Article
Francisco J. Santana-Villegas1,*, Anuschka Álvarez von Gustedt1
1Universidad Panamericana. Faculty of Economics and Business Sciences. Álvaro del Portillo 49, Zapopan, Jalisco, 45010, México
Abstract
This article proposes a conceptual framework that integrates Hofstede’s cultural dimensions with scenario planning, grounded in Vygotskian learning theory. Based on a multidisciplinary literature review, this framework illustrates how cultural nuances shape cognitive processes and group dynamics, thereby affecting participants’ engagement and methodological applications in foresight workshops. A multiple-case secondary analysis is presented to demonstrate its practical application. The integration of these domains offers a unique understanding of how culture mediates futures thinking in collaborative settings, contributing to the futures studies field by providing practitioners and facilitators a tool for fostering more inclusive and engaging foresight interventions.
Keywords
Cultural Dimensions, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Scenario Planning, Foresight Workshops
Introduction
As a collaborative foresight approach, scenario planning emphasizes knowledge co-creation among diverse stakeholders (Dufva & Ahlqvist, 2015; Fuller & Loogma, 2009). However, its effectiveness is significantly influenced by participants’ cultural background (Andersen & Rasmussen, 2014; Schühly & Oesterle, 2023). Pointing to a gap, studies reveal that culture shapes mental models, learning styles, interpretive frameworks, and social interactions (Abdullah et al., 2024; Degand, 2022; Joy & Kolb, 2009; Liu & Dale, 2009), thereby affecting how scenario development practices are conducted.
The influence of culture on organizational practices and learning processes has been widely examined through frameworks known as cultural dimensions (Nardon & Steers, 2009), and so has the relationship between culture and futures studies (Inayatullah, 1998; Masini, 1994; Masini & Atal, 1993). However, the relationship between cultural dimensions and scenario planning as a collaborative knowledge construction practice remains underexplored.
Drawing on these insights, we designed our study around the following research question: What does the literature reveal about the influence of participants’ cultural nuances in foresight and scenario planning workshops?
To address this question, this study adopts an etic approach, deliberately focusing on mapping the theoretical landscape that supports further empirical research. Our focus on scenario planning for this study relies on its widespread adoption and theoretical foundation (Dator, 2009; Godet, 2000; Masini, 1994; Schoemaker, 1995; Schwartz, 1991; van Der Heijden, 2005; Wack, 1985) which, in our perspective, make it an ideal starting point for integrating cultural dimensions theory with collaborative futures thinking practices.
The paper is structured as follows: We present the findings of our multidisciplinary literature review, followed by the research methodology. We continue to describe our integrative conceptual framework and present a multiple-case secondary analysis to illustrate its practical implications. We conclude with a section of final considerations.
Multidisciplinary Literature Review
In this section, we examine the existing body of knowledge at the intersection of cultural dimensions and foresight practices, with particular focus on scenario planning. Building upon Chermack and van der Merwe (2003), we adopt the social constructivist learning lens to frame the dynamic interplay between these domains.
Foresight as a knowledge construction practice
In today’s uncertain environment, organizations tend to adopt learning-oriented approaches to remain competitive and adaptive. Strategic foresight enables firms to identify emerging issues lacking historical precedent (Rohrbeck & Gemünden, 2008), transform information into future-oriented knowledge (Dufva & Ahlqvist, 2015; Paliokaitė et al., 2014), and enhance organizational agility and learning (Rhisiart et al., 2015; Rohrbeck, 2012). The following subsections describe the core elements of the foresight knowledge construction process identified in the literature.
Futures knowledge
Studies reveal that foresight contributes to individual and collective learning, as it allows participants to reflect on alternative futures and participate in intellectual, collective processes, reducing, as Abdullah (2023) notes, individual blind spots and leading to more comprehensive insights. Such knowledge is shaped by participant perspectives and local contexts, illustrating the plural and context-dependent nature of ‘futures’ knowledge construction (Abdullah et al., 2024; Ahlqvist & Uotila, 2020; Degand, 2022; Heino, 2021).
On a cognitive level, scholars emphasize that foresight draws upon mental schemas from past experiences (Bradfield, 2008) and supports sensemaking through counterfactual reasoning to overcome biases and interpret weak signals (Rhisiart et al., 2015). Moreover, as futures thinking becomes increasingly aligned with learning (Abdullah, 2023), there is scholarly consensus on the importance of incorporating adult learning principles and group dynamics into foresight processes (Kristóf, 2013; Rhisiart et al., 2015; van der Merwe, 2008). These insights illustrate that, through structured engagement methods, foresight fosters the reframing of individual perspectives and mental schemas, encourages strategic learning, and collectively builds organizational capabilities.
Scenario planning
Scenario planning is a foresight method that supports strategic learning and decision-making by helping organizations explore alternative futures (Chermack & van der Merwe, 2003; Dator, 2009). Schwartz (1991) asserts that scenarios are not predictions but coherent and plausible narratives about possible futures, and Masini (1994) considers them an important aid to clarifying choices and decisions in the present. It becomes particularly valuable when prediction is impossible, as it helps organizations prepare for potential disruptions by encouraging anticipatory thinking (Bishop et al., 2007; Wack, 1985).
The episodic scenario development approach uses qualitative tools to break down deterministic thinking and foster a deeper analysis of causal complexity (Bradfield, 2008; Wright et al., 2013). However, Heino (2021) and Pelzer et al. (2015) agree that several contextual variables, including cultural setting, facilitation style, group composition, and participant background, influence the effectiveness of scenario development. These contributions suggest that the scenario planning approach depends highly on social and organizational contexts. Its value lies in the practitioner’s ability to integrate diverse perspectives, stimulate reflection, and create shared mental models of possible futures.
