# data[].attributes.body
What stood out to me most this semester was the tension within sustainability science. Sustainability science recognizes that conventional disciplinary approaches are no longer sufficient and seeks to rethink how science is done. However, there is still no clear approach. Instead, the field is characterized by ideas, attempts, and forms of experimentation. I find this process of exploring new approaches particularly interesting, but also very demanding because of its uncertainty, even though some scientists see uncertainty as a central part of sustainability science.

----

Was mich in diesem Semester beschäftigt hat, ist der Spannungszustand innerhalb der Nachhaltigkeitswissenschaft. Sie erkennt an, dass klassische disziplinäre Zugänge nicht mehr ausreichen, und versucht daher, Wissenschaft neu zu denken. Gleichzeitig gibt es bislang keinen klar etablierten Ansatz, sondern vor allem Ideen, Versuche und experimentelle Formen des Arbeitens. Ich finde diesen Prozess des Ausprobierens interessant, aber auch sehr anspruchsvoll, gerade wegen der Unsicherheit, auch wenn manche Wissenschaftler:innen gerade diese Unsicherheit als einen zentralen Bestandteil der Nachhaltigkeitswissenschaft begreifen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Steve Carpenter on the past & future of sustainability science

# data[].attributes.body
In the lecture “Epistemology and Methods of Sustainability,” I immediately got stuck on the theories of truth, since I enjoyed exploring aspects of epistemology while I was preparing for my high school graduation exams. What is truth? Does it even exist? And if so, do we need it?

In the following, I will explore my personal, partly philosophical, search for “the truth” by examining the theories of truth discussed in the lecture.

Especially since the COVID-19 pandemic and the accompanying rise and spread of disinformation (primarily on social media), more and more people are asking themselves, “What can we still believe?” or “Is there perhaps even an alternative to the truth?” But we are not the only ones asking such questions today. Aristotle and Descartes, for instance, already addressed truth and the knowledge of it. Seven different theories of truth were presented in the lecture. These were: the correspondence theory, the coherence theory, the pragmatic theory of truth, the consensus theory, the performative theory, deflationary or minimalist theories of truth, and pluralist theories of truth.

To me, however, all of these theories seem to have gaps. For example, the correspondence theory of truth, which was presented in the lecture, seems convincing at first glance. It states that a statement is true if it corresponds to reality. So far, so understandable. However, in my opinion, the most important part is missing. What is reality? My perception may differ from others’ perceptions. In fact, everything we “observe” is subjective, since we are never independent of our perspective. So how can we say whether a statement corresponds to reality if we cannot even grasp reality objectively? Furthermore, I view the coherence theory, the pragmatic theory of truth, and the consensus theory as problematic in similar respects. It seems plausible that something is considered true when systems, discourses, or groups reach a common conclusion that everyone may even endorse and view as useful. However, this is by no means objective, but merely useful. And there are also useless truths. What about these? Do they not exist at all in the theories mentioned? For example, the red color of tomatoes. Irrelevant to us. It would not be discussed, since this information is not useful, and yet we humans would still say that it is true that tomatoes are red. Furthermore, the theories listed can become dangerous. For example, if the systems and discourses consist of homogeneous groups. This can result in a “truth” that is quite practical for these people and provides advantages. Conversely, however, people outside these groups would be excluded and discriminated against. A group full of Nazis would arrive at a different “truth” than a heterogeneous group. According to these theories, truth is therefore not absolute but relative, which I view critically.

In my everyday life, I take the truth of my perception for granted. For example, I don’t doubt that what I see and feel might not exist. I don’t even question it in the first place. But if I do question it, I come to the conclusion that I know nothing. I think something is true, but my perception can also deceive me. A good example is delusions. They don’t exist, but to those affected, they feel extremely threatening and real. What if we all only have perceptions of the world and no clear view of reality? And does that even matter? I mean, a truth that is accepted intersubjectively helps us humans coexist peacefully in a society. Because then there exists a “right” and a “wrong,” even if that might not actually exist in reality. Isn’t that enough?

