Article
Fredy Vargas-Lama
Faculty of Management, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Bogota, Colombia
Abstract
This article offers a provocative reinterpretation of Ilya Prigogine for futures studies in an era defined by irreversibility, nonlinearity, and structural uncertainty. Rather than approaching his work solely from a physics perspective, the text explores its epistemological potential to transform how we interpret signals, bifurcations, and emergent processes within complex social systems. Against approaches still anchored in prediction and control, it argues that the future must be inhabited rather than dominated. Signals cease to be marginal data and become situated expressions of systems under tension. In times of creative chaos, anticipation requires listening, co-interpreting, and acting with humility. Prigogine does not offer certainty; he offers a new sensibility for reading a world that no longer repeats itself.
Keywords
Irreversibility, Bifurcations, Complexity, Weak Signals, Anticipatory Epistemology
Introduction – The future as creative chaos
There are times when the world seems to stop obeying. In those moments, reading the signs is not enough: you must relearn to interpret the chaos. In this process, I discovered that the scientist Ilya Prigogine can be of great help. It is not only that disruptions, which have always existed, are now occurring, but trends are also changing direction with a speed, depth, and level of uncertainty that transform our most basic certainties. As Inayatullah (2013) points out, the increasing complexity of the environment requires us to abandon linear perspectives and open ourselves up to multiple, uncertain, and ever-changing futures.
Molitor (2003; 2010) showed that change does not arise at random, but from the interaction between external factors – resources, demography, environment – and internal factors such as science, culture, and institutions. His model of 22 patterns reveals that transformations go through recognizable phases: emergence, diffusion, maturity, and decline. This framework allows us to understand the processes as recurrent historical trajectories. In contrast, Prigogine (1984; 1997; 2004) recalls that such trajectories are not linear: bifurcations can radically alter their course.
The very conditions for thinking about and building desirable futures are changing, as Gidley (2017) warns, by proposing more integrative and non-linear approaches. This vision dialogues with later frameworks such as the theory of panarchy (Gunderson & Holling, 2002; Sundstrom et al., 2023), which, like Prigogine, interprets complex systems as dynamic, adaptive, and unpredictable (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984).
This article is an interpretive and critical interpretation of Prigogine’s work, not from a physical perspective but from a perspective on its epistemic potential and its ability to provoke reflections that complement current frameworks for future studies, especially in contexts that require understanding and inhabiting complexity. These changes remind us that many frameworks for understanding the future are insufficient or are constantly under review. Although several futurists have developed and applied frameworks that dialogue with complexity and uncertainty (Inayatullah, 2013; Puglisi, 2001; Slaughter, 2002), linear approximations persist that limit anticipatory capacity.
I also came to Prigogine from a more theoretical place: the study of futures. Three elements provoke me. The first is the relationship between complexity, chaos, and uncertainty, evident in his early writings on systems far from equilibrium (Prigogine & Stengers, 2004). The second is his approach to integrating physics, chemistry, and biology with a philosophical and systemic vision, breaking down disciplinary boundaries and promoting a science open to change (Prigogine, 1996a). The third is its ability to show that classical methods of classifying and analyzing future signals are insufficient to understand contemporary reality, which forces us to seek more contextual and interpretative approaches (Prigogine, 1996b).
Reading Prigogine, one discovers a valuable map for those of us who think of the future as an open and ever-changing possibility, in an exploratory rather than predictive sense. His notion of the irreversibility of time, drawn from thermodynamics but extended to the epistemic (Prigogine & Stengers, 2004), reminds us that it is not possible to “return to a previous normality”. Its emphasis on unexpected courses, bifurcations, and systems far from equilibrium questions the linearity with which some interpret signals.
From this reading, weak signals cease to be mere marginal indications of change and become emergent expressions of a complexity constantly remade. As Hiltunen (2008) argues, these are not objective data, but interpretations that require a reading situated in context.
