Why Futures Studies Needs a Theory Base

This paper explores how a PhD in Futures Studies, if refocused on theory-building could create anticipatory theories across the social sciences, and buttress the work of a new generation of futurists.


Futures studies offers a unique perspective to the social sciences. Its disciplinary matrix invites both researchers and practitioners to generate the most useful information about the future, in view of instability, change and uncertainty (Kristof, 2006). Futurists share common methods, including environmental scanning research, trend analysis, the Delphi method, scenario planning, times series extrapolation, computer-modeling and systems-thinking (Bell, 1996a). Some suggest that futures research has the potential to be uniquely transdisciplinary, as a social science that aims to solve real world problems (Balsiger, 2004; Klein, 2004; van der Duin, 2007).

Despite this potential, futures studies remains a puzzle in higher education (Dator, 2002). It has garnered a reputation for grand thinking, in part due to the reputation of late 20th century social or technological forecasters, such as Herman Kahn, Daniel Bell, Alvin Toffler, or John Naisbitt (Cornish, 2004). Academic futurists continually debate its viability, its philosophical constructs (Rescher, 1998; Aligica, 2003), and its life in the academy (Bell, 2002; Marien, 2002). If asked, most would recognize futures studies has become a professional practice since the 1960s. Fewer, however, would claim it has flowered into a full social science discipline. This is despite the track record of journals or professional societies such as the World Futures Studies Federation or Futures journal.

Ladder of Knowledge

Theory is the missing rung in Futures Studies

Futures studies has witnessed enormous gains in the 1990s by defining its knowledge base. To achieve further disciplinary rigor, it must now define its theory base through middle range analysis, the classical task of the PhD. In contrast to top-down grand-theory or bottom-up grounded-theory, this paper will argue that middle-range theoretical models will be useful over the next decade to develop the discipline. Middle-range models are efficient tools to relate theory to data, to link concepts to each other, and to balance the abstract with the concrete to formulate hypotheses and build a disciplinary home (Pinder & Moore, 1980).

In order to refocus the PhD in Futures Studies, this paper will: (a) review how the matrix of futures studies has grown over the past two decades, (b) inquire whether a four-step ladder might help the discipline take its next step, (c) consider how a focus on middle range theory might strengthen anticipatory theory across the spectrum of the social sciences, and (d) discuss the role of the PhD in futures studies as building an integrated theory base, both derived from other fields, yet also uniquely generated to undergird foresight practice.

[This paper was presented at the World Futures Studies Federation in 2007, but remains unpublished. You can download the slides below.]
[wpdm_file id=3]


