edwards, m. g. (2008) every today was a tomorrow

This article was published in an Elsevier journal. The attached copyis furnished to the author for non-commercial research and

education use, including for instruction at the author’s institution,sharing with colleagues and providing to institution administration.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

FUTURESFutures 40 (2008) 173–189

‘‘Every today was a tomorrow’’: An integral method for indexingthe social mediation of preferred futures$

Mark G. Edwards�

Business School, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia

Available online 5 December 2007

Abstract

The visions we hold of the future, whether they are of utopias or dystopias, are not simply a matter of personal

imagination. Our conceptions of the future are mediated to us as much as they are privately created by us. To this point,

futures studies have not developed an integrative and broad-based framework for considering the social mediation of

futures. Understanding how social mediation impacts on our futures visioning requires an interpretive framework that can

cope with the multilayered nature of futures visions, the worldviews that are associated with them and a theory of

mediation that can be applied within such a context of ‘depth’. Using theory-building methodology, the current paper

attempts this task by describing a theory of social mediation that builds on the integral futures framework. An application

of the framework explores the relationship between various scenarios of health care futures, their associated worldviews

and the mediational factors that influence our visions of future health care systems.

r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Creating our shared future

A drawing by the Australian cartoonist, Michael Leunig, depicts a timid yet hopeful human figure marchingalong a pathway that is being laid down at his feet as he walks. The pathway is coming out of the top of thefigure’s head. It curls gracefully through the air, then circles down to become the path on which he expectantlytreads. The caption reads [1]:

Let it go. Let it out.Let it all unravel.Let it free and it can beA path on which to travel.

This beautiful image conveys a hopeful message of personal spontaneity and creative freedom that we mightall aspire to on our pathways into the future. We might also imagine a similar drawing with a hopefulcommunity of such figures creating a broad pathway into its own collective future. While such images portraya scenario of self-creation and of self-determined futures, the reality is that the pathways appearing before us

ARTICLE IN PRESS

www.elsevier.com/locate/futures

0016-3287/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.futures.2007.11.014

$Christopher Edwards, Grade 1, West Coast Steiner School.�Tel.: +61 08 9448 9246.

E-mail address: [email protected]


are not ones of our own independent creation. Nor should they be. Our future is a matter of shared revelationand co-construction. Clement Bezold draws a link between shared visions and the essential nature ofcommunity:

Creating a shared vision for community is essential. The vision, in this context, is the shared commitmentby community to the future it will create. Visioning processes ask the community to consider what is thebest that could be achieved to which community members would commit themselves to creating. [2, p. 467]

The pathways on which we tread hopefully into the future coalesce out of a myriad range of factors—localand global, natural and manmade, the expected and the unpredictable. Even though the future arises out of aninfinitely complex mix of occurrences, the sense-making process of stepping out into the imaginary is always acommunal one [3]. This means that others share in the creation of our future. To use the terminology of thecultural–historical school of human development, we can say that we are all involved in the shared mediationof our futures. The sunlit side of this perspective is that we co-create our visions of tomorrow and that theseimages shape our future realities. The shadow side is that powerful social organisations and institutions,dominant worldviews and controlling media will have a commensurate mediating influence on what weourselves consider to be our preferred futures. These mediating factors are powerful shapers of our individualand collective dreams, hopes and expectations of the future. Consequently, they are also pivotal in creatingour interpretations of present and past realities. Powerful agents of social mediation form as well as feed intothe plans and visions generated by what individuals and organisations regard as possible and even preferable.

In this paper, I want to develop an understanding of social mediation as it applies to futures studies. Whilethe power of the mediating image [4], and the role of influential social agents [5] have been frequentlyrecognised, to this point, futures studies has not developed an integrative framework for considering the socialmediation of futures. Understanding how social mediation impacts on our visioning of the future requires aninterpretive framework that can cope with the multilayered nature of futures visions, the worldviews that areassociated with them and a theory of mediation that can be applied within a critical and nonreductive contextof ‘depth’ [6]. Using theory-building methodology, I attempt this task by describing a theory of socialmediation that builds on the integral futures framework. An application of the framework explores therelationship between various scenarios of health care futures, their associated worldviews and the mediationalfactors that influence our visions of future health care systems.

2. Mediation—past, present and future

In the context of social change and development, mediation means something more than the standarddictionary definition of the activity of ‘‘an intermediate agent or mechanism’’ [7], or the relationship between‘‘two differing persons or things’’ [5]. Because humans possess reflexive consciousness, mediation not onlyrefers to the nature of what goes on between people—‘‘intermediate mechanisms’’—but also to the process ofco-creation between the social world and the internal world of ideas, feelings, and personal development.Mediation is an active process that transforms the agents involved. Quoting Vygotsky [8] on this issue,Wertsch and Alvarez [9] point out that we are thoroughly changed by the mediational means by which wecommunicate:

Mediational means such as language and technical tools do not simply facilitate forms of action that wouldotherwise occur. Instead, ‘‘by being included in the process of behaviour, the psychological tool alters theentire flow and structure of mental functions. It does this by determining the structure of a newinstrumental act, just as a technical tool alters the process of a natural adaptation by determining the formof labour operations’’.

Consequently, mediation is intimately involved in social transformation. The concept of social mediationcomes from the sociogenetic school of human development represented in the works of such pioneers as LevVygotsky, James Mark Baldwin, Josiah Royce and George Herbert Mead [10]. This perspective considersthat, ‘‘Inner consciousness is socially organised by the importation of the social organisation of the outerworld’’ [11, p. 406]. That importation occurs through the process of social mediation and, for this reason; thesocial dimension of consciousness is regarded as ‘‘primary in time and in fact’’ [12].

ARTICLE IN PRESSM.G. Edwards / Futures 40 (2008) 173–189174


One of the benefits of the sociogenetic approach is that it discloses the powerful links and immediaciesbetween the macro-world of social organisation and the micro-world of individual agency. Mediation drawsour attention to the social origin of personal processes. As another of Vygotsky’s students, Alexander Luria,puts it,

In order to explain the highly complex forms of human consciousness one must go beyond the humanorganism. One must seek the origins of conscious activity y in the external processes of social life, in thesocial and historical forms of human existence’’ [13, p. 25].

Social mediation has two major aspects. It provides (i) a clear explanation for how the social becomesinternalised within the personal, and (ii) it describes how those internalisations are related to thedevelopmental dynamics of human consciousness. In the first aspect, we have a rich theory for how thesocial becomes personal. That process involves cultural tools and artefacts, such as physical tools, gestures,but also cultural symbols, signs and language. This aspect of mediation focuses on the means by which anindividual developmentally internalises the social dimension of their environment over time. One ofVygotsky’s eminent students, Alexei Leontiev, summarises this view in saying that [14, p. 8],

Individual consciousness, as a specifically human form of the subjective reflection of objective reality, maybe understood only as the product of those relations and mediacies that arise in the course of theestablishment and development of society.

All social mediation is a cultural process passed on from one generation to another. As such, mediation is acollaborative affair, continuously reconstructed and adapted by the members of that social collective. Thedevelopment of mediational means is grounded within sociocultural practices [15]. The second aspect relates tothe internalisation of processes that were once mediated through external means. This internalisation becomesa self-reflexive process by which images, inner speech and mental operations mediate an individual’s ownexperiential existence. Here, an individual’s own subjective reality is mediated by his/her activity, perceptions,internal dialogues, memories and expectations [16].

Taken together these notions form a understanding that people both individually and collectivelyengage in a reciprocal process of identity building through mediating processes that are simultaneously‘‘context sensitive and context producing’’ [15]. In this sense, all memories and all imaginings are mediated.All our pasts and all our futures are brought into the present through the intercession of mediatinggo-betweens. Both foresight and hindsight are shaped by intervening means of communication andinterpretation. This is not only true at the personal level, where private worldviews and individual behavioursfilter and shape our particular readings of the past and future, but also, and perhaps even more significantly, atthe social level where collective myth, science, culture, social institutions, and the mass media create theirversions of the past and project their versions of the future. Our understanding of what is gone and what is yetto come is woven out of numerous, intermediating strands of such things as individual, group and institutionalsense-making, interpretive worldviews, natural events, cultural identities, empirical realities, historicaloccasions, and developmental imperatives. We sometimes recognise this in the private sphere of personal lifewhere consumer behaviour is so closely tied to the mediating dream world of advertising, but we do not sooften acknowledge the impact of mediation on our future visions within the organisational, national, andglobal levels of life.

3. Mediation and futures studies methods

All analytical methods concerned with tapping into what drives foresight and futures visioning needto take into account the impact of mediating factors. Commonly used futures methods such as scenariobuilding, trend analysis, Delphi methods and forecasting do not necessarily expose the underlying factorsthat set the boundaries of both content and context. They often simply create their plans and estimationswithout considering the cultural and epistemological factors that shape our understanding of what thefuture may hold. More recently, the concept of a multilayered social foresight has been proposed todescribe the emergent capacities involved in exploring futures [17]. Referring to this concept Haywardnotes [18],

ARTICLE IN PRESSM.G. Edwards / Futures 40 (2008) 173–189 175


The expression of foresight is mediated by the historical, cultural and social milieu in which it is practicedand what emerges is a ‘layering’ of foresight.

The same might be said for the expression of hindsight. There is really no single, monological, uniformlyshared history that might be called ‘‘the’’ past. Or, perhaps it might be more realistic to say that ‘‘the’’ past isalways a negotiated coalescence of multiple histories; a manifold past born of local histories, objectiverealities, grand historical movements, and cultural narratives. This does not mean that all histories are simplyimagined, but rather, that all history involves interpretative mediation. Just as there will always be numerousfutures for any present, there are also an abundant number of pasts from which we choose to make sense ofour current situation. Past, present and future influence and recreate each other and constitute anything butthe simple linear timeline that mechanistic worldviews would have us believe. As Slaughter states [19],

To put it briefly, our history, identity and achievements in the past affect our perception, understanding andfocus in the present which, in turn, influence our plans, projects and future goals. These connections areeven richer since the flow between them is multidirectional. For example, hopes or fears about futures maynot just affect the present, they may also cause one to reconsider aspects of past experience.

The views we have of our probable pasts and possible futures are neither interpretive nor empirical ‘‘givens’’that are simply presented to us in our experience of the present. Each encountered moment arises out of theconvergence of histories and prospects that come to us via mediating processes, entities and conditions, someof which we are aware and some of which we are not. Fig. 1 shows some of the mediating agents, i.e. the tools,technologies, and internalised capacities that channel the past and the future into the present. These mediatingagents can function at the micro level of personal memory and visions as well as at the macro level of collectivehistory and futures planning.

The past and the future are identical in so far as they are both continuously recreated in the present bymediating means. While our personal and communal accounts and remembrances of things past are groundedin observable empirical traces and convincing social agreements they are also, at precisely the same time,products of personal and cultural interpretation mediated by the interior and exterior realities we inhabit. Andso it is with our dreams and estimations about the future. There are multiple factors within both the privateand public realms that, in some way, mediate our visions of the future. These mediating influences are presentin formal futures research just as much as they are present in the informal sphere of private dreams.

Futurist Fred Polak’s book [4], ‘‘The Image of the Future’’ can be read as a catalogue of mediating artefactsthat have guided, inspired and deceived us in our visioning—the legends, myths, theologies, histories and

ARTICLE IN PRESS

PresentPast Future

Collective means of

mediating the past:

mass media, books, news,

internet, scientific knowledge,

oral histories, national sagas,

museums, cultural traditions,

commemorative events

Individual means of

mediating the past:

personal memories, physical

mementos, diaries,

heirlooms, photos, personal

narratives, family anecdotes,

written records, aging bodies

Collective means of

mediating the future:

government planning, movies,

corporate advertising, TV,

marketing, futures markets,

organizational goals, political

discourse,religious myths

Individual means of

mediating the future:

personal goals & plans, family

plans, day dreams, spiritual

beliefs, personal dedications &

resolutions, vocational callings,

personal visions & dreams

Fig. 1. The mediation of pasts and futures.

M.G. Edwards / Futures 40 (2008) 173–189176


political and economic reifications that have encouraged and constrained our deepest aspirations. Polakpoints out that the mediating ‘‘image of the future’’ images can ‘‘lead us on’’ to strive for futures that nurturewhat is best in us but can also tap into our meanest intents and can be manipulated to lower our vision to thenarrow fields of self-interested parochialism. Polak goes so far as to suggest that the analysis of mediatingimages provides a method for forecasting the future [4, p. 300].

The concept of the image of the future has made possible the move from diagnosis to prognosis. This ispossible because of the intimate relationship between the image of the future and the future. The image ofthe future can act not only has a barometer, but as a regulatory mechanism which alternatively opens andshuts the dampers on the mighty blast furnace of culture. It not only indicates alternative choices andpossibilities but actively promotes certain choices and in effect puts them to work in determining the future.A close examination of prevailing images, then, puts us in a position to forecast the probable future.

