dilemmas for renewal of futures methodology

Futures 34 (2002) 365–379www.elsevier.com/locate/futures

Dilemmas for renewal of futures methodology�

Tamas Gaspar, Erzsebet Novaky ∗

Futures Studies Centre, Budapest University of Economics Sciences and Public Admininstration, 1093Budapest, Fo�vam ter 8, Hungary

Abstract

Using the so-called Transition Paradox for methodological renewal in futures studies, thisarticle derives one paradox plus six dilemmas. The analysis concludes that methodologicalrenewal should be embedded in the renewal of science. The power of new paradigms dependson how much they serve the long run welfare, stability and existence of the whole worldpopulation. Methods — and the breakthrough strategies of the East-Central European coun-tries — are intended not only for outlining visions, but also for creating their technological,institutional and other foundations so that they do not remain merely utopias. 2002 ElsevierScience Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The small, semi-peripheral countries of East-Central Europe have been facing aserious political challenge. The collapse of the bipolar, communist–capitalist worldsystem has put an end to the homogeneous Eastern and Western social structuresand the visions that were reliant on block security. At the same time the transitionhas made it possible to search for and express alternative visions of these countriesas well as for voluntary integration, as compared with involuntary and incompatibleco-operation.

However, in the European Union the analytical, linear way of thinking, and thedominance of the Enlightenment and the natural sciences still determine the EU’s

∗ Tel./fax: +36-1-216-2016.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T. Gaspar); [email protected] (E. Novaky).

� The article has been prepared in the framework of OTKA research, entitled Futures Studies in Eco-nomics. Project coordinator: Tamas, Gaspar, PhD.

0016-3287/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S 00 16 -3287( 01 )0 0065-9

366 T. Gaspar, E. Novaky / Futures 34 (2002) 365–379

integration model. The extension of Europe risks continuing a violent relationshipof dominance and inferiority.

This political problem is not only a diplomatic question, but a theoretical one aswell. The debate on the renewal of methodology is a strategic question in forecastingthe futures of the East-Central European semi-periphery and creating alternativefutures. This paper addresses those issues, which are of vital importance as far thecatch-up is concerned.

The dilemmas of futures studies below are not real and new controversies. Manyresearchers have investigated them and given answers in evolutionary, critical para-digms, poststructuralism and postmodernism, which are widely publicized andknown. However, we summarize them here from the viewpoint of methodologybecause the future of the East-Central European semi-periphery, including Hungary,mostly remains a European problem and because the problem is more complexthan expected.

First, the European tradition is not homogeneous. When we criticize elements ofEuropean culture, we question individualism, a natural-science orientation and itsextension to society, an aspiration for exclusiveness, an analytical way of thinkingto the smallest detail, cultural imperialism, etc. However, these are not the onlyinheritances of European tradition and the Enlightenment. Human alternatives havealways been atriculated but have been distorted or eliminated: Greek philosophy wastransformed to the Roman Empire; the Jewish–Christian tradition became dogma-tism; the aims of the labour movement were distorted into Stalinism, for example.One should see, however, that the realization and the ideology of these aims have notalways coincided. The Renaissance discovered the Greek tradition; the Reformationbrought the inheritance of the Bible into new circumstances; the aims of 19th Centuryrevolutions were taken up by the central powers in the 20th century.

All in all, one of the most difficult tasks now is the separation of foresight fromthe retrograde inheritance of Western civilization. Thinking of these dilemmas beginsa revival of Europeanism.

Second, the technological criteria of the catch-up and the democratization of thefuture were created by classical Euro-Atlantic development; however, this more andmore contradicts the leading mindset of neoliberal ideology.

Third, global pluralism should include the European alternative too. Multicul-turalism is as much a problem and possibility within Europe as it is globally.

Fourth, the aim is not to find a new, dominant ideology against the Euro-Atlanticalliance but to investigate the culture of co-existence among different cultures. Thus,the dilemmas have not yet been resolved, not even in a postmodern context.

2. The Transition Paradox

Thinking about the futures of futures studies methodology soon encounters thefollowing problem. The renewal of the methodology of futures studies needs a betterunderstanding of the coming era; however the investigation of the global world callsfor new methodologies. This is what we call the Transition Paradox.

367T. Gaspar, E. Novaky / Futures 34 (2002) 365–379

It is not the more sophisticated usage of general forecasting methods that therenewal of methodologies refers to. The term is tightly connected to the transitionof the present world system. Transition means more than the transition economies,that is, the social, economic and institutional changes in the former socialist coun-tries. With the collapse of the bipolar world system not only the Eastern block isunder transformation, but so too the other parts of the former order. Transition ismeant as world-wide social-economic change, including re-evaluating the mainvalues, the relationship to each other, as well as the relationship to science.

Transition refers not to the reshaping or a new stage of capitalism but to theerosion of its bases. We think that the transition from capitalism to a new, humansystem is a process over a century and a half, having started gradually after the 1848revolutions. This process has reached qualitatively new changes through globaliz-ation, and technological, intellectual revolution. At the same time the contradictionbetween capitalism and the new needs is reaching its peak.

Technological development has created the technical background to new social-economic formations, rather than just modernized the infrastructural basis of theex bipolar-welfare world. The Transition Paradox draws attention to the fact thatmethodological debates and the futures of futures studies are embedded in the debateover the coming world system which gives the possibility of, and recognizes the needfor, the mass population to actively participate in its creation. One who considers thefutures of futures studies has to integrate the aspect of methodology, just as whoeverthinks of the future of methods has to consider research on the new world order.From a scientific point of view this means that the time is ripe for integrating epis-temology and ontology again, which were separated in the European Enlightenment.As for technological foundations, it is information and space technology — whichparadoxically were created by the dominant mindset — that make possible a returnto ancient traditions, such as Indian, Islamic, Chinese, Greek, Christian, etc. Inaddition, these technologies allow adaptation of traditions to the global society ofsix billion people.

Transition has been taken seriously by both evolutionary futurists [1] and mac-rohistorian futurists [2]. The questions they address are how social transformationcan be investigated other than by linear methods; and what forces play the dominantrole. As economists, too, we would emphasize that the present transition is embeddedin an economic–technological environment that basically differs from the industrial era.

The economic–technical foundations of the global world call for a new mindset.We need to be conscious of these changes in order to break the Transition Paradoxand to find new ways to break out of the East-Central European semi-periphery. Thekey issues, which highlight the core, can be structured as Fig. 1 shows. We interpretthem as dilemmas, though in all cases they are not real dilemmas. The topics, cer-tainly, are highly interrelated since they are the different sides of the same coin.

3. Methods versus methodology

Dilemma one: Do the futures of futures studies mean renewal? If yes, which ofthe following: the renewal of methods or of methodology?


Fig. 1. The structure of dilemmas over the future of future studies methodology.

The Transition Paradox is the consequence of questioning methodological renewal.However, experts take different places in this issue, which makes a distinctionbetween methods and methodology. Some concentrate only on the techniques — saymethods — owing to the reasoning that viewpoints always change automatically andcan be left out of sight. The renewal in this case refers only to the methods andappears as a question of didactics reduced to tools. Others put the renewal of theway of thinking — say methodology — to the forefront on the basis that the changein paradigms means a new sense of reason and a change of methods automaticallyfollows the changed perspectives. In this sense methodology reflects subjective fac-tors and the methods related to them.

We are of the opinion that methods, as techniques, are a part of methodology andboth aspects of methodology suffer change in transitive periods.

The methodological renewal [3] has been integrating:

� renewal of the way of thinking and the approach to the topic under forecasting(i.e. the renewal of the methodological grounds);

� renewal of methods and techniques used in futures studies (i.e. the renewal of themethodological storehouse of futures studies).

The methodological storehouse of futures studies is under two kinds of renewal.Futures studies itself strives to elaborate new methods and further develops the triedand tested ones that are suited to provide guidance, even amid the circumstances ofinstability arising from the transition, as regards the possible future alternativesexpected to eventuate. At the same time futures studies also examines the range ofmethods used in other fields, such as sociology, the natural sciences (mainly biology


and physics) and political economy to see whether the results achieved in thesespecific areas can be put to use in forecasting.

The methodological storehouse renewal includes:(a) “New” methods — for example, storytelling method, futures workshop tech-

niques, quest techniques, casual layered analysis or anticipatory action learning —that rely on individual creativity and on group thinking. These methods help to carryout environmental scanning and provide ammunition for the elaboration of strategies.The methods themselves are in most cases certainly not new. Some date back thou-sands of years; others have been used for decades. The point is that these methodsare becoming dominant in the new mindset. Nevertheless, in European geopoliticsand in the breakthrough of the post socialist, East-Central European countries, theyare new.

