CC BY
28Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 1 (2009 3) 143-153
УДК 101.1::316
Practices of Exploring the Future: Russian Foresight
Valery S. Efimov and Alla V. Lapteva*
Siberian Federal University 79 Svobodny, Krasnoyarsk, 660041 Russia 1
Received 11.02.2010, received in revised form 18.02.2010, accepted 25.02.2010
The interest in future as one of the universal interests ofmankind invariably emerges in differentforms. Fortunetelling and prophesy are examples of early forms, whereas forecast, strategy andfuturological literature are examples of recent forms. In the last decades special institutes for futures studies have been set up, and despite differences in approach they all introduce practices of exploring the future. The ontological «platform» of Foresight determines its special place. «Horizon» is the key unit of Foresight ontology. «Horizon» is the frontier of future visions possibility, determined by existing ontolgies (scientific ontolgies, etc). The super-objective of Foresight is to reveal the variants offuture that can appear due to shifts and changes in ontologies. This is the way you can «foresee» latent challenges, individual and social demands, and connected perspective technologies, which are not evident now, but can appear in 30-50.
Going beyond the frontier, established by existent ontology (ontologies) can be provided by special configuration of knowledge belonging to different objective pictures of the world; acquired within the boundaries of different scientific subjects; communication of experts having various ontologically based standpoints (communication should give formation and presentation of ontologies); use of diverse techniques of exploring the future, creating various images; collective thinking focused on the problems (it is important to trigger its creative, futurological component).
The technology of Delphi-survey should be completed with Anti-Delphi. Anti-Delphi is the work with experts as bearers of various ontologies. Delphi is a method of obtaining a consensus of opinions and rejecting extreme and exotic opinions of a group of experts. While the Anti-Delphi method is aimed at obtaining andforming of «different ontologies» - «private consensus of opinions of a group of experts». Knowledge of other possible ontologies and currently unknown variants of the future, which can not be conceived and realized on the basis of the given ontologies, has to be the result of Anti-Delphi. The technologically created transformation of «thinking about the future», expansion ofthe ontological field, upon which the vision of the future is built, could become a distinguishing feature of «Russian Foresight», the basis of its novelty and competitiveness (in relation to other national styles ofForesight-European, Japanese etc.). There exists a precedent of «Russian Foresight» («The Childhood 2030»), the aim of which was to envisage possible changes to the social discourse and the construction of a new socio-cultural object. The results of the project «The Childhood 2030» have innovative elements: the theses of «a new discourse of the childhood», special design of «the road map». In Russia the creation of an original and competitive foresight-research style as a powerful tool in search for directions and formats of «post-crisis development», and also for the formation of new institutions and new practice of exploring the future is crucially important for strengthening Russia's position and the preservation of its effective development. Active engagement in this field of competitiveness, and the
* Corresponding author E-mail address: evs@akadem.ru
1 © Siberian Federal University. All rights reserved
reinforcement of its position in the sphere of strategising and Foresight, struggle for opportunities in «construction» and «privatisation» of the future are very important for Russia.
Keywords: Foresight; Future studies; methodology; Delphi method.
1. Introduction
The interest in future as one of the universal interests of mankind invariably emerges in different forms. Fortunetelling and prophesy are examples of early forms, whereas forecast, strategy and futurological literature are examples of recent forms. In the last decades special institutes for futures studies have been set up, and despite differences in approach they all introduce practices of exploring the future.
In Russia over the last 30 years the practices of exploring the future that existed earlier in the forms of ideology, futurological science fiction, geopolitical strategy, long-term planning of social and economic development of the country have been destroyed. Meanwhile, in developed countries new managerial practices in the field of long-term strategies and planning creation were being developed. In the 1970-s new technology of exploring the future called The Foresight began to emerge. At first it was Technological Foresight, then social, regional, and national Foresight (UNIDO V.1., 2005; UNIDO V.2., 2005).
