Aperture: An Approach for Transformative Futures & Foresight (part one)
“All that you touch you change. All that you change changes you.”
— Octavia Butler
Across cultures, contexts, humanities, and the sciences — from social to physical and quantum to psychological — there are a range of definitions, framings, and measures for what constitutes transformation and transformative [insert noun here]. In theory, transformation seems pretty simple — something starts as one thing and ends up as something else. Cue the caterpillars. In practice, however, transformation is … well, yeah.
In the spirit of futures, transformation feels more like a verb than a noun, plural rather than singular, and contextual rather than categorical. Clearly, I am not the first to have had such insights, and it is not the intent of this piece to put forward or champion one definition, framing, and/or measure of transformation, although Butler’s observation about the complex, nonlinear, and even lingering dynamics of change is illuminating, as always.
This piece takes up transformative futures and foresight with an emphasis on practice and process, specifically how one might curate, facilitate, and orchestrate shared spaces of learning and discovery. At times, this piece focuses internally— on aligning one’s self (or selves) to curate, facilitate, and/or orchestrate transformative futures and foresight. At other times, it looks externally — looking at approaches, methods, and tools to seed transformative futures and foresight. For both, a mix of concepts, framings, and principles are employed.
What follows can best, if not only, be described as an attempt to think out loud — excogitation, as it were. In what follows, there are twists and turns, and, hopefully, there may also be elements that can be built upon and strengthened. Parts are history, others attempts at bridge-building, and auto-ethnography.
I have had the good fortune to learn from and with from many phenomenal academics, artists, curators, facilitators, futurists, practitioners, researchers, and those who defy singular labels. While I believe that hands-on learning is without equal, I also think that there is immense value in individual exploration and experimentation, which is to say that one of the reasons for writing this piece is to open up broader conversations and exchanges on the nature of futures and foresight practice and process.
Initially, this work was first developed for a session at the University of Houston’s 2023 Spring Gathering, but what exists now is substantively different. A second version was presented at the 2023 Finland Futures Research Center Conference held in Turku earlier this Summer, and, again, what exists now is a bit different.
Ultimately, my aim in sharing this now (and via this medium, pardon the pun) is to elicit feedback, benefit from the wisdom of the crowd, and garner further insights so this can and might be nurtured into something else, perhaps an article (or two). With that said, I very much want to ensure that the framework remains “open source,” so this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, although I admittedly and gratefully continue to stand on the shoulders of giants, so I have provided references where applicable.
Ok, here it goes.
In a brilliant and sweeping piece of research, Curry brings forward the story of the two strands of futures, with an emphasis on scenarios as a practice, that emerged following the second World War. He observes:
“One approach to futures practice emerged from American wartime operational planning (Seefried, 2014, pp. 2–3). The dominant strand of scenarios work seen in business and military use today can be traced back to this work. A second approach emerged in Europe as a way to reconstruct societies rather than to win wars. This strand was associated with ideas about visioning and desirable futures. As scenarios practice emerged into the futures mainstream in the 1970s and after, this second strand — which had much stronger ideas within it about agency and the ability to change the future — all but disappeared for a generation from the literature and from practice” (Curry 2022).
Highlighting how this “second strand” served as a foundation for critical futures studies (Slaughter 1998; Ramos 2002), Curry makes a point to mention how, “under the leadership of James Dator (from 1971 to 2014),” the “Mānoa School of Futures Studies” (Jones 1992) fostered a space for the continuation and mutation of this second strand.
In a passage worth quoting in full, he explains:
“This more radical view of the purpose of futures is seen in the tradition that connects Polak to Jungk and Galtung and the work of Elise Boulding. This dissenting strand never went away, but perhaps disappeared from mainstream view in the 1980s and 1990s. In these decades, it is associated with the work on values and on theories of social change seen in the Hawai’i school under the leadership of James Dator (from 1971 to 2014) and in methods such as alternative futures (Bezold, 2009; Dator, 2009), CLA (Inayatullah, 2004), images of the future, the Manoa method (Schultz, 2015), Schultz’s (1995) visioning methods, integral futures (Slaughter, 1998) and, more recently, post-normal futures (Sardar, 2017; see also ‘Prospection’ in this volume)” (Curry 2022).
I think that a case can be made that this strand continued to be part of the mainstream, although its tendency for dissent, as Curry notes, did not sit well with those seeking to garner strategic insights, rather than create the conditions of possibility for transformation, so perhaps it is better to say that this strand was eclipsed. Observing this dynamic, Sardar remarks:
“A great deal of foresight work is concerned with ‘scenario planning’, which, in my opinion, is devouring futures studies. Within some businesses, corporations and government institutions scenarios are seen as the only way of exploring the future. Futures studies thus becomes synonymous with ‘strategic foresight’ or ‘scenario planning’ with a clear emphasis on winning over others, instead of exploring and developing creative, novel and inclusive solutions” (Sardar 2010).
Written in 2010, Sardar’s provocation is perhaps even more potent and prescient then when it was first published, especially in light of recent moves to apotheosize empirical approaches, which certainly have an importance place and function in the broader field, but which can and must take heed of past movements and turns within the futures and foresight field (e.g. critical futures studies), if not broader developments within the humanities, social sciences, and philosophy. With that said, there is some interesting futures and foresight research (and practice) that invokes critical realism (Boonmavichit & Boossabong 2022).
Having studied the humanities (history, philosophy, and religion), I was woefully unaware (i.e. oblivious) of the futures and foresight field until 2008 when serendipity sat me down in front of Jim Dator, and it was under his tutelage that I was introduced to those involved with the birthing of the World Futures Studies Federation. My overall perspective on the futures and foresight field is absolutely and willfully skewed toward this strand, although a great deal of my professional work, which is also to say work that is paid, has been organizational with a decided bent toward strategic foresight outcomes and outputs. With that said, it has been through many and varied connections and relations, not only through the “Mānoa School” network but certainly in large part to the generosity and good will of this group, that I have continued to learn and grow.
In keeping my connections to this other(ed) strand, I received a research fellowship from the Robert Jungk Library in Salzburg, Austria (2019) where I accessed some of his works that were previously unknown to me. Given the recent surge of interest in imagination, Jungk’s extraordinary work certainly deserves greater attention, if not recognition. The dynamic ouevre of Ivana Milojević and Sohail Inayatullah, specifically their work on narrative foresight, has been extremely influential, and their work, in particular, provides the foundation for this piece on transformative futures and foresight. Within the broader context of narrative foresight, the work of José Ramos on mutant futures is invoked expressly as part of aperture, and he has been a truly amazing co-conspirator and collaborator over the years. Through the generosity and collegiality of Inayatullah, I participated in the initial gathering of the Asia-Pacific Futures Network and have continued to participate in this extraordinary space to learn and share over the years. The Association of Professional Futurists has been a dynamic community from which to learn and share with practitioners around the world. I bring this forward as I truly think that the value of engaging with community is without equal.
Communities, such as UNESCO’s Global Futures Literacy Network, have also been exceedingly influential and supportive, and multiple encounters and engagements utilizing futures literacy (Miller 2015, Miller et al. 2018; Feukeu, Ajilore, & Bourgeois 2021) have spurred further reflection on the constraints and limits of “strategic” foresight, specifically scenarios.
Capturing the perceptual obstacles and imaginative barriers that even the most skilled practitioner can face when seeking to go beyond strategic concerns and considerations, especially with scenarios, Feukeu recounts:
“I worked with a group of bankers who were all set to explore possible, probable or preferable futures — as long as we did not question growth. The point is that traditional foresight may suffer from not questioning those tension points, and the fact that we can reveal their existence is a good entry point for this much needed conversation. It’s not always easy to do, because the reason why we are in demand is to provide solutions or answers, whereas as I see it futurists need to be midwives, enabling others to birth their own visions. We act as translators between worlds, to use the decolonial feminist Maria Lugones’s definition. That’s also why I’m so keen to see how people engage with futures literacy, because they see how they can use it in their own disciplines. Futures practitioners would gain from thinking about themselves not as method appliers, but as capability developers” (Larsen, Feukeu, & Karuri-Sebina 2022).
As evidenced in the extensive literature on futures literacy (Miller 2015, Miller et al. 2018; Feukeu, Ajilore, & Bourgeois 2021), a capability-based approach focuses on how people acquire “the skills needed to decide why and how to use their imagination to introduce the non-existent future into the present” (Miller et al. 2018). While there have been critiques over “literacy” as a metaphor, I find this framing to be more instructive, if not impactful, versus “natural,” biological,” and/or “evolutionary” framings, which have, to put it mildly, unsavory connotations and even more distasteful historical applications, but I digress.
In a daring conclusion that, of course, looks ahead but also stares into scenario planning’s proverbial abyss, Curry offers up one last insight that really resonates. He contends:
“[…] Expecting conventional scenarios practice — and notably, the intuitive logics school — to evolve beyond its current range, or to address issues of power or meaning, is a category error. It can do this, in the hands of capable practitioners, but usually only by applying other futures techniques designed to open up such questions. […] It is hard not to conclude, as environmental conditions become increasingly turbulent, social values become more informal and organizations continue to experiment with being less hierarchical, that scenario planning will be displaced by more critical futures techniques” (Curry 2022).
