IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v80y2013i4p711-722.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding normative foresight outcomes: Scenario development and the ‘veil of ignorance’ effect

Author

Listed:
  • Andreescu, Liviu
  • Gheorghiu, Radu
  • Zulean, Marian
  • Curaj, Adrian

Abstract

The article approaches the question of the extent to and the ways in which the participatory construction of normative narratives in system foresight influences the shape of the outcomes. We discuss foresight as a system of inquiry into decision-making problems characterized by three key features — distancing, holism, and participation-intensiveness. We put forward the hypothesis that participative approaches to normative scenario development, which are structurally similar to a Rawlsian “original position” setup, generate a concern with the procedural arrangements governing the future world in the scenario, rather than simply with the events or states in the story of the future. This concern with “constitutional basics” may be regarded as an expression of participants' attempt to ensure that, in the future world, each party will have a seat at the table and a voice in the conversation. As a result, the construction of normative narratives may be interpreted in terms of an effort to smooth out tensions that are inevitably embedded in scenarios. The hypothesis is illustrated, in the article's final section, with a recent exercise on the future of higher education.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreescu, Liviu & Gheorghiu, Radu & Zulean, Marian & Curaj, Adrian, 2013. "Understanding normative foresight outcomes: Scenario development and the ‘veil of ignorance’ effect," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(4), pages 711-722.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:80:y:2013:i:4:p:711-722
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2012.09.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162512002399
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.09.013?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Gordon, Adam Vigdor, 2020. "Limits and longevity: A model for scenarios that influence the future," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    2. Ernst, Anna & Biß, Klaus H. & Shamon, Hawal & Schumann, Diana & Heinrichs, Heidi U., 2018. "Benefits and challenges of participatory methods in qualitative energy scenario development," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 245-257.
    3. Metz, Ashley & Hartley, Paul, 2020. "Scenario development as valuation: Opportunities for reflexivity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    4. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Apreda, Riccardo & Fantoni, Gualtiero, 2020. "Expert biases in technology foresight. Why they are a problem and how to mitigate them," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    5. Wallin, Ida & Carlsson, Julia & Hansen, Hans Peter, 2016. "Envisioning future forested landscapes in Sweden – Revealing local-national discrepancies through participatory action research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 25-40.
    6. Elizabeth Gibson & Tugrul Daim & Edwin Garces & Marina Dabic, 2018. "Technology Foresight: A Bibliometric Analysis to Identify Leading and Emerging Methods," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 12(1), pages 6-24.
    7. Heinonen, Sirkka & Minkkinen, Matti & Karjalainen, Joni & Inayatullah, Sohail, 2017. "Testing transformative energy scenarios through causal layered analysis gaming," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 101-113.
    8. de Bruin, Jilske Olda & Kok, Kasper & Hoogstra-Klein, Marjanke Alberttine, 2017. "Exploring the potential of combining participative backcasting and exploratory scenarios for robust strategies: Insights from the Dutch forest sector," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P2), pages 269-282.
    9. Dufva, Mikko & Ahlqvist, Toni, 2015. "Knowledge creation dynamics in foresight: A knowledge typology and exploratory method to analyse foresight workshops," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 251-268.
    10. Ramboarison-Lalao, Lovanirina & Gannouni, Kais, 2019. "Liberated firm, a leverage of well-being and technological change? A prospective study based on the scenario method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 129-139.

    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:80:y:2013:i:4:p:711-722. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.