Transforming foresight practices, transforming collective systems
published on
04/03/2025
In the field of animal health and welfare, it may initially seem odd to include outcomes of foresight exercises to influence policies or strategies, especially when current policies are based on scientific evidence and draw from forecasting and disease modelling. However, in the face of complex and systemic health issues, scientific evidence alone may not be enough to galvanise action. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, the use of futures methods and strategic foresight has gained new momentum in governments and organisations across sectors worldwide, including the health sector [1]. The so-called ‘poly-crisis’, or VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous) state of the world, has made the interdependent, intertwining nature of the challenges we must deal with even more evident. The animal health and welfare sector is likely to be directly or indirectly impacted by the ripple effects of climate change, deforestation, land-use regulations, technological advancements, misinformation, emerging diseases and the rollback of human rights, to name a few. Therefore, there is a growing consensus that exclusively relying on present-moment data and short-term strategies will not be enough to ensure institutions’ survival, adaptability and thriving. Indeed, the material and immaterial costs associated with being unprepared to respond rapidly and efficiently to emerging situations are far too great.
Futures thinking and strategic foresight offer a means to advance situational awareness of emerging changes, opportunities or disruptions, both within and outside the animal health and welfare sectors. This process involves exploring the implications of these emerging issues, projecting a diverse array of future scenarios, and stress-testing both existing and new strategies to better prepare for emerging conditions, as well as to nurture conditions for a preferred future [2]. In addition, a recent scoping review in the human medical field concluded that futures thinking and strategic foresight could significantly benefit medical science, promoting interdisciplinary dialogue and influencing the emergence of more desirable futures [3].
The outcomes of a given foresight project, however, will depend heavily on how the process is conducted and on the intention behind it. Futures and foresight processes have been strongly critiqued by feminist futurists, academics and activists who claim that the practice often reproduces capitalist, colonial and patriarchal mentalities, leading institutions to perpetuate unequal and discriminatory pasts and presents – rather than actively contributing to a better and fairer future for all [4]. It is not uncommon to identify in foresight practitioners and those hiring them a certain mindset of using foresight to ‘win’ a race towards the future, to get there before their competitors and earn more money, to colonise a certain version of the future and sell it to or impose it on others. The same logic of war games – one that lies at the origin of strategic foresight – still prevails in many foresight practices around the world [5]. Many public and private institutions often (intentionally or unintentionally) use foresight to operate in a fear-based and individualistic paradigm that prioritises progress and success at the cost of the oppression, exclusion and collapse of others. Instead, there is a need for foresight to radically imagine and advocate for other ways of reaching collective happiness, prosperity and well-being, in harmony with the natural world.
That is not to say that foresight should necessarily focus more on reaching utopian futures – places of ‘ideal perfection’ – since viewing these scenarios as inherently unachievable will not do much to help us create a different reality [6]. However, foresight practices should strive for a more transformative approach: one in which preferred versions of the future entail a deep transformation of the systems, policies and practices in place, and enacted for the good of all living beings and our natural ecosystems [7]. Why has this not been achieved so far? It can be argued that foresight approaches still lack the following: (i) diversity amongst its practitioners and participants; (ii) the application of an intersectional lens; and (iii) a feminist decolonial approach to achieving desirable futures. Let’s unpack each of these gaps and reflect on what can be done to address them.
The animal health and welfare sector is likely to be directly or indirectly impacted by the ripple effects of climate change, deforestation, land-use regulations, technological advancements, misinformation, emerging diseases and the rollback of human rights.
Although Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion practices have recently been rolled back by many companies worldwide, increasing the diversity of participants in any endeavour is a proven and effective strategy for covering knowledge gaps, widening perspectives and generating true innovation [8,9]. For example, widening strategic foresight to include women based in low-income countries who care for livestock in rural areas would aid the animal health sector in identifying and anticipating potential risks of food insecurity, or of animal-borne pathogens that would otherwise not be mapped by a group exclusively comprised of men (who own the livestock but do not have care responsibilities) [10]. Yet, foresight is still very much a Global-North-male-dominated field, and when intentional efforts are not made to address these inequities, the majority of experts invited to participate in foresight exercises end up representing the dominant demographic group. As a result, unconscious biases tend to remain unidentified or insufficiently challenged, generating limited perspectives of potential futures. To increase diversity, it is crucial to first question how – not whether – the unconscious biases of clients and foresight practitioners are reducing the diversity of experts and participants involved in the exercise. Sometimes, simply defining what an ‘expert’ is, and what kind of expertise is needed and recognised as such, can be enough to widen the possibilities for who gets to be in the room.
