FUTURA 4/2022 Tulevaisuuden tutkimuksen seura ry. 4/ 20 22 4/ 20 22 TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN TULEVAISUUDENTUTKIMUKSEN MAAILMA MOSAIIKKINA MAAILMA MOSAIIKKINA
Tämän numeron päätoimittajat Tero Villman, tero.villman@utu.. Sirkka Heinonen, sirkka.heinonen@utu.. Tilaukset ja osoitteenmuutokset Hazel Salminen, tutuseura@gmail.com, Puh 040 502 8672 Toimitusneuvosto Sirkka Heinonen, Sami Holopainen, Sanna Ketonen-Oksi, Osmo Kuusi, Matti Minkkinen, Laura Pouru-Mikkola, Juho Ruotsalainen, Hazel Salminen, Petri Tapio, Johanna Viherä, Marja-Liisa Viherä, Tero Villman Julkais?a Tulevaisuuden tutkimuksen seura ry./Futura-lehti PL 378, 00101 Helsinki 040 5028672, tutuseura@gmail.com www.tutuseura.. vuosikerta 4/2022 Tilaushinnat Jäsenille jäsenmaksuun sisältyvä Vuosikerta kotimaassa 51,50 €, Vuosikerta ulkomaille 61 €, Irtonumero jäsenille 7,85 €, muille 13,90 €. www.facebook.com/Tutuseura twitter.com/tutuseura Futuran tulevat teemat Futura 1/2023 Liikkumisen tulevaisuudet Futura 2/2023 Top Ten Futures: Syvän epävarmuuden aika Futura 3/2023 avoin numero Futuran kirjoittajaksi. Matti Minkkinen, matti.minkkinen@utu.. 41. Suomen tiedekustantajien liitolta on saatu avustusta lehden taittokoneen ja oheislaitteiden hankintaan sekä artikkeleiden suomentamiseen.. on saanut TSV:n kautta Futura-lehden julkaisutoimintaan valtionavustusta, jota opetusja kulttuuriministeriö myöntää Veikkauksen tuotoista. Taitto ja kansi Johanna Viherä Painopaikka Suomen Uusiokuori Oy ISSN 0785–5494 Tulevaisuuden tutkimuksen seura ry. Jos olet kiinnostunut kirjoittamaan Futuraan, otathan yhteyttä tutuseura@gmail.com! Vastaava päätoimittaja Matti Minkkinen, matti.minkkinen@utu.
Glenn and Millennium-projekti: maailmanlaajuisesti osallistava Mara Di Berardo ajatushautomo, joka kerää ja tuottaa tietoa tulevaisuutta varten Joni Karjalainen Ajankohtaisen ennakointityön skenaariot avartavat Afrikan tulevaisuuksia Mikkel Stein Knudsen Tulevaisuudentutkimusta Tanskassa kolmen linssin läpi Matti Minkkinen ja Tulevaisuudentutkimusta Australiassa ja Tero Villman Uudessa-Seelannissa Sirkka Heinonen ja Tulevaisuudentutkimusta Ranskassa avainasiantunt?oiden So. Kurki kertomana Tuomo Kuosa Singaporen ennakoint?ärjestelmä Morne Mostert Goldilokshin ja kolme karhua: narratiivisen arkkitehtuurin näkökulma afrikkalaiseen ennakointiin Miguel Angel Gutierrez Ennakointia Argentiinassa Laura Pouru-Mikkola Unescon globaalissa verkostossa kehitetään tulevaisuuslukutaitoa Matti Vanhanen Avauspuheenvuoro tulevaisuusvaliokuntien maailmankokouksessa 2022 Joakim Strand Johdanto tulevaisuusvaliokuntien maailmankokoukseen Tulevaisuusvaliokuntien Tulevaisuusvaliokuntien maailmankokouksen julkilausuma yhteinen julkilausuma Sanna Ketonen-Oksi Tavoitteena kollektiivinen tietoisuus ajatteluja toimintamalliemme ekososiaalisista vaikutuksista Sirkka Heinonen Tilinteon aika rajallisten resurssien maailmassa: Opimmeko muuttamaan toimintamallejamme. SISÄLLYS P S A R P F 4/2022 2 4 15 32 45 52 60 66 71 78 80 84 88 91 93 95 97 101 103 K K. 1 4/22 F Tero Villman, Tulevaisuudentutkimuksen maailma mosaiikkina Matti Minkkinen ja Sirkka Heinonen Kerstin Cuhls Foresight in Germany A history of long-term views and the exploration of futures Mara Di Berardo, Futures Studies in Italy: an exploratory assessment of Carolina Facioni and organizations, approaches, and objectives Roberto Paura Fredy Vargas Lama and The State of Long-Term Thinking in Latin American Luz Martha Melo Rodrigues Governments Jerome C
Emme halua yleistää ja väittää, että tietyllä alueella, esimerkiksi Australiassa, tehtäisiin vain yhdenlaista ennakointia. Halusimme nostaa esiin maita, joiden tulevaisuudentutkimusta ei tunneta samoin kuten perinteisten edelläkäv?ämaiden. Tässä teemanumerossa luodaan mosaiikki tulevaisuudentutkimuksen ja ennakoinnin lähestymistavoista eri puolilta maapalloa erilaisia konteksteja arvostaen ja niistä oppien. Kirjoituksia on ympäri maailmaa, käsitellen kuutta manteretta pala palalta. 4/22 2 Futura PÄÄKIRJOITUS Tulevaisuudentutkimus ja ennakointi ovat luonteeltaan samanaikaisesti globaalia ja lokaalia. Tämä teemanumero ei tavoittele kaiken kattavaa kuvausta tulevaisuudentutkimuksen maailmasta, mikä lienee mahdotonta, vaan aloittaa mosaiikin rakentamisen. Siinä voidaan myös käsitellä paikallista yhteisöä koskettavia ilmiöitä. Tanskalaisen ennakoinnin kriittisen läpivalaisun tekee Mikkel Stein Knudsen. Tunnustamme suomalaisen tulevaisuudentutkimuksen vahvuuden, mutta samalla kehotamme luk?oita pohtimaan, mitä Suomessa voitaisiin vielä oppia muista maailmankolkista ja traditioista. Katsaukset aloittaa Sirkka Heinosen ja So. Mosaiikillamme tarjoamme lähtökohtia eri ennakoinnin lähestymistapoihin tutustumiseen ja keskustelun aloittamisen. Lisäksi esimerkiksi kansallisvaltioiden rajat ylittävä ennakointija tutkimustoiminta on aktiivista ja siihen pyritään enenevässä määrin. Suomessa on rikas tulevaisuudentutkimuksen ja ennakoinnin traditio, ja olemme monessa suhteessa edelläkäv?öitä tulevaisuustyön saralla. Tulevaisuudentutkimus on toisaalta myös paikallista toimintaa, jossa ajatteluja toimintatavat nivoutuvat eri alueiden kulttuuriin ja historiaan. Millennium-projektin kuvaus Jerome Glennin ja Mara Di Berardon kirjoittamana aloittaa artikkelit-osion. Matti Minkkinen ja Tero Villman puolestaan kutsuvat luk?at maapallon toiselle puolelle ja esittävät artikkelissaan näkökulmia tulevaisuudentutkimuksen ja ennakoinnin monimuotoisuudesta ja fokuksesta sirpaleisuuteen sekä jatkuvuuteen Australiassa ja Uudesta-Seelannissa. Vaikka tietyt perusajatukset useimmiten jaetaan, tulevaisuudentutkimusta tehdään kuitenkin eri lähtökohdista ja pyrkimyksistä käsin, ja siihen vaikuttavat erilaiset paikalliset edelläkäv?ät, historialliset perinteet ja tavat jäsentää maailmaa. Kannustamme luk?oita tarkentamaan katseensa eri maailmankolkkien tulevaisuudentutkimukseen teemanumeron kirjoitusten avulla, mutta myös vertailemaan eri lähestymistapoja, jäljittämään samankaltaisuuksia ja yhteyksiä niiden välillä sekä arvioimaan, mitä oppeja Suomeen ja muualle voitaisiin omaksua näistä ennakoinnin tavoista ja tarinoista. Kolmannessa referoidussa artikkelissa Fredy Vargas Lama ja Luz Martha Melo Rodrigues esittävät pitkän aikavälin ajattelua Latinalaisessa Amerikassa ja erityisesti maiden hallinnossa kuvaavan mallin sekä arviot nykytilanteesta. Vastaavasti Mara Di Berardo, Carolina Facioni ja Roberto Paura kuvaavat tulevaisuudentutkimuksen historiaa, nykytilannetta sekä erityisesti toim?oita Italiassa. Esimerkiksi yhdysvaltalaisen tulevaisuudentutkimuksen s?aan tarkastellaan alaa Latinalaisessa Amerikassa ja Afrikassa, ja ruotsalaisen tulevaisuudentutkimuksen s?aan ennakointia Tanskassa. Joni Karjalainen valottaa orastavan afrikkalaisen tulevaisuustyön kenttää ja Afrikan unionin ponnisteluja. Tulevaisuudentutkimusta tehdään kaikkialla maailmassa ja käsiteltävät ilmiöt voivat olla luonteeltaan maailmanlaajuisia. Kirjoituksia lukiessa voi myös pohtia, mitä uusia ennakointitapojen yhdistelmiä tulevaisuudessa voisi kehittyä, kun kansainväliset yhteydet tiivistyvät ja tieto kulkee yhä nopeammin. Kurjen kirjoitus ranskalaisen tulevaisuudentutkimuksen prospektiiviajattelun ?loso?asta ammentavasta, ennakoinnin päätöksentekoon Tulevaisuudentutkimuksen maailma mosaiikkina. Referoitujen artikkeleiden osion aloittaa Kerstin Cuhls, joka seikkaperäisesti valottaa tulevaisuudentutkimuksen ja ennakoinnin kehitystä toisesta maailmansodasta nykyhetkeen ja tulevaisuudennäkymiin Saksassa. Monet alueet ovat monikulttuurisia ja mosaiikin sisään mahtuukin lukuisia “mini-mosaiikkeja”, erilaisia mahdollisia tarinoita tietyltä maantieteelliseltä alueelta
Nousevien ennakointimaanosien joukosta Morne Mostert tarjoaa narratiivisen arkkitehtuurin näkökulman afrikkalaiseen ennakointiin Kultakutri ja kolme karhua -sadun muunnoksena. Puheenvuorot-osio perustuu eduskunnan tulevaisuusvaliokunnan uraauurtavaan toimintaan. Sirkka Heinonen, FT emeritaprofessori Tulevaisuuden tutkimuskeskus Turun yliopisto sirkka.heinonen@utu.?. Toivomme teille antoisia ja avartavia lukuhetkiä! Vierailevat päätoimittajat, Tero Villman Matti Minkkinen Sirkka Heinonen Matti Minkkinen, FT erikoistutk?a Turun yliopisto matti.minkkinen@utu.. Tero Villman, KTM, VTM projektitutk?a, väitöskirjatutk?a Tulevaisuuden tutkimuskeskus Turun yliopisto tero.villman@utu.. Toisen vahvasti tulevaisuusorientoituneen kansakunnan Singaporen ennakoinnista kertoo maassa pitkään työskennellyt Tuomo Kuosa. Latinalaisessa Amerikassa puolestaan on parhaillaan vahva imu, tahtotila ja uusi aalto tulevaisuustyöskentelyyn, muun muassa Chilessä, Meksikossa ja Uruguayssa. 3 4/22 F Tero Villman, Matti Minkkinen & Sirkka Heinonen kytkevästä erityisluonteesta ja kehitystarpeista avainhenkilöhaastattelujen pohjalta. Tähän teemanumeroon nostimme edellä mainitun Latinalaista Amerikkaa käsittelevän referoidun artikkelin lisäksi katsauksen Miguel Gutierrezilta koskien argentiinalaista tulevaisuudentutkimusta. Helsingissä lokakuussa 2022 järjestetyn historiallisesti ensimmäisen tulevaisuusvaliokuntien maailmankokouksen merkittävyyttä käsitellään eduskunnan puhemies Matti Vanhasen avauspuheenvuorossa, tulevaisuusvaliokunnan puheenjohtaja Joakim Strandin johdannossa sekä tulevaisuusvaliokuntien maailmankokouksen julkilausumassa. Sen lisäksi, että tulevaisuusvaliokunnalla on tärkeä rooli maamme kansallisessa ennakointiverkostossa ja -prosessissa, valiokunta pyrkii myös kohti parlamentaaristen päättäjien yhteisen verkoston luomista. Viimeisenä katsauksena on Laura Pouru-Mikkolan kirjoitus Unescon globaalin verkoston roolista tulevaisuuslukutaidon kehittämisessä. Kirja-arvosteluissa Sanna Ketonen-Oksi pureutuu kahteen ranskankieliseen teokseen avartaen näkökulmia ekososiaaliseen hyvinvointiin ja Sirkka Heinonen 50 vuotta alkuperäisen Kasvun rajat -raportin jälkeen julkistetun kirjan nostamiin kysymyksiin. Kaiken kaikkiaan kyseessä on monisäikeinen lukupaketti, joka toimii yhtenä monista väylistä tulevaisuudentutkimuksen rikkaaseen ja monimuotoiseen maailmaan. Perussa järjestettiin juuri ensimmäinen kansainvälinen ennakointikonferenssi
