Public understanding of futures & foresight science: A reply to Chermack’s response

Abstract

In this essay, which is a reply to Chermack’s (2019) response to our article, the authors develop the most constructive feedback in the aforementioned response essay and then respond to more critical comments. As we shall see, in parallel with science and technology studies (STS) literature on the public understanding of science, the authors propose the utility of research on the “public understanding of futures and foresight science;” after that, the authors defend and add context to some of the decisions that had to be made in establishing the scope and framework for the article “Defining scenario” (Spaniol & Rowland, 2019). [Correction added on 13 May 2019, after first online publication: typographical errors in the citations of Chermack (2019) and Spaniol & Rowland (2019) have been corrected.].

The resistance to scientific theory in futures and foresight, and what to do about it

“…In sum, the field has been using the term “theory” to refer to epistemologies, ontologies, and conceptual frameworks, as well as general “conceptual arguments”, rather than to the actual technical definition of scientific theory as above (Gary, 2008). Indeed, the recent scholarly debate between Spaniol and Rowland (Rowland & Spaniol, 2019; Spaniol & Rowland, 2019) and Chermack (2019) regarding whether scenario planning theory and definition should be conflated originates from the lack of a shared consensus on what theory is. If the definition of theory were agreed upon, there would be no need for such a debate as the two cannot be conflated in a scientific article.…”

On inquiry in futures and foresight science

“…In closing this section, we have framed ontology as a possible way to sidestep the field's supposed and unfortunately self‐avowed lack of theoretical grounding. This reflects concerns raised by Bradfield, Wright, Burt, Cairns, and van der Heijden (2005), Chermack (2002, 2011), and others (e.g., Chermack, 2019; Rowland & Spaniol, 2019; Spaniol & Rowland, 2018; 2019), and subsequently pivot, returning to Poli’s (2011:67) position that “[a]fter decades characterized by diminishing interest in the theoretical underpinning of futures studies, the past few years have seen the onset of a new concern with the foundation of futures studies,” and “recent discussion has not been limited to the epistemological bases of futures studies but has also begun to address the problem of its ontological grounds.”…”

The reception of theory in futures and foresight: A commentary on Fergnani and Chermack

“…In the inaugural issue of Futures & Foresight Science , editors Wright, Cairns, and von der Gracht (2019:1) state that the journal would publish “articles which focus on methods that aid anticipation of the future in the widest sense” replete with “commentaries” on “advances in this rapidly expanding field.” As it happens, the first of these lively scholarly commentaries were exchanged over an article about the definition of scenarios (i.e., Spaniol & Rowland, 2019), responded to by Chermack (2019), which was replied back to in a rejoinder (Rowland & Spaniol, 2019). The practice of generating scholarly conversation around a focal paper in F&FS has since been formalized and has developed into the structure embodied in this issue of the journal.…”