Re-examining And Renewing Theoretical Underpinnings Of The Futures Field: A Pressing And Long-term Challenge

摘要

Futurists build and discuss statements on future states of affairs. When their work is challenged, they cannot defend "what may come to be" with robust forms of proof. They have no direct observation, can design no experiments, and cannot accumulate data sets. All the work, all the discussions of validity, have to rely on indirect reasoning based on current and past observations, experiments and data. Such reasoning is fragile and subject to considerable uncertainty. Ever since the field emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, futurists have been acutely aware of the special challenge this implies, including two most obvious consequences. First, even the most serious work is vulnerable to potentially devastating criticism. This has triggered an on-going effort of theoretical justification that has accompanied the development of the Futures field. Second, in relation to this, sound methodology is crucially important to provide support when exploring such insecure ground as professional and academic speculation on possible futures. It is not surprising that methodology has constantly been one - and often the -central concern of the field, sometimes to a point of excess. As early as 1980, Decoufle could warn companion futurists against the urge "to jump steps in the long and difficult progression towards the still hypothetical scientificity of conjectural work by displaying inappropriate complacency for issues of method". Whether or not some futurists do 'jump steps', the Futures field has consistently shown much reflexivity on its theoretical foundations and its methodological procedures.