This is a pre-print draft, and citation of final publication is as follows:
Ramos, J. (2017). Linking Foresight and Action: Toward a Futures Action Research. In The
Palgrave International Handbook of Action Research (pp. 823-842). Palgrave Macmillan,
New York. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/978-1-137-40523-4_48
Linking Foresight and Action:
Toward a Futures Action Research
José Ramos
Introduction
For over a decade I have been involved in a unique enterprise, to explore, document
and integrate Action Research approaches with Futures Studies. This rather obscure
endeavor, which from the outside may seem arcane, for me is core to addressing the great
social and ecological challenges we face today. Because of this inner direction, I continue to
develop this confluence into hybrid approaches to human and social development.
After a degree in comparative literature and on the back of the experience of
globalization living in Japan, Taiwan and Spain, I entered a Masters degree in ‘Strategic
Foresight.’ What excited me was the emphasis on systems analysis, visioning, and social
change. I was attracted to the idea that a group of people could envision a future they desired
and then potentially create it. I entered the Futures Studies field with a desire for
transformational change.
Futures studies gave me critical thinking and tools and frameworks for exploring the
long term, however a ‘discrepancy’ emerged. Futures Studies clarified the sharp challenges
faced by our planetary civilization over the long term. The challenges we addressed were
large scale and historical in dimensions, what Slaughter (2002) referred to as a ‘civilizational
crisis’: long term climate change, casino capitalism and rising inequality, profound shifts in
technology, and other issues. The gap for me related to a question of empowerment. Where
1
and how do we discover agency in creating the world we want? Futures Studies gave me
knowledge for forecasting, deconstructing, analyzing and envisioning our futures. But I
needed to know how to create change.
Intuitively, I began looking for approaches that would address this gap. When I found
action research, I was immediately inspired by the diversity of thinking, approaches and case
studies and began playing with the potential overlaps and fusion between the two areas
(Ramos, 2002). I also interned with Dr. Yoland Wadsworth, involved myself in the AR
community in Melbourne and began to find synergies and opportunities to express the logic
of foresight coupled with action through a variety of projects. This work has continued to
guide a wide variety of current projects. This chapter details this journey.
The Future as a Principle of Present Action
Slaughter (1995) put forward the idea of ‘foresight’ as a human capacity and quality,
in contradistinction to the widespread notion that the ‘future’ is somehow outside us. In sharp
contrast to a future state independent of human consciousness, Slaughter located the future in
human consciousness, in our human capacity to cognize consequence, change, difference,
temporality. The future, he argued, is therefore a principle of present action (Slaughter,
2004). The images we hold of our futures can and should inform wise action in the present.
This simple idea represents a radical departure from previous epistemologies of time,
from a fixed and unitary notion of the future to one where ‘the future’ is a projection of
consciousness and culture. This embodied and constructivist concept of the future points
toward the need to build ethnographic and sociological understandings for how various
communities cognize time differently, and how human consciousness and culture mediate
decisions and action.
In a number of professional settings, foresight informs action in a variety of ways.
2
•
In the area of policy, governments at various scales are engaged in a variety of
decisions, many which will have enduring effects over decades and may be difficult
to undo. Policy foresight helps regions to understand long-term social and ecological
changes and challenges, to develop adequate responses.
•
In the area of strategy, businesses require an understanding of how market,
technology and policy shifts may create changes in their operating and transactional
environments. Strategy foresight helps businesses discover opportunities, address the
challenges of fast changing markets, and develop a social and ethical context for
business decisions.
•
In the area of innovation and design, foresight can inspire design concepts, social and
technical innovations that have a future-fit, rather than only a present-fit. Design and
innovation provide the ‘seeds of change’ interventions that can, over many years,
grow to become significant change factors, leverage for desirable long-term social
change.
The broader and arguably highest role for foresight is to inform and inspire social
transformation toward ethical goals (for example ecological stewardship and social justice).
In this regard social foresight can play a major role in informing and inspiring social
movements and community based social action. Citizens and people from many walks of life
have the power to plant the seeds of change, create social innovations, alternatives and
experiments that provide new pathways and strategies that can lead to alternative and
desirable futures. Foresight can inspire a sense of social responsibility and impetus for social
action, at both political and personal levels. In my own life, I have found that as I have
cognized various social and ecological challenges, I am compelled to act differently in the
present. This has been as simple as using a heater less, changing to low energy light bulbs
and installing solar panels, to more entailed commitments like attending climate change and
3
anti-war marches, organizing social alternative events, and even co-founding businesses. The
link between foresight and action is at once social, political, organizational and personal, and
uniquely different for each person.
Futures Studies’ Road to a Participatory-Action
Like any field, Futures Studies has undergone major shifts over its 50-year history.
From my perspective as an action researcher, and building on the work of Inayatullah (1990)
and social development perspectives (Ramos, 2004a), I argue that the field has gone through
five major stages: Predictive, Systemic, Critical, Participatory and Action-oriented. From the
1950s to the 1960s, the field was concerned with prediction, in particular macro-economic
forecasting, where change was envisaged as linear (Bell, 1997). From the 1970s to the 1980s,
the field used various systems perspectives that incorporated more complexity and
indeterminacy into its inquiry and scenarios and alternative futures emerged (Moll, 2005).
From the 1980s and 1990s, interpretive and critical perspectives emerged that incorporated
post-modern, post-structural and critical theory influences, where change was seen related to
discursive power (Slaughter, 1999). From the 1990s to the present, participatory approaches
have flourished. The most recent shift puts an emphasis on action-oriented inquiry, associated
with design, enterprise creation, innovation and embodied and experiential processes (Ramos
2006).
4
Figure 1: evolution of futures studies from an AR perspective
To understand these shifts it is important to understand the epistemological
assumptions that underpin these modalities. In the linear modality, forecasters believed that
the future could actually be predicted. Without a relationship to subjectivity or intersubjectivity, the future was ‘out-there’ and could be known like a ‘substance’ or thing. There
were problems with prediction, however, as many were wrong (Schnaars, 1989), and this
perspective could not account for human agency or the ‘paradox of prediction’ – once having
made a prediction, other people may decide to work toward an alternative future. It could also
not account for complexity, that is, that a variety of variables, factors, and forces interact in
complex and difficult to understand ways. Hence the systemic modality was born.
In the systemic modality, instead of attempting to predict a single future, systems
analysts created complex models that examined the interactions between a number of
variables. Trends and forecasts were still used, but instead of assuming a single future, the
ideas and practices for creating scenarios emerged. A number of World Models, including
Limits to Growth (Meadows, 1972), took this perspective, providing a number of scenarios
5
relying on the prominence of particular variables, and their interactions. A challenge to this
arose when World Models and other systemically informed studies emerged that were
inconsistent or which contradicted each other (e.g. Hughes, 1985). Research institutes from
different parts of the world produced radically different perspectives on the future. This is
where the critical modality brings such contradictions into perspective.
In the critical mode, models or systems for future change have their basis in different
cultures, perspectives, discourses and interests, as well depending on whether they were from
a ‘developing’ or ‘developed’ world perspective. Variables seen as essential aspects of a
system, from a critical view, were an expression of discourse and culture, rather than
universal ‘truths’ (Inayatullah, 1998; Slaughter, 1999). This is seen in how gendered power
dynamics are expressed in images of the future (Milojevic 1999), or when people are caught
in someone else’s discourse on the future, and are in-effect holding a ‘used future’
(Inayatullah, 2008). The critical mode questions default futures and develops alternative and
authentic futures. The critical mode affirms the importance of questioning the role of
perspective, deepened through engagement in participatory approaches.
Whereas critical futures posits that the future is different based on discourse, culture,
and disposition, in the participatory mode or process, contrasting perspectives on the future
will be present in the same room or group process. The exercise becomes much less abstract
and far more dialogical. The challenge shifts to how people can have useful, enriching and
intelligent conversations about the future, while still honoring (indeed leveraging) differing
perspectives. The participatory mode uses workshop tools and methods that include previous
approaches: identification of trends and emerging issues (predictive), scenario development
(systems) and de-constructive approaches (critical). Participation forms the basis for
generative conversations about our futures, and is a pathway toward transformative action.
6
An action modality is what emerges from embodied participation. When people come
from systemically different backgrounds, the potential for conflict and miscommunication
exists, but likewise a group based inter-systemic understanding can emerge, and this
embodied and emergent ‘alliance’ is critical in developing the potential to create change.
When participants can co-develop new narratives, authentic vision and intelligent strategies,
people can feel a sense of natural ownership and commitment. Group based inquiry that leads
to collective foresight with an understating of shared challenges and a common ground vision
for change, can call forth commitment and action.
Each stage in the process relies on previous stages. The systems modality relies on
statistically rigorous trends and data to construct scenarios. The critical modality relies on
scenarios as objects of deconstruction. The participatory modality relies on all previous
modes to be enacted in workshop environments. The action mode relies on participants to
come together to create shared meaning and commitment.
Situating Foresight Work In The Action Research Tradition
The distinction between First, Second and Third person action research, originally
developed by Reason and Bradbury (2001a) and Torbert (2001), and now widely adopted in
the action research field, is used here to explain the nature of the synthesis of action research
and futures studies and helps provide outlines for a proposed Futures Action Research
(FAR).1
According to Reason (Reason, 2001b), First Person AR concerns a person’s selfinquiry, self-understanding and self-awareness in a research process “to foster an inquiring
approach to his or her own life (p. 4)” … and by extension, practice. Second Person AR
involves inter-personal inquiry, where people create learning with each other, and is
“concerned with how to create communities of inquiry” (p.4). Third Person AR engages in
7
processes for developing co-inquiry at a-proximate scales which may be “geographically
dispersed” (p.5) and impersonal.
First Person Futures Action Research
A first person action research approach to futures research entails questioning and
transforming one’s own assumptions about the future, as well as one’s practice. As
researchers we hold assumptions about the future that, when we engage in fieldwork with
others, are likely to change. ‘Data’ here entails documenting and explicating one’s
assumptions, intentions and experiences. This can be done for oneself to facilitate selflearning, but also for a project reference group as an aspect of double and triple loop learning
(Torbert, 2004). Documenting the revolutions in our own thinking about the future is a
critical aspect of any futures research. And, as practitioners engaging in social change
experiments with others, we can learn what worked well, not so well, and how we might
improve our own practices.
