132 Chapter 5 of the responsible innovation of technologies and their future societal impacts (Barben et al., 2008; Guston, 2014), and then adopted in environmental governance (Gupta, 2001, 2011), social-ecological systems literature (Boyd et al., 2015), public planning (Boston, 2019; Fuerth, 2009), and science and technology studies (Davies & Selin, 2012). A wide variety of approaches to anticipatory governance exist in the social sciences and sustainability sciences that are diverse in terms of their conception of the future, implications for the present, and ultimate aims (Muiderman et al., 2020). Muiderman et al. (2020) identify four approaches commonly found across anticipation literatures: Approach 1 assesses futures in terms of probability in order to help inform strategic policy planning to reduce future risks. Approach 2 explores plausible futures in order to build capacities and preparedness to reflexively navigate diverse uncertain futures. Approach 3 focuses on the imagining of pluralistic futures in order to mobilize diverse societal actors to co-create new futures. Approach 4 scrutinizes the performative power of future imaginaries in order to interrogate and shed light on their political implications in the present. In a follow-up study investigating a global network of foresight-for-food practitioners in terms of this framework, Muiderman and co-authors (2022) illustrate that in practice, anticipatory processes might align with one approach or (more often) with multiple approaches. Across these approaches, a plethora of methods and tools of anticipation exists, such as modeling (Mason-D’Croz et al., 2016; Sampson et al., 2016), participatory scenario analysis (Kok et al., 2007; Vervoort et al., 2014) and visioning and back casting (Quist et al., 2011; Robinson et al., 2011). Approaches less clearly signposted as anticipation or futuring, such as environmental impact assessments or budget analyses can also be anticipatory in character. Such anticipation methods are not tied to a single conception of the future – they are typically flexible enough to be included in different conceptions of the future as embodied in the four approaches. The framework that developed the four approaches to anticipatory governance has turned out to be a useful tool to examine how assumptions about the future steer actions in the present in specific empirical contexts. In this article, we take a step further and connect this framework to the notion of opening up/closing down to understand how different approaches to anticipatory governance open up or close down future possibilities to diverse framings and assumptions and open up possibilities for action or close them down towards existing policy frames.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw