Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reflections on how to Improve Future Scenarios

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Envisioning Uncertain Futures

Part of the book series: Zukunft und Forschung ((ZUFORSCH))

  • 406 Accesses

Abstract

The given examples of scenarios in this volume vary according to their development, content, goals, and their utilization. The aim of this section is to reflect on scenarios as tools in different contexts. Against the background of the examples in this volume the challenges, potential weaknesses, and strengths of the method and its application are scrutinized. From a practical point of view, scenarios are intended to matter – for instance as a new perspective, a catalyst for discussions or a virtual test bed. However, whether they actually have an impact or not might not be measurable in all cases and sometimes their ways of influencing were not intended by the developers since the perceived impact is not controllable and depends on the recipient.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Amanatidou, E. & Guy, K. (2008). Interpreting foresight process impacts: steps towards the development of a framework conceptualising the dynamics of ‘foresight systems’. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75 (4), 539-557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansoff, H. I. (1975). Managing strategic surprise by response to weak signals. Californian Management Review, 18 (2), 21–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansoff, H. I. (1980). Strategic issues management. Strategic Management Journal, 1, 131–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2000). Trading is hazardous to your wealth: The common stock investment performance of individual investors. The Journal of Finance, 55 (2), 773-806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2001). Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. Quarterly journal of Economics, 116, 261-292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, P., Hines, A., & Collins, T. (2007). The current state of scenario development: an overview of techniques. Foresight, 9 (1), 5-25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuhls, K., & Georghiou, L. (2004). Evaluating a participative foresight process: ‘Futur-the German research dialogue’. Research Evaluation, 13 (3), 143-153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullison, A. (2004). Inside Al-Qaeda’s hard drive. The Atlantic Monthly, 294, 55-65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink, A., Siebe, A., & Kuhle, J. P. (2010). How scenarios interconnect strategy, innovation, and early warning processes. World Future Review, 2 (1), 5-30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenn, J. C. (Ed.) (2009). Futures research methodology. Version 3.0. Washington, D.C.: The Millennium Project (CD-Rom).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel, J. (2014). A scientific enquiry into the future. European Journal of Futures Research, 2 (1), 1-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, A. (2013). Wissenschaftliche Validität als Qualitätsmerkmal der Zukunftsforschung. Zeitschrift für Zukunftsforschung, 2, 22-33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heuer, R. J. (1999). Psychology of intelligence analysis. Washington D.C.: Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holopainen, M., & Toivonen, M. (2012). Weak signals: Ansoff today. Futures, 44 (3), 198-205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inayatullah, S. (2009). Causal layered analysis: an integrative and transformative theory and method. In J. C. Glenn (Ed.). Futures research methodology. Version 3.0. Washington, D.C.: The Millennium Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarke, M., Bui, X. T., & Carroll, J. M. (1998). Scenario management: An interdisciplinary approach. Requirements Engineering, 3 (3-4), 155-173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of mixed methods research, 1 (2), 112-133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, H. (1960), On Thermonuclear War. New Yersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, H. (1962). Thinking about the Unthinkable. New York: Avalon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, H. & Wiener, A. J. (1967). The year 2000: A Framework for speculation on the Next Thirty-three Years. New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosow, H. & Gaßner, R. (2008). Methods of Future and Scenario Analysis. Overview, Assessment, and Selection Criteria. DIE Studies, 39. Bonn: Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik. Available at: https://www.die-gdi.de/uploads/media/Studies_39.2008.pdf [18.08.2015].

  • Kuusi, O., Cuhls, K & Steinmüller, K. (2015). Quality Criteria for Scientific Futures Research. Futura, 1, 60-77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuusi, O. (2006). Suomen Terveydenhuollon tulevaisuudet. In: Terveydenhuollon tulevaisuus, Eduskunnan kanslian julkaisu, 3. [The futures of health care, in Finnish].

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M., Haviland-Jones, J. M., & Barrett, L. F. (Ed.) (2010). Handbook of emotions. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, S. S., Kang, M. H., & Lee, L. C. (2009). Developing the evaluation framework of technology foresight program: lesson learned from European countries. In Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy (1–12). Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R. (2010). The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently… and Why. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, F. A., & Meadows, M. (2013). Scenario orientation and use to support strategy development. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80 (4), 643-656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peperhove, R. & Bernasconi, T. (2014). Operative Qualität. In L. Gerhold et al. (Ed.). Standards und Gütekriterien der Zukunftsforschung. Ein Handbuch für Wissenschaft und Praxis (121-130). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peperhove, R. & Luoto, L. (2015). Scientific quality in foresight studies – Reflecting and discussing criteria for their assessment. Special Issue of Foresight (expected to be published in 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, R. (2008a). Foresight Methodology. In L. Georghiou, J. C. Harper & M. Miles (Ed.). The handbook of technology foresight: concepts and practice (44-90). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, R. (2008b). How are foresight methods selected? Foresight, 10 (6), 62-89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooney, D., Joseph, R., Mandeville, T., & Hearn, G. (2003). Public Policy and the Knowledge Economy: Foundations and Frameworks (New Horizons in Public Policy). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, P. (1996). The art of the long view: paths to strategic insight for yourself and your company. New York: Broadway Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selvin, S. (1975). Problem in probability. American Statistician, 29 (1), 67- 71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinmüller, K. (2012). Szenarien – Ein Methodenkomplex zwischen wissenschaftlichem Anspruch und zeitgeistiger Bricolage. In: R. Popp (Ed.). Zukunft und Wissenschaft. Wege und Irrwege der Zukunftsforschung (101-137). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. (2014). Brits: the War against the IRA. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185 (4157), 1124-1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90 (4), 293-315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Steen, M. & Van der Duin, P. (2012). Learning ahead of time: how evaluation of foresight may add to increased trust, organizational learning and future oriented policy and strategy. Futures, 44 (5), 487-493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varho, V. & Tapio, P. (2013). Combining the qualitative and quantitative with the Q2 scenario technique — The case of transport and climate. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80 (4), 611-630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wæver, O. (1993). Securitization and desecuritization. Centre for Peace and Conflict Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, I. (2000). From scenario thinking to strategic action. Technological forecasting and social change, 65 (1), 23-29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Berlin, Germany

    Roman Peperhove

Authors
  1. Roman Peperhove
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roman Peperhove .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Roman Peperhove

  2. Berlin, Germany

    Karlheinz Steinmüller

  3. Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Hans-Liudger Dienel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Peperhove, R. (2018). Reflections on how to Improve Future Scenarios. In: Peperhove, R., Steinmüller, K., Dienel, HL. (eds) Envisioning Uncertain Futures . Zukunft und Forschung. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-25074-4_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation