Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
THINKING
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE AUSTRALIAN GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP AT SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF MANAGEMENT IN STRATEGIC FORESIGHT
NOVEMBER 2012
By Adam Jorlen
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Firstly I'd like to thank my supervisor Joe Voros for excellent advice and other support during this year. Many people have been involved in countless discussions and it is hard to know what and who helped to catalyse and transform my thinking, which turned into this document. In the foresight community I'd especially like to acknowledge Neil Houghton and Jos Ramos. In the integral community I'd like to say thanks to Pete Holliday and Tim Winton who kindly helped with some of the challenges around the integral concepts. Also big thanks to my collaborators Richard Harmer, Juan Caraza, Julian Waters-Lynch, Helen Palmer, Andrew Suttar and everyone else at Hub Melbourne for making this thesis come together. And finally, thanks to my partner Jen, who has been a fantastic support and contributed the artwork to this thesis.
ABSTRACT
Historically, foresight has alternated between being considered either an art or a science. In recent decades attempts to combine these two seemingly contradictory fields through theoretical frameworks based on various integral thinkers have been made. The view of foresight among institutions, media and the general public is however far from such a synthesis, but still firmly based on the view that the future is studied with forecasts and similar science based methods. The purpose of this thesis is to study how art and creativity and specifically creative thinking can help to transition foresight from a fact- and science based field towards a more creative endeavour, which involves more people collaborating to build their futures. The method used to do this study is a literature-based inquiry of relevant concepts followed by an analysis of these. Firstly, some key definitions of foresight and creativity are examined in order to find similarities and differences between the two fields. Secondly, the multidisciplinary field of creativity is given an overview. Thirdly, a literature review of thinking and in particular creative thinking is done. Creative thinking can mean many different things, so a framework with five clusters of creative thinking is formulated; divergent, lateral, aesthetic, systems and inspirational thinking. An analysis of the generic foresight process using these five clusters illustrates what role creative thinking plays in each phase of this process, as well as in 2-3 methods used in each phase. This analysis, and insights and knowledge from the literature review leads to five recommendations as to how the foresight process can be improved. Lastly a metaphor-based discussion looks at how creative thinking might be used to build collective foresight through collaboration.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2 ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. 3 1. INTRODUCTION - FORESIGHT: ART, SCIENCE OR MORE? ......................................... 7 1.1. BACKGROUND CONTEXT TO THIS INQUIRY ............................................................................. 7 1.2. RESEARCH QUESTION ............................................................................................................. 8 1.3. LITERATURE USED - RATIONALE AND SELECTION METHOD .................................................. 9 1.4. LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 9 2. FORESIGHT AND CREATIVITY ......................................................................................... 10 2.1. THE PUSH AND PULL FOR CREATIVITY ................................................................................... 10 2.2. SOME SIMILARITIES BETWEEN FORESIGHT AND CREATIVITY ................................................ 10 2.2.1. THE ABILITY TO CREATE... ......................................................................................................... 10 2.2.2. USEFUL WAYS... ......................................................................................................................... 11 2.2.3. USE THE INSIGHTS RISING... ....................................................................................................... 11 2.2.4 MULTIDISCIPLINARITY ....................................................................................................................... 11 3. THE MANY NATURES OF CREATIVITY ........................................................................... 12 3.1. DEFINITIONS OF CREATIVITY ................................................................................................. 12 3.2. PARADOXES IN CREATIVITY, THE CREATIVE PROCESS AND HOW IT IS LINKED TO FORESIGHT ..................................................................................................................................................... 13 3.3. BALANCE BETWEEN RATIONAL AND CREATIVE THINKING ..................................................... 14 4. TYPES OF THINKING ........................................................................................................... 16 4.1. FUTURES THINKING - MANY TYPES OF THINKING .................................................................. 16 4.2. DIFFERENT MODES OF THINKING ........................................................................................... 17 4.2.1. PERSONALITY TYPES ................................................................................................................. 17 4.2.2. BRAIN STRUCTURE ..................................................................................................................... 17 4.2.3. LEVELS OF DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................................... 18 4.2.4. MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES ......................................................................................................... 19 4.2.5. STATES ....................................................................................................................................... 19 5. WHAT IS "CREATIVE THINKING"? .................................................................................. 21 5.1. DIFFERENT TYPES OF CREATIVE THINKING ........................................................................... 21 5.2. DIVERGENT THINKING ........................................................................................................... 22 5.3. LATERAL THINKING ............................................................................................................... 22 5.4. AESTHETIC THINKING ............................................................................................................ 23 5.5. SYSTEMS THINKING ............................................................................................................... 24 5.6. INSPIRATIONAL THINKING ..................................................................................................... 25 5.7. CAN ANYONE BE A CREATIVE THINKER? ................................................................................ 27
5.8. A SPECTRUM FROM LOW TO HIGH CREATIVITY? ................................................................... 28 6. WHAT ROLE DOES CREATIVE THINKING PLAY IN A FORESIGHT PROCESS? ...... 29 6.1. CREATIVE THINKING IN FORESIGHT ...................................................................................... 29 6.2. STRATEGIC THINKING AND THE FORESIGHT PROCESS ........................................................... 30 6.3. CREATIVE THINKING IN A GENERIC FORESIGHT PROCESS .................................................... 31 6.4. STAGE 1 - INPUTS ................................................................................................................... 33 6.5. STAGE 2 - ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 34 6.6. STAGE 3 - INTERPRETATION .................................................................................................. 34 6.7. STAGE 4 - PROSPECTION ........................................................................................................ 36 6.8. STAGE 5 - OUTPUT ................................................................................................................. 37 6.8.1. TANGIBLE OUTPUTS ................................................................................................................... 38 6.8.2. INTANGIBLE OUTPUTS ................................................................................................................ 38 6.9. SUMMARY OF CREATIVE THINKING IN A GENERIC FORESIGHT PROCESS ............................... 39 7. RECOMMENDATIONS - HOW CAN THE QUALITY OF A FORESIGHT PROCESS BE IMPROVED? .............................................................................................................................. 40 7.1. INVOLVE MORE CREATIVE THINKERS IN THE FORESIGHT PROCESS ....................................... 40 7.2. SPEND MORE TIME AND RESOURCES ON FORESIGHT OUTPUT ................................................ 40 7.3. EXPERIMENT WITH "A BEGINNER'S MIND" ............................................................................ 40 7.4. HIGHLIGHT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CREATIVITY SPECTRUM ............................................ 41 7.5. ACKNOWLEDGE OTHER WAYS OF OPERATING ....................................................................... 41 8. DISCUSSION - HOW CAN CREATIVE THINKING BE USED TO BUILD COLLECTIVE FORESIGHT? ............................................................................................................................. 42 8.1. CO-CREATING THE FUTURE ................................................................................................... 42 8.2.THE FUTURE AS A LANDSCAPE ................................................................................................ 42 8.3. THE STAR: OUR ENDURING AND GUIDING SOCIAL ROLE ........................................................ 43 8.4. THE MOUNTAIN: THE CHALLENGING OBJECTIVE .................................................................. 43 8.5. THE CHESSBOARD: THE JOURNEY OF CO-CREATING THE FUTURE TOGETHER ...................... 44 8.6. THE SELF: HARVESTING COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE, CREATIVITY AND WISDOM ................ 45 9. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 47 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 48
