Ideas generated with Mika-Petri Laakkonen – a forthcoming paper.

1. Introduction

Time and temporality lie at the heart of futures research. Foundational works in the field have called for a closer examination of the role of time in human lives and future-making processes. However, discussions about time in futures research have been sporadic and often treat time as an abstract phenomenon. Most analysis focus on how time and temporality shape the timescales studied, with little attention given to how futures research itself relates to time. In this post, we argue that futures research should (i) pay more attention to how the people and systems it studies are related to time in various ways, i.e., have differing time demands, time measurements, utilization of time, timing of events, and so on, and (ii) how the field itself has different relations to time with respect to the elements mentioned in (i).

Key works in the field have challenged time notions that define Western modernity and, thereby, also futures research. In this post, we take a somewhat different approach. Our argument is that, given that phenomena related to time and temporality can be reconsidered even within the confines of a paradigmatic context of Western modernity such as train traffic, one can only imagine how much work there is to be done on time and temporality in more unfamiliar contexts.

We systematize the discussion about time by introducing the notion of “time-need.” This notion captures how different actors, systems, and other elements connect to the inherent temporal requirements of human life. It encompasses several dimensions, such as differing time demands, time measurements, utilization of time, timing of events, control over other actors’ conceptions of time, and managing time experience and its effects on behavior. Note that time-need refers not only to varying time requirements for different activities. Rather, the notion refers to all those aspects of human lives that are related to how time is used, understood, and controlled. Moreover, different people and systems have different time-needs, and these interact with each other. Some of the most interesting interactions stem from colliding time-needs and the discoordination that such collisions create in human lives.

2. Problematizing Time in Futures Research

Time is a fundamental issue in futures research. The future is temporally defined, and its creation is a temporal process. Bell (2009) even asserts that a linear and unidirectional time conception defines futures research and links it to the promise of future novelties. These novelties and their accumulation cannot be made sense of without a linear and unidirectional conception of time. Because the passage of time creates novelties and because these novelties create characteristic challenges for futures research, the passage of time and temporality need to be understood and managed conceptually. Bell discusses the meanings of time and argues that “understanding the measurement and meaning of time is absolutely basic to futures thinking” (2009, 162).

This perspective is not unique in the field. Many authors have scrutinized time and temporality, often centering discussions on temporal scales in futures research and motivations behind them, such as scientific, practical, and political motivations (e.g., Brier 2005; Nordlund 2012). Moreover, Bauer argues that “with the limitation of the future time that is considered, authority and control over the ‘content’ of the future is exerted, i.e. possibilities for particular images of the future and related courses of action are opened up and closed down” (2018, 43). The focus on timescales as a source of identity, challenges, and power in futures research has been discussed.

However, the most critical tones suggest the field should question notions of time, not just approved temporal scales. Inayatullah argues that “an ideal theory of the future must be able to problematize time and to negotiate the many meanings of time” (1993, 235). Inayatullah also argues that a critical perspective on time can make the past, and the uses of the past, problematic (1993; 1998). Milojevic argues that time should be re-invented, suggesting that “clock time was at one time ‘invented’ to respond to the needs and desires of a particular society/culture/civilisation/gender” (2008, 333).

There seems to be something missing in between these analyses. They either focus on inherent linear timescales in futures research or challenge temporal orientations in Western societies in total. In contrast, we argue that there is a need for a more detailed analysis of time that focuses on many aspects of time and temporality that ground and affect human and non-human activities and their interactions.

3. The Notion of Time-Need

In this section, we describe the notion of “time-need.” Time-need is a new notion that explicates how needs, goals, beliefs, and values influence people’s engagement with time. In other words, the notion captures the connections between actions and time: We need time; we need to measure time; we need to represent time; we need to cognitively and technologically process time; we need to time actions and events; we need to control time; we need to experience time. By examining various aspects of the notion of time-need, we can gain a deeper understanding of our relationship with time in diverse contexts.

The notion of time-need captures the following phenomena:

How much time is needed in a process. The first aspect relates to the duration required for processes. Different tasks and activities take varied lengths of time to complete. Effective action and goal achievement depend on understanding this temporal necessity. Aspects like personal preferences, resources, technology, and societal expectations shape this component of time-need and influence how human and non-human systems manage schedules and priorities.