However, the ?eld lost its impetus and was restarted at the beginning of the 1990s with the notion of science and technology Foresight. This contribution is a ”historical paper“ based partly on literature analysis and partly on personal experience and observations. It took until 1992, when following the Japanese Delphi surveys, re?nements and combinations of methods brought Germany back to the state of the art in Foresight especially on the national level. After World War II, Foresight in Germany had followed di?erent paths. Whereas in Eastern Germany, a prognostic and planning approach was adopted quickly, the Western part of the country was ?rst hesitative towards anticipatory governance or planning. 4/22 4 Futura REFEREE-ARTIKKELI Foresight in Germany – A history of long-term views and the exploration of futures Abstract Foresight or futures studies or futures research gained ground at the beginning of the 1970s when the ”Limits to Growth“ was published, with models of the future, ?rst scenarios, planning and political futures. The repertoire of methods broadened to semi-automated Horizon Scanning, virtual creative and scenario workshops, and more participation. After the reuni?cation, Foresight gained ground in Germany, like in the EU, started to be organised into networks and is now on its way towards becoming a scienti?c discipline. Kerstin Cuhls Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, ISI, University of Heidelberg, Centre for East Asian and Transcultural Studies, CATS, Germany kerstin.cuhls@isi.fraunhofer.de
The terminology for Foresight, Futures Research, or Futures Studies has always been in ?ux and, developing in di?erent communities all over the globe. This contribution is organised in the following way. In West Germany, again, for more than three decades, planning was strategic planning, less prognostic. Here, the author mainly uses a broad de?nition: understanding Foresight as the “systematic debate about complex futures” (Cuhls 2012). The History of Foresight in Germany After the Second World War, people in Germany were busy building up the economy, a new political system and overcoming the nightmares of the past, as well as getting away from the visions of a 3rd Reich that had given misleading 1 The reviewers reminded me not to forget the paths of futures research that were conducted under very di?erent headings. 1 These were qualitative debates, less systematic considerations of di?erent futures. Desirable futures and vision approaches have existed, too, but they were rather dictative visions of certain leaders. Thank you.. The last part attempts to provide an outlook on current and future developments of and in the ?eld. Thus, the 1960s rather saw a re-building of the state, its structures, administration and a strong belief in planning, and until 1968 less so in societal or policy debates. As the notion of Futurology did not match the expectations and there was a political struggle about it (Flechtheim 1966; Jungk 1983; Seefried 2015; Steinmüller 2012; 2013; 2014a; 2014b), futures studies only developed as single projects, as models of the future, and increasingly, the term „Foresight“ was used for studies on national and other levels. Foresight in Germany has existed under different headings touching upon many di?erent themes science and technology, societal issues or policy debates, sometimes starting openly with a broad view into the future, at other times starting from problematic issues or expected crises. I will begin with a brief overview on the history of Foresight/Futures studies/Futures Research/Futurology in Germany. The second part explains the story of science and technology Foresight, which gained impetus since the 1990s, was widened to BMBF programmes, and brought new networks, teaching and institutionalisation to Germany. 5 4/22 F Kerstin Cuhls Introduction People have always wanted to know what the future might hold for them. As some of the national visions went wrong in the 1930s and 40s, the time after World War II saw a very cautious use of dealing with visions, futures, long-range issues, and the so-called Futurology (Flechtheim 1966). This started with science and technology, and especially with copying the 5th Japanese Science and Technology Forecasting Survey (BMFT 1993; Cuhls 1998; NISTEP & IFTECH 1992) under the auspices of the Federal German Ministry for Science and Technology (BMFT). It took until the reuni?cation of Germany to get the government more involved in Foresight. In the post-war time, many new concepts and lines of thought were taken over from other countries the USA was a special role model. However, even though the RAND corporation in Santa Monica developed many of the Foresight methods still in use today (like Delphi surveys and scenarios (Dalkey & Helmer 1963; Kahn 1975; Kahn & Wiener 1977)) and the modelling of futures was tested from the methodological point of view (Forrester 1961; 1989; Jochem 1975), it still took a long time to embrace methods on a national scale. There were always di?erent schools re?ecting on futures (from democratic considerations and more participation to political strands), but they did not focus on the heading of “Foresight“ or ”Futures Research“. Nevertheless, under di?erent headings, debates about futures continued to go on in di?erent scienti?c circles, especially the humanities. For a long period of time after 1945, futures research was mainly driven by science and technology, because in post-war times, there was an enthusiastic belief in the new possibilities opened up by science and technology: energy solutions, economic possibilities, mobility for everyone, being able to rise to the middle class and higher just by education etc., combined with the trust that the next generation will live a better live. In the GDR, prognosis was mainly at the forefront as the ?ve-year plans were a basis for the political and economic system
After a single broad study in the USA (Dalkey & Helmer 1963; Helmer 1983; Helmer-Hirschberg & Gordon 1964), Japan was the ?rst country to establish regular Delphi surveys and later Foresight studies in science, technology, innovation and society on a national level followed (Cuhls 1998; Kuwahara et al. At this time, Foresight and Futures Research were often perceived as predictive (Which futures may come true?), as part of planning processes (strict planning in the sense of the “planning decade”), but also as policy and political processes (Flechtheim 1966; Jungk 1986; Steinmüller 2012; 2013; 2014a; 2014b; Godet 1986; Radkau 2017; Seefried 2015). Discussions about the determination of futures came up: is there only one determined future to be detected or are there di?erent realizable options that can even be shaped by human beings. Working on the long-term view, researchers e.g. Political or policy-oriented futures research was only a niche, but it existed and was discussed qualitatively in meetings and in the feuilletons of newspapers. When Foresight in a broader sense started in US operations research in the 1950s, especially in military support (RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, see Helmer 1975; 1983; Helmer & Rescher 1959), the future of science and technology was seen as a driver of the economy and societal development. In science and technology, catching up with the USA, and in the political context, the country’s positioning in-between the US and the Soviet Union were the major questions. Foresight was treated di?erently with the split of the country and the two Germanys: one had clear socialist planning purposes and one was adapting to democratic leadership structures and avoiding political “visioning“. A milestone in this futures thinking was the report “Limits of Growth” to the Club of Rome, making use of the so-called Forrester model that allows for an extrapolation of variables. The ?rst overview studies in early Foresight were scenarios (Kahn & Wiener 1977) or Delphi surveys (Helmer 1967; 1983), all starting at the RAND Corporation and brought over to or published in many other countries. The timing of the report coincided with a number of new institutional foundations all over the world, and also in Germany, where for example, the Fraunhofer Institute für System Technology and Innovation (ISI), the author’s ”home institute“, was founded in 1972. The original forecasting approaches broadened to general societal questions, as well as to outlooks on science and technology (Helmer & Rescher 1959; Jantsch 1967; Jouvenel 1967). West Germany looked at the US for science and technology, so when Foresight gained ground in the US with the ?rst Delphi and scenario studies (Dalkey & Helmer 1963; Helmer 1967; 1975; 1983; Helmer & Rescher 1959; Kahn 1975; 1977; Kahn & Wiener 1977), there were attempts in the Western part of Germany to experiment with these methods. In Germany (West), the Batelle-Institute was the leading institution in the development of new methods in Foresight and Futures planning, combining quantitative and qualitative approaches already in the 1960s. 2008; NISTEP 2019). at Fraunhofer ISI, were already aware that predictive outlooks are assumptions about the future, meaning “working material”, not facts, and that the major task of a Foresighter is to deal with uncertainties (Krupp 1972; ISI 1973). Foresight in Germany – A history of long-term views and the exploration of futures. During the 1960s, many researchers in the world, as well as in Germany, assumed that it could be possible to develop world models with systems technology simulated by computers, even though the ?rst models at that time were only able to process very few variables for their simulations (Forrester 1961; Meadows et al. Even the notion of “social technology” was used (Helmer 1966). In the 1970s, German researchers, coming from many di?erent disciplines but starting to work in Foresight and Futures studies, were reaching out to science, technology, innovation and their framework conditions or environments including politics, economy with resource and energy supply, and the societal uptake. The ?rst applications in Delphi surveys (Helmer 1983) and scenarios (Kahn 1977; Kahn & Wiener 1977) were performed in the USA, but by researchers who originally came from Germany and often published in the German language, too. In East Germany, Foresight as such (method-based, open futures and long-term) did not exist (Steinmüller 2014a) or was performed in a prognostic way to support planning purposes. Foresight in Germany was rather seen as an art than a scienti?c approach (Jouvenel 1967). 1972). 4/22 6 Futura guidance
The discussion of not confusing technology policy with technology planning in the sense of socialist planning (which had just been overcome in Germany by the uni?cation) went on (and lead to the paper on the di?erence between foresight and planning, see Cuhls 2003). Two major approaches to Foresight can be distinguished (van Asselt 2012: 24-25): ?rst, the predictive approach to Foresight (forecasting) that dominated from the 1950s to the 1970s including the prognosis approaches of the GDR (Steinmüller 2014a), and secondly, the increasing use of approaches to shape the future and work on preferred or desirable futures (Kreibich 2007c). Especially two Foresight processes brought di?erent methods back on the agenda. Science and technology shifted towards longer-term future orientation and new policy strategies. Triggered by Irvine and Martin’s (1984) report on comparing Foresight in several countries, a broad way of conducting science and technology outlook studies to learn for the present got impetus in the early 1990s, especially when the ?rst national Foresight activities in Japan were conducted in the same way in Germany (BMFT 1993), then in the UK and in France. In 1992, Foresight was restarted with an outlook on science and technology Foresight as a part of technology assessment. Science and Technology Foresight on a national scale In the 1980s, researchers in Germany worked in di?erent scienti?c ?elds and disciplines, focusing more on models and planning, less on Futures studies. Generally, new methods should be tested and used to identify ‘emerging’ technologies and developments of science and technology, as well as their general impacts. There were good reasons for starting such activities on the national level. These ?rst two projects were regarded as “risky”. Since then, it has broadened and developed in di?erent directions under di?erent headings. Both gained a lot of attention and especially the industry was interested in the results and demanded a German Delphi exercise. One was the Technology at the Beginning of the 21st Century (Grupp 1994), a key technologies Foresight approach learned from the USA. After the ?rst German attempts, two Japanese-German Delphi processes, including a parallel Mini Delphi approach, were tested to develKerstin Cuhls 2 These are the people who approve project proposals or induce new programmes. At the authors home institute, the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation research, this was the case right from the beginning (Krupp 1972). Policy advice based on the ?ndings and for supporting innovation policy beyond pure science and technology policy was and is still intertwined with Foresight. the Frankfurt School and the Marburger School) as well as individual scientists or ”activists“ discussing futures at di?erent levels and in di?erent arenas of society, often under thematic or political headings, but rarely in a systematic and methodology-guided way. This was regarded as insu?cient by the German BMBF, so the new concepts in German Foresight also took into account the demand in economy, society, the environment and future impacts. It was based on the experiences of the German Programme operating agencies for the Federal Ministry of Science and Technology (BMFT) 2 , a bibliometric approach and a ?rst mapping of future science and technology based on the bibliometric and survey data. 2008; Grupp 1999); and the enhancement of the methodological toolbox (Cuhls 2008) going increasingly beyond the ?elds of science, technology and innovation. That means they have a nice overview of successful and unsuccessful project applications.. The exchange of knowledge broadened to EU networks, bringing more and more participative approaches and is nowadays often based on EU framework contracts and cooperative projects in online worlds. But there were di?erent schools, discussing future aspects, too (i.e. At the same time, the ?rst German Delphi survey (BMFT 1993), copied from the 5th Japanese Delphi survey (NISTEP & IFTECH 1992), was conducted. First, starting at the beginning of this century, regional, national and international networks and cooperation began emerging. This marks the beginning of national Foresight activities all over the world (Gheorghiou et al. 7 4/22 F From the content point of view, science, technology, and innovation were often in the focus of futures research activities human-induced and described as drivers for “progress”
Therefore, German foresight activities were supposed to provide more information about the future, informing also those actors who are not able to gain this knowledge alone (e.g. To open up the German national foresight processes for a greater variety of participants, the forerunner version of FUTUR put special emphasis on the use of the Internet as a platform to discuss di?erent topics. Especially for research programmes or companies’ strategies, information about the future was required as a basis for general decisions. 2021) in a much broader way, to include ”citizens“ into workshops and to touch upon futures in a more interdisciplinary and participative way. This was often regarded as unscienti?c and the worlds of science and society remained separated. Foresighters saw the future as essentially open and Foresight as a way of re?ecting about possible futures to derive measures for the present. 1998). 2001) and many discussions about “who is an expert?” occurred.. A ?rst attempt in this direction was the ?rst national ‘programme’ called FUTUR. Many companies in Germany started to analyse the dataset for their own purposes. Therefore, the data was published for further use (Cuhls et al. Other areas were the Environment, or potential contributions from Photovoltaics, Superconductivity, Cognitive Systems and Arti?cial Intelligence, Nanotechnology and Microsystems Technology, Cancer Treatment and Research, Brain Research, Waste Processing and Recycling or Climate Research and Technology. Foresight in Germany – A history of long-term views and the exploration of futures. It was already obvious that Germany needed further concepts to develop the necessary degree of e?ectiveness to make innovative leaps, but also to address societal needs. 1998) started in 1997 – just before the “Millennium“, the date when everybody wanted to know what was lying ahead. The BMBF expected that it would be su?cient to 3 Online at https://web.archive.org/ web/20070609114659/https://www.isi.fraunhofer. The great advantage of a transparent Delphi process is that everyone can make his/her own analysis of the study data – depending on the individual needs and questions about the future. The idea to discuss futures more openly and to identify the in?uences and risks of the technological-economic dynamics came up later and was often driven by citizen movements (Kreibich 2007a; 2007b, 177-181). The cooperation partners, again, were ISI on behalf of the BMBF in Germany, and NISTEP in Japan (Cuhls et al. This made the study famous, even though it was originally planned only to give input into the agenda of the German renamed Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). It was too early for many in the ?eld of research policy and is regarded as unsuccessful in Germany, even though in the end, all recommended future ?elds ended up in BMBF programmes. The Second Comprehensive German Study on the Development of Science and Technology (Delphi ’98, Cuhls et al. It took a long time to bring them together (again), to communicate with scienti?c methods like Delphi (Belton et al. The ?elds sound as if this project was performed in 2022, but it was in 1995. small and medium-sized companies, research institutes, ‘the public’). de/P/Projektbeschreibungen/Cu-delphi.html. Hidden biases (especially the overestimation bias in science) in the assessments were discussed for the ?rst time in these contexts (Blind et al. 3 Reaching out for new methods and societal topics Foresight researchers noticed that collecting data on science and technology was not enough, so already in the Delphi ‘98, we included assessments on ”megatrends“ as information and also for research on speci?c perspectives of experts. The process started in 1999 and was better received internationally than in Germany. At this stage, the project was not intended to in?uence policy-making directly by implementation. The intention was to meet some criticism from the ?rst German Delphi survey and to gain more detailed information about some of the international ”problem areas“ („Problemfelder“ in German) such as Life Sciences and the Future of the Health System and in this context, for the demand of society. The whole procedure of the survey was conducted in parallel to that in Japan. 4/22 8 Futura op the Delphi method further. The Mini Delphi was more oriented towards the identi?cation and assessment of technical solutions to solve problems and was therefore more demand-, needsand problem-oriented than the previous study. 1995)
It was evaluated by an international expert panel in the autumn and winter of 2002 (Cuhls & Georghiou 2004). The results of this ?rst phase of the FUTUR process consisted of so-called ‘Lead Vision Papers’, describing a broader ?eld important for the future and research necessary in this ?eld, including a scenario to illustrate and visualise the things to come. As this process focuses on speci?c issues only, it is too early to judge if it has been successful or to state that it has reached a broader audience than the previous processes. 2015a; 2015b). The third and current German Foresight programme is focused mainly on Horizon Scanning activities. The process took into account developments at the national as well as international level, and was conducted by a larger consortium led by Fraunhofer ISI. It contained, on the one hand, an update on the science and technology ?elds, and on the other, scouting and searching for signals of societal change in Germany. The BMBF Foresight Process, subtitled “Implementation and Further Development of a Foresight Process”, started by assessing present-day science and technology and was broadened to look into the future over the next 10 to 15 years – and even further in science and technology, not in innovation. in Kerstin Cuhls 4 https://www.bmbf.de/bmbf/de/forschung/sozialeinnovationen-und-zukunftsanalyse/foresight/ foresight_node.html. This approach failed because too few people knew about the process, and the questions to be discussed were not well de?ned. So, BMBF decided to re-start the process. The ?rst phase of this ‘new’ FUTUR ran until early 2003. Although Futur was originally intended to be run as a continuous activity, it was terminated in 2005. 2022). This process started in 2019 and is supported by a committee (Zukunftskreis) of Foresight experts who support the identi?cation of thematic issues for further analysis. They are experimenting with new ways of gaining an overview on governance issues or on speci?c future ?elds like digital or arti?cial intelligence (Erdmann et al. Other Foresight Activities in Germany In the last 10 years, the number of actors in Foresight has increased very much. The process linked both Foresight and monitoring in an integrated approach, and was not intended to be participative. Ministries, and here especially the Ministry for Environment and its Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt, UBA), the BMAS, and the BMWK, are increasingly active in performing Foresight activities, especially Horizon Scanning and scenario building or analysis. In the spring of 2001, ‘Futur – The German Research Dialogue’ was launched (for details, see Cuhls & Jaspers 2004). Both parts were matched in a co-creative workshop with experts, stakeholders and citizens to develop ideas for solutions, so-called “innovation seeds“, and the di?erent trends identi?ed were integrated into “stories from the future“. 4 For instance, a study on ongoing shifts of values and beliefs has been carried out, and a series of workshops and online events has been implemented to discuss speci?c emerging issues for the future of research and innovation in Germany. The procedure was more BMBF-oriented and relied on a wider process, using a variety of methods and instruments such as focus groups, conferences, online votes and scenario writing. The second BMBF Foresight Process started in 2012, and was a more demand-driven approach (Zweck et al. BMBF Foresight Processes The Foresight Processes of BMBF went on, and a new one was started in 2007, aiming at 1) identifying new focuses in research and technology, 2) designating areas for cross-cutting activities, 3) exploring ?elds for strategic partnerships, and 4) deriving priorities for R&D policy. 9 4/22 F provide a platform and some input on the topics to encourage any interested party to participate in the discussions. In addition, they are testing new ways of communicating these emerging topics to stakeholders and the public, e.g. Whereas in industry, there was always Foresight on di?erent levels, e.g. The number of actors who o?er Foresight as consultancies has also risen. for society and technology at the German Telekom, VW, Audi, Bayer, or at Daimler AG (now Mercedes-Benz) etc., partly as Corporate Foresight including the company sta?, partly as rather Horizon Scanning activities to identify new ?elds for innovation
Until now, the paid Master Futures Research at the Free University Berlin has been the only full Master programme in Germany, but a new course is starting in Ingolstadt. This has also initiated new conversations about futures and Strategic Foresight, ?rst rather informal at the German Bundesakademie für Sicherheitspolitik (BAKS), and later, more formalised in the Federal Chancellery. 2015, English version 2022). The SNV has also initiated the ?rst teaching programmes for ministerial servants and servants from other institutions. Recently, they have initiated a study on opportunities for more institutionalised Strategic Foresight approaches within the German government (Warnke et al. After the ?rst “programme” in Foresight (BMBF Foresight Process I, see above), the external impetus has come from the Stiftung Neue Verantwortung (Foundation New Responsibility, SNV) that has tried to bring Foresight into di?erent government agencies and ministries and create some common ground. The implementation, the use of Foresight results in practice, tracing results in evaluations and telling success stories with “real examples“ of the usefulness of Foresight remains a di?culty (see Cuhls & Georghiou 2004).Education or training in Foresight is now established, but there is still a long way to go for a full curriculum, and only a few universities o?er courses or single seminars in Foresight or Futures Research. 4/22 10 Futura stories of the future, with dashboards 5 or with storyboards 6 . Yet, Foresight takes place in many networks and under di?erent headings in Germany and internationally. For example, all Foresighters at our institute, the Fraunhofer ISI, come from di?erent disciplines and bring in their previous knowledge to broaden the scope and themat5 E.g., https://ribri.isi-project.eu/ 6 https://www.uba-ki-storyboard.de/ 7 https://netzwerk-zukunftsforschung.de/ Foresight in Germany – A history of long-term views and the exploration of futures. The goal of the study is to learn from the various experiences with Strategic Foresight across the German ministries and institutions, as well as from other countries, e.g., Finland. Despite the limitations, Futures Research may be on its way towards a scienti?c discipline. The discussions on Futurology or Futures Research as “a real discipline” in the scienti?c sense (Seefried 2015; Steinmüller 2012; 2013; 2014a) are still ongoing. This kind of “academy approach“ was taken over by the BAKS, which developed towards a node in the ministerial network. In the last legislative period, the Chancellery opened a division called “Strategic Foresight“ and built up inhouse talks as well as interministerial exchanges. In 2007, the ?rst German network for Futures Research was established 7 with the aim of uniting the understanding of Futures Research in Germany, giving the researchers a joint “Leitbild” (a kind of vision) and mutual exchange in working groups. Furthermore, Foresight collaborations with German participation are increasinly taking place EU-wide on network or project basis, less so within the disciplinary boundaries of universities. The seminars on Foresight at the BAKS were started as a trial – but in 2022, they are still ongoing twice a year, and they are always fully booked. The network has de?ned quality criteria for Futures Research (Gerhold et al. In the last 10 years, there have also been new attempts to institutionalize Foresight and to strengthen the “Government Foresight“ or “Strategic Foresight“ in the German ministries and agencies and especially to interlink their activities. Future Development of Foresight in Germany Foresight is still a fragile endeavour but there is a good basis now in Germany for it to continue. From national Foresight projects to an institutionalisation of Foresight. More ministries or agencies have started to institutionalize Foresight in their departments (often as “Strategic Foresight”). 2021). The demand for practical Foresight has changed from individual studies to on-demand projects that build on each other and are integrated into ongoing business or policy processes. These activities were and are several single projects that could be named “Foresight”, but there is no coordination or coherent understanding of what Foresight could mean in the broader policy context
Expectations are high and participants could be disappointed easily this is one of the experiences from the early Foresight process FUTUR, which in terms of participatory foresight was not fully understood at the time. In the 1980s and 90s, literature and patent data were the most important data publicly available to analyse innovation activity (Grupp 1997; Cuhls 1998; Blind et al. At the same time, the very notion of objectively “observing” signals of change is challenged by a lively discourse (also in Finland) to advance the capacities to identify and assess “weak signals” (Ilmola & Kuusi 2006; Hiltunen 2010). However, over time, the number of communities and amount of scienti?c literature in Foresight has increased internationally and in Germany, with researchers being part of many networks (EU, OECD or the associations WFS, WFSF etc.) and advisory or editorial boards of journals. Technology Foresight is closely interlinked with these activities and makes use of data analyses, additional searches and expert interviews as important input into collective futures search and dialogues. This is aligned with the engagement of more people in the co-creation of the urgently needed societal transitions to meet the UN Sustainable Development Goals. 1996). In sum, the ?eld of foresight studies has seen a growing institutionalisation into a scienti?c discipline. Participatory Foresight processes in Germany are future-oriented activities that encourage an integrated, focused engagement of interdisciplinary experts, stakeholders and citizens at multiple points in the Foresight processes. Foresight researchers are increasingly adopting a constructivist approach towards futures thinking and subsequently focusing on the cognitive framings determining the way futures are perceived (Schirrmeister et al. In addition, the co-creation of ideas for action in the context of mission-oriented innovation policies like the German High-Tech Strategy target socio-technical transitions for grand challenges (Trénel et al. There are more and more departments in universities o?ering courses or integrating Foresight knowledge. Especially the methods including participation are gaining ground in German Foresight. Another change is from weak signal scanning to automated bibliometrics and content search as well as the use of virtual tools for workshops. The step-by-step integration of Foresight activities into ongoing policy-making and strategy development routines over the past 50 years has developed hand in hand with a shift from Foresight mainly based on the desk research of intelligence units and selected expert assumptions for policy or business consultation and planning in the 1970s, towards opening up Foresight to di?erent types of actors (Cuhls 2003). The ?rst colleagues studied Futures Research at the Free University Berlin, where the (so far) only Masters Course for students was established, and some of us are teaching there, too. 2001). 2020). Algorithms to analyse patterns in unstructured data sources, such as natural language processing (NLP), topKerstin Cuhls. (an early example can be found in Cuhls et al. Including citizens into decision-making processes and forward-looking activities or in experiential sciences, living labs or experimental futures is increasingly required, but still di?cult to organise. 2020) building on seminal work in cognitive science. The availability of new, unstructured data in di?erent sources and the possibility of using this data via machine learning algorithms has developed dynamically in the last 5 years. Since 2019, Futures Research is an of?cial “small scienti?c subject” acknowledged by the German Federal Ministry for Research and Education (BMBF), even though chairs at universities labelled “Foresight” are still rare. 11 4/22 F ic range of their projects. Citizen-generated artefacts are recognized as an important mode of communicating “bottom-up” images of the future and their inherent citizen aspirations. Since the 1990s, and even more, the beginning of the 2000s, researchers are exploring the mining of more diverse but structured and clearly de?ned databases for environmental and Horizon Scanning. We observe a gradual expansion of expert assumptions and advice towards including more co-generation of knowledge about possible futures and collaboration in the development of ideas for action to tackle the challenges. Bibliometric analysis o?ers the possibility to broaden the perspective and to include scienti?c developments outside the patent realm, such as social sciences
This is one of the reasons why we at the Fraunhofer ISI de?ne Foresight as the "systematic debate of complex futures". The future challenges therefore still lie in: 1. 2. In cases where the clients are part of the process, they may take over later in the process. In others, there are still many problems to be solved in interface management. How much are researchers and futurists contributing to “colonizing the future” or playing power games. Understanding futures: Horizon scanning of signals for change, analysis of interactions between trends and developments, dealing with biases for the exploration of futures. Or, is here the point where the results of the process are handed over to the decision-makers in the clients’ institutions. The time horizons we look at do not necessarily have to correspond with the linear calendar, but can include concepts such as multiple futures or cyclical processes. Is Foresight only about improving or shaping the present via futures orientation, or is it possible to work back from visions and goals, from policy mission or desirable futures, and set milestones to achieve these goals. Nevertheless, thinking in di?erent, consistent futures is di?cult as (linear) decisions in the “now” are needed. Foresight in Germany – A history of long-term views and the exploration of futures. This needs a di?erent awareness and we are always facing a long discussion in explaining Foresight and its limited possibilities. 4/22 12 Futura ic-modelling such as latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA), and deep learning methods based on arti?cial neural networks, are increasingly available (LeCun et al. We refer to the mediumto long-term futures in order to draw conclusions for the present, and assume that working on futures and their time-scales is a non-linear process. We know that we need foresight and in government and ministries, this awareness is also rising. Simply handing over the Foresight results in reports or nice pictures is not enough anymore. Dealing with and deciding on futures: Foresight for strategy development, use of foresight results for decision-making. The transition to the needs of the people and to meet future challenges and face crisis situations remains a permanent endeavour – not only in Germany. 2021). But it is developing slowly and smoothly. The de?nition makes clear that with the (non-) decisions of today, we shape the direction of the future we want to see unfolding. That is why we in Germany rather intend to learn from Finland (Warnke et al. 2015; Muhlroth & Grottke 2022) and incorporated into Foresight. In Finland, the motivation and openness for long-term futures thinking is much better developed. Thus, the prognosis is wrong, but the result can be good and the process successful. In Germany, we have the methods, the institutions, the organisations, but the way to fully exploit and apply what we know is still a long and bumpy road ahead of us. Researchers work on transformation scenarios and the question, How far can our German Foresight processes go. Imagining futures: Designing futures through scenario development and visioning, future dialogues with stakeholders, experts and citizens. Outlook Foresight is not well established in Germany yet and still needs a lot of explanation and motivation to convince the di?erent stakeholders in the (innovation) system, political system or economic system to perform it and act with a more long-term view. Therefore, a clear expectation management is necessary in every process, also clarifying that Foresight works with self-ful?lling prophecies: identifying a problem paves the way for its solution. Is this still the task of Foresight and the research groups supporting it. 3
Physica Verlag, Heidelberg. Gheorghiou, Luke, Jennifer Cassingena-Harper, Michael Keenan, Ian Miles & Rafael Popper (Eds.) (2008): The Handbook of Technology Foresight. Freiburg. 319-339 Cuhls, Kerstin, Sibylle Breiner & Hariolf Grupp (1996): Delphi-Bericht 1995 zur Entwicklung von Wissenschaft und Technik Mini-Delphi. MIT Press, Cambridge. Ein Rückblick auf 30 Jahre Delphi-Expertenbefragungen. (1961): Industrial Dynamics. 3-14. Bonn. Accessed 26.4.2022. Cuhls, Kerstin (1998): Technikvorausschau in Japan. Jantsch, Erich (1967): Technological Forecasting in Perspective. 143–153. Befragung zur globalen Entwicklung von Wissenschaft und Technik. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. 458–467. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), Bonn. Prognosen, Trendund Zukunftsforschung, edited by Koschnick, Wolfgang J. Irvine, John & Ben R. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, OECD. <https://www.sciencedirect. <https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329408524182>. A Guide to Futures Research. Helmer, Olaf (1983): Looking Forward. Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse. Forecast. Forrester, Jay. 131–149. Kerstin Cuhls. Der Aufstand gegen das Unterträgliche. Anton Hain Verlag, Meisenheim am Glan. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica. München: Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH, pp. Jochem, Eberhard (1975): Technology Assessment and Participation. C. Cuhls, Kerstin (2008): Methoden der Technikvorausschau eine internationale Übersicht. 908–924. Available online at https://aaltodoc.aalto. (1989): The System Dynamics National Model: Macrobehaviour from Microstructure. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Sage, Beverly Hills/ London/ New Delhi. Special Issue La Prospective, Futures (April), pp. DOI: 10.1016/S0040-1625(00)00083-4. New participative foresight activities in Germany, J. 379–409. Grupp, Hariolf (1994): Technology at the beginning of the 21st century, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 6 (4), pp. com/science/article/abs/pii/0016328775900294>. Cuhls, Kerstin (2012): Zukunftsforschung und Vorausschau: FOCUS-Jahrbuch 2012. DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2005.12.019. (1998): Delphi '98 Studie. Cuhls, Kerstin & Michael Jaspers (Eds.) (2004): Participatory Priority Setting for Research and Innovation Policy. Helmer, Olaf (1967): Analysis of the Future: The Delphi method. IRB Verlag, Stuttgart. Grupp, Hariolf (1999): Special Issue on National Foresight Activities, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Special Issue on National Foresight Projects 60 (1). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden. BMFT (1993): Deutscher Delphi-Bericht zur Entwicklung von Wissenschaft und Technik. <https://www.rand.org/content/dam/ rand/pubs/papers/2005/P2982.pdf>. Helmer, Olaf & Nicholas Rescher (1959): On The Epistemology of the Inexact Sciences, Management Science (6), 47?. Los Angeles. Forrester, Jay. 93–111. Pinter, London/ Dover. Santa Monica, California. A factor analysis approach, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 68 (2), pp. 134–157. Bertelsmann, München. Jouvenel, Bertrand de (1967): Die Kunst der Vorausschau (original: L'Art de Conjecture). Flechtheim, Ossip K. <http://publica. In OECD (Ed.): Methodological Guidelines for Social Assessment, 139–145. F. Martin (1984): Foresight in Science, Picking the Winners. Gerhold, L.ars, Dirk Holtmannspötter,Christian Neuhaus, Elmar Schüll, Beate Schulz-Montag, Karlheinz Steinmüller & Axel Zweck (2022): Standards of Futures Research. Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie (BMFT). Erdmann, Lorenz, Kerstin Cuhls, Philine Warnke, Thomas Potthast, Leonie Bossert, Cordula Brand & Stefanie Saghri (2022): Digitalisierung und Gemeinwohl – Transformationsnarrative zwischen Planetaren Grenzen und Künstlicher Intelligenz, UBA 29/2022; <https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/ digitalisierung-gemeinwohl-transformationsnarrative> and Storyboards from the projekt: <https:// www.uba-ki-storyboard.de>. Grupp, Hariolf (1997): Messung und Erklärung des Technischen Wandels. A, 365). fraunhofer.de/documents/PX-45525.html>. With assistance of Sibylle Breiner, Kerstin Cuhls, Gerhard Jaeckel, Peter Georgie?, Knut Koschatzky, Thomas Reiß et al. <http://en.laprospective.fr/ dyn/anglais/memoire/prevtechen.pdf>. Luchterhand, Neuwied/Berlin. (1966): History and Futurology. auf die Zukunft. Accessed 9.2.2021. Accessed 26.4.2022. Rororo, Reinbek bei Hamburg. Zahn (Eds.): Computer-based Management of Complex Systems: proceedings of the 1989 International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Stuttgart, July 10-14, 1989, 3–12. de/content/dam/isi/dokumente/ccv/1998/Delphi98-Ergebnisse.pdf>. Pocketbook Edition München 1988. Helmer, Olaf (1975): An agenda for futures research, Futures 7(1), pp. 22 (2-3), pp. Rand Corporation. Godet, Michel (1986): Introduction to la Prospective. ?/handle/123456789/11544. Streitbare Beiträge zu drängenden Fragen der Zeit. Die 70er und 80er Jahre: So werden wir leben. Fraunhofer ISI, Karlsruhe. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag. [Helsinki]: Helsinki School of Economics (Acta Universitatis Oeconomicae Helsingiensis. <https://www.isi.fraunhofer. OECD, Paris. Helmer-Hirschberg, Olaf & Theodore J. Jungk, Robert (1983): Menschenbeben. Kahn, Herman (1975): Angri. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Northampton. Gordon (1964): Report on a Long-Range Forecasting Study. Blind, Knut, Kerstin Cuhls & Hariolf Grupp (2001): Personal attitudes in the assessment of the future of science and technology. In Milling, Peter & Erich O.K. Hiltunen, Elina (2010): Weak signals in organizational futures learning. Jungk, Robert (1986): Und Wasser bricht den Stein. DOI: 10.1002/?o2.118. With assistance of Foreword by Robert Jungk. W. W. Cuhls, Kerstin, Knut Blind, Hariolf Grupp, Harald Bradke, Carsten Dreher, Dirk Michael Harmsen et al. 13 4/22 F References Belton, Ian, Kerstin Cuhls & George Wright (2021): A critical evaluation of 42, large-scale, science and technology foresight Delphi surveys, Foresight and Futures Science 4(2). Seven key ideas and one scenario method. DOI: 10.1002/ for.848. Cuhls, Kerstin & Luke Georghiou (2004): Evaluating a participative foresight process: 'Futur the German research dialogue', Research Evaluation 13 (3), pp. Dalkey, Norman & Olaf Helmer (1963): An Experimental Application Of The Delphi-Method To The Use Of Experts, Journal of the Institute of Management Sciences 9, pp. Ilmola, Leena & Osmo Kuusi (2006): Filters of weak signals hinder foresight: Monitoring weak signals ef?ciently in corporate decision-making, Futures 38 (8), pp. Accessed 27.8.2020. Cuhls, Kerstin (2003): From forecasting to foresight processes. Helmer, Olaf (1966): Social Technology
Kagaku. Ergebnisband 3 zur Suchphase von BMBF-Foresight Zyklus II. 436–444. 5–21. T?ky?: Kagaku G?utsuch. Routledge. De Gruyter, Oldenburg. Meadows, Donella M., Dennis L. Smits (2012): Foresight in Action. zeitschrift-zukunftsforschung.de/ausgaben/jahrgang-2013/ausgabe-2/3699>. Düsseldorf. Krupp, Helmar (1972): Die Funktion der Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft im Innovationssystem der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. rororo, Reinbek bei Hamburg. 493–510. van Asselt, Marjolein, Susan A. Ein realistisches Modell unserer Zukunft. Fraunhofer ISI, Berlin, Accessed 02.03.2022. zeitschrift-zukunftsforschung.de/ausgaben/2014/ ausgabe-1-2014/3876>. zeitschrift-zukunftsforschung.de/ausgaben/2014/ ausgabe-2-2014/4069>. Zweck, Axel; Holtmannspötter, Dirk; Braun, Matthias; Hirt, Michael; Kimpeler, Simone (2015b): Geschichten aus der Zukunft 2030. Schirrmeister, Elna, Anne-Louise Göhring & Philine Warnke (2020): Psychological biases and heuristics in the context of foresight and scenario processes, Futures & Foresight Science 89 (6), p. 177-198. NISTEP & IFTECH (1992): 2020nen no Kagaku G?utsu. Edited by BMBF. Trénel, Matthias, Simone Kimpeler, Katja Fitschen, Max Priebe, Andreas Röß & Sahand Shahgholi (2020): Kernbotschaften aus dem Beteiligungsprozess zur Weiterentwicklung der Hightech-Strategie 2025. DOI: 10.1109/TEM.2020.2989214. Kagaku G?utsu Seisaku Kenky?jo; Mirai K?gaku Kenky?jo. <https://publica.fraunhofer.de/handle/ publica/416771>. In Zeitschrift für Semiotik 29 (2-3), pp. Dai 5kai Kagaku G?utsuch. Hg. Zur Innovationsfähigkeit von Stadtentwicklungsund Verkehrspolitik. With assistance of Franke, Keno, Charlotte Günther, Lea Luzzi, Jennifer Schulz & Caroline Winkelmann. 25. Accessed 24.2.2022. Accessed 1/19/2022. Zweck, Axel, Dirk Holtmannspötter, Matthias Braun, Kerstin Cuhls, Michael Hirt & Simone Kimpeler (2015a): Forschungsund Technologieperspektiven 2030. Versuch eines historischen Abrisses (Teil 2), Zeitschrift für Zukunftsforschung 2 (1), pp. DOI: 10.1038/nature14539. Essen. Eng. Seefried, Elke (2015): Zukünfte. Edited by National Institute of Science and Technology Policy. Accessed 24.2.2022. Warnke, Philine, Max Priebe & Sylvia Veit (2021): Studie zur Institutionalisierung von Strategischer Vorausschau als Prozess und Methode in der deutschen Bundesregierung. In Gheorghiou, Luke, Jennifer Cassingena-Harper, Michael Keenan, Ian Miles & Rafael Popper (Eds.): The Handbook of Technology Foresight, 170-184. In Heiner Monheim, Christoph Zöpel (Eds.): Räume für Zukunft. 4/22 14 Futura Kahn, Herman (1977): Vor uns die guten Jahre (original: The next 200 years). 6–19. Tokyo. van't Klooster, Phillip W.F. Molden, Wien/München. 69 (2), pp. Steinmüller, Karlheinz (2012): Zukunftsforschung in Deutschland Versuch eines historischen Abrisses (Teil 1), Zeitschrift für Zukunftsforschung 1 (1), pp. Ergebnisband 2 zur Suchphase von BMBFForesight Zyklus II. 5–24. v. Accessed 24.2.2022. Aufstieg und Krise der Zukunftsforschung 1945-1980. NISTEP. <http://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/ user?les/Limits-to-Growth-digital-scan-version.pdf>. 13. Accessed 5/23/2020. van Notten & Livia A. <https://www. Universe Books, New York. Steinmüller, Karlheinz (2014a): Aufstieg und Niedergang der Prognostik, Zeitschrift für Zukunftsforschung 2 (2). Behrens III (1972): The Limits to Growth. Muhlroth, Christian & Michael Grottke (2022): Arti?cial Intelligence in Innovation: How to Spot Emerging Trends and Technologies, IEEE Trans. <https://d-nb.info/1204290156/34>. The ?fth Science and Technology Forecasting Survey), NISTEP Report No. Foresight in Germany – A history of long-term views and the exploration of futures. <https://www. A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. <https://www. Steinmüller, Karlheinz (2014b): Zukunftsforschung in Deutschland Versuch eines historischen Abrisses (Teil 3), Zeitschrift für Zukunftsforschung 3 (1), pp. <https:// www.zeitschrift-zukunftsforschung.de/ausgaben/2012/1/3411>. Carl Hanser, München. Studie für das Bundesministerium für Bildung und Wissenschaft, Karlsruhe. Bericht an die Runde der Staatssekretäre am 28. Accessed 24.2.2022. Kuwahara, Terutaka, Kerstin Cuhls & Luke Georghiou (2008): Foresight in Japan. Meadows, Jørgen Randers & William W. Kreibich, Rolf (2007a): Planen für das Jahr 2025 – Können die Zukunftsforschung und die Agenda 21 Orientierungshilfe leisten. Accessed 26.5.2020. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Northampton. Voraussagen der Wissenschaft bis zum Jahre 2000. Prognosen, Visionen, Irrungen in Deutschland von 1945 bis heute. Manage. bmbf.de/?les/VDI_Band_102_C1.pdf>. In Ufu themen und informationen 2/2008 + 1/2009 (64/65). LeCun, Yann, Yoshua Bengio & Geo?rey Hinton (2015): Deep learning, Nature 521 (7553), pp. Radkau, Joachim (2017): Geschichte der Zukunft. Kahn, Herman & Anthony Wiener (1977): Ihr werdet es erleben. Kagaku G?utsuch. Steinmüller, Karlheinz (2013): Zukunftsforschung in Deutschland. DOI: 10.1002/ ?o2.31. VDI, Düsseldorf. NISTEP (2019): 11 S&T Foresight 2019 (The 11th Science and Technology Foresight 2019, Full volume). <http://hdl.handle.net/11035/00006607>. Kreibich, Rolf (2007b): Über Transparenz und Verantwortung in einer immer komplexer werdenden Welt. Oktober 2020. G?utsu Yosoku Ch?sa, (Science and Technology 2020. <https://www. Kreibich, Rolf (2007c): Wissenschaftsverständnis und Methodik der Zukunftsforschung. Fraunhofer-Institut für Systemund Innovationsforschung ISI, Karlsruhe
The resulting framework illustrates how complex Futures Studies are becoming in Italy, by analyzing the current organizations working in Italy in the Field and what their perceptions are of the challenges and opportunities for Futures Studies in Italy. After a short historical introduction of Futures Studies in Italy, the paper aims to illustrate the state of the art of contemporary Futures Studies through an exploratory assessment of the organizations, approaches, and objectives that are being developed today. Keywords: Futures Studies, Italy, Foresight, Organizations REFEREE-ARTIKKELI Mara Di Berardo Ph.D., Communication Director Italy Node Co-Chair, The Millennium Project MaraDiBerardo@millennium-project.org Carolina Facioni Sociologist and Ph.D. The research design is composed of an exploratory activity selecting the most prominent organizations in the ?eld, and of a web survey and dissemination activity through which information about these organizations and their perceptions of Futures Studies in Italy, in terms of challenges and opportunities, are collected and analyzed. Research Assistant Italian Institute of Statistics (ISTAT), Italian Institute for the Future Roberto Paura Ph.D. President, Italian Institute for the Future. 15 4/22 F Futures Studies in Italy: an exploratory assessment of organizations, approaches, and objectives Abstract Futures Studies in Italy has a long history. Starting from the contribution of its founders, such as Aurelio Peccei, co-founder of the Club of Rome at the end of the 1960s, Pietro Ferraro, with the Italian version of Futuribles, Eleonora Barbieri Masini, “the mother of Futures Studies”, and many others, the discipline has evolved over time, developing di?erent interests, methodologies, and studies in Italy. Nowadays, Italy seems to nurture a complex ?eld of activities related to the Futures
However, compared to the ?rst generation of Futures Studies, the contemporary ?eld of Futures Studies in Italy has developed rather recently. 4/22 16 Futura international Futures Studies community with a more precise, complete, and detailed overview of the multiple organizations, approaches, and objectives that are being developed in Italy. In conclusion, some potential next steps of the research project are proposed. 1.2 to Roberto Paura, and par. In the face of the rapid growth of the ?eld in recent years, a need for more timely mapping and networking of practitioners, researchers, and organizations working in Futures Studies has emerged. The results (Section 3) are reported and discussed in two main blocks, one related to the organizations and the other related to their perceptions of the challenges and opportunities they are facing. The data considered for the analysis are the web survey responses given by the organizations working in Futures Studies in Italy. In addition, the research project aims at individuating some of the main challenges and opportunities in the ?eld today and how to address and grasp them. To meet this need, the paper aims to assess the state of the art of the Italian Futures Studies in order to understand what the main characteristics of the organizations working in the ?eld today are in terms of objectives, activities, approaches, and themes. 3.1, should be attributed to Mara Di Berardo, par. However, section 2 and par. Futures Studies in Italy: A Brief History The following section illustrates some of the ?rst promoters and experts of Futures Studies in Italy who fall within what may be called a ?rst generation and some of the most important organizations working in the ?elds nowadays that can be included within a second generation in the ?eld and that seem to show a more group-oriented approach to the discipline. The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions.. For example, Bertrand de Jouvenel (1964) elaborated his theory on possible futures with “futuribles”; Gaston Berger created the concept of “prospective” (Barbieri Masini 1993; 2000), which was reworked by Michel Godet (1985) in the following years. First Generation The ?eld of Futures Studies came to be after World War II. While the Rand Corporation in the USA developed techniques of investigation and analysis such as the Delphi Method (Dalkey 1969), or scenario building (by Herman Kahn), European pioneers provided many theoretical elements for the epistemic foundations of Futures Studies (Bell 2003; 2004). It then introduces the research objectives and design (Section 2), composed of ?ve main phases. Futures Studies was primarily created to develop strategies in order to avoid (in the future, or, better, in the possible futures) a third world war, especially in the United States during the ?rst period of the discipline (for instance, Seefried 2014). We also hope that this will help enhance networking among groups, institutions, and individuals currently working in Futures Studies in Italy and worldwide, while also highlighting some potentialities and criticalities in the ?eld and suggesting how to address them. The authors hope that the paper provides the Futures Studies in Italy 1 This paper is an intellectual product of the authors as a whole. 1.1 to Carolina Facioni, par. The aim was to rebuild a world divided into two opposing fronts because of the Cold War and scared by its possible consequences (Andersson 2018; Son 2015). However, the very ?rst Italian contribution to the development of the discipline was of a di?erent kind and can be traced to the turn of the ?rst and second phases (according Introduction Futures Studies in Italy has a long history 1 . 3.2 to Roberto Paura and Carolina Facioni. The paper begins with a short historical introduction of Futures Studies in Italy, reporting some of its main representatives, and notes about what can be called its “second generation” (Section 1), in order to give a coherent framework of understanding. The opinions expressed in the paper do not necessarily re?ect those of the respective institutions. Starting from the contribution of its founders, such as Aurelio Peccei, co-founder of the Club of Rome at the end of the 1960s, Pietro Ferraro, with the Italian version of Futuribles, Eleonora Barbieri Masini, “the mother of Futures Studies”, and many others, the discipline has evolved over time
