This review article opens discussion on theories in futures studies by analyzing survey results from Finland Futures Research Centre and using the results as an entry point to discussing theoretical lineages found in the literature. The survey, conducted in 2019, included twenty-four responses from researchers and postgraduate students. Altogether 192 different theories or theoretical frameworks were identified. Social science theories and conceptual frameworks were particularly prevalent in the responses, and the most common recurring themes included systems, complexity, and anticipation. The responses are discussed in terms of three levels: philosophy of science, theories of futures studies, and theories in futures studies. Theories in futures studies are further divided into theories of action, practices, and behavior; theories of change; and theories on the micro-, meso-, and macro levels. The results are contextualized and complemented by proposing five functionally differentiated theoretical approaches: (1) theories for forecasting, (2) theories for representing futures, (3) theories for pursuing desired futures, (4) theories for making sense of anticipatory processes, and (5) radical epistemological critiques. The analysis is intended to open discussion on theories rather than provide an exhaustive list of the most important theories. Nevertheless, we can conclude that the field has a rich theory base which could be emphasized in futures education and developed further. It is crucial that actors in the futures field are aware of the theories that guide them because influential theories take part in making the future.
AdamBarbaraGrovesChris. 2007. Future Matters: Action, Knowledge, Ethics. Supplements to the Study of Time. Leiden: Brill.
2.
AhlqvistToniRhisiartMartin. 2015. “Emerging Pathways for Critical Futures Research: Changing Contexts and Impacts of Social Theory.” Futures71:91–104. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2015.07.012.
3.
AhvenharjuSannaMinkkinenMattiLalotFanny. 2018. “The Five Dimensions of Futures Consciousness.” Futures104:1–13. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2018.06.010
4.
AlasuutariPertti. 2016. “Neoinstitutionalist Sociology.” In The SAGE Handbook of Cultural Sociology, edited by InglisDavidAlmilaAnna-Mari, 144–158. London: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781473957886.
5.
AlvessonMatsSköldbergKaj. 2009. Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
6.
AmaraRoy. 1981. “The Futures Field: Searching for Definitions and Boundaries.” The Futurist15 (1): 25–29.
7.
AmslerSarahFacerKeri. 2017. “Contesting Anticipatory Regimes in Education: Exploring Alternative Educational Orientations to the Future.” Futures94:6–14. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2017.01.001.
8.
AndersonBenedict R.1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Rev. and extended ed. London: Verso.
9.
BellWendell. 1997. Foundations of Futures Studies: History, Purposes and Knowledge. Human Science for a New Era. Vol. 1. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
10.
BellWendell. 2003. Foundations of Futures Studies: Human Science for a New Era. Values, Objectivity, and the Good Society. Vol. 2. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
11.
BellWendellMauJames A.1971. “Images of the Future: Theory and Research Strategies.” In The Sociology of the Future: Theory, Cases, and Annotated Bibliography, edited by BellWendellMauJames A., 6–44. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
12.
BorupMadsBrownNikKonradKorneliaVan LenteHarro. 2006. “The Sociology of Expectations in Science and Technology.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management18 (3–4): 285–98. doi:10.1080/09537320600777002.
13.
BoschettiFabioPriceJenniferWalkerIain. 2016. “Myths of the Future and Scenario Archetypes.” Technological Forecasting & Social Change111:76–85. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.009.
14.
BradfieldRonDerbyshireJamesWrightGeorge. 2016. “The Critical Role of History in Scenario Thinking: Augmenting Causal Analysis within the Intuitive Logics Scenario Development Methodology.” Futures77:56–66. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2016.02.002.
15.
BrysonStephanieGrimeMeganMurthyAdarshWrightGeorge. 2016. “Behavioral Issues in the Practical Application of Scenario Thinking: Cognitive Biases, Effective Group Facilitation and Overcoming Business-as-Usual Thinking.” In Behavioral Operational Research: Theory, Methodology and Practice, edited by KuncMartinMalpassJonathanWhiteLeroy, 195–212. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-53551-1_10.
16.
BusseyMarcus. 2014. “Concepts and Effects: Ordering and Practice in Foresight.” Foresight16 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1108/FS-04-2013-0017.
17.
CarbonellJavierSánchez-EsguevillasAntonioCarroBelén. 2017. “From Data Analysis to Storytelling in Scenario Building. A Semiotic Approach to Purpose-Dependent Writing of Stories.” Futures88:15–29. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2017.03.002
18.
CastoriadisCornelius. 1987. The Imaginary Institution of Society. Cambridge: Polity.
19.
ChermackThomas J.2005. “Studying Scenario Planning: Theory, Research Suggestions, and Hypotheses.” Technological Forecasting & Social Change72 (1): 59–73. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2003.11.003.
20.
CornishEdward. 2004. Futuring: The Exploration of the Future. Bethesda: World Future Society.
21.
de HaanFjalar J.RotmansJan. 2018. “A Proposed Theoretical Framework for Actors in Transformative Change.” Technological Forecasting & Social Change128:275–86. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.017.
22.
de JouvenelBertrand. 1967. The Art of Conjecture. New York: Basic Books.
23.
DerbyshireJames. 2016. “The Implications, Challenges and Benefits of a Complexity-Orientated Futures Studies.” Futures77:45–55. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2016.02.001.
24.
DerbyshireJames. 2017. “The Siren Call of Probability: Dangers Associated with Using Probability for Consideration of the Future.” Futures88:43–54. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2017.03.011.
25.
DerbyshireJamesWrightGeorge. 2017. “Augmenting the Intuitive Logics Scenario Planning Method for a More Comprehensive Analysis of Causation.” International Journal of Forecasting33 (1):254–66. doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2016.01.004.
26.
DryzekJohn S.NiemeyerSimon. 2010. “Pluralism and Meta-consensus.” In Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance, edited by DryzekJohn S., 85–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199562947.003.0005.
27.
DunneAnthonyRabyFiona. 2013. Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
28.
EhliassonKent. 2008. “Futures Studies as Social Science: An Analytic Scheme and a Case Study.” Futures40 (5): 489–502. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2007.10.007.
29.
EidinowEstherRamirezRafael. 2016. “The Aesthetics of Story-Telling as a Technology of the Plausible.” Futures84:43–49. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2016.09.005.
30.
GeelsFrank W.2002. “Technological Transitions as Evolutionary Reconfiguration Processes: A Multi-level Perspective and a Case-Study.” Research Policy31 (8–9):1257–74.
31.
GoodeLukeGodheMichael. 2017. “Beyond Capitalist Realism—Why We Need Critical Future Studies.” Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research9 (1):109–29. doi:10.3384/cu.2000.1525.1790615.
32.
HassonFelicityKeeneySinead. 2011. “Enhancing Rigour in the Delphi Technique Research.” Technological Forecasting & Social Change78 (9): 1695–1704. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2011.04.005.
33.
HeinonenSirkkaKarjalainenJoni. 2019. “Pioneer Analysis as a Futures Research Method for Analysing Transformations.” In Anticipation, Agency and Complexity, edited by PoliRobertoValerioMarco, 61–77. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
34.
HinesAndyGoldJeff. 2013. “Professionalizing Foresight: Why Do It, Where It Stands, and What Needs to Be Done.” Journal of Futures Studies17 (4): 35–54.
35.
HurleyKarenMasiniEleonoraBouldingEliseEislerRianePremchanderSmitaMcCorduckPamelaKellyPatricia, et al. 2008. “Futures Studies and Feminism.” Futures40 (4): 388–407. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2007.08.004.
36.
InayatullahSohail. 1998. “Causal Layered Analysis: Poststructuralism as Method.” Futures30 (8):815–29.
KarlsenJan ErikØverlandErik F.KarlsenHanne. 2010. “Sociological Contributions to Futures’ Theory Building.” Foresight12 (3): 59–72. doi:10.1108/14636681011049884.
39.
KuosaTuomo. 2011. “Evolution of Futures Studies.” Futures43 (3):327–36.
40.
KuusiOsmoCuhlsKerstinSteinmüllerKarlheinz. 2015. “The Futures Map and Its Quality Criteria.” European Journal of Futures Research3 (1): 22. doi:10.1007/s40309-015-0074-9.
41.
LevitasRuth. 2013. Utopia as Method the Imaginary Reconstitution of Society. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
42.
LombardoThomas. 2017. Future Consciousness: The Path to Purposeful Evolution. Lanhan: John Hunt Publishing.
43.
MacKayBradTambeauPaul. 2013. “A Structuration Approach to Scenario Praxis.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Scenario Method: Current Developments in Theory and Practice80 (4):673–86. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2012.06.003
MannermaaMika. 1991. “In Search of an Evolutionary Paradigm for Futures Research.” Futures23 (4):349–72.
46.
MarienMichael. 2010. “Futures-Thinking and Identity: Why ‘Futures Studies’ Is Not a Field, Discipline, or Discourse: A Response to Ziauddin Sardar’s ‘the Namesake.’” Futures42 (3):190–94. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.003.
47.
MasiniEleonora. 1993. Why Futures Studies?London: Grey Seal Books.
48.
MillerRiel, ed. 2018. Transforming the Future: Anticipation in the 21st Century. Abingdon: Routledge.
49.
NandyAshis. 1987. Traditions, Tyranny, and Utopias: Essays in the Politics of Awareness. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
50.
NiiniluotoIlkka. 2009. “Futures Studies: Science or Art?” Futura28 (1): 59–64.
51.
PatomäkiHeikkiStegerManfred B.2010. “Social Imaginaries and Big History: Towards a New Planetary Consciousness?” Futures42 (10): 1056–1163.
52.
PiirainenKalle A.GonzalezRafael A.2015. “Theory of and within Foresight—‘What Does a Theory of Foresight Even Mean?’” Technological Forecasting & Social Change96:191–201. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.03.003.
53.
PolakFred L.1973. The Image of the Future. Translated by BouldingElise. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
54.
PoliRoberto. 2017. Introduction to Anticipation Studies. Vol. 1. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
55.