Developmental psychology is employed by Slaughter (2008) and by Hayward (2003)
as a way of shedding light on practitioner disposition, and to help practitioners to engage
more effectively with the breadth of developmental orientations. Inayatullah (2008) uses the
Jungian inspired work of Hal and Sidra Stone (1989) to shed light on the critical factors
driving the behavior and psychology of practitioners. Kelly (2005) developed one-on-one
reflective processes using student journaling with first year engineering students to facilitate
sustainability consciousness and global citizenship (Kelly, 2006). Inayatullah (2006) has been
exemplary in generating self-understanding within futures studies.
Second Person Futures Action Research
The second person dimension is the inter-personal experience of a group of people
inquiring into and questioning the future together, in a process that leads to actions /
experiments that drive further learning and knowledge. Groups will inquire into the nature of
8
the social changes (trends and emerging issues) that may impact them, create shared visions
for change, and develop strategies and plans to enact this. When visions, plans and strategies
are enacted, effects can be observed and documented (what happened, whether they worked
or didn’t, etc.), the experience of which is leveraged to generate new understandings and new
actions. ‘Data’ here includes what people express together (e.g. workshop notes) when
questioning the future, as well as the documentation of plans, actions and effects that arise
from such inquiry.
There are a number of foresight practitioners who have worked with organizations
engaging in ‘full cycle’ processes of research.2 Some of the best examples include the work
of Inayatullah (2008), List (2006 ), Stevenson (2006), Kelleher (2005), and Daffara and
Gould (2007).
Third Person Futures Action Research
The third person dimension reflects the dynamics of a larger community of coinquiry. Large-scale processes are used to facilitate and capacitate co-inquiry and action for
communities or networks that can involve hundreds or even thousands in inquiry into the
future that leads to various types of actions ( e.g. innovation, policy making, art, design and
media).
The Anticipatory Democracy projects in the 1970s, which engaged citizens in large
scale futures exploration and political / policy change processes across a number of US states
(Bezold, 1978) provided early examples of the third person dimension. More recently, select
governments have invested heavily in inter-departmental foresight systems that link hundreds
of people in foresight informed policy development (Habegger, 2010). Transition
Management is exemplary in bringing together long-term sustainability thinking with
innovation oriented alliance building across government, business and community. The
iteration cycles described in transition management are similar to cycles of action research.
9
Figure 2: Transition Management Cycle based on Loorbach & Rotmans (2010)
Most recent are web-based / network form approaches to facilitating large scale
participatory futures inquiry (Ramos, 2012). These are newer and hold promise in their
ability to create large-scale social conversations and interactions concerning our shared
futures and challenges. The vision for a ‘Global Foresight Commons’ is another example,
where a planet wide conversation about our shared challenges and issues is created that
fosters globally networked collaborative projects for change (Ramos, 2014).
Integrating First, Second and Third person modes
According to Reason, these distinctions should not be seen simply as ways to
categorize action research practices, but rather as interacting dimensions of these practices
that, when used together, make it holistic (Reason, 2004). There are two main avenues for
integration. First, we can use the distinctions when making sense of research data, as a
method of triangulation. Secondly, the three categories provide a generative dynamic for
action research projects to evolve and develop (Reason, 2001b).
10
Figure 3: ‘Triangulating’ futures action research
Triangulating futures research across these three domains of experience entails
observing and noting patterns, connections, synergies and contradictions in the ‘data’
between the distinctions. As action researchers, we should not just be looking for second and
third person support for ideas and assumptions by ignoring contradictory empirical or
testimonial evidence. This requires critical subjectivity and self-questioning, looking for how
second and third Person dimensions may contradict our first person assumptions, imaginings
and intuitions about the future, not just support them. This type of research then allows each
of the three dimensions to transform the other. Second and third person modes can challenge
the inner narrative / assumptions / image of the future of the researcher. First and third person
modes can challenge our engagements with others, what questions we ask, what processes we
run, and how we interpret what others are saying about the future. First and second person
modes can challenge our engagement with the literature on the future, and help guide us in
new directions, or to address gaps in the literature.
Synthesis of Action Learning and Futures Studies
Burke, Stevenson, Macken, Wildman, and Inayatullah (with numerous other
collaborators) initially pioneered Anticipatory Action Learning (AAL) (Ramos, 2002) . They
11
were steeped in participatory development traditions, as well as humanistic and neohumanistic Futures Studies. Their vision for this fusion was to bridge a transformational
space of inquiry, the long term and planetary future, with the everyday and embodied world
of relating and acting. Arguably, their agenda was to engineer a new modality for local and
planetary transformation, opening the structural (long term and global) to the question and
indeed praxis of participatory action and agency.
For
Figure 4: Positioning AAL in knowledge traditions (Inayatullah 2006)
Inayatullah (2006) AAL is described as originating from three influences:
1) Development oriented participatory action research
2) The work of Reg Revans (2011)
3) Futures Studies
Inayatullah modified Reg Revans’ formula of learning from ‘programmed knowledge
+ questioning’ to a future-oriented ‘programmed knowledge + questioning the future’.
