Peter Hayward
Abstract
Why is
foresight research often unable to create foresight actions?
This paper explores whether an individual’s psychological
development could be a factor. It employs the work of Jane
Loevinger as a basis for exploring this hypothesis. It also
examines the findings of the Global Lookout Panel which
identified the factors needed for successful implementation of
futures research.
1. The Moral
Imperative
The
Millennium Project by the American Council for the United
Nations University created a Global Lookout Panel to identify
reasons for success or failure of individuals and organisations
to heed the warnings provided by a range of foresight research.
The top ten impediments the Global Lookout Panel identified
were:
·
Institutional.
No responsibility to act or little co-ordination between
responsible agents.
·
Financial.
Unwilling or unable to provide resources.
·
Lack of interest in the future.
Near-term issues thought more important.
·
Planning inadequacy.
Lack of a long-term view.
·
Personnel.
Lack of decision skills or understanding of complexities.
·
Strategic.
Lack of strategy, goals and coordinated actions.
·
Complexity.
Lack of understanding, lack of models, stereotypical thinking.
·
Political.
Interferes with national interest or supported by political
opponent.
·
Information.
Lack of accurate and reliable data or uncertain of risks.
·
Lack of consensus.
Differing interests and ideology (Glenn, Gordon & Dator 2001,
p.178).
When that list is examined, one gets a sense that the inability
of individuals and organisations to act upon foresight research
can be addressed by better organisational design, planning,
resourcing and skilling. You can imagine a presentation to an
executive team saying that, ‘if we get the right people and
processes in place then we will be able to get value for money
from our foresight research’. Organisation charts would be
redesigned, training courses held and inspiring words spoken by
the CEO to the staff. Yet come the next big business crisis,
funding shortfall, political earthquake or competitor triumph
then would the newfound commitment to foresight be sustained?
Perhaps it would be, or more likely, it will be replaced by
pragmatic business needs to take action now. ‘Full speed
ahead and damn the torpedoes’. It is not the purpose of this
paper to undermine the importance of design, resources and
planning in successful foresight projects but rather to
highlight that the organisational capability to consider future
implications is synonymous with the individual capability of the
people in that organisation to do that very same thing. Without
an individual capability to understand there is no
organisational capability either. Plotinus in AD 270 said it
best. Adaequatio rei et intellectus (‘the understanding
of the knower must be adequate to the thing to be known’). What
is it that makes individuals and organisations inadequate to
deal with future research?
In addition to the top ten factors highlighted before, the
Global Lookout Panel also identified the following ‘moral
impediments’ to foresight actions:
·
Insufficient attention to the needs of future generations
·
Caring about the wellbeing of only one’s own group or nation
·
Corruption of leaders and policy makers
·
Greed and self-centredness
·
Acceptance of inequities
·
Lack of a holistic view of the world
·
Lack of respect for the environment
·
Lack of compassion and tolerance for others
(Glenn et al. 2001, p.179).
These factors were seen as additional to the top ten factors.
The research did not draw a direct connection between these
‘moral’ impediments and those organisational problems. I would
argue that the existence of any of the moral impediments
would reduce the impulse to act to almost zero. Irrespective of
the extent of planning, resourcing and skilling available, if
some of those moral perspectives were held by the decision maker
why would they feel a need to act at all? What would be
motivating them to do so? Addressing these moral impediments
could well impact upon most, if not all, of the top ten factors
that were found to limit the adoption of foresight research. I
would further argue that no sustainable change to the
organisational stance towards foresight research is possible
unless there is adequate moral development in the individuals of
that organisation. It is the purpose of this paper,
therefore, to investigate the impact of moral thought
upon the individual and organisational capability to understand
and act upon foresight research. That is not to say that only
‘good’ people can do this and thereby demonise those people and
organisations that might find foresight research of little
relevance to how they live their lives and run their
organisations. Rather, this paper will explain how the
psychological development of moral thought might explain this.
2 The Psychological
Development of Moral Thought
Research into psychological development by a great number of
researchers has found that individual psychology tends to evolve
in a sequential fashion. Later stages tend to build upon or
incorporate the earlier ones and generally no stage can be
skipped over (Wilber 2000, p.28). The nature of this development
has become increasing differentiated over time and many
different developmental lines have been researched. This
paper will focus on two of these lines, cognitive and
self-sense. These lines should have a strong correlation to the
way an individual would conceive of and employ foresight.
