137 Opening up or closing down anticipatory governance 5 started in 2018). In addition, 15 policy documents were selected in West Africa, 16 in Southeast Asia, 13 in South Asia, and 12 in Central America. This set of academic papers, reports, and policy papers were first analyzed to identify the methods and tools of anticipation and their relation to decision-making. We continued our search for more implicit assumptions about the future and its implications for the present with in-depth scrutiny of twelve anticipatory climate governance processes (three per region, see table 4.1). From the broader set, we selected processes that were similar in their explicit recommendations for policy impact, yet different in the type of method or tool that had been used. As such, we focused on diversity in the types of processes to see if they aligned with some or multiple approaches. In each region, interviews were held (41 in total) with people working on the anticipationpolicy interface, including at least the designer/facilitator of each anticipatory process (e.g., the workshop facilitator, modeler, etc.), an intermediary person (e.g., responsible for stakeholder participation and policy engagement), and a policymaker or person responsible for policy follow-up. As a final step, we organized six focus group discussions dedicated to the inquiry of opening up or closing down of anticipatory governance: in Bangkok, Thailand (17-18 July 2019), Dhaka, Bangladesh (17 Augustus 2019), Guatemala City, Guatemala (3 October 2019), San Salvador, El Salvador (19 October 2019), Niamey, Niger (31 January 2020) and Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso (6 February 2020). In each session, we shared and discussed findings with groups of 10-20 participants, including policymakers, researchers, and representatives from civil society. We asked participants in an open-ended manner about their perspectives regarding opportunities and challenges for formulating actions in the present based on anticipation and conveying this to incumbent actors. In Niamey and Ouagadougou, a survey was also shared with similar questions to equally capture each participant’s input. 5.3.2. Comparative Analysis We used a qualitative-comparative case study method to describe, interpret, and further conceptual understanding of anticipatory climate governance processes in the Global South. The comparative method is a well-established method in the social sciences to test theoretical propositions and research phenomena in fields of study where controlled experiments are impossible (Hopkin, 2010). We thus considered this method highly suitable for our aim to interpretatively and comparatively analyze if anticipatory governance opens up or closes down future possibilities in future visions and associated present-day actions.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw