Abstract
Welcome to the second issue (but the first for 2016) of the newly focused World Future Review (WFR).
As I explained in the December issue, we intend WFR to be the source for information about futures studies both as an academic and as an applied discipline. When people want to know about what futures studies is, in all its many and diverse parts, we want them to turn to WFR.
What distinguishes WFR from other futures journals is that (as a rule) it will not have articles about “the future” or “the futures of x” but rather about futures studies as an academic and applied discipline—the roots of futures studies; the basic concepts, theories, and methods; how it has changed over time; its present state; and alternative and preferred futures for futures studies itself.
We are especially interested in material that identifies and explores the tacit and hidden intellectual roots of futures studies: What scholars, schools of thought, ideologies, cosmologies, ontologies, ethical concerns, social theories, and methods underlay what the early futurists thought and wrote? What now? What should underlie them?
Is there a common core of theory, methods, and substantive concerns—a “knowledge base”— that all, or most, futurists agree should be not only taught but also used as a guide when serving as a futures consultant for businesses, governments, and other institutions?
What assumptions do futurists make about “time”? “Where” is the future? What is the role of human agency versus other forces (such as technology, for example) in shaping the futures? I maintain that although it is impossible to “predict” the future, it is possible and necessary to forecast alternative futures and to help people envision, design, and move toward preferred futures on a continuing reflexive basis. Others may disagree and believe through increasingly powerful quantitative methods that it is, or will soon be, possible to predict even the most complex of social and environmental systems.
What is the role of language in shaping ideas about futures? Although people from many countries and cultures all over the world contributed to its birth, futures began as primarily being discussed on a global basis in French, Spanish, or especially English. Does this matter? I think so, and Ilhan Bae 1 has already discussed how difficult it is to express certain English-language concepts about the future in East Asian languages. What about other languages? Is this important, or not?
When does “the present” end and “the future” begin? (When does the past end and the present begin, for that matter?) Do we need to divide futures into two subdisciplines, one focusing “on the horizon”—short-run future—and the other on “over the horizon”—long-term futures? That distinction seems important to many practicing futurists and their clients who often prefer very short horizons that are nonetheless longer than those typically considered by “planners.” Indeed, what are the differences between futures and long-range planning? Should futures studies focus primarily on the short run or the long run, or both? Or is the distinction simply a confounding illusion? Are ideas about the futures nothing but ideas in the present about something that doesn’t exist, called “the future”?
What ethical obligations do consulting futurists have toward their clients who may act on the advice of futurists, and fail or succeed in unexpected and undesirable ways? Are there ethical or other concerns about doing proprietary research for a client who may use the secret information in ways detrimental to the common good? Is it OK for certain people or institutions to “colonize the future”? Do futurists need a “code of ethics”? There is not one now.
Or do we even need futures studies as an academic and/or applied discipline at all? Aren’t all humans futurists by biology? Are some people “better” futurists than others? Should applied futurists professionalize, establishing standards of both education and performance, or can anyone, as now, call themselves a futurist (or whatever other term they want) with no standards or formalization?
What is the preferred name of the field? Is futures studies best, or not? What about futures research, simply “futures” (analogous with “history”), futurology, futuristics, foresight, forecasting, anticipation, strategic design, and so on?
These are the sorts of issues WFR will focus on. Not on “the future” in general, nor on the future of some particular place or institution, but on futures studies itself, as an academic discipline and as a practical, consulting activity.
Thus, as a rule, manuscripts submitted for consideration in WFR should (1) discuss the theoretical, philosophical, ethical, and academic bases of futures work and (2) demonstrate how these bases are exemplified in applied futures work, such as research, publications, teaching, and consulting.
None of this is meant to suggest that there has been no prior interest in these subjects. To the contrary, these issues were debated from the beginning of the field and have been discussed from time to time in each of the major futures journals. But WFR will be the first journal to focus on futures studies per se, in both its academic and applied aspects.
In December 2015, we kicked off the new focus with articles by Wendy Schultz giving a brief history of futures studies, Antonio Alonso-Concheiro discussing his extensive experiences both teaching and doing futures work, Zia Sardar presenting the concept of a postnormal future, and Sohail Inayatullah considering some lessons learned during his years of experience as a consulting futurist.
In this issue, Peter Bishop summaries an extensive survey of some of the academic futures program currently, looking for commonalities as well as differences. Fabienne Baudiement explains the intellectual, methodological, and applied bases of her teaching and research. Marcus Bussey hones in with some detailed suggestions for a futures course, based on his experience, and Andrew Hines offers some very practical advice on what it takes to be a professional futurist.
I hope you find these essays informative and will contribute similar or contrasting manuscripts based on your own experience, observations, and hopes for the futures of futures studies.