Futures Clinique—method for promoting futures learning and provoking radical futures

The Futures Clinique puts a lot of emphasis on surprises and on the “mission impossible”, i.e. anticipating unexpected and even “impossible” events and developments. In earlier stages of futures studies and foresight, the three principles facets of futures exploration were possible, probable and preferred futures as stated by Amara [1]. The new normal in futures studies manifests itself in paying attention to the other sides of the coin as well: exploring impossible (not just possible), improbable (not just probable) and unpreferred (not just preferred) futures.

One of the premises of social sciences is that society is not a system strictly commanded by constant universal laws. Quite the contrary, societies change because humans are learning beings, and have, at least to some degree, a free will. The same applies to futures studies as well. The future is about change and emergence. The main constants, besides the effect of genes on our behaviour, are man-made institutions. Institutions are also of course subject to change, and one way to approach the future is to think about future institutions and their values and modes of conduct.

If we take antithetical forecasting from the above list of Flechtheim’s into closer inspection, two interesting issues emerge from his first point (forecast that never came true). First, forecasts that never came true are either plain examples of contrafactual futures, i.e. futures that were anticipated but that did not take place. Such lists are frequent and have some value of amusement and cognitive entertainment, rather than power of evidence against all forecasting. Second, the quality or value of a forecast is not in the fact whether it is fulfilled, but whether it has an impact on decision making. A good forecast (in the sense of having an impact) is for example such as shows negative impacts of motorway being built on a certain site. This transparency of consequences arising from the forecast leads to a decision that the motorway will be built on another site. Therefore, the forecast itself was useful, even if not fulfilled.

The next two constituents of antithetical futures are “impossibilities at their time” and “What if futures”. These are appropriate and fruitful approaches for exercises within Futures Cliniques. Such exercises extend the limits of our thinking beyond the standard.

Change naturally offers also possibilities for development and progress. In order to mitigate the prevailing connotations of threat and uncertainty that future tends to awake in us, we can actively improve our everyday futures thinking into futures orientation and further, futures consciousness [16]. It is simply a question of mental and conceptual exercises incorporated with systemic and logical thinking. The first step in overall enhancement of futures consciousness is to understand the three basic images of the collective future (possible, probable and preferred futures). The most common and prevailing one—probable futures—are however often trivial, as they do not reveal us anything new. Additionally, futures actually are never probable; futures are always surprising and novel. Apart from single variables, with current methods and methodology it is almost impossible to forecast a probable future. When futurists speak of “probable futures”, they do not actually refer to accurate forecasts and probability calculations, but to the “business as usual”—which reveals us nothing new. Thus, we should concentrate on the other two images of the future: possible and preferred futures. They help us to concentrate on the multitude of possible futures, and the ones we would like to see coming true.

We can take another step further beyond the seemingly possible—to explore impossible futures. Also, the opposites of the above three are useful: impossible, improbable and unpreferred futures. Thinking about impossible futures is a brain teaser to stretch one’s imagination; what is now considered impossible can turn out to be possible in the future. According to Harold Linstone [15], imagination is the most critical element of futures thinking. Therefore, it is worthwhile to try this combined quest for visioning impossible futures and thinking of their consequences by using the questioning mindset of What ifs?

Undesirable futures, on its part, is an antithetical concept (to desired futures) that helps us clarify the kind of futures we want by thinking about their opposites. Improbable futures help us to think about emerging issues, something that is visible today but lies in the marginal. Such trajectories are often embedded as seeds in the phenomena that weak signals are pointing to.

In a Futures Clinique, after individually generating impossibilities, the participants start discussing and testing the results. Frequently, it turns out that the impossibilities may no longer be impossible futures. For example, technological advances may change impossibilities into possibilities sooner than expected. Pauwels and Bergier [23] show that while dreaming the impossibilities become possible is in the realm of science-fiction, it should also be included in the paradigm of science to accelerate bridging the gaps between history, present and future.

The guiding principle in a Futures Clinique is that probing the future requires concentrating on possible, preferable, surprising and alternative futures instead of probable ones. This is a provocative challenge as we often tend to think of the future from the narrow scope of the present—confined to its values, technologies, structures and shared contemporary images of the future. Futures are always open and emergent, which inevitably requires questioning the present.