My view: I think we cannot know whether an objective truth exists or not. After all, we are individuals who cannot perceive the world independently and freely from our own perspective. I think we perceive something from reality, probably even the same thing, but we then construct our own truth through our senses and the brain’s processing. When many people perceive the same thing, that becomes our intersubjective truth, which is established and accepted in society. This is useful and probably entirely sufficient, because the question of absolute truth doesn’t really get us anywhere. What’s more important is that we focus on shaping our coexistence with one another, with animals, and with nature in a peaceful and benevolent way. To the best of our knowledge and belief. Whether the tree is green or purple. What’s more important is that we try to do what feels right to us and that we work together to ensure that every person and every animal can live and perceive the world. Whether that perception corresponds to the truth doesn’t really matter at first. What do you think?

# data[].attributes.headline
Transformative research in Bucharest: Eu-funds, values and inclusion(?)

# data[].attributes.subject
Transformative research in Bucharest: Eu-funds, values and inclusion(?)

# data[].attributes.body
Das ist ein Interview welches ich auf Youtube geguckt habe. Darin spricht eine Historikerin über ihr neues Buch, das von Georg Forster handelt, einem deutschen Naturforscher und Revolutionär, der im 18. Jhd. lebte und u.a. mit James Cook auf Weltumsegelungen ging. Er gilt als einer der ersten und bedeutendsten deutschen Ethnologen und verfasste viele Schriften über indigene Völker in z.B. Polynesien. Im Gegensatz zu vielen anderen Wissenschaftlern seiner Zeit war er kein Rassist und begegnete den Einheimischen mit Sympathie und Neugierde. Er wertete sie nicht ab, weil sie andere Gebräuche hatten, sondern verstand, dass Kulturen sich unterschiedlich ausprägen und trotzdem gleichwertig sind. Im Gegensatz zu den meisten anderen Intellektuellen dieser Zeit und natürlich den Kolonialisten.

Ich finde interessant, wie sich Vorurteile auf die Wahrnehmung auswirken. Um gute Wissenschaft zu machen ist es wichtig offen zu sein und andere Perspektiven einzunehmen um der objektiven Wahrheit näher zu kommen.

In dem Interview wird dann der Schwenk zu Reisen und Tourismus gemacht. Als Unterschied wird genannt, das Touristen, das sehen was sie gekommen sind zu sehen, der Reisende sieht das, was er sieht. Um erfolgreich zu reisen ist es also ebenso wichtig unvoreingenommen zu sein und sich auf das Neue einzulassen und wahrzunehmen.

Abschließend kann ich zusammenfassen, dass um erfolgreich Erkenntnis zu gewinnen (und Wissenschaft zu betreiben) offene, unvoreingenommene Wahrnehmung, die die eigenen Wertvorstellungen kritisch reflektiert essentiell ist.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does travel really broaden the mind? | Andrea Wulf | The New Society

# data[].attributes.headline
Is there such a thing as truth? And if yes, do we need it?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is there such a thing as truth? And if yes, do we need it?

# data[].attributes.body
Ich bin in der Vorlesung „Erkenntnistheorie und Methoden der Nachhaltigkeit“ direkt bei den Wahrheitstheorien hängen geblieben, da ich mich in meiner Zeit des Abiturs gerne mit Teilen der Erkenntnistheorien auseinandergesetzt habe. Denn was ist Wahrheit? Gibt es diese überhaupt? Und wenn ja, brauchen wir sie?

Im Folgenden werde ich mich mit meiner persönlichen, teils philosophischen, Suche nach „der Wahrheit“ auseinandersetzten, indem ich mich den in der Vorlesung besprochenen Wahrheitstheorien annähere.

Vor allem seit der Corona-Pandemie und dem damit einhergehenden Erstarken und Verbreiten von Desinformationen (primär in den sozialen Medien), fragen sich immer mehr Menschen „Was kann man noch glauben?“ oder „Gibt es vielleicht sogar eine Alternative zu der Wahrheit?“. Doch nicht nur wir stellen uns aktuell solche Fragen. Bereits Aristoteles oder Descartes thematisierten Wahrheit und die Erkenntnis dieser. In der Vorlesung wurden sieben verschieden Wahrheitstheorien dargestellt. Diese waren: die Korrespondenztheorie, die Kohärenztheorie, die Pragmatistische Wahrheitstheorie, die Konsenstheorie, die Performative Theorie, Deflationistische oder Minimalistische Wahrheitstheorien und Pluralistische Wahrheitstheorien.

