This article questions why sociology still lacks elaborate methods of scientific forecasting. Following a critical discussion of two main obstacles for sociological futures research – complexity and interaction – the deductive scenario development approach is introduced. Since scenario planning stresses plausibility not probability, it enables sociologists to create logical, not likely pictures of alternative futures. As a way of producing scientific results concerning future developments as well as testing scientific models, deductive scenario planning is labelled as sociological quasi-labs.
AndreskiS (1964) The Uses of Comparative Sociology. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
2.
AndreskiS (1972) Social Sciences as Sorcery. London: Andre Deutsch.
3.
AnheierHKatzH (2009) Introducing futures research: Forecasting and scenarios. In: KumarAScholteJAKaldorM. (eds) Global Civil Society 2009: Poverty and Activism. London: Sage, pp. 238–251.
4.
AuingerH (1995) Missbrauchte Mathematik. Europäische Hochschulschriften. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
5.
BellW (1996) The sociology of the future and the future of sociology. Sociological Perspectives39(1): 39–57.
6.
BeyerJ (2006) Pfadabhängigkeit. Über institutionelle Kontinuität, anfällige Stabilität und fundamentalen Wandel. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
7.
BlassE (2003) Researching the future: Method or madness?Futures35(10): 1041–1054.
8.
Bueno de MesquitaB (1984) Forecasting policy decisions: An expected utility approach to post-Khomeini Iran. PS17(2): 226–236.
9.
Bueno de MesquitaB (1988) The contribution of expected utility theory to the study of international conflict. Journal of Interdisciplinary HistoryXVIII(4): 629–652.
10.
Bueno de MesquitaB (2010) Glaskugelklar. Bueno de Mesquita interviewed by Reymer Klüver. Süddeutsche Zeitung, 4January.
11.
Bueno de MesquitaB (2011) A new model for predicting policy choices: Preliminary tests. Conflict Management and Peace Science28(1): 65–87.
12.
DunphyDStaceD (1988) Transformational and coercive strategies for planned organizational change: Beyond the O.D. model. Organization Studies9(3): 317–334.
13.
GlennJCGordonTJ (2009) Futures Research Methodology 3.0. Washington, DC: The Millennium Project, American Council for the United Nations University, World Federation of UN Associations.
14.
HartyS (2005) Theorizing institutional change. In: LecoursA (ed.) New Institutionalism: Theory and Analysis. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 51–79.
15.
HekmanS (1983) Max Weber and Contemporary Social Theory. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
16.
MasiniEB (2002) A vision of futures studies. Futures34 (3–4): 249–259.
17.
MertonRK (1957) The self-fulfilling prophecy. In: Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, pp. 475–492.
18.
SchulzMS (2009) Modes of structured interplay in the modeling of digital futures. In: DenisAKalekin-FishmanD (eds) The ISA Handbook in Contemporary Sociology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 291–304.
SlaughterRA (1993b) Looking for the real ‘megatrends’. Futures25(8): 827–849.
21.
SlaughterRA (1996) The knowledge base of future studies as an evolving process. Futures28(9): 799–812.
22.
SlaughterRA (2002) Where now for future studies?Futures34(3): 229–233.
23.
TrueJJonesBBaumgartnerF (1999) Punctuated equilibrium theory: Explaining stability and change in public policy making. In: SabatierP (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 97–116.
24.
YoungM (1968) Forecasting and the Social Sciences. London: Heinemann.
25.
WeberM (1949) The objectivity in social sciences and social policy. In: The Methodology of the Social Sciences. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, pp. 50–112.
26.
WeberM (1978) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