Measurements of time. The second aspect of time-need relates to time measurement and its importance for actions. Timekeeping is a central element in human activities and technological processes. However, the precision – and the meaning of ‘precision’ – of time measurement is context-specific and can vary depending on the task at hand. Time-need emphasizes the importance of access to appropriate time-measuring tools and systems. Still, in reality, actions are coordinated using suboptimal time measurement methods due to resource and tool limitations.

Representations of time. Representations of time are crucial for complex activities and coordination. Units, visualizations, and cognitive processes shape how we perceive and utilize time. Various actors and systems employ different methods to represent time. The representations of time help human and non-human systems conceptualize temporal relationships and coordinate activities. Moreover, technological devices’ time representations impact system functionality and human/non-human interaction.

Measurement and representation of time in decision-making, planning, and system operations. Time measurements and representations, once in place, play a crucial role in various operations and inferences. Their application depends on the specific context and purpose they serve. Incorporating time measurements and representations is important for decision-making, scheduling, and planning processes across industries, institutions, and technological systems. For example, accurate temporal information is needed for making reliable predictions, conducting analysis, and executing tasks. Moreover, where and why the representations and measurements are planned to be used affects how the measurements and representations are conducted and built. Measurements, representations, and their intended uses are triangulated in different activities.

Coordinating timed actions, events, and processes. Timing actions, events, and processes at appropriate moments is important. Coordination and goal achievement in both human and non-human systems rely on the ability to time actions and events accurately. Developing timing skills and mechanisms has a profound impact on how activities are conducted. However, the ability to time actions and events is contingent upon the measurement, representation, and processing of time. Coarse-grained measurements or vague representations make accurate timing more challenging. Yet, context plays a significant role in determining the required level of precision for timing events and actions and, for example, punctuality is not equally important in every context.

Controlling time management and representations in human and non-human actors. Another aspect of time-need involves the attempts to control or influence how other actors use, represent, and process time. This can manifest in various ways, for example as setting deadlines, negotiating schedules, and establishing shared timelines. Controlling others’ use of time is needed for coordination, resource management, and shared goal achievement. Communication, negotiation, and synchronization are needed when activities are related to complex structures of time. However, it is necessary to acknowledge the controversial side of time control, as it can be linked to power and potentially coercive actions. Controlling others’ scheduling, thinking, and time measurements can be used to exert control without a shared goal in mind. It can be coercive.

In general, power and time-needs are intimately connected. The ability to measure, represent, and allocate time effectively can significantly impact an individual, group, or system’s role and status in relation to others. Those with power often have control over time-related aspects of actions. Conversely, those who control time, its representations, and measurements often have power in other domains as well. Time-need incorporates various temporal dynamics such as allocation, measurement, representation, and coordination, all of which contribute to power relations. This interconnectedness of time and power underlines the importance of conceptually recognizing and managing issues related to time if our reflections on time are to stand on ethically sustainable grounds.

The subjective experience of time and its impact. Finally, time-need addresses the subjective experience of time in human contexts. Experiences are influenced by factors such as representations of time, expectations, context, and emotions. In both social and personal settings, our perception of time may vary, impacting our ability to manage time effectively. Time-need emphasizes the importance of recognizing these subjective experiences.

To sum up, time-need provides a framework for understanding time in various contexts, encompassing human and non-human systems. It captures our desire to comprehend, manage, and use time as a fundamental resource. Time-need captures the complexities of time and temporality, recognizing that time is not merely a backdrop but a product of activities and actions. It highlights the interplay between time, human activities, power dynamics, and the temporal nature of human experience. As actors move in-between different contexts, their temporal orientations and relationships to structures change, and this can be categorized by different aspects of time-need.

Time-need also acknowledges the presence of multiple temporalities in human practices which often overlap, intersect, and sometimes clash, and, therefore, require management and synchronization. These temporalities actively contribute to the production and application of knowledge. The allocation and control of time can be seen as a form of power, where dominant actors influence the temporal rhythms of others, impacting knowledge creation and sharing. Understanding time-need in its plurality deepens our understanding of the interplay between time, knowledge, and power.

In general, power and time-needs are intimately connected. The ability to measure, represent, and allocate time effectively can significantly impact an individual, group, or system’s role and status in relation to others. Those with power often have control over time-related aspects of actions. Conversely, those who control time, its representations, and measurements often have power in other domains as well. Time-need incorporates various temporal dynamics such as allocation, measurement, representation, and coordination, all of which contribute to power relations. This interconnectedness of time and power underlines the importance of recognizing and addressing temporal complexities in human and systemic interactions.