Dator (1999; 2014; 2018) expanded the prospective imagination by showing that all societies generate images of the future, explicit or implicit, that guide present decisions. His typology of four generic futures—growth, discipline, collapse, and transformation—serves as a framework for comparing alternatives. The analysis of emerging issues captures early signals that reconfigure scenarios. Prigogine complements these proposals: the irreversibility of time makes each emergent phenomenon unique (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984); bifurcations deviate trajectories (Prigogine, 1997); and dissipative structures reveal organization in the midst of instability (Prigogine, 1996b; 1997).
This perspective reinforces the idea, already present in Slaughter (2002) and taken up in more recent works such as Pouru et al. (2022) and Folke et al. (2021), that the future is not projected but constructed, discovered, and, above all, listened to, element by element, sign by sign. From chaos, and precisely from it, comes the possibility of understanding and even catalyzing long-term innovations.
That is not a unique contribution of Prigogine. It is another call for a new epistemology (Prigogine & Stengers, 2004). Slaughter (1998) has proposed an evolutionary and critical epistemology capable of dialoguing with uncertainty, the emergent and the disruptive, an approach that has been expanded by recent authors such as Miller (2018) and Ramos (2020). But this epistemic shift has not yet been fully realized in our discipline. We still have an outstanding debt. As Puglisi (2001) also warned, the epistemological dimension has been one of the most lagging in future studies.
We need another way to read the world, listen to its signals, and inhabit uncertainty not as a threat but as a vital source of creativity. Perhaps – and this is what I trust more and more – at this time when everything seems to be fracturing, it is precisely his gaze that helps us to reconstruct how we think about the future, as Wendell Bell (1997) intuited and the recent contributions of Bell and Morse (2012) suggest. What if the future should not be controlled but understood – and accompanied – by its uncertainty?
Time does not come back: Prigogine and the Epistemic Rupture
Time has a direction. Accepting that the present is the fruit of the past – but transformed – implies breaking with the idea that time is only a succession of measurable instants. As Riel Miller (2020) argues, anticipated time is not projected, but lived from the present, which connects with Prigogine’s idea of irreversibility and opens the door to new frameworks of action in complex contexts (Prigogine, 1996b).
The Aristotelian concept of time as a simple “before and after” movement has been left behind. Instead, Prigogine proposes that change is not an exception but the natural state of the world. However, this change does not occur linearly or predictably; instead, it responds to a systemic evolution within an apparent disorganization that nevertheless maintains its internal logic: the logic of complexity (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984).
Understanding that everything tends to transform without returning to its original state – in physics, in organizations, or in life itself – is one of Prigogine’s most significant contributions; as he argues, “in nature, irreversibility is the rule, not the exception” (Prigogine, 1986). There is no going back, as Pouru et al. (2022) also suggest in their analysis of non-linear and irreversible social dynamics. Contemporary science forces us to accept uncertainty as a constitutive condition of reality. Although empirical evidence already demonstrates this phenomenon in several disciplines, from economics to the social sciences, it is Prigogine who provides an in-depth examination of its epistemic implications (Prigogine & Stengers, 2004).
In particular, his notion of non-linear bifurcations is essential. These are not mere metaphors, but real events that manifest themselves in political, social, or institutional spheres. Each bifurcation opens multiple possible trajectories, many of which are irreversible. As Prigogine and Stengers (1984) point out, “a small fluctuation can initiate an entirely new evolution that transforms the overall behavior of the system.” Similarly, Tõnurist & Hanson (2020) show how small decisions amplify unexpected impacts.
There is no possibility of “returning to normality”, understood as the state in the face of a disruptive event. As time goes by, not only do the themes change, but the environment does as well. Prigogine reinterprets the second law of thermodynamics not as a condemnation of disorder but as an opening to new forms of irreversible organization (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984). That is why it is illusory to think that, even if we manage to “reset” the original conditions of a phenomenon, the system will return to its previous state. The environment is no longer the same, and the margin of human control is limited. This acceptance of limits implies a partial renunciation of the voluntarism of French foresight (Godet, 2001; de Jouvenel, 1967) in contexts of irreversible change, aligning with Decouflé’s (1974) vision, which recognizes the margins of agency only where systemic dynamics permit it.