Mental models
Research shows that transforming and aligning mental models is a central objective of scenario planning, as it supports shared understanding and informed collective action. Wack (1985), for instance, emphasized that scenario planning aims to reshape mental models, defined as the ‘cognitive structures that help individuals interpret and anticipate future states’ (Liu & Dale, 2009, p. 224). Senge (1990) further proposed a three-stage process for engaging with mental models: mapping, challenging, and improving them, an approach, according to Chermack and van der Merwe (2003), is directly supported by scenario planning.
A method that facilitates the exploration of multiple futures is Inayatullah’s (2004) Causal Layered Analysis (CLA), an approach that allows the deconstruction and reconstruction of future scenarios, challenges assumptions and mental models, and creates preferred alternatives (Beara & Dubovicki, 2023). These perspectives suggest that scenario development exercises enable individuals to reflect on assumptions, align interpretations, and co-create a shared view of potential futures through interaction and narrative construction.
Workshops
According to field literature, foresight workshops function as dynamic, multi-purpose spaces that facilitate the co-creation of futures knowledge; however, their effectiveness depends on cognitive diversity, design quality, and social dynamics. Pioneers in the field, Jungk and Müllert (1987) conceptualized the Futures Workshops, a method for generating new ideas and solutions to social problems by democratic participation. Dufva and Ahlqvist’s (2015) work describes foresight workshops as temporary, socio-spatial gatherings in which experts collaboratively explore alternative futures. Knowledge construction in these settings arises from the interaction of theories, tools, and participant worldviews (Dufva & Ahlqvist, 2015). Additionally, research highlights that cognitive diversity enriches the discipline (Abdullah et al., 2024) and enhances outcomes, but, according to Bryson et al. (2016) and Franco et al. (2013), activities must be aligned with participants’ cognitive styles to be effective.
Despite their importance, scholars agree that key design factors such as facilitation, location, and session structure are often underreported (Andersen et al., 2021; Nygrén, 2019; Osobajo et al., 2023). Some restraints, however, are acknowledged. Heino (2021), for instance, warns that trust and meaningful knowledge exchange are difficult to achieve in short, unfamiliar settings, while Milojević and Inayatullah (2015) refer to additional barriers such as disengagement, limited time, and challenges in fostering deep dialogue; and Stein (2010) notes that hidden culture-rooted assumptions can limit foresight thinking. These findings indicate that the success of foresight workshops depends on technical and relational dimensions. Drawing on these insights, we argue that while methodological design and cognitive alignment are crucial, social factors like building trust, psychological safety, and inclusive facilitation that enable open dialogue and engagement are equally important.
Facilitation
Facilitation also plays a critical role in scenario development, requiring practitioners to manage complex dynamics while adapting to diverse contexts. Bowman and MacKay (2020) stress that the facilitator’s role remains underexplored, despite its significance in shaping outcomes. Nonetheless, research reveals that effective facilitation involves encouraging stakeholder engagement, adeptly managing cognitive and group dynamics, and implementing appropriate methodologies (Bryson et al., 2016; Hodgkinson & Healey, 2008; van der Merwe, 2008). Abdullah et al. (2024) and Pelzer et al. (2015) highlight that interventions should be context-sensitive, tailored to participants’ learning styles, and inclusive of diverse worldviews and cultural perspectives. These assertions reinforce the idea that successful workshop facilitation requires both technical and interpersonal competencies.
Stakeholders
Effective stakeholder engagement is essential in foresight practices, as it enables collective knowledge creation while accounting for complexity, uncertainty, and diversity among participants. Engaging stakeholders fosters the co-creation of knowledge needed to navigate uncertain and complex environments (Andersen et al., 2021; Nygrén, 2019; Ollenburg, 2019). Burt et al. (2017) and Osobajo et al. (2023) highlight that stakeholder composition and attributes, such as openness to ambiguity and willingness to explore divergent perspectives, affect the outcomes of scenario interventions. Similarly, Franco et al. (2013) emphasize the importance of accommodating different cognitive styles to enhance engagement. These findings suggest that stakeholder engagement is not only about inclusion but also about managing diversity across cognitive, experiential, and social dimensions. We thereby posit that tailoring workshop design and facilitation to these differences may enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of foresight interventions.
Vygotsky’s social constructivist learning theory
As noted, foresight and scenario planning are grounded in interactive learning and collective knowledge construction, aligning closely with Vygotsky’s social constructivist theory described in this section. Vygotsky (1978) emphasized that learning is a socially mediated process shaped by cultural context, language, and interaction. Vygotsky’s concepts, such as the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), illustrate how individuals move from guided to independent learning through scaffolding provided by more knowledgeable others (Alkhudiry, 2022; Nardo, 2021).
For Vygotsky (1978), cultural tools such as language and symbols play a central role in the process of appropriation and problem-solving. Building upon this idea, Mishra (2023) stresses the importance of tailoring learning to individual backgrounds, promoting critical exploration, and using open discussions to deepen understanding, principles that apply to the facilitation of scenario development workshops. These insights reinforce the idea that foresight is a strategic exercise and a pedagogical process that benefits from well-designed social interaction among facilitators and participants.
Studies linking foresight and social constructivism
Although to a limited extent, this theoretical lens has been applied to futures studies and foresight practices. Studies reveal that the legitimacy and rigor of foresight depend on acknowledging its socially constructed nature. Abdullah (2023), for instance, posits that students can enhance their understanding of futures studies by engaging in collaborative projects and activities, exchanging ideas, and explaining concepts to one another.
These perspectives align with scenario planning’s reliance on collaborative sensemaking, where social interaction and cultural context shape learning and interpretation (Chermack & van der Merwe, 2003). Poskitt et al. (2021) further demonstrate that participatory scenario planning fosters knowledge exchange through dialogue, reinforcing Vygotsky’s principle that cognitive development is socially mediated. Tiberius (2010) asserts that the constructivist view is suitable for alternative futures, as it acknowledges pluralism, which is necessary when alternatives to determinism are sought. These findings affirm that applying Vygotsky’s principles to foresight practice enriches it by emphasizing inclusivity, cultural responsiveness, and collaborative knowledge construction.