1. T. Kristof, Is it possible to make scientific forecasts in social sciences? Futures 2006 June;38(5):561-74.
2. W. Bell, Foundations of futures studies: History, purposes, and knowledge. (Human Science for a New Era, vol. 1. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1996.
3. P.W. Balsiger, Supradisciplinary research practices: History, objectives and rationale. Futures 2004 May;36(4):407-21.
4. J.T. Klein, Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures 2004 May;36(4):515-26.
5. P. van der Duin, Knowing tomorrow – How science deals with the future. Delft, The Netherlands: Eburon, 2007.
6. J.A. Dator, editor, Advancing futures: futures studies in higher education. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002.
7. E. Cornish, Futuring: The exploration of the future. Bethesda, MD: World Future Society, 2004.
8. N. Rescher, Predicting the future: An introduction to the theory of forecasting. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1998.
9. P.D. Aligica, Prediction, explanation and the epistemology of futures studies. Futures 2003 December;35(10):1027-40.
10. W. Bell, A community of futurists and the state of the futures field. Futures 2002;34(3-4):235-47.
11. M. Marien, Futures studies in the 21st Century: A reality-based view. Futures 2002;24:261-81.
12. R.A. Slaughter, Professional standards in futures work. Futures 1999 October;31(8):835-51.
13. A. Hines, An audit for organizational futurists: Ten questions every organizational futurist should be able to answer. Foresight 2003;5(1):20-33.
14. W. Bell, Foundations of futures studies: Values, objectivity, and the good society, vol. 2. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1996.
15. R.A. Slaughter, The knowledge base of futures studies as an evolving process. Futures 1996;28(9):799-812.
16. C.C. Pinder, L.F. Moore, Middle range theory and the study of organizations. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 1980.
17. J.C. Glenn, T.J. Gordon, Futures Research Methodology–Version 2.0 [CD]. Washington, DC: American Council for the United Nations University, 2003, May.
18. R.A. Slaughter, Inayatullah S (Eds). Knowledge base of futures studies. Millennium Edition CD-Rom. Indooroopilly, Queensland, Australia: Foresight International, 1999.
19. H.G. Wells, The shape of things to come. New York: Macmillan, 1933.
20. D. Lerner, H.D. Lasswell, The policy sciences: Recent developments in scope and method. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1951.
21. B. de Jouvenel, The art of conjecture, Lary N, trans. New York: Basic, 1967.
22. F.L. Polak, Prognostics: A science in the making surveys and creates the future. New York: Elsevier, 1971.
23. J. McHale, The future of the future. New York: G. Braziller, 1969.
24. E. Cornish, The study of the future: An introduction to the art and science of understanding and shaping tomorrow’s world. Washington, DC: World Future Society, 1977.
25. J. Fowles, Handbook of futures research. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1978.
26. H.A. Linstone, W.H.C. Simmonds, G. B�ckstrand, Futures research: New directions. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1977.
27. A. Hines, P. Bishop, Thinking about the future: Guidelines for strategic foresight. Washington, DC: Social Technologies, LCC, 2006.
28. W.L. Schultz, Futures fluency: Explorations in leadership, vision and creativity [dissertation]. Dissertation Abstracts International 1995. Department of Political Science: University of Hawaii. UMI no. 9532629.
29. J. Dator, The future lies behind! Thirty years of teaching future studies. American Behavioral Scientist 1998 1 November;42(3):298-319.
30. M.Q. Patton, Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002.
31. W. Bell, J.A. Mau, The sociology of the future: Theory, cases, and annotated bibliography. New York: Russell Sage, 1971.
32. T.S. Kuhn, The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.
33. T.S. Kuhn, The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.
34. C. Argyris, R. Putnam, D.M. Smith. Action science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.
35. T. Parson, The structure of social action: A study in social theory with special reference to a group of recent European writers. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1937.
36. M. Weber, The theory of social and economic organization. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1957.
37. K. Lewin, Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper, 1951.
38. T. Lombardo, Contemporary futurist thought: Science fiction, future studies, and theories and visions of the future in the last century. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2006.
39. J. Fawcett, Contemporary nursing knowledge: Analysis and evaluation of nursing models and theories. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis, 2005.
40. M.W. Lewis, AI Grimes, Metatriangulation: Building theory from multiple paradigms. Academy of Management Review 1999 October;24(4):672-90.
41. Y.S. Lincoln, E.G. Guba, Paradigmatic controveries, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In: N.K. Denzin, Y.S. Lincoln, editors. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000. p 163-88.
42. R. Amara, The Futures field: Searching for definitions and boundaries. The Futurist 1981 February;15(1):25-9.
43. E.B. Masini, Why futures studies? London: Grey Seal, 1993.
44. M. Godet, Introduction to la prospective: Seven key ideas and one scenario method. Futures 1986;18(2):134-57.
45. S. Inayatullah, Six pillars: Futures thinking for transforming. Foresight 2008;10(1):4-21.
46. R.A. Slaughter, Futures beyond dystopia: Creating social foresight. New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2004.
47. J. Voros, Integral Futures: An approach to futures inquiry. Futures 2008 March;40(2):190-201.
48. K. Wilber, A brief history of everything. Boston: Shambhala, 1996.
49. R.K. Merton, Social theory and social structure. 1968 enl. ed. New York: Free Press, 1968.