(b) Old methods — for example, time series analysis and the system dynamicsmethod — in a new light concentrate on the analysis of stability, namely what charac-terizes these series: stability in the professional, mathematical sense, its modificationor a total lack of it, that is, instability. In unstable periods stability is not evident.Trend analysis gives place to examining the statistical balance and chaos calculations.In its new form, the system dynamics method does not only concentrate on seekinga stable course but also investigates unstable ones due to positive feedback.

(c) Old methods in new attire — Delphi method and scenario method — wherenew circumstances force futurists to take into account, also, the judgement of non-experts when outlining the future. It is not only the average opinions that may expressthe most probable or most desirable future, but also the “outlier” ones. Furthermore,the scenario method is able to systematize the results of different methods as wellas a variety of futures, values and actions.

(d) New combinations of methods serve more than meeting the challenges of insta-bility; they take into account the visioning power of individuals as well. For example,combining the Delphi method, the scenario method and the futures workshop tech-nique is particularly advantageous when non-experts, as well as experts, are involvedin exploring possible alternatives of the future. Combining chaos calculations withthe analysis of future orientation rests on the notion that (positive or negative) atti-tudes to systematically-generated future possibilities are easier to explore if we haveinformation concerning the future orientation of the groups under scrutiny.

However, innovation included in the methodological storehouse cannot be under-stood and applied without changing the mindset. The methodological grounds expresswhich theoretical paradigm our research and forecasting are embedded in, and assistin the selection of methods that should be used amid different methodologicalapproaches. This kind of renewal can be characterized in six ways:

� the possibility of cognition and determination of the future;� the space and time dimension of the future;� the alternatives of future;� the complexity of the future;� the problem of commensurability; and


� the reliability of forecasts.

These aspects reflect the main dilemmas of the futures of futures studies.

4. Cultural versus technical issue

Dilemma two: Is the renewal of methodology a question of culture or of tech-niques?

Our main statement is that the future of future studies as well as its methodologicalrenewal is dominated by culture. The distinction between methodological groundsand methodological storehouse has highlighted that, although both sides are underchange, it is the methodological grounds that play the determinant role. In our casethe extension of the EU appears as a legal problem in the propaganda. However,the acquis communitaire is not only a question of organizational technique but italso reflects the ideology of the European centre towards the semi-periphery.

It is first of all cultural and moral values that determine the tasks and the directionsof futures studies in the future. The techniques are only means that can serve oppositeaims as well. The recognition of morality and culture in science, as well as itsundertaking, are the elements that can make futures studies an integrative disciplineand mainstream. The new paradigms of futures studies have already changed theiraims to investigate possible futures that are different in fundamental values and toask which kind of future we wish to create. It is only on this basis that the EU canconsciously ensure that the extension of the integration should not be mechanisticand that the vision of the potential members does count and will improve the renewalof integration.

However, techniques and methods, as well as the economic, institutional foun-dations of the qualitatively different visions, are similarly important. Futures studiesshould not stop at the investigation of different and wishful values, but should takean active part in the creation of their technological background — otherwise culture,ethics and values remain only a sermon. The idea of a united Europe (with equalpartners) is very old but cannot be fulfilled until the technological infrastructurecreates the possibility to overcome real-politics, classical diplomacy and exploitation.

This is where the futures of futures studies definitely call for transdisciplinarity andmulticulturalism. Futures studies should make a comparison of the renewal efforts ofother disciplines, mainly in the field of social sciences.

Knowledge about reality is a crucial issue in the renewal of futures studies. If thefuture unfolds as the continuity of the past and the present, then the possibility ofa cognition of the future is based on classic, positivist philosophical and methodolog-ical principles: the profound study of phenomena (tendencies and events) of the pastand the present may lead to an altogether more thorough knowledge of futurephenomena. If the future is not rooted in the past and the present, if it manifestsitself in a new form, however, this classic course of knowing it will not lead to theexploration of a qualitatively new future. Cognition requires a new approach thatcan rely on the crutches of a future-oriented view and a way of thinking that revises


and reassesses the past and the present. These options appear as two extreme alterna-tives of the EU extension: either continuing the reflexes of the colonization mindsetto get to new resources, or giving place to the integration of alternative visions andviewpoints of the semi-periphery that may put European development on a new cour-se.

The cultural approach makes changes in the interpretation of knowledge as well.One viewpoint denies knowledge and accepts only interpretation, while others do notgive up the possibility of cognition, but redefine it and put it into new circumstances.