Diese Theorien scheinen für mich allerdings alle Lücken aufzuweisen. Zum Beispiel wirkt die Korrespondenztheorie der Wahrheit, die in der Vorlesung vorgestellt wurde, auf den ersten Blick schlüssig. Diese besagt, dass eine Aussage dann wahr ist, wenn sie mit der Realität übereinstimmt. So weit, so verständlich. Allerdings fehlt der, meiner Meinung nach, wichtigste Teil. Denn was ist die Realität? Meine Wahrnehmung kann sich von anderen Wahrnehmungen unterscheiden. Eigentlich alles, was wir „feststellen“ ist subjektiv, da wir nie unabhängig von unserer Perspektive sind. Also wie können wir sagen, ob eine Aussage mit der Realität übereinstimmt, wenn wir die Realität gar nicht erst objektiv erfassen können. Zudem sehe ich die Kohärenztheorie, die Pragmatistische Wahrheitstheorie und Konsenstheorie in ähnlichen Aspekten als kritisch. Es scheint plausibel, dass etwas als wahr gilt, wenn Systeme, Diskurse oder Gruppen zu einem gemeinsamen Schluss kommen, den womöglich sogar alle befürworten und als nützlich ansehen. Allerdings ist das keineswegs objektiv, sondern lediglich brauchbar. Denn es gibt auch unbrauchbare Wahrheiten. Was ist mit diesen? Existieren diese in den genannten Theorien gar nicht? Zum Beispiel die rote Farbe von Tomaten. Irrelevant für uns. Sie würde nicht diskutiert werden, da diese Information nicht nützlich ist und trotzdem würden wir Menschen doch sagen, dass es wahr ist, dass Tomaten rot sind. Außerdem können die aufgeführten Theorien gefährlich werden. Zum Beispiel wenn die Systeme und Diskurse aus homogenen Gruppen bestehen. Daraus kann eine „Wahrheit“ resultieren, die für diese Menschen durchaus praktisch ist und Vorteile verschafft. Im Umkehrschluss allerdings würden Außenstehende exkludiert und diskriminiert werden. Eine Gruppe voller Nazis würde zu einer anderen „Wahrheit“ kommen als eine heterogene Gruppe. Laut diesen Theorien ist Wahrheit also nicht absolut, sondern relativ, was ich als kritisch betrachte.

In meinem Alltag sehe ich die Wahrheit meiner Wahrnehmung als selbstverständlich. Ich zweifle zum Beispiel nicht an, dass das, was ich sehe und spüre eventuell nicht existieren könnte. Ich hinterfrage es gar nicht erst. Doch wenn ich es hinterfrage, dann komm ich zu dem Schluss, dass ich nichts weiß. Ich denke etwas ist wahr, aber meine Wahrnehmung kann mich auch trügen. Ein gutes Beispiel sind Wahnvorstellungen. Sie sind nicht existent, fühlen sich für Betroffene allerdings super bedrohlich und wahr an. Was ist, wenn wir alle nur Vorstellungen über die Welt haben und keine klare Sicht der Realität? Und ist das überhaupt wichtig? Ich meine eine Wahrheit, die intersubjektiv angenommen ist, hilft uns Menschen doch in einer Gesellschaft friedlich zu koexistieren. Denn dann gibt es „richtig“ oder „falsch“, auch wenn es das in Realität vielleicht gar nicht gibt. Reicht das nicht?

