TOWARDS BETTER PARTICIPATORY FORESIGHT PROCESSES - LINKING PARTICIPATORY FORESIGHT RESEARCH TO THE METHODOLOGICAL MACHINERY OF PHENOMENOLOGY AND

Transcription

1 TOWARDS BETTER PARTICIPATORY FORESIGHT PROCESSES - LINKING PARTICIPATORY FORESIGHT RESEARCH TO THE METHODOLOGICAL MACHINERY OF PHENOMENOLOGY AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH Jari Kaivo-oja Finland Futures Research Centre, Turku School of Economics, University of Turku, Unit of Tampere, Yliopistonkatu 58 D, Tampere, Finland Abstract Tel (2) , GSM (41) jari.kaivo-oja@utu.fi Technological progress does not happen on social vacuum. Shaping tomorrow is not possible without qualitative analyses. Therefore, realities of the social and psychological dimensions are an important part of the foresight research. Qualitative research will be needed to understand superficial and deep structures of social realities. So called push and pull factors are always linked to social behaviour. People's relationship to the use of technologies and the utilization of technologies is complex and not one-dimensional or monological issue. Monological methodological approaches can be harmful and confusing in the field of participatory foresight. Experts of the FTA community must have higher level of methodological know-how in this research field and they should use qualitative methods in multi-faced (external and internal approaches) ways in foresight studies. Still in many studies qualitative parts of studies are quite monological and these studies can be quite problematic, even confusing. More critical methodological approaches should be taken into serious consideration. The principle of triangulation should be used more in the field of participatory foresight studies. In this article, key focus is in the use of qualitative and phenomenological approaches in the fields of FTA and foresight. The aim of this theoretically oriented discussion is to promote professional use of qualitative methods in foresight and FTA studies. The strength of qualitative analyses is linked to deeper understanding of social change and social patterns and structures. Actually people make markets, networks and crowds to function. Internal systemic understanding of social realities is important part of foresight activities, especially in the field participatory foresight studies. Internal and external analyses can be seen as complementary approaches, like qualitative and quantitative approaches. In participatory foresight projects the use of qualitative methods is a conventional part of research process. The typical problem may be that the use of methods is not planned carefully enough and people are not aware of the underlying key assumptions of applied methods. Therefore, the views and informative platforms expressed and presented in this article may be useful for foresight practitioners. Keywords: Participative foresight, FTA tools and methods, qualitative research, phenomenology, methodology, science, methodological development, triangulation - 1 -

2 Introduction Foresight enables us to act now to secure future benefits and avoid future disasters. Shaping tomorrow is not possible without qualitative analyses. The human mind allows us to transcend our immediate circumstances to envision possible futures. Phenomenological understanding is key to understand human behaviour (D Argembeau & van der Linden 2012, p. 1198). Foresight research is typically divided to two main alternative approaches: strategic foresight and participatory foresight (Kuosa, 2012). How philosophical traditions and methods of phenomenology should be taken into consideration in the field of participatory foresight studies? This broad and highly important methodological challenge is a central topic of the paper. Obviously much deeper interpretations of participatory foresight analyses could be provided if phenomenological aspects of qualitative analysis could be utilized more systemically in the FTA studies. In the article, fresh answers are provided with updated analysis of qualitative methods and methodological approaches of social sciences. The study is focusing key issues of qualitative research methods of participatory foresight research. The discipline of phenomenology can be defined as the study of (1) structures of experience or (2) structures of consciousness. This special field of philosophy (phenomenology) is distinguished from, and related to, the other main fields of philosophy: (1) Ontology (the study of being or what is), (2) epistemology (the study of knowledge), (3) logic (the study of valid reasoning) and (4) ethics (the study of right and wrong action) and (5) other philosophical issues. All these fields of philosophy provide much interesting tools and methods for participatory foresight studies, where structures of experience and structures of consciousness matter in many influential ways. There are two main traditions of phenomenology. Phenomenology as a discipline has been central to the tradition of continental European philosophy throughout the 20th century. The philosophy of mind has evolved in the Austro-Anglo-American tradition of analytic philosophy that developed throughout the 20th century. The relevance of these important philosophical traditions has not taken into consideration too much in the field of participatory foresight studies. For example, Husserl s ideas about intentionality are highly relevant for participatory foresight research (Tieszen, 2004, Ricci, 2010). Cognitive research inspired by phenomenology has various highly relevant links to the methods and methodological development of participatory foresight research. Also modern neuroscience studies are inspired by phenomenology. This paper opens new methodological avenues to create a new deeper research tradition/programme of participatory foresight research. This kind of approach enables better tools to improve validity and reliability of the FTA research. Synthesis of alternative approaches in this paper will include methodological guidelines for participatory foresight studies. This new methodological guidelines have broad potential use in the fields of qualitatively oriented FTA and participatory foresight studies. Slaughter (2008, p. 120) has noted that in the development of futures studies and applied foresight some phases of methodological development can be identified. In the early phase, forecasting, and later scenario approach were key methodological approaches. These approached were focused on external world. As a contrary approach, later integral futures (IF) approach emerged. This approach included also emergence of critical futures studies (CFS), which provided corrective approach and new emphasis of social interiors. Before this phase, exterior forms of society (population trends, new technologies, economic growth, infrastructure developments, and other indicators) were analysed. Less scientific attention was paid to qualitative issues and interior social factors such as social patterns, language, worldviews, - 2 -

