Criteria for “Good” futures research

Abstract

Unorthodox thought it may seem, this paper starts with its conclusion, viz., that, given the present state-of-the-art of “future research,” the classic example of the Greek sibyls (i.e., deliberate ambiguity) may be the most desirable. As for criteria for “good futures research,” there are none identifiable now; it is doubtful that there can be any; it might be better for the future if there were none. Using veracity and accuracy as possible criteria, the paper explores the past and finds considerable lack of agreement among historians and historiographers. Current sources of information are then scrutinized, and although there is no dearth of data, reliability as to source and interpretation is generally suspect, in both the public and private sector. As for the future, technological and social forecasting are still paper-and-pencil games, with the outcome only as good as the forecasters. This puts the onus on the professional “futurologists,” whose credibility and credentials are yet to be established.