Meine Sicht: Ich denke, dass wir nicht wissen können, ob eine objektive Wahrheit existiert oder nicht. Denn wir sind Individuen, die nicht unabhängig und frei von ihrer eigenen Perspektive die Welt wahrnehmen können. Ich denke wir Menschen nehmen etwas aus der Realität wahr, wahrscheinlich sogar das Gleiche, aber wir konstruieren dann durch unsere Sinne und die Verarbeitung des Gehirns unsere subjektive Wahrheit. Wenn viele Menschen dann das gleiche wahrnehmen, dann ist das unsere intersubjektive Wahrheit, die in der Gesellschaft etabliert und akzeptiert ist. Das ist nützlich und reicht wahrscheinlich auch vollkommen aus, denn die Frage nach der absoluten Wahrheit führt uns nicht wirklich weiter. Wichtiger ist es, dass wir uns darauf fokussieren unser Zusammenleben untereinander, mit Tieren und der Natur friedlich und wohlwollend zu gestalten. Nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen. Ob der Baum nun grün ist oder lila. Wichtiger ist doch, dass wir versuchen, das zu tun, was sich für uns richtig anfühlt und dass wir gemeinsam daran arbeiten, dass jeder Mensch und jedes Tier leben und wahrnehmen kann. Ob die Wahrnehmung dann der Wahrheit entspricht, ist dabei doch erstmal egal. Was ist eure Meinung?

# data[].attributes.headline
Science thrives on doubt / Wissenschaft lebt vom Zweifel

# data[].attributes.subject
Science thrives on doubt / Wissenschaft lebt vom Zweifel

# data[].attributes.body
Warum ist kritisches Hinterfragen für Wissenschaft unverzichtbar?

Wissenschaft ist grundsätzlich immer vorläufig. Nichts ist von Gewissheit und alles kann widerlegt werden. Eine Theorie gilt dann als wahr, wenn sie allen bisherigen Prüfungen stand hielt und nicht widerlegt werden konnte. Es ist jederzeit möglich, dass eine Theorie durch eine andere, bessere Theorie ersetzt oder angepasst werden müssen.

Und genau das ist in der Wissenschaft essentiell. Denn nur so kann sich unser Wissensstand weiterentwickeln und wir verfügen über neuere, bessere Erkenntnisse.

Würden wir wissenschaftliche Theorien nicht durch weitere Forschungen widerlegen oder aktualisieren, würden wir immer noch denken, die Erde sei eine Scheibe. Newtons Vorstellung über Raum und Zeit wäre nie von Einsteins Relativitätstheorie korrigiert worden. Wir würden immer noch denken, dass Atome die kleinsten Teilchen sind, die existieren, obwohl Atome aus noch viel kleineren Teilchen bestehen.

All das und noch viel mehr wäre uns entgangen.

Und genau deshalb ist Wissenschaft ein fortlaufender Prozess, der nie ein Ende finden wird.

Man kann hier auch vom "Falsifikationismus" sprechen. Karl Popper war ein zentraler Vertreter von der Annahme, dass wissenschaftliche Theorien erst dann wissenschaftlich sind, wenn eine Falsifikation stattfinden kann. Sie also widerlegt werden kann.

Dabei stellt sich natürlich die Frage: Wenn wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse ständig überprüft werden, woher wissen wir dann, was wir glauben können?

Diskutiert zu dem Thema gerne unter meinem Beitrag :)

English verson (createt with ChatGPT!):

Scientific knowledge is fundamentally provisional. Nothing is absolutely certain, and any claim can potentially be refuted.

A theory is considered valid as long as it has withstood all tests and attempts at refutation so far. However, it is always possible that a theory may need to be modified or replaced by a better one.

This principle is essential to science. Only through continuous questioning and testing can our knowledge develop and improve, leading to new and more accurate insights.

If scientific theories were never challenged, revised, or updated through further research, we might still believe that the Earth is flat. Newton’s concepts of space and time would never have been corrected and expanded by Einstein’s theory of relativity. We would still assume that atoms are the smallest particles in existence, even though we now know that atoms themselves are composed of much smaller particles.

All of these discoveries, and many more, would have remained unknown to us.

For this reason, science is an ongoing process that will never truly come to an end.

This idea is closely connected to the concept of falsificationism. The philosopher Karl Popper argued that a theory can only be considered scientific if it is possible, at least in principle, to falsify it. In other words, a scientific theory must be open to being tested and potentially proven wrong.

This naturally raises the question:

If scientific findings are constantly being re-examined, how do we know what to believe?

Feel free to discuss this topic in the comments on my post. :)

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
René Magritte – The Treachery of Images (1929): A reminder that our representations are not reality itself.