Since 2006 the Foresight technology has been used in Russia. The Foresight methods and formats being practiced in developed countries became the basis for the Russian Foresight. Consequently the question of great importance has been raised: whether Russia will develop catching-up with modernization or whether it will invent its own approach and technologies of exploring the future, bearing novelty and interest to the rest of the world.
Nowadays the national features of Foresight are being shaped: the distinctive features of European, Japanese and American Foresight are widely recognized. In Russia the creation of
an original and competitive foresight-research style as a powerful tool in search for directions and formats of «post-crisis development», and also for the formation of new institutions and new practice of exploring the future is crucially important for strengthening Russia's position and the preservation of its effective development. Active engagement in international competitiveness and partnership in connection with the «construction» and «privatisation» of the future and also formation of its position in the sphere of strategic planning and Foresight are very important for Russia.
The aim of this work is to carry out the methodological analysis of transformations of practices of exploring the future, define the possible novelty and perspectives of Foresight in Russia and define ontological and methodological bases of new, forming practice of exploring the future.
2. Practices of exploring the future
To define the next step of the development of practices of exploring the future is possible on the basis of logical and genetic analysis of the development of these practices and content analysis of various forms of these practices. It will help to understand the place and historical purpose of Foresight. This understanding, in turn, will allow us not only to apply Foresight methods and technologies to new objects of forecast but to concentrate deliberately on special potentialities of this approach.
At different times the content and modes of exploring the future were not accidental or random. The formation of exploration of future was defined by typical for each epoch challenges comprehended by the mankind, and also by
features and intellectual might of existing at that time cognitive institutions1.
In this article we will analyze such practices as Conceiving-Action, Design, Research and Forecasting, Scenario thinking and planning, Strategic planning and programming, Foresight.
Practices of exploring the future have been developed through time according to certain logic. This is the logic of overcoming the boundaries of human thinking concerning the future. Having appeared, each new practice exists along with the other, complementing them and competing. Each practice is more effective, acceptable and pertinent within its specific field. It is connected with distinctive features of results and resource demand for each practice. For example, in everyday life Conceiving predominates because it is the simplest practice and resource demand is low; Design predominates in creation of technical objects and buildings, in business development; Forecasting plays an important part in economy and finance; Strategic planning and programming - in the development of cities and territories.
Conceiving-Action practice
Conceiving-Action practice was initial action concerning the future. It is creation of the plan of future action (campaign or building). Conceiving-Action relies on the experience of the conceiving subject, but it also bears certain novelty. Having something new distinguishes conceiving from automatic actions and acts of thinking. Conceiving-Action practice is a syncretic act of «imagination - concentration -action» of Conceiving-Action subject.
Conceiving-Action does not create its own mediating signs but uses the signs, applied in everyday situations, which already exist - oral speech etc.
1 The term «cognitive institution» is suggested by Oleg Igorevitch Genisaretsky (private correspondence).
Design practice
Design is a more advanced action concerning the future. Design loses the syncretism inherent to Conceiving. It becomes a separate professional activity and develops its own norms. The key feature of Design is the use of special signs (for example, technical drawings, drafts) to organize thinking about the future (Jones, 1986).
The future plan is designed in the form of sign object. For example, it is the technical drawing of a building or a detail; the model of an experimental machine or organizational scheme. Quickly Design becomes a separate professional activity with lots of areas of specialization (technical design, architectural design; social design; political design, etc.).
There is a break between the construction of an image of the future and the construction of the future itself in Design. On one hand, it is a time interval (for example, the building is built in some years after work on drawings). On the other hand, it is the division of the labour of the designer and the executor of the project. The consequences of this break are both growth of efficiency and sophistication of Design and, in some cases, essential distinction between the plan and the realized project.
Research and forecasting practice
The realization of engineering, architectural and social projects quite often lead to serious problems and even to catastrophic consequences. The consequences are connected with unpredictable behaviour of the «material» (for example, destruction of buildings caused by land subsidence, environmental degradation, climate change, etc.). The necessity to take into account thing like these and undertake corresponding additional work on projects has led to occurrence of special research and future forecasting.
The research is focused on the object behaviour, the behaviour of the system enclosing
the object and their change tendencies. Forecasting defines the future conditions of the system and prolongs the tendencies of its change. There is a special mathematical apparatus which allows for identification of unobvious trends and revelation of latent operating factors.
Scenario thinking and planning practice
Scenario thinking and planning is the following step of exploring the future; it is aimed at generating a set of variants of possible futures. In forecasting the material of the project and environment were assumed to be «ever-changing» that allowed for development of one «trajectory» of the future. In scenario thinking and planning a set of possible states of the material of the project and environment is admitted. The active influence of the operating subject on them is also acknowledged. So, for example, the governments of the countries - exporters of raw materials -estimate the future budgetary receipts for various price levels of oil or other raw materials, and also take into account the results of their tax decisions.
The complexity of large-scale social and economic systems, the broad range of influencing factors, and possible managerial actions explain the difficulty of Scenario thinking and planning. However Scenario thinking and planning results often turn out to be unimpressive, for example, the variety of possible trajectories of the system is reduced to «optimistic», «pessimistic» and «average» scenarios.
Strategic planning
and programming practice1
Strategic planning as special practice (the practice that has its methodology, system of
1 Programming as a special way to explore the future was thoroughly studied within Georgy P. Shchedrovitsky methodology of systemic thinking activity. In this work it is not necessary to differentiate strategic programming and strategic planning.
social institutes and reproduction mechanisms), was formed within large companies in the 1960-70s. It is aimed at determining plans of long-term development (for 10-15 years) (Zhikharevich, 2004). Beginning in the 1980s, this approach was viewed as a process for working out the strategy of development of big cities and regions; territorial strategic planning appeared. The successful examples are strategic plans of Barcelona (Spain), Stockholm (Sweden), and Peterborough (Canada) (Zhikharevich et al., 2003). In Russia in the mid-1990 the territorial strategic planning developed as an alternative to administrative planning thanks to the efforts of independent analytical centres such as The International Centre for Socio-Economic Research «Leontief Centre», «The Institute for Urban Economics» and others.
Strategic planning uses various long established analytical techniques such as design, research, forecasting, scenario methods. It also uses a special set of actions: agreeing on the visions of future, the purpose and coordination of the use of resources by all participants and stakeholders. The coordination of efforts of strategic planning participants concerning the future has been transformed into a special technology that essentially raises the possibility of conceived future.
Strategic planning involves technologies of informing of all stakeholders and formation of public opinion, communication between various participants of the process (the activity of a set of working groups and commissions, the activities of expert panels and public examinations).
Is Foresight the answer to the new challenges the mankind has faced, or is it a commercial renaming of existing methods of exploring the future? To answer this question, it is necessary to identify fundamental differences between Foresight and already existing practices.
3. The analysis of ontologies that underlie practices of exploring the future
To reveal the essential features of various practices of exploring the future, we will analyze their ontological bases. The base of each practice is a corresponding ontology - the objective world order accepted as being true which proves the practice to be «reasonable», «correct» and corresponding to the state of world affairs. If Foresight is a new practice, it should provide new ontological bases of exploring the future.
Conceiving-Action ontology
Conceiving-Action ontology is the idea of the world as a «space» of existence of «things» and the idea of possibility of action (transformation of things) in this world. The above-mentioned assumption allows for the person to construct the actions and insert them into the surrounding reality. Conceiving is syncretic, which means it does not involve a detailed ontological picture of «the thingish world» and reformative actions of the person. The moral and aesthetic bases of Conceiving are not comprehended. Thus, Conceiving is the ancestor of all the practices of exploring the future.
Design ontology
In Design ontology the object is regarded as something formed using a material and/or constructed from elements. For example, the natural materials can act as the materials for building projects; activity and communication act as the materials of social and humanitarian projects.
In Design different signs show the forms of the elements (for example, in technical drawing). The elements «are adjusted» to each other on paper before being produced. Thus, at first, the integrity of the object is accomplished in the drawing (project) and then in practice.