Cognitive development governs the complexity of thinking that an
individual can employ. Self-sense governs how the individual
thinks about themselves and the external world and how they seek
congruence in that relationship. The work of one researcher will
be examined in detail, Jane Loevinger’s research into ego
development. While there are other researchers who would be
relevant in this area it is considered that applying Loevinger’s
research findings should be sufficient to demonstrate if there
is any merit in the original hypothesis. Also the foundational
research of Jean Piaget will be revisited in part.
Jane Loevinger researched the structure of ego development in
individuals. Influenced by the work of Jean Piaget, for her
development referred to the transformation of the structures of
character over their life. She found that ego development
demonstrated certain attributes.
·
There are different stages of development through which an
individual may pass.
·
The process is not smooth; there may be discontinuities.
·
The stages are invariable; no stage can be skipped.
·
Each stage builds on and transforms the previous one.
·
There is an inner logic to each stage that produces equilibrium
and stability in the individual.
Loevinger’s achievement was to both hypothesise the stages of
ego development and to develop an instrument that was able to
reliably measure what stage of development an individual is
probably operating from.
Loevinger’s work on ego development is useful in the study of
foresight because what she was measuring was an individual’s
self-sense and the relationship to the external world. Thus
Loevinger’s work gives a guide of what an individual’s cognitive
process might be sensitive to in the external world, how that
external world might be modelled and interpreted by the
individual and what range of actions the individual could chose
from in response to those interpretations. The ‘moral
impediments’ found by the Global Lookout Panel could be
manifestations of that self-sense.
2.1 Loevinger’s Pre-Foresight Stages
The first three stages (Presocial, Impulsive and
Self-Protective) are where the individual begins to form
a sense of themselves as separate from their environment. These
early stages are useful in the study of maladaptive behaviour
but do not offer very much for the study of foresight, other
than providing the point from which the more interesting stages
emerge. At the Self-Protective stage the individual can
anticipate immediate and short-term rewards and punishments as
controls on impulsive actions. The individual has almost no
ability to understand conceptual complexity and causality.
At the next stage of development, (Conformist), the first
conception of self that is propitious to the practice of
foresight emerges. At this stage the individual associates
themselves with an external group. For the younger child this
group is often the family and for an older child this group is
normally the peer group. The individual desires conformity with
the group and so obeys the group sanctioned rules. Through
conformity with these group sanctioned rules the individual
achieves a sense of belonging, a sense of social desirability.
The power of social desirability makes the Conformist
sensitive to shame and disapproval which generally arises from
the failure to keep to the rules. These feelings do demonstrate
development in the individual’s interiority.
It is also at the Conformist stage that the individual
begins to have the first sense of cultural identity. In this
case the main function of the group culture is to sanction rules
and to grant desirability to individuals. Thus the individual’s
stance towards the environment is mediated by the group rules.
As the individual has a group that he/she associates with, then
that individual must, by definition, have other groups with whom
he/she do not associate. This creates a simple stereotyping,
often based upon external characteristics. ‘I am conformist and
I wish the desirability of other conformist so those I do not
desire to be with must be therefore be non-conformists’. The
range of actions available to the individual is also mediated by
the group rules.
There is now a naive sense of foresight in place. The
decision-space of the individual reflects the group’s shared
cultural rules and it also includes the range of socially
acceptable actions which an individual can take. What is not
clearly present is an understanding of conceptual complexity and
causality. While the individual is still centrally located in
the present, a hopeful, future sense of continuing social
desirability is emerging. Here we could speak of ‘good’ or ‘bad’
futures, a ‘good’ future of continuing conformity or a ‘bad’
future of exclusion from the social group.
2.2 Foresight begins to emerge
The next stage is described by Loevinger as a point of
transition for the individual. While the individual is still
operating from a conformist standpoint and preference, he/she
also becomes Self-Aware. The individual now appreciates
multiple possibilities in situations and the understanding of
conceptual complexity is increasing. At the same time that
multiple perspectives are considered in the external world, the
interiority of the individual begins to examine itself.
What arises is a ‘feeling’ that one’s self does not live up to
the standards or rules of the group. As measuring up to group
rules is the path to social desirability then it should not be
surprising that the description of the feelings described by the
individual at this stage include ‘lonely’ and ‘self-conscious’.