# data[].attributes.headline
📌 "Ceci n’est pas un fait” - Why facts are not reality

# data[].attributes.subject
📌 "Ceci n’est pas un fait” - Why facts are not reality

# data[].attributes.body
René Magritte’s famous pipe reminds us of a core question in epistemology: the representation of a thing is not the thing itself.

What does this mean for sustainability? Our scientific models, data, and sustainability labels are not nature or reality itself - they are merely our representations of it!

Transformation begins in the mind. We must first deconstruct and critically question terms like "fact" or "truth" to truly understand our complex, socio-ecological reality.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
My first few months doing transformative sustainability science

# data[].attributes.body
I design my research process from a field-theoretical stance: not as an observer from the outside, but as a force within the field. Immergence as a precondition for emergence – an approach that, in my view, comes closer to the transformative ambitions of sustainability science than system-theoretical intervention logics. So far, the Field-Process-Model has gained more traction in practice than in academia – and English-language literature on it remains scarce. Worth changing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Institut für Partizipatives Gestalten (IPG)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Jascha Rohr & Sonja Hörster Abstract The field-process-model is a theoretical framework the Institute for Participatory Design developed to understand generative design processes as dynamic interactions of forces in a field. The development of this model became necessary after we encountered numerous theoretical and practical problems with the application of our former, more systemic

# data[].attributes.headline
Most Widely Used Future Studies Toolkits - Table (Hichert & Shultz)

# data[].attributes.subject
Most Widely Used Future Studies Toolkits - Table (Hichert & Shultz)

# data[].attributes.headline
Co-producing knowledge with local communities implies re-thinking what is knowledge and how it is produced 

# data[].attributes.subject
Co-producing knowledge with local communities implies re-thinking what is knowledge and how it is produced 

# data[].attributes.body
Take this pill to make your "Western knowledge production" a little more humble when working in the pluriverse!

# data[].attributes.headline
Imagining, Designing and Teaching Regenerative Futures (Bentz & Trajkovic, 2025)

# data[].attributes.subject
Imagining, Designing and Teaching Regenerative Futures (Bentz & Trajkovic, 2025)

# data[].attributes.headline
Implication of Two New Paradigms for Futures Studies

# data[].attributes.subject
Implication of Two New Paradigms for Futures Studies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Implications of two new paradigms for futures studies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The paper considers the emergence of two recent perspectives in futures work. One is evolutionary futures studies. The other is critical futures studi…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skip to content

Interested in learning about strategic foresight, or building futures methods into your approach? As foresight methods have matured and become a more mainstream part of research and policy work, there has been an explosion in online toolkits and resources - but it can be hard to know which ones to use and when.

The Discovery Hub is Nesta's in-house strategic foresight function. We support teams across Nesta to use futures tools and methods to explore emerging trends and technologies which will impact our work. That means we're continuously scanning for new resources to add to our arsenal - alongside developing our own.

In recent years we've seen a shift in the focus of these guides, which now have new approaches, tools and a bigger focus on imagination, narratives and storytelling.

We've curated a list of some of the most useful resources and considered how or when you might be able to make the best use of them. As with any area, there is no singular resource that can teach you everything you need to know and having the right skills and mindset is vital. But we hope the toolkits below provide a starting point to a rich, rapidly growing field.

The UK Government Office for Science's Futures Toolkit truly is the all-rounder of strategic foresight toolkits for policymakers. We think of it as the Volkswagen of toolkits: reliable, multi-functional and prioritising substance over style.

Aimed specifically at policymakers and government officials, this resource is accessible, comprehensive and well-structured. It covers the 'traditional' methods which are well established in the field (such as horizon scanning, scenarios, Delphi and backcasting) as well as a few more unusual ones like games.

This toolkit details the purpose of each method, the context in which to use it and handy logistical considerations, such as how much time it might take in practice. It also includes an introduction to the field of futures thinking and its importance to the public sector, alongside concise case studies on how government bodies use these tools.

The Futures Toolkit provides an excellent overview, albeit one which focuses more on established techniques that have already earned their stripes with public officials.

Developed by Silicon Valley-based Institute for the Future, the Equitable Futures Toolkit aims to support people in imagining a fairer future. A great toolkit for groups, it is built around two alternative approaches to facilitating modular workshop sessions lasting from 1.5 hours up to a full day.