Furthermore, in the age of open information and ever-deepening and dispersing networks, we need to find ways to fertilely combine individual, creative insight and collaborative co-creation. In a way, merging individualistic and group thinking is a paradox. Creativity requires by definition both individuals with unique ideas and a shared pool of knowledge, a fertile ground of common culture and interaction between individuals [22]. At the same time, however, collective thinking with its conventionalism tends to undermine radical, individualistic creativity [19]. The phenomenon of groupthink may force outlying opinions and views filtered under the collective majority [20]. This paradox, and ways to relax and solve it, is at the very core of the methodological development of the Futures Clinique.

To avoid conventionalism and straightforward linear trend extrapolations, Futures Clinique is methodologically attuned to provoke radical thinking. The word “radical” is derived from the Latin word radicalis, meaning “going to the roots, origin, essential” (lat. Radix = root). Radical thinking requires a critical, deep mindset and readiness to look under the surface of different phenomena. By fostering radical, deep and critical thinking Futures Clinique enables “futurological imagination”, as important a tool for unprejudiced futurologists as “sociological imagination” is for sociologists.

Furthermore, thinking radically and encouraging deep futures imagining, radical thinking requires provocation. Provocation is a derivative from Latin words pro + vocare, which means “to call forth”. To provoke is to call forth novel ideas and unexpected reactions from under the surface of everyday cognition by presenting staggering, pointed and fresh ideas. What seems staggering or fresh is of course relative, in analogy to the “beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder”. Accordingly, the content must be selected and formulated according to the constitution of the participants.

The basic principle in the concept of Futures Clinique allowing “futures radicalism” is systemic thinking and a broad scope of the so-called peripheral vision [5]. To go into the roots and the essential, separate issues and phenomena need to be set into a broad context. Futures of cities can, for example, be explored in the context of digitalisation and the generation of digital natives, as was done in a Futures Clinique organised for a research project on Resilient Suburbs funded by the Finnish Technology Fund [10]. We have used the theory of the meanings society developed at the Research Group for Media and Communications (FMC) at Finland Futures Research Centre (FFRC) as a broad societal context systematically in every Futures Clinique we have moderated. Meanings society hypothetically depicts the societal structure of post-informational societies, stressing content economy, internet as the generic technology, prosumerism, immaterial values of self-expression and identity building, as well as abundant and free flows of (meaningful) information. The meanings society can be shortly defined as a possible societal phase after the information society, in which the society is not built on the processing, production and consumption of information but of cultural meanings. The driving force behind the meanings society is the individual’s quest for meaningful experiences and individually meaningful identities. Production is allocated to meet these demands, and the value of self-exploration is also utilised in new organisation of work. Internet and digital media keep developing as vast “identity machines”. The logic and values of networks disperse into every inch of society, and society with its different functions is increasingly organised from the bottom-up.

Peripheral vision refers to the ability to perceive the broad and systemic context of different issues. Individuals as well as organizations tend to focus on their core business and core interests. However, to fully understand the reality and the potentials embedded in the present, one has to broaden the scope to see actual and potential connections of an issue. Peripheral vision is decisive not only in foresight, but becoming a general competence in coping in the increasingly systemic, connected and networked environment. Only by having a deep, plural and contextualised understanding on the issue at hand one can begin to creatively imagine its futures. Although anticipatory visioning rests on rigid empiricism, it is of equal importance to detach oneself from the “crackpot realism” of today to allow free and radical thinking. According to “Dator’s Second Law” [4], “Any useful Idea about the future must appear to be ridiculous”. Dator’s Second Law can be understood at least in two ways. All the ideas that make the future differ from the present seem ridiculous because they diverge so radically from present notions on what is possible and probable. Secondly, new ideas seem ridiculous simply because they often are so. Our understanding of future issues, products, values, etc. is inevitably so rudimentary that ideas considering the future often seem as naïve and silly simplifications. However, this should not keep us from visioning future possibilities.