Questioning the future entails unpacking and deconstructing the default future, or
what has been described in this chapter as a ‘used future,’ our unquestioned image or
assumption of the future, whether for our world, organization or ourselves. Challenging this
default future, we are then able to imagine and articulate alternative and desired futures.
Questioning the future entails a variety of categories - possible, probable and preferred
futures - and lays the foundations for discovering collective agency, the future people choose
12
to create. Agency also means that expert knowledge and categories for the future are not
automatically privileged; participants can draw from experts, but equally use their indigenous
/ endogenous epistemologies / ways of knowing as pathways toward creating authentic
futures (Inayatullah, 2006, p.658).
AAL represents an evolving and mature theory and practice, with a growing body of
practitioners. One of the most important expressions of AAL has been through the
development of the ‘Six Pillars’ methodology, a structured yet participatory format for
exploring the future. Its strength lies in its simplicity. It features easy to use tools that the
non-initiated can easily grasp, and follows a logical sequence that moves participants through
various stages: “mapping, anticipation, timing, deepening, creating alternatives and
transforming” (Inayatullah, 2008, p. 7). Participants can decide to re-order the tools, even
modify them. However, they provide a basic scaffold for what is otherwise a complex and
challenging undertaking. Making the exploration of change both enjoyable and empowering
should be seen as a significant achievement. Six Pillars can be seen as a ‘practitioner action
research’ project where Inayatullah and colleagues experimented and developed approaches
over several decades with thousands of people, looking for and discovering what works with
groups (Ramos, 2003).
Anticipatory Action Learning’s Disruptive Role
One of the key features of anticipatory action learning is the importance of poststructural and critical theory in the practice of ‘questioning the future.’ One of the central
principles is that ‘the future’ is often the site of a hegemonic discourse, that is, ‘the future’
may be an instrument or artifact of power. Thus one of the critical questions asked in
conversations is ‘Who is privileged and who is marginalized in a discourse on the future,’ or
‘who wins and who loses in that future’ (Inayatullah, 1998). This follows an argument made
by Sardar (1999) that the future has already been colonized, by which he meant that most
13
people’s image of the future has already been set and shaped by powerful interests. These
‘used futures’ maintain their power by virtue of never being questioned. Discovering agency
therefore begins with a de-colonization process, where the constructs of the future people
unconsciously hold can be questioned and people can generate new, more relevant, intelligent
and more authentic visions that empower and inspire. Good futures studies therefore follow
what Singer (1993) described as philosophy’s central role: challenging the critical
assumptions of the age.
Contemporary Issues in the Confluence of Action Research and Future Studies
In writing this chapter I have consulted with some of the practitioners and networks in
the field combing action research and future studies.3 The following is not a comprehensive
list, however, here are some of the critical issues emerging among those at the crossroad of
these approaches.
Foresight Tribes
As described in this chapter, the shift from the future as ‘out there’ (the positivist /
post-positivist notion of temporality) to the future as ‘in here’ (a constructivist idea of
foresight) is a foundational shift in epistemological orientation. Participatory workshops and
engagements which begin with questioning the ‘used future’ and exploring peoples not-soconscious assumptions embark us on a new path of exploring and understanding the
embodied and associational dimensions of how we collectively hold visions of change. In my
research I have identified distinct ‘foresight tribes.’ Foresight tribes are features of a network
society dynamic, where ideas and images of the future are held trans-geographically and asynchronously (Castells, 1997; Ronfeldt, 1996). Contemporary popular visions are
associated with globally distributed communities, where language emerges into patterns for
cognizing change. Foresight tribes are both embodied and virtual communities that produce
14
and reproduce particular outlooks, language and images of the futures. Some, like ‘relocalists’ approach the future through the lens of peak oil, an unsustainable global financial
system and the looming threat of environmental collapse. They argue we need to begin to
build resilience into our locales, relocalize economic processes, governance and culture.
Other tribes like ‘transhumanists’ believe we are on the cusp of transforming the very
definition of humanity, as artificial intelligence, biotechnological enhancements, and
cybernetic augmentation become prevalent. Through my research I have studied and
documented over a dozen ‘tribes,’ and have come to appreciate how what is conventionally
understood as ‘the future,’ is rather an image of the future held by a community and an
expression of associational embodiment and cultural dynamics (Ramos, 2010).
Figure 5: Social change and cognition analysis framework
Actor Network Theory (Latour, 2005), which has strong resonance with Action
Research, has been an important methodology I’ve used in decoding discourse within tribes.
Discourses can hold notions of temporality, both of the past (how we got here) and future
(where we are going). A discourse also holds key notions of structure (what is real and
enduring) and agency (who / what has the power to create change). Underpinning both is an
epistemological dimension, who and what is legitimate in respect to knowledge of social
15
change. These different discourses give rise to distinct notions of strategic action. Thus,
theories and discourses for change do not necessarily explain reality; they explain what ideas
are held by people that guide their notions of correct action - why they act in particular ways.
As Van der Laan (Personal Communication, October 2014) remarked ironically, “Action is
based on deep assumptions which create systems of the future” - rather than explaining the
future, these discourses generate modes of strategic action that help to shape the future.
