171 Conclusions 6 development which has exacerbated the depoliticization of development (Kothari, 2005). More research is needed to understand whose futures are preserved in the design of anticipation, but more urgently in the translation of anticipation to recommendations for action. Such geopolitical dimensions of global anticipatory governance need more prominent attention, as part of ongoing debates on the marginalization of the Global South in defining research and political agendas on how to govern sustainability futures (Biermann & Möller, 2019; Sénit & Biermann, 2021; Vervoort & Gupta, 2018). 6.3.2. Insights for futures studies and anticipation The thesis also contributes to the wider field of futures studies and anticipation literatures, by examining the methods and tools brought forward as more implicit forms of anticipatory governance. Anticipation processes had not been comprehensively scrutinized before on their steering effects across the various disciplines and in the many diverse sustainability contexts of the world where they are proliferating. Futures studies is much appreciated for its methodological contribution to thinking openly and strategically about the future (Van Der Heijden, 2005), but it is recognized that not so much work has been done on its theoretical foundations (Bell, 2000; Poli, 2012), including how foresight practitioners are intervening in the governance contexts they engage with (Henrichs et al., 2010). By asking ‘first order’ governance questions to the field of futures studies, this research goes beyond the many valuable existing typologies on the methods and design of the processes (Bradfield et al., 2005; van Notten et al., 2003) that have pointed to conceptual debates on probability versus plausibility and explorative versus normative scenarios, or the ways to include stakeholders (Loveridge & Street, 2005). In her book ‘Future of the World’, Andersson (2018)distinguishes between probabilistic and economy-oriented futurology (futures as quantitative and economic objectives, guided through expert-based understandings of the future) and futures studies, which creates normative, desirable, and persuasive images of change. The four conceptions identified in this research relate to these forementioned typologies but complements them with notions of pluralistic and performative futures – which are generally considered niche practices (Vervoort et al., 2015). In addition, the work broadens the scope of what is considered anticipation, to include a range of methods with a future-orientation beyond foresight and scenarios specifically (Henrichs et al., 2010; van Notten et al., 2003). The work relates to research on the epistemological underpinnings of foresight and how it informs action (Wilkinson & Eidinow, 2008) but adds to this a more critical lens attained through the social science literatures (most prominently Science and Technology Studies). The most important insights for futures studies and anticipation concern dominant dynamics and blind spots. Anticipation practitioners want to engage with deep
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw