This is a note posted on the Peeriodical of "Hype and overpromising in science and technology."

While many theorists study hype and overpromissing only in terms of attention and positive sentiments toward an imagined future (e.g., van Lente, 2013), Ann Mische (2009) proposes nine dimensions of projectivity and explains why each one is important for social practice. Future projections, as expressed in speeches, records, interviews, articles, or project descriptions (for an empirical case study, see Mische 2014), are shaped by and, in turn, shape social processes, regardless of whether they come true or only last a short time. The nine dimensions reveal how subtile attitudes and assumptions in future statements guide and constrain actions in attemts to realize a project.

These nine dimensions (with short summaries in my own words) are:

1. Reach: Long-term transformations might rather attract social activists, while, e.g., pragmatic politicians focus on short-term bargaining and negotiations.
2. Breath: Some actors may imagine a "repertoire of possible short-term actions" all leading to one "straight and narrow vision," while others rather imagine a set of outcomes of a short-term action.
3. Clarity: Some actors hold colorful and detailed imagines of the (unfolding) future, while others, e.g., due to their socialization, struggle to imagine any difference from their present environment.
4. Contingency: Just as there are fix-staged vs. highly uncertain career pathways,future projects are imagined with different a uncertainty and independence from local or historical circumstances.
5. Expandability: Expanding temporal horizons motivate gaining information and exploring new areas (e.g., when entering university), while closing horizons (e.g., end of life or climate extinction) rather motivate to ensure emotional well-being and existing relationships.
6. Volition: Some actors imagine strong influence and control to shape the future, while others perceive the future to come towards them.
7. Sociality: The degree other people, relationships, and networks populate imaginings informs considered collaborations, confrontations, and dependencies.
8. Connectivity: Some people imagine highly linked step-by-step plans while others leave transitional moments to ad hoc improvisation.
9. Genre: Imaginings may show familiarity to more general cultural modes of how social change is envisioned to occur.

Futher Bibliography:

• van Lente, H., Spitters, C., & Peine, A. (2013). Comparing technological hype cycles: Towards a theory. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(8), 1615–1628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.12.004
• Mische, A. (2014). Measuring futures in action: Projective grammars in the Rio + 20 debates. Theory and Society, 43(3–4), 437–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-014-9226-3