Narrative Foresight
People’s experience of reality is mediated through myth, metaphor, story and
narrative (Inayatullah, 2004; Lakoff, 1980; Thompson, 1974). In this regard, supporting
change requires helping organizations and communities to generate new narratives. For
Inayatullah it is an essential step, where participants use ‘causal layered analysis’ to
deconstruct existing (static) narratives and develop new (empowering) narratives for
themselves. Some are using the new field of ‘trans-media storytelling’ to engage participants
in co-creating narratives within a developed story space for many types of contemporary
media (von Stackelberg, 2014). Other practitioners have been inspired by the archetypal work
of Joseph Campbell in developing participatory foresight processes and workshops (Schultz,
2012). Another emerging practice in the field is called ‘experiential foresight’ and ‘design
futures,’ where practitioners provide living and embodied narrative contexts, complete with
stage craft, actors and scripts, that participants inhabit for a period of time and which provoke
them into questioning the future(s) (Candy, 2010; Dator, 2013). Milojevic (2014) combines
narrative therapy and foresight approaches.
Drama and Gaming
Drama is one of the oldest forms of story telling and narrative, with myriad traditions
across many civilizations and cultures. In the action research tradition, Moreno’s
16
foundational work developing psychodrama, and Agusto Boal’s (1998) development of
socio-drama have inspired many around the world. Following suit, in futures studies new
approaches have emerged which draw participants into dramaturgical situations and games.
Head (2011) developed an approach called ‘Forward Theatre’, a method for exploring
alternative futures through drama, to encourage debate and dialog on hypothetical
possibilities embodied through well-crafted narratives and performances. For education
purposes in the context of foresight and leadership, Voros and Hayward (Hayward, 2006)
developed the ‘Sarkar Game.’ Based on a critique of the Indian varna (caste) system,
participants embody one of four roles: Worker, Warrior, Intellectual, and Merchant,
interacting using the macro social cycle framework developed by P.R. Sarkar. Inayatullah
uses the game in workshops to deepen participants understanding of social dynamics, and the
potentially progressive and regressive aspects of each archetype. The Sarkar game is
“intended to embody the concepts being discussed…to move participants to other ways of
knowing so that they may… gain a deeper and more personal understanding and appreciation
of alternatives futures” (Inayatullah, 2013, p.1).
Experiential foresight in the ‘design futures’ tradition also combines drama and
gaming in innovative ways. Interrogating the power dynamics inherent in communications
technologies, in 2012, Ph.D. students and faculty of the Hawaii Research Center for Futures
Studies (HRCFS) (Dator, Sweeney, Yee, & Rosa, 2013) employed a live gaming platform
involving over 40 participants from around the world, interacting in a geo-spatial game-world
twining virtual and physical interactions:
At the heart of the game’s content were four alternative futures … using the Mānoa
School scenario modeling method. Utilizing four ‘generic’ futures from which to
construct scenarios that ‘have equal probabilities of happening, and thus all need to be
considered in equal measure and sincerity,’ the content for Gaming Futures evolved
17
into a creative exercise in how to apply gaming dynamics … which required building
complex, yet accessible, scenarios within a plastic gaming platform” (Dator et al,
2013, p121).
Gaming futures was preceded by work in experiential foresight, within which
participants can inhabit and interact within artistically rich yet sociologically plausible
alternative futures (Candy, 2010). The scenario sets are created to be subtle, subversive and
fundamentally disruptive of participant assumptions, and they act as provocations for further
questioning and action. Rosa has developed ‘Geo-spatially Contextualized Futures Research,’
dramaturgical games which twine ubiquitous / ambient computing / augmented reality with
physical interaction. He sees Alternative Futures as a collaborative resource:
The PAR [participatory action research] framework lends credence to the idea that
participants are co-researchers, actively engaged in the adaptation of the research
itself. As our foundational medium of futures research is the alternative scenario
(experiential, interactive, immersive), we must design systems that can be changed,
taught, and augmented (Rosa personal communication, October 2014).
Dialogue of Selves
Narrative, drama and role-playing, arguably, engage ancient aspects of the human
psyche. We respond to particular roles played unwittingly by those around us and by those
actors with greater skill. Two approaches with Jungian origins have strong and useful
connections with archetypal notions of temporal consciousness. The first is the work of Hal
and Sidra Stone, who have developed a psychological system called ‘voice dialogue.’ The
central proposition in their work is that the psyche expresses a multi-vocality of being.
Different ‘selves’ have different roles and functions, and depending on the context, some are
dominant and some are disowned. Their work is employed by practitioners in visioning
processes to deepen and provide more holistic approaches (Stone, 1989). Inayatullah (2008)
18
finds that some groups, when conducting visioning processes, disown key elements, making
visions less robust and tenable. For example, a group may envision a strategically robust but
pragmatic future, but disown what authentically inspires people – that the vision makes
rational sense but will not motivate. Alternatively a vision may be deeply inspiring, but if it
disowns the planning, control and financial dimensions of a community or organization, it
may be un-operable. The goal then is to create visions that integrate multiple selves: the
planner, the artist, the servant, the dreamer, the manager… toward the development of
holistic visions that are operable – that is, fulfill needs at multiple levels. In this line of
thinking the facilitator invariably invokes or provokes what they disown, ‘the Other,’ and it is
the challenge of the facilitator to embrace the Otherness of the moment, as an invitation to
learn and develop more fully (Inayatullah, 2006).