One of his most brilliant concepts is that of dissipative structures. These represent forms of organization that emerge in systems far from equilibrium. They do not seek to restore the traditional order but to generate new forms of stability within the chaos. As Prigogine and Stengers (1984) explain, these structures arise from interaction with the environment under unbalanced conditions. This model can be applied to both natural systems and social phenomena, such as institution-building, which serve as human strategies to defend against growing uncertainty. These structures resemble the collapse edges described by Gall et al. (2022).
Prigogine also warns us about the hyper-simplification with which many tend to read the world. In contrast to the belief that nature responds to explicit rules, it emphasizes that reality invents, creates, and mutates. Its rules are emergent, contextual, and systemic, not fixed or absolute (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984). This way of seeing connects us with an intuitive wisdom that in Latin America has been called, in specific contexts, “wild magic”: an intelligence of chaos that recognizes patterns without the need to impose order.
And this is where an epistemological tension appears for some within future studies. In our discipline, there is a need for control inscribed in its metalanguage: anticipating, planning, and managing uncertainty, as well as the emergent. Whether from foresight, which attempts to detect signals and mitigate them before they escalate, or from anticipation, which explores possible futures, many current approaches seek a balance between control and openness, recognizing that the breadth and depth of the field preclude reductionist readings.
But the world does not move in a straight line. Trying to determine all possible trajectories, internal and external, at any given time is an illusion.
More than control, what we need is constant multi-temporal exploration. That means recognizing that the future is bifurcating, that systems are dynamic, and that innovation requires meeting changing needs at all times. From this perspective, Prigogine invites us to adopt a contingent, non-deterministic view of the environment, open to the spontaneous evolution of complex systems (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984).
For all these reasons, we propose continuing to mature the epistemological basis of the field, in dialogue with already established contributions. It is about deepening critical and contextual approaches, explicitly integrating complexity, irreversibility, and nonlinearity, and articulating anticipation and action with humility in the face of the limits of control.
In this sense, Prigogine is not an author of the past. His work dialogues with current debates and projects, as well as possible routes. His ideas not only illuminate but also chart a potential path towards a new epistemology of the future.
Reading Signals in a Non-linear World
In the specific case of analyzing future signals, it is no longer enough to identify disruptions; we must understand the dynamics that generate them, their duration, and their systemic impact. Reading signals involves observing isolated events and also interpreting how the system responds to uncertainty.
Future signals, and in particular weak signals, cannot be treated as neutral data. Instead, they are symptoms of emergent complexity: partial expressions of a system that is in transformation. From Prigogine’s perspective, these signals do not indicate predictable trajectories; instead, they are part of an unstable, chaotic evolution that must be understood in its dynamism (Prigogine, 1996b).
A fundamental aspect of this reading is that the same signal can affect different objects or elements in various ways, even if the phenomenon remains the same. In some contexts, it amplifies it; in others, it inhibits it. Such variations reinforce the idea that complex systems do not respond linearly and that, therefore, signals should be understood as interpretative nodes rather than univocal messages. Day and Schoemaker (2004) point out that a signal only becomes significant when it is connected to emergent patterns. As Dragt (2017) recalls, even the most structured methods for observing trends must be adapted to fluid environments.
Signals, in this framework, can be understood as potential turning points: indications that announce, allow, or catalyze systemic bifurcations. Here, the Prigoginean bifurcations come into play, enabling us to understand why some signals intensify while others dissipate (Nicolis & Prigogine, 1977).
A bifurcation point is not merely a linear shift; it marks a moment of systemic reorganization, rupture, and emergence. From this perspective, many of the signals we ignore or dismiss could have been the origin of new trajectories if we had understood the systemic moment in which they appeared. At the same time, many signals we perceive as promises of transformation often get diluted when the system is not ready to undergo a reorganization.
That brings us to a critical point: many futures approaches fail because they underestimate the system’s internal dynamics and its conditions for transformation. Signs, as such, do not have a “destiny” of their own. They only acquire transformative power if they manage to activate mechanisms of change within systems in tension — that is, on the verge of possible reorganization.
Numerous well-known authors in the field, such as Hiltunen, Day, Shoemaker, and Webb, have already noted that future signals tend to emerge at the periphery rather than at the center of the system. However, Prigogine’s contribution here is key: in far-from-equilibrium conditions, established regimes can become unstable, increasing complexity and opening space for novelty and new forms of order (Nicolis & Prigogine, 1977). It is precisely in these liminal spaces that processes of self-organization can also appear, giving rise to new forms of spontaneous order far from equilibrium. As Kondepudi and Prigogine (2015) point out, small fluctuations can be amplified to generate new organized states.
The irreversibility of time, as an epistemological foundation, also alters our relationship with signals. We can’t track a signal expecting it to take us back in time, nor can we expect it to follow stable patterns. In Prigogine’s gaze, each sign belongs to a unique, situated, and unrepeatable story. For this reason, context and timing are crucial to interpreting it. There is no sign that is out of time.
Future signals, therefore, are not isolated elements; they should be read as part of an interaction between the observer and the environment. What we interpret as a signal depends on the system in which it emerges and our ability to make sense of it. Prigogine reinforces the idea that realities are not “given” but are constructed through the complex interaction between multiple variables, including the observer’s gaze (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984).
A concept that reinforces this analysis is the notion of self-organization in complex systems, which helps us understand why some signals trigger transformations, and others do not. Kuosa (2014) distinguishes between observed, activated, and strategically oriented signals based on their role within the system. Starting from dissipative structures, Prigogine shows how chaos can generate order and how specific systems, far from equilibrium, develop new forms of internal organization. It also explains why signal paths are not symmetrical or predictable (Prigogine, 1996b). Following Wygant and Markley (1988) and Choo’s (1999) synthesis, cited by Hiltunen (2008), the framework of the “life cycle” of problems/signals is used; in addition, Hiltunen provides the concept of “future sign”, underlining the interpretive role of the observer. Prigogine qualifies this by noting that not all cycles are predictable, and their impact depends on the system’s overall state (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984), in line with adaptive dynamics frameworks such as panarchy (Gunderson & Holling, 2002; Sundstrom et al., 2023).
Another fundamental aspect is intentional signaling. Inayatullah (2013) suggests that actors can create signals to open up possible futures, highlighting the agency inherent in constructing desired alternatives. Instead of “complementing”, Prigogine’s perspective introduces limits and possibilities: creativity as an ontological property of both nature and the human being (Prigogine, 1986). Still, it is expressed in non-linear systems with limited control. It’s not just about spotting signs; it is also about co-producing them through participatory processes of anticipation and learning, particularly at bifurcations where the context allows it, especially in times of uncertainty.
Prigogine invites us to see signs not as causes but as symptoms. In a complex system, transformations do not respond to linear relationships but to non-obvious dynamics, including feedback loops, delayed effects, and multiple paths (Nicolis & Prigogine, 1977; Prigogine & Stengers, 1984; Prigogine, 1996b). A signal does not generate changes by itself; it anticipates, announces, and insinuates them. As Hiltunen (2008) also points out, signals must be interpreted in their context and not as isolated data. Therefore, following a signal involves more than observing an isolated event; it requires reading the system in its space-time, picking up on its internal tensions, its rhythm, and its bifurcation potential.
This reading is linked, in part, to Galli’s (2022) organizational vision, in which signals are understood as situational triggers that challenge stability and open up margins for strategic decisions. However, while Galli starts with a more instrumental approach, Prigogine pushes us to adopt a different sensibility, more open to becoming than to design (Prigogine, 1996b).
To read signals from the future, then, is to read systems in motion. As Slaughter (1998) and Hiltunen (2008) point out, anticipatory thinking should be more receptive to the emergent than obsessed with control. It’s not a matter of prediction, but of asking good questions: what kind of change does this signal, what tensions does it reveal, and what bifurcation might it portend? In this logic, Prigogine’s vision is intertwined with contemporary strategies of anticipation: it is not a matter of controlling the future but of observing with humility, reading with systemic sensitivity, acting and, if possible, creating innovation within chaos.
Because in unstable times, it is not enough to look at the signs; you must inhabit them to be transformed with them.
Chaos, interpretation, and collective future
Prigogine also offers us several essential elements for rethinking how we interpret future signals, especially in chaotic contexts. From his perspective, each signal must be analyzed across political, social, cultural, and technical dimensions. The interpretation depends on who observes, the mental frameworks they use, and their interests. There is no neutral reading. As Kuosa (2010) points out, interpreting signals implies recognizing their anchorage in sociocultural patterns and contexts, not only in technical data.
That leads us to understand that the signals are not only detected but also narrated. The practice of storytelling in futures studies takes on a new meaning here. For Prigogine, narrating is not falsifying; it is bringing order to chaos, organizing the unexpected into understandable and habitable stories (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984). In this sense, signs should be read as fragments of history in the process of construction, not as univocal warnings.
A fundamental contribution of the author is his idea that chaos can generate community. Uncertainty, when shared, can bring people together. As Prigogine and Stengers (1984) state, many social dynamics emerge in conditions of non-equilibrium. Latin America, for example, has experienced multiple episodes over the last 40 years where social, economic, or political chaos, far from fragmenting, has given rise to collective processes of resistance, innovation, or reparation. The interpretation of future signals should not be oriented towards individual control but towards collective creation and participatory design of emergent responses.
That is why Prigogine also questions the figure of the expert who “sees from afar”. The construction of futures should not be left in the exclusive hands of technocrats, algorithms, or closed methodologies (Prigogine & Stengers, 2004). The author proposes opening ourselves to cognitive diversity and collective intelligence, recognizing that the richest futures arise from within the system, not from outside it. In a similar vein, Kuosa (2014) distinguishes between passive, active, and strategic intelligence, underlining the value of the distributed co-creation of the future. Creativity is an intrinsic property of nature itself (Prigogine, 1986).
This change implies a radical shift in the futurist’s ethics: it is not a matter of eliminating the ambiguity inherent in time, but of learning to live with it. Slaughter (2002) proposes that thinking about the future requires relational and contextual ethics, rather than a logic of control. That doesn’t mean discarding other approaches, but complementing them with what he calls an “ethics of uncertainty,” centered on openness and reflexivity. For Prigogine, uncertainty is not a failure of the system; it is its condition of possibility (Prigogine, 1996b). Consequently, futures studies should not focus only on “anticipating to act”, but on acting responsibly in the face of what may arise, as more than one colleague in the discipline suggests today.
The signs of the future, read from this perspective, are also invitations to dialogue. They do not necessarily aim at immediate action, but rather at collective conversation and the negotiation of meanings. They can undoubtedly generate conflict, but they can also serve as gateways to creative processes of shared interpretation.
That brings us to a key idea: the co-interpretation of signals. Who decides what a signal is? Who validates its relevance? These are not only technical issues, but also deliberative and situated processes. Inayatullah (2013) argues that epistemological frameworks and power relations mediate any interpretation of the future. For this reason, spaces for dialogue are necessary where different voices can contrast and resignify signals, recognizing their interpretative nature. Collectively reading the signs can lead to hopeful change, even when the environment seems dominated by chaos.
According to Prigogine’s logic, every crisis contains a potential bifurcation. Even when the system is disorganized, there is always the possibility that new forms of order will emerge (Nicolis & Prigogine, 1977). This idea, also developed by later frameworks such as the theory of panarchy (Gunderson & Holling, 2002; Weeks et al., 2004), shows that the unexpected not only implies rupture, but also opens space for the emergence of new social and natural configurations. However, this does not happen automatically; it requires creativity, agency, and a shared will. That is why, instead of fearing chaos, we must learn to listen to it together: that is where the future as a collective project begins.
Inhabiting the Unexpected: Takeaways from Chaos
At the end of this journey, we can highlight key insights that emerge from applying Prigogine’s concepts to future signals. The first is that chaos is not only rupture but also origin. It is a transformation. The unexpected should not be understood only as a threat but as a possibility. From there, new forms of organization can emerge, more in line with the complexity of the time we inhabit.
Secondly, anticipating and reading the signs of the future does not mean controlling; it means listening, interpreting, understanding, and creating. The futurist’s task is not to reduce uncertainty to an acceptable minimum, but to learn to live with it and make it productive.
In this context, Prigogine cannot be considered an author of the past. Instead, his contributions continue to engage in dialogue with contemporary debates about complexity and anticipation. Influential authors of recent decades, such as Morin (2008), Slaughter (2002), and Inayatullah (2013), have developed frameworks that continue to influence current discussions. However, much remains to be done in constructing a broader epistemology of futures, capable of integrating these contributions with the emerging developments of this decade.
The reading of the signs, then, is not a methodological act; it is an ethical, aesthetic, and temporary act. It is necessary to connect the emergent with possible lines of action without forcing a non-existent linearity and without losing the capacity for amazement in the face of what has yet to take shape.
This perspective not only enriches theoretical reflection but can also strengthen concrete practices of strategic anticipation, participatory futures design, and surveillance systems designed for chaotic environments.
As several authors, including Prigogine, have pointed out, the future is not predicted, but constructed collectively. His contribution is valuable because, drawing on physics and the philosophy of science, he helped connect the study of chaos with perspectives that other futurists had already been discussing. That does not mean imposing order from the outside but generating meaning from within. It is not a matter of locking the future in forecasts, but of opening conversations, enabling questions, and creating spaces where the unexpected is seen as an opportunity for transformation, not just as a threat.
To do this, we need to reconnect three fundamental capacities:
1. Agency, acting with conscience.
2. Imagination and creativity to conceive new forms.
3. Action, intervening in the world from a complex perspective, and not despite it.
Prigogine’s contributions and previous references are fundamental, but the current challenge is to articulate them with the emerging developments of this decade. Future studies still have a lot to build on in their epistemology, especially in the face of contemporary complexity and uncertainty.
Prigogine’s central contribution is to remind us that the future is not reduced to classifying trends or emerging trends. While Molitor (2003) and Dator (2018) offer valuable methodologies, Prigogine’s contribution is distinct: it shows that irreversibility, bifurcations, and dissipative structures are key to understanding the new. Uncertainty is not a methodological error, but the constitutive condition of the open systems in which we live. In this sense, his gaze invites us to rebuild community in the midst of chaos, accepting that the future is inhabited before it is projected.
If we accept that chaos can also generate community, then the most critical challenge is not to anticipate but to inhabit the future with others. That is listening to it, narrating it, and building it together.
Author’s Disclosure:
This manuscript was written in its entirety by the undersigned. ChatGPT-4o (OpenAI) was used solely for language editing and style refinement. There were no AI tools involved in content generation, argumentation, or conceptual development.
Acknowledgements
I am deeply grateful to Drs. Francisco Mojica and Francisco López Segrera, with whom I first encountered the thought of Ilya Prigogine years ago—their guidance was key to my intellectual formation. I also thank my colleague Roger Spitz, with whom I recently shared a meaningful conversation about the second law of thermodynamics and the continued relevance of Prigogine’s legacy for the field of futures studies today.
References
Bell, W. (1997). Foundations of futures studies: Human science for a new era (Vol. 1, History, purposes, and knowledge). Transaction Publishers.
Bell, S., & Morse, S. (2012). Sustainability indicators: Measuring the immeasurable? (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315115752
Choo, C. W. (1999). The art of scanning the environment. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, 25(3), 21–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/bult.118
Dator, J. (1999). Return to long waves. Futures, 31(3–4), 361–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(98)00138-4
Dator, J. (2014). “New beginnings” within a new normal for the four futures. Foresight, 16(6), 496–511. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-09-2013-0046
Dator, J. (2018). Emerging issues analysis: Because of Graham Molitor. World Futures Review, 10(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1946756718756643
Day, G. S., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (2004). Peripheral vision: Sensing and acting on weak signals. Long Range Planning, 37(2), 117–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2004.01.003
Decouflé, A.-C. (1974). La prospectiva. Oikos-Tau.