In 1976 Loevinger said that this stage was probably the modal
level for adults in American society (Loevinger 1976, p.19). In
1980 further research appeared to confirm this (Loevinger 1987,
p.228). That finding should be initially surprising and then
perhaps not. This is the stage of selfsense that employs a
cognitive style of simplicity and stereotypes. It is still a
conformist perspective where the individual wants to comply with
its chosen group’s social rules. The individual wants to be
socially desirable. Conceptual complexity is starting and
interior depth is beginning to take shape but this is not an ego
state that is very far removed from late adolescence in mental
age. Foresight can be sustained at this stage but only in a
rudimentary form. To retain internal stability and coherence,
foresight has to be directed towards conformist outcomes,
otherwise it would be rejected. Foresight could not challenge
group rules or show how other ‘rules’ could be equally
applicable.
The ‘moral impediments’ of the Millennium Project will now be
examined against the background of the Self-Aware ego
stage and any obvious correlations will be noted.
·
Insufficient attention to the needs of future generations.
Future generations would not be considered part of the social
group that the self-aware individual sought conformity with.
Such a finding would be consistent with the Self Aware
ego stage.
·
Caring about the wellbeing of only one’s own group or nation.
This is the hallmark of the conformist and self-aware
individual. All that matters is one’s own group.
·
Corruption of leaders and policy makers.
No necessary correlation here.
·
Greed and self-centredness
No necessary correlation here.
·
Acceptance of inequities.
Conformist and Self-aware individuals ‘see’ the world in terms
of stereotypes. Inequalities would not be seen, however
differences would be seen.
·
Lack of a holistic view of the world.
There is not sufficient conceptual complexity at this stage to
sustain such a viewpoint.
·
Lack of respect for the environment.
This might be a combination of conceptual complexity and the
inability of the individual to associate with anything other
than a social grouping.
·
Lack of compassion and tolerance for others.
Refer to the comments against inequalities (Glenn et al. 2001,
p.179).
The findings of the Millennium Project are broadly consistent
with what reactions could have been expected if foresight
projects were encountering Conformist and Self-Aware
levels of ego development. While individuals at those ego
levels could find it difficult to reach the senior levels of
most of the organisations that were surveyed it should be noted
that those moral impediments were
observed.
2.3 Foresight Formally appears
The next developmental stage (Conscientious) occurs as
the individual displays a heightened sense of self and inner
feelings. It can be said that the individual displays a
‘conscience’ at this stage although something like a conscience
has been operating at the previous stages. At the Impulsive
stage the individual does little more than describe people
as good or bad. There is no moral dimension here. The
Self-Protective stage evidences blame but does not have a
corresponding sense of personal responsibility. The
Conformist feels guilt for breaking the rules and so this is
a beginning of adult conscience. At the Conscientious
stage is added self-evaluation, self-criticism and
self-responsibility so conscience is said to be fully developed.
Along with these heightened inner processes the Conscientious
individual is confident enough to make individual choices
around which group rules or norms will be complied with. The
individual now is more confident of their ability to shape their
destiny rather than just accepting it. A focus on achievement
emerges and with it comes long-term, self evaluated goals and
ideals (Loevinger 1976, p.20). The ‘right-thinking’ mind has
arisen. Conceptual thought now includes nuances and
distinctions. Distinctions are no longer the simple binary
opposites of the earlier stages. Now what is distinguished is
important or trivial, private or public, inner or outer.
Individual interiority is now well developed so feelings and
actions are now correlated. The individual also has the ability
to take another person’s perspective and this expands the mutual
social space. What also emerges is the ability to look at things
from a broad social perspective, on some occasions, rather than
just the individual perspective of the previous levels. This
social perspective, however, is not holism at this stage.
In the Piagetian scheme of cognitive development Loevinger’s
Conscientious ego stage correlates to Piaget’s cognitive
development stage of formal operational thinking. This
mode of thought was regarded as the stage where a person reasons
‘correctly’, where hypothetical possibilities and reversible
operations are possible; in short the operations of the ‘adult’
mind. This was Piaget’s highest stage of cognitive development.
Later research, however, has suggested that formal operational
abilities are still quite limited at this stage. ‘Although the
individual is able to unify parts of single abstract systems and
function systemically and coherently within them, he or she
cannot yet construct a metalanguage to compare systems and
coordinate them. As a result, thinking remains dominated by
static categories and dualistic constructions of reality’
(Sternberg 1990, p.68).