3 paradigms and values. These issues are typically studied in the fields of psychology, social psychology and sociology. Integral operating systems (IOS) are having various focus fields: (1) Self and Consciousness, (2) Culture and Worldview, (3) Brain and Orgasm and (4) Social and Environment. These important research entities are known as a four-quadrant model. These focus fields are having interior and exterior fields of individuals and social organizations and collectives. Typical lenses of studies are social quadrants, waves, lines/streams, states, types and perspectives. There is need to balance inner and outer perspectives in foresight studies, IOS approach provides an alternative to viewing the world monologically and as a singular entity. This kind of monological approaches causes a lot of confusion (Slaughter, 2008b, pp ). Thus there many very good reasons to develop more hermeneutical and phenomenological methodological solutions for foresight research. Too simple positivist external approaches only cover part of the territory of social change(s). Complexity of reality requires broader analyses. Economic and social changes are driven by human beings and social agencies. Today key organisational entities are markets, networks and crowds. Such issues like belief systems, culture, and cognitive orientations are important social issues which are linked to technological development and progress. Consciousness and human intentionality are creating incentives, which direct and re-direct technological development. Group thinking (solo-not solo), motivational orientation (directed or non-directed) and ideological value issues (ideological-nonideological) are important for technological development. In the field of product and service marketing these issues are very important. Nobel-prize winner Douglas C. North has outlined that societal change is much broader theme than just economic issue because it is a result of changes (1) in the quality and quantity of human beings, (2) in the stock of human knowledge particularly as applied to the command over nature, and (3) in the institutional framework that defines that deliberative incentive structure of a society (North, 2005, p. 1). With wrong social incentive structures there will be serious market failures and problems. For example, effective demand for commodities can vanish, if unemployment rate in a society is too high (see e.g. Ford, 2008). Structural patterns of society matter in many ways, especially concerning push and pull factors of innovation process. Recent studies in innovation management field verify this important observation. The role of demand as a source of innovation is now very important issue for updated FTA analyses. The second research finding emphasizes the issue how competences enable firms to match technology with demand and capitalize on technology and demand as sources of innovation. The third finding of recent innovation management study emphasizes a distinction between external and internal sources of innovations. The sources of innovation can be purely external or internally generated competences that enable the company to integrate external knowledge within its organizational boundaries (see Di Stefano et al., 2012). Phenomenology is the study of phenomena : appearances of things, or things as they appear in our experience, or the ways we experience things. For participatory foresight research, the meanings which things have in our experience, are highly relevant. In phenomenological studies conscious experience is viewed as experienced from the subjective or first person point of view. Methodologically, Slaughter (2008b, p. 129) links (1) phenomenology to structuralism, (2) hermeneutics to cultural anthropology, (3) autopoiesis to positivism and (4) social autopoiesis to systems theory. These approaches are typically uses in the field of foresight studies. Hermeneutics is focused on collective inner world (introspection). Cultural anthropology is focused on collective inner world and inter-objective views of these. In the field of futures studies and applied foresight, typical participatory methods in these fields are Causal Layered Analysis - 3 -

