Article
Abdul Wahab12*, Aisha Anees Malik², Muhammad Afnan Talib³
1Technical Director, Metafuture.org
2Centre of Excellence in Gender Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan
3School of Environmental Studies, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, 430074, People’s Republic of China
Abstract
This paper presents a comprehensive and evidence-based (case studies) evaluation of the Futures Triangle (FT). Tracing its origins to a 1997 academic workshop and its integration within the Six Pillars of Foresight framework, the study synthesizes the conceptual evolution of FT, theoretical foundations and methodological adaptations. Drawing on an extensive body of peer-reviewed case studies and scholarly analyses, it examines the broad applications of FT in public policy, corporate strategy, education, community development and health systems. Findings indicate that the FT functions as a versatile, accessible and participatory mapping tool, fostering democratic engagement, transformative learning and strategic foresight. Its greatest strength lies in enabling dialogue and collective sensemaking, particularly when integrated with complementary methods such as Causal Layered Analysis. However, limitations are also acknowledged, including its static nature, facilitator bias and limited causal depth.
Keywords
Futures Triangle, Futures Studies, Strategic Foresight, Participatory Methods, Methodology Evaluation
Introduction
In an era defined by accelerating change, systemic uncertainty and the turbulence the need for accessible yet methodologically robust foresight tools have become a strategic imperative (Inayatullah, 2004). Both academia and industry increasingly seek approaches that help them navigate complexity, challenge entrenched assumptions and co-create desirable futures amid rapid technological, environmental and social transformations (Inayatullah, 2013a). Within this expanding foresight landscape, the Futures Triangle (FT) (Inayatullah, 2003a, 2023) has emerged as a foundational and participatory method valued for its clarity, inclusivity and interpretive depth. As one of Inayatullah’s “Six Pillars” of futures thinking, the FT serves as both an entry point and an analytical framework that enables participants to map the dynamics shaping the future by interrogating the pull of the future, the push of the present and the weight of the past (Abdullah, 2023; Inayatullah, 2008; Mercer, 2023).
The enduring appeal of the FT lies in its elegant capacity to translate complex socio-temporal dynamics into a simple yet profound heuristic. By positioning change as an interplay among the “push” of the present, the “pull” of preferred futures and the “weight” of the past, FT transforms the future from a distant abstraction into a contested space – a site of negotiation among historical constraints, contemporary drivers and emergent visions. While some recent interpretations have read the Triangle through a Newtonian or variational lens viewing the model as a system of forces, energies and dissipation (Mullan, 2025). While Sohail Inayatullah1 clarifies that the FT was never intended as a mechanistic or purely Newtonian construct. Rather, its architecture draws upon chaos theory (for attraction and emergence), macrohistory (for structural weight) and spiritual cosmologies (for inner and outer forces), situating the model within a post-mechanistic and holistic epistemology. Nevertheless, despite its widespread application in governance, education, sustainability and technology foresight, systematic evaluation of the FT’s theoretical foundations and methodological impact remains limited, often resulting in descriptive rather than analytical applications.
Addressing this gap is essential for advancing both theory and practice within futures studies. The present paper thus seeks to systematically assess the FT’s evolution, theoretical coherence and empirical performance. Specifically, it responds to the following research questions:
- How has the FT conceptually and methodologically evolved since its inception and what are its core theoretical and ideological foundations?
- Across which fields and sectors have it been applied and what does the accumulated evidence reveal about its practical effectiveness, utility and limitations?
- How does the FT compare with other established foresight methodologies in fostering stakeholder engagement, influencing policy and enabling transformative learning?
Undertaking a methodological evaluation of this kind contributes to the maturation of foresight as a discipline. It moves beyond anecdotal affirmation toward a defensible, evidence-based understanding of the FT’s contribution to anticipatory governance and transformative practice. Such evaluation not only refines the tool itself but also strengthens the credibility and applicability of futures methodologies more broadly.
By consolidating case studies and theory, this study aims to reframe the FT not merely as a participatory exercise, but as a rigorous, evaluative instrument capable of deepening foresight’s transformative and anticipatory capacities.
Historical Origins and Conceptual Evolution
Understanding a methodology’s origins is essential for grasping its theoretical purpose, epistemological stance, and evolution. The FT emerged from a January 1997 workshop at Southern Cross University, Australia, where Inayatullah challenged the historical determinism dominant in academic institutions, noting that history – not the future – was perceived as legitimizing the academy’s authority (Inayatullah, 2023). Although the underlying concept dates to this period, the term Futures Triangle first appeared in published form in Alternative Futures of Transport (Inayatullah, 2003b). The FT was introduced as a heuristic device to visualize tensions between past, present, and future, enabling alternative imaginaries for institutional and societal transformation (Inayatullah, 2008).
Between 1997 and the early 2000s, the FT underwent conceptual refinement, culminating in the clarification of its three vertices: the push of the present (quantitative drivers and trends), the pull of the future (images of possible or preferred futures), and the weight of the past (qualitative constraints and path dependencies). This structure positioned the FT as a dynamic mapping tool capable of revealing systemic constraints, emergent opportunities, and transformative possibilities. By 2008, it was formally embedded as the first pillar—Mapping the Future—within the Six Pillars of Futures Thinking framework, providing a foundational step prior to scenario development and strategic exploration (Inayatullah, 2008, 2023).
The conceptual simplicity and methodological flexibility of FT have supported its application across diverse domains, including scenario generation, narrative construction, and futures education. It has been used upstream to identify key drivers and thematic clusters for scenario building (Cruz, 2015; El Ghattis, 2016), to enhance narrative coherence in future-oriented storytelling (Cowart, 2023), and as a participatory pedagogical tool to strengthen experiential learning in futures thinking (Chen & Hoffman, 2017; Abdullah, 2023; Casebourne & Sitta, 2024). Subsequent methodological developments further extended the FT’s analytical scope. The Change Progression Scenario Method (CPSM) reconceptualized the push of the present as a forward-oriented push toward the future, emphasizing directional social change across multiple scenario pathways (Milojević, 2005). More recent advancements align the FT with participatory and data-driven foresight. These include data-augmented versions employing AI and social media analytics for weak signal detection (Cheng & Sul, 2023) and co-creative reinterpretations that frame the weight of the past as a resource carrying collective identity and values into future design (Leong & Weber, 2023).
