Why Futures Studies? In what way it is important? Accordingly, this discipline "seeks a systematic and pattern-based understanding of past and present, and to determine the likelihood of future events and trends. It seeks to understand what is likely to continue, what is likely to change, and what is novel."
As an academic discipline, futures studies allows use of concepts, tools and processes to think long-term, consequentially and imaginatively, such as conceptualize more just and sustainable human and planetary futures; develop knowledge and skills in exploring probable and preferred futures; understand the dynamics and influence that human, social and ecological systems have on alternative futures and conscientize responsibility and action toward creating better futures.
Like all other disciplines out there, Futures studies (FS) has its own bundle of criticisms. Among this is the question whether this discipline is a science or an art. While systematic and pattern-based understanding have a semblance of scientific inquiry, Gordon and Glenn opine that FS is not yet a science. Accordingly, to be a science, "methods would have to be supported by hypotheses that could be tested, hopefully empirically, and produce the same results no matter who used the tool or performed the study."
Unlike science where a narrower, more specified system is studied, futurology studies a much bigger and more complex world system. The methodology and knowledge are much less proven as compared to natural science or even social sciences (sociology, economics, and political science). FS for now may be more of an art or skill that can be developed with patience and practice.
According to the World Futures Studies Federation (WFSF) and in contrast to many future-oriented organizations that think of "the future" in a singular way as determined by present trends, FS encourages and promotes 'plural futures' through exploration of alternative and preferred futures.
There are about five traditions currently operating within the field, according to WFSF. Each of which represents different epistemological, or even ideological, underpinnings.
- The empirical tradition focuses on trend analysis and prediction, originated in the USA. It was supported by the formation of the World Future Society in the 1960s;
- The critical tradition originated in Europe and grew out of a critique of what was perceived as an overly empirical approach to futures in the USA. This led to the foundation of the World Futures Studies Federation in the early 1970s;
- The cultural tradition arose in large measure from the work of those WFSF members who sought to include non-Western cultures and to invoke a deeper consideration of civilisational and planetary futures;
- The empowerment-oriented, prospective, action research approach began in Europe in the nineties and has been taken up by some Australian researchers;
- The integral or transdisciplinary futures approach is newly emerging and appears to have potential for authentic multi-perspectival and planetary inclusion, providing it remains open.Further, WFSF considers these approaches as not mutually exclusive, nor should this contextualisation imply a linear developmental model. These are all suitable pathways to futures research and pedagogy depending on the context. Well-informed futures researchers and educators may utilise any or all of these traditions depending on their operational context.
How is then Futures Studies applied and manifested in Moro development and vice versa? What are possible, probable, and preferable futures for the Bangsamoro then? What does the future hold for us as a society and for our government? What is likely to continue, what is likely to change, and what is novel in Moroland in the near- and the long-term?
References
Future studies (Wikipedia)
Gordon, Theodore J. and Jerome C. Glenn, "Integration, Comparisons and Frontiers of futures Research Methods"
Futures Pedagogical Resources
WFSF and UNESCO's Online Centre for Pedagogical Resources in Futures Studies