4 (CLA) and Environmental Scanning (ES) (Slaughter, 2008a, 2008b). In general there are four competing (or complementary) paradigms: positivism, post-positivism, critical theory and constructivism (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). In this article I emphasise complementary methodological orientation in the FTA research field. Methodological approach The methodological approach of this paper is based on the key historical traditions of scientific thinking, which has a long history in the history of science. Foresight research has enormous capacity of methods and approaches (see e.g. Keenan, Loveridge, Miles & Kaivo-oja, 2003). There are two main grand traditions of science. These established traditional of science are creating the foundation of this article, which aims to serve the development of participatory foresight studies. In general terms, validity and reliability of participatory foresight need to be improved. In Figure 1 an illustration of scientific thinking in history is presented. This Fig. 1 explains us who thinking in science has been developed in history. Figure 1. Scientific thinking in history. (Tuomi & Sarajärvi, 2009, p. 30). First tradition of scientific thinking is based on the idea of understanding reality. This idea is typically linked to hermeneutics. The second grand scientific idea is based on the idea of explaining reality. This idea is typically linked to empirical research tradition, positivism and analytical philosophy (Fig. 1). The cycles of deductive and inductive logic are needed in science and in the field of foresight studies. In the foresight field these two traditions are needed when we diagnose reality and on the basis of diagnostics create models of prognosis and prescription (see e.g. For-Learn, 2014). As generally known the idea of explaining reality is linked to quantitative and numerical research, while the idea of understanding is linked to qualitative research and narratives. Narratives are 'stories' that produce the individual and cultural meanings, and are also demonstrating social - 4 -

5 processes property and social change over time. In this way foresight is anchored to numbers and narratives, combining quantitative and qualitative research methods. Table 1 reports contrasts between quantitative and qualitative research. Table 1. Contrasts between quantitative and qualitative research (Bryman & Bell 2007, p. 410). Quantitative Numbers Point of view of researcher Researcher distant Theory testing Static Structures Generalization Hard, reliable data Macro Behavior Artificial settings Qualitative Words Points of view of participants Researcher close Theory emergent Process Un-structures Contextual understanding Rich, deep data Micro Meaning Natural settings Qualitative approach is typically oriented to inductive logic (generation of theory), interpretivism (see e.g. Boas, 1962) and constructionism (see e.g. Berger & Luckmann, 1966), while quantitative approach is oriented to deductive logic (testing theory), natural science model and objectivism (Bryman & Bell 2007, p. 27). It is not wise to separate quantitative findings from qualitative findings. So called mixed method approach (MMA) is more relevant approach for the FTA community than mono-methodological approaches. We can even claim that foresight and FTA research needs both approaches to reach and develop new kind of abduction-based methodology (Patokorpi & Ahvenainen, 2009). In the field of foresight research and FTA both quantitative and qualitative approaches are needed. From this perspective it is useful to pay more attention to the use of qualitative methods in the foresight studies. The key idea of qualitative approach is to understand reality. The epistemological approach of qualitative research is interpretivist and understanding of social world is a key issue. The ontological approach is constructionist, which assumes that social properties are outcomes of the interactions between individuals, rather than phenomena there outside (external approach). Bryman and Bell (2007, p. 387) have argued that there are four traditions of qualitative research. Firstly, there is a tradition of naturalism, which says that understanding social reality in its own terms is important. This tradition is also underlining the idea that rich descriptions of people and interaction in natural setting are needed, if we want to understand the world. Secondly, there is a tradition of ethnomethodology, which underlines that understanding how social order is created through talk and social interaction is a key issue of research. Methodologically, his qualitative research tradition has very naturalistic orientation. Thirdly, there is a tradition of emotionalism, which pays much attention to inner reality of humans and emphasizes inner experience of human beings. Finally, there is a tradition of postmodernism in qualitative research, which claims that method talk is a crucial issue. Postmodernist tradition claims that sensitivity to different ways social reality can be constructed in science

6 In participatory foresight studies there are four alternative methodological orientations. For FTA and foresight experts it is important to be aware of these qualitative research traditions. Especially the authentic experiences and social constructions are relevant in the field of qualitative foresight research. It is important to underline that qualitative and quantitative approaches are not applied in the black and white reality. There are many similarities between quantitative and qualitative research. Similarities between quantitative and qualitative research are: (1) the need to do data reduction, (2) the need to set out research questions, (3) the need to collect data in relation to the research literature, (4) concerns with variation, (5) frequency as a springboard for analysis, (6) seeking to ensure that deliberate distortion does not occur, (7) importance of transparency, (8) the critical question of error and (9) the claim that research methods should be appropriate to the research questions. Thus, there is not much need to have black and white attitudes between qualitative and quantitative research, because there are many similarities between qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thus, these similarities may confirm us that black and white thinking is in most cased not needed in the field of participatory foresight research. However, if we use qualitative methods in the fields of foresight and FTA research, how we should use these methods? The synthesis of alternative approaches in the paper will include methodological guidelines for participatory foresight studies. This new methodological guidelines have broad potential use in the fields of qualitative FTA studies and participatory foresight studies. The Figure 3 may be quite useful tool to think methodological approach of qualitative phenomenological studies in the field of participatory foresight studies, where qualitative methods are typically used. Typical methods, which can be used in the field of participatory foresight studies are: (1) ethnography/participant observation, (2) qualitative interviewing, (3) Focus groups, (4) discourse and conversation analysis, (5) text and document analysis. All these methods have been used in futures oriented studies. Typically experts warn about some issues. In qualitative studies it is important to avoid subjectivity and avoid problems with simply replication. To perform an analysis without paralysis requires elimination of too vague generalizations and a very good level of transparency in research practice

7 Figure 3. The choice of methodological approach in participatory foresight studies, when phenomenological methods will be applied. Translation and modification of the figure is performed by the author. (Metsämuuronen 2006, p. 158). Main steps of qualitative research and participatory foresight process are figured out in Fig. 4. This kind of process description may help actioners of foresight research to integrate qualitative analyses to their participatory foresight projects. Figure 4. An outline of the main steps of qualitative participatory foresight research. Modification of Bryman & Bell (2007, p. 390). This kind of a research platform is useful in planning qualitative foresight studies and projects. Often participatory foresight projects include both an element of action research and participatory foresight process. The perspective of integral futures (IF) studies is strong in this - 7 -