One of the implications of Polak’s view is that the control of collective images, mythologies, interpretiveframeworks, political discourse and shared worldviews, i.e. those social means of mediating visions of thefuture, can not only influence our choices but can also substantially determine what those choices might be.Research methods that analyse images of the future, such as preferred futures visioning [20], need to tackle thetask of uncovering the layers of mediation that promote certain kinds of futures over others. As with allcomplex social processes, collective means of mediating futures exist at a number of levels. Some relate tocosmetic issues such as what type of running shoe I might want to buy next week. Others can involve globalmatters concerning, for example, global warming or fair trade. Some images of the future significantlyinfluence individual choices while others determine international policies and multilateral agreements thatimpact on billions of lives.

Fig. 2 shows the iterative nature of this influence. Our preferred futures have a powerful influence on theactual direction that we focus our creative and material resources. These preferences are valuable commoditiesover which other social entities compete for positions of influence. For example, a future that values theconsumption of the latest technology has immense importance for organisations that produce high-techgadgets. Visions of futures framed within the assumptions of endless economic growth are of great importancefor certain political and organisational entities whose existence relies on such assumptions. Preferred futuresthat value global approaches to addressing environmental, ecological, and social concerns will attract theinterests of NGOs and community groups who seek to have input into alternative visions. These mediatingentities develop technologies, craft messages, implement strategies and build infrastructures that are designedto shape or, at least, significantly influence our preferred futures. The mediating means for doing this arenumerous and include those elements listed in the top right box of Fig. 1. These mediational means can also beseen in hierarchical terms, ranging from simple material tools and signs [21] all the way up to sophisticatedtechnological systems and ideologies [14]. Zinchenko [22] has developed an extensive model of mediation at

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Processes & entities

that mediate our

visions of the future

Our

Preferred

Futures

Our

Present

Fig. 2. The mediation of preferred futures.

M.G. Edwards / Futures 40 (2008) 173–189 177


the level of individual human development (see Fig. 3) and similar processes occur in the sphere of collectivedevelopment [23].

Collective forms of mediation, e.g. electronic media, economics structures and public policies, performprecisely the same role in the social sphere as signs, gestures, and symbols do in the personal sphere. They canopen up or, alternatively, severely limit our collective visions of the future in the same way that theexpectations we have for our personal lives influence the choices we make, the plans we develop and the visionswe nurture for our long-term future.

There are large-scale social changes that are dramatically increasing the importance of social mediation inthe collective spheres. First, the process of mediation becomes more important as the distance grows betweenthe agents involved. The sense of economic and political disempowerment and dislocation is growing in bothdeveloped and developing countries across the globe [24]. That distance creates a space where the role of mediabecomes ever more important. Second, as the complexity of the work, educational and informationalenvironments grows, people rely more heavily on channels of communication and sense-making that are easyto access, simpler to understand and more diversionary and entertaining. Various forms of mass media,especially electronic media, are once again moving to fill those functions in people’s lives. For many decades,organisations have recognised the crucial importance of the media as a tool of social communication andinfluence.

Given the importance of social mediation to the development of preferred futures, it is puzzling that futuresstudies has not devoted more attention to theory building in this area. In the following sections, I propose ageneral framework for conceptualising mediational processes within a futures studies context. To do this,I will draw on ideas from the emerging field of integral futures studies [19,25] and from the study of mediationin human development [26].

4. The mediation of depth

Mediation does not only occur at the level of conscious awareness. As depicted in Fig. 3, mediation alsooperates within multiple levels of contextual reference. For example, when we watch a movie or a play in atheatre, it is not only a specific plot and its characters that enter into our inner life. Primordial fears, myths,stereotypes, deep ambitions, desires and spiritual sensitivities also become internalised into the complex mix ofour interior world. Social exchange, even in the passive spaces of mass media and entertainment, is inherentlymultileveled. Consequently, mediation is as much about depth and the layering of the human psyche as it isabout the communication of information and news.

Several authors have drawn attention to the layered nature of interpretation in futures thinking [31]. Thefield of critical futures studies (CFS) has considered ways of systematically studying the depth dimension of

ARTICLE IN PRESS

PhysicalSign

FunctionalWord

Sense-makingBehaviour

CommunicativeSymbol

CollectiveMyth

ConceptualFrame

Sacred Art/Practice

Physical motion

Intentional operation

Self-consciousness act

Goal-directed activity

Social activity

Personal activity

Holistic activity

Spiritual activity

Th

e O

ve

rall

Dire

ctio

n o

f D

eve

lop

me

nt

Signposts ofDevelopment

MediationalMeans

Forms ofidentity

Undifferentiated

Corporal Ego

Membership Ego

Relational Ego

Independent Ego

Autonomous Ego

Spiritual Ego

Fig. 3. Mediation and personal development.



those powers, discourses, and interpretive frameworks that have formative influence over our collective visionsof the future [27–29]. CFS has drawn attention to the multilayered nature of this process and developed severalanalytical methods for unwrapping these layers [30,31]. The analysis of how futures views are mediatedrequires a critical focus that not only identifies the layers of social power involved but also an epistemologicalfocus that can uncover core assumptions. As Naismith explains,

Futures studies can be undertaken at a superficial level extrapolating trends, at a pragmatic level whichtends to be quite empirical and focused on particular problems, or at deeper epistemological or criticallevels that focuses on the assumptions that frame particular worldviews. [32]

The analysis of the mediation of preferred futures needs to involve at least these critical and epistemologicalcapacities. While the descriptive and structural analysis of social problems, trends, survey findings and the likeis important in gathering futures-related information, a much deeper analytical disclosure of worldviews,frames of reference and epistemologies is needed here. Moreover, I maintain that a systematic examination ofthe layers of social mediation is only possible at an integral level of analysis, i.e. one that not only considers‘‘particular worldviews’’ but how those worldviews relate to each other. It is only at this level of interpretivedepth that the fundamental drivers that shape our visions are disclosed. As such, integral theory offers a formof what is called a ‘‘generalised layered methodology (GLM) framework’’.

GLM enables the practitioner to seek greater interpretive depth and to progressively move to deeper levelsof understanding as new layers of meaning and sense-making are uncovered or constructed-to whateverdepth is necessary or appropriate given the nature of the foresight engagement. [19]

Fig. 4 shows the layers of analysis that are available to futures studies in the context of the social mediationof preferred futures [see also 30,31]. The surface level approach of simply documenting and describing the‘‘litany’’ of problems and popular conceptions of the future is facilitated by naı̈ve personal understandings andmass media. Deeper levels of analysis come from the application of conventional empirical approaches forresearching structural causes. The critical and epistemological levels delve into the interpretive layers ofexplanation. Finally, integral futures methods bring together multiple perspectives and levels of analysis into acoherent framework for uncovering and situating the truths of as many approaches as possible. The followingsection outlines how an integral futures approach can explore the impact of social mediation on our images ofthe future.