The new approach places the emphasis on exploring a series of turning points andqualitatively new, often incalculable, situations. The sense and aim of possibility ofcognition is striving to know not the repetitions inherent in continuity but the changesand renewal instead.

Though individual or cultural–social (local) cognition and just interpretation areemphasized by the postmodern, diversity should give place to common knowledgeas well. This means that the role of futures studies should preserve the investigationof global culture; however, not in an isolated and excluding way. The role of commonknowledge in the future either as a way of social management or for linking visioningand decision-making is already analyzed and emphasized [4].

This kind of change in cognition results in the past, present and future beingthrown off balance in statistical terms, and in a consequent relegation of traditionalmathematical and statistical methods. By the same token, it entails a newly gainedprominence for expert methods (which create the connection between the past andthe present and the changed, new future) that apply intuitive ways of cognition.

The cultural determination of methodology underlines the importance of the sub-jective observer, of responsibility, of alternatives, of qualitative analysis, etc. Theseare the topics we continue with.

5. Scientific versus non-scientific area

Dilemma three: Is futures studies a discipline of science or should it deny science?The methodological renewal of futures studies is part and consequence of a process

of general modernization and change of paradigm that is under way in a number offields of science, among them futures studies, during the late 20th century. The needfor this renewal is generated not only by common demands on science but also bythe fact that people’s faith in science is flagging. The uncertainty that has increasedas a result of instability and transformation has given rise to a new situation in thedaily routine of society and in scientific life alike, providing a brand new challengefor futures studies and futures researchers.

Classical futures research considered itself to be scientific. Its main target, that isthe exploration of the most probable future, was based on the assumption that, pro-vided it perceives the laws of reality in the right way, it can make correct predictionsof the coming future. This is the reason why futures research put the emphasis onan investigation of the development tendencies of the objective, perceivable reality.Its methodology adapted the characteristics of positivist science and preferred the


hard, quantitative methods as well as techniques refined from subjective elementsof experts’ judgements. Thus it followed that only one type of future could be out-lined, because of monocultural patterns, and this was critically debated by theresearchers of so-called futures studies. The classical approach has weakened owingto the changing reality as well, resulting in the fact that the predicted futures didnot come about in more and more cases. The recognition of development tendencieshas become ever dissolvable. Further, this is the case because of emerging, alternativeapproaches, such as those of Foucault and postcolonial theory as well as postnormalscience, Islamic science and feminist science, etc. [5].

The debate over futures studies being scientific or non-scientific has been renewedin the years of Transition. The new paradigms turn away from classical science andin the methodological renewal they try to find new approaches and new methodsthat give more space to subjective techniques — such as futures workshops, visionarymanagement, technology foresight— as well as to complexity or models that embraceempirical, interpretative, critical theory, casual layered analysis and action learning.This eclectic approach permits learning from each one [6].

By recognizing its own barriers, futures studies no longer strives to be scientific.However this must not mean that futures studies should give up being science. Rather,it should enrich science with the viewpoint, aim, culture, etc., of the individual andof the researcher.

Concentrating on the openness of the future, either from evolutionary uncertaintyor existing uncertainty, the new paradigms made huge steps towards the renewal ofscience, though sometimes they did not undertake it. Derived from the analysis ofemergent complex systems like the global world, post-normal science puts theemphasis on the role and responsibility of the observer. The new approach deniesthe separation of the objective world and the outside observer.

When we understand the problem of separating humankind from nature we cometo the conclusion that a methodology does not lack values; there is no such objectiveworld, and being a scientist is always normative. Such an approach to science willmake it clear to people in the semi-periphery that there are macrohistoric transform-ations in process in which our development is embedded in the global context,although much dominated by the European centre. These processes are objective ina different way and do not follow the “laws” of international integration.

Since futures studies is concerned that the use of methods should be conscious,the main question is not only what method to use but also whether one is aware ofusing a clearly specified attitude or not. To put it in the extreme, no matter whichtechnique is used; the main point is to know consciously what it is used for [7].

Another point is that the futurist should make clear not only which technique issuitable for what, but also whether or not s/he is using any method. Thus the futures offutures studies methods cannot be examined and taught in itself, without methodology.

6. Alternatives versus the future coming into existence

Dilemma three: What do different methods have to investigate: the alternativefutures or the future coming into existence?


Classical futures research aims to reduce the risk and unexpectedness of the futureand to outline the possibilities of change and development. The output is ‘if–then’types of statements referring to the future with certain probabilities, although in apreliminary and provisional way; but the future can be revealed and recognizable.

The alternative nature of the future has grown stronger because the chance ofunstable states arising has also increased. Events and phenomena have become morecomplex, and because the difference between a possible and a desired future hasincreased in many fields. Increasing social participation in shaping objectives andthe means for accomplishing them further enhances this alternative nature. Individ-uals and social groups wish to mould not only their own future but the general shapeof the future, too. Unlike the past, people now feel a stronger need to compare andweigh the different options ahead of them, take various points of view into consider-ation and make a responsible decision about accepting one or more of them. Theseelements are emphasized by two new conceptual–methodological frameworks, thatis, evolutionary and critical futures studies [8].

A comparative analysis of the alternatives completes the forecasting activity andforecasting itself, and helps users to gain a better understanding of the differencesamong alternatives. At the same time it can mean a basis for formulating ways andconditions of changing from one alternative to another. This was typically the casein post-socialist countries where people took alternatives seriously as well as theirown role in creating them. However, the “disappointment” in the reaction of thecentre (reluctance in supporting the real accession to the European integration) aswell as the alternative of immorality (the suppressed time period of accumulationof capital) soon proved that the possibility of alternatives should not be treated asa toy. Another feature of the early transition was that many people thought of alterna-tives as possible choices among the optional directives of the government, no matterwhich one.

Alternatives permeate the whole process of futures studies from the objectives tothe possible options among means and ways of accomplishing them. There is morescope for using alternatives for possible ways and means than for objectives. Thisis so because the means present themselves or can be created increasingly from theresults of earlier and/or accomplishable activities. Yet alternatives among objectivesis on the increase in the process of social development too.

Alternatives can be assigned to tendencies as well as to turning points. Alternativesthat can be assigned to lasting tendencies may mean not only a changed continuityof past development but also an outlining of qualitatively different ways and means.However, a greater number of alternatives can be assigned to the turning points ofdevelopment than to lasting tendencies. These alternatives are mostly embodied infuture shapes and social models, which shows that the turning points of developmenthold the promise of qualitative renewal of the complex system of society. WithinEurope there was widespread critique of the dominant mindset and institutions. How-ever, within the frameworks of the bipolar world system they could not surface. TheEuropean Union first encountered the possibility of demolishing its post-war structurein Maastricht, but the neoliberal ideology of transition overwhelmed it. The “tran-sition-energy”, that is, the willingness of people to be involved in, and continue,


change, did not last long. Thus the turning points of development becameimportant indeed.

However, optional future visions and individual choices must not substitute forlong-term viability. Thus the concept of alternatives is forward-looking only withinthe social–economic–technical frameworks that serve the long-run stability of theglobal world. In our case, Hungary’s catch-up strategy should make clear that itdepends not only on whether society’s alternative visions are acknowledged, butalso on whether these visions serve a new type of European regional co-existence.Furthermore, the study of the neoconservative global regime of the previous twentyyears shows that the demolition of the bipolar welfare-state system and the transitionwere more deliberate than expected. Uncertainty and chaos have served not only asa new mindset of scientific methodology, but also as a type of global order. Peoplehave been forced to think in terms of alternatives in their choices, however, thenecessary future orientation was created in a negative way, as future shock [9].

Postmodernism has correctly realized the importance of individual (local) visionsand responsibilities, the differentiation of viewpoints, the quantitative inconsum-ability of qualitative discrepancy, etc. However, it is unable and unwilling to integratethe divergent, alternative visions to the extent where they serve the same futureaim, that is, to create through communication the ideology and the infrastructural–institutional basis of the global system that has no alternative — the long-run exist-ence of humankind. Thus, owing to certain opinions, the futures of futures studieswill not remain in the framework of either neoliberal individualism and diversity, orpostmodern differentiation. Or, if so, futures studies cannot become mainstream [10].

7. Leadership versus participation

Dilemma four: Whose vision is the task of futures studies methodology and whocreates these visions?

Classical futures research is based on the universal–modernist world conceptionconnected to modern industrial structures and science. The vision of improving thefuture for the whole world, which can be revealed, has been fed by an optimisticfuture, hence a belief in the technological revolution. The futurist has become the“engineer of the future”, one who can outline tendencies and can construct a bet-ter world.

Among others, there are three serious problems with the above concept. Futuresstudies, based on classical science and rationality, projects a knowledge and a reason-ing of past and present on to the future. Secondly, the global world is dominatednow by the knowledge and reasoning of Western civilization, with the above restric-tions. Finally, the futurist as an engineer is separated from the mass population andmonopolizes the creation of the future as an “expert”; the engineer considers theworld as a machine from an outsider’s point of view [11].

The new paradigms of futures studies, mainly critical futures studies, have chal-lenged the positivist approach. All postmodern paradigms underline the active roleand responsibility of individuals and the cultural divergence of visions. In this sense,


the role of futures studies and the futurist is to show the divergences and makeconscious these differences without determining the social direction. The competingvisions will get different social support. Thus all visions can take part in the “compe-tition”.

The future is the democratization of futures studies. However, this aim or cultureneeds a technological, institutional basis. The possibility to democratize the futureand the science of futures has been created by the microelectronic revolution of theneoconservative era. But its creation has not been at all democratic, its fulfilmentis full of controversies and its neoliberal ideology is in contrast with the new inter-national networks. So the extension of the participation process has needed leader-ship; however, it does not mean that the Euro-Atlantic mindset will or should directthe new world order. This era of Transition is already over, even if the new paradigmsare still part of the Transition itself.

Does methodology monopolize and colonize the future? Even if we accept that itexpresses a certain mindset, the answer is still no. Though the aim of methodologicalrenewal is to reveal different values and make them conscious, the renewal incorpor-ates a definite value as well, thus representing leadership within participation. Suchleadership is neither monopolization nor colonization because the methodologicalrenewal is a fluent process that gives place to different integrating values (such aspositivism, postmodernism and so on) depending on certain historic periods.

8. Qualitative versus quantitative methods

Dilemma five: Is it qualitative or quantitative methods that will be at the core ofmethodological renewal; and what is the role of information technology in therenewal?

In stable periods mathematical–statistical methods (even simpler trend analyses)were suitable for forecasting. Methods based on gathering experts’ opinions providedadequate guidance in the maze of the future. Even modelling methods, today con-sidered as classical, were successfully applicable, as they were reliable in judgingthe interaction of events and trends in which linear relations prevailed. Today thesemethods must be superseded. Unfolding new trends are no longer an organic conti-nuity of the past, nor are they the consequences of obvious turning points, since thefactors are connected in a complicated, non-linear determinism.

The new, evolving paradigms develop different groups of methods, owing to con-ceptual differences in their methodology. Evolutionary futures studies concentrateson model-creating methods, while the critical approach is much more involved inthe renewal of subjective methods [12]. Both paradigms emphasize future orientation,though evolutionary futures studies combines the different methods in evolutionarymodels and scenarios. Critical futures studies, however, arrives at subjective visionsof rational future options [13].

Evolutionary studies is also a good example for integrating the two types ofmethod. The general theory of evolution may indicate verbally the transition fromstability to instability, the setting in motion of the bifurcation mechanisms and the


domain of possible futures. Chaos theory, by outlining the emergence of differentnew situations amid circumstances of instability, not only guides us through thejungle of possible future courses/paths but also systematically generates them withits methods aiming at quantitativeness [14].

Qualitative and quantitative approaches cannot be separated mechanically. Thedevelopment of information technology shows that they are tightly interrelated.Microelectronics is not simply the technological basis of more effective usage of oldquantitative methods, but the basis of a new methodology in itself. Global modellingwas closer to the increasing efficiency of calculation; however, chaos theory hasmeant a qualitative change. In other words information technology serves a continu-ation of the previous social and world structures if it is no more than a modernizationof state and corporate administration for making them more effective. The aim ofEast-Central European countries is not a more effective Brussels centre but the possi-bility to express, to spread and to execute their visions.

The quantitative revolution as a qualitative change makes clear a future usage formultimedia, computer packages. The above “dilemmas” have explained that the issueof a CD-ROM containing a collection of methods cannot be used as an “anthology”.Methods are not receipts and not automatism. They are just means, and the futuristshould have knowledge of and responsibility for the means and purpose of their use.

9. Empirical versus theoretical experience

Dilemma six: What determines the utility of a given method: the empirical experi-ence or the theoretical framework?

Reliability is the yardstick for the quality and adequacy of all futures research andstudies. The concept of reliability is interpreted in different ways in futures studies.On the one hand reliability refers to the problem that forecasts can be checked onlypost hoc. On the other hand it refers to the responsibility of methodological analysisand the assessment of the database used in making the forecast or in expressingvisions.

