Rigor and diversity in the futures field: A commentary on Fergnani and Chermack 2021

The focal paper “The resistance to scientific theory in futures and foresight, what do about it” by Fergnani Chermack is a welcome challenge introduce more rigor into the field. raises numerous issues that hinder incremental development foresight field together with proposed solutions, it provides an excellent starting point for discussion. In this commentary, I would like raise two general questions: choice of reference fields levels theory. first question concerns use management organization sciences as considering discuss whether other points may lead different lines theorizing. Historical institutionalism science technology studies (STS) are presented complementary fields. This discussion intended reminder interdisciplinary nature without succumbing authors call “the enjoyment being outliers.”1 1 For sake simplicity,”interdisciplinary” used describe field, although we could go further argue transdisciplinary second consideration how can contribute discussions issue raised concern kinds phenomena at complexity. take natural While valid, illuminate equally important aspects Several be used, but social areas chosen here: historical STS. These selected because they broad relatively well-established, expected complement perspective. focus on (cf. Piirainen & Gonzalez, 2015), is, “scientific theories interventions,” rather than within work. Without delving long-standing debate art, science, or something else (Bell, 1997, Chapter 4), claim rigorous scholarly work pursued also beyond organizational approach so-called new sociology, political economics. interesting parallel Ossip Flechtheim, who coined “futurology,” likened sociology (quoted Masini, 2010). institutionalists emphasize path dependencies, openness outcomes, critical junctures (e.g., Capoccia Kelemen, 2007; Hall Taylor, 1996; Thelen, 1999). Comparative approaches methods such process tracing tend develop why particular developments occurred (George Bennett, 2005). A lens enables studying path-dependent multi-stakeholder negotiation institutional rules Cartwright, 2018; Minkkinen, 2019). researchers investigating systemic energy transitions Veenman et al., 2019) utilize historically grounded theorize factors led past condition future developments. How analysis enrich future-oriented inquiry was discussed previous journal (Schoemaker, 2020). bibliometric study, one found six thematic clusters scholarship (Fergnani, Two (“past futures” “humanity limen”) taken represent “core research,” which falling out fashion institutionalist perspective reinvigorate strand increase its rigor. Science turn, itself empirical study messy complex real-world context. Recent STS has highlighted importance sociotechnical imaginaries (Jasanoff Kim, 2015) dynamics expectations (Borup 2006). directs attention boundaries often adopts dynamic temporal instance, dominant Jasanoff 2013) organizing power van Merkerk Robinson, 2006) suggest theorizing particularly understanding contextual boundary conditions theoretical claims. make fair “theory” should not loosely, scholars specific propositions arguments. applies approaches. However, conception centered variables hypothesis testing tested against before universally adopted. valuable needs clearly defined. They present definition interrelated constructs, definitions, aim explain predict phenomena. When intention processes, useful. Considering broadly, Finnish sociologist Noro (2000) divided three categories: research theories, diagnoses times (Zeitdiagnose German). Research relate explicitly delimited domain project. General generic nevertheless claims associations mechanisms. “Diagnosis times” means essayistic cultural critique Ulrich Beck's Risk Society (Noro, 2000). similar distinction generality expressed notion “middle-range theory,” sits between highly explanations broad-ranging generalizations (Hedström Udehn, 2009). studies, broadly understood, there seems strong representation diagnoses, reflects holistic Fergnani, states everyday life, enchanted Zeitdiagnose Such suitable interpreting data, cannot corroborated falsified data. Looking through Arto Noro's typology, shun Zeitdiagnose-style What level “general spaces theory? There significant scope developing middle-range connections measurable constructs grand Theories have explicit contrary findings As example, patterns scenario archetypes (Boschetti 2016; Jackson, contexts, their phenomena, agenda-setting, explored various levels. relationship complexity studied phenomenon length here, plausible certain transitions, difficult model relationships discrete variables. vague avoided, finding long been defining element Ahvenharju 2018). article, Chermark provide tools further. It easy agree paper's pay systematic definitions mainstream disciplines. no inherent value outlier lot win becoming credible academia among practitioners. must careful search entails. addition taking from established fields, sciences, remember draw multiple cultures. mean back lack does cautious prematurely delimiting Systemic perspectives key part leave space higher trade-off generality, change level. challenges combining diversity remain important, hopefully will continue. order develop, need both sharper acceptance heterogeneity interdisciplinarity commentary any relevant