Together, these developments demonstrate a consistent trajectory toward greater conceptual clarity, methodological integration, and analytical sophistication. From its origins as a disruptive mapping heuristic, the FT has evolved into a versatile and theoretically grounded framework that underpins contemporary futures and foresight practice. Figure 1 shows the evolution of FT since 1997 to 2023.
Fig. 1: Historical Evolution of the Futures Triangle : Key Milestones, Conceptual Clarification, and Methodological Integration (1997–2023)
Methodological Structure and Application Process
The FT conceptualizes the contested present through the interaction of three forces: the pull of the future, the push of the present and the weight of the past (Inayatullah, 2008, 2023). The pull of the future captures aspirational or feared images that orient collective intent; the push of the present comprises observable drivers and trends shaping ongoing change; and the weight of the past denotes historical constraints, cultural norms and path dependencies that limit transformation (Mulligan, 2023). Early applications of the FT were largely descriptive, functioning as a mapping and sensemaking tool. More recent work reflects a shift toward analytically integrated uses, in which the method examines forces in relation to a desired vision and feeds directly into scenario development (Inayatullah, 2023; Mercer, 2023). While most applied in structured participatory workshops, the FT has also been adapted for interviews, systematic literature analysis and data-driven approaches using social media analytics to surface weak signals (Fam et al., 2014; Cruz, 2015). This adaptability supports application across diverse research contexts and institutional settings. The FT is rarely used in isolation and is frequently combined with complementary foresight and analytical tools. Common integrations include STEEP analysis to structure present-day drivers, scenario planning to support driver selection and differentiation, Theory of Change frameworks linking foresight to strategic planning, and spatial or real-time data methods that embed empirical context into participatory processes (Milojevic, 2005; Fam et al., 2014). An illustrative application is provided by a study of women cyclists in Malaysia, where the FT was used as an interview framework. Future pulls emphasized gender equity and supportive infrastructure; present pushes included heightened health awareness, the rise of “pandemic cyclists” and social media–enabled community formation; and past weights reflected car-centric urban design, weak policy support and limited cycling culture (Abdullah & Naimi, 2023). Mapping these forces enabled the identification of both structural barriers and emerging opportunities. Crucially, the FT’s categories are interpretive constructs rather than objective descriptors. Their content is co-produced by participants, making the process inherently participatory and reflexive. It is the interaction among the three forces that delineates the space of plausible futures, and divergent perspectives can be represented through multiple triangles rather than treated as methodological limitations (Nikolova & Todorova, 2023; Mulligan, 2023). Methodological extensions further reinforce this interpretive orientation. The Co-Creative Futures Triangle reframes the weight of the past as a shared repository of values, supporting consensus-building and the co-creation of preferred futures (Leong & Weber, 2023). In hybrid applications, the FT often serves as an entry point for deeper analysis, for example by generating surface-level drivers that inform subsequent Causal Layered Analysis and narrative development (Inayatullah, 2023).
In sum, the FT’s structured yet flexible design enables it to function both as a standalone mapping framework and as a foundational input for more complex foresight methodologies. Its participatory logic and adaptability have enabled application across disciplines, sectors and scales, making it a robust instrument for exploring, comparing and co-creating alternative futures.
A Synthesis of Cross-Sectoral Applications
The breadth of the FT’s application across disciplines underscores its enduring relevance as a versatile heuristic and participatory dialogue tool. Across corporate strategy, community foresight and education, the FT functions as a structured framework to surface path dependencies, build futures literacy and facilitate strategic visioning within complex foresight systems. Its adaptability reflects its dual role as both a diagnostic and generative instrument. A central function of the FT lies in confronting historical path dependencies. The “weight of the past” prompts participants to identify deep-seated structures constraining transformation, such as outdated industrial models in corporate strategy, car-centric urban design in community mobility planning and cultural stigma in social planning contexts (Mulligan, 2023; Abdullah & Naimi, 2023; Mutalib, 2023). Across these cases, the FT makes tacit constraints explicit, rendering them visible and open to critical dialogue. The FT also contributes to futures literacy, particularly in educational settings. It has been gamified for university teaching to translate abstract concepts into interactive learning (Chen & Hoffman, 2017), while pedagogical adaptations have used speculative cards and personal artifacts to operationalize future pulls and past weights (Abdullah, 2023). Beyond classrooms, it has supported inquiry into higher education leadership futures and emerging learning environments, such as metaverse-enabled language education, scaffolding participants toward systemic and anticipatory thinking (Inayatullah & Milojevic, 2016; Kern, 2024). A recurring pattern is evident in multi-stakeholder strategic visioning. The FT has guided long-term infrastructure planning, such as Melbourne’s 50-year sustainable sewerage strategy, and supported co-created institutional futures and governance scenarios across national and global contexts (Fam et al., 2014; Abdullah, 2023; Cruz, 2015). In public governance, it has informed groundwater management, generational analysis and local government engagement processes across diverse sociopolitical settings (Russo, 2015; Kamran, 2023; Hassenforder et al., 2024). In corporate contexts, the FT supports strategic reorientation and anticipatory planning, informing transitions toward digitalized and automated futures and mapping sector-specific trajectories, including construction, Islamic banking and AI-enabled organizations (El Ghattis, 2016; Farrow, 2020; Hatoum et al., 2021; Nassereddine et al., 2022). Its use in health and social systems similarly enables collective visioning, supporting primary healthcare planning, e-health scenarios and participatory futures for neurodiversity research (Seegolam et al., 2015; Russo, 2019; Raymaker & Nicolaidis, 2024). In technological and environmental foresight, the FT increasingly integrates qualitative mapping with data-driven approaches. It has been combined with Theory of Change, quantitative modeling, GIS and remote sensing to inform sustainable agrifood and agricultural planning, as well as social media analytics to explore emerging service futures (Blundo-Canto et al., 2023; Cheng & Sul, 2023; Japitana et al., 2024). It has also been applied retrospectively to analyze technological evolution, such as the historical development of programming languages (Vepsäläinen, 2023). Sector-specific applications – from agricultural finance and mining to tourism and mobility – further demonstrate the FT’s flexibility (Sheraz, 2010; Oberholster & Adendorff, 2019; Lehmann, 2023). Across these diverse cases, the method consistently facilitates the identification of structural forces, alignment of stakeholder perspectives and initiation of foresight dialogue.
As summarized in Table 1, the FT’s primary value lies not in sectoral specialization but in its consistent capacity to support early-stage collective sense-making. Its widespread use across governance, education, technology and social systems confirms its role as a front-end framework for strategic dialogue, establishing shared understandings of the present to explore alternative futures.
Table 1: Cross-Sectoral FT’s Applications: A Synthesis of Use Across Major Sectors
| Major Sector | Applications |
| Agriculture and Agrifood | Technology Adoption, Technology Scaling (Oberholster & Adendorff, 2019), Environmental Policy (Blundo‐Canto et al., 2024), Livestock/Technology (Eastwood et al., 2021), Policy (Gauna et al., 2023), Scenario Planning (Hernandez et al., 2023), R&D/Technology (Japitana et al., 2024), Financing/Policy |
| Arts and Culture | Workforce Wellbeing (Frost & Vargas, 2024) |
| Civil and Political Dynamics | Policy / Political Movements (Inayatullah, 2013b) |
| Construction and Engineering | Industry Innovation (Hatoum et al., 2021), Organizational Change (Nassereddine et al., 2022) |
| Culture & Identity | National Identity (Inayatullah, 2006) |
| Education and Academia | Pedagogy/Cultural Studies, Pedagogy, Research (Abdullah, 2023; Chen & Hoffman, 2017), Youth Futures (Abdullah, 2023), Technology / Wellbeing (Casebourne & Sitta, 2024), HEI / Policy (Sheraz & Beg, 2015) |
| Energy and Utilities | Strategy (Inayatullah, 2023) |
| Finance and Banking | Islamic Finance (El-Ghattis, 2014), Policy / Skills (El Ghattis, 2016) |
| Foresight Methodology | Pedagogy (Cowart, 2023), Healthcare (Fergnani, 2019), Knowledge Systems (Holdaway, 2023) |
| Governance and Policy | National Development (Kamran, 2023), Urban (Russo, 2015) |
| Healthcare and Medicine | Mental Health , Genetics (Inayatullah, 2003a) Professional Practice (Inayatullah, 2007; Riggs, 2024), Nursing (Kucera et al., 2010), Policy (Russo, 2019) |
| Higher Education | Organizational Strategy (Abdullah, 2023), Governance (Inayatullah & Milojevic, 2016), Globalization and Policy (Thanh, 2006) |
| International Relations | Military Health (Palmer & Ellis, 2008) |
| Water Governance | Community (Hassenforder et al., 2024), Urban Planning (Mendoza & Cruz, 2023) |
| Macrohistory and Planning | Historical Analysis and Scenario Workshops (Hoffman, 2013, 2014) |
| Museum and Culture | Innovation / Resistance (Inayatullah, 2023) |
| National Foresight | Societal Transformation (Bok & Ruve, 2007) |
| Neurodiversity & Research | Community / Research (Raymaker & Nicolaidis, 2024) |
| Personal & Professional Development | Individual, self-esteem (Inayatullah, 2023), Professional / Certification (Leong & Weber, 2023) |
| Resources & Mining | Industrialization (Sheraz, 2010), Sustainable Development (Sheraz, 2014) |
| Social Services | Gerontology (Mutalib, 2023), Non-profit (Fan & Khng, 2014), Pedagogy (Littman et al., 2024) |
| Technology & Innovation | Service Design (Cheng & Sul, 2023), Smart Cities (Gao et al., 2020), Programming (Vepsäläinen, 2023) |
| Tourism & Policy | Travel / Policy (Lehmann, 2023) |
| Transportation | Mobility (Inayatullah, 2003b), MaaS (Li et al., 2024), Gender Studies (Abdullah & Naimi, 2023) |
| Urban Planning | Residential Planning (Avila-Calle et al., 2022), Demographics (Wright et al., 2014) Social Initiatives (Milojević, 2023) |
| Workplace & Professional Strategy | Organizational (Mulligan, 2023) |
The sheer breadth of these applications underscores the FT’s adaptability. The next section moves from cataloging its use to critically evaluating its effectiveness.
Case Studies Based Evaluation of Effectiveness
A primary strength of the FT lies in scaffolding futures thinking and eliciting diverse images of the future. Its Pull, Push, and Weight categories enable users—particularly novices—to move beyond linear reasoning toward plural possibilities, making abstract concepts like “alternative futures” tangible and actionable (Abdullah, 2023; Chen & Hoffman, 2017). The FT also enhances democratic participation. Its intuitive, non-technical design facilitates multi-stakeholder dialogue and collaboration. For instance, the Melbourne sewerage strategy workshop engaged over 50 participants across government, academia and community groups to co-create a long-term vision (Fam et al., 2014). Similar participatory benefits emerged in Colombian agricultural research and university foresight exercises, providing a common language for divergent perspectives, though evidence remains limited regarding the influence of marginalized voices on final outcomes (Blundo-Canto et al., 2023; Abdullah, 2023). Effectiveness is further demonstrated in integrating knowledge and values for social action. Mapping pushes, pulls, and weights allows participants to visualize systemic forces, structural barriers, and shared values, supporting collective sense-making and strategy formation. For example, in the study of women cyclists, the FT linked aspirations for safer infrastructure with car-centric urban constraints, guiding advocacy and policy interventions; in the IIUM 2041 workshop, it surfaced dissonance between preferred futures and organizational realities, informing actionable reforms (Abdullah & Naimi, 2023; Abdullah, 2023).
A distinctive feature of the FT is its treatment of the past. The Weight of the Past encourages participants to acknowledge historical and cultural path dependencies that shape the present and constrain or enable futures, reflecting non-Western epistemologies such as the Māori concept of walking backward into the future (Mulligan, 2023). Workshops on the future of work and active ageing demonstrated how this dimension reveals hidden assumptions, such as outdated industrial models and cultural stigmas, enabling transformative reframing (Mulligan, 2023; Mutalib, 2023).
Case studies highlight additional indicators of effectiveness: stakeholder alignment, policy impact, transformative learning, and methodological integration. The Co-Creative Futures Triangle enhanced shared intent across systemic divides (Leong & Weber, 2023). Its accessibility engages policymakers and leaders in sectors including public health and future-of-work initiatives (Mulligan, 2023; Russo, 2019). As a reflective practice, it facilitates mindset shifts and reconciliation of conflicting visions, and its adaptability enables integration with methods such as Causal Layered Analysis, scenario planning, and Backcasting, providing structured inputs for deeper foresight (Inayatullah, 2023).