To be clear, I hold no grudges against scenarios (even the much maligned 2x2 matrix) or scenario planning (better to do both than not), and given that I continue to instruct others in how to craft them and use a range of methods in my professional practice, I clearly think that they can have immense value.
But, not all approaches are created equal.
To this point, scenarios are not synonymous with alternative futures. As conveyed by Inayatullah (via a correspondence with Dator), alternative futures are “a far broader concept, being based on historical archetypes, deep patterns that reoccur through time” (Inayatullah 2009, 78). Dator’s “four generic forms” (Dator 2009; Dator 2014) are perhaps the most well-known set of alternative futures archetypes, and, as he notes, they “differ from each other fundamentally in cosmology, epistemology, and often deontology, and are not variations on a common set of themes” (Dator 2009). Ultimately, alternative futures are reflective of “images of the future” (Polak and Boulding 1973), which is to say that they can and might change over time, and, indeed, they have. As Bezold recounts, there were as many as 10 “major images” that Dator brought forward in the 1970’s (Bezold 2009).
My intent in sharing the above is to bring forward the situatedness of my thinking as I have been working on this framework — one that I hope strengthens further the existing foundations of transformative futures and foresight by making clear linkages with a range of existing framings, movements, and turns, namely: critical futures studies (Slaughter 1998), narrative foresight (Milojević and Inayatullah 2015), embodied foresight (Floyd et al. 2008, Bussey 2014), participatory futures (Ramos et al. 2019), and futures literacy (Miller 2015, Miller et al. 2018; Feukeu, Ajilore, & Bourgeois 2021).
Essential to all of the above is action research, and, more recently, anticipatory action research (also participatory action research, futures action research, and participatory anticipatory action research) have brought forward concepts, framings, and principles that are clearly foundational and essential within transformative futures and foresight (Ramos 2006; Ramos 2016; Bourgeois, Karuri-Sebina, & Feukeu 2022). Clearly, there is overlap with movements to develop Foresight 3.0, which centers on collective futures intelligence.
As I began to think about ways of rendering the relationship between strategic and transformative approaches, I began to play with different models emphasizing what I saw as the primary distinctions between the two.
As with any model (à la George Box), the above is wrong!
But, hopefully, the above images are useful, especially for ideation and exploration. In lieu of fully deconstructing them, I would call attention to a few points of concern. Yes, the above distinctions (particularly in the matrix) are inherently reductive, if not overly simplistic. Again, the intent is not to be divisive but rather to find the boundaries and borders of theory and practice. Yes, data can take many shapes and forms, including images and imaginaries.
In searching the peer-reviewed literature to substantiate my thinking and develop further the foundation for transformative futures and foresight, I came across only a few published works that utilize this particular framing (and phrasing), specifically: Slaughter 1999; van der Heijden 2009; Nasruddin, Bustami, and Inayatullah 2012; Inayatullah and Milojević 2015; Inayatullah 2019; Inayatullah and Sweeney 2020; & Inayatullah 2020. And, there are even fewer instances of distinguishing between strategic and transformative foresight within practice-focused publications.
An exception is the (now reconstituted) Global Centre for Public Service Excellence’s 2015 Foresight Manual, which distinguishes between strategic, participatory, revolutionary, and transformative foresight. However, the 2018 version omits these differentiations entirely, which is curious but also highlights the ascendancy of strategic foresight.
In a review of the literature as well as policy-based practices across a range of contexts, Minkkinen, Auffermann, and Ahokas found that “transformative” is a widely-used “framing” to describe futures and foresight (2019). Additionally, there are specific scenario approaches (Kahane 2012) that utilize this phrasing, and work on “transformative imagination” (Bussey 2015). Of course, Transform / Transformation are recognized “images of the future” and alternative futures archetypes (Dator 2009; Hines and Bishop 2013; Fergnani and Jackson 2019; & Fergnani and Song 2020). Some have even moved to create sets of fully “transformational futures” (Heinonen et al. 2017).
In consideration of all of the above, it is clear that there is space to strengthen further the conceptual and theoretical foundations of transformative futures and foresight. As such, my specific point of departure for this exploration returns to insights that emerged from an interview with Inayatullah, who explains that transformative futures and foresight: “asks us to be aware of the selves that are implicated in the process of doing futures. It is not that we are using the future, but the future is using us” (Inayatullah and Sweeney 2020).
