Classification of Tools and Approaches Applicable in Foresight Studies
Are predictive quantitative methods too limited to serve as tools in foresight studies? This concern has recently been met by the emerging application of qualitative methods as a means to complement and compensate for the perceived weaknesses of quantitat
- PDF / 590,377 Bytes
- 26 Pages / 439.37 x 666.14 pts Page_size
- 89 Downloads / 179 Views
Classification of Tools and Approaches Applicable in Foresight Studies Jan Erik Karlsen and Hanne Karlsen
3.1
Theoretical Background of Foresight Methodologies
Are predictive quantitative methods too limited to serve as tools in foresight studies? This concern has recently been met by the emerging application of qualitative methods as a means to complement and compensate for the perceived weaknesses of quantitative methods. It is particularly in terms of reflecting sudden changes or detecting incremental and weak signals of change in real societies that quantitative methods are deemed too static. A productive foresight analysis will need a more differentiated sense-making and robust repertoire (Rossel 2010, 2012). Krawczyk and Slaughter (2010: p. 75) state: The development of futures studies and the continuing advancement of its methodological base is a consequence of changing human needs regarding present and future as well as its cultural and social foundations. As in recent decades the world has been dramatically transformed, people’s ways of approaching, considering and addressing these transformations have been constantly evolving thereby also stimulating the development of new futures methods.
Some recent foresight programmes and projects (e.g. COST A22) have challenged this issue by combining narratives and thick descriptions with games, simulations, or computer-based models and calculations.
J.E. Karlsen (*) Faculty of Social Sciences University of Stavanger, Stavanger 4036, Norway e-mail: [email protected] H. Karlsen, M.Phil. Department of Leadership and Organizational Management at BI, Norwegian School of Management, Nydalsveien 37, 0484 Oslo, Norway e-mail: [email protected] M. Giaoutzi and B. Sapio (eds.), Recent Developments in Foresight Methodologies, Complex Networks and Dynamic Systems 1, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-5215-7_3, © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
27
28
J.E. Karlsen and H. Karlsen
The range of approaches to foresight research clearly indicates that the dichotomization between quantitative and qualitative methods is an unbalanced and oversimplified one. Qualitative research represents an approach rather than a dedication to a specific set of methods and techniques. Its application and appropriateness is contingent on the kind of foresight phenomena to be studied, discussed, and described. The same can be said about quantitative research: It is directed by the phenomena under scrutiny. It is evident that there is a gap between the complexity of future options and pathways which is addressed in foresight studies and the analytical tools applied to map this complexity. And there is no consensus on an appropriate methodology balance between the qualitative and quantitative approaches. The lack of a common and approved methodology originates, at least partly, from the fact that the inherent ontological and epistemological characteristics of qualitative and quantitative methods differ when it comes to capturing the complexity of issues addressed in foresight exercises (K
Data Loading...