TABLE OF FIGURES Fig 1. Creativity research spans many fields .................................................................................... 12 Fig 2. The creative process, the foresight process and the design thinking process ..................... 14 Fig 3. Some examples of different types of thinking used when "thinking about the future" ..... 16 Fig 4. Some lines of development ....................................................................................................... 19 Fig 5. Five main types of creative thinking ....................................................................................... 21 Fig 6. The golden ratio as seen in photography, painting, mathematics and architecture .......... 24 Fig 7. The u-shaped subtle cognitive line .......................................................................................... 26 Fig 8. The spectrum of creative thinking .......................................................................................... 28 Fig 9. The futures cone ....................................................................................................................... 29 Fig 10. Different futures with increasing complexity and time horizon ........................................ 30 Fig 11. The generic Foresight Process ............................................................................................... 31 Fig. 12 An overview of some methods, thinking skills and roles needed in a foresight process. . 32 Fig 13. Five layers of increasing depth .............................................................................................. 35 Fig. 14. Level of creative thinking in different phases and methods in a generic foresight process ....................................................................................................................................................... 39 Fig 15. Co-creating the future ............................................................................................................ 43
foresight. Much debate about different epistemological frameworks has been played out in the field particularly how attached and influenced futures and foresight should be to Wilber's integral model instead of other frameworks. Gidley (2010) suggest a post-Wilber "integration of integral", where not only the conceptual framework of Wilber is included, but also the theories by Steiner and Gebser on aesthetics/beauty and participation/enactment. Despite this epistemological debate, most academics involved herein basically agree that foresight or futures studies is shifting from a discipline based on either science or art, to one inclusive of as many perspectives as possible based on many different disciplines and methodologies. Inayatullah (2010, p. 102) uses a metaphor to illustrate this: "The beauty of futures studies is that all these doors are possiblethere are many alternative entrances and exitsand many ways to create openings and closings." Ogilvy (1996, p. 32) argues that futures thinking move "away from a foundation on fact or scientific theory and towards a more creative and willful endeavor /.../ toward becoming a kind of collectively practiced existentialism". Even if the foresight and futures academics are far ahead in concocting integral models for how to think about the future, the general discourse tends to be stuck in the art vs. science debate. The general public and media still largely rely on forecasts, predictions and data, and have a sceptical view of non-rational, 'artistic' means to think about the future. Organisations and institutions similarly base strategies and policies predominantly on extrapolation of past data.
The fourth chapter will look at thinking styles and the development of psychological understanding of cognition and thinking styles in the past 100 years. The purpose here is to understand what different types of thinking are in order to then specifically examine creative thinking. The fifth chapter presents a model of five different clusters of creative thinking. The sixth chapter gives an overview of some key foresight concepts and describes a generic foresight process and some foresight methods. An analysis of what role creative thinking plays in this process and in each of the chosen methods follows. The seventh chapter looks at how the quality of a foresight process can be improved using the knowledge about creative (and other) types of thinking that has been uncovered in the past chapters. The last chapter is a discussion of how creative thinking can build collective foresight. This is related as an image of the future, which leaves the art/science dichotomy irrelevant and obsolete.
1.4. LIMITATIONS
This is submitted as a thesis in the Master's program of Management at the Australian Graduate School for Entrepreneurship. The lens, which will be used to examine creativity and foresight, is thinking. The rationale for using this lens is that this thesis is written for a university management program in the Western world, with most institutions, and individuals in management being comfortable and able to grasp the concept of thinking. Other concepts like spirit, emotion, moral or self could also have been used, and would probably have been more appropriate in other contexts. Here, thinking has been chosen as it is universally accepted and understood, even if it essentially is a very abstract concept. A suggestion for future management research might be to look at "strategic intuition" or "strategic feeling" as a supplementary organisational practice to strategic thinking.
10
2.2.4
MULTIDISCIPLINARITY
Another concept in De Jouvenel's definition, which we find in both foresight and creativity, is multidisciplinarity. The difference between the two fields is that foresight by nature and definition strives to include all perspectives, and disciplines, i.e. multidisciplinarity is becoming a mutually agreed characteristic of the field, as discussed in the introduction, while creativity researchers seem to struggle with a fragmented field and multiple definitions (Hennessey & Amabile 2010). Foresight is a discipline, which includes and transcends other disciplines. Creativity might also do this but is searching for a satisfactory framework, which can hold all disciplines and definitions in an elegant way, which is easy to understand. The age-old notion of creativity as something elusive and mystical has possibly prevented the field from acknowledging that this is one of the key aspects of it, which also defines the nature of it (Sternberg & Lubart 1999). To sum up this chapter, we see that in the broad definitions of the two fields there are similarities between foresight and creativity. This does however not generate any important insights, why the next chapter in this inquiry will look closer at the multidisciplinary character of creativity and the attempts to bring the disciplines in the field together.
11
Hennessey & Amabile (2010) also show (see fig 1) how the concept stretches over many disciplines and frame it in going from the study of smallest to the largest. The first is the neurological field, which with the latest decades' advancements in MRI scanning technology has contributed significantly to the research on creativity. The last is the systems approach, which aims to take an overview of all the others and bring them together. With increasing research on creativity, an increased fragmentation has occurred in the field and it seems that researchers in some fields often are unaware of research in other fields. (Hennessey & Amabile 2010) therefore concludes by stating; "what we need now are all-encompassing systems theories of creativity designed to tie together and make sense of the diversity of perspectives found in the literature from the innermost neurological level to the outermost cultural level."
Fig 1. Creativity research spans many fields (Hennessey & Amabile 2010)
12
Creativity is often viewed as a process. Wallas (1926) was one of the first researchers to attempt to describe this, and his definition of the creative process, which was originally devised in the 1920s, is still universally used (Plsek 1996). The original four stages; preparation, incubation, illumination and verification have been extended and modified by many creativity researchers since then, but the model is essentially the same (Barron 1988; Torrance 1988). A rather modern version of the creative process is the design thinking process. The stages in this are understand, observe, point of view, ideate, prototype and test (dschool 2012). Candy (2010, p. 173) draws parallels between foresight and design thinking and argues that the processes are similar and complementary; foresight is "longer-term and more ideation-oriented", while design is "shorter-term and more material-oriented". The foresight process can be summarized in the steps input, analysis, interpretation, prospection and output and strategy (Voros 2003).
13
Fig 2. The creative process (Wallas 1926), the foresight process (Voros 2003) and the design thinking process (dschool 2012). A look at the three processes side-by-side as in figure 2 shows that there are parallels between them, but also quite a few differences. Candy (2010, p. 165) asks the question how to "marry" futures and design. Voros (2012 private communication) also uses a family metaphor in that there are many similarities between foresight and creativity, and the fields could be regarded as "cousins". These insights and metaphors might answer the first research question, "What is the nature of the relationship between creativity and foresight?" The short answer is that there are similarities, but nothing of real interest or value to continue the inquiry in finding the answer to the main research question. It is clear that creativity and foresight are related, multidisciplinary fields with many inherent paradoxes and similar processes, but we need to look elsewhere in order to move the inquiry further.
14
In order to understand what the terms futures thinking and creative thinking can mean, we must however step back for a moment and look at the literature around thinking. The following two chapters; chapter four and five review the literature around thinking in general and creative thinking in particular. This is necessary in order to continue to the analysis and answer the second research question of what role creative thinking plays in foresight.
