Coevolving Innovations

… in Business Organizations and Information Technologies

Reconciling Perspectives in Futures Research and Systems Thinking

The postgraduate course on Philosophical, Methodological and Pragmatic Approaches to Scientific Futures Research was offered by the Finnish Futures Academy at the University of Turku at the end of November 2012.  I had never taken a course on scientific futures research before.  I had never been to Turku before.  Since I was scheduled to be Finland in mid-November, this presented an opportunity to get expert knowledge from leaders in future studies.  I registered for the course.

In the typical style of Finnish intensive courses, a long list of articles was prescribed in advance.  On the course schedule, a lecture for systemic approaches — naming Soft Systems Methodology — was slated on the last of three days.  Working through the articles, the ties between futures studies and systems thinking led me to read about their parallel development, particularly through the 1970s.  While most graduate students would try to relate the course content to their thesis, I’m so far along on my dissertation that that wouldn’t be productive.  Thus, for my presentation, I decided to talk about the prescribed readings in futures research from my perspective founded in systems thinking.

The philosophy of Finnish school of scientific futures is based much in critical realism (via Alan Musgrave) through Wendell Bell (honoured in an August 2011 issue of Futures, edited by Paul Dragos Aligica).  I came to realize that my view of the world is based much more on foundations on the design of inquiring systems, originating from C. West Churchman.

The first day of the course was scheduled for student presentations.  I had requested to be scheduled near the end of the afternoon.  One of the instructor facilitators was Osmo Kuusi.  As I started my presentation, he asked if I was knew of the work of Ian Mitroff.  I then brought up the slide that described the overall context for my thinking.  Kuusi said that 20 years earlier, he had been encouraged to translate all of the works of Ian Mitroff into Finnish, but had declined to do so.

Based on the prescribed literature in futures research, how do I define my perspective?

In the background reading of “Futurists and their schools” (Samet 2010), and Comprehensive Situation Mapping (Acar and Druckenmiller, 2010), I rediscovered the work on Dialectic Inquiry (Mitroff and Emshoff, 1979), and updated the Wikipedia page on Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing.

In preparation the presentation for class, I included some slides to describe the design of inquiring systems in order to enable intelligibility.  When Kuusi saw these slides, he asked to borrow them for lectures on the following days.

By the end of the class, I came to have an understanding of the way that scientific futures research is conducted.  I’m clearly more oriented towards the perspectives of systems thinkers, which includes a respect for other approaches such as the evolved Delphi method.

[See the course description and presentation slides on “Reconciling Perspectives in Futures Research and Systems Thinking” on the Coevolving Commons]

References

Acar, William, and Douglas A. Druckenmiller. 2010. “Designing Insightful Inquiring Systems for Sustainable Organizational Foresight.” Futures42 (4): 405–416. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.025. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.025.

Mitroff, Ian I., and James R. Emshoff. 1979. “On Strategic Assumption-Making: A Dialectical Approach to Policy and Planning.” The Academy of Management Review4 (1) (January): 1. doi:10.2307/257398. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/257398.

Samet, Robert H. 2010. “Futurists and Their Schools: A Response to Ziauddin Sardar’s ‘the Namesake’.” Futures 42 (8) (October 1): 895–900. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.026. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.026.

Sardar, Ziauddin. 2010. “The Namesake: Futures; Futures Studies; Futurology; Futuristic; foresight—What’s in a Name?” Futures 42 (3) (April): 177–184. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.001.

1 Comment


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • RSS qoto.org/@daviding (Mastodon)

