Thinking Futures - Interpretive Methods

Interpretive Methods

Interpretive methods take analysis one step further. The question asked here is "what's really happening?". The aim is to challenge the categories of analysis, to question and test the meaning of the data that has been analysed. Interpretation is undertaken by individuals, and so the filters and lenses of the individuals doing the interpreting need to be overt in the analysis process.

Part of the challenge of interpretation is to have an open mind and be alert to the natural tendency to dismiss things because they don't 'fit' with how we see the world. If you are open to testing the validity of something that sounds like rubbish, you might just find out it isn't rubbish, and it could be an important factor in your strategy development. If you have a closed mind, you will miss this new factor altogether, either because you just won't see it, or you will see it, and dismiss it as rubbish. Interpretative methods are designed to move us beyond the immediate reaction to an issue or problem and to probe deeper into its real meaning.

Depth and Layers

A key concept at this stage is that of layers. For example, Richard Slaughter (Futures Beyond Dystopia (2004), Chapter 6) writes of four layers of futures work:

pop,
problem-oriented,
critical, and
epistemological.

Pop futures work is superficial and media friendly "eminently marketable, but largely bereft of theory or insight". This is the realm of the 'techno-wow' we see in Sunday newspaper magazines, for example. Problem-oriented futures work has a practical focus, addressing issues of immediate concern such as environmental legislation. Most futures work occurs here, probably because of the connection with the present, and this is the realm of much futures work for business. Critical and epistemological futures work looks at the deep assumptions underpinning action, moving beyond the obvious and superficial to look at the very foundations of social life.

But, depth in the practitioner is also a factor in the quality of interpretation and of outcomes. Part of this depth involves practitioners understanding their own worldviews and their ability to see other perspectives and approaches as equally valid as their own, not dismissing them because they don't fit with conventional wisdom. The ability to move between levels of depth is also important in ensuring choice of methodology appropriate to the particular context in which you are working - the concept of tuning your transmitter to that of the receiver.

Causal Layered Analysis

Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) was developed by Sohail Inayatullah. He writes that CLA draws from poststructuralism, macrohistory and postcolonial multicultural theory (Causal Layered Analysis Reader, 2004, page 1). It is a method that aims to create spaces in which alternative futures can be explored by exploring the meanings we give to data and information, and its cultural 'boundedness'. There are four levels in CLA:

litany,
social causes,
discourse/worldview, and
metaphor or myth.

CLA starts with the most visible and obvious beliefs and assumptions about a problem or issue, and then probes beneath the surface to explore underlying causes, worldviews and myths. This allows alternative solutions to be identified in ways that might not have been possible if the litany had been the only level of discussion (eg if we based our planning around newspaper and media stories).

This diagram shows the four levels of CLA, and the move from short-term and visible factors to long-term and hidden underpinnings. The litany is the most visible - the tip of the iceberg. It is where most conventional management approaches 'live', and is the home of newspaper headlines and media reporting. Phenomena at this level require little analysis to understand and are often just accepted without question.

Beneath the litany are the social causes of the problem being explored, and may be documented through statistics, or quantitative analysis. Causes can be attributed to social, technological, economic, environmental or political factors. At this level, assumptions underpinning the analysis of the problem have not been questioned. This questionning takes place at the discourse/worldview level, where individuals' belief systems and mental models underpinning meaning are surfaced. This is where multiple perspectives and potential multiple alternative solutions emerge. Metaphor/myth is the deepest level where work focuses on images and stories, and involves gut reactions to the worldviews being explored. It taps into myths that enable and constrain the future being discussed.

Serafino De Simone has provided a 'cookbook' approach to CLA (Causal Layered Analysis Reader (2004), pages 485-494) which is a practical orientation to using CLA in a range of futures processes. His approach moves through five steps:

(i) uncovering causality,
(ii) discovering alternatives,
(iii) re-envisioning the myth and metaphor,
(iv) re-casting the issue/problem and defining possible solutions, and
(v) selecting and documenting solutions at each level.

Useful prompts and questions are provided, as well as a discussion of critical success factors. If you are interested in using CLA, this is a good place to start.

The value of CLA is that it takes us deeper into the assumptions and worldviews underpinning action and most empirical work. It challenges us to consider alternative perspectives and to explore how we might re-conceive an issue or problem in ways that we had not seen previously. But ... the level at which you choose to work will depend on your comfort level, and the comfort level of your organisation. One useful case study of CLA in action is documented in an article by Debbie Terranova - "Fathoming the Ageing Workforce Debate: Causal Layered Analysis in Action" in the Journal of Futures Studies, 2004, 9 (2): 37-42; there are also numerous case studies in the Causal Layered Analysis Reader (2004)