IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/fufsci/v3y2021i1ne37.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On inquiry in futures and foresight science

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas J. Rowland
  • Matthew J. Spaniol

Abstract

Two patterns of inquiry in futures and foresight science have been called into question, namely, the conflict of interest inherent in the practice of self‐observation among facilitators and the inadequacy of retrospective scientific accounts by proponents of their own methods. This is especially concerning as the broader management literature, in addition to numerous disciplinary areas, make the “practice turn,” which implies greater emphasis on enactment in practice, and therefore, greater scrutiny of the methods used to evaluate, examine, and explore those practices. In this piece, we reflect on the practice of inquiry in futures and foresight science. We fully and unambiguously acknowledge that there are many barriers to the empirical study, direct observation, and scholarly communication of futures and foresight practices. We propose a collaborative “facilitator‐observer” model of inquiry to obviate predictable critiques of futures research. One author facilitates; the other author observes. The upshot of this examination is insight associated with observing the enactment of ontology “in action” and a novel framework for the collaborative display of results that usefully differentiates the facilitator from the observer as authors. In the end, after sharing our inquiry practices, we recommend more analytical energy be devoted to reflecting on the conduct of science in futures and foresight in the widest sense. After all, our collective credibility is on the line in scientific circles beyond the close‐knit futures community.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas J. Rowland & Matthew J. Spaniol, 2021. "On inquiry in futures and foresight science," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:fufsci:v:3:y:2021:i:1:n:e37
    DOI: 10.1002/ffo2.37
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/ffo2.37
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/ffo2.37?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicholas J. Rowland & Matthew J. Spaniol, 2019. "Public understanding of futures & foresight science: A reply to Chermack’s response," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(2), June.
    2. George Wright & George Cairns, 2020. "Does the facilitator of a scenario development activity need substantive knowledge of the focal topic?," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), June.
    3. Rowland, Nicholas J. & Spaniol, Matthew J., 2017. "Social foundation of scenario planning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 6-15.
    4. Elna Schirrmeister & Anne‐Louise Göhring & Philine Warnke, 2020. "Psychological biases and heuristics in the context of foresight and scenario processes," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), June.
    5. Sarah Kaplan, 2011. "Research in Cognition and Strategy: Reflections on Two Decades of Progress and a Look to the Future," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(3), pages 665-695, May.
    6. Ramírez, Rafael & Österman, Riku & Grönquist, Daniel, 2013. "Scenarios and early warnings as dynamic capabilities to frame managerial attention," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 825-838.
    7. Giovanni Gavetti & Jan W. Rivkin, 2007. "On the Origin of Strategy: Action and Cognition over Time," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 420-439, June.
    8. J. P. Eggers & Sarah Kaplan, 2009. "Cognition and Renewal: Comparing CEO and Organizational Effects on Incumbent Adaptation to Technical Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 461-477, April.
    9. Gerard P. Hodgkinson & Denise M. Rousseau, 2009. "Bridging the Rigour–Relevance Gap in Management Research: It's Already Happening!," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(3), pages 534-546, May.
    10. Meissner, Philip & Wulf, Torsten, 2013. "Cognitive benefits of scenario planning: Its impact on biases and decision quality," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 801-814.
    11. O'Brien, Frances A. & Meadows, Maureen, 2013. "Scenario orientation and use to support strategy development," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 643-656.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Björn M. Persson, 2024. "Understanding the origins of foresight—How it has shaped our minds and societies," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), March.
    2. Nicholas J. Rowland & Matthew J. Spaniol, 2022. "The strategic conversation, 25 years later: A retrospective review of Kees van der Heijden's Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), March.
    3. John J. Oliver, 2023. "Scenario planning: Reflecting on cases of actionable knowledge," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3-4), September.