Table 2 summarizes the FT’s evaluation framework, positioning it as both highly accessible and transformative. Its simplicity allows entry for participants without foresight training, while integration with deeper methods maximizes its potential to deconstruct worldviews and co-create shared narratives. Overall, the FT remains a highly effective participatory entry point into futures work, serving as both a mapping tool and a catalyst for transformative foresight practice.
Table 2: Evaluation Framework for the Futures Triangle
| Indicator / Function | Description / Evidence of Effectiveness | Source(s) |
| Scaffolding Futures Thinking | Provides a simple, accessible structure enabling novices to move beyond linear perspectives and explore plural futures. Used in game-based curricula to help students conceptualize abstract futures and articulate their own images of the future. | (Abdullah, 2023; Chen & Hoffman, 2017) |
| Increasing Democratic Participation | Facilitates inclusive dialogue among diverse stakeholders by offering a shared, non-technical framework for collective exploration. Enabled over 50 stakeholders to co-create a 50-year vision for Melbourne’s sewerage strategy and was applied in multi-actor agricultural foresight workshops. | (Blundo-Canto et al., 2023; Fam et al., 2014) |
| Integrating Knowledge and Values | Supports the synthesis of drivers, barriers and aspirations to guide collective sensemaking, strategy and action. Demonstrated in the IIUM 2041 strategic foresight workshop to articulate shared visions and identify institutional barriers. | (Abdullah, 2023) |
| Interpreting the Past and Orienting the Present | Encourages reflection on historical path dependencies and deep structural forces that constrain transformative change. Applied to analyze the persistence of industrial work models and cultural stigmas around ageing. | (Mulligan, 2023; Mutalib, 2023) |
| Stakeholder Engagement | Creates a “container” for dialogue among diverse groups, leading to a “surprise at the degree of alignment” and discovery of shared ground. | (Leong & Weber, 2023) |
| Policy and Strategy Impact | Provides an accessible framework for structured, strategic conversations with leaders in public health, corporate and community governance contexts. | (Mulligan, 2023; Russo, 2019) |
| Transformative Learning | Enables teams and participants to reflect on basic assumptions and mental models, fostering perspective shifts and cognitive reframing. | (Mulligan, 2023) |
| Methodological Integration | Acts as a methodological “springboard,” providing structured inputs for deeper foresight tools such as CLA and scenario planning. | (Inayatullah, 2023) |
Futures Triangle with Other Foresight Methodologies
A methodology’s distinct contribution is best understood in relation to alternatives. As the first pillar of Inayatullah’s Six Pillars, the FT maps forces shaping the future through the pull of the future, push of the present and weight of the past (Inayatullah, 2008, 2023; Gauna et al., 2023). Its simplicity and accessibility democratize futures thinking, allowing diverse participants to articulate competing visions, drivers and constraints influencing long-term change (Mulligan, 2023).
The FT is frequently paired with CLA (Inayatullah, 1998; Wahab, 2024). While the FT captures surface-level dynamics—the “litany” of observable forces (Abdullah, 2023; Cowart, 2023) – CLA deconstructs these into systemic, worldview and mythic layers, revealing connections and contradictions that highlight critical issues (Oberholster & Adendorff, 2019; Palmer & Ellis, 2008). In this synergy, the FT lays the groundwork for CLA’s transformative inquiry, enabling a continuum from mapping visible structures to uncovering deep narratives constraining systemic change (Farrow, 2020; Mulligan, 2023).
Compared with Scenario Planning (SP), which generates alternative narratives based on critical uncertainties (Cruz, 2015), the FT often serves as a precursor, organizing forces, aspirations and barriers that define possible futures (Inayatullah, 2023; Lehmann, 2023). Its weight of the past uniquely emphasizes structural inertia and ideological resistance, often overlooked in standard scenario methods (Mulligan, 2023). Integrative approaches, such as Futures Triangle 2.0, combine the FT with a 2×2 scenario matrix to enhance analytical depth and comparability (Vepsäläinen, 2023).
The FT and Futures Wheel (FW) differ in scope: the FT maps contextual tensions among pushes, pulls and weights, whereas the FW explores cascading consequences of trends across social, technological, economic, environmental and political domains (Inayatullah, 2008; Blundo‐Canto et al., 2024; Chen & Hoffman, 2017). Sequential use is common, with the FT establishing context and the FW tracing ripple effects (Gao et al., 2020; Nayev et al., 2023).
Similarly, the Delphi Method complements the FT by validating and prioritizing identified drivers and barriers. Whereas the FT is exploratory and participatory (Mulligan, 2023), Delphi enables structured expert consensus, often applied post-FT or SP to refine trends or assess scenario plausibility (Farrow, 2020; Nayev et al., 2023; Oberholster & Adendorff, 2019). Together, these approaches form a synergistic suite, balancing mapping, narrative construction, consequence analysis and expert evaluation.
The comparative advantages of the FT relative to these methods are summarized in Table 3 highlighting its role in contextual mapping, participatory engagement and integration within broader strategic foresight practices.
Table 3: Comparative Foresight Methodologies: The Futures Triangle and Alternatives
| Methodology | Primary Role/Function | Relationship with FT | Unique Contribution/Distinguishing Feature |
| Change Progression Scenario Method (CPSM) | Focuses on understanding the progression of change over time. Articulates scenario trajectories moving from the current state toward a desired future state. | Created using the Futures Triangle. Used to develop scenarios ranging from ‘no change’ to ‘radical change’ | Articulates scenarios by focusing on proximity to the pull of the future or the weight of the past. Explicitly identifies the role of “change agents” and how their influence shapes potential paths. (Inayatullah, 2023; Milojević, 2023) |
| Futures Triangle (FT) | Mapping/Contextualization: Maps contested future space by analyzing driving forces, images and structural barriers. | Core reference tool for identifying pushes, pulls and weights. | Explicit analysis of the “weights of the past” – deep structures and ideological barriers resisting change (Mulligan, 2023) |
| Causal Layered Analysis | Deepening the Future: Deconstructs issues through four levels (litany, systemic, worldview, myth/metaphor). | FT provides the surface mapping (litany) that CLA then deepens. | Reveals underlying narratives and worldviews shaping systemic change (Inayatullah, 1998; Oberholster & Adendorff, 2019) |
| Scenario Planning (SP) | Creating Alternatives: Develops plausible narratives driven by uncertainties. | FT informs SP by providing mapped forces that define the scenario space. | Generates structured alternative futures integrating pushes, pulls and weights (Casebourne & Sitta, 2024; Milojevic, 2005) |
| Futures Wheel (FW) | Impact/Consequence Analysis: Maps direct and indirect effects of change. | Follows FT to trace consequences of identified drivers or trends. | Highlights cascading systemic impacts across STEEP dimensions (Blundo‐Canto et al., 2024; Seegolam et al., 2015). |
| Delphi Method | Consensus/Prioritization: Gathers and refines expert opinions. | Used to validate and prioritize factors identified via FT. | Produces expert-based consensus forecasts and trend prioritization (Farrow, 2020; Oberholster & Adendorff, 2019). |
Limitations, Critiques and Methodological Refinements
Despite its conceptual richness and heuristic appeal, the FT has notable limitations. While it effectively maps the interplay between drivers, weights and images of the future (Abdullah, 2023; Inayatullah, 2008, 2023; Mulligan, 2023), it lacks the methodological rigor and empirical grounding expected in structured foresight approaches (Cheng & Sul, 2023; Li et al., 2024; Oberholster & Adendorff, 2019) A primary critique concerns its qualitative subjectivity: outcomes largely depend on facilitator framing and participant perspectives, which can introduce bias and reduce reproducibility across studies (Cheng & Sul, 2023; Mulligan, 2023).
