IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v100y2015icp44-52.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Teaching scenario analysis—An action learning pedagogy

Author

Listed:
  • Bradfield, Ron
  • Cairns, George
  • Wright, George

Abstract

In this paper we provide an introduction to our teaching of scenario analysis. Scenario analysis offers an excellent instructional vehicle for investigating ‘wicked problems’; issues that are complex and ambiguous and require trans-disciplinary inquiry. We outline the pedagogical underpinning based on action learning and provide a critical approach from the intuitive logics school of scenario analysis. We use this in our programme in which student groups engage in semi-structured, but divergent and inclusive analysis of a selected focal issue. They then develop a set of scenario storylines that outline the limits of possibility and plausibility for a selected time-horizon year. The scenarios are portrayed not as narratives, but as vehicles for exploration of the causes and outcomes of the interplay between forces in the contextual environment that drive the unfolding future in the context of the focal issue. In this way, we provide internally-generated challenges to both individual pre-conceptions and group-level thinking.

Suggested Citation

  • Bradfield, Ron & Cairns, George & Wright, George, 2015. "Teaching scenario analysis—An action learning pedagogy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 44-52.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:100:y:2015:i:c:p:44-52
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.05.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162515001110
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.05.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Green, Kesten C. & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2011. "Role thinking: Standing in other people’s shoes to forecast decisions in conflicts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 69-80.
    2. Wright, George & Goodwin, Paul, 2009. "Decision making and planning under low levels of predictability: Enhancing the scenario method," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 813-825, October.
    3. Clare Rigg & Kiran Trehan, 2004. "Reflections on working with critical action learning," Action Learning: Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 149-165, September.
    4. Wright, George & Bradfield, Ron & Cairns, George, 2013. "Does the intuitive logics method – and its recent enhancements – produce “effective” scenarios?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 631-642.
    5. Kupers, Roland & Wilkinson, Angela, 2014. "The Essence of Scenarios," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, number 9789089645944.
    6. Chichilnisky, Graciela & Cole, Sam, 1978. "Modeling with scenarios: technology in north-south development," MPRA Paper 7847, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tortorella, Guilherme Luz & Narayanamurthy, Gopalakrishnan & Sunder M, Vijaya & Cauchick-Miguel, Paulo A, 2021. "Operations Management teaching practices and information technologies adoption in emerging economies during COVID-19 outbreak," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    2. Derbyshire, James & Wright, George, 2017. "Augmenting the intuitive logics scenario planning method for a more comprehensive analysis of causation," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 254-266.
    3. Legaki, Nikoletta-Zampeta & Karpouzis, Kostas & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios & Hamari, Juho, 2021. "Gamification to avoid cognitive biases: An experiment of gamifying a forecasting course," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    4. MacKay, R. Bradley & Stoyanova, Veselina, 2017. "Scenario planning with a sociological eye: Augmenting the intuitive logics approach to understanding the Future of Scotland and the UK," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 88-100.
    5. Lang, Trudi & Ramírez, Rafael, 2017. "Building new social capital with scenario planning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 51-65.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kishita, Yusuke & Mizuno, Yuji & Fukushige, Shinichi & Umeda, Yasushi, 2020. "Scenario structuring methodology for computer-aided scenario design: An application to envisioning sustainable futures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    2. MacKay, R. Bradley & Stoyanova, Veselina, 2017. "Scenario planning with a sociological eye: Augmenting the intuitive logics approach to understanding the Future of Scotland and the UK," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 88-100.
    3. Meissner, Philip & Brands, Christian & Wulf, Torsten, 2017. "Quantifiying blind spots and weak signals in executive judgment: A structured integration of expert judgment into the scenario development process," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 244-253.
    4. Derbyshire, James, 2017. "Potential surprise theory as a theoretical foundation for scenario planning," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 77-87.
    5. Ram, Camelia, 2020. "Scenario presentation and scenario generation in multi-criteria assessments: An exploratory study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    6. Wright, George & Rowe, Gene, 2011. "Group-based judgmental forecasting: An integration of extant knowledge and the development of priorities for a new research agenda," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 1-13, January.
    7. James Derbyshire, 2019. "Use of scenario planning as a theory‐driven evaluation tool," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), March.
    8. Rowe, Emily & Wright, George & Derbyshire, James, 2017. "Enhancing horizon scanning by utilizing pre-developed scenarios: Analysis of current practice and specification of a process improvement to aid the identification of important ‘weak signals’," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 224-235.
    9. George Cairns & George Wright, 2019. "Making scenario interventions matter: Exploring issues of power and rationality," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), March.
    10. Bourgeois, Robin & Penunia, Esther & Bisht, Sonali & Boruk, Don, 2017. "Foresight for all: Co-elaborative scenario building and empowerment," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 178-188.
    11. repec:eee:intfor:v:27:y:2011:i:1:p:1-13 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Burt, George & Nair, Anup Karath, 2020. "Rigidities of imagination in scenario planning: Strategic foresight through ‘Unlearning’," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    13. Tiberius, Victor & Siglow, Caroline & Sendra-García, Javier, 2020. "Scenarios in business and management: The current stock and research opportunities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 235-242.
    14. Derbyshire, James & Wright, George, 2017. "Augmenting the intuitive logics scenario planning method for a more comprehensive analysis of causation," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 254-266.
    15. Venmathy Samanaseh & Zainura Zainon Noor & Siti Norasyiqin & Che Hafizan & Muhammad Amani Mazlan & Florianna Lendai Michael, 2023. "A review of scenario planning for emissions in environmental assessments," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(4), pages 924-936, July.
    16. Johansen, Iver, 2018. "Scenario modelling with morphological analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 116-125.
    17. Önkal, Dilek & Sinan Gönül, M. & Goodwin, Paul & Thomson, Mary & Öz, Esra, 2017. "Evaluating expert advice in forecasting: Users’ reactions to presumed vs. experienced credibility," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 280-297.
    18. Cairns, George & Wright, George & Fairbrother, Peter, 2016. "Promoting articulated action from diverse stakeholders in response to public policy scenarios: A case analysis of the use of ‘scenario improvisation’ method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 97-108.
    19. Mike Pedler & Margaret Attwood, 2011. "How can action learning contribute to social capital?," Action Learning: Research and Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 27-39.
    20. Cairns, George & Wright, George & Fairbrother, Peter & Phillips, Richard, 2017. "‘Branching scenarios’ seeking articulated action for regional regeneration – A case study of limited success," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 189-202.
    21. H. Charles J. Godfray & Sherman Robinson, 2015. "Contrasting approaches to projecting long-run global food security," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 31(1), pages 26-44.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:100:y:2015:i:c:p:44-52. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.