Research and Forecasting ontology
In Research and Forecasting ontology the object is regarded as having been inserted in a particular environment. Both the object and the environment possess natural dynamics and change over time. To build the future means to trace mentally natural tendencies of changes of object and the environment and to operate taking these tendencies into account.
Scenario thinking and planning ontology
In Scenario thinking and planning ontology there are supposed to be lots of tendencies of changes of environment, lots of variants of changes of object and, accordingly, many variants of possible control actions. The combination of changes of environment, object and control actions generates a set of variants of the future. The future is understood («grasped») through the scenarios. Their content depends both on the control actions and uncontrollable «shifts» of the condition of object and/or environment. In Scenario thinking and planning both the forecasting techniques and simulation of results and effects of control actions techniques are used. To build the future means: to review feasible scenarios, choose the preferable one, plan control actions which will provide the development of the situation (object plus environment) according to the chosen scenario.
Strategic planning/programming ontology
In Strategic planning/programming ontology the active subjects (actors) and stakeholders with their viewpoints, interests, intentions and purposes are recognized as the base units of the world. «Building the future» inevitably includes not only Conceiving, Design and Forecasting, but also enhancing the communication between stakeholders; the creation of a coordinated vision of the future; the creation of coordinated actions program.
Foresight ontology
The technology of Foresight includes a wide range of various methods to analyze and build the images and models of future. It is necessary to construct a definite technological configuration every time you apply this initially eclectic set of methods. The choice and configuration of methods and techniques is know-how of various groups undertaking Foresight. The expert knowledge (intuitive, not quite objectified knowledge) is widely used. These features of Foresight might suggest its ontological «groundlessness», secondariness and even «simulativity». It might seem that Foresight is «a temporary» agglomeration of methods and techniques having different bases, and it has arisen as a reaction of intellectuals and managers to excessive complexity of «future» as an object of research and building. But, probably, the variety of bases and numerocity of methods included in Foresight is a sign of its entirely different ontological platform.
We believe that diversity of the results achieved by the use of various methods and a wide range of expert knowledge allow us «to look beyond the horizon» and to find «gaps» -essentially new future possibilities (going beyond those suggested by existing forecasting and modeling ontologies).
«Horizon» is the key unit of Foresight ontology. «Horizon» is the frontier of future visions possibility, determined by existing ontolgies (scientific ontolgies, etc). The superobjective of Foresight is to reveal the variants of future that can appear due to shifts and changes in ontologies. Therefore, in Foresight the subject of thinking is the ontologies and imposed frontiers (of possible and impossible).
Going beyond the frontier, established by existent ontology (ontologies) can be provided by: • special configuration of knowledge acquired within the boundaries of different scientific subjects;
• communication of experts having various ontologically based standpoints (communication should give formation and presentation of ontologies);
• use of diverse techniques of exploring the future, creating various images (the «gaps» between these images can show unusual variants of the future);
• collective thinking focused on the problems (it is important to trigger its creative, futurological component).
In practice everything mentioned above appears in the form of new technology particularly aimed at fixing and breaking the frontier of possible vision - «Anti-Delphi» technology. This means working with experts as bearers of various ontologies. Delphi is a method of obtaining a consensus of opinions and rejecting extreme and exotic opinions of a group of experts. While the Anti-Delphi method is aimed at obtaining and forming of «different ontologies» - «private consensus of opinions of a group of experts» that can help to form different images of the future. The Anti-Delphi method should result in the field of ontologies and a corresponding field of images of the future. It allows asking questions (and also answering them): What different ontologies are possible? Within the boundaries of different ontologies what variants of future are possible (variants that we could not think of earlier)? All this substantially extends the diversity of the futures, and among new variants there can appear ones more attractive than those admitted on the former ontological field.