    • daviding: Instead of using a t July 4, 2020
      Instead of using a text editor or Notepad on my computer for everyday work, I now use #Zettlr as a persistent scratchpad, a new page each day. The feature of creating #Markdown often helps in copy-and-paste to other applications. I haven't exercised #Zotero citations, yet, but probably will, shortly. > Roam let’s you manage knowledge, […]
    • daviding: The #GlobeAndMail ed June 29, 2020
      The #GlobeAndMail editorial declares that the brain drain of 15,000 Canadians to the United States between years 2000-2010 could be reversed, with corporations near-shoring northwards. > Canada already exerts a powerful pull on people from the rest of the world. A global Gallup survey, conducted from 2015 through 2017, shows Canada is one of the most […]
    • daviding: Consumer grade audio June 20, 2020
      Consumer grade audio and video recording devices are practically near professional broadcast quality. Post-production workflows have adjusted to becoming asynchronous for the daily late night television shows. https://www.theverge.com/21288117/late-night-seth-meyers-tech-gadgets-show-home-ipad-microphone
    • daviding: Authentically apprec June 10, 2020
      Authentically appreciating "causal texture" from the Emery and Trist (1965) article leads us through the meanings of contextualism and contextural, texture, causal, and transactional environment c.f. contextual environment. http://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/causal-texture-contextural-contextualism/ #systemsthinking
    • daviding: Racial bias in AI mo June 9, 2020
      Racial bias in AI models now sees IBM ethically prioritizing social responsibility ahead of technological capability. We can, but should we? Are responses on Twitter indicative of Silicon Valley morality? https://twitter.com/TechCrunch/status/1270159828980248584
  • RSS on IngBrief

    • Wholism, reductionism (Francois, 2004)
      Proponents of #SystemsThinking often espouse holism to counter over-emphasis on reductionism. Reading some definitions from an encyclopedia positions one in the context of the other (François 2004).
    • It matters (word use)
      Saying “it doesn’t matter” or “it matters” is a common expression in everyday English. For scholarly work, I want to “keep using that word“, while ensuring it means what I want it to mean. The Oxford English Dictionary (third edition, March 2001) has three entries for “matter”. The first two entries for a noun. The […]
    • Systemic Change, Systematic Change, Systems Change (Reynolds, 2011)
      It's been challenging to find sources that specifically define two-word phrases -- i.e. "systemic change", "systematic change", "systems change" -- as opposed to loosely inferring reductively from one-word definitions in recombination. MartinReynolds @OpenUniversity clarifies uses of the phrases, with a critical eye into motives for choosing a specific label, as well as associated risks and […]
    • Environmental c.f. ecological (Francois, 2004; Allen, Giampietro Little 2003)
      The term "environmental" can be mixed up with "ecological", when the meanings are different. We can look at the encyclopedia definitions (François 2004), and then compare the two in terms of applied science (i.e. engineering with (#TimothyFHAllen @MarioGiampietro and #AmandaMLittle, 2003).
    • Christopher Alexander’s A Pattern Language: Analysing, Mapping and Classifying the Critical Response | Dawes and Ostwald | 2017
      While many outside of the field of architecture like the #ChristopherAlexander #PatternLanguage approach, it's not so well accepted by his peers. A summary of criticisms by #MichaelJDawes and #MichaelJOstwald @UNSWBuiltEnv is helpful in appreciating when the use of pattern language might be appropriate or not appropriate.
    • Field (system definitions, 2004, plus social)
      Systems thinking should include not only thinking about the system, but also its environment. Using the term "field" as the system of interest plus its influences leaves a lot of the world uncovered. From the multiple definitions in the International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics , there is variety of ways of understanding "field".
  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • RSS on daviding.com

    • 2020/06 Moments June 2020
      Most of month in Covid-19 shutdown Phase 1, so every photograph is an exterior shot. Bicycling around downtown Toronto, often exercising after sunset.
    • 2020/05 Moments May 2020
      Life at home is much the same with the pandemic sheltering-in-place directives, touring city streets on bicycle, avoiding the parks on weekends.
    • 2020/04 Moments April 2020
      Living in social isolation in our house with 5 family members, finishing off teaching courses and taking courses.
    • 2020/03 Moments March 2020
      The month started with a hectic coincidence of events as both a teacher and student at two universities, abruptly shifting to low gear with government directives for social distancing.
    • 2020/02 Moments February 2020
      Winter has discouraged enjoying the outside, so more occasions for friend and family inside.
    • 2020/01 Moments January 2020
      Back to school, teaching and learning at 2 universities.
  • RSS on Media Queue

  • Meta

  • Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
    Theme modified from DevDmBootstrap4 by Danny Machal