Implication of two new paradigms for futures studies

The paper considers the emergence of two recent perspectives in futures work. One is evolutionary futures studies. The other is critical futures studies. After describing aspects of each, the paper considers them as alternative rival paradigms in relation to criteria that include: the role of the human being as a subject, the role of interpretation and differences in methodological premises. It concludes that both have contributed to the development of futures methods but that a number of theoretical and methodological problems still remain unsolved.

Theory and practice in the field of foresight

Purpose – The paper aims to explore the gap between theory and practice in foresight and to give some suggestions on how to reduce it. Design/methodology/approach – Analysis of practical foresight activities and suggestions are based on a literature review, the author's own research and practice in the field of foresight and futures studies, and her participation in the work of a European project (COST A22). Findings – Two different types of practical foresight activities have developed. One of them, the practice of foresight of critical futures studies (FCFS) is an application of a theory of futures studies. The other, termed here as praxis foresight (PF), has no theoretical basis and responds directly to practical needs. At present a gap can be perceived between theory and practice. PF distinguishes itself from the practice and theory of FCFS and narrows the construction space of futures. Neither FCFS nor PF deals with content issues of the outer world. Reducing the gap depends on renewal of joint discourses and research about experience of different practical foresight activities and manageability of complex dynamics in foresight. Production and feedback of self-reflective and reflective foresight knowledge could improve theory and practice. Originality/value – Contemporary practical foresight activities are analysed and suggestions to reduce the gap are developed in the context of the linkage between theory and practice. This paper is thought provoking for futurists, foresight managers and university researchers.

Minsk and Budapest, the two capital cities. Selected studies of post-socialist urban geography and ecological problems of urban areas

The official cooperation between the Hungarian and the Belarusian geography began to be outlined in a sunny afternoon of June 2010 in the Minsk building of the Geographic Faculty of the Belarusian State University, four years ago. Then we reviewed the potential frames of cooperation with Professor Ekaterina Antipova. It was supported by the academican Károly Kocsis, member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, director of the Geographical Research Institute, and we could also win the support of the dean Ivan Pirozhnik and the academician Vladimir Loginov from the Belarusian State University and the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, respectively. This informal cooperation became official in the autumn of 2010 in the frame of the Academic Mobility Agreement Project between the Hungarian and the Belarusian academies of sciences. Since then several publications have appeared about Hungary and Belarus in the geographic journals of both countries, however, this is the first, long awaited, significant common publication. Besides the project-based co-operations like e. g. the EastMig (www.eastmig.mtafki.hu) and the ReSEP-CEE (www.mtafki.hu/ReSEP_CEE_Be.html) supported by the Visegrad Fund, a vivid student exchange program was also launched from the autumn of 2010 between the Geographic Research Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and the Geographic Faculty of the Belarusian State University with the scholarship program of the Visegrad Fund. Later the Department of Economic Geography of the Corvinus University of Budapest, headed by István Tózsa became also an active partner of the cooperation. The publishing expenses of this book are also fully financed by the Department of Economic Geography.