Cultural dimensions and their influence on learning and cognitive processes
Literature shows that culture is a determinant of people’s behavior (Masini & Atal, 1993). Hofstede et al. (2010, p. 6) define culture as “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others”, and which serves as a cognitive template or mental model that guides perception and action. These mental models, shaped through socialization, affect how people process information and respond to complexity (Gibson et al., 2009; Liu & Dale, 2009). For Liu and Dale (2009), viewing culture as a mental model helps explain how contextual signals activate different aspects of cognition, leading to diverse interpretations and behaviors depending on situational factors. These perspectives highlight that culture operates as a cognitive filter and a strategic determinant. In futures studies, this is particularly relevant, since culture influences how individuals frame problems, engage in foresight processes, and evaluate future alternatives through mental models and collective values.
Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Model
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions framework remains a widely used tool for understanding how national culture shapes individual and organizational behavior, including decision-making, leadership, risk orientation, and stakeholder engagement. Despite criticisms for its static view of culture (Baskerville, 2003; McSweeney, 2002), scholars widely agree that Hofstede’s six-dimensional model continues to serve as a foundational reference in cross-cultural management research (Kirkman et al., 2006; Nardon & Steers, 2009; Taras et al., 2011).
To narrow the scope, this study focuses on Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance, as research indicates these dimensions are particularly critical in workshop-based strategic planning by influencing participants’ interaction with authority and tolerance for ambiguity (Díez-Esteban et al., 2019; Kreiser et al., 2010; Osobajo et al., 2023; Panizzon & Pinto, 2019).
Power Distance
According to Hofstede (1980), Power Distance is the extent to which less powerful members of a society expect and accept that power is unevenly distributed. In an organizational setting, Daniels and Greguras (2014) discovered that high Power Distance cultures tend to favor centralized authority, autocratic leadership, and limited upward communication, whereas low Power Distance cultures promote participative decision-making and open dialogue. Additionally, Morrison (2014) noted that beliefs about Power Distance can suppress open communication and create ‘organizational silence,’ demonstrating that cultural norms that discourage dissent may decrease employees’ willingness to challenge authority.
Uncertainty Avoidance
Uncertainty Avoidance, on the other hand, refers to the extent to which members of a society deal with anxiety by reducing uncertainty (Hofstede, 2001). High Uncertainty Avoidance cultures, for example, prefer predictability, structure, and formal rules, while low Uncertainty Avoidance societies accept ambiguity and experimentation. In their research, Iannello et al. (2017) found that individuals with high Uncertainty Avoidance experience higher stress and anxiety when facing ambiguous or open-ended tasks, favoring clear procedures and well-defined expectations. Mueller-Saegebrecht (2024) also demonstrated that people high in Uncertainty Avoidance tend to seek quick consensus to lessen ambiguity, prefer gradual change, and struggle under time pressure, which can hinder creative exploration in workshop settings.
Building on these insights, we posit that, in foresight and scenario planning, incorporating a cultural dimensions lens into design and facilitation strategies is essential, as cultural norms can either facilitate or constrain openness, innovation, and participatory decision-making.
Influence of cultural dimensions on learning and cognitive styles
Culture also mediates learning processes, serving as a normative framework that shapes how knowledge is co-created, how learners engage with authority, and how instruction is designed (Talandron-Felipe, 2021; Thomas et al., 2002). Scholarly consensus indicates that specific dimensions, such as Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance, significantly influence learner motivation and social dynamics, while practitioners’ own cultural assumptions often influence educational values and design (Dator, 2009; Jelavic & Salter, 2014; Rogers et al., 2007; Stein, 2010; Wang & Schlichtenmyer, 2017).
Studies on cultural dimensions in foresight practices
Although research on the intersection of culture and foresight remains limited, existing studies reveal that cultural dimensions affect collaboration, comfort with ambiguity, and openness to disruptive thinking (Osobajo et al., 2023; Panizzon & Pinto, 2019). Panizzon and Pinto (2019) emphasize the need to assess participants’ cultural readiness before initiating foresight projects to ensure appropriate engagement strategies. Similarly, Schühly and Oesterle (2023) found that individuals with high Uncertainty Avoidance favor structured environments, which impacts their participation in scenario planning.
Research further demonstrates that foresight communication is also culturally mediated. Ramos (2006) argues that the interpretation of future narratives is influenced by worldview, whereas Milojević and Inayatullah (2015), and Fenton-O’Creevy and Tuckett (2022) highlight that culturally aligned narratives enhance identity, collaboration, and message persuasiveness. Andersen and Rasmussen (2014) further caution against one-size-fits-all foresight approaches, stressing that national traditions and governance cultures must inform how foresight is practiced across contexts. These findings illustrate that foresight is not culturally neutral but context-dependent. This is significant because cultural norms influence how participants engage with ambiguity, authority, and collaboration, and how they interpret and co-create future narratives. As a result, we argue that foresight processes must be sensitively adapted to fit the participants’ cultural profile and the organizational context.
Methodology. A Multidisciplinary Conceptual Framework
This study employs a qualitative method to develop an integrative conceptual framework in accordance with Jabareen’s (2009) guidelines for conceptual framework development. A conceptual framework is a “network, or ‘a plane’ of interlinked concepts that together provide a comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon or phenomena” (Jabareen, 2009, p. 51); and these guidelines emphasize a systematic, iterative process of theorization, grounded in multidisciplinary literature. For this research, we followed a series of steps or phases described in Figure 1.
Fig. 1: Integrative Conceptual Framework Construction Process (Authors)
Phase 1 involved an extensive review of multidisciplinary literature on the fundamentals of foresight as a knowledge-construction practice, Vygotsky’s social constructivist learning theory, cultural dimensions theory, and the interplay of these domains. Using Scopus, Google Scholar, and the reviewed literature’s bibliography as primary search mechanisms, data sources included academic articles and books from fields such as futures studies, organizational behavior, education, and cross-cultural management. For this literature review, the year of publication was not considered in the selection criteria. The goal was to identify key texts and theories that address the intersection of the domains we studied.
