Content uploaded by Stefan Bergheim
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stefan Bergheim on Aug 15, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Bergheim, Stefan (2024). On the Competence of Futures Literacy. Page 1
On the Competence of Futures Literacy
Stefan Bergheim
1
Center for Societal Progress, and FUON Futures, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
stefan.bergheim@zukuenfte.net
Abstract
This note is an attempt to describe the competence of Futures Literacy more
clearly. To help create clarity it uses a well-established structure: competence
= knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The note touches on neighboring concepts
such as future skills and links to measurement. The core of the note are de-
scriptions of six sub-competences of Future Literacy and four competence
levels.
Keywords
Futures Literacy, Competence, Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes, Anticipation,
Assumptions, Complexity, Collective Intelligence, Emergence, Imagination,
Novelty, Reframe
1. Introduction
The competence of Futures Literacy as mentioned by Miller already in 2007
(Miller, 2007) emerged from efforts to ground Futures Studies in complexity
theory and especially in the theory of anticipation that was developed by the
biologist Robert Rosen (1985/2012 & 1991) with contributions by Aloisius
Louie (2010), Mihai Nadi (2012) and others. The sociologist Roberto Poli
(Poli, 2019) pioneered efforts to introduce the theory of anticipation to the
futures field in the early years of the 21
st
century.
Futures Literacy is linked to a broad spectrum of futures methods including
the highly flexible Futures Literacy Laboratory developed by Miller (2011,
2018) over the past 15 years. There is now a lot of evidence of what specific
interventions can do for example in terms of boosting awareness of novelty,
building deep connections with other participants, and increasing Futures
Literacy (Bergheim, 2022).
However, to be more useful and more easily understood, Futures Literacy as
a competence needs to be – in my opinion and experience – described in
more detail going beyond general statements such as "to consciously and de-
liberately ‘use-the-future’ for different reasons and in different ways depend-
ing on the context" (Miller and Sandford, 2019) or my current favorite “to
imagine different futures individually or with others for various reasons with
a spectrum of methods” or somewhat longer “to anticipate, imagine and ex-
plore diverse possible futures and use the resulting insights to make more
1
Huge thanks go to all those who took the time to interact with me in depth on the draft ver-
sion of this note and enabled significant improvements: Riel Miller, Ilkka Tuomi, Tamas
Gaspar, Sébastien Martin, Valeria Berghoff-Flüel, Lilly Herde, Kenneth Y. Wee, Fabian
Bahm, Jasmin Jossin, Hamid R. Sarabadani, Felicitas zu Dohna, and Birgit Freitag.
Bergheim, Stefan (2024). On the Competence of Futures Literacy. Page 2
informed and empowered decisions that enhance our ability to deal with un-
certainty and complexity in the present.”
A clearer description of the competence of Futures Literacy may have several
benefits:
1. It might make it easier to communicate what Futures Literacy is to
people who are new to the topic.
2. It might make it easier to define and focus the learning objectives of
trainings and teachings: What is it that participants should learn?
And did they learn it? In a higher education context, de Boer et al
(2018, p.1) call for “operationalizing underlying skills and measuring
improvement” as an important step towards an evidence-based ap-
proach.
3. It might open possibilities for measurement of the levels of compe-
tences. Karlsen (2021, p.9) points out that “FL must be measurable to
qualify as a proficiency, as we require from other forms of literacy
(reading, writing, arithmetic, etc.). However, FL lacks measurable
criteria.”
4. It might allow the diagnosis of different levels of Futures Literacy to
tailor appropriate trainings to specific needs and to evaluate changes.
This could lead to entry and exit surveys for trainings.
5. It might make it easier to identify which publications or projects re-
flect Futures Literacy in its depth and which ones only include some
aspects.
These five potential benefits describe the motivation for this note and also
indicate what it is not about: It does not include a description of the benefits
of higher Futures Literacy. It is also not about how Futures Literacy can be
strengthened and how trainings can be structured. This has been described
elsewhere in detail, most notably in Miller (2018).
One of the many challenges in this project was that Futures Literacy is not a
new competence. Humans have always imagined the future in different ways
and for different reasons. What is new is the theoretical basis in the theory of
anticipation, This should enable more complete and detailed descriptions of
what being futures literate entails. Also, new futures methods allow us to bet-
ter investigate human anticipatory systems and processes (Bergheim, 2023).
And humans are exploring new words and ways to describe and structure
what this competence is about. The focus of this note is on the last item.
To describe Futures Literacy as a “competence”, some clarity on terminology
appears helpful. The term “Literacy” goes beyond being versed in literature
or writing. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it is also a general
“having knowledge or competence”. So Futures Literacy is a specific kind of
competence, which is why I use upper cases F and L for now instead of “fu-
tures literacy”. I do not use the plural “Futures Literacies”, although it obvi-
ously consists of sub-competences. Also for clarity, I don’t use “competency”
with the y at the end, which refers to more specific areas of competence.
A focus on “competence” links to well-established research. Work by the JRC
Joint Research Center of the European Commission was particularly helpful.
It had been motivated by a similar issue as mine: a perceived lack of a
Bergheim, Stefan (2024). On the Competence of Futures Literacy. Page 3
“common and consistent conceptual definition” of skills and competences.
In their Technical Report 2021/02 on “A unified conceptual framework of
tasks, skills and competences” (Roddrigues et al, 2021, p. 12), they define
competence as a general ability to do well in a particular task. It consists of
three elements:
1. Knowledge is the “cognitive outcome of an assimilation of facts and
figures, concepts, ideas and theories which are already established.”
We know, understand, or remember these.
2. Skills are the “ability to perform tasks well” and could be physical,
intellectual, or social. A synonym for skill is “ability”. I also treat “ca-
pacity” as a synonym for skill and ability. We are able to or can do
certain tasks.
3. Attitudes are the personality traits of a “psychological, emotional
and behavioral nature”, rather than of a cognitive (knowledge) or op-
erational (skill) nature. Attitudes include values, aspirations, priori-
ties, responsibilities, and ethical considerations. Maybe “intuition”
can be included here as well, but it is not part of the JRC framework.
Verbs used for this element include value, weigh, consider, or con-
cern.
So “competence = knowledge, skills, and attitudes”. This appears sensible as
a starting point, even if it may not be able to capture every aspect of Futures
Literacy. The EU uses this framework in several fields, one of which will ap-
pear later in this paper. Others such as the OECD in their work on Financial
Literacy, the Center for Curriculum Redesign, or Next Skills (with “values
and motives” for “attitudes”) use it as well. In German, it is usually “Kompe-
tenz = Wissen, Können & (Wert)Haltung.”
This focus on “competence” includes a decision against the term “capability”
which is often used interchangeably with “ability”. Capability was used
widely in “Transforming the Future” (Miller, 2018). Amartya Sen defined ca-
pability as “the substantive freedom to achieve alternative functioning com-
binations” (Sen, 1999, p.75) with functionings being “the various things a
person may value doing or being”. There are some links to Futures Literacy
here, but I leave “capability” to the broader meaning and use related to well-
being and welfare as promoted by Sen.
2. Related competence frameworks
When describing something, it is often helpful to say what it is not. Futures
Literacy is not the same as “Future Skills”. Future Skills include relevant
competences such as collaboration, communication, creativity, critical think-
ing etc., and come under different labels. In Germany, the Stifterverband and
several others use the English labels “Future Skills” or “Next Skills”. The
World Economic Forum uses “21st Century Skills”. The EU has “Key Compe-
tences for Lifelong Learning”, the OECD “21st Century Skills” as well as
“Skills for 2030” and other labels. There are also “Transversal Skills” for ex-
ample at Dublin City University, which includes Futures Literacy as an ele-
ment. And there are “Key Competencies in Sustainability” linked to educa-
tion for sustainable development, which includes an interesting element on
pictures of the future. And surely many more.
Bergheim, Stefan (2024). On the Competence of Futures Literacy. Page 4
The framework for relevant competences that I find most useful in general is
Ulf-Daniel Ehlers’ “Next Skills” because it includes among its 17 competences
items such as “Ambiguity Competence”, “Ethical Competence”, “Sensemak-
ing” and “Reflective Competence”, which are highly relevant for Futures Lit-
eracy as well. And it includes clear statements on what each competence is
about.
These frameworks are all important and helpful for discussing priorities for
education in the present. But they usually do not include what I am looking
for. None of these are explicitly about Futures Literacy, the competence to
consciously and deliberately ‘use-the-future’ for different reasons and in dif-
ferent ways depending on the context. Even complexity competence is usu-
ally not mentioned explicitly.
Turning to the futures field, there are some models of competency or ma-
turity, but these focus mainly on what professional futurists do rather than
on general human competence. The European Commission’s “Competence
framework for innovative policymaking” includes “Futures Literacy” as one
of its seven competence clusters but uses different elements from those in the
present note. There are also efforts to capture Futures Consciousness (Lalot
et al, 2020), which includes some elements that map into Futures Literacy,
in particular the “openness to alternatives”.
3. Different competence levels
One core idea that I like about Futures Literacy is that everybody anticipates
and engages with futures. It is a general human competence. Even more, it is
a general characteristic of all living beings. Another idea that I like about Fu-
tures Literacy is that it can exist at different levels or proficiencies. So it is
not the case that you either are Futures Literate or you are not, you get it or
you don’t. No. It is a matter of degree. Competence is not fixed. Futures Lit-
eracy can be trained, developed, or strengthened in a large variety of ways.
Future research and practice will provide more detailed insights into which
aspects of Futures Literacy can be strengthened relatively easily and which
are more or less fixed. Similar discussions have been fruitful in the area of
life satisfaction.
A look at other competences illustrates what this thinking in different levels
implies. The European Union uses “competence = knowledge, skills, and at-
titudes” in its “Digital Competence Framework for Citizens” (Vuorikari et al,
2022) and illustrates its approach and the potential for development with the
example of swimming: Everybody knows what water is. You can touch it, put
your feet into it, step in deeper. At this basic level, some guidance may be
needed if you are very unfamiliar, for example as a child. Then, if you like
and have the opportunity, you can learn to swim. Usually with guidance.
First, you swim in an odd-looking style, but you move forward. As you prac-
tice more, your swimming gets smoother. Then – advanced level – maybe
you want to guide others as they learn to swim. Or you can exercise your
competence for different ends such as a rescue swimmer. And eventually –
specialized level – you may create new uses and contribute to the field in dif-
ferent ways. Of course, to demonstrate your swimming competence, you
need supportive external conditions such as a pool or a lake.
Bergheim, Stefan (2024). On the Competence of Futures Literacy. Page 5
Such levels can be sketched for other competences such as reading or writing
as well. The basic level includes writing letters and words, and then full sen-
tences and short texts. At an intermediate level, one can write different types
of texts. Then in different styles. Maybe you show others how to write. And
at a specialized level, some people contribute to professional publications,
others write poems. There is a link to Bloom’s Taxonomy, which is used
widely in education settings, with a condensed sequence of remember, un-
derstand, apply, and create.
I like the examples of engaging with water and of writing because I see a par-
allel to Futures Literacy: There seems to be consensus, that a basic compe-
tence in all three is important for all humans. As we move higher on the com-
petence scale, we reach levels that are nice to have and – at the most special-
ized level – may be only relevant for a few people.
4. Impulses from measurement
My academic training and professional history are in quantitative economics
and econometrics: data, trends, forecasts etc. So I tend to look at many issues
through a measurement lens. Since 2006 this includes attempts to measure
and describe well-being beyond money in research notes and in quality-of-
life projects such as “The Happy Variety of Capitalism”. In those projects, I
often had to defend the use of survey questions such as “On a scale from 0 to
10, how satisfied are you with the life you lead?” against those who only trust
monetary measures while they ignored the shortcomings of those.
In the case of Futures Literacy, I think an attempt to measure what we are
talking about can broaden the basis for discussion and allow us to be clearer.