Perspectives of «Russian Foresight»
The analysis of the development of practices of exploring the future has been carried out. It shows that purposeful transformation of «thinking about the future», formation (reflexion) and expansion of the ontological field, which is the base of future vision formation, should become
the following step of the Foresight development. It is a question of change in both philosophical and methodological discourse and - wider - in social and professional discourse, concerning the future. In social and professional discourse the existing, established ontology is reflected as a certain set of «stamps and stereotypes». The future is connected with discourse change. It involves not only modernization of the existing ontology, but also formation of new ontology through «construction» of a new socio-cultural object.
Therefore, «logically complete» Foresight should rely not just on a new set of images of the future shown by experts, but on transformation of social and professional discourse and a birth of «new object ontologies». Foresight should include work on change of social and professional discourse - transformation of thinking.
The Foresight project «The Childhood 2030» (Detstvo 2030) can be the precedent and prototype of future research (www.moe-pokolenie.ru/402/). The head of this project is Sergey V. Popov. In this project special emphasis is given not to the consensus of opinions of a group of experts, but to special creative and futurological work of experts on forming of «a different childhood ontology». The childhood is considered as a special social and cultural phenomenon «equipped» by corresponding social institutes, the established systems of relations and activity, and a set of knowledge and ideas.
The results of the project «The Childhood 2030» have innovative elements, absent in other Foresight research. One of the innovative elements is the formulated theses of «a new discourse of childhood». During the course of following years they should «seize the minds» of professionals and the public: only in this case the perspective technological and institutional shifts, leading to the development of «childhood» are possible.
Secondly, there is a special design of the «road map». In «The Childhood 2030» S.V.Popov sets a new design of the «road map» which includes not only a time line of the «occurrence of new technologies» and the whole block of providing activities (research, developments and production), but also the lines of «social transformations» and «change of public discourse». Thus, all this provides completeness, systematicness and ontological basicness of future visions of childhood.
The search for directions and formats of «postcrisis development», carried out by governments, international organizations and others, creates «a window of possibilities» for the formation in Russia of new institutes and new practice of exploring the future. Essentially this will help to strengthen Russia's position. Nowadays images of the future are the main field for competitive activity and partnership in the world. They outline the main formats of the future: a new financial, economic, military and political order; strategies of global fields of activity development; prospects for macro-regional transformation (the EU, Southeast Asia, the SCO members-state macro-region, Asia-Pacific Region, etc.); the development strategies of separate countries and large regions. Active engagement in this field of competitiveness, and the reinforcement of its position in the sphere of strategising and Foresight, struggle for opportunities in «construction» and «privatisation» of the future are very important for Russia.
4. Organizational means for practices of exploring the future
As it has been stated above, the distinctive features of different practices of exploring the future stem from ontologies underlying these practices. We can also trace the differences on the level of organisational-activity schemes and tools.
Table. 1. Practices of exploring the future
Practice Object ontology Organisational-activity scheme Tools
Conceiving-Action Existence of the world and of possibility of action Auto-cooperation «conceiving -concentration - action» Human (inseparable from the individual) skills and capabilities
Design The object, formed/ constructed from elements Cooperation in design group; cooperation of the designer and the executor of the project Sings to depict the object (for example, technical drawings, drafts); ways to transform and adjust them
Research and Forecasting Object + environment with natural trends Cooperation in research group; communication between researchers and project «bearers» Models to reflect the object and environment with their trends
Scenario thinking and planning Numerocity of variants of the development, bifurcation points Cooperation between research and project groups. Their communication with project «bearers» Models to reflect trends, drivers, bifurcation points. Compilation schemes for scenarios
Strategic planning Numerocity of active subjects with their standpoints, interests, aims Cooperation between subjects and stakeholders. Compilation of strategic plan/program Means of positional communication. Strategic plan/ Program as a compilation format
Foresight Numerocity of ontologies, which set the «horizon». Points of breaking the «horizon». Communication between experts, ontology «bearers». Communication between expert, public groups, decision-makers. Means of introduction of ontologies and their frontiers. Means of positional communication. Means of compilation of future vision - scenarios, programs, road maps
«Russian Foresight» (maturity of Foresight claims, their organizational and technological supply) Transformation of thinking. Formation of new ontology -construction of new social and cultural object Creative and futurological communication of experts. Communication between expert, public groups, decision-makers. Means of introduction of ontologies and their frontiers. Means of positional communication. Means of compilation of future vision - scenarios, programs, road maps (reflecting also future social and cultural shifts and changes of social discourse)
Table 1 gives a systemic description of practices of exploring the future, including ontology content, organisational-activity schemes and tools.