The model’s visual simplicity, while enhancing accessibility and communication (Abdullah, 2023; Mulligan, 2023), can oversimplify complex systems by compressing multi-layered causal dynamics into three abstract dimensions (Inayatullah, 2008, 2023). Typically mapping only the surface or “litany” level, the FT requires complementary methods, such as CLA, to reveal deeper systemic, worldview and mythic structures (Cowart, 2023; Farrow, 2020; Mulligan, 2023). Additionally, its limited operationalization within quantitative or hybrid approaches restricts data triangulation, weighting of influences and longitudinal validation. Consequently, findings often remain conceptual rather than producing actionable, evidence-based outputs (Abdullah, 2023; Chen & Hoffman, 2017; Mulligan, 2023).
This lack of procedural standardization may hinder its integration into formal policy design or large-scale institutional foresight programs (Inayatullah & Milojevic, 2016). Moreover, the method is context-sensitive, meaning that variations in sociocultural, political, or organizational settings can alter the interpretation of drivers and weights, complicating cross-case comparison (Farrow, 2020). These critiques have prompted methodological refinements. Integrating the FT with CLA situates Pulls, Pushes and Weights within layered social narratives, enhancing interpretive depth. Embedding the FT within scenario planning allows identified drivers and weights to inform scenario axes or narrative frames, combining intuitive accessibility with enhanced analytical rigor (Blundo‐Canto et al., 2024; Hernandez et al., 2023).
Participatory and computational adaptations have further strengthened the FT. AI-assisted text mining, semantic network analysis and structured rating scales mitigate subjective bias and improve reproducibility, while quantitative approaches such as Impact Weaving integrate contextual forces into robust, evidence-based foresight outputs (Inayatullah, 2023). Collectively, these innovations have transformed the FT into a multi-modal, empirically grounded instrument capable of bridging qualitative insights with quantitative data streams.
In summary, while the FT continues to face critiques regarding subjectivity, operational ambiguity and contextual sensitivity, its conceptual flexibility has enabled ongoing refinement through integration with complementary methods and digital innovation. These methodological developments not only address its foundational limitations but also expand its application within diverse domains such as public policy, strategic foresight and anticipatory governance. Such advancements set the stage for a systematic evaluation of the Futures Triangle’s empirical effectiveness and transformative potential in the subsequent section.
Personal reflection
Engaging with two decades of literature case studies and methodological refinements has revealed an unexpected paradox at the heart of the FT. Although this review as a technical synthesis with a deeper appreciation for the Triangle as a living epistemic device, one that evolves alongside the practitioners who use it. Three personal learnings became especially clear.
Frequently, it has been found that the most transformative applications of the FT – whether in agrifood systems in Colombia, Islamic banking in Bahrain or higher education in Malaysia – did not occur because the method was sophisticated but because it offered a shared space for collective meaning-making. The simplicity of three vertices invites participation as depth comes from the courage of the conversation. This insight has deepened my respect for the FT as a social technology rather than a diagnostic instrument. Second, the weight of the past is far more alive than authors’ initial assumption. Across many cases, this dimension functioned not merely as a constraint but as a site of cultural memory and identity. It was surprising that how often participants used the past to re-anchor themselves, sometimes resisting change and sometimes reclaiming forgotten stories. This illuminated a tension within the FT: the past is not only a burden but a living reservoir of values. The Co-Creative Futures Triangle reframing reinforced this insight.
Finally, it has been learnt that how fragile and how powerful participatory foresight can be. Reading across decades of practice authors observed two futures emerging. One where the FT is used with depth, care and reflexivity producing genuine transformation another where it becomes a template exercise, taken from worldview, metaphor and systemic analysis. This duality reminds that foresight is as much about the ethics and skill of facilitation as it is about methodological structure. The Triangle works best when facilitators engage not only with trends and visions but with discomfort, contradiction and the stories people tell about their futures.
These reflections reaffirm that the FT continues to matter not because it is perfect but because it invites dialogue. It challenges us to inhabit the space between possibility and constraint and in doing so expands the moral and imaginative horizons from which futures can emerge.
The Peril of Simplicity – Avoiding Foresight Theatre
In term or accessibility, FT is both its genius and its shadow. Its simplicity enables wide participation but it also creates the risk of what has increasingly been termed foresight theatre (the performance of futures works without its substance). In such cases, organizations create a triangle, populate it with familiar drivers and constraints and conclude that foresight has been done without ever interrogating deeper assumptions, alternative narratives or entrenched myths. However, this risk emerges from three recurring patterns:
Consensus that masks conflict: Because the FT is comfortable and accessible, it can create an illusion of agreement. Participants may converge on generic pulls (a sustainable future) while avoiding difficult conversations about values, power and competing narratives.
Institutional appropriation for legitimacy: In some cases, the Triangle becomes a symbolic gesture inserted into reports or workshops to signal innovative thinking while leaving core organizational paradigms untouched.