50. M.C. Boc�rnea, Middle-range analysis. Regent University, School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Cohort 2004 Residency. Virginia Beach, VA, August 7, 2004.
51. S.J. Peterson, T.S. Bredow, Middle range theories: Application to nursing research. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2004.
52. A.L. Strauss, J.M. Corbin, Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990.
53. T. Stevenson, Anticipatory action learning: Conversations about the future. Futures 2002 June;34(5):417-25.
54. E.M. Rogers, Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press, 2003.
55. A. Hines, State of the art in strategic foresight. Toronto: World Future Society, 29 July, 2006.
56. R. Whittington, The work of strategizing and organizing: For a practice perspective. Strategic Organization 2003;1(1):119-27.
57. G. Hamel, C.K. Prahalad, Competing for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1994.
58. P. Jarzabkowski, D.C. Wilson, Actionable strategic knowledge: A practice perspective. European Management Journal 2006;24(5):348-67.
59. F.N. Kerlinger, H.B. Lee, Foundations of behavioral research. 4th ed. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College, 2000.
60. C.M. Christensen, M.E. Raynor, Why hard-nosed executives should care about management theory. Harvard Business Review 2003 September;81(9):66-74.
61. W. Bell, Reflections in the mirrors of time. Futures 1996 August-September;28(6-7):527-30.
62. D. Snowden, P. Stanbridge, The landscape of management: Creating the context for understanding social complexity. Emergence: Complexity and Organization 2004;6(1-2):140-8.
63. T.J. Chermack, Disciplined imagination: Building scenarios and building theories. Futures 2007 February;39(1):1-15.
64. J.F. Hair, R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, W.C. Black, Multivariate data analysis. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998.
65. K.J. Klein, F. Dansereau, R.J. Hall, Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review 1994;19(2):195-229.
66. R.L. Daft, K.E. Weick, Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review 1984 April;9(2):284-95.
67. D.C. Hambrick, Specialization of environmental scanning activities among upper level executives. Journal of Management Studies 1981;18(3):299-320.
68. D.C. Hambrick, Environmental scanning and organizational strategy. Strategic Management Journal 1982 April – June;3(2):159-74.
69. D.C. Hambrick, P.A. Mason, Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review 1984 April;9(2):193-205.
70. S. Finkelstein, D.C. Hambrick, Strategic leadership: Top executives and their effects on organizations. Minneapolis/St. Paul: South-Western, 1996.
71. R, Hooijberg, J.G. Hunt, G.E. Dodge, Leadership complexity and development of the Leaderplex model. Journal of Management 1997 Special Issue;23(3):375-408.
72. R.L. Hughes, K.C., Beatty, Becoming a strategic leader: Your role in your organization’s enduring success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2005.
73. E. M. Rogers, Categorizing the adopters of agricultural practices. Rural Sociology 1958;23(4):346-54.
74. J.A. Barker, Discovering the future: The business of paradigms. St. Paul, MN: ILI, 1985.
75. T. Modis, Life cycles: Forecasting the rise and fall of almost anything. The Futurist 1994 Sep/Oct;28(5):20-5.
76. T. Modis, Strengths and weaknesses of S-curves. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2007 July;74(6):866-72.
77. G.T.T. Molitor Molitor forecasting model: Key dimensions for plotting the ‘patterns of change.’ Journal of Future Studies 2003 August;8(1):61-72.
78. B.M. Bass, P Steidlmeier, Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press, 1985.
79. B.J. Avolio, BM Bass, The full range of leadership development: Basic and advanced manuals. Binghamton, NY: Bass, Avolio & Associates, 1991.
80. D.G. Ancona, P.S. Goodman, B.S. Lawrence, M.L. Tushman, Time: A new research lens. Academy of Management Review 2001 October;26(4):645-63.
81. E Jaques, S.D. Clement, Executive leadership: A practical guide to managing complexity. New York: Blackwell Cason Hall, 1991.
82. E.A. Locke, G.P. Latham, A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990.
83. O. Walker, K.C. Avant, Strategies for theory construction in nursing. 3rd ed. Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange, 1995.
84. F. Luthans, B.J. Avolio, Authentic leadership: A positive development approach. In: K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton, R.E. Quinn, editors. Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, 2003. p 241-58.
85. M. Sales, A.E. Savage, 2007, Anticipatory Leadership <http://www.artofthefuture.com/AL.html Art of the Future>.
86. B.J. Avolio, F. Luthans, The high impact leader: Moments matter in accelerating authentic leadership development. New York: McGraw Hill, 2006.
87. B.J. Avolio, W.L. Gardner, F.O. Walumbwa, F. Luthans, D.R. May, Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. Leadership Quarterly 2004 December;15(6):801-23.
88. S.M. Jensen, F. Luthans, Entrepreneurs as authentic leaders: Impact on employees’ attitudes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 2006;27(8):646-66.
89. P.N. Khandwalla, The design of organizations. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977.
90. B.K. Boyd, S. Gove, M.A. Hitt, Construct measurement in strategic management research: Illusion or reality? Strategic Management Journal 2005 March;26(3):239-57.
91. T.O. Jacobs, Industrial College of the Armed Forces (U.S.). A guide to the strategic leader development inventory. 2nd revision. Washington, DC: National Defense University, Industrial College of the Armed Force, 1996.
92. S.L.L. Morgan, The strategic knowledge indicator [dissertation]. AAT 9840858 1998;57(07):2607. 1999. The Union Institute.
93. J. Smart, 2008, February 18, Low-Residency Futures PhD <http://futuresphd.wetpaint.com/page/Low-Residency+Futures+PhD>.

Share Button