A Tribute to Futurist Richard Slaughter

The best tributes are those with the person being honored in a state of “alive and well.” Thankfully, that is the case here with futurist Richard Slaughter. The journal Futures organized a special issue to recognize his contributions to the field, and I was very pleased to be asked to contribute. Richard and I finished an extensive collaboration just last year on the Knowledge Base of Futures Studies 2020. And we have done many other collaborations over the last few decades. What is so interesting about our work together is how we come at the field from different ends of the spectrum – Richard is at  the theory end and I am at the practitioner end – yet we have found ways to continually meet in the middle. I think we’ve both been better off for it. I sure know that I have been!

Let me share a few highlights from piece and you can grab the full pre-publication version here:

Every field needs has its chroniclers, critics, innovators, and champions. It is unusual, however, for these roles being incorporated in one person. Richard Slaughter has played each of these roles for FS/Foresight. This piece focuses on his roles regarding methodology.

As a chronicler, Richard frequently asked the question about what we know as a field. Early in his career, he took up the important work of codifying the key ideas of futurists. In the pre-web world, the knowledge dispersed across individuals and institutions globally. It was no easy task to bring it together.

As a relatively young field, so many practitioners were immersed in the daily grind of fighting for respectability earning a living that they did not have the time or inclination to take a reflective on stance on what they are doing or where the field was going. Richard took up the task and periodically checks in and updates his reporting on the state of its development.

As a critic, he consistently raised questions about the overall purpose of foresight work. To what ends were the emerging methodologies aimed? When his chronicling found a gap, he highlighted it. And if work came up short, his critic streak pointed it out. This role is sometime uncomfortable and not one that people will flock too. It is difficult to publicly challenge the work of ones colleagues. But someone has to do it for a field to develop in a healthy fashion.

As an innovator, he is not content to merely observe and report when a gap or opportunity presented itself. If his critique is not enough to spur action, he took it upon himself to innovate. Richard did not stay above the fray in the critic’s chair, but entered the fray when needed. He made many significant contributions to the practice of foresight, highlighted by launching the critical and integral perspectives.

As a champion, he brought the roles together as a guide and mentor for so many practitioners – myself included. Not only his students, but students and practitioners across the globe benefited from his work. He has been a consistent advocate for futurist and for the field.

I look forward to our next collaboration! – Andy Hines