Why Futures Research?

What actually distinguishes futurology from trend research? This question occupies my mind at least as often as the people I talk to at various events. In contrast to the demarcation between physicians (not protected) and doctors (protected by criminal law), there is no binding separation in my profession (yet). This is an (not the first) attempt to introduce a separation.

I am a futurologist because I studied futurology. Sounds pretty conclusive so far, doesn’t it?

“How can you study this?” is what customers and participants regularly ask me at events and on my travels. “Yes, you can”, I then begin my answer, to refer to the master’s program in futurology at the Freie Universität Berlin. Every year, ten to 20 people leave Freie Universität with the title “Master of Arts Futures Studies”; I was in my second year in 2013.

But this is not the end of the story.

Over the past decades, a synonymization of the two fields of futurology and trend research has crept in. However, my position is that not all trend research is futurology. And I would like to argue this here – as on all other occasions.

Nobody becomes a futurologist because he or she writes or talks about the future. Either the name will one day be attributed from the outside or it will be consolidated through self-proclamation and appropriate public relations work.

The term futurologist – just like researchers per se – is not legally protected in Germany. Therefore, any person can and may freely and in good conscience use the title of futurologist without ever having provided evidence of methodological competence. As proof, a related education or an interesting course of study, such as sociology or journalism, which are two very common basic qualifications of well-known trend researchers, is sufficient. Many of them also make no secret of the fact that as a method they read a lot of newspapers, think wisely about possible future scenarios and then publish them.

“Future” is a commodity with which good money can be earned – in itself nothing reprehensible. It only becomes dishonest – in my eyes – when journalists and entertainers give themselves a scientific coat of paint, which they cannot do justice to, and yet are marketed under this attribution. For in doing so they endanger the reputation of a young discipline.

Science is a less broad term than research. Science is when new knowledge is created with the help of methods (for example, survey methods or logic) and recognized by independent third parties (!) in accordance with the values of scientificity. These are:

• Clarity
• Transparency
• Objectivity
• Verifiability
• Reliability
• Openness and honesty
• News

In my opinion, you don’t have to have a Master of Arts in Futures Studies to fulfill these values. But it takes more to earn the title of futurologist than to make entertaining predictions on popular topics, generate ratings, Twitter likes and sales figures.

The “father” of German futurology, Rolf Kreibich, already formulated a very nice distinction between futurology and trend research in 2006. According to this, futurology is “… in contrast to numerous pseudo-scientific activities such as ‘trend research’, ‘prophecy’ or ‘science fiction’, it is subject to all quality criteria that science demands of good knowledge strategies and efficient models: Relevance, logical consistency, simplicity, verifiability, clarity of terminology, specification of range, explication of premises and boundary conditions, transparency, practical manageability, etc.” [1]

As I said before, I do not want to ridicule non-academic trend research, not at all! Even trend researchers* are sometimes right with their prognoses or help today’s actors to prepare for tomorrow. Many people have already built houses without having an education as a bricklayer, roofer or tiler. They call themselves nevertheless only do-it-yourselfers. Even homeopathic doctors without a medical degree have cured patients. They call themselves alternative practitioners. And so the pseudo-scientific trend researchers should not give themselves a title that deceives the public. Otherwise the public will still think in ten years time that we actually worked with glass balls and coffee grounds.

So where does the border run?

Of course, it is difficult or even impossible to be truly scientific in certain formats. The presentation of expert knowledge in keynotes, short interviews for radio and television – practically all audience formats leave no room for references. In my opinion, it is all the more important to publish scientifically, to face up to critical discourse and to make the basics and methods of one’s own statements transparent on other stages in a suitable place.

When I am asked for assessments, I therefore always say: “Now follows my personal assessment” – in contrast to statements that I represent in my keynotes or articles, because they have been verifiably taken from published sources and marked as such.

Nobody is perfect, but those who do not follow ideals and exploit the trust of symbols undermine the principles of one of the most important social systems: science.