This conceptual paper responds to the call by Ahlqvist and Uotila (2020) for review of the philosophical assumptions that frame the theorization of the practice of strategic foresight. Challenging the ontological and epistemological assumptions that underpin the dominant (positivist) paradigm, their interpretivist perspective offers an alternative set of assumptions on which to frame the practice of strategic foresight. We contribute to this debate on the paradigmatic framing of research into the practice of strategic foresight, by offering a social constructionist perspective through which the politics that shape the increasingly complex contexts of this practice, may be discerned. Reflecting on the ontological complexity of the concept of context, we explore the role of forms of abstract power in the apprehension and sense-making of current and future contexts and suggest ways through which their influence can be mitigated. These include the introduction of reflexive forums in which participants engage in critical dialogue focussed on generating contextual insight; the inclusion of participants drawn from beyond the institutional boundaries of the organization and from a diverse range of positions within the organization; and the conceptualization of leadership of the foresight process as a collective responsibility rather than that of management alone.

该概念性文件回应了Ahlqvist和Uotila（2020）提出的对战略构想实践理论化框架的哲学假设进行回顾的呼吁。挑战支配占主导地位的（实证主义）范式的本体论和认识论假设，他们的解释主义观点提供了另一组假设，可用来构筑战略远见的实践。通过提供一种社会建构主义的观点，我们可以辨别形成这种战略的日益复杂的环境的政治，从而为关于战略远见的实践的研究范式框架的辩论做出贡献。考虑到上下文概念的本体论复杂性，我们探讨了抽象力量形式在当前和未来情境的理解和理解中的作用，并提出了减轻其影响的方法。这些措施包括建立反思性论坛，让参与者进行关键性对话，重点是产生上下文洞察力；包括来自组织机构范围之外和组织内不同职位的参与者；以及将远见卓识的领导力概念化为一种集体责任，而不是仅由管理层来负责。包括来自组织机构范围之外和组织内不同职位的参与者；以及将远见卓识的领导力概念化为一种集体责任，而不是仅由管理层来负责。包括来自组织机构范围之外和组织内不同职位的参与者；以及将远见卓识的领导力概念化为集体责任，而不是仅由管理者负责。