The futures Map and its quality criteria

Abstract

The article discusses quality criteria for futures research in the frame of so-called 'Futures Map'. This article is the edited and developed version of the article (Futura 1: 60-77, 2015). Based on the comments concerning (Futura 1: 60-77, 2015), we have developed the Futures Map frame and its validity criteria further. The new edition of the article is more focused on two basic questions. What is the relationship between the Futures Map approach and various scenario approaches? What are the common and different features of the quality criteria suggested in the Futures Map frame and other suggested quality criteria? The comparison is especially focused on the quality criteria defined by the German Netzwerk Zukunftsforschung. We suggest that it is reasonable to handle quality criteria on three basic levels: the philosophical basis; pragmatic general quality criteria; and special quality criteria suitable for specific contexts/uses. The prospects of futures research as a field of science depend first of all on their research methods. The article briefly discusses the choice of research methods as well as the evaluation of particular applications of methods in practical research projects.

Foresight as a key enabler of innovation in the economy. Introduction to the topical collection

“…-Increasing Foresight awareness; building capacity and demand among entrepreneurs and policy-makers through tailored formal and non-formal educational offers. -Bringing together Futures Studies academic researchers and Foresight practitioners to allow for quality and applicability in Futures Research [6]. -Strengthening the role of Foresight as one of the key instruments in the implementation, monitoring and update of smart specialization strategies combined with Entrepreneurial Discovery Process.…”

New outlooks in traceability and consistency of integrated scenarios

“…How to measure and assess scenario quality still is a contested question. Although several proposals and lists of criteria have been circulating for decades (e.g., [1][2][3]), these criteria are not consensual, and often are only weakly defined [4,5]. In scenario construction and usage, actors and methods from various traditions and social systems-from academia and practice -come together [6].…”

“…In scenario construction and usage, actors and methods from various traditions and social systems-from academia and practice -come together [6]. Different quality criteria meet, and at times come into conflict, confronting different perspectives [7] as well as -the academic and practical expectations involved [5]. Currently, comprehensive efforts are being undertaken to define general standards and quality criteria for futures research, as seen for example in research by Gerhold and colleagues [8] as well as Kuusi, Cuhls and Steinmüller [5].…”

“…Different quality criteria meet, and at times come into conflict, confronting different perspectives [7] as well as -the academic and practical expectations involved [5]. Currently, comprehensive efforts are being undertaken to define general standards and quality criteria for futures research, as seen for example in research by Gerhold and colleagues [8] as well as Kuusi, Cuhls and Steinmüller [5]. These proposals come from a rather academic perspective, and focus on futures research activities in general.…”

“…These proposals come from a rather academic perspective, and focus on futures research activities in general. They are not specifically tailored to scenario quality, but more generally apply to various forms of Bfutures maps^ [5] produced by futures research.…”