For years I’ve wondered if there was anyone backcasting climate success based upon the Carbon Clock ( https://www.pik-potsdam.de/Carbonclock...

For years I’ve wondered if there was anyone backcasting climate success based upon the Carbon Clock ( https://www.pik-potsdam.de/Carbonclock...

If you’re writing stories about the future, you might find useful some techniques from Strategic Foresight. Here’s an example.

Rather than forecasting from today, backcasting starts with possible futures and works backwards — an approach gaining traction as shipping’s long-term bets become harder to call. Splash’s Europe Editor Bojan Lepic explains. Shipping has never been short on forecasts. Fleet growth, trade demand, fr…

A 10-year vision and a 1-year budget rarely talk to each other. Here's how backcasting, no-regret moves, and real options actually close that gap.

A 10-year vision and a 1-year budget rarely talk to each other. Here's how backcasting, no-regret moves, and real options actually close that gap.

to RePEc:wly:jforec:v:37:y:2018:i:3:p:281-302

Japanese liner Ocean Network Express (ONE) is looking 24 years into the future to help decide where to put its money today, adopting a planning technique that is spreading through shipping as well as governments and some of the world’s largest international organisations. Rather than forecasting fo…

For years I’ve wondered if there was anyone backcasting climate success based upon the Carbon Clock ( https://www.pik-potsdam.de/Carbonclock...

For years I’ve wondered if there was anyone backcasting climate success based upon the Carbon Clock ( https://www.pik-potsdam.de/Carbonclock...

Despite structural challenges, China could rely on its economic and technological engine to become a peerless superpower in 2036, experts believe.

The evolving nature of academic disciplines has gradually influenced the methods of research evaluation in the humanities, making it a subject of increasing debate. Given the consensus that the evaluation of humanities scientific outputs must evolve toward a stable, self-sustaining, and discipline-appropriate framework, it is imperative to examine the necessary steps toward achieving this goal. Current evaluation practices indicate that existing models and frameworks, as well as efforts to introduce new approaches, methodologies, and tools for humanities research evaluation, remain insufficient in practice. Furthermore, the emergence of novel drivers and disruptors challenges the static assumptions underlying humanities research evaluation. This study aims to identify existing and potential approaches, policies, methodologies, criteria, indicators, tools, and infrastructures that can contribute to a more suitable evaluation framework for humanities scientific outputs, both in the present and in the future. To explore the future of evaluation in the humanities in 2040, this study integrates the results of a scoping review with backcasting technique. The literature review results in a three-tier classification of transitions, requirements, and constraints shaping the future outlook of humanities research evaluation. For each category, a comprehensive representation is provided, outlining the current state and corresponding policy measures for the future, along with actionable steps necessary to achieve them. It delineates three transitions: 1. from index to impact, 2. from siloed to open science, and 3. from hardware/software to technopoly. The study also suggests 9 policies, 12 first-level actionable steps, and 28 s-level actionable steps to materialize the suggested transitions. The recommended policies are: 1. publish and prosper culture, 2. dynamic and integrated evaluation, 3. adaptive evaluation, 4. combined governance, 5. development of evaluation intelligence, 6. outcome-process hybridization, 7. democratization of evaluation, 8. equal and unbiased opportunities, and 9. more technocracy. It also lays the groundwork for further research aimed at improving the quality of humanities research evaluation in the future.

The evolving nature of academic disciplines has gradually influenced the methods of research evaluation in the humanities, making it a subject of increasing debate. Given the consensus that the evaluation of humanities scientific outputs must evolve toward a stable, self-sustaining, and discipline-appropriate framework, it is imperative to examine the necessary steps toward achieving this goal. Current evaluation practices indicate that existing models and frameworks, as well as efforts to introduce new approaches, methodologies, and tools for humanities research evaluation, remain insufficient in practice. Furthermore, the emergence of novel drivers and disruptors challenges the static assumptions underlying humanities research evaluation. This study aims to identify existing and potential approaches, policies, methodologies, criteria, indicators, tools, and infrastructures that can contribute to a more suitable evaluation framework for humanities scientific outputs, both in the present and in the future. To explore the future of evaluation in the humanities in 2040, this study integrates the results of a scoping review with backcasting technique. The literature review results in a three-tier classification of transitions, requirements, and constraints shaping the future outlook of humanities research evaluation. For each category, a comprehensive representation is provided, outlining the current state and corresponding policy measures for the future, along with actionable steps necessary to achieve them. It delineates three transitions: 1. from index to impact, 2. from siloed to open science, and 3. from hardware/software to technopoly. The study also suggests 9 policies, 12 first-level actionable steps, and 28 s-level actionable steps to materialize the suggested transitions. The recommended policies are: 1. publish and prosper culture, 2. dynamic and integrated evaluation, 3. adaptive evaluation, 4. combined governance, 5. development of evaluation intelligence, 6. outcome-process hybridization, 7. democratization of evaluation, 8. equal and unbiased opportunities, and 9. more technocracy. It also lays the groundwork for further research aimed at improving the quality of humanities research evaluation in the future.