8th International Conference of
Finland Futures Research Centre and Finland Futures Academy

in collaboration with Economic Geography, Pan-European Institute and Pori Unit
from Turku School of Economics

Changing Foresight Practices in Regional Development

– Global Pressures in Regional Possibilities

7–9 June 2006, Turku, Finland

Workshop 3:
Foresight and Knowledge Management Methods (Part 1)

Thursday 8 June at 15.00-17.00
Chair: Jerome C. Glenn


Foresight Methods in Regional Development

Jerome C. Glenn (The Millennium Project of American Council/UNU, USA)

This presentation will focus on three methods in the forthcoming Futures Research Version 3.0: the State of the Future Index (SOFI); Charrettes; and the new Real Time Delphi that could be used to improve Regional Development. Regional SOFIs would help a region answered the questions: what does it mean that our region is better in ten years? what measures do we have for each? how can they be put together into an index to see greatest impact for the whole region per investment. Charrettes are planning processes of groups of people around specific issues of the region that puts the parts into a comprehensive whole. Real Time Delphi is roundless, in that there are no usual Round 1, 2 etc., questionnaires, but a matrix of criteria, and options that allow one to give both numeric and textual responses, see your views match others, learn from others allowing you to change your estimates, so that the full range of reasons for and against decisions are clear to all in an asynchronous matter and that the advantage of a decision as see on sector of a region can show how it might be a mistake for other sectors of the region, allowing for region-wide improved executive forecasts and decisions.


Culturally Sustainable Development with Futures Workshops

Katriina Siivonen (Ethnology, University of Turku and Finland Futures Research Centre, Turku School of Economics, Finland)

Basically all human activities with their material and immaterial products are culture. One central tension between many different definitions of culture exists because, culture is seen on the one hand as free and creative self-expression and on the other hand as responsible control and order. This tension is central also when analysing culture in regional development and when considering qualities of culturally sustainable development.

In regional development creativity and freedom are usually taken as qualities of art, while local culture is seen as expression of collective order. Individual art is seen to vitalise local culture with innovative elements. Only recently, the creative and individual everyday life has got a position in this respect.

According to current definition, the creative interaction process is a basic quality of culture. Thus it is the primary object for safeguarding in culturally sustainable development. In addition different value based cultural constructs are to be safeguarded. These constructs can be for example cultural heritage, distinctive local culture or ecologically sustainable development. In definition and selection of these, transparency, active civic society and democracy are central principles in terms of culturally sustainable development.

In Southwest-Finland futures workshops were used when people produced cultural strategies in their local networks. Collaboration in an interaction process, where own future is constructed, will promote the creative basic process of culture. The planning of organised regional culture in futures workshops brings also possibilities to have impact on desirable collective values and concrete activities. Thus work with futures workshops associate culturally sustainable development.


Foresight Strategies and Practices Based on Regional Religious Values and Global Virtue Ethics

Tarja Ketola (Department of Management, Turku School of Economics, Finland)

Futures research aims at being value-free in order to be an objective and credible source of information in the eyes of political and business decision-makers. Presenting value-laden alternatives could label futures research as pseudoscience. Naturally futures researchers have values of their own, but they present research findings that do not take any ethical stand on the issue in question. However, their clients do not suppress their values – on the contrary, political and business leaders use these research results to advocate such strategies and practices that are based on their own values. Human beings are intrinsically value-ridden creatures. Furthermore, we are brought up according to the values of our parents, families and societies, which vary in different cultures. Religion is one central component of any culture. The presidents of the USA utilize religion for good and evil. Even individuals, groups and nations that claim to be atheist, are subconsciously, if not consciously, influenced by the religious past and present of their living environment. Secularized Finnish decision-makers make Lutheran decisions. Wouldn’t it be sensible to intentionally incorporate regional religious values into organizational foresight management? Chinese authorities are turning to Confucian values to combat corruption. International organizations can manage and enjoy the flavours of regional religions because all religions have the same value basis, the natural law (lex naturae), according to which all people in the world share the same sense of morality, irrespective of their religion and other background. Virtues exemplify these shared values. Maybe even futures researchers could promote virtue ethics?