World Futures Review

Statement of focus of the World Futures Review for writers and readers.

We intend WFR to be the source for information about futures studies as an academic and applied discipline. When people want to know about what futures studies is, in all its many and diverse parts, we want them to turn to WFR.

That is, what distinguishes WFR from other futures journals is that (as a rule) it will not have articles about “the future” or “the futures of x”, but rather about futures studies as an academic and applied discipline—the roots of futures studies, the basic concepts, theories, and methods, how it has changed over time, its present state, alternative and preferred futures for futures studies itself.

We are especially interested in anything that identifies and problematizes the intellectual roots of futures studies, not only in terms of other futurists, but more generally: what scholars, schools of though, ideologies, cosmologies, ontologies, ethical concerns, social theories, methods, underlay what the early futurists thought and wrote? What now? What should underlie them?

Is there a common core of theory, methods, and substantive concerns—a “knowledge base”—that all, or most, futurists agree should be taught and applied?

What assumptions do futurists make about “time”? “Where” is the future? What is the role of human agency vs. other forces (such as technology, for example) in shaping the futures. I maintain that while it is impossible to “predict” the future, it is possible and necessary to forecast alternative futures and to envision, design and move towards preferred futures, on a continuing reflexive basis. Others may disagree and believe through increasingly powerful quantitative methods it is, or will soon be possible to predict even the most complex of social and environmental systems.

What is the role of language in shaping ideas about futures? Though people from many countries and cultures all over the world contributed to its birth, futures began as primarily being discussed on a global basis in French, Spanish, or especially English. Does this matter? I think so, and Ilhan Bae has already discussed how difficult it is to express certain English-language concepts about the future in East Asian languages. What about other languages? Is this important, or not?

When does “the present” end and “the future” begin? (When does the past end and the present begin, for that matter?) Do we need to divide futures into two sub-disciplines, one focusing “on the horizon”—short-run future—and the other on “over the horizon”—long-term futures? That distinction seems important to many practicing futurists and their clients who often prefer very short horizons that are nonetheless longer than those typically considered by “planners.” Indeed, what are the differences between futures and long-range planning? Should futures studies focus primarily on the short run or the long run, or both? Or is the distinction simply a confounding illusion; ideas about the futures are nothing but ideas in the present about something that doesn’t exist, called “the future”.

What ethical obligations do consulting futurists have towards their clients who may act on the advice of futurists and fail, or succeed in unexpected and undesirable ways? Are there ethical or other concerns about doing proprietary research for a client who uses the secret information in ways detrimental to the common good? Is it OK for certain people or institutions to “colonize the future”? Do futurists need a “code of ethics”? There is not one now.

Or do we even need futures studies as an academic and/or applied discipline at all? Aren’t all humans futurists by biology? Are some people “better” futurists than others? Should applied futurists professionalize, establishing standards of both education and performance, or can anyone, as now, call themselves a futurist (or whatever other term they want) with no standards or formalization?

What is the preferred name of the field? Is “futures studies” best, or not? What about futures research, simply “futures” (analogous with “history”), futurology, futuristics, foresight, forecasting, anticipation, strategic design, etc.?

These are the sorts of issues WFR will focus on. Not on “the future” in general, nor on the future of some particular place or institution, but on futures studies itself, as an academic discipline and as a practical, consulting activity.

Thus, as a rule, manuscripts submitted for consideration in WFR should (1) discuss the theoretical, philosophical, ethical, academic bases of futures work, (2) demonstrate how these bases are exemplified in applied futures work, such as research, publications, teaching, and consulting, and (3) point the way for the preferred futures of futures studies.

None of this is meant to suggest that there has been no prior interest in these subjects. To the contrary, they existed from the beginning of the field, and have been discussed from time to time in each of the major futures journals. But WFR will be the first journal to focus on futures studies per se, and in both its academic and applied aspects.

If you wish to submit a manuscript for consideration, please write it in the Chicago author-date reference style, and submit it to: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/wfr

We prefer manuscripts of about 6,000 words, but those longer or shorter will also be considered.