Part of my task in doing my dissertation on Integrating Foresight into Organizations for Leeds Metropolitan University is to review the foresight literature. I figured this was a good opportunity to dig a little deeper than I needed, since it was something I’d wanted to do for some time. I went through the complete tables of contents for the “Big Five” journals in foresight — in my opinion and in alphabetical order: Foresight, Futures, Journal of Futures Studies, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, and World Future Review (formerly Futures Research Quarterly). My search went back to the origins of each journal. I downloaded any piece that seemed to touch on the topic of Integrating Foresight (well, and some others I couldn’t resist). I ended up with a couple hundred that I actually read….and really enjoyed! There is much to learn from our literature, fellow futurists!
While there is lots that could be said, one major observation that I came away with is a gap in the literature between, if you will, the academics and the practitioners. Those who have done us the great service of publishing are at the mercy of what has been published before them. I just saw far too many gaps in terms of what’s happening “in the field,” and what’s showing up in the journals. It’s not exactly a new insight – I’ve been involved in many conversations where practitioners lament their inability to publish, usually because of a “lack of time.” It’s not unusual in a newly emerging field, such as foresight, to have many of its leading practitioners “too busy” to publish. They are often blazing the trail and don’t take the time to record it. Understandable, of course, but such a lost opportunity. Many times I read a piece where it had missed some key developments – again understandable, because the work was not published. So, please, fellow practitioners, help us build the field and share your good work with us — publish! Andy Hines