To summarise, at the Conscientious stage of ego
development an individual would usually be employing formal
operational thinking. The doubt and loneliness of the
Self-Aware stage has given way to a confidence in individual
achievement. Plans, goals and ideals are self evaluated and
different perspectives can be adopted. Foresight practiced at
this stage would be confident and ambitious. The foresight,
however, would still be operating with static categories and
dualistic constructions of reality. Remember too, that this is
the stage above the modal state determined by Loevinger’s
research.
The findings by the Global Lookout Panel on the possible sources
of the moral impediments to the use of foresight research
illustrate how the combination of ego stage and cognitive method
produce ‘moral impediments’ to decisions. These were some of
their findings of what can cause moral impediments.
·
Rarely are decisions informed by futures research of the right
vs. wrong or legal vs. illegal
sort. Most often, decisions informed by futures research
involve trade-offs. Conformist thinking wants binary
decision making but even Conscientious thinking would still be
struggling with issues that transcend its categories. Tradeoffs
and conflicting issues will defeat the formal problem solving
orientation of both stages.
·
A barrier with moral overtones is the need for a trade off
between Near-term and Long-Term, where what is good for now is
at odds with what’s good for the future. Who sacrifices now? How
much?
An example of Conscientious thinking. While the barrier
identified recognises greater conceptual complexity than simply
what is right or wrong (Conformist thinking), through the
phrasing of the statement it shows that it is still operating in
a dualistic reality.
·
A Truth vs. Loyalty dilemma where one’s allegiance to a person,
nation or idea is challenged by one’s understanding of what
honesty or integrity demands.
This finding speaks of the rising conflict inside the
Conscientious individual on their way towards the next stage of
ego development. More on this later.
·
The Individual vs. Community dilemma where the needs of the self
and the needs of a community are both right and mutually
exclusive.
Again the finding is about an inner conflict arising in the
Conscientious individual.
·
The tradeoff between Justice and Mercy, where the stern demands
of law and the clear need for compassion.
Here the very high order concepts of justice and mercy are quite
beyond the thinking of an individual at the Conscientious stage
(Project 2002, viewed on 18 September 2002, p.5).
2.4 The transitions towards post-formal
foresight
In the movement from the Conscientious stage the
self-sense of the individual struggles with achieving a greater
sense of external individuality while at the same time
recognising a need for emotional dependence on others. At the
Individualistic stage the person becomes aware of this inner
conflict but is unable to fully resolve it. The awareness of
this conflict, however, is thought to lead the individual
towards a greater tolerance of themselves and others. Some of
the certainty, achievement focus and moralism of the
Conscientious stage begins to be tempered by an increased
ability for the individual to tolerate paradox and
contradiction. This awareness can be demonstrated by the
articulation of discrepancies between inner reality and outer
appearance, between the psychological and physiological, between
process and outcome (Loevinger 1976, p.23).
At the Autonomous stage the individual can now cope with
this inner conflict, they can accept the inherent contradictions
in life and just get on with things. What were seen as
‘opposites’ at the earlier stages is now recognised as
complexity. Conceptual complexity and an increased acceptance to
ambiguity are now displayed and not all problems are seen as
solvable. The dualistic constructions of formal operative
thought are now weaker. Social ideals now include abstract
concepts such as justice and equality. Autonomy in the self and
other individuals is recognised, as is the often excessive
striving and ambition of the Conscientious stage.
Loevinger hypothesised that there was another stage,
Integrated which transcends conflicts and reconciles
polarities. This stage was, however, very hard to find and even
harder to study. She said that ‘the psychologist trying to study
this stage must acknowledge his own limitations as a potential
hinderance to comprehension. The higher the stage studied, the
more it is likely to exceed his own and thus stretch his
capacity’ (Loevinger 1976, p.26). A clear annunciation of the
Adaequatio problem. As a result she tended to refer to this
stage less and less over time and her most recent work stops
measuring development beyond the Autonomous stage.
It would appear that rather than six (or seven) stages of ego
development that an individual progresses smoothly through, what
happens is that there are two points where something
transformational occurs. The development from Self-Protective
to Conformist/Conscientious seems to bethe point at
which the ‘correct’ thinking adult emerges who can employ
Piaget’s formal operational thinking to find congruence in the
world. Research shows that the bulk of America (and probably
most of Western society) are at this stage. It then appears that
another ‘leap’ occurs when the individual sees the world less in
terms of categories and dualities, and more in terms of
complexity,
paradox and ambiguity. These later stages,
Individualistic/Autonomous/Integrated, are beyond the
average stage of individual development.