Following a very accessible introduction to scenarios, both facilitation approaches are detailed. The first is more suited to groups with a specific mission in mind who want to establish a clear path to action, while the second is more suited to fun, creative and playful exploration of different futures through a card game.

The tools are clearly explained and come with print-and-play worksheets and materials, though there is not much analysis of the field of strategic foresight more generally. However, the Institute for the Future does have a wealth of other resources serving that purpose, such as their Foresight Essentials training portfolio and Futures Thinking specialisation collaboration with Coursera.

Futures Frequency is a three-hour workshop method that was developed and made available to all by Finland's innovation fund Sitra. This train-the-trainer guide teaches you to run a down-to-earth workshop with participants without prior experiences of futures and foresight, to get them to develop visions for desirable alternative futures and think about the actions to take to realise these visions. It uses original tools and prompts, such as custom-made audio dramas.

Inclusivity and accessibility are central and, as such, the tools and approaches featured in a Futures Frequency workshop might not be as comprehensive as in some of the other toolkits mentioned in this article. But it has the advantage of being designed around a very flexible and tailorable format. You can also complement the workshop with other methods from Sitra's very inventive Futuremaker's toolbox.

Futures Frequency is a thoughtfully designed workshop - in terms of both content and style. Sitra also provides access to a suite of creative resources, including a beautiful Miro board and PowerPoint presentation and a facilitator's handbook.

Forks in the Timeline is a card game that deals in fun hypotheticals designed to stimulate the imagination. Players must come up with the best possible answer to pairings of cards that pose questions such as: "In a timeline where coffee did not exist... would we live in a more or less futuristic society?".

In keeping with other futures-oriented card games (think Situation Lab's Thing from the Future), it won't teach players everything they ever needed to know about foresight methods. But by getting them to challenge assumptions and think about alternative outcomes, it encourages them to flex their creative muscles and begin to think about the future in different ways.

Players might not learn more about futures thinking, but will be building scenarios and alternate timelines without even realising - all by embracing the silliness of some of the questions. Forks in the Timeline is a great tool to use to whet a group's appetite for learning more the field and methods.

A collaboration between AWID and Fearless Collective, the Feminist Cartographer's Toolkit is truly an object of beauty. It sets a foundation for surfacing unique feminist futures by focusing on key themes, such as the relationship to body or pleasure, the economy, justice, security, art and many others.

It offers highly artistic rendition of some classic foresight activities such as challenging assumptions, mapping systems and creating visions and roadmaps. This can make it a little harder to follow than more conventional resources.

This toolkit is divided into two sections: the Atlas, which is the workshop journey itself, and the Book of DIrections, which is essentially a facilitator's guide to running the workshop with others and includes cue cards and worksheets.

This guide is as much about storytelling as it is about futures and definitely not the best place to get to grips with the origins of the field or applied examples. But it beautifully illustrates the wide range of routes in to start meaningful conversations about the future (and if you like it, make sure to also check out Superflux's Instant Archetypes Tarot deck).

A little bit of self-promotion to finish, with one of Nesta's own guides, written in collaboration with Jose Ramos and John A. Sweeney. Our Futures engages with an aspect of foresight practice which is often overlooked: the need for futures to be participatory and bring in a plurality of voices, not just select experts or policymakers.

Rather than being a practical guide, Our Futures sets an inspirational tone, foregrounding case studies and examples making the case for more participatory futures. This is the kind of guide that helps broaden the horizons of what is possible, but with its very particular emphasis on public engagement it does not make the best first point of entry into futures and foresight exercises.

We like to think of it as a resource to be used in combination with other resources such as Nesta's Futures Explainer or more comprehensive ones such as the other toolkits described above.

We're curious to know how you have been learning about futures methods and how you apply them to your work. Contact us to share your favourite toolkits, guides and games, or to get in touch with ideas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ready-made resources to help you apply foresight methods

# data[].attributes.headline
The Knowledge Base of Future Studies 2020

# data[].attributes.subject
The Knowledge Base of Future Studies 2020

# data[].attributes.headline
Toolkit for Applied Strategic Foresight (CIFS)

# data[].attributes.subject
Toolkit for Applied Strategic Foresight (CIFS)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The CIFS Toolkit for Applied Strategic Foresight gives you a collection of tools and approaches to support long-term thinking and strategic planning.

