in (such as causal layered analysis, or [[integral futures]]); and finally there's the futurists in Mexico, India, the Middle East, and parts of the Global South, with interesting views on de-colonising futures.
 {{:future_fabulators/screen_shot_2014-03-05_at_21.24.00.png}}
@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 ==== Scenario thinking ====
-The first week of our research was preoccupied with methodology, since many of our practice oriented questions emerged from debriefs from our [[scenarios|scenario]] workshops. We had planned to investigate methods from various fields suitable for scenario development and prehearsals, but due to time constraints as well as the vastly disparate literature we focused on [[scenario building]] and [[scenario methods|its methods]]. We had previously primarily worked with the [[http://lib.fo.am/future_fabulators/scenario_methods#x2_double_uncertainty|double uncertainty]] method, where four possible futures emerge from two "critical uncertainties" selected from a range of local factors and macro trends (aka 'drivers of change). Although this method has proven to work well in a range of situations, we were curious to expand our toolbox, increase our ability to adapt workshops to different groups and topics. After digesting several [[http://lib.fo.am/future_fabulators/scenario_methods#methods_comparisons|review articles]] comparing different methods, we dug deeper into those that resonated with our way of working. For example [[http://lib.fo.am/future_fabulators/scenario_methods#causal_layered_analysis|Causal Layered Analysis]] suggests ways to have deeper conversation about social causes, worldviews and cultural myths (with resonances of Stuart Brand’s [[http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/tools/pace-layering/|Pace Layers]]). Basically both Sohail Inayatullah and Stuart Brand talk about different layers that impact change - from fast paced and obvious (like fashions and technologies) to more fundamental, but also not easily measurable and often overlooked issues related to culture and nature. Jim Dator, one of the veterans of the futures field, who postulates that "“Any useful idea about the future should appear to be ridiculous" has distilled a method called [[http://lib.fo.am/future_fabulators/scenario_methods#four_generic_futures|Four Generic Futures]]. He found that most stories about the future fall into four categories: continued growth, total collapse, a disciplined society and a transformed society (usually through technology). This method provides means for creating more 'extreme' scenarios that can spark interesting discussions. A very different method emerging from astronomy and social sciences is the [[http://lib.fo.am/future_fabulators/scenario_methods#morphological_analysisfar|Morphological Analysis]] that looks at futures as a dynamic whole, and works with permutations and relationships between change drivers that can generate large numbers of divergent scenarios and possible paths between them.
+The first week of our research was preoccupied with methodology, since many practice-oriented questions emerged from debriefs from our [[scenarios|scenario]] workshops. We had planned to investigate methods from various fields suitable for scenario development and prehearsals, but due to time constraints as well as the vastly disparate literature, we focused on [[scenario building]] and [[scenario methods|its methods]]. We had previously worked mainly with the [[http://lib.fo.am/future_fabulators/scenario_methods#x2_double_uncertainty|double uncertainty]] method, where four possible futures emerge from two 'critical uncertainties' selected from a range of local factors and macro trends (aka 'drivers of change'). Although this method has proven to work well in a range of situations, we were curious to expand our toolbox, increase our ability to adapt workshops to different groups and topics. After digesting several [[http://lib.fo.am/future_fabulators/scenario_methods#methods_comparisons|review articles]] comparing different methods, we dug deeper into those that resonated with our way of working. For example [[http://lib.fo.am/future_fabulators/scenario_methods#causal_layered_analysis|causal layered analysis]] suggests ways to have deeper conversation about social causes, worldviews and cultural myths (resonating with Stuart Brand’s [[http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/tools/pace-layering/|pace layers]]). Basically both Sohail Inayatullah and Stuart Brand talk about different layers that impact change – from the fast-paced and obvious (like fashions and technologies) to more fundamental, but also not easily measurable and often overlooked issues related to culture and nature. Jim Dator, one of the veterans of the futures field, who postulates that 'any useful idea about the future should appear to be ridiculous', has distilled a method called [[http://lib.fo.am/future_fabulators/scenario_methods#four_generic_futures|four generic futures]]. He found that most stories about the future fall into four categories: continued growth, total collapse, a disciplined society and a transformed society (usually through technology). This method provides means for creating more 'extreme' scenarios that can spark interesting discussions. A very different method emerging from astronomy and social sciences is the [[http://lib.fo.am/future_fabulators/scenario_methods#morphological_analysisfar|morphological analysis]], which looks at futures as a dynamic whole, and works with permutations and relationships between change drivers that can generate large numbers of divergent scenarios and possible paths between them.