8 field of research. (Floyd, 2012). From this participatory world perspective, professional use of qualitative methods is a very important issue. Convergence between Integral Futures (IF) and action research (AR) requires deep awareness of qualitative methods and of the professional use of these methods (Slaughter, 2008a, 2008b). Reason and Bradbury (2001, p. 2) argue that all participative research must be action research. Foresight is also dialogue and debate about futures. Typically, foresight research process is also having vison, dissemination and implementation phases, where understanding about social structures and constructions is essential element of foresight (Borch et al., 2013, pp. 4-10). If we take these arguments seriously, it may change many things in the field of FTA. Awareness of key concepts and available methods of action research must be very high inside the FTA community. The collection of data must be planned carefully in this kinds of complex social research processes. A typical way to collect data is to organize a participatory foresight workshop. Reliability and validity of qualitative research are important challenges and some scientific criteria of reliability and validity are needed. The key elements of reliability are internal and external reliability. External reliability depends on a foresight study platform and the degree to which a study can be replicated. The role of the researcher should be similar, if another study will be implemented with similar framework. Internal reliability implies that it would be good to have more than one observer in a qualitative study. Researchers should agree with each other about observations. There are also internal and external validity criteria. External validity refers to the degree to which findings can be generalized across social settings. External validity criteria is problematic because many studies the sample is small and studies are more or less case studies. Internal validity refers to the match of observations and theoretical ideas of qualitative research projects. (Bryman & Bell, 2007, p. 394, p. 401). Lincoln & Guba (1985), Guba & Lincoln (1994) have proposed assessment criteria of qualitative research which is different compared to conventional criteria. They emphasize trustworthiness and authenticity as specific criteria of qualitative research. Trustworthiness is made of four criteria, which have equivalent criterion in quantitative research. Trustworthiness includes the following criteria: Credibility: which parallels internal validity; transferability, which parallels external validity; dependability, which parallels reliability; and conformability, which parallels objectivity. Credibility criteria refers to emphasis of multiple accounts of social reality. Too narrow methodological approach and limited social accounts are not good for credibility of qualitative research. The use of respondent or member validation is recommended platform to improve credibility. Transferability refers to thick description of reality. Dependability is a parallel to reliability in quantitative research. Dependability criteria refers to the possibility to audit the research process from beginning to the last reporting phase of foresight research. Conformability criteria refers to the aim of objectivity during research process. This special criteria expects that researchers act in good faith during the qualitative foresight research process (Bryman & Bell 2007, p. 396, pp ). Thus, Guba and Lincoln (1994) do not accept pure reliability and validity criteria. The criteria of authenticity is made of five criteria. The five criteria are (Bryman & Bell 2007, p. 399): Fairness; ontological authenticity; - 8 -

9 educative authenticity; catalytic authenticity; and tactical authenticity. Fairness means the research fairly represent different viewpoints among members of the social setting. Very important issue is balance of viewpoints with sex, age structure, social class and religious value orientations. Ontological authenticity is based on effectivity of research to help members to arrive at better understanding of their social milieu. Educative authenticity is based on effectivity of research to help members to appreciate better the perspectives of other members of their settings. Catalytic authenticity refers to the social condition where research potentially acts as an impetus to members to engage in action to change their circumstances. Tactical authenticity refers to the social condition where research potentially helps members to empower to take the steps necessary for engaging in action. (Bryman & Bell 2007, pp ). In general, in qualitative foresight analyses these kinds of quality criteria should be respected. Especially, multiple accounts of social reality should be introduced to the foresight research process. Also so the famous triangulation principle matters in the context of qualitative foresight field (see e.g. Rothbauer, 2008). Triangulation principle includes the idea to have (1) multiple observers, (2) multiple methods, (3) multiple theoretical perspectives, (4) multiple sources of data, and (5) multiple methodologies. Triangulation can also include the methodological principle to combine qualitative and quantitative methods in the foresight study. In the social sciences, triangulation is often used to indicate that two or more methods (for example quantitative and qualitative methods together) are used in a study in order to check the results of a study. The key idea is that one can be more confident with a result if different methods lead to the same result. This well-known scientific principle can also be applied to foresight studies, which would very probably improve the general scientific quality level of participatory foresight studies. Both in the fields of quantitative and qualitative foresight research we can set such a quality criteria that the principle of triangulation will be applied in both fields (qualitative and quantitative foresight research). Following the triangulation principle in both research camps could lead to improvements in the reliability level of both quantitative and qualitative foresight studies. In general terms, typically self-criticism of researchers lead to better results than complacency of researchers. This simply principle is good to remember in science and research. Results, discussion and implications This article has discussed some key topics of qualitative research and participatory foresight research. We can conclude that following issues, which are highly relevant for better quality of participatory foresight research, need more scientific attention in the field of participatory foresight studies: First, there is no need to build antagonist black and white positions between quantitative and qualitative research traditions. In most cases these approaches are complementary, not perfect substitutes to each other. These approaches share many similarities and scientific principles. Secondly, in the field of qualitative research, following some well-planned logical research process with different phases of the research process is very important issue especially, because new theory-based needs to collect data can emerge. In most qualitative research processes there must be readiness to collect new data to validate conclusions of research and gain higher reliability of a foresight study

