Download Opening Up The Future To Inspection: Actor

The 4th International Seville Conference on
Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA):
12 & 13 May 2011
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges:
Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
Opening up the future to inspection: actor-network
theory and futures-scenarios in UK government
Authors:
Sponsors:
Type:
Geographic
Scope:
Applied Methods:
Evaluation:
Impacts:
Duration:
Keywords:
Farzana Dudhwala
[email protected]
University of Cambridge; Sociology Department
Academic
UK
Futures-work in general but scenario-planning in particular
Actor-network theory; sociology of translation; interviews; observations
The paper met the objectives of using actor-network theory and the sociology of translation to analyse
scenario-planning in UK Government
Highlights the benefits of more openness and transparency in the scenario-planning process
15/10/09
10/05/10
Budget:
£0
Time Horizon:
2010
Date of Brief:
31/03/11
Scenario-planning; Actor-network Theory; Democratisation; Transparency
Purpose
To reveal how the theoretical and methodological principles of actor-network theory and the sociology of translation can be
successfully used to anlayse the interactions between the participants of a scenario-planning project.
To show that both the means and the ends of scenario-planning would benefit greatly from a more democratic and transparent process.
To enable the process to become much more reflexive so that both participants and policy-makers are aware of what their decisions
are based on and what assumptions may be present in the evidence that they are using.
Background & Context
I have studied actor-network theory in some depth in the
Sociology Department at the University of Cambridge, and
have also spent a few months working with the Foresight
Horizon Scanning Centre (HSC) in the UK Government’s
Department for Business Innovation and Skills. The
theoretical learnings from actor-network theory and the
experience gained at the Foresight Horizon Scanning Centre
led to the idea that both could be complimentary and that there
are potential synergies between the two. The overall context
was both sociological and political, and the study has
implications for policy-making that is based on the futures
method of scenario-planning. As the work was the basis for a
dissertation, the paper was directed at an academic audience in
a sociological field; however, the general principles have
wider application to practitioners and participants of scenarioplanning in general.
The approach used was a post-hoc analysis of a scenarioplanning project using the theoretical basis and
methodological principles of actor-network theory and the
sociology of translation. This was combined with observations
and interviews conducted with members of the Foresight
Horizon Scanning Centre, including the key facilitator of the
Page 1 of 4
Opening up the future to inspection: actor-network theory and futures-scenarios in UK government
project that is the case study of the work – the ‘International
Futures Project’.
FTA Process
The study focused on the method and process of scenarioplanning. The objective was to successfully use the theoretical
basis of actor-network theory and the methodological
principles of the sociology of translation to analyse the
interactions between the participants of a scenario-planning
project. Actor-network theory shows how certain actors can
become more powerful than others, and how they are able to
make these other actors compliant by translating and aligning
their different interests (Latour 2005; Callon 1986). As
futures-work in the government can form the basis for policy
decisions that may affect the futures of many people in
society, it is essential to understand how the process works
and if there are any underlying interests that certain actors are
seeking and able to have realized.
The intended beneficiaries were the Foresight Horizon
Scanning Centre, as well as practitioners and users of
scenario-planning in general. The process involved gathering
and analysing detailed notes and reports on one particular
Foresight project – ‘The International Futures Project’. The
key facilitator was interviewed alongside others from the
Foresight Horizon Scanning Centre to understand how the
Output & Impacts
The output was a 10,000 word dissertation presented to the
Social and Political Sciences faculty at the University of
Cambridge. I also distributed the work to the key facilitator of
the International Futures Project on which it was largely based
to see what he thought of the analysis. Both parties received
the work well, the former giving me a First Class Degree
overall, and the latter providing some useful remarks that
helped me to spot the strengths and weaknesses of using actornetwork theory with a FTA.
project was carried out from different perspectives. The gaps
were filled in by minutes of meetings, project reports, project
summaries, and the final outputs of the International Futures
Project itself.
The main difficulty lay in the fact that much of the
information was confidential and the identities of the
participants of the scenario-planning were unknown. This
meant that I had to rely on the information gathered through
secondary sources and from detail given mainly from the
facilitator’s point of view.