At its core, transformative futures and foresight re-conceptualizes the role and function of the curator, facilitator, and/or orchestrator. Inayatullah reflects:
“Transformative futures seeks to go beyond strategy by ensuring the selves that seek to optimise are understood: disowned selves questioned. Instead of the strategic plan, anticipatory action learning results. Solutions are not a list of official actions but emerge from ‘where the energy is’ – where there is passion and excitement for change. Transformative futures is learning based. It also seeks to integrate rational and emotional dimensions. The future is not merely a place but a feeling, a possibility of change. It has an expansion dimension, a deeply inclusive dimension, and integrates as much as possible different dimensions of what it means to be human – technological and spiritual, if you will. But for transformation to even have the possibility, as a futurist, I have to be upfront with my biases and positions. I need to often leave my role as an expert, a professor, at the door. Rather, what I have learned is that our role is transmutation, to not be the smartest in the room, but to help bring out the intelligence in everyone else in the room. It is their show, we are there to facilitate emergence” (Inayatullah 2019).
Although there is much that can be taken from the above, one thing that stands out is the degree to which transformative futures and foresight lays bare any pretense of objectivity. I’m reminded here of Nandy’s contention: “Explorations in the future, I also passionately believe, have to be specifically statements of dissent from the existing ideas of normality, sanity and objectivity” (Nandy 1996).
Taking Nandy’s observation to heart, it is clear that transformative futures and foresight can and might hold spaces where the imperfect nature of shared learning and discovery is celebrated and positioned as something that we can (and must) explore consciously, critically, and creatively through a diverse array of practices, processes, and participation modalities. Ultimately, transformative futures and foresight asks us to be present in ways that require attentiveness, vulnerability, and openness.
Bringing forward a metaphor for the journeying that is inherent to transformative futures and foresight, Inayatullah observes: “Transformative foresight […] is opening a space where we all learn and transform with each other. This is less the Hero’s journey than the collective caravan” (Inayatullah and Sweeney 2020).
Taking “the caravan” as more than a mere metaphor, I see strong linkages between transformative futures and foresight and participatory futures (Ramos et al. 2019), specifically play-based approaches, which have become a large part of my professional practice and, perhaps most importantly, bring forward ways of interacting and engaging that not only enable competition but foster genuine collaboration, learning, and discovery.
As I noted in my dissertation, and invoking the work of Colman, play is not just a means to rehearse or simulate possibilities, although it does this well; play can reorient our very sense of things, including the future(s):
“Explicating the epistemological as well as ontological aspects of play from a Deleuzian perspective, Colman contends: Play is productive and destructive of existing categories of normativity; play messes with epistemologies […] (Colman 2012, 251).” (Sweeney 2018).
With an eye toward “messing” with things and going beyond the workshop as a dominant mode and model of engagement, I am particularly keen to explore how play (broadly defined) can and might serve as a (not the) conduit for transformative futures and foresight.
Of course, games and simulations have a long and rich history in futures and foresight. As I noted in my dissertation:“From overlaying gaming dynamics, such as role-play, onto existing methods to the creation of boutique platforms and systems, futurists have been using games for decades, although the past two decades has seen a veritable explosion of experiential approaches (Bok and Ruve 2007; Bontoux et al. 2014; Dannenberg and Fischer 2017; Dator et al. 2015; Hayward and Candy 2017; Hayward and Voros 2004; Heinonen et al. 2015; Inayatullah 2013; Milojević 2017)” (Sweeney 2018).
This play is part and parcel of the fluidity inherent to narrative foresight, which, as Milojević and Inayatullah contend: “[…] straddles the boundary between the empirical, interpretive, critical, and action learning modes of futures studies. It uses the forecasts of the empirical but recasts them as possible stories. That is, unlike the empirical approach of futures studies, which sees narratives (qua data) as accurate and a precise description of an objective reality, narrative foresight, in the tradition of interpretive, critical and poststructural futures studies, sees reality as constantly negotiated by stakeholders. It focuses on metaphors and myths within the interpretive. Like the critical, it challenges assumptions and interests but does so to transform or enrich the worldview of the questioner, not just to disrupt the categories of that which is being questioned. Action emerges from this deep questioning of data, meaning, worldview and metaphor. Narrative foresight as well inquires as to the implications of deep narratives and the relationship of the narratives held by self and other” (Milojević and Inayatullah 2015).
Transformation can and might emerge when previously unknown and/or unthought possibilities are entertained, engaged, and/or embraced leading to actual and perceptual shifts — between self and other, self and world, and self [being] and selves [becoming].