Futures provocation and radical futures thinking are enabled in four ways during a Futures Clinique. First of all, the background material always includes some very current and well-thought information for the forthcoming workshop, as depicted in more detail in the previous chapter. The background paper also introduces the societal concepts used to provide the broader context, and the ways in which the concepts are related to the subject of each workshop. This means initiation to the big picture of societal development, as a comprehensive futures landscape where the radical future images are invited to be projected. A thought-provoking photo is also selected for the cover, as a kind of an introduction to visualising the futures. The questions sent with the background reading prompt the participants to formulate their own, personal views on some future-oriented issues. For example, for a recent Futures Clinique commissioned by the Academy of Finland on the futures of energy systems [11], the participants were asked to mention some radical sustainable energy solutions that are not possible or acknowledged yet, but could or should be. Besides futuristic ideas such as collecting ubiquitous kinetic energy, some participants mentioned next-generation nuclear energy as a part of the solution in tackling climate change. Advocating nuclear power can be said to be radical, as nuclear reactors are usually not considered as an option to produce CO₂ free energy, and nuclear energy treated even as a taboo. It is illuminating that in groups some even mentioned the possibility to build more atomic energy.

Secondly, the presentation held by futures experts before the work begins, called generically “Futures provocation”, offers an intense introduction to alternative futures thinking and the specific theme at hand. As it includes masses of futures information in a very concise form, it is aimed to leave the listener overwhelmed, even induce a “future shock”, so that their minds would be prepared to explore the unknown. This means shocking futures in order to break down the old habits of thinking to explore new and open futures territory. The emphasis on visual aspects continues on the presentation: intriguing and illuminating background images are selected for the presentation slides. The Futures Window (as depicted in the “Contrafactual futures as the new normal” section) finalises the presentation and acts as a (presumably) relaxing but stimulating transition to the group work phase.

Thirdly, the group work sessions are arranged by various means to produce ideas as plural as possible. This means co-creative diversification of futures images and solutions. The participants in each group are selected carefully, so that the constitution of a group is not biased in terms of age, sex and occupation/position. This is crucial, as studies in social psychology show that in groups of like-minded individuals their opinions tend to lose the nuances and move towards the group “extreme” [2]. The phenomenon is called “group polarisation” [18]. For example, if a group consisting of persons adhering to green values discusses energy policy, the group members’ views on nuclear power tend to become more anti-nuclear.

The work begins with a discussion in which each member of the group can state his/her opinions on the theme. To minimise the effect of peer pressure and losing individual views, this task can also be done so that everyone writes his/her ideas down to a paper, after which the moderator reads the ideas aloud anonymously. Otherwise, the work is carried out through discussion, so that participants build on each other’s ideas. Throughout the group work, the moderator encourages everyone to speak out freely. The moderator can also suggest some ideas that have not been dealt with. At some point “cross-fertilization” can also be applied, in which groups work out on other groups’ results.

Fourthly, as moderators document the results and write a report or other publication on them, they also work the ideas further as a back-office work. This is the final phase in ensuring that group thinking does not dominate. Here, the role of the moderator is that of the journalist or researcher, who analyses, interprets and complements the mass of ideas. The moderator is allowed a voice to speak out and state his/her well-argued opinions and insights. In this respect, the role of a moderator in a Futures Clinique differs from that in traditional workshops where the moderator only facilitates working not directly contributing to it and, for example, sees to it that no participant dominates the discussion. It is also the task of the moderator to place the results into a wider context and encourage the participants to seek out connections between separate ideas and themes. This means sophisticated elaboration of the generated futures imaging. All in all, it is very important that the report or publication is written in a personal and challenging style, building on crowdsourced ideas. Before finishing the report or publication, it is first sent to the participants to be reviewed, corrected, complemented, etc. In this way, this final phase also follows the logic of iterative idea development utilising both individual and group thinking.

Futures Clinique is an easily applicable platform for Futures Education. It offers a method for “informal”, collaborative education and co-creative learning for the futures. Through background material and the “Futures Provocation” presentation, Futures Clinique offers the basic concepts of futures thinking and basic knowledge on the key drivers (megatrends, trends, weak signals and black swans) that shape the futures. Participants can then use this knowledge to learn from each other and probe future alternatives collaboratively. As the Futures Clinique puts an emphasis on the emergent, it suits well with the new education paradigm highlighting discovery and serendipity. Especially, with its combination of deep and thorough thinking and hands-on approaches, the Futures Clinique holds big potentials to be applied for low-threshold futures learning which is becoming increasingly important in almost all spheres of human activity.

