109 Anticipatory governance of sustainability transformations 4 Using several research techniques in subsequent order helped establish an iterative process of exploring and refining research findings synchronously (Baxter and Jack, 2008). This replication logic, in which findings can be confirmed, rejected and adapted, is considered to create more in-depth knowledge and robust findings, as well as the generalizability and validity of data (Verschuren and Doorewaard, 2010). We also complemented this deductive inquiry with an inductive inquiry by probing participants to reflect on the usefulness of the analytical framework as a whole, its diverse relationships between component elements, and add other possible categorizations. This heuristic process, in which exploration and discovery of new findings are in dialogue, has been considered a key contribution in qualitative case research (Kleining and Witt, 2000). 4.4. Results: Anticipatory governance of food systems in practice This section presents the findings from applying the ‘four approaches’ analytical framework (Muiderman et al. 2020) to the case study. It analyzes diverse perspectives on anticipatory governance within the Foresight4Food community, relating to the conception of the future, the ultimate aim and the policy implications. We present the findings regarding ultimate aims before the policy implications, as this order is reflective of how the discussion developed. 4.4.1. Diverse conceptions of the future As we explained above, the analytical framework on anticipatory governance that we are applying here identifies four diverse conceptions of the future: probable (and improbable), plausible, plural and performative futures. Any single project the participants worked on embeds multiple conceptions of the future according to participants - approximately two per project. Within this multiplicity, plausible futures are predominantly imagined: ‘probable futures’ was mentioned 7 times, ‘plausible futures’ 21 times, ‘plural futures’ 10 times, and ‘performative futures’ only 2 times. Participants regarded the fourth conception, ‘performative futures’ as least applicable to their work. These conceptions of the future give shape to a variety of anticipation processes. Futures framed by probability/likelihood (approach 1) were most often executed through modeling exercises by incorporating data uncertainties related to the spread of future trajectories. Some examples started with the present and then explored a range of probable futures (e.g. AgMip). Others examples were more normative, and aimed to identify a most desired future within the spread of probabilities.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw