What We Know and What We Believe: Lessons from cognitive psychology
- PDF / 121,817 Bytes
- 8 Pages / 539 x 703 pts Page_size
- 73 Downloads / 206 Views
Thematic Section
What We Know and What We Believe: Lessons from cognitive psychology
RON BRADFIELD
ABSTRACT Most of what is known about scenarios comes from three sources: articles in the practitioner literature describing how scenario planning is undertaken; articles from the ‘future research’ literature that offer models for constructing scenarios, and a small body of research based on empirical studies of related topics. It is this third source that Ron Bradfield discusses as he draws out possible lessons from research for scenario practitioners. KEYWORDS cognitive simplification processes; knowledge organization; activation; scenarios
Introduction The concept of scenarios is an old one, since earliest recorded time people have been interested in the future and have used scenarios as a tool for indirectly exploring the future of society and its institutions. In this context, scenarios have usually taken the form of treatises on utopias and dystopias, examples of which range from the writings of early philosophers such as Plato, through to the work of visionary writers such as George Orwell. Of course, the only way in which we can attempt to investigate the future is to develop simulation models of it such as scenarios, and then experiment within these models. However in building these models we are forced to rely largely on intuitive judgment or ‘gut feel’, rather than on rigorous scientific models. This is not just a temporary expedient but a pragmatic inevitability because firstly, no hard data about the future exist, and secondly unlike conventional scientific research, futures research problems do not come in precisely structured, well-defined packages. The fact that scenarios of necessity rely on intuitive judgment has led to criticism from researchers who contend that because there has been so little systematic research in the area, scenario planning is not based on a solid conceptual foundation and does not have a sufficiently strong scientific basis to be regarded as an academic discipline. There are those who argue that this because the whole field of futures studies is ‘prescientific’ and there has been insufficient time to develop ‘neat scientific theories’ through methodical research in the field; others suggest that research in the area of scenarios has been neglected because the growth in popularity of scenarios has happened for practical reasons rather than theoretical ones. Whatever the reason, the Development (2004) 47(4), 35–42. doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1100093
Development 47(4): Thematic Section consequence is that as yet there is no generally accepted, theoretically and empirically sound scenario construction methodology and therefore scenario development processes are largely ad hoc. However, while there has been little direct research in the area of scenarios, there is a body of empirical evidence from the cognitive psychology domain that may be generalizable to scenarios, and offer some advice to practitioners, particularly in the area of ways in which cognitive factors can inf
Data Loading...