Some measurement of competence can be useful for diagnosing levels and
potential areas for improvement. It can help us identify, which aspects of Fu-
tures Literacy are amenable to change, and which are not.
The most inspiring attempt I found on measuring competences is the Euro-
pean Union’s approach to Digital Competence. As mentioned above, they use
the “competence = knowledge, skills, and attitudes” structure. And they split
the overall competence into five sub-competences such as “communication
and collaboration” or “problem solving”. And for each sub-competence, they
define what people do at different competence levels. The idea here is that if
people do something they possess the necessary knowledge and skills.
Finding appropriate metrics is not trivial and will not work for every aspect.
But it is worth a try. The EU asks for example “Have you used any website or
app to arrange a transport service (e.g. by car) from another private individ-
ual in the last 12 months?” in its survey on ICT usage in households.
Knowledge, skills, and attitudes combine here, so cannot be separated. But
the question can be understood and answered with a clear yes or no. Adding
up similar questions provides a picture of the overall competence – including
the possibility that people do not do certain things because of ethical con-
cerns. As in the swimming example – and for Futures Literacy – appropriate
external conditions need to be in place for someone to demonstrate digital
competence: you have to be able to afford a computer, electricity has to be
available etc.
Bergheim, Stefan (2024). On the Competence of Futures Literacy. Page 6
Having revealed my current favorite approach to capture competences, I
should also mention approaches that I don’t find too helpful here. If I ask, for
example “On a scale from 0 to 5 how strong is your ability to think critically?”
(Likert scale), we get lots of answers of 4s and 5s. My assumption is that the
4s come from the more introverted people, the 5s from the extroverts. How-
ever, this does not help me much in capturing the actual competence of crit-
ical thinking. Therefore, my preference is to ask what people do, similar to
the EU’s approach to capture digital competences. Also, since Futures Liter-
acy is a general human competence, we should not measure whether people
have had formal futures trainings. I know many natural talents.
5. Six sub-competences of Futures Literacy
The six sub-competences that follow are what I currently think are essential
for describing the competence of Futures Literacy. They follow the “compe-
tence = knowledge, skills & attitudes” structure and should open the door for
the measurement of human practices. They are not intended as descriptions
of the sources and functioning of people’s anticipatory systems and pro-
cesses.
I used several sources and several iterations to get there. The book “Trans-
forming the Future” (Miller, 2018) was key. On page 62 it mentions a need
for a framework called “Anticipatory Capability Profile” (ACP) – maybe it can
be called “Anticipatory Competence Profile”. Literature on the Theory of An-
ticipation played a key role too: Robert Rosen’s “Anticipatory Systems” and
“Life Itself” as well as the work of Roberto Poli, Aloisius Louie, and others.
Another source was course descriptions with learning outcomes from Fu-
tures Literacy trainers around the world, especially by Riel Miller and Loes
Damhof. I also looked at descriptions of Futures Literacy used in research
papers and I spoke with some futurists about these issues. My interaction
with “Artificial Intelligence” on this was not helpful.
My practical experience in running dozens of Futures Literacy Laboratories
and offering trainings for designers and facilitators played an important role
too. We always ask ourselves and the trainees: What do we want participants
to learn and take home from this interaction? What is the essence of this
training?
In line with the idea that Futures Literacy is a general human competence
rather than something only for experts, my goal is to have descriptions where
the words can be understood by many people – even if they do not possess
all the knowledge or skills mentioned.
The first sub-competence is not special to the futures field but is important
across many disciplines and competences. However, I think it is essential as
a basis for working in a futures literate way. Also, it is not included explicitly
in other frameworks of competences or future skills. I call it "Complexity &
Uncertainty Competence” and tried to include as much of the work of Dave
Snowden and Mika Aaltonen as I could (plus awareness of Luhmann, Kauff-
mann, DeLanda, Cilliers, Rosen, and others):
Bergheim, Stefan (2024). On the Competence of Futures Literacy. Page 7
(1) The "Complexity & Uncertainty Competence” includes:
• The understanding that living systems are complex – as opposed to
complicated - as well as of the consequences and the benefits of com-
plexity and the associated ambiguity.
• An understanding of the non-knowability and un-controllability of
complex systems plus a resulting attitude of humility.
• Understanding the importance of collective intelligence knowledge
creation for sensing and sensemaking. This includes an understand-
ing of the importance of diverse perspectives, of sensors, experi-
ments, pattern recognition, etc.
• The ability to design and run events and processes that include the
above aspects.
The second of the six sub-competences is often an entry point for newcomers
to the futures field and leads to a clear learning objective for interventions
and trainings.
(2) The "Multiple Futures Competence” includes:
• Knowing why multiple possible futures are a feature of complex sys-
tems.
• The ability to distinguish different types of futures such as probable
and desirable.
• Knowledge about different uses of futures such as planning, optimiz-
ing, preparing, and emergence.
• Knowledge about the wide spectrum of elements these futures may
contain and the ability to explore blind spots.
• The ability to analyze and critically question the content from a vari-
ety of futures on diverse topics.
• An awareness of the ethical dimension of futures, of values, and the
ability to deal with unethical elements appropriately.
The third and fourth sub-competences take us to the core of what Futures
Literacy is about.
(3) The "Imagination & Assumptions Competence” includes:
• Knowing that futures do not exist but in our imagination.
• Knowledge about the various ways images of futures can be revealed
or made visible, such as speaking, writing, drawing, playing, gaming,
sculpting.
• An awareness of one's images of futures and their deep roots in the
past.
• The ability and willingness to become aware of the images of other
people and to identify differences across images.
• An understanding of the importance of assumptions and anticipatory
systems behind those images.
• The ability to identify (anticipatory) assumptions of different types in
oneself or others and to potentially question them.
• An awareness of the psychological dimension and dangers of reveal-
ing deep and personal anticipatory systems and processes – both for
the individual and for the group.
Bergheim, Stefan (2024). On the Competence of Futures Literacy. Page 8
(4) The "Reframe & Experiment Competence” includes:
• An understanding of the importance of training and stretching the
imagination.
• An openness to getting exposure to strange futures.
• The ability to invent new, alternative assumptions and create new fu-
tures from those to expand perspectives.
• The ability to explore and deepen those experimental futures with a
variety of creativity techniques such as storytelling, playing, and per-
sonas that can also activate non-conscious imagination.
• An awareness of the individual mental limits and the organizational
consequences of expanding horizons.
The fifth sub-competence is characteristic of Futures Literacy, but can also
be covered by other literacies or competences:
(5) The "Novelty & Emergence Competence” includes:
• Knowledge that novelty emerges in complex adaptive systems.
• The ability to sense the difference across images of diverse futures
and assumptions and to make sense of novelty in the present.
• The ability to raise new, powerful questions that can open doors to
new quests.
• The ability to cultivate and host situations of unfamiliarity.
• An individual openness to discover new terrain, new thoughts, new
issues.
• An awareness of the challenges of getting from emergence and inven-
tion to actual innovation in the present.
Finally, the sixth sub-competence is again not unique to Futures Literacy. It
is relevant across many disciplines and competences. However, I think it is
necessary to complete the description. In the theoretical literature, anticipa-
tion is always linked to action – including the option to not act.
(6) The “Agency & Action Competence” includes:
• Knowledge about the linkages between anticipation, images of fu-
tures, and actions in the present.
• Understanding of the possibility as well as the limits of agency in
complex emergent anticipatory systems.
• The ability to identify concrete actions that emerge from different im-
ages of futures.
• The ability to choose from a menu of possible actions and explore
these actions with others.
• Implement actions.
With six sub-competences, one might wonder whether they build on each
other, whether one is a necessary condition for the others, whether they can
be divided up more, whether there is an underlying “meta-competence”, and
whether there is a hierarchy. My current view on this: First, the sub-compe-
tences are related to each other. They complement each other and ideally
build on each other. There does not appear to be a hierarchy. Maybe there is
a competence loop, similar to John Boyd’s OODA loop of Observe, Orient,
Bergheim, Stefan (2024). On the Competence of Futures Literacy. Page 9
Decide, Act with its many feedbacks. Especially, the connection between (6)
“Agency and Action” and (1) “Complexity and Uncertainty” seems to be worth
highlighting with a circular arrangement as opposed to a list. This is shown
in Figure 1.