De Jouvenel, B. (1967). The art of conjecture. Basic Books.
Dragt, E. (2017). How to research trends: Move beyond trendwatching to kickstart innovation. BIS Publishers.
Galli, F. (2022). Strategic anticipation and weak signals: Organizational models for early detection of change. IAPEM Journal, 93(2), 45–58.
Gidley, J. M. (2017). The future: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
Godet, M. (2001). Creating futures: Scenario planning as a strategic management tool. Economica.
Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press.
Hiltunen, E. (2008). The future sign and its three dimensions. Futures, 40(3), 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2007.08.021
Inayatullah, S. (2013). Future studies: Theories and methods. In S. Inayatullah (Ed.), CLA 2.0: Transformative research in theory and practice (pp. 1–12). Tamkang University Press.
Kondepudi, D., & Prigogine, I. (2015). Modern thermodynamics: From heat engines to dissipative structures (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Kuosa, T. (2010). Future signals sense-making framework (FSSF): An initial tool for analyzing and categorizing weak signals, wildcards, drivers, trends, and other types of information. Futures, 42(1), 42–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.08.003
Kuosa, T. (2014). Towards strategic intelligence: Foresight, intelligence and policy formulation. Dynamic Futures.
Miller, R. (2020). Transforming the future: Anticipation in the 21st century. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351048002
Molitor, G. T. T. (2003). The power to change the world: The art of forecasting. Public Policy Forecasting.
Molitor, G. T. T. (2010). Timeline 22-step model for tracking and forecasting public policy change. Journal of Futures Studies, 14(3), 1–12.
Morin, E. (2008). On complexity. Hampton Press.
Nicolis, G., & Prigogine, I. (1977). Self-organization in nonequilibrium systems: From dissipative structures to order through fluctuations. Wiley.
Pouru, L., et al. (2022). The dynamics of transformative change: Exploring systemic disruptions in policy environments. Futures, 140, 102950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.102950
Prigogine, I. (1986). Comments in response to Pete Gunter. In D. R. Griffin (Ed.), Physics and the ultimate significance of time: Bohm, Prigogine, and process philosophy (pp. 258–259). SUNY Press.
Prigogine, I. (1996a). Just an illusion? An exploration of chaos to order. Tusquets.
Prigogine, I. (1996b). The end of certainties: Time, chaos, and the laws of nature. Paidós.
Prigogine, I. (1997). The laws of chaos. Tusquets.
Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. Bantam.
Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (2004). The new alliance: Metamorphosis of science (Original work published 1983). Alianza Editorial.
Puglisi, M. (2001). The study of futures: An overview of futures studies methodologies (Séminaires Méditerranéens No. 44). CIHEAM.
Slaughter, R. A. (1998). Futures studies as an intellectual and applied discipline. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(3), 372–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764298042003008
Slaughter, R. A. (2002). From forecasting and scenarios to social construction: Changing methodological paradigms in futures studies. Foresight, 4(3), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680210433563
Sundstrom, S. M., Angeler, D. G., Bell, J., Hayes, M., Hodbod, J., Jalalzadeh-Fard, B., Mahmood, R., VanWormer, E., & Allen, C. R. (2023). Panarchy theory for convergence. Sustainability Science, 18(6), 1667–1682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01299-z
Tõnurist, P., & Hanson, A. (2020). Anticipatory innovation governance: Shaping the future through proactive policy making (OECD Working Papers on Public Governance No. 44). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/cce14d80-en
Weeks, B., et al. (2004). Panarchy: Complexity and regime change in human societies. In Santa Fe Institute Complex Systems Summer School Proceedings. Santa Fe Institute.
Wygant, M., & Markley, O. W. (1988). Problem management: A tool for effective analysis of the environment. In M. E. Porter (Ed.), Future research and problem management (pp. 143–153). Society of the Future of the World