Phase 2 focused on sorting the literature into three main sections: (1) foresight as a knowledge construction practice, (2) Vygotsky’s social constructivist learning theory, and (3) cultural dimensions and their influence on learning and cognitive processes. This categorization ensured a comprehensive representation of the different disciplines and facilitated the identification of key concepts. Building upon the findings of the literature review, we focused on two of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions that have a greater impact on scenario planning and knowledge construction practices: Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance.
Drawing on Jabareen’s (2009) guidelines, Phase 3 involved identifying and naming key concepts that emerged from the literature. After reading and analyzing different studies, we identified the following nine core components: Mental Models, Learning Styles, Knowledge Co-creation, Group Dynamics, Facilitation Interface, Participation Structures, Workshop Design, Scenario Development, and Knowledge Synthesis. Each concept was examined to identify its main characteristics and roles within the framework. They were then integrated and grouped according to similarities and interrelationships.
In Phase 4, we integrated these concepts into a coherent theoretical framework. The result consists of three interconnected layers: the Culture-Cognitive Layer, the Social-Interactive Layer, and the Methodological-Integration Layer, all of which are directly related to the aforementioned cultural dimensions (Figure 2).
In Phase 5, each core component of the framework was cross-referenced with the theoretical and empirical literature from learning and cultural studies, organizational behavior, and foresight and scenario planning, to ensure alignment with existing evidence and real-world practices.
Drawing on Yin’s (2003) and Heaton’s (1998) work, in Phase 6, we conducted a multiple-case secondary analysis to provide an empirical demonstration of what a cultural dimensions-informed scenario development workshop looks like in practice.
The following AI-assisted technologies were employed for this article: Scopus AI, SciSpace, ResearchRabbit, and NotebookLM for literature research and review; ATLAS.ti 25 for the qualitative multiple-case analysis, and Grammarly and Paperpal to improve grammatical accuracy, clarity, and readability.
Cultural Dimensions and Scenario Planning Integrative Framework (CD+SPIF)
Our multidisciplinary literature review reveals that cultural predispositions, social learning dynamics, and methodological considerations influence foresight as a knowledge construction practice. Integrating these three domains into a conceptual framework can enhance foresight, particularly through a more culturally sensitive approach to scenario planning. In the following subsections, we describe each framework layer (Figure 2) with its distinct attributes and roles, reflecting Jabareen’s (2009) view that conceptual framework components must be understood relationally.
Fig. 2: Cultural Dimensions and Scenario Planning Integrative Framework | CD+SPIF (Authors)
Culture-cognitive layer
As highlighted in the literature review, scenario planning activities are driven by cognitive processes influenced by participants’ cultural backgrounds. The first layer forms the foundation and ontological basis of the framework, including three essential components: Mental Models, Cognitive Styles, and Knowledge Co-creation. Table 1A describes each component, its role within the framework, the supporting research findings, and the cross-reference validation.
Table 1A: Culture-Cognitive Layer
Social-interactive layer
This layer addresses the influence of culture in social settings like scenario workshops. Its three components are Group Dynamics, Facilitation Interface, and Participation Structures. Table 1B describes each of these elements, including their function within the framework, related supporting research, and the reviewed sources that validate these ideas.
Table 1B: Social-Interactive Layer
| Component | Role in the conceptual framework | Supporting research findings | Cross-reference validation |
| Group Dynamics | Explores culturally influenced patterns in group interactions. | Cultural backgrounds shape group formation and collaboration.
Power Distance determines hierarchical structures and authority roles. Uncertainty Avoidance impacts decision-making approaches. |
Panizzon & Pinto (2019)
Andersen & Rasmussen (2014) Osobajo et al. (2023) Kreiser et al. (2010) Díez-Esteban et al. (2019) |
| Facilitation Interface | Examines the cultural adaptation of facilitation approaches | Culturally sensitive facilitation strategies are essential.
Power Distance influences facilitator-participant relationships. Uncertainty Avoidance affects process structure preferences |
Andersen & Rasmussen (2014)
Talandron-Felipe (2021) Stein (2010) Abdullah et al. (2024) Osobajo et al. (2023) Panizzon & Pinto (2019) Schühly & Oesterle (2023) |
| Participation Structures | Explores how cultural factors shape stakeholders’ engagement. | Cultural nuances influence individual expression and engagement levels.
Power Distance affects contribution patterns. Uncertainty Avoidance relates to risk-taking in participation. |
Gibson et al. (2009)
Ramos (2006) Masini & Atal (1993) Osobajo et al. (2023) Díez-Esteban et al. (2019) Kreiser et al. (2010) Schühly & Oesterle (2023) |
Methodological-integration layer
This layer reflects the impact of cultural differences in the practical applications of scenario development. It includes three components, Workshop Design, Scenario Development, and Knowledge Synthesis, described in Table 1C, along with literature insights that justify its inclusion and the cross-reference validation.
Table 1C: Methodological-Integration Layer
| Component | Role in the conceptual framework | Supporting research findings | Cross-reference validation |
| Workshop Design | Focuses on implementing culturally adapted foresight methods. | Tailoring workshop structures to align with participants’ cultural expectations is key.
It is essential to integrate diverse learning preferences to accommodate various cognitive approaches. Adaptation to Uncertainty Avoidance levels is essential when structuring activities. |
Rogers et al. (2007)
Talandron-Felipe (2021) Abdullah et al. (2024) Franco et al. (2013) Joy & Kolb (2009) Wang & Schlichtenmyer, (2017) Panizzon & Pinto (2019) Schühly & Oesterle (2023) |
| Scenario Development | Fosters culturally sensitive approaches to future exploration. | Cultural backgrounds influence the construction of future narratives.