From the Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies:

This collection of tools and approaches has been carefully curated and refined based on our own extensive experience in the field of foresight, combined with insights drawn from other thinkers and practitioners.

While the toolkit will help you apply strategic foresight to your work, it will not teach you how to predict the future, or provide you with definitive answers. It can help you explore and analyse emerging change and possible futures as a powerful and valuable addition to your strategic thinking, but it cannot tell you when to act, or exactly what to do.

The toolkit is also not a beginner's step-by-step guide to each of the tools nor a theoretical overview. Rather, the toolkit offers practical insights, honed through many years of CIFS' applied foresight work. It gives an overall description of each tool/approach, along with key considerations that can help in successfully delivering the technique. The tools are adaptable, and can hence be customised to meet the needs of most futures projects.

Ready to put foresight into practice?

WDHB partners with CIFS regularly on programs. Get in touch to talk about strategic foresight as a topic for your next program or event!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
CIFS Toolkit for Applied Strategic Foresight | WDHB

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Developed by our partners at the Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies (CIFS), the CIFS Toolkit for Applied Strategic Foresight offers a strong introduction to the concept of strategic foresight.

# data[].attributes.body
foresight toolkit

# data[].attributes.body
Playbook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Actionable Futures Toolkit Overview | PDF | Creative Commons License | Business

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scribd is the world’s largest social reading and publishing site.

# data[].attributes.headline
CREATIVE STRATEGIC FORESIGHT WORKSHOP - PLAYBOOK (Romenska)

# data[].attributes.subject
CREATIVE STRATEGIC FORESIGHT WORKSHOP - PLAYBOOK (Romenska)

# data[].attributes.body
PLAYBOOK

# data[].attributes.headline
Deliberative futures toolkit (Revez et al., 2021)

# data[].attributes.subject
Deliberative futures toolkit (Revez et al., 2021)

# data[].attributes.headline
Decolonizing Futures Practice (Jae, 2023)

# data[].attributes.subject
Decolonizing Futures Practice (Jae, 2023)

# data[].attributes.body
Exploring Storytelling

as a Tool for Inclusion

in Foresight

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Making Sanctuary with Báyò Akómoláfé

# data[].attributes.headline
The Tomorrow Party: A Creative Futures Method for Policy Making

# data[].attributes.subject
The Tomorrow Party: A Creative Futures Method for Policy Making

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scribd is the source for 300M+ user uploaded documents and specialty resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Features Haraway in a playful and engaging exploration of her life, influences, and ideas. Best-known for her ground-breaking work on gender, cyborgs, animals and post-colonialism, Haraway ... See full summary "

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Donna Haraway: Story Telling for Earthly Survival (2016) - IMDb

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Directed by Fabrizio Terranova. With Donna Haraway. Features Haraway in a playful and engaging exploration of her life, influences, and ideas. Best-known for her ground-breaking work on gender, cyborgs, animals and post-colonialism, Haraway is a passionate and discursive storyteller with a curious and nimble mind.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Best Practice Guide for Public Participation - UrbanizeHub

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Leading Urban Lab in Central and Eastern Europe

# data[].attributes.body
Aquí hay un desafío diferente: si pudieras elegir solo tres valores para guiar el futuro, ¿cuáles elegirías? Cuéntanoslo en esta breve encuesta de tres minutos https://bit.ly/elfuturoquedeseas_em

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
#240: "Werte als Kompass für echte Transformation" mit Prof. Dr. Maja Göpel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The methods and tools offered by the td-net toolbox specifically focus on jointly developing projects, conducting research and exploring ways to impact in heterogeneous groups. They are intended to help shape collaboration between experts and stakeholders from science and practice in systematic and traceable ways.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: The Danger of a Single Story | TED