In all practices of exploring the future the creative element that helps to get new knowledge about future is communication. Communication -as introduction, collision and reasoning of different standpoints - allows extension of the existing boundaries of knowledge about the future, and the formulating intuitive ideas about the future.
Communication exists in different forms, including latent communication - autocommunication. It is possible to claim that the format of communication specifies the practice to explore the future. The brief characteristics of different types of communication are the following: Conceiving-Action - communication between conceiving and action (often in intramental form).
1. Design - communication between project designer and project executor; then -
communication between designers of separate parts or elements of the project as distributed collective activity.
2. ResearchandForecasting-communication between position of a researcher, who is directed to study natural processes and position of a designer, who is interested in artificial changes of reality.
3. Scenario thinking and planning -communication between research and design groups, that allows building the map of feasible future variants (scenarios).
4. Strategic planning - communication between subjects, who have their own positions, aims, and projects of moving into the future, agreeing on the image of the future, aims and coordination of actions.
5. Foresight - communication between bearers of different ontologies to get the image of future beyond the frontier (determined by ontological boundaries).
6. «Russian Foresight» - configurating of ontologies, creative and futurological communication of experts.
5. Conclusion
1. The ontological «platform» of Foresight determines its special place. «Horizon» is the key unit of Foresight ontology. «Horizon» is the frontier of future visions possibility, determined by existing ontolgies (scientific ontolgies, etc). The super-objective of Foresight is to reveal the variants of future that can appear due to shifts and changes in ontologies. This is the way you can «foresee» latent challenges, individual and social demands, and connected perspective technologies, which are not evident now, but can appear in 30-50.
2. Going beyond the frontier, established by existent ontology (ontologies) can be provided
by special configuration of knowledge belonging to different objective pictures of the world; acquired within the boundaries of different scientific subjects; communication of experts having various ontologically based standpoints (communication should give formation and presentation of ontologies); use of diverse techniques of exploring the future, creating various images; collective thinking focused on the problems (it is important to trigger its creative, futurological component).
3. The work on ontology formation/ transformation should be parallel on different levels and in different languages (metaphor, concept, theory, system of categories).
4. The technology of Delphi-survey should be completed with Anti-Delphi. Anti-Delphi is the work with experts as bearers of various ontologies. Delphi is a method of obtaining a consensus of opinions and rejecting extreme and exotic opinions of a group of experts. While the Anti-Delphi method is aimed at obtaining and forming of «different ontologies» - «private consensus of opinions of a group of experts». Knowledge of other possible ontologies and currently unknown variants of the future, which can not be conceived and realized on the basis of the given ontologies, has to be the result of AntiDelphi.
5. The technologically created transformation of «thinking about the future», expansion of the ontological field, upon which the vision of the future is built, could become a distinguishing feature of «Russian Foresight», the basis of its novelty and competitiveness (in relation to other national styles of Foresight - European, Japanese etc.). There exists a precedent of «Russian Foresight» («The Childhood 2030»), the aim of which was to envisage possible changes to the social discourse and the construction of a new socio-cultural object. The results of the project «The Childhood 2030» have innovative elements:
the theses of «a new discourse of the childhood», special design of «the road map».
6. In Russia the creation of an original and competitive foresight-research style as a powerful tool in search for directions and formats of «post-crisis development», and also for the formation of new institutions and new practice of exploring the future is crucially important
for strengthening Russia's position and the preservation of its effective development. Active engagement in this field of competitiveness, and the reinforcement of its position in the sphere of strategising and Foresight, struggle for opportunities in «construction» and «privatisation» of the future are very important for Russia.
6. References
1. J. C. Jones, Design Methods (Moscow: «Mir», 1986), in Russian
2. United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Technology Foresight Manual: Organization and Methods. V.1. - Vienna, 2005.
3. United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Technology Foresight in Action. V.2. -Vienna, 2005.
4. B. S. Zhihkarevich and L. E. Limonov, The Territorial Strategic Planning under Transition to Market Economy: The Russian Cities Experience, ed. by S. Vasiliev (Saint Petersburg: International Centre for Socio-Economic Research «Leontief Centre», 2003), in Russian
5. B. S. Zhikharevich (ed.), Territorial Economic Strategic Planning: 35 Years of Canadian Experience, (Saint Petersburg: International Centre for Socio-Economic Research «Leontief Centre», 2004), in Russian www.moe-pokolenie.ru/402/, in Russian
Практики работы с будущим: Русский Форсайт
В.С. Ефимов, А.В. Лаптева
Сибирский федеральный университет Россия 660041, г. Красноярск, пр. Свободный, 79
Показано, каким образом универсальный интерес человечества к будущему принимал различные формы - «практики работы с будущим», с характерными для них содержаниями и способами деятельности. Проанализированы следующие практики: Замысливание-Действие; Проектирование; Исследование и Прогнозирование; Сценирование; Стратегическое планирование и программирование; Форсайт. Для данных практик выделены их онтологические основания; сопоставлены их организационно-деятельностные схемы и инструментарий. Особое место Форсайта среди практик работы с будущим определяется его онтологической «платформой». Ключевой единицей онтологии Форсайта является «горизонт» - граница возможности видения будущего, определяемая наличными онтологиями (управленческими, научными и др.). Сверхзадача Форсайта - выявить варианты будущего, определяемые возможными трансформациями онтологий. Именно таким образом возможно «предвидеть» не проявленные в настоящее время, но могущие возникнуть через 30-50лет новые потребности человека и общества, новые вызовы, а также связанные с ними перспективные технологии. Выход за границу, определенную наличной онтологией, может быть технологически обеспечен
конфигурированием знания, принадлежащего различным предметным картинам мира; коммуникацией экспертов, занимающих различные онтологически фундированные позиции; применением разнородных методик, дающих различные картины будущего; организацией сфокусированного на проблемах коллективного мышления.
В качестве перспективной обсуждается новая технология, нацеленная именно на фиксацию и прорыв границы возможного видения - технология «Анти-Делфи». Она нацелена на выявление и четкое оформление «онтологических развилок» (в отличие от формирования «экспертного консенсуса» в рамках Делфи). Итогом Анти-Делфи должно стать знание об иных возможных онтологиях и непредставимых в настоящее время вариантах будущего, которые могут быть помыслены и реализованы на основе данных онтологий.
Технологически выстроенное преобразование «мышления про будущее», расширение онтологического поля, на котором строится видение будущего, может стать отличительной особенностью «Русского Форсайта», основой его новизны и конкурентоспособности (в отношении к другим национальным стилям Форсайта - европейскому, японскому и др.). Существует прецедент Форсайта в России («Детство 2030»), предметом видения в котором были возможные изменения общественного дискурса и конструирование нового социокультурного объекта. Результаты данного проекта содержат инновационные по своему типу элементы: тезисы «нового дискурса детства» и особую по конструкции «дорожную карту».
Период поиска направлений и форматов «посткризисного развития» создает условия - «окно возможностей» - для формирования в России новых институтов и новой практики работы с будущим, которая позволит существенно усилить позиции страны. Важным для России является активное вхождение в поле конкуренции и партнерства в связи с «конструированием» и «приватизацией» будущего, «захват» и удержание позиций в сфере стратегирования и Форсайта.
Ключевые слова: Форсайт; исследования будущего; методология Форсайта; метод Делфи.
