Scanning Beyond the Horizon: Exploring the Ontological and Epistemological Basis for Scenario Planning

The two-step process of scenario building and action planning that constitutes scenario planning enables methodological rigor, theory testing, and good inquiry to be demonstrated by researchers through established criteria. This article focuses on the philosophical underpinnings of scenario planning that have not been addressed in the human resource development literature and that are treated as problematic from a theoretical perspective because of the conjectural nature of the future. This article categorizes these underpinnings and reviews the claims that can be made with respect to their ontological and epistemological status. A pragmatic perspective that builds on critical realist and constructivist—interpretive paradigms to emphasize decision-making utility as the outcome of inquiry rather than testable knowledge production is proposed.

[1]  J. Searle.  The Construction of Social Reality , 1997 .

[2]  J. Habermas,et al.  Knowledge and Human Interests , 1972 .

[3]  Thomas J. Chermack,et al.  A Theoretical Model of Scenario Planning , 2004 .

[4]  M. Borowitzka.  Limits to Growth , 1998 .

[5]  Clare Tagg,et al.  Managers and Research , 2000 .

[6]  Andrew C. Wicks,et al.  Organization Studies and the New Pragmatism: Positivism, Anti-Positivism, and the Search for Ethics , 1998 .

[7]  T. D. Mitchell,et al.  Predicting regional climate change: living with uncertainty , 1999 .

[8]  J. Dewey,et al.  The Quest for Certainty , 1929 .

[9]  P. Northouse.  Leadership: Theory and Practice , 2000 .

[10]  Thomas J. Chermack,et al.  Scenario planning as a development and change intervention , 2006 .

[11]  Wendy E. A. Ruona,et al.  A philosophical framework for thought and practice in human resource development , 2004 .

[12]  Jib Fowles,et al.  Handbook of Futures Research , 1978 .

[13]  J. Dewey.  Logic, the theory of inquiry , 1938 .

[14]  Michel Godet,et al.  Creating Futures: Scenario Planning as a Strategic Management Tool , 2001 .

[15]  Career Development and the Future World of Work for Executive Women. , 2006 .

[16]  Allan Parsons,et al.  The Mundane Computer: Non-Technical Design Challenges Facing Ubiquitous Computing and Ambient Intelligence , 2005 .

[17]  R. Slaughter.  The substantive knowledge base of futures studies , 1993 .

[18]  Michael S. Moore,et al.  Legal Reality: A Naturalist Approach to Legal Ontology , 2002 .

[19]  A. Biglan.  The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. , 1973 .

[20]  Gloria L. Zúñiga,et al.  AN ONTOLOGY OF ECONOMIC OBJECTS : AN APPLICATION OF CARL MENGER'S IDEAS , 1998 .

[21]  Sohail Inayatullah,et al.  Pedagogy, Culture, and Futures Studies , 1998 .

[22]  Katy Moyer,et al.  SCENARIO PLANNING AT BRITISH AIRWAYS: A CASE STUDY , 1996 .

[23]  R. Bhaskar.  A realist theory of science , 1976 .

[24]  Stephen H. Schneider,et al.  CO2, Climate and Society: A Brief Overview , 1983 .

[25]  Judy Pearsall,et al.  The Concise Oxford Dictionary , 1999 .

[26]  R. Rorty,et al.  Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. , 1980 .

[27]  G. Finnveden,et al.  Scenario types and techniques: Towards a user's guide , 2006 .

[28]  S. Lynham.  The General Method of Theory-Building Research in Applied Disciplines , 2002 .

[29]  Petri Tapio,et al.  Epistemology and public policy: using a new typology to analyse the paradigm shift in Finnish transport futures studies , 2002 .

[30]  C. Wight,et al.  After Postpositivism? The Promises of Critical Realism , 2000 .

[31]  Liam Fahey,et al.  Learning from the Future: Competitive Foresight Scenarios: Editors Liam Fahey and Robert M. Randall, John Wiley (1998), 446 pp., £27.50 , 1998 .

[32]  T. Honderich.  The Oxford Companion to Philosophy , 1995 .

[33]  É. Hideg.  Implications of two new paradigms for futures studies , 2002 .

[34]  Peter Schwartz,et al.  The art of the long view , 1991 .

[35]  G. Anscombe.  On Brute Facts , 1958 .

[36]  R. Slaughter.  The knowledge base of futures studies as an evolving process , 1996 .