The major methodologies used were the application of actornetwork theory and the sociology of translation. This was
coupled with observations of the Foresight Horizon Scanning
Centre and interviews with its key members. As one of the key
tenets of actor-network theory is to ‘follow the actors
themselves’, this methodology worked really well up to a
point – in assessing the role played by both the Foresight
Horizon Scanning Centre and that played by the facilitator.
However, it worked less well when analysing the interactions
between the other participants because I could not follow these
actors as they were anonymous to me.
idea of ‘democratising’ scenario-planning to include a larger
number and a more diverse range of participants. Methods to
make this a practical possibility are also in the development
stage and this dissertation provides one possible theoretical
justification for the benefits of doing so.
A key outcome was a reflexive scenario matrix depicting the
possible future states of scenario-planning were
democratisation and transparency to be included (see picture
below). Not only did this highlight the possible consequences
of differing levels of democratisation and transparency, but it
also highlighted the flaws of the traditional 2x2 matrix
whereby the top right scenario is largely seen as the ‘best’
outcome and the bottom right scenario as the one to avoid.
The work has not yet had any direct impact on policy options.
However I have distributed the work to others in the futures
community and have had encouraging responses. I have
discovered that there are others who are also exploring the
The main impact of the work is to encourage debate and
provoke more research into the area of democratisation and
increased transparency in scenario-planning and futures-work.
Page 2 of 4
Opening up the future to inspection: actor-network theory and futures-scenarios in UK government
increased transparency would keep a check on any detrimental
biases that were present.
Outcome & Evaluation
The FTA was not specifically designed to make
recommendations but the analysis led to two recommendations
nonetheless: firstly that participation in the scenario-planning
process in government should be democratised, and secondly
that the process itself should be opened up to inspection – so
that it is more transparent.
The actor-network theory analysis worked particularly well for
the questions the paper was asking and highlighted a potential
synergy between this sociological theory and method, and
analysing the process of scenario-planning. The difficulties
encountered with accessing the participants in this particular
study can be overcome in the future by starting the analysis as
and when a project is undertaken.
These recommendations were suggested as a result of the
actor-network theory analysis that revealed that there are
actors involved in the scenario-planning process that can exert
more power and influence over others – causing the scenarios
to have implicit biases within them. The democratisation of
scenario-planning to include more people from different
backgrounds would mean that the scenarios would be
constructed with a greater diversity of thought and the
The feedback gained from the Sociology Department at the
University of Cambridge, the Foresight Horizon Scanning
centre and the general futures community, including Outsights
and The Futures Company was very positive. Although the
purpose of the work was academic in nature, the lessons to be
taken from it are readily applicable to the field of scenarioplanning in general.
Callon, M., & Law, J. (1982). On Interests and their Transformation:
Enrolment and Counter-Enrolment. Social Studies of Science , 12 (4), 615625.
Sources and References
Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an Uncertain
World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. (G. Burchell, Trans.) Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Bell, W. (2009 (1997)). Foundations of Futures Studies (Vol. 2). New
Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Born, G. (2006, September). The art of forecasting and the temporal politics
of the markets. European Association of Social Anthropologists annual
conference, University of Bristol, Bristol.
Club of Rome. (2009). The Story of the Club of Rome. Retrieved February 04,
2010, from http://www.clubofrome.org/eng/about/4/
Brown, A., & Weiner, E. (1984). Supermanaging: How to harness change for
personal and organizational success. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cooke, R. M. (1991). Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective
Probability in Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Callon, M. (1986a). Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation:
Domestication of the Scallops and the Fisherman of St. Brieuc Bay (1999). In
M. Biagioli, The Science Studies Reader (pp. 67-83). Routledge.
Cuhls, K. (2001). Foresight with Delphi Surveys in Japan. Technology
Analysis & Strategic Management , 13 (4), 555-569.
Callon, M. (1986b). Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation:
Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In J. Law,
Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? (pp. 196-223).
London: Routledge.
Callon, M. (1986c). The Sociology of an Actor-Network. In M. Callon, J.
Law, & A. Rip, Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology (pp. 1934). London : Macmillan.
Callon, M. (1998). The Laws of the Markets. Oxford: Blackwell.
Callon, M. (1999). Actor-network theory - the market test. In J. Law, & J.