15
4. TYPES OF THINKING
4.1. FUTURES THINKING - MANY TYPES OF THINKING
Successful foresight requires many different ways of thinking. Hines & Bishop named their 2006 book, which is an overview of the foresight field and its methods, Thinking about the Future. In studying that book, it is clear that in order to think about the future, one must be skilled at many different types of thinking. Some examples are found in figure 3. Not only do foresight practitioners have to be skilled in these - they must also pay attention to their own thinking (Hines & Bishop 2006, p. 16) and understand that they are biased. If a foresight practitioner's style of thinking does not fit with the context in which they work, for example the preferences of an organisation, the foresight exercise might fail.
Wild thinking Radiant thinking Complex thinking Visionary thinking Different thinking Systematic thinking Futures thinking Fresh thinking "Blue-sky" thinking Uninhibited thinking Abstract thinking Lateral thinking Creative thinking New thinking Long-term thinking Strategic thinking Focused thinking Provocative thinking Linear thinking Business thinking Transformational thinking
Fig 3. Some examples of different types of thinking used when "thinking about the future" (from word search in Hines & Bishop 2006) Some of these types of thinking are similar, and even seem to have the same connotation to many people. Thinking is - like creativity - a vast concept and a multidisciplinary field with many natures and definitions. So what can be known about thinking and different thinking modes or thinking styles? Thinking is often variably described as a style or ability. Sternberg (1997, p. 19) clarifies between the two in that "a style is a preferred way of thinking. It is not an ability, but rather how we use the abilities we have". Both a mathematician and an accountant for instance have mathematical capability, but they differ in their preference on how to use this ability. Their style of thinking is different. Another concept, which is related to thinking and relevant in foresight, is roles. Hines & Bishop (2006) points out that a foresight practitioner needs many thinking skills, which are often categorised in roles. Terms such as experts, storytellers and visionaries are often mentioned in the futures literature. The Futures Style Inventory (Dian 2009) is a classification of roles in foresight work. The purpose of this categorization is to enhance understanding of the role oneself and others play when working together in a change effort in an organisation or community. The six different roles are Futurist, Activist, Opportunist, Flexist, Equilibrist and Reactionist. Some roles, as can be gathered by their names, are more useful for anticipating and creating the future, while others see and bring the value of the past in a change process. The overall point is that they are all important in a healthy transformation of a system. Roles can be useful to understand the different skills and abilities needed for successful foresight. A role is however a mix of a person's preferences, abilities, traits, culture and environment, and the focus is from now on thinking modes.
16
Other concepts exist, but these five have been chosen as they are most clearly related to, and can illustrate the differences and similarities between thinking modes.
17
evolving over the millennia, and with that evolution comes new styles of thinking. Like earlier researchers, Herrmann explains his theory by distinguishing between the two hemispheres of the brain. He however adds the limbic system and its two halves that also appear to contribute to a person's preferred thinking style. Hence, in total four different thinking styles result according to the whole brain theory - analyse, strategize, organize, and personalize. Analyse is the logical, fact-based, quantitative and analytical thinking style. Strategize is characterised by holistic, intuitive, integrating and synthesising thinking. The features of organise are detailed, planned, sequential and organised. And personalize lastly, concerns the interpersonal, feeling-based, kinaesthetic and emotional. Even if this theory is not as rich as Jung and Myers-Briggs' typology with its four dichotomies (i.e. in total 16 personality types), it is more multifaceted than earlier bi-polar models, and more importantly is based on neurobiology and psychology. Jung's typology and other typologies such as the enneagram still have no evidence base in the "hard" sciences. "Six Thinking Hats" is another multi-dimensional thinking styles tool that was popularized in the midnineties (De Bono 1992). This is essentially based on three thinking dichotomies represented as six hats with different colours. The red and white hats represent a feeling/thinking dichotomy; the green and blue hats signify a diverge/converge dichotomy, and the black and yellow hats symbolize a positive/negative dichotomy. This tool is widely used in organisations and was devised to challenge conventional thinking there by allowing people to play roles of different thinking styles.
18
Fig 4. Some lines of development (Wilber 2000) Wilber (2000) extends Gardner's (2003) intelligences and mentions up to twenty different lines or streams of development, all which can move through different stages of development. Some are illustrated in figure 4.
4.2.5. STATES
The last concept of thinking modes that will be reviewed here is "states". Wilber (2006) explains states as an aspect of our consciousness, which occurs in passing during time-limited episodes. These are in other words much shorter experiences than levels of development, which last for years. There are several different categories of states. The natural states are known as waking, dreaming, and sleeping. Within waking and dreaming, the phenomenal states are found; these are either interior (mental ideas, inspirations, emotions etc.) or they can come from the exterior world via the senses (hearing, smelling, tasting etc.). Wilber's (2006) third category; spontaneous or "peak" states, are experiences and consciousness beyond a person's normal level that are unintentionally and momentarily accessed. Maslow (1971, p 48) describes these as "peak" experiences, which are "transient moments of self-actualization". First-person accounts by people who have these experiences describe them as euphoric, with a sense of interconnectedness and harmony, or as mystical or
19
revelatory episodes. As these occur very rarely, they are challenging to measure and therefore explain from a neuroscientific perspective. Csikszentmihalyi (1996) uses a concept called flow, which may be regarded as a sort of peak state. This state can be found in many pursuits, such as music, sports, work etc. and is characterized by clarity, focus, high energy, full involvement and enjoyment. A fourth category, altered states, can be reached through hypnotherapy, drugs, meditation and other intentional means (Wilber 2006) To summarize this chapter, a literature review on thinking types shows that this concept can mean many things. From theories of typology via bi-polar, multi-polar and whole-brain models, to multifaceted integral frameworks of understanding, thinking can be represented as an ability, a preference or type, a level of development and a state. In here, we touched on several ideas and theories about how creativity and creative thinking can be understood as a mode of thinking, or aspects of this. We will now return to this - the key theme of the thesis - and attempt to give an overview of the different types of creative thinking that were encountered in this review.
20
Fig 5. Five main types of creative thinking The rationale for choosing these five clusters is through a) the literature on thinking as reported in last chapter, and b) a literature review on creative thinking as will be reported here. Links between the two will be made and an attempt to combine them into a framework, which shows how they are related is made. Much of the general literature combines these five types of creative thinking into one, based on bipolar concepts such as right vs. left-brain thinking or rational vs. intuitive thinking (Hines 1987). This can certainly be useful sometimes. However, much literature paints a more nuanced picture, and an attempt to illustrate this is made here. There are similarities and correlations between the five clusters, and instead of five, ten could have been picked. Another challenge in this study is that much of the literature on creativity is based on personal, i.e. first person experiences, which makes this classification difficult as it can never be established whether different accounts of creativity and creative thinking are referring to the same experiences for different people. Here the five types of creative thinking are summarized with a notion of what the literature on cognition and thinking styles (as reviewed in the past chapter) says about how each of them might be explained. Some of the modes of thinking are similar and in these cases, the distinctions are made.
21
22
(Weisberg 1993) this difference can be compared with the distinction between reproductive thought, which is built on past experience, and productive though, which creates something completely new. De Bono has designed many tools and techniques for organisations and individuals who wish to enhance their lateral thinking skills. Some techniques for doing this include the mental operations provocation and movement (De Bono 1992). Provocation can be used to introduce instability in our thinking habits. This instability is required to reach a new stable state, which does not exist in our experience, but might be more valuable for moving ahead to a new idea or concept. Humour is a typical example of this, where we are provoked and taken to an instable state. Movement is the absence of judgment, i.e. instead of using logic to decide whether an idea or thought is right or wrong, it asks; "where does this lead to?" Lateral thinking is both an attitude and a method of using information, and hence - to link back to the literature on thinking in the past chapter - an ability or skill that anyone can learn (De Bono 1971).
23
Fig 6. The golden ratio as seen in photography, painting, mathematics and architecture (clockwise from top left: Bunce 2008; Art school at home 2008; Deviant Art 2012; Emptyeasel 2009) One theoretical link to the psychology literature for this type of creative thinking, is that it is related to Gardner's (1993) multiple intelligences. A few of these (spatial, musical, bodily-kinaesthetic) are significant for aesthetic thinking abilities, which can be developed by training and practice. The most relevant "intelligence" is however the one which Wilber (2000) calls the "aesthetic line", which represents how we experience art from primitive cave art via religious art and icons and impressionist art to modern abstract art.
24
Herrmann's "Whole Brain Theory" (1996), as related in section 4.2.2, explains that one part of the brain (the strategizing part) is characterised by holistic, intuitive, integrating and synthesising thinking. Systems thinking can also be explained with levels of development. According to some developmental psychologists (Cook-Greuter 2005; Wilber 2000) rational thinking and reasoning is accessible to everyone who has developed to a certain level as Piaget (in Wilber 2000) described it. Before this stage, a person's cognition has no access to reasoning. Systems thinking is in a similar way accessible to cognitive levels above this. Cook-Greuter (2005) labels this level of development the autonomous stage, and people here can perceive systemic patterns and comprehend multiple interconnected systems of relationships and processes. Hence, according to these researchers systems thinking is an addition beyond rational/analytical thinking and cannot be accessed to levels before. Other researchers suggest that systems thinking is more complex than simply something that can be accessed beyond a certain level of development. Winton (2010) has devised a symbol-based framework for systems thinking called pattern dynamics, which is based on patterns found in nature. He views systems thinking as a type of thinking that everybody can access at a certain degree at all stages of life. An individual example of this would be that even small children seem to be able to deal with complex systems in life. A cultural example would be the primitive peoples, like Australia's aborigines, who long ago developed intricate systems-based philosophies. Winton (2012 private communication) therefore thinks that systems thinking can be seen as both a level of development and a so-called line of development. Systems thinking is closely related to the former type of creative thinking - aesthetic thinking - in that synthesis and making things "whole" and perfect somehow is related to elegance and beauty. It is also closely related to the next type of thinking - inspirational thinking.
25
Inspirational thinking can be explained with at least three concepts from the literature review in chapter four; states, multiple intelligences and levels of development. Firstly, what Wilber (2006) refers to as different "state" experiences - one, which would be through interior phenomenal states, and another interpretation as spontaneous or peak states (Maslow 1971). Secondly, inspirational thinking can be explained with the concept of multiple intelligences or lines (Wilber 2000). Wilber identifies several lines, which are related to cognition. One, which he calls the gross-reflecting cognitive line describes rational and systems thinking and is a "normal" developmental line with additive complexity. Another, the subtle cognitive line involves "states of imagination, reverie, daydreams, creative visions, hypnogogic states, etheric states, visionary revelations, hypnotic states, transcendental illuminations." (Wilber 2000 p124). This line is rather complex in that the development along it occurs more along a u-shaped graph than a regular, linear shape as shown in figure 7. In infancy this type of cognition is stronger, only to decrease during the concrete operational and formal operational stages. Then, later at vision/logic stage, it starts to become stronger again.
Fig 7. The u-shaped subtle cognitive line (based on Wilber 2000) can illustrate how inspirational thinking vary with level of development The tendency and potential to make use of inspirational thinking can hence be illustrated in this concept, and according to Wilber (2000) this type of thinking seems to come more naturally to people operating with pre-rational and post-rational thinking. The third concept from the literature review in chapter four is therefore level of development. Another line among Gardner's (2003) multiple intelligences, which can be considered as linked to inspirational thinking, is the intrapersonal line, which indicates how attuned a person is to their inner life. There are many commonalities between systems thinking and inspirational thinking. The main difference is in that in systems thinking the thought process strives for completion and the whole, while inspirational thinking reaches into the depths of the unknown or unconscious parts of the mind and universe. These are similar, but essentially one is looking broader, while the other one is looking deeper. Other labels for these two thinking styles are therefore holistic and depth thinking.
26
Several scientific and philosophical concepts are found in the nexus between systems thinking and inspirational thinking - the synthesis of elements and insights or intuitive cognition, which both seem to be very different from linear, causal connections. One link between these two is synchronicity (Hocoy 2012), a concept that was first devised by Carl Jung in 1952 as "a meaningful coincidence of an outer event with an individual's inner state in which there is no apparent causal relationship". Another link is the concept of microvita (Fricker 2012; Inayatullah 1999), which are small sub-atomic entities which exist in both the physical and mental domains and contribute to consciousness. Bussey (2011, p. 138) suggests that, "microvita offers a third way between the linearity of positivism and the mystery of mysticism." Current research in quantum physics and cosmology (Hocoy 2012) investigates the prospect of up to eleven dimensions with different physical laws, which may support the idea of several parallel universes and might explain microvita, synchronicity and other concepts, which bridge mind and matter. These concepts sit in-between systems thinking (and its foundations interdependence and holism) and inspirational thinking (and its properties of inexplicable relations between individual and collective consciousness and unconsciousness), and do not yet have any evidence within science. Inspirational thinking has long been described in mysticism, religion and philosophy, and only so far as a first person experience. One of the aspects of this type of thinking is that the insights which result seem to be "finished", i.e. no more thinking needs to be done - only verification. The mathematician Henri Poincar (in Harman & Rheingold 1984, p. 154) for instance claimed that his big, important insights always came with a "perfect certainty". Jung's (1969) purely philosophical explanation to this phenomenon is that true creativity comes from our "collective unconscious" - a repository of all human knowledge and experience, which is biologically encoded in us. Inspirational thinking can therefore be seen as an urge to activate elements of the collective unconscious and make it conscious to the external world. This last type of creative thinking spans several modes of human operation. Cook-Greuter (as discussed in chapter 4.2.3.) suggests that we operate beyond thinking with feeling and other experiences. This type of "creative thinking" leaves the realm of thinking and moves into other ways of knowing and being.
27
Hence, everyone can use creative thinking, but it is rather complicated. Depending on personality type, level of development, ability, practice etc., these different categories of creative thinking will seem more natural or be of preference to some people. True "artists", like Picasso or Einstein might be highly developed in all these areas, i.e. they might be able to use divergent and lateral thinking to set a scene of their work, have high ability in aesthetic thinking to present their work or solve problems in a beautiful or elegant way, be natural systems thinkers to synthesise element into something extraordinary, and lastly, be attuned to and observant enough to make use of the radical insights, which come through inspirational thinking.