10 Thirdly, in this article, I have showed relevant historical links to qualitative and quantitative research traditions and I have also linked these historical traditions to the FTA field and participatory foresight research. This kind of methodological integration may be helpful for integrative use of diagnosis, prognosis and prescription methods in field of FTA and foresight. Basic scientific ideas of understanding and explaining phenomena are still relevant for the foresight field. In modern tradition of FTA and foresight these grand scientific approaches are today linked to the discussion about numbers and narratives, and also to the discussion of mixed methodologies approaches (MMA). Fourthly, hermeneutical and more qualitative research tradition has many key assumptions about the object of research. When foresight experts organize foresight research there is need to be very aware of these key methodological assumptions. Key assumption are associated with following methodological questions: (1) Are we analysing numbers or narratives?; (2) are we analysing the symbolic reality of subjects or social groups?; (3) are we analysing surface structures or deep structures of social reality, (4) is the special situation of understanding important or not?; and (5) are we analysing the diversity of experience or the structure of experience? Answers to these five questions lead to different methodological solutions also in the field of participative foresight studies. Fifthly, quality criteria of quantitative and qualitative foresight research can partly be seen to be similar, but there are also very specific scientific criteria of qualitative research. FTA and foresight experts should be very aware of these shared quality criteria, and of not shared (specific) quality criteria, when they use qualitative research methods in their participatory foresight projects. Sixthly, all participative research must be action research. Foresight is also dialogue and debate about futures. Typically, foresight is also having vison, dissemination and implementation phases, where understanding about social structures is essential element of a foresight study. If we take these arguments seriously, it may change many methodological things in the field of the FTA. Awareness of key concepts and methods of action research must be very high inside the FTA community. Seventhly, it is not very wise to separate quantitative findings from qualitative findings, because this may lead decision-makers to biased analyses and confusion. We can also claim that foresight and FTA research needs both approaches (deductive and inductive logic) to reach new kind of abduction-based methodology. These issues are very important when we aim to make interesting and impactful FTA and participatory foresight research. Conclusions As we know, technological progress does not happen on social vacuum. Therefore, realities of the social dimension and psychological dimensions are an important part of the foresight research, especially in the field of participatory foresight field. Qualitative research will be needed to understand superficial and deep structures of social realities. So called push and pull factors of innovation process are linked to social behaviour, construction of reality and social patterns. People's relationship to the use of technologies and the utilization of technologies is complex and not one-dimensional (monological) issue. The use of qualitative methods can help us understand the futures of technological developments and social changes. Individual and social experiences in relation to technologies

