BBARTI RESEARCH AGENDA / PROPOSED STUDY
Reproducible Foresight with Scenario Models
Can qualitative scenarios be transparent enough for independent critique?
1. Research problem
Can qualitative scenarios be transparent enough for independent critique? The project would examine this question within methodology & evidence, where institutional arrangements, measurable outcomes and the costs of implementation may point in different directions. It is designed as a falsifiable research programme rather than a claim that the proposed mechanism has already been demonstrated.
2. Working proposition
Documented assumptions and signpost indicators can make foresight falsifiable in part. This is a testable proposition, not an established result. Competing explanations and contexts in which the mechanism fails should be specified before data collection begins.
3. Research theses for examination
- Mechanism: Documented assumptions and signpost indicators can make foresight falsifiable in part.
- Boundary conditions: Assess whether the proposition remains plausible when jurisdiction, organisational maturity, resource constraints or stakeholder interests change.
- Disconfirmation: Record which observations would favour an alternative explanation or show that the proposed approach adds no meaningful value.
4. Research design and methods
Build and preregister illustrative scenario models with sensitivity analysis. The initial protocol should establish sampling criteria, the unit of analysis, definitions of variables or legal concepts, a transparent source register, and access and ethics approvals where necessary.
5. Evidence horizon and relevant developments
The World Bank’s June 2026 Global Economic Prospects supplies a documented baseline for macroeconomic growth and uncertainty. Country-specific effects still require primary data and sensitivity checks.
The WEF Global Risks Report 2026 analyses connected risks across immediate, 2028 and 2036 horizons, based on a survey of more than 1,300 experts. Survey perceptions are not direct measurements of event probabilities.
The cited publications provide current institutional context and candidate sources for the literature review. They do not certify the proposed hypothesis; original empirical work, careful comparison and jurisdiction-specific validation would still be required.
6. Planned work packages
- Conceptual groundwork: Define the research object, terminology, competing frameworks and decision context.
- Evidence mapping: Create an auditable inventory of relevant primary evidence, with dates, definitions, strengths and limitations.
- Evaluation: Build and preregister illustrative scenario models with sensitivity analysis; contrast results with alternative specifications, control cases or rival interpretations.
- Critical review: Report missing observations, conflicting evidence, implementation costs and circumstances that limit transferability.
- Translation into practice: Prepare the intended practical output and an independent review checklist.
7. Anticipated research product
Reproducible scenario research template. The deliverable will be evaluated against the research question and the evidence collected.
8. Limitations, ethics and scholarly integrity
At this stage no original sample, statistical test, clinical cohort or experimental result is claimed. Any future research involving human participants, proprietary data, medical outcomes or regulated activities must obtain the applicable permissions. Publicly accessible official publications are cited for context only; their findings are not represented as findings of BBARTI.