Assessing the reliability of scientific statements is indeed an essentially more com-plex task in futures studies than in other fields of science in general. This stemsfrom the very core of futures studies, namely from the fact that we make assumptionsabout something that does not yet exist; or something that exists but has not yetsurfaced and it is not conscious. The reliability of a forecast is affected not only bythe subject of the research but also by the uncertainty contained in the pertainingknowledge. The notion of reliability in futures studies, therefore, is both objectiveand subjective. Like the process of cognition, reliability too can be interpreted onlyas a process, in the light of changes taking place in the object of the forecast andthe related knowledge, and on the basis of the growing field of knowledge.

Reliability in futures studies is a complex notion to be interpreted in its dynamics,which synthesizes the quantitative and qualitative assessment of changes in the fore-cast object, the knowledge needed to make the forecast and consequently, and theresults. It answers to what extent forecasts can serve as bases for decision-making


and to what extent they explore factors promoting progress. A forecast is reliable ifit has such quality inner content that makes for the best possible basis for decision-making and, with its assumptions and effects, serves progress or averts dangers asbest it can in the prevailing system of environmental conditions. And it needs a highprobability of materializing. This interpretation of the notion reflects that we linkthe reliability of forecasts, like the interpretation of forecasts, to the basing ofdecisions [15]. However, it is not minimum risk and maximum probability thatdecision making refers to, but the in-built ability to create alternative futures. Hencethe problem of reliability exceeds forecasting and remains as a core in all futuresstudies.

Empiricism, in this sense, is not the verification of futures studies research, butrather the adaptation of the methodology in given circumstances. Methodology deter-mines the values and the way of thinking, which become more or less stable in thelong run, while empirical experience results from the use of different methodsaccording to changes in cultures, time periods etc. All in all it is the theoreticalframework which determines the utility of the method; however it is the empiricalevidence which evaluates the correct, up-to-date realization of future visions. At thispoint we have returned to the first “dilemma”, thus closing the circle.

10. Conclusion

Futures studies as well as its methodologies can face the challenges of the new era.To break the Transition Paradox the renewal of methodology should be embedded inthe renewal of science. Although its elements are not yet coherent, futures studieshas a good chance of integrating the methodological renewal of other disciplines,thus becoming mainstream. Methods are not for outlining visions, but also for cre-ating their technological, institutional and other foundations so that they do notremain utopias.

Methodological renewal can be understood only in relation to the so-called Tran-sition Paradox. This draws attention to the fact that the investigation of the futureof futures studies and the study of global social–economic–technological institutionsare two sides of the same coin.

Methodological renewal contains two main elements. We have to make a differ-ence between methodological grounds and the methodological storehouse. Both needto be reviewed in order to make any survey on the futures of futures studies; howeverit is the cultural aspect, that is, values and paradigms expressed by methodologicalgrounds, that dominates the relationship of the two.

The main aspects of changing methodological grounds bring some core“dilemmas” to the surface. We have tried to summarize the essence of the ongoingchanges as well as the main ideas of difference. The discussion of methodologicalrenewal is as much a political as a cultural question. Hence the breakthrough of thepost-socialist countries needs deep theoretical clarification too. The derivation of themain issues is just one of many steps, and is what we offer for further discussion.See (Fig. 1).


References

[1] See e.g. Abraham R. Complex dynamical systems theory: Historical origins contemporary appli-cations. In: Laszlo E, editor. The new evolutionary paradigm; New York: Gordon & Breach; 1991.Allen PM. Coherence, chaos and evolution in social context, Futures; 1994, 6.; Laszlo E. The ageof bifurcation, New York: Gordon & Breach; 1991.; Loye D. Chaos and transformation: Implicationsof nonequilibrium theory for social science and society. In: Laszlo E, editor. op.cit.; Malaska P.Economic and social evolution: The transformation dynamics approach. In: Laszlo E, editor, op.cit.;Mannermaa M. In search of an evolutionary paradigm for futures research. Futures; 1989, 1.; Prigog-ine I. The philosophy of instability, Futures; 1989, 4.

