Here we are again — having the “what should we call, or not call, our field?” conversation. Why does this keep coming back? Some ask, why is this important? May I may offer up a “why?”
I just happened to be looking at some history of the field. One was the write-up of the APF’s “futures of futures” scenarios from 2003. One of the issues we identified was a “confused” public who didn’t know much about our work (paraphrasing). One strategic response was along the lines of developing more consistent terminology and messaging for clients and the public. In short, if you speak to ten futurists and get ten different names and ten different definitions, we have a communications problem.
I also happened to be looking at Jib Fowles 1978 “Handbook of Futures Research” and it struck me how back then they were having pretty much the same debate we are having right now. So, in 42 years, we’ve made no progress on this particular issue (lots of other good progress). It is a hard one, no doubt. When I researched names for my dissertation I landed on Foresight, but I pledge to y’all that if we could find a term that would have better client and public appeal, I’m down with it. No term will be perfect. For me, it is what’s best for the field in terms of our outreach/communication to the public. We have a lot to offer, but we’re still a well-kept secret. — Andy Hines
Leave a Reply