Next, it is important to identify the barriers that hinder the participation of women, youth, BIPOC* and LGBTQIA+** communities, people with disabilities, migrants and refugees, and those living in Global Majority countries or rural areas. Barriers can, for example, be related to difficulties in accessing the physical or digital space where a group will gather. Once barriers are identified, it is possible to brainstorm solutions for how financial challenges, mobility restrictions, safety concerns, digital divides, time scarcity, competing responsibilities or language barriers, for example, can be managed to ensure greater diversity. It is also important to consider the visible and invisible power dynamics in the room, the use of academic and complex jargon in foresight exercises, and the adoption of certain attitudes and body language that can be interpreted as intimidating for those less accustomed to them. The creation of a safe, non-hierarchical and approachable space is key for encouraging true engagement and meaningful participation among all invitees. Finally, it is necessary to question the effectiveness of methods being used by the group and investigate whether different or complementary methods might make the foresight process easier and more accessible for all involved. This may sound like an extra burden, but it is worth noting that foresight practitioners do not need to determine all the answers and solutions on their own to increase diversity and inclusion. If they are committed to these goals, solutions can be built together with those they strive to involve [11].
© Getty Images- Charday Penn
Once the group is sufficiently diverse and effectively included, the second step becomes much easier to execute: applying an intersectional lens to horizon scanning, scenario planning and backcasting. This is the case because people often bring not only their intellectual knowledge to the table, but also their bodily and identity-based experiences. What is sometimes lacking in less diverse foresight processes is a nuanced analysis of how groups of people are differently, disproportionately and specifically impacted by signals of change and potential scenarios due to their gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, age, socioeconomic and migration statuses, geography, religion, formal education level, etc. The more these differences and specificities are identified and considered, the richer and more comprehensive the foresight process becomes, and the stronger, more conscious and more accountable the action plan deriving from the foresight process will be [12]. For instance, in a strategic foresight exercise, working with animal health professionals who are women or belong to historically marginalised groups allows for the early identification of specific or disproportionate risks these professionals might face in their practice, and of effective mitigation strategies; this in turn prevents negative impacts on workers and reduces workforce dropout rates. It also enables innovation in favour of more gender-responsive and culturally sensitive policies and interventions for animal health emergencies [13].
Finally, as organisations commission and engage in a foresight process, they must be aware that this is not only a matter of preparing for the future, as if the future was something that would impose itself on them. An important aspect of the foresight process is to define what an organisation’s preferred – or even better, desirable – future looks like. Even more importantly, it is crucial to imagine how this future would potentially impact the collective future, and what can be done to keep working towards mutually beneficial outcomes – despite external challenges that in many cases cannot be avoided.
To deliberately apply a feminist decolonial approach to the design of desirable futures and action plans means to question how their efforts can internally and externally challenge the oppressive, exclusionary and exploitative dimensions of the status quo, and in turn imagine better systems for all [14]. Imagine what the future would look like if the animal health and welfare sector could leverage the visions, traditional and ancestral knowledge of women and Indigenous groups around caring for animals, while investing in clean technological advancements that centre human and animal well-being. This would potentially include different paradigms that focus more on the interconnectedness between all species, and prioritise care and dignity rather than a solely economic approach. Imagine a future where animal health organisations intentionally embrace diverse and intersectional leadership to continue innovating and nurturing collective intelligence. Such an approach would likely result in policies and practices that would better anticipate and address animal health challenges and promote better working conditions for the whole sector.
