Prospective and Strategic Foresight Toolbox

Causal Layered Analysis

A Four-Level Approach to Alternative Futures
Causal Layered Analysis (abbreviated as CLA) is an approach and a technique used
in foresight to shape the future more effectively. CLA may be used when debating all types
of issues, collectively or individually. It works by identifying different levels of analysis to
create coherent new futures. The four levels are core to CLA: the litany, the social/systemic
causes, the discourse analysis that legitimizes and supports the worldview, and underpinning
that worldview, the myth/metaphor deeply linked to culture and long-term history.

APPLICATIONS SCOPE TECHNICAL

CLA approach can be used as: REQUIREMENTS
• a way to understand the inner world of current and future
It would be instructive to par-
meanings (point of view of different stakeholders);
ticipate in an exercise using
• a stand-alone methodology to help understand and gather the CLA approach before any
different perspectives on a topical issue; experimenting or facilitating.
• a part of a larger foresight process, especially to explore Mastering systemic analysis,
issues and scenarios. deconstructing representations,
Time frame: The CLA approach encompasses phenomena and and managing intercultural
their analyses at different times and depths according to the four issues form a useful skill set.
levels. The evolution of long-term paradigms is particularly well
integrated in this approach.
Domain: All domains. TIME FRAME
Number of participants: As a technique, CLA works especially When used for a complex issue
well in workshops or in groups of five to a few dozen participants. that involves several stake-
holders, the CLA approach can
be of a short term nature, that
is, a half or full day workshop.
RELEVANCE AND USE IN FORESIGHT CLA as a research tool, that is,
for doctoral work then requires
Now used around the world, CLA may be found detailed in weeks and months of analytic
several case studies as applied in international, thematic, and work.
industrial projects. CLA could be considered as a “third way”
between the North American and European approaches be-
cause of the emphasis placed on narrative/cultural aspects.
TOOL IMPLEMEN­
CLA’s five most common uses: 1) Mapping the present/future;
2) Critically unpacking an issue; 3) Creating a preferred future; TATION COSTS
4) Reconstruction from an alternative worldview; 5) Mapping In a day session, the cost of a
of multiple perspectives leading to a transformed future that facilitator and other normal
integrates difference. workshop costs.
For a broader engagement, that
is, from workshop to organiza-
BASIC CHECKLIST tional strategy then the costs of
other experts.
• The facilitator needs to have a theoretical and practical
understanding of CLA. For a research project, the
• Participants need to be in a double loop learning environment costs of interviewing stakehold-
where they are aware of their own worldviews and narratives. ers, that is, as part of a national
strategy the time required to
• A clear task or case study to which CLA can be applied, as CLA interview citizens, associations,
works best from a current problem that must be addressed. government, the private sector,
• Facilitator has the ability to move from problems to solutions. thought leaders and others.

APPROACHES SCOPING INFORMATION SURVEYS SCENARIO STRATEGY- INNOVATION- MEDIATION /

& CONCEPTS & FRAMING & DYNAMICS TECHNIQUES BUILDING FORESIGHT FORESIGHT COMMUNICATION
ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES LINK LINK TOOLS
 Prospective and Strategic Foresight Toolbox
April 2017

Causal Layered
Analysis
by Sohail Inayatullah*
*Currently the UNESCO Chair in Futures Studies at the Islamic Science University of
Malaysia (USIM), Sohail Inayatullah is a professor at Tamkang University (Taiwan) and
at the Melbourne Business School (Australia). He is also an adjunct professor at the
University of the Sunshine Coast (Australia) and a professorial fellow at the Centre for
Strategy and Policy Studies (Brunei Darussalam). Professor Inayatullah has worked
extensively with governments, international corporations, and non-governmental
organizations around the globe. A CLA pioneer, Sohail Inayatullah has written and
edited numerous books, special issues of journals, refereed journal articles, anthology
chapters, and editorial pieces. He is also the director of Metafuture.org,
an international futures think-tank.
He may be reached at [email protected]

futuribles
I N T E R N A T I O N A L

The Prospective and Strategic Foresight Toolbox is a Futuribles International and CAP Prospective project
Editorial assistance: Kathryn Radford
© Futuribles International - 47 rue de Babylone - 75007 Paris - France
www.futuribles.com
 Causal Layered Analysis

Abstract
Invented in the late 1980s, Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) is a research theory and method
that seeks to integrate empiricist, interpretive, critical, and action learning modes of research.
In this method, forecasts about the future, the meanings individuals give to these forecasts,
the critical assumptions used, as well as subsequent actions and interventions are all valued
and explored. This applies to both the external material world and inner psychological worlds.
As a method, CLA’s utility lies not so much in predicting the future as in creating transfor-
mative spaces for the analysis and the creation of alternative futures. CLA also proves useful
in developing policies and strategies that are more robust, efficient, and effective as well as
deeper, more long term and inclusive. Indeed, CLA has been used successfully with nation-
al governments, corporations, international think-tanks, communities, and cities around the
globe. It has also been used as the primary research method for dozens of graduate students
in over 20 universities worldwide.
CLA consists of four levels: the litany, social/systemic causes, discourse/worldview, and myth/
metaphor. The first level, or the litany, presents the official unquestioned future. The second
layer or level is the social, technological, economic, environmental and political causation lev-
el; i.e., the systemic perspective. The data of the litany is explained, questioned, mapped and
analyzed at this second level. The third level gives the discourse/worldview. Deeper, uncon-
sciously held ideological and discursive assumptions are unpacked plus the ways in which
different stakeholders construct the litany and system are explored at this level. The fourth
level provides the myth/metaphor which contains the unconscious emotive dimensions of the
issue.
The user’s challenge lies in conducting research and praxis up and down these layers of anal-
ysis to ensure that different ways of knowing are included. Different perspectives including
those of stakeholders, e.g., their ideologies and epistemes are brought into the third and fourth
levels, those of worldview and myth respectively. This allows for breadth. These different views
are then used to reconstruct the more visible levels, e.g., social policy and litany. As a result, in
the transformed future, the system that supports the new reality and the litanies that quanta-
tively measure it are also transformed.
CLA may also be applied to the inner world of meanings. How? CLA explores current stories
that we tell ourselves and seeks to create new narratives for individuals so that they may repre-
sent their desired futures more effectively.
Conceptual movement through depth and breadth allows for the creation of authentic alter-
native futures and integrated transformation. CLA thus begins and ends by questioning the
future in its effort to create alternative futures.
CLA may be used as a stand-alone methodology, e.g., to help understand a different perspec-
tive on a topical issue. If a client were preparing a foresight project on the futures of driverless
cars, to give a current example, CLA could help determine the interests of such varied groups
as citizens, unions, ministries of transport, ministries of health, police officers and insurers.
This method may also be used to ensure that the strategy is more likely to be carried out by
understanding the metaphors used by the various actors to make meaning. Stumbling blocks

Keywords
Critical theory  y Narrative y Layers y Epistemology y Worldview y Metaphor

© Futuribles International 3
Prospective and Strategic Foresight Toolbox  x  April 2017

can thus be avoided or eliminated. As a stand-alone method, CLA can be applied not only to
groups but to individuals, to the self. In fact, this CLA use ensures that the practitioner is re-
flective, aware of her or his bias.
CLA may also become part of a larger foresight process. For instance, in the Six Pillars model,1
CLA is used in the deepening process. Issues are identified then explored from multiple per-
spectives. A map of the current reality charted along four levels is then developed. A map of
the preferred or transformed future is also drafted. At this point, CLA may be applied to the
narrative of the stakeholders, so that they better understand their inner metaphors and strate-
gies. This application to narrative helps ensure that they are aligned in their thinking. After the
deepening process, CLA is used in the incasting scenario phase so that each scenario includes
not just drivers and weights of the past but the four layers/levels of analysis. Similarly, CLA
serves in the transforming phase in backcasting.2 It is important to keep in mind that not just
events are ‘remembered’ from the past, but also the shift in metaphors that helped create the
desired future.
In short, CLA is beneficial because it can do the following:
(1) Expand the range and richness of scenarios (the CLA categories can be used in the incasting
phase of scenario writing).
(2) Promote the inclusion of different ways of knowing and accompanying interests among the
participants when used in a workshop setting.
(3) Appeal to a wider range of individuals who can use it because the method incorporates
non-textual and poetic/artistic expression in the foresight process.
(4) Recognize and layer participants’ positions (conflicting and harmonious stances).
(5) Move the discussion beyond the superficial and obvious to the deeper and marginal.
(6) Allow for a range of transformative actions by various actors.
(7) Lead to policy actions that may be informed by alternative layers of analysis.
(8) Lead to sustainable policy actions; i.e., authentically solve problems instead of merely rein-
forcing current issues.
(9) Develop strategy that links the short-, medium- and long-term future.
(10) Reinstate the vertical in analysis; in other words, use different worldviews to understand
the future and still decide on a preferred future. n

1. This model has the following pillars: (1) Mapping the future using the method of the futures triangle; (2)
Anticipating the future using the methods of emerging issues analysis and the futures wheel; (3) Timing the future
using the method of the Polak and the Sarkar game; (4) Deepening the future using CLA; (5) Creating alternatives
using scenario planning; and (6) Transforming the future using the methods of visioning, backcasting, and the
transcend conflict resolution. For details, please see author’s article listed in the bibliography.
2. Backcasting is the process of working backwards from the definition of the possible future, in order to
determine what needs to happen to make this future unfold and connect to the present. Source: A Glossary of
Terms commonly used in Futures Studies, Forward Thinking Platform, September 2014. URL: http://www.fao.org/
docs/eims/upload//315972/FTP_Glossary%20flyer_vs03.pdf. Accessed May 4, 2017.

4 © Futuribles International
 Causal Layered Analysis

Description
Embedded in the discourse of futures studies, Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) draws largely
from poststructuralism, macrohistory, and postcolonial multicultural theory. It seeks to move
beyond the superficiality of conventional social science research and forecasting methods inso-
far as these are often unable to unpack discourses, worldviews and ideologies, not to mention
archetypes, myths, and metaphors. Most traditional methods forecast a future using the terms
of the present instead of reframing it through alternative worldviews and narratives.
CLA is less concerned with predicting a particular future than with opening up both present
and past to create alternative futures. CLA focuses less on the horizontal spatiality of futures
and more on the vertical dimension of futures studies, of layers of analysis. It opens space for
the articulation of constitutive discourses which can then be shaped as scenarios. In essence,
CLA integrates methodologies, seeking to combine differing research traditions.
As an integrated and layered approach, CLA is not based on the idiosyncratic notions of any
particular researcher. Nor is it a turn to the postmodern, in that all methods or approaches
are equally valid and valuable. Hierarchy is not lost and the vertical gaze remains. However,
CLA challenges notions of power and divorces hierarchy from its feudal/traditional modes. It
should be emphasized that this eclecticism is not merely a version of pragmatic empiricism;
i.e., “Do whatever works, just solve the problem”. Indeed, the way in which myth, worldview,
and social context combine to create particular litany problems remains foundational to CLA.

Scope of this Approach

CLA operates at a number of levels, delving deeper than the litany, the headline, or a data level
of reality to attain a systemic level in understanding the causes behind the litany. Below the
systemic, CLA plunges further, searching for worldviews or stakeholder views on specific is-
sues. Each subsequent level below reveals a deeper cause as the method unpacks the deepest
metaphor levels of reality.

Quality and safe-

ty issues in health FIGURE 1. CLA: THE ICEBERG IMAGE WITH LAYERS
care offer this so-
bering example. At
Litany: The official description of the problem. Externalized reality. Often
the litany level, the disconnected to other perspectives. Usually a repeated newspaper headline.
United States faces
a problem in that
more than 100,000 Systemic causes: Often short-term analysis, either single or multivariable.
deaths per year are Historical variables are explored. Policy reports.
related to medical
mistakes. If we look
Worldview/Discourse: Discerning deeper assumptions behind the problem.
no further into un- Important to understand the issues from multiple worldviews. Critical thinking.
­der­standing causa­
tion, the business-
as-usual strategy will Myth/Metaphor: Deep stories, unconscious dimension of the problem.
Inner transformation is required here. Solutions emerge from new narratives.
prevail. That usually
means focusing on
the individual by of- Source: author.
fering more training

© Futuribles International 5
Prospective and Strategic Foresight Toolbox  x  April 2017

for particular doctors. By delving deeper, however, we discover that safety issues lie not just
with particular doctors making errors, but rather with the medical and hospital system as a
whole. Long working hours, poorly designed hospitals with an aging population, and miscom-
munication among different parts of the health system top the list of key issues in this sector.
Below the systemic level lies the worldview, the deep structure of modern medicine. At this
layer, the reductionist scientific approach may be brilliant for certain types of problem solving
but proves less useful in connecting with patients and in seeing the whole picture. As a result,
patients opt for other systems which provide a deeper connection and more dialogue. They
intuitively move to the deepest level, that of myth and metaphor. These organizing metaphors
may be expressed in phrases like “The patient will see you now” or “I am an expert of my
body”. This last example challenges the modernist view that the doctor is always right.
CLA broadens our understanding of issues by creating deeper scenarios. We can explore deep
myths and new litanies based on the points of view of different stakeholders, e.g., nurses, other
caregivers, peer-to-peer health networks and future generations, to name a few, and then see
how they construct problems and solutions.
Lastly, CLA may be used in implementing new strategies that address issues. The layered anal-
ysis process prompts questions such as:
w Does the new strategy ensure systemic changes (incentives and fines)?
w Does it lead to worldview and/or cultural change?
w Is there a new metaphor, a narrative for the new strategy?
w Does the new vision have a new litany, a fresh way to ensure that the strategies reinforce the
new future and are not chained to the past?
CLA thus enriches everyone’s understanding of strategy while mapping reality from the van-
tage point of multiple stakeholders enables users to develop more robust scenarios. CLA thus
helps all those involved better grasp the current reality and provides a tool to dig deeper. On
balance, it allows users to create an alternative future that is robust in its implementation.

Prerequisites
FIGURE 2. THE FUTURES TRIANGLE
As mentioned, CLA can be used as a stand-
alone methodology in a workshop format or PULL OF THE FUTURE
as part of a normal foresight strategy event of
one day or more. If a stand-alone methodolo-
gy, facilitators or partners should provide the
reasons for choosing CLA. One suggestion is
to explain how this foundational methodology PLAUSIBLE
is useful because of increased differentiation FUTURE
in views of space-time and reality. Participants
readily accept that we are now experiencing a
heterogenous rate of change whose very na- PUSH OF WEIGHT
ture is disputed. After some theoretical back- THE PRESENT OF HISTORY
ground, it is best to present the conceptual Push of the present examples are quantitative,
framework, case studies, CLA game, and then e.g., demographic shifts.
proceed to actual analysis. Weight of history examples are qualitative,
e.g., barriers to change. Often narratives such as
As part of a broader foresight workshop, CLA “nothing changes here,” or “the Board is like a turtle”.
works best when initiated after either meth- Pull of the future is a visual representation of the
desired future.
ods that map the future, e.g., the futures tri-
Source: author.
angle, or methods that anticipate the future.

6 © Futuribles International
 Causal Layered Analysis

CLA can be used after the future has been opened up through scenarios or even before scenar-
io building to comprehend how different groups construct the future.
The facilitator needs a solid grasp of foresight methods plus an understanding of how different
worldviews create different futures. A basic example comes to mind right away: people who
use science to understand the world and people who rely on one text; i.e., those who believe
that reality and the future are givens.
As a research project, be it client-based or academic, CLA requires:
w An extensive literature review.
w An understanding of four different knowledge domains — (i) empiricism; (ii) systems think-
ing including causation in social sciences, science, and philosophy; (iii) cross-cultural psychol-
ogy, philosophy plus religion; and (iv) mythology.
Given the above criteria, CLA scholarly research requires a generalist. Of course, this is the
profile of most futurists.

Various Uses of CLA

TABLE 1. USES OF CLA
Function Result
Prevents worldview blindness and creates
1 Mapping the present/future
whole-of-worldview and narrative solutions
Avoids the quick-fix reflex and creates
2 Unpack an issue
longer lasting strategies
Moves from how things are to the desired
3 Create a preferred future
future and enhances the visioning process
Deconstruction and reconstruction Challenges assumptions so that other
4
from an alternative worldview solutions are developed
Includes multiple positions plus a
5 Mapping leading to a transformed future
transformed or integrated future
Embodies learning with real time solutions
6 As gaming, role-playing
and demonstrates the four layers
Source: author.

CLA can function in several ways, as charted above and detailed below.
First, CLA can map the present or a possible future. The issue or problem is mapped across
different stakeholder views or worldviews. Deeper insights result as to how ‘the other’ views
the issue. This can lead to more robust strategies because the ‘other’ is now included in the
analysis. Often researchers and organizations perceive both problem and solution from their
own perspective only. They live in their own mythology which they consider as an objective
reality. By bringing in different worldviews, objectivity and the politics of the present are chal-
lenged. Worldview blindness can thus be avoided as a whole-of-worldview approach is used.
Second, CLA may serve to unpack an issue. After articulating the litany of the issue, systemic
causes are explored. The worldview that creates the system is identified. Finally, the underlying
supportive myth or core metaphor that underpins the worldview is articulated. Solutions for
every level are explored. Moreover, by digging deeper, the intent is to seek more effective solu-
tions that are less tied to short-term or quick-fix solutions.

© Futuribles International 7
Prospective and Strategic Foresight Toolbox  x  April 2017

Third, a preferred future can be created using CLA. The issue or problem is understood from
the grid of four levels as it currently exists and as it could be, that is to say, the preferred/de-
sired future.
Fourth, CLA enables users to deconstruct and reconstruct their world by challenging the cur-
rent reality. Once the current reality has been unpacked or deconstructed across the four lay-
ers, an alternative worldview is considered. The issue may then be understood from that per-
spective. After participants consider both the current reality and deconstructed alternative, a
transformed solution or future is articulated. The key point is that the resulting alternative
future now has an oppositional perspective built into it.
Fifth, CLA makes it easier to map multiple worldviews and create an integrated future. This
last approach adds complexity to the previous CLA type precisely because of other worldviews.
Along with the current and the alternative reality, other worldviews are considered, and an inte-
grated strategy inclusive of multiple positions is negotiated. Horizontal space is thus expanded
by including multiple frames of reference.
Finally, CLA can be used to “game” the future. This means that in a workshop setting, different
working groups use roleplay to process the various levels. One group assumes the role of the
litany and defines the issue and the headlines. A second group adopts the role of the system and
speaks from the view of systemic causation. A third group represents the different worldviews
(each group member becomes a different stakeholder) relevant to the issue, including the view
from future generations, from 2030 and beyond. The last group holds the space of metaphors,
and finds new stories to create new litanies. As the game moves along there is interplay and a
new narrative, which may fuel an alternative future. Most often, the metaphor table suddenly
finds a new story that changes the direction of the debate. This group can hone a new lens
through which to view and create a different future. What is critically significant is that the game
helps forge an alternative future strategy more likely to succeed because the perspectives of the
four levels have been consulted. As the iterative nature of the game develops, there is weaving
in and out, and the litany group often begins to see the core metaphor underlying their objective
position. Note that the metaphor group can articulate new litanies as well.
An example of this took place May 20-23, 2013 in Bellagio, Italy, at a UNESCO-sponsored
meeting of futurists focused on the future of foresight. The initial headline was “Futurist wins
Nobel Prize”. Systemic reasons were given to explain why this headline was possible, e.g.,
forecasts had led to major policy change; scenarios, to peace initiatives. The views of different
stakeholders followed accompanied by their underlying metaphors. As the CLA process snaked
back and forth, the greatest resistance came from the systems perspectives. The participants
challenged the view that one particular futurist should win an award because the new narra-
tive was focused on community, expressed as “We are in this together” or “Our future, not my
future”. In other words, both the systems and narrative group challenged the litany headline,
suggesting that it was not appropriate for this group. The worldview approach chimed in with
the futurist stakeholder suggesting that futures studies was not about any individual claim to
fame but rather a desired focus of Gaian or planetary health. In their words, the role of the
futurist was not to take credit but to get things done. It was a compelling argument, so the
headline group suggested another litany: “Community of futurists wins Nobel award.” This
then circulated back and forth between the different levels and perspectives with the guiding
narrative of “Futurists finally get respect” and “Crystal ball thrown out.”
However, one particular worldview, the critical futurist stakeholder’s, was that the headline of
the Nobel Prize did remain within today’s future. This aspect was not sufficiently challenged.
Moreover, the role of a futurist is to disturb current categories of understanding and to chal-
lenge the business-as-usual attitude. A third headline thus emerged: “Futurists win new Gaian

8 © Futuribles International
 Causal Layered Analysis

alternative award.” The systems group contribution was that the award needed to focus on
alternatives, offer new solutions, be based on the community and be oriented toward the long-
term future. In other words, it should not reinforce the current paradigm but help forge a new
one. Essentially the new narrative sounded like “New future, new award,” as opposed to “Old
award, futurists finally given respect” and “Old award, futurist finally wins it.” One result of
this CLA process was that the futurist’s role acquired new meaning.
A CLA game conducted for students enrolled in Australia’s Swinburne University Masters
in Foresight, September 20, 2013, revealed a similar twist. The initial headline read that the
Australian Financial Review awarded futurists for correct predictions. This led to a stakeholder
discussion on why it mattered (the citizen’s viewpoint) to “I’m on board” (the small business
owner’s viewpoint). The metaphor offered was that of the Oracle. However, the person playing
the role of the futurist suggested that “we [futurists] do not make predictions per se, but offer
alternatives, indeed, we help shape alternative futures”. Suddenly the worldview challenged
the core metaphor previously offered. The story then shifted to that of the “canary in the coal
mine”3, and the “crow’s nest of a ship”.
The second headline sounded tautological: “Futurist found to talk about the future.” It actually
was a sarcastic reference to Australia’s tall poppy syndrome. Australian culture has character-
istically pushed or cut down anyone who stands up above the crowd. The intention is to main-
tain a flatter society, but the unintended consequence is that the best and brightest often leave
or work under the radar to stay below the metaphorical knife. It is worth noting here that the
tall poppy syndrome reflects a culture where people of high status are resented or criticized
because they have been classified as better than their peers. The image has been employed in
other English-speaking countries and the phenomenon is not unique to Australia.
In short, the headline revealed that futurists had become too successful, so they were being
mocked. Some participants accepted this as the price of success. Others heard this as an alarm
bell reminding them about failure in long-term strategy. In short, it was time to move futures
work from the expert level to the citizen level, to teach futures in high schools.
At this stage, the person playing the role of citizen became excited because she could see how
the future might be used to her benefit. Earlier, she had remained distant, unable to see the
utility of futures studies. The solution to mockery moved from “this is great, we are successful”
to “we need to further decentralize futures” in this exercise. The group thus challenged the tall
poppy syndrome by moving toward flatter power approaches. And one disengaged student of
futures studies found a new metaphor and meaning which may clarify her future role.
In yet another CLA game, organizers’ inner contradictions plus various conflicts of interest
emerged clearly when the inner narrative was exposed. The question focused on civil ser-
vants’ working from home. However, as the game progressed, what became clear was that
participants in the system group and those holding the worldview of the ministry believed that
workers were lazy. In other words, while officially they were to develop policy for the State on a
teleworking policy, personally, they believed that employees should not work from home. This
insight into their implicit inner views was thus confronting their strategic intentions. The un-
earthing of deep metaphors helped to expose this contradiction, the social process of finding
strategies through metaphors, desired futures and strategies was then enabled.
At an event for a university group considering the same issue of teleworking, all stakehold-
ers/worldviews agreed that working from home would be more beneficial. The system group
argued that it would save money and reduce traffic congestion. Professors argued that they
would be more productive while students asserted that they wanted the choice of when to go

3. An old-fashioned early warning system to detect poisonous gasses, killing the canary first, giving miners time
to escape.

© Futuribles International 9
Prospective and Strategic Foresight Toolbox  x  April 2017

to campus or stay home. Resistance came from the person holding the space of the “moth-
er/wife”. She argued that she had been excluded from the public sphere, and now with her
husband coming home, he would attempt to dominate the private sphere, or home; i.e., her
domain of control. The position in the stakeholder’s own words: “I prefer he stay in the office,
at least then I have some free time at home.” In other words, her workload would increase if
the strategy were pursued.
In another instance, when the CLA game was used to unpack the futures of infrastructure and
facilities at a university, the divide between students and professors widened. Students had
the worldview of autonomy and freedom (“I want it my way”). They wanted to leave home and
move to campus. Professors had the opposite desire. They wished to work from the comfort
of their homes without surveillance from deans and others in regulatory positions. Students
also sought to escape regulation; however, for them, this meant escaping the family rules sys-
tem. The tension between the two viewpoints placed the coordinator of university facilities in
a dilemma. The traditional plan of endless new dormitories would not work as the campus
would certainly have students but few professors. Later, in scenario planning, it emerged that
the solution lay partly in rethinking the role of the dean of student housing. As academics
moved out of the university and students moved in, the dean’s role would be not only official
responsible for student surveillance (the regulator), but also the advisor, the friend, and less
the parent. All of the dean’s new roles would help students become young adults, given their
need for autonomy. This dean would need to advise on matters ranging from physical space to
virtual friendships and learning how to learn.
All of the above examples underscore how the CLA game yields insight as to what occurs at
deeper levels. Questions flow quickly:
w Is strategy in contradiction with the underlying narrative, with the story?
w Which stakeholders will resist? Why?
w Which new strategies can be followed then?
Decidedly not linear, causality is complex, multi-variable, emergent, and driven by narrative.
Following this gaming process, CLA is thus analytically used to map out perspectives, and
when appropriate, create a new integrated way forward.

Tips and Best Practices

The following practical advice is offered to optimize the teaching and use of CLA.
w First and foremost, explain the theory, the rationale behind CLA and then the conceptual
framework.
w Give case studies, as many people learn through practical examples. Ensure these are inter-
active by asking participants questions. Include people, their questions and contributions.
w Have them experience the CLA game. Along with the examples of the CLA game given
earlier of dividing a group by the four layers, one can simply, as Debbie Terranova (2004) has
done, divide the room into four worldviews. If using this approach:
(1) Define in concrete specific terms a litany statement: “Aging in a city in 2030 with 25% of
council employees over 65 years of age.”
(2) Identify social, technological, economic causes.
(3) Ensure the room is divided into different worldviews or groups (four demographic
groups, for example the matures, the baby boomers, generation X, and generation Y). Have

10 © Futuribles International
 Causal Layered Analysis

participants talk about the issue from their perspective. Make sure each group hears the
other groups.
(4) Have the groups share their core metaphor for the issue. Conclude with solutions at every
level, if possible, or at least insights. When CLA is used in a gaming or roleplay situation,
it is important to ensure that participants gain insights into the levels of CLA, the power of
depth (worldview and metaphor), and how the wisdom of multiple perspectives can lead to
new solutions.
w After the CLA experience, engage the participants in analysis. This could be a “before and
after”; i.e., the current situation and then the transformed reality. This exercise helps move
insight into more rigorous analysis.
The best CLA links a new metaphor with a new systemic strategy. This is made possible by
exploring multiple worldviews. Of course, the proverbial cherry on top comes in the form of a
new litany. The new litany can be a headline or a quantifiable objective.
w For the facilitator, one goal is to model CLA for the participants; i.e., truly understand and
appreciate different worldviews.
w In a research setting, the main mistake doctoral candidates and younger professors make is
getting lost in the data that emerges in a CLA process. As there are four levels of data, so they
can confuse levels and simply crunch in endless information. This is fine for the initial analy-
sis, but when presenting material, it is best to simplify, or focus on elegance; i.e., present two
to three systemic interventions and one new metaphor instead of ten interventions and five
metaphors. The goal in using CLA is greater insight, not more information.

TABLE 2. OPTIMAL USE OF CLA IN SIX STEPS

1 Explain theory and conceptual framework
Present case studies
2 Ensure these are interactive by asking participants questions
Include the participants, their questions or contributions
3 Experience the CLA game
4 Select the CLA technique to use (e.g., mapping, unpacking, from present to future)
5 Conduct a CLA
Have participants present back to the entire group ensuring that they provide focused feedback;
6
i.e., what worked and what can be improved
Source: author.

Errors to Avoid
Below are five common pitfalls in the most basic application of CLA with practical suggestions
to avoid them and improve the process.
w Confusion of Levels
First, it should be noted that level 1 (the litany) can often be described in quantitative terms
or expressed as if a newspaper headline. Second, levels three and four often get confused. In
workshop settings, participants need to be reminded that level four is best seen as a metaphor,

© Futuribles International 11
Prospective and Strategic Foresight Toolbox  x  April 2017

perhaps a proverb or an idiomatic expression. It is intended to communicate complex reality

in simple terms. If you need to explain the metaphor, it is not one that communicates and
persuades effectively. In fact, facilitators should politely stop any workshop participant who
starts explaining a metaphor in detail. Again, level three is a foundational worldview of how
either the organization or the actor sees reality including time, “the other”, gender, nature, and
authority, to name just a few dimensions. In workshop settings, this level may prove easier to
access when the slightly philosophical term “worldview” is eschewed for the more business-
like expression of “stakeholder perspective”. Once individuals understand the categories, the
transformation process becomes easier. Moreover, the purpose of the exercise is not to fill in
the boxes of a CLA table but rather to gain insight into the content of the issue debated and the
process itself. The facilitator, researcher or professor must ensure that participants are active in
what is a learning context. Again, facilitators should focus not on full CLA charts but on insight
capable of changing policy or strategy.

w Presentation Order
When groups present back their CLAs, it is better to move from the litany of today downwards
to causation, worldview and metaphor. Similarly, go down again from the new litany, or the
transformed future, through the levels. Do not move across levels.

w Over-emphasis on the Cognitive Process

If groups are confused, set up the CLA game so that participants can get a taste of CLA. Fa-
cilitators can choose a current topic, any issue that people are trying to tackle today. Examples
abound ranging from the refugee crisis and disintegration of the EU, to increased populism
and even the rise of pure meat and veganism.

w Worldview Blindness
As CLA may be difficult for those who believe they hold the only truth, it is important to explore
how everyone holds different perspectives and worldviews; i.e., that difference is foundational
to who we are. The Sarkar game helps participants to explore the archetypes of worker, warrior,
intellectual and capitalist (Inayatullah, 2017). Also useful, the Polak game (Polak, 1973) divides
the room into four groups. Participants stand wherever they feel most comfortable within
these four quadrants:
(Quadrant 1) The future is bright, and I have the ability to change the world.
(Quadrant 2) The future is bright, but there is little I can personally do.
(Quadrant 3) The future is bleak, and I have little influence.
(Quadrant 4) The future is bleak, and I can change it.
Case studies help to explain that organizational blindness may arise if one does not understand
the metaphors and worldviews of others.

w Facilitator’s Occupational Hazard

Facilitators try to be the expert (“the sage on the stage”) or demonstrate the occupational hazard
of over-explaining. It is best to use the wisdom of other participants in case there is someone
who is confused, agitated or aggressive. A facilitator needs to demonstrate CLA in the teaching
process itself. One cannot simply teach about CLA, one must model it; in other words, show
flexibility combined with an understanding of different worldviews and metaphors.

12 © Futuribles International
 Causal Layered Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Certain questions about CLA routinely crop up. Here are three typical queries.
w What is the difference between the worldview and myth/metaphor level?
Worldviews are deeply held perspectives on the way things are. These perspectives about the
nature of reality, often non-negotiable, have developed over time from a foundational event
which could be a moment of transcendence or an episode of trauma. They may frequently be
expressed in views about creation (evolution or intelligent design), immigration (economic
growth versus purity of our culture), time (linear versus cyclical), reality (material versus spiri-
tual or both), governance (democracy versus the ability to provide basic needs). For those in the
business world, one perspective often expressed roughly is profit versus social responsibility.
Myths and metaphors tend to be more difficult to access than perspectives. In the business
example, underneath the worldview of “profits first” lurks “What’s the bottom line?” or “Show
me the money”. Alternative groups have adopted the worldview of social responsibility with
the tagline of people, planet, purpose, and prosperity or Gaia. Level four consists of metaphors,
proverbs, idioms, and even marketing slogans from time to time. Note that religious texts, sci-
ence fiction authors, artists, storytellers access this level with ease.
For example, in a project for a national ministry of education, participants described four
different futures of their educational system using CLA. The worldview for the first future was
called Market-led and the foundational metaphor was named Ala-Carte, that is, many choices,
or an educational system like a menu. In their second future, the worst-case scenario, the
world­view was called Bureaucratic-led with Force-fed as the metaphor. In the third business-
as-usual scenario, the metaphor was Spoon-fed; i.e., lecturers and the ministry had to feed
students text and curriculum. In the outlier scenario with a worldview dubbed Technology-
led, the metaphor was intriguingly baptized AI-fed; i.e., artificial intelligence systems would
endeavor to predict student needs, personalize those needs, and collaborate with students to
navigate curriculum and job possibilities.
In a project for librarians, the contemporary worldview was called Expert-led and the myth-
metaphor was “keepers of the collection”. In their transformed future, the worldview shifted to
facilitator and co-creator with the myth-metaphor of “innovators in the gardens”. For the librar-
ians, the gardens (at the systemic level) meant experimentation in 3-D printing, holograms,
mobile libraries, and peer-to-peer libraries.

w How is the litany different from the myth-metaphor level?

The litany is the official uncontested future, unchallenged because construed as reality. The
litany is often quantitative, e.g., “Cancer rates in Australia continue to rise for females, reach-
ing up to 270 per 100,000”. At the systems (or systemic) level, we explore causes. Is the rise
attributable to more effective screening or greater tobacco use by females? Is the cause in-
creased stress because of neo-liberalism; i.e., longer working hours for females thus less time
for healthy eating and exercise. At the worldview level, we can draft a map to illustrate how the
use of different worldviews leads to different causation models. For example, if neoliberalism
is the cause, do we need to change the system to allow for work-life balance? If better screening
has led to increased reporting, then the headline is not of significance. If greater tobacco use
appears to be the culprit, then create anti-tobacco programs targeting female teenagers.
The myth/metaphor level is the deepest with several possible stories to underpin the above
possible causes. These myths or metaphors might be expressed as one of the following

© Futuribles International 13
Prospective and Strategic Foresight Toolbox  x  April 2017

idiomatic phrases: “It’s a man’s world”; “Be cool like blokes [guys]”; “Women can do it all”; “the
Octopus worker [multi-tasker]”. In a workshop setting, participants flesh out the metaphors. In
a research setting, textual/discourse analysis is employed. Of course, the confusion between
litany and myth arises regularly when headlines lead off with a catchy phrase to entice the
reader.

w Are there differences in using CLA in scholarly research and workshop settings?
An important distinction should be made here. In workshop settings, we are looking for an
aha moment, or Eureka, in which a participant suddenly understands the new strategy or real-
izes that a specific worldview and metaphor was the barrier to achieving results. For example,
in one national bank, the official strategic goal was to set up a center of knowledge excellence.
In the CLA process, when participants exchanged narratives of knowledge, they realized they
actually believed that success was defined not by “what you know but who you know”. Con-
sequently, any center of knowledge excellence would become dysfunctional over time. That
single insight became important as it showed participants that the core area to transform was
the narrative, not just the policy and logistics involved founding a new center.
At a doctoral or academic level, far more rigor is required. In the example above, interviews
with the board and other stakeholders would be required along with qualitative methods to sort
the data, e.g., sense-making (Kelly, 2008). Thus, the different metaphors need to be mapped
with surveys to ascertain which metaphor has had the strongest or greatest resonance. In aca-
demic research, data is gleaned from multiple sources such as literature reviews, quantitative
data, interviews, and workshops.
In a workshop setting, the goal is information that leads to more robust scenarios and power-
ful strategies for change. In university settings, the data needs to be solid, tested and retested,
as accuracy is critical. In short, relevance would be the word for the real world; rigor, the word
for academia.

Case Studies: Five Different Sectors

This section presents an array of case studies. Readers may opt to examine each case or focus
on the one most relevant to them.

Cybersecurity: Mapping
CLA was used to map the issue from the worldviews of police, consumers, Internet providers,
civil liberty organizations, the government and citizens. The most useful result of the process
for the federal crime prevention organization came through understanding the deeper narra-
tives. These made it clear to the analyst why national cybersecurity strategies were failing. Cit-
izens, for example, did not consider the federal strategy urgent and important as they believed
in the saying “see no evil, hear no evil”. Privacy advocates challenged the legitimacy of the na-
tional strategy as they believed it to be “a fairy tale” employed to gain additional state powers.
Police, on the other hand, felt they were continuously falling behind as failure became routine.
More than additional spending, what was needed was strategy that acknowledged these differ-
ent worldviews. What was useful was the mapping of worldviews and narratives as well as their
corresponding litanies and systems. Metaphors revealed different perspectives on the issue
thus opening up the possibility of dialogue. The same revelation took place in the study below.

14 © Futuribles International
 Causal Layered Analysis

Alcohol and Drug Policy: Mapping

In this example, drawn from a futures project on alcohol and drug policy, a map was crafted
from four differing worldviews: rights, politics, techno-utopia and security.
As mentioned above, new stories lead to new strategies; however, integration of all four layers
is crucial for any significant change to take place.

TABLE 3. ALCOHOL AND DRUG POLICY

Level/Layer Rights Politics Techno-utopia Security
Number of critical Hospital admissions
Litany Safety data Crime data
newspaper articles data
Harm Medical science
System Muddling through Surveillance
minimization advancement
Rights — the Politics — the Techno-utopian — the Security — the
Worldview
activist Minister scientist police
Out of sight,
Myth/Metaphor What works Magic bullet Clean sheets
out of mind
Source: author.

Iran-USA Relations: Mapping

In a CLA carried out by Iranian scientists, participants focused on creating spaces for Iran-
USA solutions. The scientists argued that from their side, the narrative of the USA as “the
Great Satan” had become so deep that they were unable to see any other story. That was the
only worldview, indeed, not a worldview, but an unquestioned truth. And indeed, systemically,
given the CIA’s involvement in Iranian politics and American sanctions against Iranians, it
appeared logical to continue to believe so. From the American side, the metaphor was “the Axis
of Evil”. Given litany statements by Iranian presidents to attack America’s ally, Israel, and to
fund Hezbollah, Hamas and other organizations that counter American interests and politics,
this metaphor also made sense. The challenge was to search simultaneously for new stories
and new systemic interventions. These are baby steps in improving the relationship and the
construction of each ‘other’. Although not sufficient, narrative transformation remains crucial
for any substantial movement towards improved bilateral relations between these countries.

Higher Education: Deconstruct and Reconstruct

While the above three cases focused on revealing deep narratives held by various stakehold-
ers, this example maps reality in terms of how the future is currently understood. The view is
then deconstructed; i.e., unpacked at four levels. The deconstruction may be done from any
worldview. Finally, the reconstructed, transformed perspective is given. In Table 4 below, the
current reality is that of higher education as perceived from the official point of view. This is
then challenged and deconstructed from the student viewpoint. The concluding CLA moves to
the transformed future, to the solution space summarized below.
The original story of the “one-man show” and “lecturer knows best” has been counterpoised
with the perspective of the students, who find themselves pulled in both directions (a tug of
war) between the different actors. The narrative solution, or reconstruction, appears in the new
story with the orchestra, where the actors play in harmony for the greater national good.

© Futuribles International 15
Prospective and Strategic Foresight Toolbox  x  April 2017

TABLE 4. HIGHER EDUCATION FUTURES

Level/Layer Student Worldview Current Reality Transformed Future
Traditional teaching Holistic teaching
Litany Student-centered learning
and learning and learning
Quality issues
Learning outcome should
Rigid — one-way Assessment (self-assessment
System not be predetermined
learning and benchmarking)
Flexible learning
Recognition

Lecturers dominate Creative partnerships

Democratic teaching
Worldview teaching and between independent human
and learning
learning beings

Tug of war between

One-man show and The orchestra — in sync and
Myth/Metaphor students, the ministry,
lecturer knows best in harmony
and lecturers
Source: author.

This exercise gave a particular university a new guiding metaphor from which to channel their
current strategies for change. Interventions in the system did ensue as a new narrative needs
to be supported by systemic changes, if it is to take hold.

Library Futures: Reading from the Current to the Emergent

Narrative
In this process, the CLA driver is triggered when the deep metaphor is shifted from the current
story to the new story. The other dimensions of CLA are then fleshed out. In this case, for a
state library, the old story chronicled a “keeper of the collection”; whereas, the new emergent
story told of “innovator in the gardens”. This fresh story generated the participants’ preferred
vision. Again, how a narrative drives the future may be seen in the table below.
The participants in this workshop needed to acknowledge the past narrative that was driving
their work; i.e., “keeper of the collection”. Moreover, this past narrative had by now become the
used future. By doing so, they succeeded in drafting a new story, “innovator in the gardens”,
and new strategies. By doing so, they felt this state library was granted a second lease on life.
Despite the external changes, the library would continue with a transformed purpose and a

TABLE 5. LIBRARY FUTURES

Level/Layer Current Emergent
Litany Budget based on books loaned Budget based on people traffic
Books organized by categories
Workshops, 3-D printing, virtual programs,
System controlled by librarians budgeted
books and e-books
by governments
Worldview Expert Co-curation, co-creation
Myth/Metaphor Keeper of the collection Innovator in the gardens
Source: author.

16 © Futuribles International
 Causal Layered Analysis

host of new activities. Once again, narrative solutions were then taken as a guide to imple-
menting systemic changes.
In yet another example, a national department of statistics focused on the deep story, moving
from being “score keeper” to “trusted expert”. For participants, this translated to not merely
collecting statistics. Instead, through big data, they would play a significant role in deciding
what needed to be measured, what ought to be the key national indicators.
Given time restrictions, not all organizations complete the full CLA process. In fact, some
groups are satisfied with uncovering the new narrative and using that to organize new strategy.

Further Reading
Application Techniques
The pedagogical process of CLA involves moving individuals and organizations from the un­
examined, taken-for-granted, single future to alternative futures and then to the preferred fu-
ture. It is most commonly based on the Six Pillars futures conceptual framework designed to
help participants (1) Map, (2) Anticipate, (3) Time, (4) Deepen, (5) Create alternatives to the
futures that they envision, and (6) Transform those futures. The pillars (MATDCT) include
futures methods and tools such as the futures triangle, emerging issues analysis, the futures
wheel, macrohistory and the Sarkar game, CLA, scenario planning, visioning and backcasting.
Prior to using these tools to create deeper alternative futures, facilitators begin the process
by questioning the current future. A series of seven questions are asked to help participants
research their core question. These might include something like what is my life story, my or-
ganization or my nation in 2030, to mention just a few examples. Here are the seven questions
generally used to shepherd groups to new transformative narratives:
(1) What is the history of the issue?
(2) What is your forecast if current trends continue?
(3) What are the critical assumptions you used in your forecast?
(4) What are some alternative futures based on different assumptions?
(5) Out of these alternative futures, which is your preferred one?
(6) Which strategies can be employed for you to realize the preferred future?
(7) What is a new narrative or metaphor that would support your preferred future?
The last question is critical within the narrative foresight framework. Participants are asked
number seven because without an underlying narrative to support the desired future, it is un-
likely that the desired future will be realized because neither the story nor an existing cognitive
frame will allow it.
After the question period, participants engage in the above-mentioned Six Pillars process. Of
course, the narrative foresight work has already begun in answering question seven, because
participants articulate new metaphors to match their preferred visions. That narrative dimen-
sion is further reinforced and expressed in the fourth pillar (deepening). Using CLA, par-
ticipants deconstruct an issue through the four layers — the litany, system, worldview and
metaphor — and then reconstruct the alternative futures, either based on the vantage point of
a different stakeholder or from the perspective of their preferred future. In sum, the core met-
aphor is now linked to the cultural or worldview shift, to the systemic changes or to changes
in measurement.

© Futuribles International 17
Prospective and Strategic Foresight Toolbox  x  April 2017

Inner Narrative, or CLA of the Self

CLA can be applied to any situation, a collectivity or an individual. At the individual level,
individuals can move through the CLA process to discover their new narrative. The litany
becomes the words we usually say repeatedly about ourselves. Accordingly, the system is the
rules of behaviour that we use to organize identity and expression. The worldview is how we
actually map our mind. For example, do we believe the mind is neural pathways, the id, ego and
superego (Freud) or the layers of actualization (Maslow, 1968) or the approach focused on the
multiplicity of selves (Stone and Stone, 1993)? At the metaphorical level lies “the story of our
life”. Through questions we essentially use CLA to pen a new life story with a new life strategy,
if the previous one is seen as no longer functioning or beneficial.
The challenge, as with most foresight work, resides in moving from fragmentation to the
preferred future. This is the integrated way forward. By identifying the issues (the internal
research question) and the double binds that restrict their solutions, individuals chart alterna-
tive maps of their consciousness and head toward a new metaphor, a new life narrative, and
consequently an alternative future.
The following questions and subquestions serve to lead individuals to new transformative
narratives.
w What are the things I say over and over about the way the external world is? What are the
things I say over and over about how I feel about the world?
w What is disowned in this process, what do I push away, which selves are seen as less import-
ant? What external behaviors in others irritate and upset? Can this provide insight into the
disowned selves?
w What are the origins of the issue? Are there any trigger events that have created this over­
arching inner worldview about the ways things are or should be?
w Is there a core metaphor that describes this situation?
w What might be a new story, a different metaphor that can reduce or transform the double
bind?
w How can this new metaphor be supported by behavior and practice?
w What new indicators or measurements lead forward from this new behavior?
These questions start at the litany and continue through to the system and the worldview then
move to the current metaphor. The new metaphor may then be solidified by a new system and
a new litany.
An example that we all can appreciate is an individual pressed for time and stressed by deci-
sions that needed to be made. The metaphorical transformation came from “running out of
time” to “making time”. The worldview switched from a linear view of the future to an ecologi-
cal view providing more pluralism. Systemic changes included rethinking how the day was or-
ganized, as well as spending more time on reflection and meditation. Litany changes included
not just how much got done (the mind as check-list), but how to be present while doing things
(mindfulness). This process is summarized in the table below.
In a similar example, a CEO found herself becoming less efficient largely because the external
world had become more complex. The story of her life that had previously worked was a tennis
match. However, this was a tennis match played on one surface. Now this executive found that
she was becoming confused as the business world appeared to be played on different surfaces

18 © Futuribles International
 Causal Layered Analysis

so that she was never sure

TABLE 6. CLA OF THE SELF
which surface she would
play on next. Her first new Level/Layer Current Emergent
systemic shift was to devel- The checklist of Being present while
op new skill sets to play on Litany activities doing
grass, clay and hard courts; System Daily chores Meditation and reflection
i.e., new languages, scenar-
io planning and emotional Worldview Linear Pluralistic-ecological
intelligence. However, the Myth/Metaphor Running out of time Making time
deeper shift lay in recover- Source: author.
ing her inner child. That
meant playing for the fun of it while envisioning that in the long run, metaphorically, she
wished to become a coach. Playing for fun required tapping into her child self, repressed since
becoming serious about the competitive nature of business and life in general. The first phase
was enhancing her ability to deal with new types of competition. Phase two involved moving
outside of competition to “the flow” and to fun.
In another case a woman used CLA to rethink matrimony. While pondering if she should
marry, this lady realized that her two core stories were in conflict. Wanting both stories, she
found herself in a double bind of freedom and autonomy (a bird in flight) with security and
safety (bird in a cage). The solution? Get married but reconstruct her story (bird on the ledge).
In this version, she would find ways to keep some autonomy while married. At the litany and
systemic level, this could mean keeping her maiden name in negotiations, separate accounts,
to give simple examples. The CLA process relieved her from having one future in the binary
worldview inherited from her parents.
Participants frequently report how such insights at the individual level help them restore their
own agency and enable them to move away from cynicism and helplessness toward renewal.
The CLA of the self also effectively ensures that the practitioner is engaged in deep learning
and self-discovery. This implies learning about learning, too.

Conclusion
CLA is both a theory of knowledge and a practice for enhanced policy making and strategy. As a
practice, the CLA game explores how the different levels of reality construe a specific problem.
Robust strategies and new litanies can be invented using this game.
As a research or analytic method, CLA may be used in a variety of ways. First, it assists in
mapping the differentiated worldviews and core narratives. Second, it may help to articulate
a transformed future in which the future is contemplated from multiple realities and a new
future created. Third, the CLA process can propel an organization or collectivity from a current
future to an emergent future. Fourth, CLA may serve to explore an individual’s current life
story and move forward to a new narrative and a new guiding metaphor.
CLA seeks not to question and deconstruct the future only but, as the case studies above sug-
gest, to transform the future, open the present, and reinterpret the past.

© Futuribles International 19
Prospective and Strategic Foresight Toolbox  x  April 2017

Bibliography
References
Inayatullah Sohail, “Six Pillars: Futures Thinking for Transforming”, Foresight, 10(1), 2008,
pp. 4-21, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14636680810855991.
Inayatullah Sohail, “Macrohistory and Timing the Future as Practice”, World Futures Review,
9(1), January 2017, pp. 26-33, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1946756716686788.
Kelly Patricia, Towards Globo Sapiens: Transforming Learners in Higher Education, Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers, 2008, 212 pp.
Maslow Abraham H.,  Toward a Psychology of Being, New York: D. Van Nostrand Company,
1968.
Polak Fred, The Image of the Future, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers, 1973.
Stone Hal, and Stone Sidra, Embracing Your Inner Critic: Turning Self-Criticism into a Creative
Asset, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993, 224 pp.
Terranova Debbie, “Fathoming the Ageing Workforce Debate: Causal Layered Analysis in Ac-
tion”, Journal of Futures Studies, 9(2), November 2004, pp. 37-42. URL: http://jfsdigital.org/
wp-content/uploads/2013/12/92-A04.pdf. Accessed April 5, 2017.

Selective Bibliography
Bussey Marcus, Where Next for Pedagogy? Critical Agency in Educational Futures, Sippy Downs:
University of the Sunshine Coast, PhD thesis, 2008. URL: http://www.metafuture.org/pdf/
busseythesis.pdf. Accessed April 5, 2017.
Fan Gilbert, The Future of a Professional Association: A Causal Layered Perspective, Rockhampton:
Central Queensland University, PhD thesis, 2010. URL: http://www.metafuture.org/pdf/fan
thesis.pdf. Accessed April 5, 2017.
Heinonen Sirkka, Minkkinen Matti, and Inayatullah Sohail, “Testing Transformative Energy Sce­
narios through CLA Gaming”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, forthcoming 2017.
Inayatullah Sohail, “Causal Layered Analysis: Poststructuralism as Method”, Futures, 30(8),
October 1998, pp. 815-829, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(98)00086-X.
Inayatullah Sohail (ed.), The Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) Reader, Tamsui: Tamkang Univer-
sity Press, 2004.
Inayatullah Sohail, What Works: Case Studies in the Practice of Foresight, Tamsui: Tamkang
University Press, 2015, 299 pp.
Inayatullah Sohail, “Ensuring Culture Does Not Eat Strategy for Breakfast: What Works in
Futures Studies”, World Futures Review, 7(4), December 2015, pp. 351-361, DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1177/1946756715627373.
Inayatullah Sohail, and Milojevic Ivana (eds), CLA 2.0: Transformative Research in Theory and
Practice, Tamsui: Tamkang University Press, 2015, 572 pp.
Kenny Noni, Meta-level Terrorism Futures: Constructing and Deconstructing Using Causal Layered
Analysis, Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology, doctoral dissertation, 2013. URL:
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/65277/1/Noni_Kenny_Thesis.pdf. Accessed April 5, 2017.

20 © Futuribles International
 Causal Layered Analysis

MacGill Victor, “Unravelling the Myth/Metaphor Layer in Causal Layered Analysis”, Journal
of Futures Studies, 20(1), September 2015, pp. 55-68. URL: http://research.usc.edu.au/vital/
access/services/Download/usc:17352/SOURCE1. Accessed April 5, 2017.
Milojevic Ivana, Educational Futures: Dominant and Contesting Visions, London: Routledge,
2005.
Milojevic Ivana, and Inayatullah Sohail, “Narrative Foresight”, Futures, 73, 2015, pp. 151-162,
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.08.007.
Strachan Chris, “Odd Studio’s Cultureberg: Causal Layered Analysis Meets Design”, Journal
of Futures Studies, October 6, 2016. URL: http://jfsdigital.org/2016/10/06/odd-studios-culture
berg-causal-layered-analysis-meets-design/. Accessed January 27, 2017.
Vallis Rhyll, and Inayatullah Sohail, “Policy Metaphors: From the Tuberculosis Crusade to
the Obesity Apocalypse”, Futures, 84, 2016, pp. 133-144, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
futures.2016.04.005. n

© Futuribles International 21