Anticipatory Design and Co-creation
In my work I have been guided by a passion and vision to link strategic foresight and
action research. In the past, this was conceptualized through the idea of ‘anticipatory
innovation,’ and use of existing action research approaches (Ramos 2002, 2004b, 2004c).
Later, activism and ethnographic foresight became important manifestations to critically
question and revision discourse and strategy (Ramos, 2010). Most recently, the link between
design thinking and foresight has become prominent.
A new generation of design thinking is emerging, trans-disciplinary, engaging across
art, science and technology, commons-oriented and deeply collaborative and participatory.
Service design thinking has become an important approach in the interface between creative
industries, enterprise creation and social innovation. Service design both incorporates the use
of foresight as leverage in conceptualizing services and innovations in the context of social
change, and incorporates a participatory and (design) ethnography orientation so that design
is tightly coupled with the needs of end users (Stickdorn, 2012).
19
The Futures Action Model
I created the Futures Action Model (FAM) over a ten-year period (2003-2013). It was
a product of my passion to link present-day action with foresight, and of the many
conversations, collaborations and opportunities I’ve had with colleagues and clients / students
(Ramos, 2013).
FAM was created as a scaffold to facilitate social innovation and enterprise creation
in the context of our awareness of social change and alternative futures. It emerged from the
realization that problem solving was not linear, and that a non-linear but logical approach that
coupled action and foresight was needed. I wanted to clarify the link between foresight and
action, but more importantly facilitate an approach by which people could do both
simultaneously, and where one activity complemented the other. I also wanted to de-mystify
the process of foresight informed innovation and make it easier to generate breakthrough
ideas.
FAM is a nested system that posits four interrelated aspects in the foresight-action
nexus.
Figure 6: Basic Futures Action Model (FAM)
20
The largest (sociological) context is called ‘emerging futures.’ This is the space of
social change (emerging issues, trends, scenarios), and from a progressive / activist
perspective, the challenges we face.
Within this, the next layer down are the various proactive responses from around the
world to that challenge. Thus, if rising economic inequality is the challenge and emerging
issue at the top layer, approaches that create economic opportunity for the dis-enfranchised
would go in the next layer. The key metaphor here is that we now live in what can be called a
“global learning laboratory.” Whereas in the past both the problems people faced and the
solutions created may have seemed disconnected, suddenly, in a matter of decades, we are
interconnected by problems that look similar or have strong thematic overlaps underlying the
processes of globalization.
In the third layer down is the ‘community of the initiative,’ which are the people,
organizations, projects, etc. that participants using the futures action model can potentially
partner with. They are real people and organizations that may have something to offer the
start-up.
The final layer contains the core model of the initiative, this is a solution space where
participants can explore the purpose, resource strategy and governance system of an initiative
that can effectively address the issue or problem. This is the ‘DNA’ of the idea. An initiative
will also reflect a new ‘value exchange system’ between stakeholders that may not have been
connected before. This is the ecosystem of partners that makes an initiative viable. The new
relationships are facilitated by the initiative - as the initiative pioneers have a ‘systems’ level
mental map and understanding - they can see how different organizations and people might
connect and exchange value in new ways - or they have an intuition about what relationships
might be generative - even though they may not know the exact outcomes.
21
Futures action model has been used in facilitating youth / student empowerment and
enterprise programs, for scaffolding anticipatory policy development processes, personal
post-graduate coaching of project development, facilitating enterprise development, and
facilitating community based social innovations.
Co-creation Cycle for Anticipatory Design
In addition to the futures action model, the most recent manifestation of my thinking
to link design and foresight is a conceptualization of an action research cycle that is
specifically tailored to a new generation of social innovators, social entrepreneurs and
participatory designers. Reflecting on the often confusing cacophony of my own projects and
work, both paid and unpaid, as well as those of colleagues, I began to search for
commonalities and elements. This led to the development of an action research / action
learning cycle similar to the fast cycle development process of agile software development
(SCRUM). The context for this finding included a number of factors: the emergence of the
network forums that amplifies idea exchange and opportunities for peer-to-peer collaboration,
the experimental dynamics of colliding / integrating fields in science, art and technology
which produce hybrid and often chimeric innovations, and the need to seed ideas even while
maintaining a pragmatic stance toward earning an income. In this iterative process, ideas
foment quickly and furiously, prototypes are developed and tested, connected with potential
users who are expected to teach and lead innovators, so that ideas can be adapted and evolved
or discarded for better ones.
22
Figure 7: Co-creation Cycle for Anticipatory Design
Anticipate is about the great idea, the what if and what is possible. It is not
necessarily about anticipating the big future (futures of society) through scenarios. It is more
about what would be great, possible and socially needed now and in the emerging futures
(future fit), what can be done with existing and emerging resources / technology, and the kind
of future people want to live in (preferred future and values / ethics based).
This leads to the Design, conceptual or physical, of an artifact or model. For example,
if dealing with a product, it can be conceptual design, graphic or technical design, or an
actual physical prototype. Or if concerning a business, it can be the conceptual business
model, or it can be the basic minimum scale of the business in actual form (the Minimum
Viable Product offer).
The next phase is Connect, where the design, in whatever its stage, is shared and
connected with intended and unintended users. Critical issues focus on usability, value,
utility, inspiration and interest by the people who would use the design. Do people like it,
want to share it, how well does it work? Connect is similar to David Kolb’s stage of
‘experience’ where the planned experiment is applied and experienced / observed. Because of
23
network society dynamics, however, connect takes on much more meaning, as an idea, design
or model can be distributed within a much more dynamic and complex space of engagement.
A crowd funding campaign, for example is a typical mode of ‘connect’ in this Anticipatory
Design space.
Evolve is the impetus to change the design and offer, try something new, or make
adaptations to the existing design. It stems from the experience of connecting, what users of
the design (program, project, product, or model) want and need. Depending on the nature of
the connecting, the innovators may or may not know what are the best ways to change,
improve or adapt it. Learning is critical here – ways that connect the innovator and user – and
bring them together into a virtuous cycle of co-creation.
Conclusion: Toward a Futures Action Research4
It is in the interest of our many communities and humanity as a whole to develop
effective action research and participatory action research approaches to engage in
empowering inquiries into our futures. As can be seen from this overview, the outline of such
a Futures Action Research (FAR) is still emerging. What we have at the moment are strong
overlaps, with a handful of more exemplary and coherent approaches.
Addressing the great challenges we collectively face will require more than just
piecemeal innovations. We need to foster a whole-scale social reorientation, whereby taking
response-ability for our futures at personal, organizational and planetary scales becomes
commonplace. This chapter, hopefully, is a small step in this direction, toward a more
coherent and resourced understanding of a FAR approach that offers effective means of
transformation in many domains.
24
References
Bell, W. 1997. Foundations of futures studies Vol. 1. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Bezold, C. 1978. Anticipatory Democracy: People in the Politics of the Future. NY: Random
House.
Boal, A. 1998. Legislative Theatre, Routledge, New York.
Candy, S. 2010. "The Futures of Everyday Life: Politics and the Design of Experiential
Scenarios." Ph.D., Political Science, University of Hawaii.
Castells, M. 1997. The Power of Identity Edited by M. Castells, TheInformation Age:
Economy, Society and Culture. Mass: Blackwell.
Dator, J., Sweeney, J., Yee, A., Rosa, A. 2013. "Communicating Power: Technological
Innovation and Social Change in the Past, Present, and Futures." Journal of Futures
Studies 17 (4):117-134.
Gould, S. Daffara, P. 2007. "Maroochy 2025 Community Visioning " 1st Interational Conf.
on City Foresight in Asia Pacific Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 5-7
September 2007.
Habegger, B. 2010. "Strategic foresight in public policy: Reviewing the experiences of the
UK, Singapore, and the Netherlands." Futures 42:49-58.
Hayward, P. 2003. "Facilitating Foresight: where the foresight function is placed in
organisations." Foresight 6 (1):19-30.
Hayward, P., Voros, J. . 2006. "Creating the experience of social change." Futures 38
(6):708-714.
25
Hughes, B. 1985. World Futures: A Critical Analysis of Alternatives. Baltimore: John
Hopkins University Press.
Inayatullah, S. 1998. "Causal Layered Analysis: Post-Structuralism as Method." Futures 30
(8):815-829.
Inayatullah, S. 2004. The Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) Reader: Theory and Case Studies
of an Integrative and Transformative Methodology. Taipei: Tamkang University
Press.
Inayatullah, S. 2006. "Anticipatory action learning: Theory and practice." Futures 38 (6).
Inayatullah, S. 2013. "Using Gaming to Understand the Patterns of the Future - The Sarkar
Game in Action." Journal of Futures Studies 18 (1):1-12.
Inayatullah, S. 2008. "Six pillars: futures thinking for transforming." Foresight 10 (1).
Inayatullah, Sohail. 1990. "Deconstructing and reconstructing the future : Predictive, cultural
and critical epistemologies." Futures 22 (2):115.
Kelleher, A. 2005. "A Personal Philosophy of Anticipatory Action-Learning." Journal of
Futures Studies 10 (1): 85 - 90.
Kelly, P. 2006. "Letter from the oasis: Helping engineering students to become sustainability
professionals." Futures 38 (6).
Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor Network Theory. Oxford
Oxford University Press.
List, D. 2006. "Action research cycles for multiple futures perspectives." Futures
Loorbach, D. Rotmans, J. 2010. "The practice of transition management: Examples and
lessons from four distinct cases." Futures 42:237-246.
Meadows, D, Meadows, D., 1972. The Limits to Growth. London: Pan Books.
26
Milojevic, I. 1999. "Feminizing Futures Studies." In Rescuing all our Futures: The Future of
Futures Studies, edited by Z. Sardar, 61-71. Westport, Conn: Praeger.
Milojevic, I. 2014. "Creating Alternative Selves: The Use of Futures Discourse in Narrative
Therapy." Journal of Futures Studies 18 (3):27-40.
Moll, P. 2005. "The Thirst for Certainty: Futures Studies in Europe and the United States." In
The Knowledge Base of Futures Studies: Professional Edition, edited by R. Slaughter.
Brisbane: Foresight International.