    4. James Derbyshire & Mandeep Dhami & Ian Belton & Dilek Önkal, 2023. "The value of experiments in futures and foresight science as illustrated by the case of scenario planning," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), June.
    5. Martin Kunc, 2024. "Integrating system dynamics and scenarios: A framework based on personal experience," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lorenz Graf-Vlachy & Jonathan Bundy & Donald C. Hambrick, 2020. "Effects of an Advancing Tenure on CEO Cognitive Complexity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 936-959, July.
    2. Ramboarison-Lalao, Lovanirina & Gannouni, Kais, 2019. "Liberated firm, a leverage of well-being and technological change? A prospective study based on the scenario method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 129-139.
    3. Lehr, Thomas & Lorenz, Ullrich & Willert, Markus & Rohrbeck, René, 2017. "Scenario-based strategizing: Advancing the applicability in strategists' teams," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 214-224.
    4. Shardul Sharad Phadnis & Inga‐Lena Darkow, 2021. "Scenario planning as a strategy process to foster supply chain adaptability: theoretical framework and longitudinal case," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(2), June.
    5. Tiberius, Victor & Siglow, Caroline & Sendra-García, Javier, 2020. "Scenarios in business and management: The current stock and research opportunities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 235-242.
    6. Buyl, Tine & Boone, Christophe & Wade, James B., 2015. "Non-CEO executive mobility: The impact of poor firm performance and TMT attention," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 257-267.
    7. Nicodemus M. Mutinda & James M. Kilika, 2019. "TMT Cognitive Capability and Organizational Outcomes: A Theoretical Review," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(8), pages 31-52, August.
    8. Violina P. Rindova & Luis L. Martins, 2018. "From Values to Value: Value Rationality and the Creation of Great Strategies," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(1), pages 323-334, March.
    9. Riccardo Vecchiato & Giampiero Favato & Francesco di Maddaloni & Hang Do, 2020. "Foresight, cognition, and long‐term performance: Insights from the automotive industry and opportunities for future research," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(1), March.
    10. Wright, George & Cairns, George & O'Brien, Frances A. & Goodwin, Paul, 2019. "Scenario analysis to support decision making in addressing wicked problems: Pitfalls and potential," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(1), pages 3-19.
    11. Metz, Ashley & Hartley, Paul, 2020. "Scenario development as valuation: Opportunities for reflexivity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    12. Christopher Kurzhals & Lorenz Graf‐Vlachy & Andreas König, 2020. "Strategic leadership and technological innovation: A comprehensive review and research agenda," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(6), pages 437-464, November.
    13. Stefano Cabras & J. D. Tena, 2023. "Implicit institutional incentives and individual decisions: Causal inference with deep learning models," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(6), pages 3739-3754, September.
    14. Karin Tollin & Lars Bech Christensen, 2019. "Sustainability Marketing Commitment: Empirical Insights About Its Drivers at the Corporate and Functional Level of Marketing," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 1165-1185, June.
    15. Rebecca Henderson, 2021. "Innovation in the 21st Century: Architectural Change, Purpose, and the Challenges of Our Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5479-5488, September.
    16. Hussain, M. & Tapinos, E. & Knight, L., 2017. "Scenario-driven roadmapping for technology foresight," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 160-177.
    17. Cheng, M.N. & Wong, Jane W.K. & Cheung, C.F. & Leung, K.H., 2016. "A scenario-based roadmapping method for strategic planning and forecasting: A case study in a testing, inspection and certification company," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 44-62.
    18. Mary Tripsas, 2009. "Technology, Identity, and Inertia Through the Lens of “The Digital Photography Company”," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 441-460, April.
    19. Phadnis, Shardul & Caplice, Chris & Singh, Mahender & Sheffi, Yossi, 2014. "Axiomatic foundation and a structured process for developing firm-specific Intuitive Logics scenarios," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 122-139.
    20. Ramirez, R. & Bhatti, Y. & Tapinos, E., 2020. "Exploring how experience and learning curves decrease the time invested in scenario planning interventions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:fufsci:v:3:y:2021:i:1:n:e37. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2573-5152 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.