No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Global futures studies: Evolving foundations of a meta-discourse
... Consequently, it is not surprising that Futures Studies focuses mainly on tools that incorporate imagined futures that will be useful for the purposes of planning -and let's be frank -conquest (Feukeu, forthcoming: on coloniality as a closed anticipatory system; Miller, forthcoming). The list of techniques, currently residing under the broad label of 'strategy', is quite long, ranging from econometric forecasting and actuarial risk analysis to various tools for imagining multiple futures and corresponding targets such as the 'futures cone', 'four quadrants', 'Delphi', 'three horizons', 'morphological analysis ', etc. 4 Over the last 60 years or so, many programs and hot-spots for futures studies and foresight have sprung up at universities (see, e.g., Ramos 2005;World Futures Studies Federation 2006), in civil society, in companies and in government. Interest in undertaking structured approaches to imagining the future has been spurred by events, like the oil shock (e.g. ...
Invitations are usually offered with a desire to attract a specific audience. You want the invitees to come to your party. This invitation is no different, we want readers of this article to join us and many others who are already part of what we call the Global Futures Literacy Network, but not for a one-shot festive moment. Our hope is that what we are offering, a set of definitions, frameworks, and works in progress, will attract engagement in, as the title puts it, the “co-creation of an open living framework”. The conclusion to this text offers what we believe are a few compelling reasons to make the investments, compromises, and affiliations that such a joined-up endeavour requires. But here, at the outset, it is essential for us to make sure it is clear that this invitation is not about joining a fixed, pre-defined platform, itinerary, or agenda.
In the late 1930s, H.G. Wells proposed an “adequate knowledge organization” or World Brain, where ideas would be received, sorted, summarized, clarified, and compared. At the same time, sociologist Robert Lynd questioned ever more “bricks of data” on the growing pile of social science, and called for more synthesis and long-range thinking. Despite proclamations about emerging “knowledge societies,” little has been done to organize the broad and messy realm of human benefit knowledge that encompasses the overlapping policy, planning, futures, and leadership “communities.” The problem of the narrow brickmaker mentality still persists, along with more infoglut, more rapid obsolescence, more fragmentation, more label profusion, and even more nationalistic division. A World Brain for the 21st century should have at least seven features: timely abstracts of key books/reports/articles in several languages, comprehensive coverage, identification of not-yet-published books in the publisher's pipeline, regional and national nodes for collection and dissemination, overviews of sectoral and cross-sectoral issues, user-friendly features, and ample publicity. An appreciative environment must also be built, encompassing more and better technology assessment, ongoing “Top Ten” booklists for each sector and issue, annual prioritizing of issues, integrative research units at universities, more effort to promote civic education, more debates, more attention to good information design, and a higher status for high-quality human benefit thinking.