Ramos, J. 2002. "Action Research as Foresight Methodology." Journal of Futures Studies 7
(1):1-24.
Ramos, J. 2003. From Critique to Cultural Recovery: Critical Futures Studies and Causal
Layered Analysis In Australian Foresight Institute Monograph Series edited by R.
Slaughter. Melbourne Swinburne University of Technology
Ramos, J. 2004a. Foresight Practice in Australia: A Meta-Scan of Practitioners and
Organisations. In Australian Foresight Institute Monograph Series edited by R.
Slaughter. Melbourne Swinburne University of Technology
Ramos, J. 2013. "Forging the Synergy between Anticipation and Innovation: The Futures
Action Model." Journal of Futures Studies 18 (1).
Ramos, J. 2014. "Anticipatory Governance: Traditions and Trajectories for Strategic Design."
Journal of Futures Studies 19 (1):35-52.
Ramos, J. 2006. "Action research and futures studies." Futures 38 (6):639-641.
Ramos, J. 2010. "Alternative Futures of Globalisation: A socio-ecological study of the World
Social Forum Process." PhD, Department of Research and Commercialisation,
Queensland University of Technology
27
Ramos, J. and O’Connor, A. . 2004b. "Social Foresight, Innovation and Social
Entrepreneurship: Pathways Toward Sustainability." AGSE Babson Conf. on
Entrepreneurship Melbourne, Feb.
Ramos, J., Hillis, D. 2004c. "Anticipatory Innovation." Journal of Futures Studies 9 (2):1928.
Ramos, J. Mansfield, T. Priday, G. . 2012. "Foresight in a Network Era: Peer-producing
Alternative Futures " Journal of Futures Studies 17 (1):71-90.
Reason, P, Bradbury, H. 2001a. "Introduction: Inquiry and Participation in Search of a World
Worthy of Human Aspiration." In Handbook of Action Research: Participative
Inquiry and Practice, edited by Bradbury H. Reason P, 1-14. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Reason, P. 2001b. "Learning and Change Through Action Research." In Creative
Management edited by J. Henry. London: Sage.
Reason, P., and McArdle, K. . 2004. "Brief Notes on the Theory an Practice of Action
Research." In Understanding Research Methods for Social Policy and Practice, edited
by S. & Bryman Becker, A. (Eds.)(2004), .: . London The Polity Press.
Revans, R. 2011. ABC of Action Learning. Burlington VT.: Gower Publishing.
Ronfeldt, D. 1996. Tribes, Institutions, Markets, Networks: a framework about societal
evolution. Santa Monica, CA. : RAND.
Sardar, Z. 1999. "The Problem of Futures Studies." In Rescuing all our Futures: The Future
of Futures Studies, edited by Z. Sardar, 9-18. Westport, Conn: Praeger.
Schnaars, S. 1989. Megamistakes: forecasting and the myth of rapid technological change.
New York: The Free Press.
Schultz, W., Crews, C., Lum, R. 2012. "Scenarios: A Hero’s Journey across Turbulent
Systems." Journal of Futures Studies, September 2012, 17(1): 129-140 17 (1):129140.
28
Singer, P. 1993. How Are We to Live? Ethics in an Age of Self-interest, . Melbourne: Text
Publishing.
Slaughter, R. 2004. Futures beyond dystopia: creating social foresight. London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Slaughter, R. 2008. "What difference does ‘integral’ make?" Futures 40.
Slaughter, R. 1999. Futures for the Third Miillenium. St Leonards, N.S.W.: Prospect Media.
Slaughter, R. 1995. The foresight principle,. Westport, CT: Adamantine Press, .
Slaughter, Richard A. 2002. "Futures Studies as a Civilizational Catalyst." Futures 34 (34):349.
Stevenson, T. 2006. "From Vision into Action." Futures 38 (6):667-671.
Stickdorn, M. and Schneider, J., ed. 2012. This is Service Design Thinking: Basics, Tools,
Cases: BIS Publishing.
Stone, H., Stone, S. . 1989. Embracing Our Selves. Novato Calif.: Nataraj.
Thompson, W.I. 1974. At the Edge of History. New York: Lindisfarne Press.
Torbert, W. 2001. "The Practice of Action Inquiry." In Handbook of Action Research:
Participative Inquiry and Practice, edited by P Reason, Bradbury, H., 250-260.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Torbert, W., Cook-Greuter, S. . 2004. Action Inquiry: Berrett-Koehler.
von Stackelberg, P., Jones, R.E. 2014. "Tales of Our Tomorrows: Transmedia Storytelling
and Communicating About the Future." Journal of Futures Studies 18 (3):57-76.
1
Kind thanks to Margaret Riel for offering FAR as a potential name.
29
2
I conducted a survey of practitioners in the field in two major foresight networks
(the World Futures Studies Federation and the Association of Professional Futurists), asking
for survey responses from those who explicitly work across the action research cycle and
incorporate various elements of action research. Responses came from Luke van der Laan,
Ruben Nelson, Anita Kelliher, Tanja Hichert, Robert Burke, Mike McCallum, Aaron Rosa,
and Steven Gould. Much gratitude goes to them all.
3
This chapter was enhanced from responses to a survey I sent practitioner colleagues
in September of 2014.
30