5. Integral theory ‘‘lenses’’ and futures studies

A detailed introduction to integral theory and its relevance for futures studies has previously been providedby Richard Slaughter [33]. In that paper, Slaughter describes the basic elements of integral theory and their

ARTICLE IN PRESS

The “Litany” approach:simple documenting and

extrapolating from trends & surveys

Possible and

Preferred

Futures

The “Structural” approach:searching for causes, analysing

policy, applying conventional theory

The “Critical” approach:questions frames of interpreting &

legitimating discourses

The “Epistemological”approach: considers fundamentalassumptions and forms of knowing

The “Integral” approach:considers all levels ranging from

popular to the systematic

Postmodern theory,

qualitative research

Integrated metatheory, &

mixed research methods

Surface level

Systems level

Paradigm level

Multiparadigm

level

Metatheoretical

level

Multiparadigm theory,

mixed methods

Mainstream theory,

quantitative research

Naïve theory and

mass media

Fig. 4. Layers of analysis in futures studies.



potential application to futures research. Readers may refer to that paper for more information regarding thebasic elements of the theory. The following discussion concentrates on the particular features of integraltheory relevant to the topic of the social mediation of preferred futures.

Integral theory, as developed largely by the American philosopher Ken Wilber [34], is a theory-buildingendeavour that attempts to integrate as many valid systems of knowledge as possible into an inclusive,metatheoretical framework. This endeavour is not a synthetic one, in that it attempts to superficially unify theplurality of views, rather, integral theorists use a method of integral pluralism to acknowledge the multiplicityof perspectives [19]. The aim of applying this method is to develop conceptual frameworks for criticallyexamining the contributions as well as the limitations of specific theories and traditions of knowledgeacquisition.

For the purposes of this paper, it is useful to consider integral theory as a system of analytical lenses (criticalframes of reference) that can provide a clearer, more comprehensive picture of social occasions. Table 1 liststhe major lenses currently used in integral approaches, including some that I have recently proposed. Inseveral publications [35–37], I have added to the integral toolkit a number of conceptual lenses that have notbeen previously accommodated, in particular the learning lens (integral cycle of knowledge/learning) and thesocial mediation lens.

The conceptual lenses described in Table 1 combine to form powerful tools for thinking about social events.For example, Wilber frequently crosses the interior–exterior and individual-collective dimensions to form hiswell-known ‘‘Four Quadrants’’ model. The quadrants model can be combined with other lenses, such as thetransformational change lens (the spectrum model) and the developmental lines lens, to derive various formsof Wilber’s ‘‘All-Quadrants, All Levels’’ (AQAL) framework [37]. Another example of how these lenses can becreatively linked is seen in the work of Bradbury and Lichtenstein [38]. These organisational theorists cross theperspectives lens with the interior–exterior dimension to form a model of organisational relationality. In anambitious attempt to bring multiple lenses together into an integrated meta-system, I have amalgamatedseveral lenses to form, what I describe as, the ‘‘integral holon’’ [36]. These are all examples of the flexibility ofintegral metatheorising model in analysing social situations.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Conceptual lenses used in Integral metatheory

Integral theory lens (conceptual frame of

reference)

Lens description and domain of application

1. Perspectives lens Focuses on 1st, 2nd and 3rd person accounts in both their singular and plural

settings; discloses the subjective, relational and objective worlds

2. The interior–exterior lens Recognises subjective (tangible) and objective (intangible) realities; discloses

relations between the world of consciousness and the world of behaviour

3. The individual–collective lens (multilevel or

micro–, meso–, macro lens)

Provides a window on the micro-world of personal events, the meso-world of

group events, and the macro-world of socio-cultural events; situates human

activity within the spectrum of ecological environments—micro, meso and macro

4. The developmental lens of levels/stages Discloses the spectrum of developmental stages (paradigm changes) in the

personal and collective

5. The streams lens (domains or lines) Recognises the various domains of development; discloses the complex world of

multidimensional development

6. The agency–communion lens Is sensitive to unifocal, self-directed realities and multifocal, other-centred,

communal realities; discloses agentic and relational identities

7. The lens of transformational and

translational change

Sees the distinction between transformational change and translational change;

discloses the need for both hierarchical and heterarchical understandings of

change

8. The transition process lens Recognises the validity of evolutionary and integrative dynamics; discloses the

world of growth and integrative sustainability

9. The learning lens Recognises the validity of single-, double- and triple-loop learning; discloses the

world of learning through action, reflection, interpretation and validation

10. The lens of social mediation Opens up the world of social mediation and the sociogenetic sources of

consciousness and behaviour



Of particular importance in our discussion of mediation and the creation of our visions of the future is thenotion of integral perspectives. The importance of perspectives in the discussion of human social relations hasbeen a consistent feature of the organisational theory of Bill Torbert [39]. Wilber [40] has also described howthe perspectival structure of language, as represented in the use of first, second and third person pronouns intheir single and plural forms, provides a window into a fundamental characteristic of reality [40, para. 259].

perspectives y are embedded in all major natural languages—namely, first person (singular: I; plural: we);second person (singular: you; plural: you/we); and third person (singular: him, her, it; plural: they,them, its).

These lenses are relevant to the present discussion in that they disclose fundamental paradigms forconceptualising social realities. Because of this, these integral lenses tap into the worldviews that structure ourinterpretations of reality. Integral analyses of social events have, to this point, focused on the developmentallevels identified through the transformation lens as the primary generators of worldviews [see 41]. Slaughterhas drawn attention to the importance for futures studies of the integral analysis of the spectrum of socio-cultural worldviews [33]. However, levels of transformation are not the only way of configuring a model ofworldviews using integral metatheory principles. Fundamental paradigms and worldviews can also beidentified and analysed using the other lenses listed in Table 1.

A basic matrix of worldviews, derived from the ten integral lenses described above, is presented in Table 2(in the form of ideal types). The worldviews correspond to the defining elements of each of those lenses. Forexample, the individual-collective lens is defined by the distinction between individuals and groups. Thecorresponding worldviews for this lens are those that see the causal source of social events in terms of thosedistinctions. The ideal type of the ‘‘individualist’’ worldview sees the individual person as the causal means forachieving worthwhile social goals. They also see the behaviour and/or attitudes of individuals as the cause ofsocial ills. Consequently, the mediational means by which they hope to achieve their preferred futures alwaysinvolve the targeting of individuals (and individual groups, e.g. families) and the denial or neglect of collectives(and collective networks, e.g. unions). In contrast, ‘‘collectivist’’ worldviews do the same with groups. Theirpathways to the future target collectives through social policies and tend to underplay the importance of themicrolevel of individuals and family units.