RamírezRafaelSelinCynthia. 2014. “Plausibility and Probability in Scenario Planning.” Foresight16 (1): 54–74. doi:10.1108/fs-08-2012-0061.
56.
RavenPaul GrahamElahiShirin. 2015. “The New Narrative: Applying Narratology to the Shaping of Futures Outputs.” Futures74:49–61. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2015.09.003.
57.
RittelHorst W. J.WebberMelvin M.1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences4 (2):155–69. doi:10.1007/bf01405730.
58.
RosenRobert. 2012. Anticipatory Systems: Philosophical, Mathematical, and Methodological Foundations. 2nd ed. IFSR International Series on Systems Science and Engineering, Vol. 1. New York: Springer.
59.
RubinAnita. 2013. “Hidden, Inconsistent, and Influential: Images of the Future in Changing Times.” Futures45:S38–S44. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2012.11.011.
60.
SardarZiauddin. 1993. “Colonizing the Future: The ‘Other’ Dimension of Futures Studies.” Futures25 (2): 179–87. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(93)90163-n.
61.
SelinCynthia. 2008. “The Sociology of the Future: Tracing Stories of Technology and Time.” Sociology Compass2 (6):1878–95. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00147.x.
SonHyeonju. 2015. “The History of Western Futures Studies: An Exploration of the Intellectual Traditions and Three-Phase Periodization.” Futures66:120–37. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2014.12.013.
66.
SovacoolBenjamin K.HessDavid J.2017. “Ordering Theories: Typologies and Conceptual Frameworks for Sociotechnical Change.” Social Studies of Science47 (5):703–50. doi:10.1177/0306312717709363.
StegerManfred B.2008. The Rise of the Global Imaginary: Political Ideologies from the French Revolution to the Global War on Terror. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
69.
SumNgai-LingJessopBob. 2013. Towards a Cultural Political Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. doi:10.4337/9780857930712.
70.
SvenssonOscarNikolerisAlexandra. 2018. “Structure Reconsidered: Towards New Foundations of Explanatory Transitions Theory.” Research Policy47 (2):462–73. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.12.007.
71.
TapioPetriHietanenOlli. 2002. “Epistemology and Public Policy: Using a New Typology to Analyse the Paradigm Shift in Finnish Transport Futures Studies.” Futures34 (7): 597–620. doi:10.1016/S0016-3287(02)00003-4.
72.
TaylorCharles. 2004. Modern Social Imaginaries. Durham: Duke University Press.
73.
TetlockPhilip E.GardnerDan. 2015. Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction. 1st ed. New York: Crown Publishers.
74.
TuomiIlkka. 2012. “Foresight in an Unpredictable World.” Technology Analysis and Strategic Management24 (8):735–51. doi:10.1080/09537325.2012.715476.
75.
TuomiIlkka. 2019. “Chronotopes of Foresight: Models of Time-Space in Probabilistic, Possibilistic and Constructivist Futures.” Futures & Foresight Science1 (2): e11. doi:10.1002/ffo2.11
76.
van der HelmRuud. 2009. “The Vision Phenomenon: Towards a Theoretical Underpinning of Visions of the Future and the Process of Envisioning.” Futures41 (2): 96–104. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2008.07.036.
77.
van DorsserCornelisWalkerWarren E.TanejaPoonamMarchauVincent A. W J. 2018. “Improving the Link between the Futures Field and Policymaking.” Futures104:75–84. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2018.05.004.
78.
VervoortJoost M.BendorRoyKelliherAislingStrikOscarHelfgottAriella E. R.2015. “Scenarios and the Art of Worldmaking.” Futures74:62–70. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2015.08.009.
79.
VinkMartinusvan der SteenMartijnDewulfArt. 2016. “Dealing with Long-Term Policy Problems: Making Sense of the Interplay between Meaning and Power.” Futures76:1–6. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2016.01.003.
80.
VolkeryAxelRibeiroTeresa. 2009. “Scenario Planning in Public Policy: Understanding Use, Impacts and the Role of Institutional Context Factors.” Technological Forecasting & Social Change76 (9): 1198–1207. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2009.07.009.
81.
WileniusMarkkuKurkiSofi. 2017. “K-Waves, Reflexive Foresight, and the Future of Anticipation in the Next Socioeconomic Cycle.” In Handbook of Anticipation, edited by PoliRoberto, 1–21. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-31737-3_36-1.
82.
WilkinsonAngela. 2009. “Scenarios Practices: In Search of Theory.” Journal of Futures Studies13 (3):107–14.
83.
WilkinsonAngelaKupersRolandMangalagiuDiana. 2013. “How Plausibility-Based Scenario Practices Are Grappling with Complexity to Appreciate and Address 21st Century Challenges.” Technological Forecasting & Social Change80 (4): 699–710. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2012.10.031.
84.
WinklerJensMoserRoger. 2016. “Biases in Future-Oriented Delphi Studies: A Cognitive Perspective.” Technological Forecasting & Social Change105:63–76. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.01.021.