11 are highly relevant for the adoption and use of technologies. If technological progress serves the people's well-being and happiness in the long run, we can expect a high level of adoption of new technologies will happen. Otherwise, the technological development may be slowed or even reversed if technological development does not correlate with human welfare and happiness. In this sense social issues and social patterns are highly relevant for FTA research and analyses. Integral operating systems (IOS) are having various focus fields (1) Self and Consciousness, (2) Culture and Worldview, (3) Brain and Orgasm and (4) Social and Environment (four-quadrant model). These four fields are having interior and exterior fields of individuals and collectives. Phenomenological and other qualitative methods are needed in the analysis of IOS. Typical lenses of foresight studies could be social quadrants, waves, lines/streams, states, types and perspectives. There is obvious need to balance inner and outer perspectives in FTA and foresight studies. In this article, key focus has been in the use of qualitative and phenomenological approaches in FTA and foresight fields. The aim of this theoretically oriented discussion is to promote professional use of qualitative methods in foresight and FTA studies. The strength of qualitative analyses is linked to deeper understanding of social changes, social patterns and structures. Actually people make markets, networks and crowds to function. In participatory foresight projects the use of qualitative methods is nowadays a conventional part of research process. The typical problem may be that the use of methods is not planned carefully enough and people are not aware of the underlying key assumptions of applied methods. Therefore, the views and informative platforms expressed and presented in this article may be useful for foresight practitioners. Monological methodological approaches can be harmful and confusing in the field of participatory foresight. This implies that experts of the FTA community must have higher level of methodological know-how in this research field and they should use qualitative methods in multifaced (external and internal) ways in foresight studies. Still in many studies qualitative parts of studies are quite monological and these studies can be quite problematic, even confusing. More critical methodological approaches should be taken into serious consideration in participatory foresight studies. It is good to remember that the principle of triangulation can also include the methodological principle to combine qualitative and quantitative methods in the foresight study. Triangulation is often used to indicate that two or more methods (for example quantitative and qualitative methods) are used in a study in order to check the final results of a study. The key idea is that one can be more confident with a result if different methods lead to the same result. Thus, the use of qualitative methods and triangulation principle can lead foresight experts to deeper confidence with their results, although uncertainty aspects cannot be eliminated fully in scientific research

12 References Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Anchor Books. Garden City, New York. Boas, F. (1962) Anthropology and Modern Life. Courier Dover Publications. New York. Borch, K., Dingli, S.M. and Jörgensen, M.S. (2013) Participation and Integration in Foresight. Dialogue, Dissemination and Visions. Edward Elgar. Cheltenham, UK. Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007) Business Research Methods. Third Edition. Oxford University Press. Oxford. D Argembeau, A. and van der Linden, M. (2012) Predicting the phenomenology of episodic future thoughts. Consciousness and Cognition. Vol. 21, Di Stefano, G., Gambardella, A. and Verona, G. (2012) Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions. Research Policy. Volume 41, Issue 8, Floyd, J. (2012) Action research and integral futures studies: A path to embodied foresight. Futures. Vol. 44, For-Learn (2014) Support to Mutual Learning between Foresight Managers, Practitioners, Users and Stakeholders of Policy-making Organisations in Europe. Web: Ford, M. (2009) The Lights in the Tunnel. Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future. Acculant Publishing. USA. Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage. London, Keenan, M., Loveridge, D., Miles, I. & Kaivo-oja, J. (2003) Handbook of Knowledge Society Foresight. Prepared by PREST and FFRC for European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. European Foundation. Dublin. Kuosa, T. (2012) The Evolution of Strategic Foresight, Navigating Public Policy Making, Gower and Ashgate Publishing, Surrey, UK. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Metsämuuronen, J. (2006) Handbook of Qualitative Research. (in Finnish: Laadullisen tutkimuksen käsikirja). International Methelp. Gummerrus Kirjapaino Oy. Jyväskylä. North, D.C. (2005) Understanding the Process of Economic Change, Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ. Patokorpi, E. and Ahvenainen, M. (2009) Developing an abduction-based method for futures research. Futures, Vol. 41, Issue 3, Reason P. and Bradbury, H. (2001) Introduction, inquiry, and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In P. Reason, H. Bradbury (Eds.) Handbook of Action Research. Sage. London, Ricci, G.R. (2010) Husserl's assistants: Phenomenology reconstituted. History of European Ideas. Vol. 36, Issue 4,

13 Rothbauer, P. (2008) Triangulation. In Given, Lisa (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Sage Publications, London, Slaughter, R.A. (2008a) Introduction: integral futures methodologies. Futures. Vol. 40, Slaughter, R.A. (2008b) What difference does integral make? Futures, Vol. 40, Tieszen, R. (2004) Husserl's logic. Handbook of the History of Logic, Volume 3, 2004, Tuomi, J. and Sarajärvi, A. (2009) Qualitative Research and Content Analysis (in Finnish: Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällönanalyysi, Tammi. Helsinki