• 220 likes • 341 Views
Futures in context. Some comments on the Regio Futures Programme. International Conference The future of regions in the perspective of global change Warsaw, June 9-10, 2008 Simone Arnaldi Istituto Jacques Maritain, Trieste (Italy). Summary. Introductory remarks Who I am Vocabulary
E N D
Futures in context.Some comments on the Regio Futures Programme International Conference The future of regions in the perspective of global change Warsaw, June 9-10, 2008 Simone Arnaldi Istituto Jacques Maritain, Trieste (Italy)
Summary • Introductory remarks • Who I am • Vocabulary • The problem • The scope of my remarks • Looking at FR literature • Changing perspectives • Examples • Closing remarks
Who I am My background: • My Mentor is used to say: ‘I am a sociologist trying to be a futurist’ • I am used to say: ‘I am a futurist trying to be a sociologist’ In the end • I think I am perhaps a ‘naive’ sociologist (a bit frustrated…) • Pros: I am less disciplined (in sources, vocabulary, boundaries, etc.) • Cons: I am less disciplined (in sources, vocabulary, boundaries, etc.): any help is welcome
Where this stuff comes from This presentation relies on: • Ongoing research on improving robustness of methods through a reflexive regard (cognitive processes in panel methods based on group discussion and bias detection) • (My recent but) increasing interest in a sociological approach to cognition and, through cognition, in a sociological approach to futures research methods (seeing them as social and communicative interactions)
Vocabulary/1 A few remarks about terminology: • Local/societal anticipatory processes: • Local (processes of) production of anticipation/local anticipatory processes: FR methods • Societal (processes of) production of anticipation/societal anticipatory processes: the broader future-oriented debate, no matter the actors involved, the methods/approach they use, the anticipations produced
Vocabulary/2 A few remarks about terminology: • Local/societal interaction processes: • Local processes of social/communicative interactions occurring during the implementation of methods (either they are explicitly considered in the methods or not) • Larger processes of social/communicative interactions occurring outside the implementation of methods (either in time or in (social) space)
The problem/1 One problem to explore: what are the mutual influences of futures research methods and broader societal anticipatory processes? a.k.a. what do we get back after having applied methods?
The problem/2 Two directions: • Do (and how) interaction processes (local and societal) influence local anticipatory processes? • Does (and how) the local production of anticipations (processes and outcomes) influence societal anticipatory processes? The latter has two dimensions: • Does (and how) local production of anticipations influence social action (individual and collective)? • Does (and how) local production of anticipations affect societal inventories of anticipations?
The scope of my remarks This presentation attempts: • To provide some questions, not answers • To suggest possible directions of (multi-disciplinary) investigation • To claim for reflexivity in order to increase the performance of Futures Research methods and RegioFutures Programme
Literature review Engaging with diversity in FR through a non systematic review of the literature: • French prospective (Berger, de Jouvenel, Massé, Godet) • Critical futures studies (Eckersley, Gidley, Hicks, Hutchinson, Inayatullah, Milojevic, Page, Slaughter, Voros) • Human and social futures studies (Barbieri Masini) • Research on youngsters’ images of the future (Ono, Landau, Novaky, Pellizzoli, Rubin)
Limitations/1 Reviewed approaches appear to share a few common limitations: • Limited understanding of whether/how local/societal interactions affect the local production of anticipations: • The (relevant) interactions are those ‘prescribed’ by the method • It is not clear whether/how relevant sources/types of information are considered (e.g. gestures) • It is not clear whether/how sources/types of information are assessed according to occurring interactions • The method is… what it is, and if not, it doesn’t matter: discrepancy between expected/actual results are (said to be) dependent on correct/uncorrect application; more often, weak (none?) systematic observation of changes is in place
Limitations/2 Reviewed approaches appear to share a few common limitations: • Limited understanding of the relations between local processes producing anticipations and broader societal processes • Framed mainly in terms of impacts (e.g. diffusion of images) • Weak (none?) interpretive framework for transcalar effects (both for action and doscourse): is participation enough?
Perspectives Two perspectives for observing different approaches: • A focus either on the production (processes) or on anticipations themselves (outcomes) • A focus either on prescription or description of methods • Prescriptive: exploring and suggesting the best method according to a set of standards (epistemic, moral, both) set by the researcher • Descriptive: exploring methods as they are performed in local context, i.e. how actors use them, what are the societal processes affecting their design, implementation, interpretation (De Laat 2000)
Tentative typology A tentative typology of FR approaches:
Changing questions? Changing the questions (for my research goals!): • What is the validity of anticipatory knowledge claims? • What are the characteristics of methods to seek to improve their accuracy? • What are the images we have to promote for fostering social change? • What are FR processes made of?
The ‘matter’ of FR methods FR as the activity of a research collective (Callon, Lescoume, Barthe 2001), which is: • A group of actors • Involving a plurality of actors (researchers, stakeholders, etc.) • Interacting through communication processes • Producing texts and artefacts • Enacting routines, rules • Translating meanings for differentiated stakeholders • A system of ‘distributed intelligence’ • Mobilising cognitive resources • Performing cognitive tasks • Relying on incorporated knowledge (in tools, artefacts, theories, habits, etc.)
Exemplifying the descriptive approach/1 • Identification of the local patterns of interaction, either formalised in methods or not • e.g. group discussion • Identification of the social properties of people-in-interaction • e.g. gender, expertise, credibility (social knowledge) • Identification of the cognitive processes activated by the interaction • e.g. association of meanings, information mining and organisation of information, evaluation of answers • Identification of the influence of patterns of interaction and social properties of people-in-interaction on the “cognitive quality” of results
Exemplifying the descriptive approach/2 • Identification of the broader future-oriented debates relevant for the prospective process • e.g. survival of the scallops in the St. Brieuc Bay • Identification of the (heterogeneous) actors and fora in which the debate is performed • e.g. scientific conferences, political arena(s)[, media] • Identification of the networks of actors emerging around shared anticipations • e.g. researchers and scientists, fishermen, scallops, • Identification of the role of anticipations and their production processes in network creation and coordination
Exemplifying the descriptive approach/3 • Identification of the broader future-oriented debates relevant for the prospective process • e.g. regional development • Identification of the (heterogeneous) actors and fora in which the debate is performed • e.g. scientific conferences, political arena(s), media, ecc. • Identification of the networks of actors emerging around shared anticipations • e.g. scholars, business leaders, political leaders • Identification of the role of anticipations and their production processes in network creation and coordination
Closing remarks: what to do? • A comparative past- and present-oriented programme of investigation can complement the future-oriented work in Regio Futures Programme
Closing remarks: what opportunities? A more systematic understanding of how local/societal interactions affect the outcomes of prospective processes and methods can offer opportunities: • To improve our understanding of how methods work Thus • To improve the robustness of methods (bias detection, effectiveness to influence societal discourse and action) And • To offer a platform for multi-disciplinary collaboration (anthropology, psychology, sociology, political science)
Closing remarks Thank you for listening! s.arnaldi@maritain.eu