# data[].attributes.headline
Buch zu alternativen Formen des Miteinanders

# data[].attributes.subject
Buch zu alternativen Formen des Miteinanders

# data[].attributes.headline
LEVER Toolkit for mapping systems knowledge

# data[].attributes.subject
LEVER Toolkit for mapping systems knowledge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pathways to a Just and Sustainable World: The Transformative Change assessment | Nature Insight: Speed Dating with the Future

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What does transformative change mean? Is it possible, and how can it be achieved and accelerated with so many imminent threats to the natural world? These are the burning questions at the heart of the IPBES ‘Transformative Change Assessment’, which offers tools and guidance for a more just and sustainable world. In this episode, Brit talks to one of the co-chairs of the Assessment, Professor Lucas Garibaldi, from the Universidad Nacional de Río Negro, in Argentina. We also delve into the forests of Nepal with Dr. Janita Gurung, a programme lead for governance and rights at RECOFTC - an organisation working to ensure that resilient communities, with respected rights, thrive in forest landscapes. To find out more about IPBES, head to www.ipbes.net or follow us on social media @IPBES.

# data[].attributes.headline
Co-design with critical sustainability science

# data[].attributes.subject
Co-design with critical sustainability science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The CSS Literacy Toolbox offers tools developed to support critical reflection and practice within TTCIs. While tools supporting natural science literacy or collaboration across disciplines and stakeholders are more widely available, tools focused on CSS — especially for confronting discursive and structural power — remain rare.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Podcast Episode · Gone Medieval · 02/09/2025 · 52m

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
135: Relational values with Rachelle Gould

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Podcast Episode · In Common · 14/08/2025 · 1h 13m

# data[].attributes.headline
Capitalism in Sustainability Transition Research

# data[].attributes.subject
Capitalism in Sustainability Transition Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Future Ecologies is a podcast made for audiophiles and nature lovers alike. Every episode is an invitation to see your world in a new light – set to original music & immersive soundscapes, and weaving together interviews with expert knowledge holders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Podcast Episode · Myths and Legends · 16/07/2025 · 49m

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate Change and Religion, Virtue Ethics, Cultural Anthropology, Legal Theory and many more

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate Change and Religion, Virtue Ethics, Cultural Anthropology, Legal Theory and many more

# data[].attributes.body
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) gave us a comprehensive plan for a sustainable world by 2030. What has been largely missing from current strategies is a keen insight into which abilities, qualities or skills we need to develop among individuals, groups and organisations that play crucial roles in working to fulfil the SDGs. This is the starting point for the Inner Development Goals (IDGs) initiative.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Guide’s simplicity is a design principle, both keeping it easy to communicate and relatively ‘naked’ or decontextualised, ready to be re-contextualised within specific training or personal development approaches…

# data[].attributes.headline
The Future of People and Nature in Southern Transylvania - Sustainable Landscapes Group

# data[].attributes.subject
The Future of People and Nature in Southern Transylvania - Sustainable Landscapes Group

# data[].attributes.body
English version:

One of the examples of Target knowledge that I found particularly interesting was the Sustainable Landscapes Group at Leuphana University of Lüneburg.

In collaboration with numerous regional organizations and individual stakeholders, this academic research group applied the "scenario planning" method to the future of people and nature in Southern Transylvania.

The focus was on changes in the region with regard to living conditions, the landscape, nature, and population density.

The system diagram includes only those variables and interactions that were most frequently cited by local experts during the workshops, with a high degree of consensus.

--------------------------------------------

German version:

Für mich war eines der Beispiele für Target knowledge besonders interessant: die Arbeitsgruppe für nachhaltige Landnutzung (Sustainable Landscapes Group) der der Leuphana Universität Lüneburg.
Die akademische Forschungsgruppe hat in Zusammenarbeit mit vielen regionalen Organisationen und einzelnen Akteur:innen die Methode der "Szenarienentwicklung" auf die Zukunft von Menschen und Natur in Südsiebenbürgen angewandt.

Im Fokus stand die Veränderung der Region im Bezug auf auf die Lebensbedingungen, die Landschaft, die Natur und der Bevölkerungsdichte.

Das Systemdiagramm inkludiert ausschließlich die Variablen und Wechselwirkungen, welche in den Workshops am häufigsten und mit hohe Übereinstimmung von den lokalen Experten und Expertinnen genannt wurden.