Fig 8. The spectrum of creative thinking Divergent thinking is the type of creative thinking, which is closest to rational thinking in its nature to extrapolate and exaggerate. Lateral thinking is also an ability, which can be studied and learnt. So is aesthetic thinking, with rules, laws and ratios from mathematics and physics etc., but here the imaginative and illusionary start to influence the thought processes to move beyond rationality. Systems thinking is a more complex type of creative thinking based on developmental level, and access to this type of thinking might require personal development rather than learning in the traditional sense. Lastly, inspirational thinking has a different complexity, where not only thinking, but also other means of operating are in effect. The intrapersonal complexity can therefore be said to increase with each of these five types of creative thinking over the spectrum as shown in figure 8.
28
29
Houghton (2012) has combined complexity and timeframe as seen in fig 10. The further the move towards the upper right corner in the model, the more radical the creative thinking needs to be in order to envision the future. Strategy requires little creativity, and exaggeration or extrapolation is often used here by organisations to decide what to do next. A move towards longer time horizons and increased complexity requires more creativity. In order to create images of complex futures with long time horizons, "higher creativity" and inspirational thinking might be needed, as these are so far removed from logic and rationality that they cannot be imagined unless they come from somewhere beyond the conscious mind.
Fig 10. Different futures with increasing complexity and time horizon (Houghton 2012) One of Amara's (1981) key attributes of the future studies field is to include more people in thinking about and shaping the future. One way of doing this is to involve people with new and different types of thinking in foresight work. Traditionally, managers, strategy consultants, experts, scientists and policy makers with very rational, critical mindsets play a leading role in strategic thinking and foresight work. In order to involve creative thinkers, designers, storytellers, philosophers and "artists" in this work, it is first necessary to identify when and where it can be useful to involve them. Here, the analysis will continue to look in detail at foresight as a process and what role creative thinking plays in this.
30
make decision-making wiser. It is not a step-by-step implementation, but rather an intuitive inquiry into possible directions. Research shows that in order to improve strategic thinking in an organisation, one must consider a number of components. On the individual level systems thinking, creativity and vision must be present. On the organisational level, ongoing strategic dialogue must be fostered in the management team (scenario building etc.) and the ingenuity and creativity of every individual in the company must be used (Bonn 2001, 2004). Slaughter (1999 b) classifies foresight methods according to four types; input, analytic, paradigmatic, and iterative and explorative methods. There are several frameworks, which describe the process for foresight work (Voros 2003; Horton 1999). Here, the Generic Foresight Process (Voros 2003) will be used, as this is the most widely used model in academic and practical foresight work (see figure 11). This framework was originally devised to clarify what foresight is and to implement foresight in an educational institution, which already had strategic planning and strategy development in place. The model was found useful to clarify the relation between these three. It was also used as a diagnostic tool to decide where and how to improve foresight work in an organisation, and to create combinations or new methods customized for organisations. The framework is generic in that it is possible to scale it and apply it to individuals, groups, organisations and societies.
31
described in chapter five will be used to analyse the different stages. The last stage of the GFP, strategy, will not be discussed here, as it is out of the scope of "pure" foresight work. It is important to highlight that even if the GFP for layout reasons (see figure 11) appears to be a linear process, this is not the case. A generic foresight process is built on continuous double-loop learning (Senge 1990) and if information and insights are revealed from former stages in the process, these are included in the foresight work of the "current" phase the process. Scanning for instance, is an activity, which is continuously undertaken in foresight work, and if new, relevant scan hits are discovered, they will be incorporated in later stages in an on-going process. It is also important to emphasize that the methods used in a foresight process do not necessarily have to be foresight methods. Any method from any discipline used in a generic foresight process for the purpose of generating valuable information for decision-making about the future is appropriate. (Voros 2003)
Stage Methods Required thinking styles Appropriate roles
Analysis
Interpretation
Deep thinking, Systems thinking, story telling skills, archetypal knowledge, holistic thinking, rational thinking, listening skills
Designers, sellers
Fig. 12. Overview of some methods, thinking styles and roles needed in a foresight process (based on Voros 2003; Hines & Bishop 2006). Some methods can be used across several stages of the GFP, but here they have been placed where they are most commonly used.
32
33
34
Discrete events and occurrences Patterns, trends, pop/litany System drivers, social causes, policy analysis Mental models, discourses, perspectives Myths, metaphors, symbols, images Intelligences, types, structures, modes
Historical
Social change and related forces and factors Historical factors and forces Macro-historical factors and forces
Fig 13. Five layers of increasing depth (Voros 2006) The most used method in this stage is CLA - Causal Layered Analysis (Inayatullah 1998), which unpacks an issue through four layers; litany, causes, worldview and myth/metaphor. The first "litany" layer tends to identify an issue or change, while the second layer analyses the underlying systems. The third worldview layer considers culture, values, language and mindsets, while the bottom layer explores myths, ancient stories and archetypes - these last come from a gut/emotional rather than a rational level. Hence, the second layer requires systems thinking skills for the analysis to be fruitful and to show the interrelations of underlying causes of an issue. The third layer, worldviews, requires a type of thinking where one distances oneself from one's own biases and worldview, so lateral thinking can be useful here. The fourth layer can be considerably helped by inspirational thinking in that it connects to intuition and unconscious processes. According to Voros (2006) myths, metaphors, symbols and images are located here, and therefore aesthetic thinking is also very valuable in this work. Storytelling was discussed in chapter 5.4 as one aspect of aesthetic thinking. Many successful films and books, including characters, storyline and dramaturgy, are modelled on ancient myths and metaphors. Judge (2005) discusses the value of metaphor in foresight work and suggests the development of a metaphorical language for the future. In this type of foresight work there is therefore clearly a link to aesthetic thinking. The analysis of the input stage showed that engaging "remarkable people" could be useful. The same applies for the interpretation stage. The method known as genius forecasting is a set of processes that are used by "geniuses" to arrive at statements about the future (Glenn 1999). The futurist Ted Gordon (in Glenn 1999) argues: "Somehow an individual, seasoned by experience and history, integrates all that is obvious and implicit - through internal processes that are not necessarily obvious - and argues for a particular future or set of developments. How do they do it? Not by decision trees like computers, but by some other internal genius processes". These unspecified and unknown internal processes may be a combination of the five types of creative thinking, likely systems, lateral and inspirational thinking. Intuition is another foresight "method", which builds on non-rational activities of the mind that have evolved from much rational thought (Glenn 1999). This method can be the only useful means to estimate the behaviour of a chaotic system. Chaos theory researcher David Greenspan (in Glenn 1999)
35
suggests that the mind can "see" the hidden order of a chaotic system that eludes arithmetic. Hence, systems thinking plays a large role in the intuition method, but also inspirational thinking. Genius forecasting and intuition (Glenn 1999) are methods, which concern looking inside oneself, i.e. they make use of inner modes of operating, such as feeling. A key aspect here is imagination. These methods sit in both the interpretation phase and the prospection phase in the GFP, as they probe beneath the surface (interpretation) in order to generate visions (prospection). Anthony (2007) describes a relatively new futures tool named Harmonic Circles. The rationale for the design and development of this tool was to balance out the rigid linear and sequential thinking processes based on opposing ideas, mostly used in Western society and its organisations, with more intuitive, non-rational cognition based on unconscious mental processes. This futures tool has been included here as it attempts to bring inspirational thinking to the foresight process. The tool consists of four steps; situate, let the shadow speak, integration and visualisation, where the first step is compared to the "event" and "trend" levels in a layered scheme (Voros 2006) and the last can be seen as a preferred future, of which more will be discussed in the next section - prospection. In terms of creative thinking, this tool requires a high degree of inspirational thinking, and according to Anthony, Harmonic Circles can be useful at the deepest level in a layered method, such as the CLA, to work beyond strong emotional reactions and differing worldviews. The stories, myths and archetypes, which are uncovered at the deepest level in a Causal Layered Analysis can be effectively used in the next phase of the GFP (prospection) - for instance in building scenarios for the future. Metaphors and narrative-based interpretations are often good as building blocks for projections into the future, as we inherently "know" the archetypal stories and the possible futures that stem from these. "Know" in this context, means to be aware of them - both from our childhood stories and the novels and films we have encountered, but also on an unconscious level, as argued in chapter 5.6. All five creative thinking types are valuable in the interpretation stage, especially inspirational, aesthetic and systems thinking.