Mapping without deconstruction: Participants identify pushes, pulls and weights but avoid confronting the underlying worldviews and metaphors that give these elements meaning. Without integration with CLA or other deepening methods, the Triangle can remain at the litany level. The paper emphasizes the absolute necessity of integrating the FT with deeper tools like CLA. The FT serves as the essential gateway for a mindset shift and acts as the foundation for identifying key tensions. The transition away from superficial engagement happens organically in practice: participants often gravitate toward the CLA model organically as data is mapped onto the triangle, leading to a clear shift from individual data points to more holistic storytelling. CLA is critical to any transformative foresight intervention. It enables the exploration and understanding of how different worldviews and stakeholders construct reality. Critically, the goal of integrating the FT with CLA is to move from merely generating plausible futures to a robust process of scenario development where whole-of-worldview and narrative solutions are drawn on and tested.
In short, the Futures Triangle excels at scaffolding the thinking process and making futures accessible, but CLA is the method that pushes the critique deep enough to achieve transformation by changing the narrative or story at the myth/metaphor layer of reality. Without this critical next step, the simple mapping exercise risks becoming an organizational performance, a theatre that observes the future tensions but avoids the challenging work of internalizing and acting upon those insights
To counter this drift toward superficiality, FT practice must be deliberately paired with critical facilitation. This includes (1) using the FT as a gateway into deeper analysis rather than as a standalone deliverable (2) surfacing contradictions between pushes pulls and weights (3) intentionally exploring whose futures are represented and whose are marginalized and (4) ensuring the process challenges rather than comforts institutional assumptions.
In this sense, the utility of the FT depends less on the triangle itself and more on the depth of questioning that accompanies it. Its simplicity should be a doorway—not a destination.
Conclusion and Future Research
This paper has provided a comprehensive, evidence-based evaluation of the FT, synthesizing its origins, theoretical foundations, diverse applications and documented effectiveness. The analysis establishes the FT not as a tool for deep analysis in itself but as a critical social technology for democratizing anticipation. Its primary value, confirmed across a wide range of applications, lies in its capacity to structure initial conversations about the future, making it an indispensable yet often insufficient first step in robust foresight processes. Its accessibility enables the scaffolding of futures thinking for novices, maps the contested landscape of the present and engages diverse stakeholders, thereby laying the foundation for deeper strategic and transformative inquiry.
The study demonstrates that the FT’s greatest value emerges not in isolation but as a foundational catalyst within multi-method foresight processes, particularly when hybridized with approaches such as CLA and SP. While its simplicity is its core strength, it also presents limitations, including susceptibility to superficial application, facilitator bias and limited causal depth. Nevertheless, these challenges can be mitigated through thoughtful facilitation, methodological rigor and integration with complementary techniques.
The primary contribution of this study is the consolidation of a previously fragmented body of literature into a coherent and critical synthesis. By tracing the FT’s evolution from its conceptual emergence in 1997 to its current applications across global contexts, grounding it in critical futures theory and systematically evaluating its practical use, this paper provides scholars and practitioners with the first comprehensive reference point for understanding and responsibly applying the methodology.
Based on the gaps and emerging trends identified in this review, several specific directions for future research are warranted:
AI and Big Data Integration: The data-driven approach pioneered by (Cheng & Sul, 2023) and supported by (Klasen et al., 2024) highlights how large-scale data analysis from social media and other digital sources can enhance the mapping of drivers and weights. Future research should investigate how artificial intelligence and large language models can augment, validate, or challenge qualitative findings from FT workshops, ensuring that automation supports rather than supplants participatory co-creation.
Systematic Quantitative Evaluation: While qualitative evidence for the FT’s effectiveness is substantial, more rigorous mixed-method and quantitative studies are required to measure its impact on organizational, policy and social outcomes. Applying the proposed evaluative framework can help establish a stronger empirical basis for its transformative potential.
Cross-Cultural Validation and Adaptation: Building on the comparative work of (Abdullah et al., 2023, 2024) and applications in non-Western contexts such as Māori communities (Mulligan, 2023), systematic research should explore how facilitation styles, language and conceptual framing can be adapted across cultural and epistemological settings. Such work is vital for avoiding Western-centric bias and ensuring global inclusivity.
Empirical Impact Assessment: The conceptual framework introduced in this paper should be empirically tested through longitudinal case studies that track the outcomes of FT interventions over time. Such studies would move the field beyond process-oriented evaluations toward more robust measures of transformative impact.
Systematic Methodological Integration: Responding to calls for greater procedural clarity (Fergnani, 2019), future work should develop standardized protocols for integrating the FT with established methods such as Scenario Planning, Theory of Change and quantitative modelling, thereby enhancing its analytical depth and reproducibility.
Ultimately, the enduring value of the Futures Triangle lies in its capacity to democratize foresight. As a simple, intuitive and participatory tool, it empowers communities to deconstruct the present, challenge the seemingly inevitable and co-create their preferred futures. In an age of complexity and uncertainty, critically assessed and thoughtfully applied social technologies like the FT remain indispensable instruments for anticipatory governance and the collective project of shaping the future wisely.
Notes
1 Sohail Inayatullah’s comment on Comment on the post “Reading Futures with a Variational Lens: Beyond Push and Pull” on 4 October 2025. https://lnkd.in/dFgu_tGY
References
Abdullah, N. A. (2023). The Use and Usefulness of The Futures Triangle. World Futures Review, 15(2–4), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/19467567231203167
Abdullah, N. A., Cruz, J. F. B., & Arrazola, S. (2024). Imagining Possible Futures: A Comparative Analysis. Journal of Futures Studies. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.202409_29(1).0003
Abdullah, N. A., & Naimi, A. (2023). Exploring Images of the Future of Women Cyclists Using the Futures Triangle. Journal of Futures Studies, 27(3), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.202303_27(3).0002
Avila-Calle, M., Toledo-Toledo, J., & Córdova-González, F. (2022). Morphological Evolution of Single-family Dwellings: A Prospective towards 2100. In Future Housing [Working Title]. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108521
Blundo‐Canto, G., Ferré, M., Tibaduiza‐Castaneda, L., Andrieu, N., Fréguin‐Gresh, S., Rodriguez‐Borray, G., Santacruz‐Castro, A., & Mercandalli, S. (2024). Adapting and combining foresight and ex ante impact pathway evaluation for place‐based research planning with stakeholders. New Directions for Evaluation, 2024(182), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20608
Blundo-Canto, G., Rodríguez-Borray, G., Vásquez-Urriago, Á.-R., Ramírez-Gómez, M.-M., Zambrano-Moreno, G., Tibaduiza-Castañeda, L., Huertas-Carranza, B., Santacruz-Castro, A., Agudelo-Chocontá, B.-E., Soullier, G., Proietti, C., Mejía-Mejía, A.-D., Ferré, M., & De Romemont, A. (2023). Impact Weaving: An Approach to Strengthening the Plausibility of Anticipated AR4D Impact Pathways. The European Journal of Development Research, 35(2), 402–425. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-022-00566-6
Bok, B. M., & Ruve, S. (2007). Australia 2026-The Conscious Country. Journal of Futures Studies, 11(3), 109–114.
