Evolving Identity of Futures Research

Early approaches to futures research, particularly in the USA relied heavily on empirical methods, based on classical Newtonian physics, with its mechanistic—and thus predictable—view of human nature. Much of science has moved on from the closed-system, predictable, mechanical worldview to embrace the quantum, organic and open worlds of chaos, complexity and self-adaptive organization. The identify of futures studies research is no longer about “predicting the future.” Gidley (2004) identifies five traditions of futures studies, each with different philosophical underpinnings, including: 1) the predictive tradition, originating in the USA, and focused on trend analysis and empirically based predictions; 2) the critical tradition originating in Europe out of a critique of what was perceived as an overly empirical approach to futures in the USA; 3) the cultural tradition arising from the work of those who sought to include non-Western cultures as part of civilisational futures; 4) the empowerment-oriented action-research approach beginning in Europe in the 1990s and taken up by some Australian researchers; and 5) the integral/transdisciplinary futures approach with the potential for authentic multiperspectival and planetary inclusion, providing it remains open. Any or all of these traditions can be utilised depending on the context.