36
2009). Many techniques exist for generating scenarios (Inayatullah 2008; Bishop et al. 2007) based on for example the number of input variables, a positive vs. negative outlook, the number of participants in the workshop, and whether you look forward or backwards. The so-called Harman fan (Schultz 2003) is a method to generate scenarios, which was invented by the futurist Willis Harman. Here a group process is used to systematically build stories from placing events on different time horizons. This method is divergent in nature, and hence divergent thinking is key. Dator's second law of the future states that, "any truly useful idea about the future should appear ridiculous" (Dator 2005). The idea of this statement is that an image or idea of the future must contain elements of novelty and creativity that are radical and unconventional enough to challenge and provoke our thinking. In scenario building, lateral thinking is therefore useful. De Bono's technique of using "provocation" and "movement" as mentioned in chapter 5.3, can for example be applied to generate ridiculous and therefore useful futures. Lindgren & Bandhold (2009, p. 23) define scenarios as "vivid descriptions of plausible futures. Designing "vivid" scenarios takes certain creative talent, and aesthetic thinking skills such as storytelling and creative writing are very useful here (Schwartz 1996; Flowers 2003). "Futurists tell stories", according to Michael (in Bell 1997, p. 316). This activity in fact draws on all five types of creative thinking in that stories are crafted with many types of thinking. Lateral, divergent and systems thinking can be used for designing meaningful, fun or compelling stories, while inspirational thinking often is key for great story tellers to gain insight. Visioning (Inayatullah 2008) is a method where participants are asked to imagine a new, completely different future from today, and hence any of the five types of creative thinking is relevant here. The focus is not about how to create these futures (Voros 2006), so critical / rational thinking is absent here (but a visioning exercise can be followed up by so-called backcasting to complement with these thinking styles). Visioning can be done in different ways, either based on scenarios, creative visualization or questions asked by a facilitator. Bezold (2005) describes the process as being built gradually over five stages; 1) identification of problems, 2) identification of past successes 3) identification of future desires; 4) identification of measurable goals; and 5) identification of resources to achieve those goals. Visioning works best when participants close their eyes and are put in a meditative state, and thus, the conditions for inspirational thinking are excellent when using this method. To sum up, the prospection stage needs all five types of creative thinking, especially lateral, divergent and aesthetic thinking.
37
38
Stage
Method Divergent thinking Delphi panel Consulting remarkable people Environmental scanning Integral scanning Emerging Issues analysis Cross-impact analysis Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Low Low Medium Low High High High Medium Lateral thinking Low High Medium Medium Low Low Low Low High Low High Low High High Aesthetic thinking Low Low Low Low Low Low Medium High Low Low High Low High High Systems thinking Low High Medium High Medium High High Medium High Low High High Low Low Inspirational thinking Low Medium Low Low Medium Low Low High High High Medium Medium High Low
Input
Analysis
Interpretation
Prospection
Output
High
High
High
High
High
Fig. 14. Level of creative thinking in different phases and methods in a generic foresight process
39
40
41
42
Fig 15. Co-creating the future (based on Tibbs 1999) Here follows a discussion of each of these images in the metaphor and how creative thinking can be used in each.
43
A key role that creative thinking can play in "the mountain metaphor" is the one mentioned in chapter 6.7. Here, it was shown that the quality of scenarios, visions and other images of the future could be improved radically with the help of all types of creative thinking. To design futures, which people are attracted to and desire to work towards, we need creative thinkers. As an example, many talented creative thinkers today are employed by the advertising industry with the role to create desire. These creative thinkers with all their skills in creating desire would be invaluable in designing appropriate metaphors for our challenges.
44
Creative thinking has a huge role to play in this "chessboard" image; the co-creation of the future. Games, social media-based open foresight and other crowd-based foresight work will benefit enormously from engaging and involving people with creative thinking.
45
This chapter with its discussion around the image of the strategic landscape illustrates how metaphors can be used to re-frame circumstances and allow for different thinking about the future. Symbols such as the star and the mountain are universal and can help to build shared visions and goals. Creative thinking can be very useful in order to design and spread such metaphors and hence build collective foresight, which can shift how we imagine our desired future and consequently change the actions we take to approach this.
46
9. CONCLUSION
Foresight is a field, which could benefit greatly from more involvement by creative thinking and creative thinkers like designers, storytellers and other artists. This would move the field further away from a discipline, which is considered as either being made up of crystal ball-gazing oracles, or on the other hand of white-coated, faceless scientists tracking statistical data and trends with complex algorithms. Creative thinking can be used to improve a foresight process. By acknowledging that creative thinking is a spectrum which goes from simple tools for tricking the brain to immensely powerful mystical experiences, based on feeling, being and other modes of operating, foresight might be able to take "creativity in organisations" and in other collective contexts to a completely new level. Creative thinking can be very useful in initiatives to build collective foresight, such as "open foresight", foresight games and "foresight epidemics", where both individual and collective creativity are important to navigate the complexities of the world towards better futures for all.
47
REFERENCES
Amabile, TM 1998, 'How to kill creativity', Harvard Business Review, vol. 76, pp. 77-87. Amara, R 1981, 'The futures field: searching for definitions and boundaries', The Futurist, vol. 15, no. 1, February, pp. 25-9. Anthony, M 2007, 'Harmonic circles: a new futures tool', foresight, vol. 9, no. 5 pp. 23-34. Art school at home 2008, ' Golden ratio in art', 8 July, blog post, viewed 18 October 2012, http://artschoolathome.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/golden-ratios-in-art Barron, F 1988 'Putting creativity to work', in Sternberg, RJ (ed), The Nature of Creativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. Bell, W 1997, Foundation of futures studies - human science for a new era (vol. 1), Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ. Bezold, C 2005, 'The visioning method', in Slaughter, RA (ed), The knowledge base of futures studies, 5 vols, CD-ROM, Professional edn, Foresight International, Brisbane. Bishop, P, Hines, A & Collins, T 2007, 'The current state of scenario development: an overview of techniques', foresight, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 5-25. Bonn, I 2001, 'Developing strategic thinking as a core competency', Management decision, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 63-70. Bonn, I 2004, 'Improving strategic thinking: a multilevel approach', Leadership & organization development journal, vol. 26, no. 5 pp. 336-354. Brown, RA 1989, 'Creativity: what are we measuring?', in Glover, JA, Ronning, RR & Reynold, CR (eds), Handbook of Creativity, Plenum, New York. Bunce, A 2008, Dig Pim Amanda Bunce photographer, blog post, 16 May, viewed 12 October 2012, http://amandabunce-digpim.posterous.com/?tag=research Burns, A 2005, 'Is futures studies a science or an art?', in Slaughter, RA (ed), The knowledge base of futures studies, 5 vols, CD-ROM, Professional edn, Foresight International, Brisbane. Bussey, M 2011, 'Microvita and other spaces: deepening research through intuitional practice', Journal of Futures Studies, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 137 - 150. Candy, S 2010, The futures of everyday life: politics and the design of experiential scenarios, PhD dissertation, University of Hawai'i at Manoa, viewed 12 October 2012, http://www.scribd.com/doc/68901075/Candy-2010-The-Futures-of-Everyday-Life Choo, CW 1998, Information management for the intelligent organisation: the art of scanning the environment, 2nd ed, Information Today Inc, Medford, NJ. Collins, T & Hines, A 2010, 'The evolution of integral futures, a status up-date', World Future Review, vol. 2, no. 33, pp. 516.