Uncertainty Avoidance determines preference for structured versus exploratory approaches. |
Fenton‐O’Creevy & Tuckett (2022)
Milojević & Inayatullah (2015) Ramos (2006) Panizzon & Pinto (2019) Schühly & Oesterle (2023) |
| Knowledge Synthesis | Integrates diverse cultural perspectives in futures knowledge co-creation. | Cross-cultural knowledge integration enhances holistic understanding.
It is important to balance different epistemological approaches. Integration of multiple future visions ensures diverse perspectives contribute to strategic outcomes. |
Andersen & Rasmussen (2014)
Gibson et al. (2009) Heino (2021) Ollenburg (2019) Osobajo et al. (2023) Ramos (2006) Talandron-Felipe (2021) Thomas et al. (2002) |
Practical implications of the CD+SPIF
To empirically illustrate the practical implications of our framework, this study employs a multiple-case secondary analysis (Heaton, 1998; Yin, 2003) of published scenario workshop interventions. In this sub-section, the three steps of the process are described.
Cross-case synthesis
The first step was to select cases by targeting peer-reviewed studies that describe real-world scenario-development workshops across diverse contexts. As inclusion criteria, we sought studies that reported at least four out of six methodological elements: (1) workshop design or phases, (2) participant composition, (3) facilitation techniques, (4) number of sessions, (5) data collection approaches, and (6) workshop outputs. We excluded studies focusing solely on theory, quantitative forecasting methods, or classroom exercises. Six cases were selected from this process.
After performing a within-case analysis for each case using a coding protocol (Yin, 2003), we constructed a cross-case synthesis matrix with the key insights from the data extraction (Table 2). Particular emphasis was placed on the evidence of workshop interventions.
Table 2: Cross-case synthesis
| ID | Reference | Country | Problem | Evidence of workshops interventions |
| C1 | Olabisi et al. (2016) | Burkina Faso, Nigeria, and Malawi | Agricultural development and rural livelihoods. | Convened three stakeholder workshops using participatory scenario generation to examine research and action priorities. |
| C2 | Zackery et al. (2022) | Iran | Urban foresight and strategic planning to 2040. | Reports a CLA and backcasting participatory foresight workshop engaging city planners and stakeholders on Isfahan 2040. |
| C3 | Tori et al. (2023) | Belgium | Urban mobility and transport policy planning (2050) | Conducted creative, mixed-method workshops with stakeholders to generate four mobility scenarios for Brussels 2050. |
| C4 | Uwasu et al. (2020) | Japan | Municipal low-carbon energy visioning. | A series of citizen workshops produced scenarios and policy implications for the Suita City’s energy visions to 2050. |
| C5 | Murphy et al. (2016) | U.S.A. | Community climate change futures and resilience planning. | Two case studies applied Multi-Scale Iterative Scenario Building (MISB) through workshops that engaged diverse community members, climate skeptics, and scientists. |
| C6 | Cairns et al. (2016) | Australia | Post-carbon transition planning for a coal-dependent region. | A multi-stage project engaged stakeholder constituencies through four workshops to inform regional policy. |
Integration of insights from the multi-case analysis into the CD+SPIF
The next step was to distribute the extracted workshop insights from the multiple-case analysis across our framework’s nine components, considering at least three exemplar cases for each component (Table 3). This process allowed us to demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework for deconstructing a foresight workshop and analyze its core elements through cognitive, social, and methodological lenses.
Table 3: Integration of real workshop insights into the CD+SPIF components
| Framework component | Extracted insights | Reported in cases |
| Mental models | Examined shifts in “systems thinking” among participants. Dominance of “litany” or surface trends over deeper worldviews. Focused on building “ownership” of scenarios among senior stakeholders. | C1, C2, C6 |
| Learning styles | Reflected on the depth of foresight thinking and barriers to transformative imagination. Role-playing as future generations to induce perspective shifts. Used visual harvesting for graphic recording to aid inclusive communication. | C2, C3, C4 |
| Knowledge co-creation | Integrated diverse knowledge types (farmer voice vs. expert knowledge) to co-create scenarios. Integration of local knowledge (ranchers) with scientific knowledge (researchers). Stakeholders critiqued researcher-drafted scenarios to create “co-owned” versions. | C1, C5, C6 |
| Group dynamics | Contrasted “Delphi” methods (closing down diversity) vs. “Personas” (opening up perspectives). Observed trade-offs perceived by different generations (current vs. future role-players). Scenarios served as “boundary objects” to reconcile diverse worldviews. | C3, C4, C5 |
| Facilitation interface | Utilized participatory scenario matrix method, small group work, and plenary discussions. Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) is integrated with backcasting. Mixed methods: Delphi elements, personas, visual harvesting, and cross-impact balance analysis. | C1, C2, C3 |
| Participation structures | Transport stakeholders: policy makers, operators, civil society, experts. Citizens recruited from the municipality. Senior stakeholders: regional government, industry, unions, community organizations. | C3, C4, C6 |
| Workshop design | Backcasting structure integrated with the four-layer CLA framework. Multi-phase process: driver identification, prioritization, persona development, narrative, and modeling. Multi-Scale Iterative Scenario Building (MISB): iterative refinement across local-regional-global scales. | C2, C3, C5 |
| Scenario development | Construction of scenario matrices and narrative development based on identified drivers. Created layered representations of urban imaginaries across CLA levels. Refinement of “extreme scenarios” into three actionable, co-owned scenarios. | C1, C2, C6 |
| Knowledge synthesis | Thematic analysis of mental models and ethnographic field notes. Qualitative evaluation of learning; ethnographic observation of integration. Quantitative cross-impact matrices and qualitative scenario narratives | C2, C3, C5 |
Cultural dimensions as a contextual lens for facilitation design choices interpretation
Although none of the selected cases explicitly labeled their exercises as cultural dimensions-driven, drawing on our experience as cross-cultural facilitators and the field’s literature, we use Hofstede’s (2001) framework as a contextual lens to interpret design choices in the studied real workshops. Using Power Distance (PD) and Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) as sensitizing constructs (Blumer, 1954), the final step of our multiple-case secondary analysis explores how cultural traits such as participation asymmetries, authority dynamics, and ambiguity are addressed in workshop design.