Casebourne, I., & Sitta, F. A. (2024). The Role of Emerging Technologies in Shaping the Futures of Teacher Wellbeing: A Futures-Thinking Perspective. In D. Guralnick, M. E. Auer, & A. Poce (Eds.), Creative Approaches to Technology-Enhanced Learning for the Workplace and Higher Education (Vol. 1150, pp. 73–83). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-72430-5_7
Chen, K.-H., & Hoffman, J. (2017). Serious Play: Transforming Futures Thinking Through Game-based Curriculum Design. Journal of Futures Studies, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.2017.22(2).A41
Cheng, Y., & Sul, S. (2023). Data-Driven Futuristic Scenarios: Smart Home Service Experience Foresight Based on Social Media Data. Systems, 11(6), 287. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11060287
Cowart, A. (2023). Temporalizing Internal Consistency: Using the Futures Triangle as an Organizing Device for the Emplotment of Anticipatory Narrative Ecosystems. World Futures Review, 15(2–4), 202–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/19467567231215128
Cruz, S. O. (2015). Alternative futures of global governance: Scenarios and perspectives from the Global South. Foresight, 17(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-05-2014-0030
Eastwood, C. R., Edwards, J. P., & Turner, J. A. (2021). Review: Anticipating alternative trajectories for responsible Agriculture 4.0 innovation in livestock systems. Animal, 15, 100296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100296
El-Ghattis, N. (2016). Challenges facing education and training in Islamic banking: The case of Bahrain. Journal of Islamic Financial Studies, 2(1), 27–46.
El-Ghattis, N. (2014). The futures of Islamic banking in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Journal of Futures Studies, 18(4), 27–44.
Fam, D., Mitchell, C., Abeysuriya, K., & Lopes, A. M. (2014). Emergence of decentralised water and sanitation systems in Melbourne, Australia. International Journal of Water, 8(2), 149–165.
Fan, G., & Khng, J. N. W. (2014). The futures of the Singapore association of social workers: An analysis using CLA and the “Futures Triangle.” Foresight, 16(4), 329–343. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-05-2013-0022
Farrow, E. (2020). Organisational artificial intelligence future scenarios: Futurists insights and implications for the organisational adaptation approach, leader and team. Journal of Futures Studies, 24(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.202003_24(3).0001
Fergnani, A. (2019). Futures Triangle 2.0: Integrating the Futures Triangle with Scenario Planning. Foresight, 22(2), 178–188. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-10-2019-0092
Frost, S., & Vargas, L. (2024). Cultural work, wellbeing, and AI. European Journal of Cultural Management and Policy, 14, 12825. https://doi.org/10.3389/ejcmp.2024.12825
Gao, S., Song, J., & Fu, Z. (2020). Design Smart Living Scenario Through Future Research Tools. In P.-L. P. Rau (Ed.), Cross-Cultural Design. User Experience of Products, Services, and Intelligent Environments (Vol. 12192, pp. 577–590). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49788-0_44
Gauna, D., Márquez, S., & Puechagut, S. (2023). Using the Futures Triangle to Infer Images of the Future of Food and Agriculture in the Southern Cone: The Case of Argentina. World Futures Review, 15(2–4), 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/19467567231203166
Hassenforder, E., Ferjani, A., & Trabelsi, F. (2024). Participatory modeling of past, current and future groundwater governance: An experiment in Aousja Ghar El Melh, Tunisia. Futures, 155, 103281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103281
Hatoum, M. B., Nassereddine, H. & Badurdeen, F. (2021). Reengineering Construction Processes in the Era of Construction 4.0: A Lean-Based Framework. Proc. 29th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction (IGLC) (pp. 403–412). https://doi.org/10.24928/2021/0126
Hernández, C.-G., Barragán-Ochoa, F., & Hurtado-Hurtado, J. (2023). Innovation Scenarios for Ecuadorian Agrifood Network. Foresight and STI Governance, 17(1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2023.1.67.79
Hoffman, J. (2013). China’s search for the future: A genealogical approach. Futures, 54, 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.10.018
Hoffman, J. (2014). Alternative images of China in 2035: A Case study of Tamkang University workshops. Journal of Futures Studies, 19(1), 13–34.
Holdaway, M. (2023). Wising up through jazz and the metamorphosis of perception. Futures, 147, 103111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103111
Inayatullah, S. (1998). Causal layered analysis. Futures, 30(8), 815–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(98)00086-X
Inayatullah, S. (2003a). Alternative futures of genetics and disability. Journal of Futures Studies, 7(4), 67–72.
Inayatullah, S. (2003b). Alternative futures of transport. Foresight, 5(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680310471271
Inayatullah, S. (2004). The causal layered analysis (CLA) reader. Theory and Case Studies of an Integrative and Transformative Methodology, 1, 1–52.
Inayatullah, S. (2006). Which Identity for Australians? Journal of Futures Studies, 11(1), 115–120.
Inayatullah, S. (2007). Alternative futures of occupational therapy and therapists. Journal of Futures Studies, 11(4), 41–58.
Inayatullah, S. (2008). Six pillars: Futures thinking for transforming. Foresight, 10(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680810855991
Inayatullah, S. (2013a). Futures studies: Theories and methods. There’s a Future: Visions for a Better World, 30.
Inayatullah, S. (2013b). Three Futures for Arab Spring. East-West Perspectives, 49.