Foresight and futures thinking are becoming imperative in the new working life and in life in general, and thus should be a part of the educational institutions of society. Futures education means teaching and learning foresight, futures thinking and futures methods. However, education in general is fleeing away from institutions and becoming ubiquitous—education should be conceived rather as learning that can happen spontaneously anywhere, would be inner-motivated and based on open peer-to-peer approaches.

As Alvin Toffler [26] states, understanding the future is becoming as important to understand the present as earlier has been understanding the past. Future is constantly “leaking” into the present, and all of us have to take it into account in planning our lives and understanding the world around us. It is justifiable to argue that futures methods, futures thinking, foresight skills and futures learning are soon-to-be basic competences for all of us.

Futures Clinique is designed as a platform for inspiring futures learning. It adheres to the current trends in education stressing participatory approaches, peer-to-peer learning and crowdsourcing. Futures Clinique offers the basic tools and concepts for futures thinking and even futures consciousness in a compact package. In addition to the up-to-date education philosophy and learning methods, Futures Clinique is a very adaptable learning tool as it can be executed almost everywhere. At the same time, one must bear in mind that conducting a Futures Clinique is time-consuming. It requires a lot of preparations, analyses and documentation, as well as a qualified team of moderators. One of the most important future developments of the Futures Clinique would be to pilot it in a school or a university.

Futures Clinique can be divided into two parts in terms of futures learning. First, it offers basic knowledge on foresight and futures thinking (theory, concepts and methods). This part of “futures mindsetting” can be thought as “education”—in juxtaposition to more active, independent and individual-oriented learning. This is because futures methods and concepts, as being very specialised knowledge, have to be “taught” to the participants by futures experts through practical demonstrations. A part of this “education” is also offering some up-to-date views on the futures of different topics.

Second, the participants of a Futures Clinique apply the methods and concepts they have been taught to probe different futures on the theme of the day. By concretely doing cooperative foresight, they learn and internalise what they have just heard and seen. Most importantly, and here comes the actual peer-to-peer⁶ learning part, the participants learn from each other and can thus attain highly diverse visions into the future. A major share of the actual futures knowledge gained in a Futures Clinique process comes out from these collaborative sessions. Besides being based on inner motivation helping to achieve a deeper understanding on possible futures, peer-to-peer learning is topical especially in foresight. Due to the systemic and complex nature of foresight and futures thinking, an individual expert, regardless how experienced he or she is, cannot possess enough information and have different enough points of view to successfully probe possible futures that radically differ from the present situation.

Not only is foresight needed in a world of constant change, but the nature of futures learning goes well with the whole paradigm change in education. Don Tapscott [25] advocates “Discovery Learning” as the new learning paradigm, by which he means learning through self-motivated inquire, browsing the web for interesting contents offered by media institutions, prosumers and fellow learners and increasingly by world-class universities. Education would not be lecturing anymore, but bottom-up discovery, conversation and interaction instead. Learning is becoming an amusement instead of forced obligation. Young people learn new, interesting and important things constantly, often almost without noticing it themselves. Lifelong learning as an obligation is becoming a thing of the past as digitally enabled learning merges everywhere and becomes ubiquitous as well as limitless.

The new kind of learning adheres to the same virtues needed in foresight and rigorous futures thinking. “Students” learn to think critically for themselves, research, find information, analyse, synthesise, contextualise, evaluate, to apply what they have learned and to collaborate and communicate. Moreover, Discovery Learning enables another educational approach that we advocate in Futures Cliniques, i.e. learning by surprises. This combination of discovery learning and learning by surprises both aid in grasping the emergent. Futures Clinique is especially fitting a learning platform for this kind of educational paradigm. As participants from various background interact and share information they besides teach each other their specialised knowledge, they get a hold of their own tacit knowledge as well. This fertile interaction efficiently embraces serendipity, which is enforced even more by the emphasis on weak signals, black swans, the emergent and the possible instead of probable in the very concept of the Futures Clinique.