-Aside from these general methods, there are several specific techniques that we investigated to help us improve aspects of the scenario process. To begin with, we want to be able to ask better questions and encourage an [[inquiring mind]], while being aware of our [[cognitive bias|cognitive biases]] and [[affective forecasting|emotions]]. The questioning questions lead us towards action learning and education based on inquiry, but also to zen buddhists talking about the importance of keeping a beginners mind throughout our life. We also found some questioning games and tried them out in breakfast meetings, that lead to much laughter, but also an affirmation that we want to continue scenario workshops that begin by designing a core question with the participants, rather than coming with a pre-packaged 'burning issue’ that people might not identify with. The next step in a scenario workshop (after coming up with a good question) is understanding the past and the present of the participants' situation. We looked at how we could better structure a discussion about what is known and what is assumed to be current circumstances, that would allow the participants to 'vent' their frustrations and talk about things they appreciate in the present, but also expose assumptions and point towards effective actions. We found interesting possibilities in the [[KPUU framework]], where a discussion is structured around what is known, presumed, unknown and unknowable in the present. A much bigger framework, [[integral scenario development]] talks about how to broaden and deepen perceptual filters, of both facilitators and participants, with some evocative principles of practice, such as non-exclusion, unfoldment, enactment and uncomfort.
+Aside from these general methods, there are several specific techniques that we investigated to help us improve aspects of the scenario process. To begin with, we want to be able to ask better questions and encourage an [[inquiring mind]], while being aware of our [[cognitive bias|cognitive biases]] and [[affective forecasting|emotions]]. The questioning of questions led us towards action learning and education based on inquiry, but also to Zen Buddhists talking about the importance of preserving a beginner's mind throughout life. We also found some questioning games and tried them out in breakfast meetings. These resulted in much laughter, but also the affirmation that we want to continue scenario workshops that start with participants designing a core question, rather than bringing in a prepackaged 'burning issue’ from the outside that people might not identify with. The next step in a scenario workshop (after coming up with a good question) is understanding the past and the present of the participants' situations. We looked at how we could better structure a discussion about what is known and what is assumed to be the current circumstances. This would allow participants to 'vent' their frustrations and talk about things they appreciate in the present, but also expose assumptions and point towards effective actions. We found interesting possibilities in the [[KPUU framework]], where a discussion is structured around what is known, presumed, unknown and unknowable in the present. A much bigger framework, [[integral scenario development]] talks about how to broaden and deepen perceptual filters both of facilitators and participants, with some evocative principles of practice, such as non-exclusion, unfoldment, enactment and uncomfort.
-The biggest and most unwieldy task in scenario building is identifying and presenting (interactions between) drivers of change (aka macro-trends). We looked at different methods that are used in what is known [[horizon scanning]] or environmental scanning: basically ways to continuously review various media, looking for signals that something is changing in society, technology, economy, etc. The signals can be weak and emerging, or already established trends that are waxing, waning or remaining constant. Obviously, in a world as complex and fast as ours, scanning needs to be a continuous practice, but there are many ways to do this more effectively, including different online, crowdsourced or expert services. Once the things that influence change  are identified, the interesting part begins: like in a story where change drivers are characters, the next step is finding the relationships between them, and events that have emerged or might emerge from them. There are many ways to visualise these relationships, such as the futures wheel, trend impact analysis or [[field anomaly relaxation]]. Many of these techniques might sound complicated when described in text, but we’re keen to try them out in practice.
+The biggest and most unwieldy task in scenario building is identifying and presenting (interactions between) drivers of change (aka macro-trends). We looked at different methods that are used in what is known as [[horizon scanning]] or environmental scanning: basically ways of continuously reviewing various media for signals that something is changing in society, technology, the economy, etc. The signals can be weakly emergent or well-established trends that are waxing, waning or remaining constant. Obviously, in a world as complex and fast as ours, scanning needs to be a continuous practice, but there are many ways to do this more effectively, including different online, crowdsourced or expert services. Once the things that influence change are identified, the interesting part begins: like in a story where change drivers are characters, the next step is finding the relationships between them, and events that have emerged or might emerge from them. There are many ways to visualise these relationships, such as the futures wheel, trend impact analysis or [[field anomaly relaxation]]. Many of these techniques might sound complicated when described in writing, but we’re keen to try them out in practice.