Inayatullah, S. (2023). The Futures Triangle: Origins and Iterations. World Futures Review, 15(2–4), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/19467567231203162
Inayatullah, S., & Milojevic, I. (2016). Leadership and governance in higher education 2025: Can Malaysian universities meet the challenge? Foresight, 18(4), 434–440. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-03-2016-0011
Japitana, M. V., Parro, R. G., Albores, S. M. S., & Asube, L. C. S. (2024). Synergistic Paradigms: Developing R&D and Extension Framework for Sustainable Agrifood Systems. Proceedings of International Exchange and Innovation Conference on Engineering & Sciences (IEICES), 10, 629–635. https://doi.org/10.5109/7323327
John H. Riggs. (2024). Advancing Chiropractic Care: Opportunities and Challenges for the Future. Journal of Futures Studies. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.202406_28(4).0004
Kamran, K. (2023). Pakistan’s Generational Mind-Sets and Alternative Futures. Journal of Futures Studies. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.202406_28(4).0008
Kern, N. (2024). A Vision for a Humanising and Sustainable Future of Language Learning with the Metaverse. Journal of Futures Studies, 28(4), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.202406_28(4).0005
Klasen, A., Krummaker, S., Beck, J., & Pennington, J. (2024). Navigating geopolitical and trade megatrends: Public export finance in a world of change. Global Policy, 15(5), 1007–1014. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13417
Kucera, K., Higgins, I., & McMillan, M. (2010). Advanced nursing practice: A futures model derived from narrative analysis of nurses’ stories. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, The, 27(4), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.207479116574077
Lehmann, S. M. (2023). Pick me! I am young, healthy and interested in the arts in your city! – Exploring the future of travel visas. Journal of Tourism Futures. https://doi.org/10.1108/JTF-01-2023-0013
Leong, L., & Weber, K. K. (2023). The Co-Creative Futures Triangle: A Workshop to Build Shared Intent for Transformation. World Futures Review, 15(2–4), 146–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/19467567231203164
Li, Y., May, A., Cook, S., & Chen, D. (2024). Literature Review: Why do we need innovative design methods for future Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS)? Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 27, 101233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2024.101233
Littman, D. M., Bell, F., Al Wazni, A., Speck Glennon, A., Young, J. A., Goldkind, L., Prussia, L., & Nissen, L. (2024). Pedagogies of possibility: Case studies from using foresight tools in the social work classroom. Social Work Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2024.2368171
Mendoza, H. D., & Cruz, S. O. (2023). From Power to Foresight: Reimagining Pathways of Land Use and Water Governance Futures. Journal of Futures Studies, 27(3), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.202303_27(3).0010
Mercer, R. (2023). Futures Triangle: A Method Examined. World Futures Review, 15(2–4), 170–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/19467567231203188
Milojevic, I. (2005). Educational Futures: Dominant and Contesting Visions (0 ed.). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781134316441
Milojević, I. (2023). Contextualising Conflict: The Futures Triangle. World Futures Review, 15(2–4), 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/19467567231203160
Mullan, M. (2025, October 4). Reading Futures with a Variational Lens: Beyond Push and Pull. Substack. https://explorulations.substack.com/p/reading-futures-with-a-variational
Mulligan, V. (2023). The Futures Triangle in the Workplace—Using Strategic Foresight to Anticipate, Plan for and Respond to New Challenges in Business. World Futures Review, 15(2–4), 190–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/19467567231203171
Mutalib, M. A. (2023). Reimagining the Future of Active Ageing Amongst Elderly (Leading an Inclusive and Quality Life in Muslim Retirement Village). PROCEEDING AL GHAZALI International Conference, 1, I–XIII. https://doi.org/10.52802/aicp.v1i.775
Nassereddine, H., Bou Hatoum, M., Musick, S., & El Jazzar, M. (2022). Implications of Digitization on a Construction Organization: A Case Study. Proceedings of the Creative Construction E-Conference 2022, 71–79. https://doi.org/10.3311/CCC2022-011
Nayev, S., Dzhygyrey, I., Yefremov, K., Pyshnograiev, I., Boldak, A., & Gapon, S. (2023). Scenario Modelling in the Context of Foresight Studies. In M. Zgurovsky & N. Pankratova (Eds.), System Analysis and Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 1107, pp. 397–418). Springer Nature Switzerland. 10.1007/978-3-031-37450-0_23
Nikolova, B., & Todorova, M. (2023). On Desired Remote Possibilities of the Future: Could Counterfactual Analysis Challenge Prognostic Reflexes? Journal of Futures Studies, 27(4). https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.202306_27(4).0001
Oberholster, C., & Adendorff, C. (2019). Four Agricultural Financing Scenarios for Sub-Saharan Africa toward 2055: Conditions for Governmental Policy Interventions. World Futures Review, 11(3), 199–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1946756718770771
Palmer, J., & Ellis, N. (2008). A layered approach to horizon scanning: Identifying future issues in military and veterans’ health. Journal of Futures Studies, 12(4), 77–92.
Raymaker, D. M., & Nicolaidis, C. (2024). Neurodivergent Futures. In H. Bertilsdotter Rosqvist & D. Jackson-Perry (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Research Methods and Ethics in Neurodiversity Studies (pp. 423–435). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-031-66127-3_25
Russo, C. (2015). Engaging futures 2030: Futures methods transforming governance. Journal of Futures Studies, 20(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.2015.20(1).A35
Russo, C. (2019). Creating preferred futures of australian health care. Journal of Futures Studies, 24(1), 101–108. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.201909_24(1).0008
Seegolam, A., Sukhoo, A., & Bhoyroo, V. (2015). ICT as an enabler to achieve sustainable development goals for developing countries: A proposed assessment approach. eChallenges E-2015 Conference, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1109/eCHALLENGES.2015.7441071
Sheraz, U. (2010). Mining futures: Beyond the headlines. Journal of Futures Studies, 15(2), 17–32.
Sheraz, U. (2014). Foresight as a tool for sustainable development in natural resources: The case of mineral extraction in Afghanistan. Resources Policy, 39, 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.01.001
Sheraz, U., & Beg, H. (2015). Reflections on a Workshop on the Future of Higher Education for Knowledge Economy in Bangladesh. Journal of Futures Studies, 19(4), 103–116.
Thanh, P. T. H. (2006). The development of the higher education sector of Vietnam within the globalization discourse: Using futures methodologies. Journal of Futures Studies, 11(2), 35–60.
Vepsäläinen, J. (2023). ECMAScript—The journey of a programming language from an idea to a standard. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2305.01373
Wahab, A. (2024). Two Decades of Causal Layered Analysis: A Bibliometric Analysis and Review (2000–2022). World Futures Review, 16(3), 220–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/19467567241249712
Wright, D., Buys, L., Vine, D., Xia, B., Skitmore, M., Drogemuller, R., Kennedy, R., & Li, M. (2014). Eutopia 75+: Exploratory futures scenarios for baby boomers’ preferred living spaces. Journal of Futures Studies, 19(2), 41–60.