It cannot be proved, because it was not tested for, but there
would seem to be a strong case to argue that an individual at
one of those last two stages (Autonomous/Integrated)
would not be as susceptible to the ‘moral impediments’
identified by the Global Lookout Panel. We could go further and
say that the Global Lookout Panel was not obviously operating at
that stage when it examined these ‘moral impediments’ as its
language and findings would appear to indicate. It should be
acknowledged that the second point might have been a deliberate
strategy to report their findings in a manner that the bulk of
its audience (Conformist/Conscientious) would find
congruence with. Using adaequatio ‘in reverse’, so to speak. It
should, however, be clear that a decision-maker who was
operating from the Conformist/Conscientious stage would
be subject to most of those ‘moral impediments’ if they faced
matters raised by foresight research which required them to
recognise and accept complexity, paradox and ambiguity rather
than just solve a problem.
3 Where to from here?
The Millennium Project had the following to say:
Futures
research is the systemic study of possible future conditions.
Its purpose is not to know the future but to help us make better
decisions today via its methods which force us to anticipate
opportunities and threats and consider how to address them.
Foresighting activities cause impacts to organisations (or
society) in a variety of ways most of which are extremely hard
to measure. As a result, foresighting organisations tend to rely
on high-level buy-in and public legitimisation as signs of their
effectiveness.(Project 2002, viewed on 18 September 2002, p.1)
There is a paradox inherent in that statement.
If a researcher was to try and consider possible future
conditions based upon an understanding of the world that it was
made up of static categories and dualistic notions of reality
then what value would that research have? Would it force
decision makers to anticipate threats and opportunities? Would
it obtain high-level buy in and public legitimisation? The
surprise answer would to be to say that it might. It would not
be the clarity and insight of the research that would carry the
day; research undertaken from such a standpoint could probably
be regarded as specious. No, what would carry the day would be
the strong likelihood that such research would accord with
the viewpoint of the decision-maker. Few moral impediments
would be detected and the thus the likelihood that the research
would be acted upon is high.
What, then, of the research of possible future conditions based
upon an understanding of the world that it was a realm of
complexity, abstraction, contradiction and paradox; a place
where the observer had to accommodate or integrate these
apparent conflicts rather than to try and ‘solve’ them. How
would it be received? Would it get buy in? The answer is
probably not, unless the decisionmaker was able to comprehend
the viewpoint. A decision-maker at the
Conformist/Conscientious stage of development would be very
likely paralysed by the moral and ethical minefield that the
research presented. ‘Where is the right decision to be found
when all I can see are conflicting issues that seem to be odds
with each other’?
Does such a paradox mean that only conceptually simple futures
research can avoid the ‘moral impediment’ trap? Is that the way
that futures research has to go to be acted upon? The answer to
those questions must be no. Loevinger’s research into ego
development did not uncover a simple step-by-step process.
Instead what emerged was a ‘complexly interwoven fabric of
impulse control, character, interpersonal relations, conscious
preoccupations and cognitive complexity’ (Loevinger 1976, p.26).
Development does not occur in a straight line but seems to be
triggered by individuals encountering disequilibrium points at
various points in their life, points where what used to work no
longer does. What happens when these disequilibrium points are
encountered is that the conception of self is impelled to find a
new point of equilibrium, the self develops. Remove the
disequilibrium and the energy to develop is also removed.
The consideration of possible future conditions is, of itself, a
point of disequilibrium for the researcher first and the
decision-maker second. Adaequatio impels the researcher to
develop higher levels of understanding of what is to be
understood. Ego development is but one of the possible measures
of that developmental process. Disequilibrium, in the
self-sense, creates greater capacity for abstraction, complexity
and paradox in the individual. As the researcher develops then
the output of that individual becomes the disequilibrium point
for the decision-maker. What the Global Lookout Panel
highlighted were the disequilibrium points for their
decision-makers. What they called ‘moral impediments’ were
issues that those at the Conformist/Conscientious stage
saw as barriers to action. Decision-makers at later
developmental stages would not see those same issues as
‘either/or’ problems but rather ‘both/and’ aspects of complexity
that require acceptance and integration into decision-making.