Hassard, Actor Network Theory and after (2005 edition ed., pp. 181-195).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Callon, M., & Latour, B. (1981). Unscrewing the big Leviathan: how actors
macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. In K. KnorrCetina, & A. V. Cicourel, Advances in social theory and methodology:
Toward an integration of micro- and macro-sociologies (pp. 277-303).
Boston, London and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Foresight. (2008). Foresight Annual Review 2008. London: Government
Office for Science.l
Georghiou, L., Harper, J., Keenan, M., Miles, I., & Popper, R. (Eds.). (2008).
The Handbook of Technology Foresight. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Heijden, K. V. (2004). Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation (1st
Edition 1996 ed.). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen Science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable
development. Abingdon: Routledge.
Kahn, H., & Wiener, A. (1967). The Year 2000. New York: Macmillan.
Keenan, M., & Miles, I. (2008). Foresight in the United Kingdom. In L. G. al.,
The Handbook of Technology Foresight (pp. 91-111). Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
Latour, B. (1986). The Powers of Association. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, Action
and Belief (pp. 264-280). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Page 3 of 4
Opening up the future to inspection: actor-network theory and futures-scenarios in UK government
Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.
Michael, M., & Singleton, V. (1993). Actor-Networks and Ambivalence:
General Practitioners in the UK Cervical Screening Programme. Social
Studies of Science , 23 (2), 227-264.
Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press.
POST. (1997). Science Shaping the Future? London: Parliamentary Office of
Science and Technology.
Latour, B. (2002). Gabriel Tarde and the End of the Social. In P. Joyce, The
Social in Question: New Bearings in History and the Social Sciences (pp. 117132). London and New York: Routledge.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Law, J. (2004). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London:
Routledge.
Ramalingam, B., & Jones, H. (2007). Strategic Futures Planning: A Guide for
Public Sector Organisations. London: Ark Group.
Rappert, B. (1999). Rationalising the Future?: Foresight in Science and
Technology Policy Coordination. SATSU Working Paper N13 1999 , 1-15.
Rhydderch, A. (2009). Scenario Planning: Guidance Note. London: Foresight
Horizon Scanning Centre, Government Office for Science.
Law, J., & Callon, M. (1988). Engineering and Sociology in a Military
Aircraft Project: A Network Analysis of Technological Change. Social
Problems , Vol. 35, 284-297.
Schwartz, P. (1998). The Art of The Long View. Chichester: John Wiley &
Sons.
Law, J., & Hassard, J. (1999). Actor Network Theory and After (2005 edition
ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Tarde, G. (1893 (1895)). Questions sociales. In Essais et melanges
sociologiques (pp. 175-210). Paris: Felix Alcan.
MacKenzie, D. (2001). Physics and Finance: S-Terms and Modern Finance as
a Topic for Science Studies. Science, Technology & Human Values , 6 (2),
115-144.
Teknologi-Radet. (2006, January 06). The Consensus Conference. (T. D.
Technology, Producer) Retrieved March 23, 2010, from
http://www.tekno.dk/subpage.php3?article=468&language=uk&category=12
&toppic=kategori12
Mackenzie, D., Muniesa, F., & Siu, L. (Eds.). (2007). Do Economists Make
Markets? : on the performativity of economics. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Thrift, N., Clark, G. L., & Tickell, A. (2004). Performing finance: the
industry, the media and its image. Review of International Political Economy ,
289-310.
Martin, B. (1995). Foresight in Science and Technology. Technology Analysis
and Strategic Management , 7 (2), 139-168.
Martin, B. R., & Irvine, J. (1989). Research Foresight: Priority Setting in
Science. London: Pinter Publishers.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & lll, W. W. (1972). The
Limits to Growth. New York: Universe Books.
Vargas, E. V., Latour, B., Karsenti, B., Ait-Touati, F., & Salmon, L. (2008).
The Debate Between Tarde and Durkheim. (A. Damle, & M. Candea, Eds.)
Envoronment and Planning D: Society and Space , 26, 761-777.
Wack, P. (2002). Scenarios: Shooting the Rapids. In D. Faulkner (Ed.),
Critical Perspectives on Business and Management (pp. 115-134). London:
Routledge.
Page 4 of 4