The scenario planning paradox

Abstract

For more than a decade, futures studies scholars have prefaced scholarly contributions by repeating the claim that there is insufficient theory to support chaotic scenario methodology. The strategy is formulaic, and the net effect is a curious one, which the authors refer to as the scenario planning paradox. Contributing fresh theory supposedly attends to the "dismal" state of theory, while contributing new typologies purportedly helps bring order to methodological chaos. Repeated over time, the contribution strategy breaks down. Effort to resolve the theoretical and methodological issue, which motivates re-statement of the claim in the first place, ultimately fails. In actuality, the field is distanced from its purported goals. The "dismal" state of theory encourages scholars to adopt theory that is not necessarily tethered to a common core, which does not contribute to a shared, foundational theoretical perspective in futures studies. Perceived chaos gives way to typologies, which, as they mount, contribute to the chaos they were meant to resolve. The end result, intended by no one, is that theory remains dismal and methods remain chaotic. This direction for the field is indefensible and untenable; either the field accepts this claim as a statement of truth, for which the solution is substantially enhanced empiricism, or rejects the claim and re-interprets the bounty produced by said claim to be a kind of richness in theory and method rather than the implicit paucity, poverty, and imperfection that they oft signify to the field now

Assessing qualitative and quantitative dimensions of uncertainty in energy modelling for policy support in the United Kingdom

“…The ability of NUSAP to highlight the most critical uncertainties in models can also represent a structured method of selecting the most relevant dimensions for assessment in scenario-based analyses. This brings increased methodological rigour to the often chaotic and ad hoc process that characterise much scenario development activity [64][65][66] and potentially avoids the all-too-common situation where scenario-and-simulation exercises simply vary 1 or 2 parameters of interest without a thoroughly grounded understanding of whether these are really critical to influencing modelled outcomes.…”

Psychological biases and heuristics in the context of foresight and scenario processes

“…There are a number of different approaches to scenario development (Bishop, Hines, & Collins, ). In the foresight community, it is an ongoing discussion whether this multitude of approaches mirrors “methodological chaos” and insufficient theory or constitutes the versatility of the method (Spaniol & Rowland, , p. 33). One major point of methodological disagreement, for example, concerns the number of factors to consider, that is, whether to stick to a 2 × 2 matrix or to include more factors (Ramirez & Wilkinson, ; Spaniol & Rowland, ).…”

“…In the foresight community, it is an ongoing discussion whether this multitude of approaches mirrors “methodological chaos” and insufficient theory or constitutes the versatility of the method (Spaniol & Rowland, , p. 33). One major point of methodological disagreement, for example, concerns the number of factors to consider, that is, whether to stick to a 2 × 2 matrix or to include more factors (Ramirez & Wilkinson, ; Spaniol & Rowland, ). Still, most approaches start by “deconstructing” a system into a set of individual factors of change, then tackle these factors individually by sketching different possible long‐term developments (“projections”) and finally reassemble these “factor projections” into different possible future configurations.…”

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

“…As applied to futures and foresight science, reflexivity raises some awkward issues not easily resolved. In Spaniol and Rowland (, p. 103), the authors adopt an STS lens, revealing that “[f]or more than a decade, scholars have prefaced their scientific communications by conspicuously bemoaning the lack of theory to support scenario methodology.” In a subsequent publication, Spaniol and Rowland (, p. 41) position themselves reflexively and engage the inevitable:

The authors would be remiss not to admit that it is unfair to problematize the repetitiveness of the claims under scrutiny after having repeated the same claims during analysis. Meme‐like repetition of claims is nearly impossible to draw analytical attention to without contributing to the repetition called into question in the first place.

…”

“…Addressing Chermack’s () concern directly: Have we muddled definition, theory, and method? Of course we have (Rowland & Spaniol, ; Rowland & Spaniol, ; Spaniol & Rowland, a; ; b). The productive question is “why?” Have no illusions; these claims were muddled long before relative newcomers like ourselves joined the chorus.…”