The path of development for the decision-makers at the
Conformist/Conscientious stage was through those issues and
not around them. They were the rungs that had to be grasped
before the ladder could be climbed to a higher, broader and more
expansive worldview.
4 The Way forward for
Foresight
Futures research is a knowledge discovery process. Figure 1 is a
simple representation of how futures research could contribute
to that knowledge discovery process (Voros 2002, ). At a
particular stage of development an individual can be said to
have a current ‘domain’ of knowledge. This means that in terms
of their current stage of psychological development this domain
is the sum total of all that they could possibly know (shown as
the horizontal area marked A). Within this current domain of
knowledge there is then an area (marked as B) which is that part
of the domain that they are actually aware of. Further, at the
edges of this area of actual knowledge is further knowledge, of
which the individual is currently unaware, into which area
actual knowledge could expand (marked as C). Finally there is
the possibility that the individual’s psychological development
will transform to a new worldview. If that occurs then an
expanded domain of knowledge will be available (Marked as A’).
This domain would build on the earlier domain but also transcend
it.
The arrows in figure 1 indicate three possible roles that
futures research could fulfill. Futures research could operate
to ‘confirm’ the knowledge that the individual is
currently aware of (shown by the circular arrow in area B).
Futures research could also ‘expand’ the area of
knowledge that the individual is currently aware of working at
the edge of current knowledge (shown by the arrows moving into
area C). Finally futures research could provide some of the
energy and impetus for the individual transforming to a
higher domain of knowledge - a movement towards adaequatio
(shown by the arrow going to A’). In my view, the interest of
futures research must be towards the second and third roles
described above (i.e. expansion and transformation) and not the
first one (i.e. confirmation).
Futures researchers must be aware which role their work is
serving. While I have expressed a view that the interest of
futures research would not be in the role of confirmation
that does not mean that such a request would not occur. If asked
to undertake this, the research would be presented within the
decision-makers current worldview and the acknowledged
view of what is knowledge. There would be no moral impediments
arising here. If in the second role, expansion, the
researcher would ostensibly doing more of the same,
however methodology, data and presentation could all be altered
to bring the ‘expanded’ area of knowledge into view. The
‘openness’ of the decision-maker to such an expansion of the
boundaries of knowledge will largely dictate how far the edges
can be moved. Discontinuities could occur but the futures
researcher should be able to be surmount them if communication
is careful and thoughtful. If the researcher is undertaking the
third role, however, then the discontinuities will be great and
the obstacles to transformation many. This role means a change
in the consciousness of first the researcher and then the
decision-maker. It may be that this role cannot be undertaken
unless their is potential for such a transformation within the
individual(s) with the power to act. This is where the
leadership of the decision-makers become critical.
The duty of the leader/decision-maker must be to create an
environment that is propitious for the expansion of knowledge
within current worldviews and also one with the potential of
transformation to higher stages. Those stages encompass an
expanded knowledge domain and processing efficiency of the human
mind is increased at those stages. This means, of course, that
the leader/decision-maker must consider the development of their
own consciousness and that of their staff. Without potential
then expansion will be difficult and transformation improbable.
The leader/decision-maker must encourage futures research that
pushes the edge of current knowledge and that creates the
impetus for transformation. Research that throws up ‘moral
impediments’ to action has the potential to do both these
things. The role of the leader/decision-maker is to move towards
these dilemmas and not away from them. From the challenge of
trying to wrestle with these ‘moral impediments’ will come the
rewards of future domains of knowledge. Domains that would
otherwise remain out of reach if the challenge is declined.
Ultimately, the resolution to the moral impediments to foresight
action lie within each individual.
References
Glenn, J. C., Gordon, T. J. & Dator, J. (2001), ‘Closing the
deal: how to make organizations act on futures research’,
Foresight 03 (03), 177–189.
Loevinger, J. (1976), Ego Development, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, USA.
Loevinger, J. (1987), Paradigms of Personality, W.H.
Freeman and Company, New York, USA.
Millennium Project (2002)), ‘Applications of futures research’,
viewed on 18 September 2002,
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/4787/millennium/applic.html.
Sternberg, R. (1990), Wisdom Its nature, origins and
development, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, USA.
Voros, J. (2002), Based upon a conversation with Dr. Joseph
Voros, Australian Foresight Institute, Swinburne University.
Wilber, K. (2000), Integral Psychology, Shambhala,
Boston, USA.