17 4/22 F Mara Di Berardo, Carolina Facioni & Roberto Paura to Son 2015) of Futures Studies. He was born in Turin and worked at the FIAT enterprise as a top manager (Facioni & Paura 2022). However, we can recognize Peccei’s vision, his very ideal of human quality, and his concern for the future of humankind behind the works that, in recent years, have led to de?ning the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (UN 2015). He began to write about the possible problems of shortage of drinking water caused by its misuse already in the 1960s (e.g., Nebbia 1968a; 1968b). Three persons had a great importance for Peccei’s intellectual and life path: Julian Huxley, Alexander King, and Eleonora Barbieri Masini. He completed his studies in Paris at the Sorbonne, which ?nanced an educational trip to Russia (then, USSR). For instance, it was not mainly focused on war and its protagonists were not exclusively scientists 2 . The Limits to Growth was perhaps one of the most controversial and popular Futures Study in history, arousing a still open debate in the scienti?c community. He was one of the founders of Alitalia, ADELA (Atlantic Development of Latin America), and Italconsult (of which he was later honorary president). The Club of Rome was the most important contribution of Peccei to Futures Studies. As a FIAT manager, he worked in China and in South America. He co-founded it in 1968 together with scientist Alexander King. His long stays abroad allowed him to establish a network of relationships (and of cultural exchange) at a planetary level – which is particularly important for understanding Peccei’s intellectual contribution. He had a di?erent approach with respect to Peccei’; his contribution was focused on resource consumption. In the context of Futures Studies applied to the study of environmental problems, Giorgio Nebbia, who was professor in Commodity Studies at the University of Bari, must be remembered. At a global level, a fundamental contribution to the debate on futures, as well as to the development of new strategies for exploring the futures, came from Aurelio Peccei. His attention to forecasting is evident in a paper (Peccei 1971) published in Futuribili, where he describes the mathematical model developed by MIT in Boston on which the ?rst Club of Rome The Limits to Growth report is based (Meadows et al. Peccei’s vision was strongly in?uenced by his training as an economist, especially in his early works. A great friend of both Peccei and Nebbia, the sociologist Eleonora Barbieri Masini was one of the greatest theorists of Futures Studies (Facioni 2019). Julian Huxley founded WWF and contributed to forming Peccei's sensitivity towards environmental problems, which became the core topic of his intellectual approach to the futures and to his vision of environmental problems under a complexity approach, in particular. 1972). In Peccei’s (e.g., 1965; 1971) vision, di?erent systems interact together in a kind of vicious circle: pollution, population, di?erent speed in technological development in various countries of the world, and resource consumption; all these elements had to be studied as interacting dynamics in a complex system. Ferraro 1973) where he stressed how the building of the future was a moral commitment. This movement never developed scienti?c theories for the study of the future, rather it focused on artistic and political avant-gardism in a radical key, serving as a breeding ground for fascism. Two of the promoters of this incomparable scienti?c adventure, Piero Ferraro and Aurelio Peccei, were actually engaged in the business and industry world. Futuribili was characterized by a multidisciplinary approach. Italian Futures Studies, on the other hand, owes its origin to key ?gures of Italian antifascism.. One of her most important studies is the 2 While the expression futurismo sociale (‘social futurism’) has often been used in Italy to refer to Futures Studies in the second half of the 20th century, and although today the term futurista is also used in Italy following the English term 'futurist', Futures Studies in Italy has no ?lial relation with the early20th-century artistic and cultural movement of Futurism. Ferraro also wrote papers and essays (e.g. However, similarly to Peccei, Nebbia was also a precursor of debates that would come to the attention of the world only many years later. Peccei’s contribution was fundamental for the birth of the IIASA (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis), a research center based in Vienna, one of the ?rst institutes to connect the East and the West in the 1970s. The Futuribili journal was ?rst edited in the 1960s as an Italian edition of the French Futuribles (headed by de Jouvenel), thanks to the Venetian businessman Pietro Ferraro who had met de Jouvenel and was fascinated by the topic of the future
ForwardTo), and communication (e.g. the Italian Institute for the Future and the Association of Italian Futurists, founded in 2018) are institutional members of the World Futures Studies Federation, together with other two individual members; and four Italians are individual members of the Association of Professional Futurists. In 2018, a Second Meeting of Italian Futurists (Di Berardo et al. 2017), hosted by the University of Trento as part of the International Workshop on Anticipation, Agency, and Complexity, and co-organized by the Italian Institute for the Future and The Millennium Project Italy Node. Another attempt to assess the current situation of the Italian Futures Studies ?eld was made in 2021 by the OECD with its document “Italy Governance Scan for Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development” (OECD 2021). On this occasion, 137 people signed up. In 2019, a Third Meeting of Italian Futurists (Di Berardo 2019) was held in Rome at the CNEL (National Council for Economy and Labor) headquarters, with 122 people registered, this time under the aegis of the newly born Italian Association of Futurists (AFI) promoted by the same group. On this occasion, 51 people registered for the meeting. Her entire life is the singular story of an intellectual passion for a research object, the future, that she pursued with tireless action, also for example by leading the World Futures Studies Federation for many years. Without exaggeration or rhetoric, her contribution can be described in terms of Beruf in the Weberian sense. It was an carried out in eight (at the time) developing countries and convinced the United Nations of the importance of promoting female entrepreneurship in the poorest countries. A ?rst attempt to survey all Italian organizations and individuals working in Futures Studies was made in 2017 with the First Meeting of Italian Futurists (Di Berardo et al. While Strategic Foresight is only a part of the broader Futures Studies in Italy. Futura Network, Treccani Futura). University of Chieti-Pescara), while the research sector in Italy has begun to grow more slowly in social sciences (e.g. The historical Italian contribution to Futures Studies, which included many other great personalities (for example, the mathematician and economist Bruno de Finetti, who theorized the subjectivist approach to the theory of probability and collaborated with Eleonora Barbieri Masini), launched debates that are still ongoing. Indeed, Masini has been one of the protagonists of an intense activity on futures at the international level for many years. University of Parma), innovation (e.g. 4/22 18 Futura Household, gender, and age (Barbieri Masini & Stratigos 1991) research project she conducted for the UN University during 1981–1991. Masini devoted all her energy to building up Futures Studies as a discipline (Barbieri Masini 1986; 1993; 2000; 2001). To date (June 2022), one of these organizations is a member of a global and enduring futures research network (The Millennium Project with its Italy Node); others (i.e. Following the pandemic, other meetings have been held online and with di?erent formats and partnerships. 2018) organized by the same committee was held in Bologna, with the logistical support of the Foresight program of the National Research Council (currently no longer active). Second Generation What can be called the current “second generation” of Futures Studies in Italy dates back to the renewal of the Millennium Project Italy Node (2007/2008), originally established in 1997 by Eleonora Barbieri Masini, with di?erent experts and professors from the ?eld of futures research, statistics, and social science co-chairing the still active Node; the founding of the Italian Institute for the Future (2013), one of the ?rst think-tanks mainly focused on Futures Studies in Italy, with its Futuri journal (2014); and the establishment of the ?rst UNESCO Chair in Anticipatory Systems in Italy at the University of Trento (2013), with its Master’s in Social Foresight (2014). Many fall in the area of training and consulting, especially with single consultants; others have been active for years in the scienti?c research sector in specific university chairs in Statistics (e.g. In the years that have followed, under the impetus of these driving forces, a number of initiatives that explicitly or implicitly refer to Futures Studies have ?ourished. Magda Cordell McHale has called Masini "the mother of Futures Studies", attributing much of the credit for the existence of the World Futures Studies Federation to her energy and enthusiasm (Stevenson 2006)