48
Collyns, N & Tibbs, H 1998, 'In Memory of Pierre Wack', Net View - Global Business Network News, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 2-10. Conway, M 2012, 'An overview of foresight methodologies', Thinking futures, viewed 19 September 2012, http://thinkingfutures.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/An-Overview-of-ForesightMethodologies1.pd Cook-Greuter, S 2005, 'Ego development: Nine levels of increasing embrace', unpublished article, Cook-Greuter and Associates, viewed 23 September 2012, http://www.cook-greuter.com Costa, PT, McCrae, RR & Dye, DA 1991, 'Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: a revision of the NEO personality inventory', Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 12, pp. 887898. Cskszentmihlyi, M 1996, Creativity: flow and the psychology of discovery and invention, Harper Perennial, New York. Cskszentmihlyi, M1999 'Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity', in Sternberg RJ (ed), Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. Daniels, D 2000, The Essential Enneagram, HarperOne, New York. Dator, J 1980, Emerging Issues Analysis in the Hawaii Judiciary, report published by the Hawaii Judiciary, Honolulu, Hawaii. Dator, J 2005, Foreword in Slaughter, RA (ed), The knowledge base of futures studies, 5 vols, CDROM, Professional edn, Foresight International, Brisbane. De Bono, E 1971, Lateral thinking for management: a handbook, McGraw-Hill, London. De Bono, E 1992, Serious Creativity, HarperCollins, New York. De Bono, E 2007, Intelligence is not enough, Blackhall Publishing, Dublin. De Jouvenel, H 2005, 'The Futuribles Group', in Slaughter, RA (ed), The knowledge base of futures studies, 5 vols, CD-ROM, Professional edn, Foresight International, Brisbane. Deviant Art 2009, The Golden Ratio, crocusgirl blog post, 21 September, viewed 18 October 2012, http://crocusgirl.deviantart.com/art/The-Golden-Ratio-137773209 Dian, N 2009, 'Foresight styles assessment: a theory based study in competency and change', Journal of Futures Studies, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 59-74. dschool 2012, 'The design thinking process', Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford, viewed 9 October 2012, http://dschool.stanford.edu/ Dunagan, J 2012, 'The Foresight Engine', Action Foresight blog, audio interview, viewed 12 October 2012, http://actionforesight.net/media/2012/03/10/jake-dunagan-the-institute-for-the-future-andgamification-for-social-foresight/ Ellyard, P 2012, Destination 2050: a concepts bank and toolkit for future-makers, in publication.
49
Emptyeasel 2009, 'A guide to the golden ratio (aka golden section or golden mean) for artists', blog post, 20 January, viewed 18 October 2012, http://emptyeasel.com/2009/01/20/a-guide-to-the-goldenratio-aka-golden-section-or-golden-mean-for-artists Flowers, BS 2003, 'The art and strategy of scenario writing', Strategy & Leadership, vol. 31 no. 2, pp. 29-33. Fricker, A 2012, 'The spaces in-between', Journal of Futures Studies, vol. 16, no. 3 pp. 113-116. Galtung, J 2010, Johan utan land, Panta Rei, Stockholm, Sweden. Gardner, H 1993, Multiple intelligences - the theory in practice, HarperCollins, New York. Ghiselin, B 1952, The creative process, University of California Press, Berkeley. Gide, A 2007, Prometheus Illbound, Mondial, New York. Gidley, J 2010, 'An other view of integral futures: De/reconstructing the IF brand', Futures, vol. 42, pp. 125133. Gladwell, M 2001, The tipping point how little things can make a difference, Abacus, New York. Glenn, JC 1999, 'Genius forecasting, intuition and vision', in Glenn, JC (ed), Futures Research Methodology, American Council for the United Nations University, Washington, DC. Hamel, G 2007, The future of management, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Harman, W & Rheingold, H 1984, Higher creativity: liberating the unconscious for breakthrough insights, Tarcher, Los Angeles. Hayward, P 2008, Developing wisdom: How foresight develops in individuals and groups, VDM Dr Muller, Saarbruken, Germany. Hennessey BA & Amabile TM 2010, 'Creativity', Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 61, pp. 56998. Herrmann, N 1996, The whole brain business book, McGraw-Hill, New York. Hines, A & Bishop, P (eds) 2006, Thinking about the future: guidelines for strategic foresight, Social Technologies, Washington, DC. Hines, T 1987, 'Left brain/right brain mythology and implications for management and training', The Academy of Management Review, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 600606. Hocoy, D 2012, 'Sixty years later: the enduring allure of synchronicity', Journal of Humanistic Psychology, October, vol. 52, no. 4, pp 467-478. Horton, A 1999, 'A simple guide to successful foresight', foresight, vol. 1 no. 1, p. 59. Houghton, N 2012, 'Foresight horizons', blog post, viewed 8 October 2012, https://twitter.com/i/#!/njhoughton/media/slideshow?url=http%3A%2F%2Fyfrog.com%2Fod2j9ulj Inayatullah, S 1998, 'Causal layered analysis: poststructuralism as method', Futures, vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 815-29.
50
Inayatullah, S 1999, 'New futures ahead: genetics or microvita?', Renaissance Universal, viewed 2 Oct 2012, http://www.ru.org/future-studies/new-futures-ahead-genetics-or-microvita.html Inayatullah, S 2005, 'Methods and epistemologies in futures studies', in Slaughter, RA (ed), The knowledge base of futures studies, 5 vols, CD-ROM, Professional edn, Foresight International, Brisbane. Inayatullah, S 2008, 'Six pillars: futures thinking for transforming', foresight, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 4-21. Inayatullah, S 2010, 'Epistemological pluralism in futures studies: The CLAIntegral debates', Futures, vol. 42, pp. 99102. Jackson, M 2011, 'Scanning', Shaping Tomorrow's practical foresight guide, viewed 6 October 2012, www.shapingtomorrow.com/media-centre/pf-ch04.pdf Judge, A 1991, 'The aesthetics of governance...in the year 2491', Futures, May, pp. 426-436. Judge, A 2005, 'Developing a metaphorical language for the future', in Slaughter, RA (ed), The knowledge base of futures studies, 5 vols, CD-ROM, Professional edn, Foresight International, Brisbane. Jung, C 1969, Archetypes and the collective unconscious, Princeton University Press, NJ. Jungk, R 1973, 'Three modes of futures thinking', in Chaplain, G & Paige, G (eds), Hawaii 2000, pp. 101-119, University Press of Hawaii, Hawaii. Jungk, R 1992, 'Robert Jungk: one man revolution', interview by Slaughter, RA, viewed 14 October 2012, http://richardslaughter.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Jungk_Iview_RS.pdf Leavy, B 2012, 'Collaborative innovation as the new imperative - design thinking, value co-creation and the power of "pull"', Strategy & Leadership, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 25-34. Lindgren, M & Bandhold, H 2009, Scenario Planning: the link between the future and strategy, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Maslow, AH 1971, The farther reaches of human nature, Viking Press, New York. May, R 1975, The courage to create, Norton, New York. Miemis, V, Smart, J & Brigis, A 2012, 'Open foresight', Journal of Futures Studies, September, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 91-98. Mumford, MD, Medeiros, KE & Partlow, PJ 2012, 'Creative thinking: processes, strategies, and knowledge', Journal of creative behaviour, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 30-47. Myers, IB 1980, with Myers, P, Gifts Differing, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA. Ogilvy, JA 1996, 'Futures studies and the human sciences: the case for normative scenarios', in Slaughter RA (ed), New Thinking for a New Millennium, Routledge, London. Ogilvy, JA 2005, 'Scenario planning, art or science?', World Futures, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 331-46. Osborn, A 1953, Applied Imagination, Charles Scribner, New York.
51
Plsek, P 1996, 'Models for the creative process', Directed Creativity, viewed 12 October 2012, http://www.directedcreativity.com/pages/WPModels.html Raford, N 2012, 'Crowdsourced futures', 16 July 2012, Future of futures, viewed on 14 October 2012, http://www.thefutureoffutures.com/sample_crowdsourced-futures/ Ramos J 2006, 'Consciousness, culture and the communication of foresight - reflections', Futures, vol. 38, pp. 11191124. Ramos, J, Mansfield, T & Priday, G 2012, 'Foresight in a network era: peer-producing alternative futures', Journal of Futures Studies, September, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 71-90. Rowe, R 2005, 'Sticky foresight: finding the future's tipping point', in Slaughter, RA (ed), The knowledge base of futures studies, 5 vols, CD-ROM, Professional edn, Foresight International, Brisbane. Rowe and Wright, 1999, 'The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis', International Journal of Forecasting, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 353-375. Runco, MA 1991, Divergent thinking, Ablex Publishing, Westport, CT. Runco, MA & Albert, RS 2010, 'Creativity research', in Kaufman JC & Sternberg RJ (eds), The Cambridge handbook of creativity, Cambridge University Press, NY. Saunders, M, Lewis, P, Thornhill, A 2009, Research methods for business students 5 ed, Pearson Education Ltd, Harlow. Sawyer, RK & DeZutter, S 2009, 'Distributed creativity: how collective creations emerge from collaboration', Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, vol.3, no.2, pp. 81-92. Scharmer, CO 2007, Theory U: leading from the future as it emerges, SoL, Cambridge, Mass. Schultz, WL 2003, 'Scenario building: the Harman Fan', Infinite Futures, viewed 24 October 2012, http://www.infinitefutures.com/tools/sbharman.shtml Schwaninger, M 2006, 'System dynamics and the evolution of the systems movement', Systems Research and Behavioural Science, no. 23, pp. 583-94 Schwartz, P 1996, The art of the long view: planning for the future in an uncertain world, Richmond Ventures Pty Ltd, Sydney. Senge, PM 1990, The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization, Random House, London. Senge, P, Kleiner, A, Roberts, C, Ross, R & Smith, B 1994, The fifth discipline fieldbook, Currency Doubleday, New York. Skyttner, L 2006, General systems theory: problems, perspective, practice, World Scientific Publishing Company, London. Slaughter RA, 1996, New thinking for a new millennium, Routledge, London. Slaughter, RA 1998, 'Transcending flatland: implications of Ken Wilbers meta-narrative for futures studies', Futures vol. 30 no. 6, pp. 519-533.
52
Slaughter, RA 1999 (a), 'A new framework for environmental scanning', foresight, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 441 51. Slaughter, RA 1999 (b), Futures for the third millennium: enabling the forward view, Prospect Media, Sydney. Slaughter, RA 2004, Futures beyond dystopia: creating social foresight, Routledge, London. Slaughter, RA 2005, 'Futures concepts' in Slaughter, RA (ed), The knowledge base of futures studies, 5 vols, CD-ROM, Professional edn, Foresight International, Brisbane. Slaughter, RA 2008, 'What difference does integral make?', Futures, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 120137. Slaughter, RA 2012, To see with fresh eyes, Foresight International, Brisbane. Sternberg, RJ 1997, Thinking styles, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, NY. Sternberg, RJ 1998, The nature of creativity: contemporary psychological perspectives, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, NY. Sternberg, RJ 2005, 'Creativity or creativities?', International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Special issue: Computer support for creativity archive, vol. 63, no. 4-5, pp. 370-382. Sternberg RJ 2010, The dark side of creativity and how to combat it, in Cropley, DH, Cropley AJ, Kaufman J, Runco, M (eds), The dark side of creativity, Cambridge University Press, NY. Sternberg RJ & Lubart TI 1999, 'The concept of creativity: prospects and paradigms', in Sternberg RJ (ed), Handbook of creativity, Cambridge University Press, NY. Surowiecki, J 2004, Wisdom of Crowds, Doubleday, New York. TED 2012, 'most viewed talks', TED website, viewed 18 October 2012, http://www.ted.com/talks?lang=en&event=&duration=&sort=mostviewed&tag= Tibbs, H 1999, 'Making the future visible: psychology, scenarios, and strategy', paper presented to the Australian Public Service Futures Group, Canberra, 14 September 1999, viewed 14 October 2012, http://www.hardintibbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/future-landscape-tibbs-a4.pdf Torrance, EP 1979, The Search for Satori and Creativity, Creative Education Foundation, Buffalo, NY. Torrance, EP 1988, 'The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing', in Sternberg, RJ (ed) ,The Nature of Creativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. Torrance, EP, Taggart, B & Taggart, W 1984, Human information processing survey-HIP, Scholastic Testing Survey, Illinois. Vernon, PE 1970, Creativity, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth. Voros, J 2001, 'A primer on futures studies, foresight and the use of scenarios', first published in prospect, the Foresight Bulletin, no. 6, Swinburne University of Technology, viewed on 21 October 2012, Thinking Foresight, http://thinkingfutures.net/wpcontent/uploads/2010/10/A_Primer_on_Futures_Studies1.pdf
53
Voros, J 2003, 'A generic foresight process framework', foresight, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 10-21. Voros, J 2006, 'Introducing a classification framework for prospective methods', foresight, vol. 8, no 2, pp. 43-56. Voros, J 2007, 'On the philosophical foundations of futures research', in van der Duin, P (ed), Knowing tomorrow? How science deals with the future, Eburon Academic Publishers, Delft, The Netherlands, pp 69-90. Voros, J 2008, 'Integral futures: an approach to futures inquiry', Futures, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 190-201. Wallas, G 1926, The art of thought, J Cape, London. Weisberg, RW 1993, Creativity - beyond the myth of genius, WH Freeman & Company, New York. Wilber, K 2000, Integral psychology consciousness, spirit, psychology, therapy, Shambhala Publications, Boston. Wilber, K 2006, Integral spirituality, Shambhala Publications Boston. Winton, T 2010, 'Developing an Integral Sustainability Pattern Language'. Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 103-126.
54