In subsequent parts, and as I develop more fully each aspect of the aperture framework, I will highlight modalities of play — many of which have been developed by others and some of which are emergent, which is to say that I am continuing to play with new approaches, methods, and tools.
If I have any aspiration for aperture, it would be to foster a living framework that acts as a conceptual, theoretical, and methodological playground for transformative futures and foresight — one, of course, that cannot (and should not) be sculpted by a single pair of hands.
Deriving from the Latin apertura (literally openness), aperture is … well, about just that, and, within the context of optics, it denotes an adjustable opening that lets in light. Without this process, it would be impossible to generate a photographic image, and it has a creative element.
To the extent that we can become more aware and focus our attentiveness, vulnerability, and openness as a co-journeying member of the caravan, rather than the “heroic facilitator,” spaces of shared learning and discovery can and might open up something more — both in ourselves and others.
Recounting his own journey towards understanding the importance of this emergent dynamic, Inayatullah intimates:
“What I learned from Tony Stevenson and Robert Burke is that the future gets created in real time through emergence. Emergence is based on creating trust in each other, in the process. It is, as NBA basketball coach Mike D’Antoni argues, finding the energy, not creating a better plan. This means creating flows that open toward emergence. In traditional basketball, the goal was to find the best player and ensure they have the ball most of the time. They get the last shot: “hero ball.” D’Antoni, in contrast, suggested moving away from the hero to “energy,” to movement, allowing “energy” — the flow of the ball, the flow of the persons playing — to define the next play. Energy for him creates emergence” (Inayatullah and Sweeney 2020).
Transformative futures and foresight calls for the curation, facilitation, and orchestration of energy (literally “the flow”) through focusing, modulating, and shifting our attentiveness, vulnerability, and openness. Knowing how to recognize this energy, how to follow it, when to move with it in unexpected ways, and how to play with and within the caravan, as a shared space of learning and discovery, is how we can and might open up transformative potentialities and possibilities — individually, communally, and beyond.
Noting the complexity of this opening-up, as well as what it asks of us, Bussey observes:
“Foresight work is always about opening up the future and challenging closure. To head in this direction involves an appreciation for the sixth principle as open futures cannot be given in any specified way. Openness cannot be predetermined of course so understanding that the future is multiple and open-ended requires conceptual and emotional resilience on the part of all involved in any foresight exercise” (Bussey 2014).
The resilience of practicing transformative futures and foresight comes from the shared learning and discovery of the caravan — from curating, facilitating, and orchestrating the energy (the flow). And, perhaps most importantly, there is a need to align oneself — as the curator, facilitator, and/or orchestrator. As Ramos observes: “We can create lots of strategies but if the inner culture of our lives will not fully embrace them, then they will not work (Ramos 2020).
In light of all of the above, I have brought together concepts, framings, and principles that speak to some of the core elements of transformative futures and foresight. Each has a few approaches, methods, and tools, with an emphasis on modalities of play, that, I believe, help to bring forward attentiveness, vulnerability, and, ultimately, openness — certainly for those curating, facilitating, and orchestrating such processes and practices as well as those who are part of the caravan.
This is aperture.
A — anticipatory assumptions (Polak Game, Futures Literacy Laboratories)
P — positionality (Social Change Role, CLA)
E — embodiment <> energy (Mutant Futures Triangle)
R — reflexivity (CLA, new approach in development)
T — trust (Sarkar Game)
U — unthought (Menagerie of Postnormal Potentialities, Dreams and Disruptions Game, new approach in development)
R — rhizomatic knolwedge creation (Metaphor Molecule, new approach in development)
E — engagement <> empowerment (Our Futures Game)
In part two, I will provide further detail on each of the above concepts, framings, and principles, which, at present, constitute the aperture framework, which, again, is intended to act as a conceptual, theoretical, and methodological playground, so there is no limit on associating and affiliating approaches, methods, and tools.
Finally, it is worth noting that while aperture is an acronym, perhaps implying a particular flow or unfolding, this is not the case. As a framework, aperture is not linear or intends to provide a road map. At best, one can and might use aperture to play — to craft recipes, not formulas.
In order to model this dynamic, I have shared high-level visuals of such recipes, and I will add further detail in part two (or three).
Anticipatory Assumptions >>> Positionality >>> Unthought Futures >>> Rhizomatic Knowledge Creation >>> Reflexivity
Anticipatory Assumptions >>> Rhizomatic Knowledge Creation >>> Trust >>> Engagement <> Empowerment
Embodiment <> Energy >>> Trust >>> Engagement <> Empowerment >>> Unthought Futures >>> Anticipatory Assumptions