Moving on from the worldviews associated with the individual-collective lens, we can also identifycommensurate sets of worldviews through the interior–exterior, individual–collective and evolution–involu-tion lenses. The interior–exterior dimension identifies worldviews that are definite by a focus on either theintangible (subjective) or the tangible (objectives) aspects of reality. The individual–communal dimensionrefers to worldviews that focus on either the individual person or the collective group. The evolution–involu-tion dimension relates to a regard for, on the one hand, expansion and transcendent growth or, on the otherhand, healing, sustainability and integration.

Healthy forms of worldviews hold in balance the interior and exterior, the agentic and communal, and theevolutionary and involutionary aspects of life. When any of these basic worldviews are seriously imbalancedand a social entity experiences, behaves and interprets life through this distorted ‘‘lens’’ then some form ofsocial pathology ensues. For example, when a social system develops a bias towards the exteriors and does notnourish its interiors or acknowledge the interiors of others, we see the pathological forms of materialism andpositivism. Wilber has called one form of this exteriorism pathology ‘‘Flatland’’ [42] and rightly points out thecatastrophic impact that such distortions in the collective spiral have on all individuals and collectives that arecaught up in its biased and imbalanced worldview. We might also say that interiorist pathologies are alsoapparent in individuals and collectives for example, in some aspects of the New Age movements and quietistanti-social sects that focus entirely on interior transcendent worlds. More importantly, a type of interioristpathology is probably behind much of the withdrawal from active community and political participation thatis so characteristic of contemporary life. Similarly, Wilber has described the worldview pathologies that resultfrom an imbalance in the growth-integration dynamics. When the evolutionary progressivism pole isdominant the result is the dissociative pathologies of the other-worldly ‘‘Ascenders’’ [see 43, for a discussion ofthis ‘‘growth’’ pathology in economics]. When there is a bias to the involutionary regressivism pole then theretrograde pathologies of this-worldly ‘‘Descenders’’ results [44].


Author's personal copyARTIC

LEIN

PRES

S

Table 2

Integral lenses and fundamental worldviews

Integral lens Corresponding worldviews

1. Perspectives First person: values independence, self-focus, and self-

agency

Second person: values

relationality, family,

communal processes

Third person: values science, the big picture, the objective

world

2. Interior–exterior Interior: experiential, interpretive, artistic Exterior: material, functional, behavioural

3. Individual–collective Individual: worldviews that see the individual as the source of good and bad Collective: worldviews that see groups as the source of all good and bad

4. Development levels The spectrum of developmental worldviews

Physiocentric, Egocentric, Ethnocentric, Sociocentric, Worldcentric, Kosmocentric

5. Developmental lines Worldviews related to particular developmental lines

Needs line Spirituality

line

Economic

line

Technological line

6. Transformation

translation

Transformation: see change in terms of qualitative shifts in a hierarchy Translation: see change in terms of conservatism, status quo, stability

7. Agency–communion Agency: masculine, directive, unifocal, top-down leadership, competitive Communal: feminine, networking, consultative, bottom-up leadership

8. Growth–integration Growth: interprets all social events in terms of the need for growth and

expansion

Integration: interprets all social events in terms of the need for integrative

health

9. Learning Worldviews related to learning styles

Active Reflective Interpretive Validative

10. Mediation Unmediated: interprets experience, activity and development as unmediated Mediated: interprets experience, activity and development as mediated,

socialised

M.G

.E

dw

ard

s/

Futu

res40

(2008)

173

–189

182


A similar logic can be followed to generate ideal types of worldviews for each of the other integral lenses(see Table 3). For bipolar lenses that there are three ideal types of worldviews that can be identified—the twoextremes ends and the position of balance that represents a middle way. This middle position recognises thevalidity of both ends of the worldview dimension. The extreme worldview positions represent forms of socialpathology that might also be regarded as a type of worldview reductionism. For example, in theindividual–collective dimension the extreme positions of individualism and collectivism are reductionistworldviews that ultimately do not achieve their desired ends and often result in unhealthy outcomes. Themiddle position, i.e. one that includes strategies aimed at both individual (micro) and collective (macro) levelsof society, avoids these extremes and engages with multiple levels of social causation.

Various combinations of these lenses can be used for indexing the fundamental worldviews of agentsinvolved in the social mediation of futures. This integral indexing of worldviews and their associated

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 3

Forms of pathological reductionism in social worldviews

Integral lens Type of basic

reductionism

Examples of pathological reductionism

1. Perspectives First person Egocentrism, consumerism, social dislocation

Second person Co-dependency, the ‘‘rescuer’’ syndrome, enmeshment

Third person Scientism, dissociated abstractionism, social indifference

2. Interior–exterior Interiorism Social disengagement, voter apathy, solipsism, New Ageism, some

fundamentalist movements, quietism

Exteriorism Wilber’s Flatland, radical behaviourism, physicalism, narrow

empiricism, logical positivism, materialism

3. Individual–collective Individualism Thatcherism, market capitalism, laissez faire economics, rational

economics, ‘‘war on’’ drugs/terror

Collectivism Communism, National socialism, cultural and political

totalitarianism, military institutions

4. Developmental levels Pre-Rational Hedonism, physical/sexual addiction, body and sensory

infatuation, fundamentalism, literalism, lack of critical culture, the

descenders

Rational Dissociative rationalism, extreme scepticism, extreme secularism,

Trans-Rational Spiritualism, elevationism, spiritual escapism, spiritual

consumerism, the Ascenders, physical and mental mortification

5. Stream/lines Lines of development Line absolutism, over-specialisation

6. Transformation–translation Transformational

growth

Pathological forms of the spectrum of development stages, e.g.,

fundamentalism, secularism, relativism, developmentalism

Translational growth Legitimisation of status quo, lack of risk taking, excessive

resistance to change

7. Agency–communion Agency Egocentrism, domineering boss, the CEO as saviour

Communion The indecisive boss, leaderless organisations

8. Growth–integration Evolutionism (the

Ascenders)

‘‘Growth fetish’’, corporate expansionism, self-development fads,

personal makeovers, pathological consumption

Involutionism (the

Descenders)

The desire for romantic fantasy, hedonism, morbid nostalgia,

regressivism, pre-forms of anarchism, anti-development

9. Knowledge and learning Injunctive Methodological reductionism, learning by rote, positivism

Reflective Solipsism, mentalism, rationalism

Interpretive Interpretivism, deconstructionism

Validative Social constructionism, parochialism

10. Mediation Reality as mediated ‘‘Media blame’’, abrogation of personal responsibility

Reality as unmediated Emergentism, developmentalism



pathologies makes available a means for identifying the patterns by which we construe or misconstrue ourpasts, interpret or misinterpret our present and enable or disable our futures. In particular, the grouping of themediation lens with other integral lenses can provide a method for mapping the social development ofpreferred futures. In the following section, the area of healthcare futures provides an example of how thismight be done.

