Shared Images of the Future: Sociological Alternatives to Predicting Individual Preferences

Despite its prominence in planning, the idea that decision-makers could derive guidance from predicting individual preferences engenders severe methodological problems. To mention only two of them: First, people have a hard time imagining what they want if they do not see it, and they have an even harder time imagining their lives in the future. Second, trying to derive guidance from preferences of individuals neglects the creative potential of collectively shared images of the future.

Methods of futures studies have tapped into this potential. They depart from asking people to imagine themselves in the future and to think about their individual future preferences. Instead these methods have asked participants – be it citizens or experts – to abstract from their own lives and positions and think about how a future that matches the needs of people like them should look like. They engage in a participatory co-construction of images of the future. They thus take seriously what sociological classics, ranging from W. I. Thomas to Robert K. Merton and beyond, had to say about the power of collective mental images.

The proposed paper comparatively discusses two methods that scholars in futures studies used for the co-creation of such images, the Futures Workshop and Participatory Systems Mapping. Based on our experiences in three research projects, we discuss similarities and differences between these two methods. In particular, we emphasize how the two methods require participants to go beyond their immediate needs and preferences without neglecting their own position, its leanings and biases. This approach invites them to think about a future that they think would be a valuable world to live in--for many, if not most people. Thus, co-creating images of the future delivers a sound foundation for reasonable decision-making without the theoretical and methodological pitfalls of assessing future preferences.