Adapting from Hofstede’s framework, we built a 2×2 matrix (Figure 3) to map how +/- PD and +/- UA patterns manifest as recurring facilitation challenges, and the design choices selected as countermeasures across the six real-world cases. Quadrant placement reflects the relevant dynamics described in each case, and not the scores from Hofstede’s multi-national index.
Fig. 3: Hofstede’s cultural dimensions as a contextual lens (Authors)
The results of this multiple-case secondary analysis enabled us to use our CD+SPIF as a tool to present empirically grounded insights into how facilitation design choices address the challenges and risks posed by cultural context in scenario development workshops.
Engaging Cultural Insights in Practice
To translate our findings into actionable guidance, we considered it appropriate to move toward a design logic for practitioners by synthesizing the six cases into a set of ‘If-Then propositions’ (Bacharach, 1989; Cornelissen, 2017) that specify how facilitators can engage cultural variation during scenario and foresight workshops.
We used cultural dimensions as sensitizing concepts to link recurring workshop cultural challenges and risks, such as deferential silence or premature closure, with concrete design and facilitation responses to mitigate them. The following propositions are classified based on the two cultural dimensions addressed.
Category 1. Managing power distance
- Proposition 1: If the presence of authority creates silence or deference, then use small-group breakouts with peer reporting to protect the voice of lower-status stakeholders.
- Proposition 2: If experts’ participation constrains the imagination to ‘safe’ or technical topics, then introduce ‘personas’ or visual harvesting techniques to open interpretive space and support diverse perspectives and inclusive communication.
- Proposition 3: If stakeholders are powerful and prone to strategic ambiguity or bargaining, employ ‘extreme’ scenarios or ‘improvisation’ to force them to elicit genuine ownership.
- Proposition 4: If there is a risk of ‘false consensus’ where agreement is performed but not internalized, then implement quantitative verification surveys to measure actual cognitive shifts.
Category 2: Managing uncertainty and ambiguity
- Proposition 5: If high anxiety about the future drives participants toward ‘template compliance’ or fast closure, then deploy phase scaffolding with multi-step protocols to provide the safety needed for exploration.
- Proposition 6: If short-termism dominates due to a fear of the unknown future, then use structured role-play like ‘Future Design’ to legitimize the future perspective as a distinct, safe role.
- Proposition 7: If cultural comfort with ambiguity leads to ‘divergence without synthesis’ or endless debate, then anchor the discussion with boundary objects and iterative convergence cycles to force shared meaning.
- Proposition 8: If participants remain stuck in ‘surface’ framings and avoid deeper reframing, then integrate methods that operate at a deep structure, such as CLA and backcasting, to unlock alternative assumptions and transformative options.
Final Considerations
The purpose of this study was to explore how participants’ cultural nuances influence foresight and scenario planning workshops from a knowledge co-creation perspective. Through a multidisciplinary literature review and an integrative process, we identified how cultural norms and values may shape cognitive processes, social dynamics, and methodological design choices in collaborative practices of futures studies.
To supplement the conceptual contributions and meet the need for practical application, we conducted a multiple-case secondary analysis to show how facilitation design choices can reduce risks and challenges caused by cultural context in scenario development workshops. As a result of this analysis, we were able to present a set of ‘If-Then’ propositions as actionable guidance for practitioners.
Stein (2010, p. 147) asserts that “interdisciplinary studies provide an excellent foundation for future studies as they explore interrelationships that transcend single academic disciplines”. With this work, we aim to contribute to the growing call for more context-sensitive foresight practices, offering both theoretical grounding and practical orientation. From our perspective, future research should focus on gathering firsthand insights from participants and experienced foresight practitioners, exploring cross-cultural competencies required to effectively design and facilitate culturally responsive foresight workshops, and advancing the development of tools that support cultural attunement in foresight facilitation
References
Abdullah, N. A. (2023). Learning futures studies collaboratively. Journal of Futures Studies, 27(3), 01–24. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.202303_27(3).0001
Abdullah, N. A., Bastidas Cruz, J. F., & Arrazola, S. (2024). Imagining possible futures: A comparative analysis. Journal of Futures Studies, 29(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.202409_29(1).0003
Ahlqvist, T., & Uotila, T. (2020). Contextualising weak signals: Towards a relational theory of futures knowledge. Futures, 119, 102543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.102543
Alkhudiry, R. (2022). The contribution of Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory in mediating L2 knowledge co-construction. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 12(10), 2117–2123. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1210.19
Andersen, P. D., Hansen, M., & Selin, C. (2021). Stakeholder inclusion in scenario planning—A review of European projects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 169, 120802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120802
Andersen, P. D., & Rasmussen, L. B. (2014). The impact of national traditions and cultures on national foresight processes. Futures, 59, 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.01.013
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496. https://doi.org/10.2307/258555
Baskerville, R. F. (2003). Hofstede never studied culture. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00048-4
Beara, M., & Dubovicki, S. (2023). The Polak Game and the futurеs of education – Are university students optimists or pessimists about the future of education? Journal of Futures Studies, 27(4), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.202306_27(4).0003
Bishop, P., Hines, A., & Collins, T. (2007). The current state of scenario development: An overview of techniques. Foresight, 9(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680710727516
Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19(1).