6. An example application of the method in health care services

The future of health care is one of the most pressing public issues that countries are facing across the globe.Health care is one of those areas where futures research is particularly relevant. Spiralling costs and theintergenerational nature of changes in health systems combine to place health care firmly on the list of criticalfutures issues. Health care scenarios also have implications for broader questions about our future. Forexample, health futures often invoke issues concerning personal well being, social inequality and priorities ingovernment spending. Clement Bezold points out that [45, p. 925],

[Health futures] is often used to provoke us into thinking about futures that could be dramaticallydifferent—both because the future often turns out that way and to give us the option of considering whatwe would want to create which might be far better than today.

Health is also a major battleground between many important and powerful social organisations andagencies. One of the notable features of media reports on the increasing incidence of obesity is the conflictbetween health ministers, food company representatives, advertising agencies, parent groups and community-based health organisations. There are many players within society wanting to influence personal and publicvisions of our health futures. This situation is likely to become more intense as public resources becomescarcer. Underlying these conflicts lies a number of fundamental worldviews each battling to achieve priority.In introducing a special issue of ‘‘Futures’’ journal dedicated to this topic, Bezold points towards twofundamentally different health futures, each contesting for a dominant place in the minds of legislators, healthleaders, insurance agencies and health consumers.

Health futures will grow in importance as healthcare spending remains at 6–18% of the GNPs of developedcountries. Healthcare touches all of us. And health-care systems face major strategic choices, not the leastof which is where whether health-care will focus on health promotion and health gains, or limit itself toafter-the-fact treatment of symptoms [45, p. 924].

The two scenarios mentioned here, clinical treatment and health promotion, represent two very differentways of thinking about health, two very different worldviews and values systems. On one hand, we have valuesof individualism, personal choice, deregulation and the free market and on the other, we have collectivism,social responsibility, regulation and the fair market. Of course, the reality is that a mix of these values can alsobe present in people’s images of health futures. However, at the macro-level of politics and infrastructure, anation’s social and material resources are channelled towards one option among several, and those optionsreflect a consistent ideological and values base. Organisations, stakeholders and interest groups alignthemselves with particular scenarios to further their own interests and those of their members. Alternativeworldviews go largely unnoticed in the public eye simply because they lack mediational power. That is, theystruggle to have a presence in all those public forums, such as electronic and print media, advertising, popularculture and political forums that convey and contextualise the options that are available to us.

Bezold goes on to describe how the study of health futures can help to create new visions through theapplication of such research tools as scenario building and vision development.

Health futures can provide effective tools for confronting these choices. y Scenarios will continue to be apopular tool for summarising the inherent uncertainty and for pressing our thinking beyond currentconventions. Vision development and other public participation tools will likewise be important forreminding us that we do create our futures and we can cooperatively dream, envision and inspire ourselvesto create far better futures. [45, p. 924]



While such methods are invaluable for researching alternative visions, what is left out of this picture is theunderstanding that futures methods must not only ‘‘remind us that we do create our futures’’ but perform theepistemological task of examining how those visions are interpreted and mediated at the societal level. Thisfunction pertains to the level of futures studies methods that are concerned with the connections betweencollective and individual systems of meaning making and intersubjectivity, what Richard Slaughter calls‘‘epistemological futures work’’. Applying the model of integral lenses and the concept of worldviews allows usto analyse the social mediation of health futures at this epistemological level to which Slaughter refers. Thefollowing provides an example of this method.

In a paper design to ‘‘stimulate public debate on healthcare values’’ William Rowley [46] presents three‘‘value driven scenarios’’ of health futures for the United States of America. The scenarios are as follows [46]:

Scenario 1: The best health service science can deliver‘‘Amazing diagnostics, drugs and procedures make prevention and comprehensive management of chronic

disease part of everyday medicine in 2025. Success breeds high expectations, and healthcare remains theeconomic engine of market-based economy, consuming 22 percent GDP y [However] the best of science andfree market place have failed to deliver health-care system that serves all Americans well.’’

Values base: ‘‘prevention is scientific’’, ‘‘behaviour modification’’, wide range of drugs andnutraceuticals’’, ‘‘market place resistant to policy initiatives’’, ‘‘individuals look for medicalsolutions’’, ‘‘computer simulations’’, ‘‘aggressive science’’, ‘‘wellness y with a focus onmeaningful quality-of-life is not viewed as realistic or effective’’, ‘‘the driver for effectivedisease management is technology’’, ‘‘physician-patient relationship is mechanical’’, ‘‘medi-cine remains a private enterprise-based system’’, ‘‘93 million without insurance coverage’’.

Scenario 2: Health for all‘‘American medicine is more caring, accessible and equitable than virtually any other system. Every

American is entitled to a basic tier of comprehensive health care, funded by the government. y Thissurprising transformation only occurred because of a health care crisis.’’

Values base: ‘‘a solution that was equitable’’, ‘‘focused on needs rather than profits’’, ‘‘publicdebate on healthcare values’’, ‘‘independent commission citizen input’’, ‘‘listen special-interestinfluence’’, ‘‘shared employer-employee payroll tax’’, ‘‘tax credits for y lifestyle changes’’,‘‘provided primary through private enterprise with competition’’, ‘‘insurance withered’’,‘‘slowed development of new pharmaceuticals’’, ‘‘proactive steps to maintain well-being’’,‘‘efficient delivery’’, ‘‘cooperation, openness’’, ‘‘WE’’ will create a powerful healing system’’,‘‘openness to admit and learn from mistakes’’, ‘‘prevention’’, ‘‘teams of providers collaborate’’,‘‘science and religion combined’’, ‘‘health of the society and the whole planet’’

Scenario 3: Americans choose healthy life‘‘Over the past 22 years healthcare was transformed into a shrinking industry focused on treating diseases

and an exciting new ‘healthy life’ industry, which is devoted to promoting health and well-being with theresulting elimination of disease y In 2025 almost one half of health expenditures are for healthy life.’’

Values base: ‘‘creating health and well-being’’, ‘‘done through their beliefs, Lords, andactions, which a powerful in creating reality’’, ‘‘basic science research y on health and well-being’’, ‘‘eliminate diseases through beliefs, health behaviour, and preventative therapies’’,‘‘money was being spent on wellness’’, ‘‘the life coach’’, ‘‘focused on creating health’’,‘‘enhancing physical, mental, and spiritual well-being’’, ‘‘enhancing health, not reacting todiseases’’, ‘‘people had to pay all the costs’’, ‘‘many people are uninsured’’,



The values that underlie the scenarios give indications about the worldviews involved in each of the threevisions of healthcare futures. It should be noted that the present case is for exemplary purposes and that arigorous application of the model would require far more detailed information for the indexing of worldviews.Table 4 categorises these values according to an integral metatheory model of worldviews.

In Table 4 we see that scientific and market driven vision of scenario 1 is characterised by worldview ofindividualism, exteriorism, technology and the third-person perspective of science. To a large extent, thisworldview dominates the current health systems of many nations. In varying degrees, the other scenarios offera more balanced conception of a healthcare future that is holistic, collective/community focused andpreventative. The exercise of performing an integral indexing of worldviews opens the way up for a furtheranalysis of the agents involved in the mediation of preferred healthcare futures. We can now go on to ask suchquestions as:

� What types of worldviews are being mediated by special interests group?� How do the worldviews of mediating agents influence public (or government) preference for one health care

future over another?� How do the particular worldviews of mediating agents align with those of other interest groups?� Do the worldviews of mediating agents rely on reductive assumptions or are they possessed balanced

worldviews regarding health issues?� Will the worldviews of the mediating agents be threatened by particular health scenarios?� How are popular worldviews influenced by those of mediating agents?

The method described in the foregoing opens up a futures studies capacity for critically examining suchissues. An integral metatheoretical approach to the mediation of preferred health futures has the potential torespond to such questions from a perspective of depth as well as breadth [17]. It includes paradigms from boththe interpretive as well as the behavioural domains of science. It includes micro-level paradigms that deal withthe psychological and macro-level paradigms that take a sociological perspective. More importantly, these andother perspectives are situated within a cohesive conceptual framework. Each of the lenses described here canbe applied in great detail and, particularly when used in combination, they provide powerful means foranalysing the complex processes involved in the mediation of futures visions. Fig. 5 represents the influence ofmediating agents on the selection of preferred health futures. Pathways to preferred futures are designed andimplemented under the ongoing influence of multiple mediating agents. In turn, these agents operate fromparticular worldviews and each of them has a stake in the type of future that is ultimately selected.

The process by which futures are mediated through social environments is a complex and iterative one.Fig. 5 suggests that the pathways we build towards our preferred futures are co-constructed by many socialagents and that these need to be as transparent as possible to critical analysis. The capacity for futures studies

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 4

Integral indexing of worldviews for three health futures scenarios

Integral lens Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Science/free market Health for all Choose healthy life

1. Perspectives Third person plural Multiperspectival 1st and 2nd person singular

2. Interior–exterior Exterior Balanced Balanced

3. Individual–collective Individual Balanced Individual

4. Developmental levels Physical, emotional, mental

egocentric/ethnocentric

Physical, emotional, mental,

worldcentric

Physical, emotional, mental,

spiritual health, sociocentric

5. Developmental lines Financial, technological Technological, interpersonal,

futures-oriented, ethical

Technological, interpersonal,

ethical, futures-oriented

6. Agency–communion Agentic Balanced Agentic

7. Transform/translate Translational Balanced Balanced

8. Growth/integration Growth Balanced Growth

9. Learning Injunctive, instrumental Balanced Balanced

10. Social mediation Unmediated Balanced Unmediated



to analyse the mediational processes involved in the construction of these pathways is crucial. As with thecartoon figure described at the beginning of this essay, mediation transforms consciousness and that, in turn,opens up new vision of what we regard as possible and preferable.

While the mediation of preferred futures is the result of both micro and macro level processes, it is alsoarguable that powerful organisational entities are becoming increasingly influential in mediating the culturalworldviews that shape our visions of the future. Organisations are entering times of increasing complexity andpace of change. Management theorist Dana Lightman has coined the word ‘‘raplexity’’ to describe thehyperactive environments in which many businesses currently operate. In response, organisations aredeveloping sophisticated means for developing capacities of foresight, adaptive learning and long-termplanning. Organisations also react to the uncertainty and unpredictability of change through attempting toinfluence our future visions and the pathways that will lead us there. Political and corporate worlds are caughtbetween, on the one hand, the need to develop transformative capacities and, on the other, the desire tomaintain the status quo in spite of changing realities. Influencing our assumptions about what tomorrow mayhold is one most powerful means that organisations have in determining what their futures will look like. Coalmining companies and car manufacturers have a vested interest in maintaining our current relaxed attitudetowards global warming. If, ‘‘different values lead to different futures’’ as Rowley suggests, it follows thatmaintaining the conventional values that dominate public life will lead to similar futures, or at least that’swhat many institutions and organisations seem to hope. However, in wanting to maintain worldviews thatsupport unsustainable economic and social practices, organisations are placing at risk our capacity to developmore balanced and integrated views of the future.

7. Conclusion

I have described here an integral method for analysing the worldviews involved in the social mediation ofpreferred futures. Considering such issues requires us to consider the impact of powerful social agents on thedirections we set for our local and global communities. Achieving some influence over our communal andsocial vision setting is a prime objective for many individuals and organisations. This is true for both privateand public sectors. It is true for government, commercial, not-for-profit, and community-based organisations.All visions of the future and products of foresight carry with them personal and cultural predilections that arenot often explicitly stated. The integral indexing of worldviews provides a means for analysing how imagined

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Pharmaceutical

companies

Scenario 1OR

Scenario 2OR

Scenario 3

Current visions

of our future

health system

Materialistic worldviewsfrom popular media

Medical education & training

Medical Technology industry

Mediating agentsfor Scenario 1

Mediating agentsfor Scenarios 2 & 3

Conservative political groups

Clinical medicine interest groups

General medicine interest groups

Community organisations

Alternative worldviews frompublic media & internet

Sustainable worldviews

Public health groups

Holistic & Spiritual worldviews

Progressive political groups

Pathways to Preferred Futures

Individualist worldviews

Our futurehealth system

Fig. 5. Mediating agents for alternative scenarios of health care futures.



futures are given substance and significance in the present. They provide a powerful set of tools that allow usto, as Sohail Inayatullah puts it [30], ‘‘look beneath the surface of social life, social being, and collectively dealwith the hidden realities and commitments that are found there’’.

References

[1] M. Leunig, Short Notes from the Long History of Happiness, Penguin, Melbourne, 1996.

[2] C. Bezold, Alternative futures for communities, Futures 31 (5) (1999) 465–473.

[3] A.N. Christakis, K.C. Bausch, How People Harness Their Collective Wisdom And Power to Construct the Future, Information Age

Publishing, Greenwich, CT, 2006.

[4] F. Polak, The Image of the Future, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1973.

[5] J. Collier, L. Wanderley, Thinking for the future: global corporate responsibility in the twenty-first century, Futures 37 (2–3) (2005)

169–182.

[6] S. Inayatullah, Reductionism or layered complexity? The futures of futures studies, Futures 34 (3–4) (2002) 295–302.

[7] American-Heritages, Dictionary of the English Language, 2000.

[8] L.S. Vygotsky, The instrumental method in psychology, in: J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology,

Armonk, New York, 1981.

[9] J.V. Wertsch, P. Del Rio, A. Alavarez, Sociocultural studies: history, action, and mediation, in: J.V. Wertsch, P. Del Rio, A. Alavarez

(Eds.), Sociocultural Studies of Mind, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.

[10] I. Markova, The development of self-consciousness: Baldwin, Mead, and Vygotsky, in: J.E. Faulconer, R.N. Williams (Eds.),

Reconsidering Psychology: Perspectives from Continental Philosophy, Duquesne University Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1990.

[11] G.H. Mead, The mechanism of social consciousness, Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 9 (1912) 401–406.

[12] L.S. Vygotsky, Consciousness as a problem in the psychology of behaviour, in: N. Schmolze (Ed.), Undiscovered Vygotsky: Etudes

on the Pre-history of Cultural-Historical Psychology, Peter Lang Publishing, 1925/1999.

[13] A.R. Luria, in: J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), Language and Cognition, Wiley, New York, 1981.

[14] A.N. Leontiev, Activity and Consciousness. Philosophy in the USSR, Problems of Dialectical Materialism, Progress Publishers,

New York, 1977.

[15] S.P. Doehler, Mediation revisited: the interactive organization of mediation in learning environments, Mind, Culture and Activity 9

(1) (2002) 22–42.

[16] J.V. Wertsch, Mind as Action, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998.

[17] R.A. Slaughter, Beyond the mundane: reconciling breadth and depth in futures enquiry, Futures 34 (6) (2002) 493.

[18] P. Hayward, The Lineage of Foresight, Foresight International, Brisbane, 2005.

[19] R.A. Slaughter, Futures Beyond Dystopia: Creating Social Foresight, Routledge Falmer, London, 2004.

[20] R. Eckersley, Dreams and expectations: young people’s expected and preferred futures and their significance for education, Futures

31 (1) (1999) 73–90.

[21] S.P. Witte, C. Haas, Research in activity: an analysis of speed bumps as mediational means, Written Communication 22 (2) (2005)

127–165.

[22] V.P. Zinchenko, Developing activity theory: the zone of proximal development and beyond, in: B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and

Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1996.

[23] A. Stetsenko, Activity as object-related: resolving the dichotomy of individual and collective planes of activity, Mind, Culture and

Activity 12 (1) (2005) 70–88.

[24] R.J. Pranger, Melancholia, disempowerment, and American policy, Society 35 (2) (1998) 225–230.

[25] J. Voros, Reframing environmental scanning: an integral approach, Foresight 3 (6) (2001) 533–552.

[26] F. Newman, L. Holzman, Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary Scientist, Routledge, London, 1993.

[27] S. Inayatullah, Deconstructing and reconstructing the future: predictive, cultural and critical epistemologies, Futures 22 (2) (1990)

115–141.

[28] R.A. Slaughter, Futures studies as an intellectual and applied discipline, The American Behavioral Scientist 42 (3) (1998) 372.

[29] J. Ogilvy, Scenario Planning, Critical Theory and the Role of Hope, Foresight International, Brisbane, 2005.

[30] S. Inayatullah, Causal layered analysis: poststructuralism as method, Futures 30 (8) (1998) 815–829.

[31] J. Voros, A generalised ‘‘layered methodology’’ framework, Foresight: the Journal of Futures Studies, Strategic Thinking and Policy

7 (2) (2005) 28–40.

[32] L. Naismith, A Critical Comparison of Futures Studies and Knowledge Management Approaches, Foresight International, Brisbane,

2005.

[33] R.A. Slaughter, Integral Futures—A New Model for Futures Enquiry and Practice, Foresight International, Brisbane, 2005.

[34] K. Wilber, A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science and Spirituality, Shambhala, Boston, 2000.

[35] M.G. Edwards, The way up is the way down: integral sociocultural studies and cultural evolution, ReVision 24 (3) (2002) 21–31.

[36] M.G. Edwards, A future in the balance: integral theory and global developmental pathologies, in: R. Slaughter (Ed.), Knowledge

Base of Futures Studies Volumes Three: Directions and Outlooks, Foresight International, Brisbane, 2005.

[37] M.G. Edwards, The integral holon: a holonomic approach to organisational change and transformation, Journal of Organizational

Change Management 18 (3) (2005) 269–288.



[38] H. Bradbury, B.M.B. Lichtenstein, Relationality in organizational research: exploring the space between, Organization Science 11 (5)

(2000) 551.

[39] W.R. Torbert, Transforming social science: integrating quantitative, qualitative and action research, in: F.T. Sherman, W.R. Torbert

(Eds.), Transforming Social Inquiry, Transforming Social Action: New Paradigms for Crossing the Theory/Practice Divide in

Universities and Communities, Kluwer, Boston, 2000.

[40] K. Wilber, Excerpt A from the Kosmos Trilogy, vol. 2, An Integral Age at the Leading Edge, 2003.

[41] K. Wilber, Integral Psychology: Consciousness, Spirit, Psychology, Therapy, Shambhala, Boston, 2000.

[42] K. Wilber, A Brief History of Everything, Shambhala, Boston, 1996.

[43] C. Hamilton, The Growth Fetish, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 2003.

[44] K. Wilber, Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution, Shambhala, Boston, 1995.

[45] C. Bezold, The future of health futures, Futures 27 (9–10) (1995) 921–925.

[46] W.R. Rowley, Healthcare 2025: alternative views and underlying values, Foresight: the Journal of Futures Studies, Strategic Thinking

and Policy 5 (5) (2003) 16.

Mark Edwards is a psychologist and has a background in applied developmental psychology. He has worked with human service

organisations for the past fifteen years and is currently completing is PhD with the Integral Leadership Centre, Graduate School of

Management at the University of Western Australia. Contact details: e-mail: [email protected].


edwards, m. g. (2008) every today was a tomorrow

Documents