To sum up, time-need provides a framework for understanding time in various contexts, encompassing human and non-human systems. It signifies our desire to comprehend, manage, and optimize time as a fundamental resource. Time-need captures the complexities of time and temporality, recognizing that time is not merely a backdrop but a product of activities and actions. It highlights the interplay between time, human activities, power dynamics, and the temporal nature of human experience.

4. Time-Need in Train Traffic Systems

The Finnish railway system provided as an example on how time, technology, and people work together in a large transportation network. The study looked at how the Finnish railway system deals with time by focusing on how different technologies handle and show time, and what this means for how the system runs and how users experience it. By analyzing the system’s operational dynamics, we can gain insights into the challenges of temporal coordination and the ways in which temporal structures shape social realities.

The Finnish railway system operates across several distinct temporal dimensions. “Absolute time” refers to the objective, clock-based schedule that governs train operations. “Descriptive time” encompasses the way in which timetables and information systems represent the complex realities of the system in a simplified, linear form for users. “Relative time” captures the subjective, experiential time of passengers and staff, which can vary significantly from the official schedule.

These temporal dimensions do not always align perfectly. For example, the real-time precision of GPS tracking may not match the event-based timing of older mechanical signaling systems. Similarly, passengers’ perception of a delay can differ markedly from the dispatcher’s perspective within the broader operational context. Managing the interactions between these temporal dimensions is a critical challenge for the railway system. Timetables, control systems, maintenance schedules, and passenger information services must all be continually synchronized to ensure smooth operations. When this coordination is successful, the system achieves high levels of efficiency and reliability. However, even minor disruptions can propagate rapidly through the tightly coupled temporal structure and require quick adjustments and improvisation from staff.

The temporal complexities of the railway system also reflect and reinforce certain power dynamics and social structures. The authority to set schedules, define acceptable delays, and control the flow of information about disruptions is a form of temporal power. This power shapes the daily rhythms and experiences of passengers in significant ways.

All the insights above come into sharper focus when we consider the impact of an unexpected halt in a train’s movement. The descriptive time, representing the schedule or timetable, is disrupted. Passengers might perceive time as standing still as the progression of their journey, as dictated by the timetable, comes to a halt. This disruption in the scheduled flow of events leads to a contrast between the planned journey and the passengers’ experience. On the other hand, the relative time – the passenger’s personal perception of time – might convey a different experience. A passenger who is running late for a meeting might feel time is speeding up, even though the train is static. The physical reality of the situation contrasts with the passenger’s perceived reality and, thereby, adds to the complex layers of time management within the system. Meanwhile, absolute time – the chronological progression in the physical world – continues undisturbed and serves as a constant against the variable experiences and interpretations of time. This variability in the perception and experience of time highlights the need for an understanding of the multi-dimensionality of time.

As societies face increasing complexity and uncertainty, the lessons from the Finnish railway system’s temporal dynamics become increasingly relevant. The ability to effectively coordinate across multiple temporal realities is becoming a critical competency in many domains, from logistics to urban planning. However, this is not merely a technical challenge of optimization. It is a fundamentally human challenge of negotiating diverse experiences, expectations, and power relations around time. Creating resilient, adaptable systems requires grappling with the inevitable frictions and misalignments that arise when multiple temporal realities intersect.

Ultimately, the Finnish railway case highlights the profound ways in which collective temporal structures shape the fabric of social life. By developing a more nuanced understanding of these dynamics, we can work towards creating temporal architectures that better serve human needs and values.

5. The Time-Needs of Futures Research Itself

We wish to conclude this post by pressing that futures research as a field has its own time-needs. Let us explain.

In futures research, we often need a nuanced understanding of multiple temporalities and the ability to navigate them adequately. The discipline involves not just exploring the immediate and short-term future but also envisioning scenarios that span decades. It requires moving away from linearity and embracing the complexities and contingencies inherent in various temporal scales. Futures research needs to function effectively across different timescales. This requires reflection on how the timescales are related to other aspects of research.

Additionally, the tools and techniques used in futures research, such as scenario planning, trend extrapolation, and Delphi surveys, each have their own time-need. They require certain amounts of time and specific representations of time to work as intended. For example, scenario planning involves creating detailed and plausible views of how the future could unfold. This method typically operates on a longer timescale, often looking decades into the future. Scenario planning typically involves a significant amount of time to carry out as it requires extensive research, analysis, and sometimes stakeholder engagement (Schermack 2011).

Taking into account the time-need in futures research also highlights the importance of adequate time resources. Sufficient time allows for more thorough research, deeper reflection, and more comprehensive engagement with stakeholders. Yet, time constraints are often a challenge in futures research, with urgent demands for solutions or insights.

To sum up, our discussion points to the realization that futures research is deeply entwined with the dynamics of time. Its multiple time-needs shape the way it approaches the study of the future. Appreciating these time-needs can inform more sophisticated, context-sensitive approaches in futures research and enhance the quality of its contributions to society’s understanding of and preparedness for future scenarios.

6. Conclusion

In this post, we introduced the notion of “time-need” in futures research and suggest that the temporal dimensions of futures research deserve more nuanced understanding and application. By analyzing how different aspects of people’s relation to time can shape their interactions and negotiations of the future, the post suggests novel ways of engaging with temporality in futures research.

Bring back these insights onto the field of futures research itself, we recognized that the discipline operates with various time-needs. Each methodological approach in futures research carries with it a unique time-need and engagement with temporality. Recognizing these different aspects of time-need is important in order to generate more reflective approaches to futures research. The notion of time-need pushes the boundaries of how we understand and problematize time in futures research. It invites us to engage more deeply with the temporal dynamics that shape our anticipations of, and engagements with, the future. Understanding, acknowledging, and managing our time-needs can open up novel avenues to understand possible and desirable futures.

References

Adam, B. (1990). Time and Social Theory. Polity Press.

Anttila, T., & Oinas, T. (2018). 24/7 society: The new timing of work? In M. Tammelin (Ed.), Family, Work and Well-Being: Emergence of New Issues (pp. 63-76). Springer International Publishing.

Bauer, A. (2018). When is the future? Temporal ordering in anticipatory policy advice. Futures, 101, 36-45.

Bell, W. (2009 [1997]). Foundations of Futures Studies Volume 1. Transaction Publishers. (Fifth edition).

Brier, D. (2005). Marking the future: A review of time horizons. Futures, 37(8), 833-848.

Bussey, M. (2017). Time’s Calling: Time, Timing, and Transformation in Futures Work. World Futures Review, 9(4), 329-345.

Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998 ). What Is Agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962-1023.

Freeman, Elizabeth (2022) Time and social justice. Time and Society 31 (3).

Hassan, Robert (2003) Network Time and the New Knowledge Epoch. Time and Society 12 (2-3).

Inayatullah, S. (1993). From ‘who am I?’ to ‘when am I?’: Framing the shape and time of the future. Futures, 25(3), 235-253.

Inayatullah, S. (1998). Causal layered analysis. Poststructuralism as method. Futures, 30(8), 815-829.

Inayatullah, S. (2008). Six pillars: Futures thinking for transforming. Foresight, 10(1), 4-21.

Latour, B. (2005). Trains of thought: The fifth dimension of time and its fabrication. In A. N. Perret-Clermont (Ed.), Thinking Time: A Multidisciplinary Perspective on Time (pp. 173-187). Hogrefe & Huber.

Luhmann, N. (1976). The Future Cannot Begin: Temporal Structures in Modern Society. Social Research, 43(1), 130-152.

Milojević, I. (2008). Timing feminism, feminising time. Futures, 40(4), 329-345.

Nordlund, G. (2012). Time-scales in futures research and forecasting. Futures, 44(4), 408-414.

Nowotny, Helga (1994). Time: the modern and postmodern experience. Cambridge: Polity Press.

O’Mahony, T., Luukkanen, J., Vehmas, J., & Kaivo-oja, J. R. L. (2023). Time to build a new practice of foresight for national economies? Ireland and uncertain futures in forecasts and scenarios. Foresight. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-02-2023-0030

Schermack, T. J. (2011). Scenario planning in organizations: How to create, use, and assess scenarios. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Slaughter, R. (2004). Futures beyond dystopia: Creating social foresight. London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Valkenburg, G. (2023). Temporality in epistemic justice. Time & Society, 31(3), 597-616.

Zerubavel, Eviatar (1981). Hidden Rhythms: Schedules and Calendars in Social Life. University of Chicago Press.