Bowman, G., & MacKay, R. B. (2020). Scenario planning as strategic activity: A practice‐orientated approach. Futures & Foresight Science, 2(3–4), e32. https://doi.org/10.1002/ffo2.32
Bradfield, R. (2008). Cognitive barriers in the scenario development process. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(2), 198–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422307313320
Bryson, S., Grime, M., Murthy, A., & Wright, G. (2016). Behavioral issues in the practical application of scenario thinking: Cognitive biases, effective group facilitation and overcoming business-as-usual thinking. In M. Kunc, J. Malpass, & L. White (Eds.), Behavioral Operational Research (pp. 195–212). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53551-1_10
Burt, G., Mackay, D. J., Van Der Heijden, K., & Verheijdt, C. (2017). Openness disposition: Readiness characteristics that influence participant benefits from scenario planning as strategic conversation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 124, 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.024
Cairns, G., Wright, G., & Fairbrother, P. (2016). Promoting articulated action from diverse stakeholders in response to public policy scenarios: A case analysis of the use of ‘scenario improvisation’ method. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 103, 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.10.009
Chermack, T. J., & van der Merwe, L. (2003). The role of constructivist learning in scenario planning. Futures, 35(5), 445–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(02)00091-5
Cornelissen, J. (2017). Editor’s Comments: Developing Propositions, a Process Model, or a Typology? Addressing the Challenges of Writing Theory Without a Boilerplate. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0196
Daniels, M., & Greguras, G. (2014). Exploring the nature of power distance. Journal of Management, 40, 1202–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527131
Dator, J. (2009). Alternative futures at the Manoa School. Journal of Futures Studies, 14(2), 1–18.
Degand, D. (2022). Un-silenced pasts present in afrofutures: The potential of arts-based inquiry and critical race theory. Journal of Futures Studies, 26(3), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.202203_26(3).0002
Díez-Esteban, J. M., Farinha, J. B., & García-Gómez, C. D. (2019). How does national culture affect corporate risk-taking? Eurasian Business Review, 9(1), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-018-0105-0
Dufva, M., & Ahlqvist, T. (2015). Knowledge creation dynamics in foresight: A knowledge typology and exploratory method to analyse foresight workshops. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 94, 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.10.007
Fenton‐O’Creevy, M., & Tuckett, D. (2022). Selecting futures: The role of conviction, narratives, ambivalence, and constructive doubt. Futures & Foresight Science, 4(3–4), ffo2.111. https://doi.org/10.1002/ffo2.111
Franco, L. A., Meadows, M., & Armstrong, S. J. (2013). Exploring individual differences in scenario planning workshops: A cognitive style framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(4), 723–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.02.008
Fuller, T., & Loogma, K. (2009). Constructing futures: A social constructionist perspective on foresight methodology. Futures, 41(2), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2008.07.039
Gibson, C. B., Maznevski, M. L., & Kirkman, B. L. (2009). When does culture matter? In R. S. Bhagat & R. M. Steers (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Culture, Organizations, and Work (1st ed., pp. 46–68). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581151.004
Godet, M. (2000). How to be rigorous with scenario planning. Foresight, 2(1), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680010802438
Heaton, J. (1998). Secondary analysis of qualitative data. Social Research Methods, 506.
Heino, H. (2021). Knowledge creation and mobility in and through futures workshops. Futures & Foresight Science, 3(1), ffo2.63. https://doi.org/10.1002/ffo2.63
Hodgkinson, G. P., & Healey, M. P. (2008). Toward a (pragmatic) science of strategic intervention: Design propositions for scenario planning. Organization Studies, 29(3), 435–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607088022
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and Organizations. International Studies of Management & Organization, 10(4), 15–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1980.11656300
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations (2nd ed.). Sage.
Hofstede, G. H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival (3rd ed). McGraw-Hill.
Iannello, P., Mottini, A., Tirelli, S., Riva, S., & Antonietti, A. (2017). Ambiguity and uncertainty tolerance, need for cognition, and their association with stress. A study among Italian practicing physicians. Medical Education Online, 22(1), 1270009. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2016.1270009
Inayatullah, S. (1998). Pedagogy, culture, and futures studies. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(3), 386–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764298042003009
Inayatullah, S. (2004). The Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) Reader: Theory and Case Studies of an Integrative and Transformative Methodology. Tamkang University Press.
Jabareen, Y. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: Philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800406
Jelavic, M., & Salter, D. (2014). Managing facilitation in cross-cultural contexts: The application of national cultural dimensions to groups in learning organisations. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.59236/td2014vol7iss11247
Joy, S., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). Are there cultural differences in learning style? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(1), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.11.002
Jungk, R., & Müllert, N. R. (1987). Future Workshops: How to Create Desirable Futures. Institute for Social Inventions.
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of Culture’s Consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 285–320. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400202
Kreiser, P. M., Marino, L. D., Dickson, P., & Weaver, K. M. (2010). Cultural influences on entrepreneurial orientation: The impact of national culture on risk taking and proactiveness in SMEs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(5), 959–984. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00396.x
Kristóf, T. (2013). Learning theory in foresight. In K. Borch, S. Dingli & M. S. Jørgensen (Eds.), Participation and Interaction in Foresight: Dialogue, Dissemination and Visions (pp. 70–96). https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781956137.00010
Liu, L. A., & Dale, C. (2009). Using mental models to study cross-cultural interactions. In C. Nakata (Ed.), Beyond Hofstede (pp. 222–244). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230240834_11
Masini, E. (Ed.). (1994). The futures of cultures. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000098664
Masini, E., & Atal, Y. (1993). The Futures of Asian Cultures. UNESCO; Social and human sciences in Asia and the Pacific. RUSHSAP series on monographs and occasional papers, 38.
McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726702551004
Milojević, I., & Inayatullah, S. (2015). Narrative foresight. Futures, 73, 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.08.007
Mishra, N. R. (2023). Constructivist approach to learning: An analysis of pedagogical models of social constructivist learning theory. Journal of Research and Development, 6(01), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.3126/jrdn.v6i01.55227
Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 173–197. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328
Mueller-Saegebrecht, S. (2024). Business model innovation decisions: The role of group biases and risk willingness. Management Decision, 62(13), 69–108. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2023-0726
Murphy, D., Wyborn, C., Yung, L., Williams, D. R., Cleveland, C., Eby, L., Dobrowski, S., & Towler, E. (2016). Engaging communities and climate change futures with Multi-Scale, Iterative Scenario Building (MISB) in the western United States. Human Organization, 75(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.17730/0018-7259-75.1.33
Nardo, A. (2021). Exploring a Vygotskian theory of education and its evolutionary foundations. Educational Theory, 71(3), 331–352. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12485
Nardon, L., & Steers, R. M. (2009). The culture theory jungle: Divergence and convergence in models of national culture. In R. S. Bhagat & R. M. Steers (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Culture, Organizations, and Work (1st ed., pp. 3–22). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581151.002
Nygrén, N. A. (2019). Scenario workshops as a tool for participatory planning in a case of lake management. Futures, 107, 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2018.10.004
Olabisi, L. S., Adebiyi, J. A., Traoré, P. S., & Kakwera, M. N. (2016). Do participatory scenario exercises promote systems thinking and build consensus? Elementa Science of the Anthropocene, 4. https://doi.org/10.12952/journal.elementa.000113
Ollenburg, S. A. (2019). A futures-design-process model for participatory futures. Journal of Futures Studies, 23(4). https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.201906_23(4).0006
Osobajo, O. A., Oke, A., Ajimmy, M., Otitoju, A., & Adeyanju, G. C. (2023). The role of culture in stakeholder engagement: Its implication for open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 9(2), 100058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2023.100058
Paliokaitė, A., Pačėsa, N., & Sarpong, D. (2014). Conceptualizing strategic foresight: An integrated framework. Strategic Change, 23(3–4), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.1968
Panizzon, M., & Pinto, P. F. (2019). A three-level evaluation process of cultural readiness for strategic foresight projects. World Futures Review, 11(4), 331–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1946756719862115
Pelzer, P., Goodspeed, R., & Brömmelstroet, M. T. (2015). Facilitating PSS workshops: A conceptual framework and findings from interviews with facilitators. In S. Geertman, J. Ferreira, R. Goodspeed, & J. Stillwell (Eds.), Planning Support Systems and Smart Cities (pp. 355–369). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18368-8_19
Poskitt, S., Waylen, K. A., & Ainslie, A. (2021). Applying pedagogical theories to understand learning in participatory scenario planning. Futures, 128, 102710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102710
Ramos, J. (2006). Consciousness, culture and the communication of foresight. Futures, 38(9), 1119–1124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2006.02.015
Rhisiart, M., Miller, R., & Brooks, S. (2015). Learning to use the future: Developing foresight capabilities through scenario processes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 101, 124–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.10.015
Rogers, P. C., Graham, C. R., & Mayes, C. T. (2007). Cultural competence and instructional design: Exploration research into the delivery of online instruction cross-culturally. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(2), 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9033-x
Rohrbeck, R. (2012). Exploring value creation from corporate-foresight activities. Futures, 44(5), 440–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2012.03.006
Rohrbeck, R., & Gemünden, H. (2008). Strategic foresight in multinational enterprises: Building a best-practice framework from case studies. In Emerging Methods in R&D Management Conference.
Schoemaker, P. (1995). Scenario planning: A tool for strategic thinking. Sloan Management Review, 36, 25–40.
Schühly, A., & Oesterle, M.-J. (2023). Cultural influences on MNCS’ strategic management processes—Testing the effects of uncertainty avoidance on the scenario planning process. International Journal of Managerial Studies and Research, 11(8), 19–44. https://doi.org/10.20431/2349-0349.1108003
Schwartz, P. (1991). The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World. Doubleday/Currency.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization (1st. Edition). Doubleday/Currency.
Stein, D. (2010). Hidden assumptions that limit foresight and other education. Journal of Futures Studies, 14(4), 147–152.
Talandron-Felipe, M. M. P. (2021). Considerations towards culturally-adaptive instructional systems. In R. A. Sottilare & J. Schwarz (Eds.), Adaptive Instructional Systems. Design and Evaluation (Vol. 12792, pp. 604–615). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77857-6_43
Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. L. (2011). Three decades of research on national culture in the workplace. Organizational Dynamics, 40(3), 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.04.006
Thomas, M., Mitchell, M., & Joseph, R. (2002). A cultural embrace. TechTrends, 46(2), 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02772075
Tiberius, V. (2010). Didactics of futures studies. Journal of Futures Studies, 14(4), 135–146.
Tori, S., Te Boveldt, G., Keseru, I., & Macharis, C. (2023). Brussels mobility in 2050: Participatory mixed-method scenario building to explore alternative futures. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 22, 100919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2023.100919
Uwasu, M., Kishita, Y., Hara, K., & Nomaguchi, Y. (2020). Citizen-participatory scenario design methodology with Future Design approach: A case study of visioning of a low-carbon society in Suita City, Japan. Sustainability, 12(11), 4746. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114746
van Der Heijden, K. (2005). Scenarios: The art of Strategic Conversation (2nd Edition). Wiley.
van der Merwe, L. (2008). Scenario-based strategy in practice: A framework. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(2), 216–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422307313321
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Harvard University Press; JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
Wack, P. (1985a). Scenarios: Uncharted waters ahead. Harvard Business Review, 72–89.
Wang, M., & Schlichtenmyer, S. (2017). Exploring the cultural dimensions of instructional design: Models, instruments, and future studies. In M. Orey & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational Media and Technology Yearbook (Vol. 40, pp. 149–167). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45001-8_9
Wright, G., Bradfield, R., & Cairns, G. (2013). Does the intuitive logics method—And its recent enhancements—Produce “effective” scenarios? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(4), 631–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.09.003
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE.
Zackery, A., Demneh, M. T., Karimi, A., & Nejad, M. E. (2022). Insights from a Causal Layered Analysis of “Isfahan 2040”: A participatory foresight workshop. Journal of Futures Studies. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.202206_26(4).0010