Scenario types and techniques: Towards a user's guide

Abstract

Various scenario typologies have been suggested in attempts to make the field of futures studies easier to overview. Our typology is based on the scenario user's need to know what will happen, what can happen, and/or how a predefined target can be achieved. We discuss the applicability of various generating, integrating and consistency techniques for developing scenarios that provide the required knowledge. The paper is intended as a step towards a guide as to how scenarios can be developed and used.

Introduction

Futures studies consist of a vast array of studies and approaches and the area has been called a ‘very fuzzy multi-field’ [1]. One of the most basic, although contested, concepts in this field is ‘scenario’. It can denote both descriptions of possible future states and descriptions of developments. We have chosen to use a broad scenario concept that also covers predictive approaches with sensitivity testing, despite the fact that early scenario developers such as Kahn and Wiener [2, p. 6] would reject such a use of the term. The reason for our choice is that many practitioners use the term in this sense.

Various typologies have been suggested in attempts to make the field of futures studies easier to overview. Typologies can be important tools for communicating, understanding, comparing and developing methods for futures studies. Without a common language among researchers, all those tasks become much harder.

There is no consensus on the scenario typologies. However, several typologies reflect the view that futures studies explore possible, probable and/or preferable futures. For example, Amara [3] divides futures studies into these three categories [3]. Marien [1] adds the categories ‘identifying present trends’, ‘panoramic view’ and ‘questioning all the others’. Masini [4, pp. 45–46] identifies three approaches: extrapolation, utopian and vision. The utopian approach includes both positive and negative futures and is characterised by the difference to the probable. The visionary approach has to do with how the utopias could come about. Dreborg [5, p. 19–20] identifies three modes of thinking: predictive, eventualities and visionary. To each of these, Dreborg assigns methodologies to study the future. Forecasting, external scenarios and backcasting are examples of methodologies that are quite ‘pure’ forms of the predictive, eventualities and visionary modes of thinking, respectively.

In another typology, built on Habermas, different futures studies are distinguished by the function of the knowledge generated: technical, hermeneutic/practical and emancipatory [6], [7], [8]. Technical studies focus on objective trends. Hermeneutic studies aim at increasing a common understanding of social reality, whereas emancipatory studies aim at widening the perceived scope of options. Another typology was later presented by Mannermaa [9]: descriptive, scenario paradigm and evolutionary. The descriptive here means the same as the technical. In the scenario paradigm, the main purpose does not lie in predicting, but in constructing several different futures and paths to them. The evolutionary approach adopts a world-view of society developing in phases with good predictability combined with phases of chaotic bifurcations. The challenge here is to make future assessments in the bifurcations and to forecast in linear phases.

Inayatullah [10] identifies three perspectives to futures studies: predictive-empirical, cultural-interpretative and critical-post-structuralist. The cultural-interpretative perspective includes an emphasis on understanding, negotiating and acting in order to achieve a desired future. In the Faucault-inspired critical perspective, the focus is on analysing historical context and power relations and on emphasising the difficulties in statements regarding future developments.

Bell [11] formed three epistemologies: positivism, critical realism and post-positivism. The first is similar to Amara's “probable” and the third shows similarities to Inayatullah's critical post-structural approach. The second represents an approach where the aim is to find the objectively good. The focus is on the evaluation of various possible futures according to objective facts.

Tapio and Hietanen [12] include six paradigms in their typology: Comtean positivism, optimistic humanism, pluralistic humanism, polling democracy, critical pragmatism, relativistic pragmatism and democratic anarchism. The paradigms are defined by the view on knowledge and values, with a gliding scale from the Comtean positivist belief in objectivity to the democratic anarchist's rejections of any policy recommendations, due to the belief that all knowledge is biased and all values too subjective.

van Notten et al. [13] divide scenarios into overarching themes. These are the project goal (why?), process design (how?) and scenario content (what?). The project goal can be explorative or decision support, the process design intuitive or formal and the scenario content complex or simple. The overarching themes are then further divided into more detailed characteristics.

The different typologies above all have their merits. Obviously, it can be useful to have more than one typology of futures studies, since different typologies have different objectives. This paper presents a typology that resembles that presented by Amara [3]. Like Dreborg [5, p. 19–20], we discuss methods that are suitable for developing different scenario types. However, our aim is to describe the methods and procedures on a more operational level, and our starting point is the purpose of the futures studies. The paper is intended as a first step towards a guide to how scenarios can be developed and used. Scenario users, in our terminology, can be those who generate scenarios, those who use already existing scenarios and those to whom scenarios are directed, even though they may not have asked for them. The paper also includes a discussion on different types of scenario techniques and examples are used to illustrate the typology.