[2] See e.g. Batra R. The downfall of capitalism and communism. Dallas: Venus Books; 1990. EislerR. Sacred pleasure. San Francisco: Harper Collins; 1996. Frank AG, Gills B. The world system:Five hundred years or five thousand. London: Routledge; 1996. Galtung J, Inayatullah S. Macrohis-tory and macrohistorians. New York: Praeger; 1997. Harmon W. Global mind change: The promiseof the last years of the 20th century. Indianapolis: Knowledge Systems; 1988. Henderson H. Para-digm in progress, knowledge systems, Inc., 1991. Inayatullah S. From ‘Who Am I?’ to ‘Where AmI?’: Futures: 1993; 3.

[3] Novaky E . On the Methodological Grounds of Futures Studies. Plenary lecture, and Novaky, E.Methodological Renewal in Futures Studies. In: Stevenson T. et al. editor. The Quest for the Futures,A Methodology Seminar in Futures Studies. Finland Futures Research Centre, Turku, 2001.

[4] Linking visioning to decision-making through culture and collective knowledge. In: Stevenson T.et al. editor. The Quest for the Futures, A Methodology Seminar in Futures Studies. Finland FuturesResearch Centre, Turku, 2001. Masini E. Rethinking futures studies in Sardar Z, editor. Rescuingall our futures, Twickenham: Adamantine Press; 1999. Levy P. L’intelligenza collettiva. Per un’an-tropologia del cyberspazio, Milano: Feltrinelli, 1996; Cited by Arnaldi.

[5] See e.g. Funtowitz, Silvio-Ravetz, Jerome. Emergent complew systems. Futures 1994;26(6). SardarZ. Islamic futures: The shape of ideas to come. London: Mansell; 1985. Milojevic I. Towards aknowledge base for faminist futures research. In: Slaughter R, editor. The knowledge base of futuresstudies. Melbourne: DDM; 1996.

[6] See e.g. Stevenson T. Anticipatory action learning: Conversations about the futures. Futures (inthis issue).

[7] See Mannermaa M. Multidisciplinarity in futures research: Forecasting and scenario methodologieslinked into a computer package, In: Stevenson T. et al. editor. The Quest for the Futures, A Method-ology Seminar in Futures Studies. Finland Futures Research Centre, Turku, 2001.

[8] See Novaky E. On the methodological ground of futures studies. Plenary lecture. Hideg E. Newparadigms for the study of the future. In: Stevenson T. et al. editor. The Quest for the Futures, AMethodology Seminar in Futures Studies. Finland Futures Research Centre, Turku, 2001.

[9] See Gaspar T. Multidisciplinarity — what can futures studies learn from economics? In: StevensonT. et al. editor. The Quest for the Futures, A Methodology Seminar in Futures Studies. FinlandFutures Research Centre, Turku, 2001.

[10] See Gervai P, Trautmann L. Az informacios tarsadalom gazdasagfilozofiai alapjai (The EconomicPhilosophy of the Information Society), Gaspar, T. Az informacios tarsadalom es a globalizacio(Information Society and Globalisation) In: Novaky, E, editor: Bevezetes az informacios tarsadal-omba (Introduction to Information Society), KIT Kepzo�mu�veszeti Kiado: Budapest; 1999.

[11] See Slaughter R. Beyond the mundane: Reconciling breadth and depth in futures enquiry. Futures(in this issue).; Novaky E, Gaspar T. Final report of The First Budapest Futures Course of theWFSF. In: Novaky E, Kristof T, editors: The youth for a less selfish future. Papers of the I. BudapestFutures Course. Department of Futures Studies, BUES: Budapest; 1999.

[12] See Inayatullah, Sohail. Casual Layered Analysis: poststructuralism as method. In: Stevenson T. etal. editor. The Quest for the Futures, A Methodology Seminar in Futures Studies. Finland FuturesResearch Centre, Turku, 2001. Rewrite as Futures, 30(8), 815-829, 1998

[13] See Hideg E. New paradigms: Evolutionary and/or Critical Futures Studies? In. Hideg E, editor:Posztmodern es evolucio a jovo�kutatasban (Postmodern and Evolutionary Ideas in Futures Studies),Department of Futures Studies, BUES: Budapest; 1998.


[14] See Novaky E. Methodological renewal in futures studies. In: Stevenson T. et al. editor. The Questfor the Futures, A Methodology Seminar in Futures Studies. Finland Futures Research Centre,Turku, 2001.

[15] See Novaky E. On the methodological ground of futures studies. In: Stevenson T. et al. editor. TheQuest for the Futures, A Methodology Seminar in Futures Studies. Finland Futures Research Centre,Turku, 2001.

dilemmas for renewal of futures methodology

Documents