Overall, by being exposed to and actively engaging in foresight methods with an inclusive, intersectional and feminist decolonial lens, a transformative futures-thinking mindset is formed. This mindset is anticipatory in nature, allowing for the identification of emerging risks and opportunities for improving animal health and the well-being of professionals over numerous future scenarios. It also enables the early identification and catalysing of resources and expertise to transform the realities we wish to see emerging in the animal health field – and beyond.
*BIPOC: Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour.
**LGBTQIA+: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, and other identities not encompassed by the acronym.
References
[1] Moye-Holz D, Mutubuki EN, de Vries M, Hilderink H. Foresight for policy making to be better prepared for the future. Eur. J. Public Health. 2023;33(2):ckad160.236. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckad160.236
[2] Schwarz JO. Strategic foresight: an introductory guide to practice. 1st ed. London (United Kingdom): Routledge; 2023. 180 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003302735
[3] Meskó B, Kristóf T, Dhunnoo P, Árvai N, Katonai G. Exploring the need for medical futures studies: insights from a scoping review of health care foresight. J. Med. Internet Res. 2024;26:e57148. https://doi.org/10.2196/57148
[4] Gunnarsson-Östling U. Gender in futures: a study of gender and feminist papers published in Futures, 1969–2009. Futures. 2011;43(9):1029-1039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2011.07.002
[5] Dreyer I, Stang G, Richard C. EUISS Yearbook of European Security 2013. Paris (France): European Union Institute for Security Studies; 2013. Foresight in governments – practices and trends around the world; p. 7-32. https://doi.org/10.2815/32777
[6] Bielskyte M. Protopia futures [framework]. California (United States of America): Medium; 2021. Available at: https://medium.com/protopia-futures/protopia-futures-framework-f3c2a5d09a1e (accessed on 26 February 2025).
[7] Sweeney JA. Aperture: an approach for transformative futures & foresight (part one). California (United States of America): Medium; 2023. Available at: https://medium.com/@aloha_futures/aperture-an-approach-for-transformative-futures-foresight-part-one-of-6508958cf938 (accessed on 26 February 2025).
[8] Horton International. The rise and fall of DEI: navigating the shifting landscape. Oxford (United Kingdom): Horton International; 2024. Available at: https://hortoninternational.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-dei-navigating-the-shifting-landscape (accessed on 6 March 2025).
[9] Murray C, Bohannon M. Victoria’s Secret tweaks DEI language to ‘inclusion and belonging’: here are all the companies rolling back DEI programs. Forbes; 2025. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/03/05/victorias-secret-tweaks-dei-language-to-inclusion-and-belonging-here-are-all-the-companies-rolling-back-dei-programs/ (accessed on 6 March 2025).
[10] Brand T, Fèvre S. Compass – special issue: women who future(s). Washington, D.C. (United States of America): Association of Professional Futurists; 2024. Imagining gender equal futures: using a preconditions and consequences mind map to explore policy measures intended to be gender inclusive; p. 50-6. Available at: https://www.apf.org/apf-resources/compass (accessed on 27 February 2025).
[11] Götzmann N, Wrzoncki E, Kristiansson L, Heydari E. Women in business and human rights – a mapping of topics for state attention in United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights implementation processes. Copenhagen (Denmark): The Danish Institute for Human Rights; 2018. Available at: https://www.humanrights.dk/files/media/document/women%20in%20business.pdf (accessed on 27 February 2025).
[12] European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). Fostering a gender and intersectional perspective in EU foresight. Vilnius (Lithuania) : EIGE ; 2024. Available at : https://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/fostering-a-gender-and-intersectional-perspective-in-eu-foresight_0.pdf (accessed on 27 February 2025).
[13] Donachie D, Gallardo Lagno A. Untitled. World Organisation for Animal Health; 2025. Available at: https://theanimalecho.woah.org/en/gender/ (in press).
[14] Feukeu KE. Handbook of Futures Studies 2024. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2024. A pluriversal definition of Futures Studies: critical futures studies from margin to centre; p. 80-97. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035301607.00013
Continue reading
Receive the latest updates from our Organisation, network, and partners.
This includes Members’ self-declarations, news articles, scientific insights, publications, and more.