Second, it is possible to focus more on one sub-competence than on another.
To start somewhere. Or to find it easier and more natural to focus on one
sub-competence rather than another. As people strengthen their overall Fu-
tures Literacy, specific areas for individual improvement may become more
visible. Based on the six sub-competences outlined above, appropriately de-
signed questionnaires can help diagnose areas of relative strength or weak-
ness that could be addressed with targeted learning interventions.
Results may look like the hypothetical competence profiles in Figure 2. For
example, the “idealist” respects the plurality of futures but is unable or un-
willing to think in alternatives. The hypothetical “analyst” can go deep on as-
sumptions but finds it hard to act in line with the analysis. By contrast, the
“doer” is very active with limited understanding of complexity and multiple
futures.
Bergheim, Stefan (2024). On the Competence of Futures Literacy. Page 10
6. Four competence levels of Futures Literacy
As mentioned above, competences can exist at different levels or proficien-
cies. I suggest the following four levels of Futures Literacy:
A-Basic: All human beings regularly imagine different futures. They plan
their day or a vacation. They have wishes for their birthdays, their private
lives, or for their professional careers. They also know that the future does
not always turn out as expected or wished. But they are able to act in the
present nevertheless. They are somewhat open to new ideas and activities.
B-Intermediate: Many humans imagine different futures more con-
sciously. They spend more time than others on thinking and reflecting about
futures in a more structured way - often together with others. They are con-
scious of the reasons why they have certain expectations and wishes. They
sometimes stretch their imagination by intentionally thinking about and dis-
cussing alternative futures to see more in the present and create new ideas.
C-Advanced: Some people train and practice their Futures Literacy fre-
quently. They read basic texts on complexity, anticipation, Futures Literacy
etc. and speak with other practitioners. They regularly contribute to events
where different futures are created and sometimes design and facilitate such
events. They have developed a strong ethical compass. They are able to im-
agine different futures and regularly invent relevant new options for actions
in the present in collective intelligence knowledge creation processes.
D-Specialized: A few people specialize strongly in Futures Literacy. They
write and teach about complexity, anticipation etc. Some of them design and
create a wide spectrum of collective intelligence knowledge creation pro-
cesses about futures suitable for the specific context. Some create new ways
and methods to engage with anticipatory systems and processes. Some train
others how to do this in an ethical way.
7. Outlook on open issue and next steps
This note offered a way of describing Futures Literacy in line with other com-
petences, even if this may not be all-encompassing: competence =
knowledge, skills, and attitudes. It suggested six sub-competences, which I
hope are reasonably well separated and easy to understand. It also suggested
four different competence levels.
My hope is that some of this makes it easier to communicate what Futures
Literacy is to people who are new to the topic. It may also make it easier to
define and focus learning objectives of trainings and teachings on Futures
Literacy. And it may help in discussing the Futures Literacy of specific pro-
jects.
There are many issues around the description of Futures Literacy that this
note does not include. Some issues I have not been able to understand or
describe in the words available to me today given my specific background.
This is probably the case in particular with issues around not knowing, not
doing, letting go, embodiment etc. There is probably too little in this note
about what Tuomi (2022) calls the non-epistemic competences. Maybe oth-
ers will add these elements and more over time.
Bergheim, Stefan (2024). On the Competence of Futures Literacy. Page 11
Work in progress is about how to diagnose or measure the different compe-
tence levels. While I expressed some sympathy for the EU’s path to measure
digital competences by adding up how many activities citizens actually do,
this does not appear appropriate here. The different levels require different
activities. Therefore, my idea is to ask specific questions for each cell in the
six-by-four matrix of sub-competences and levels. This could be similar to
the EU’s swimming example mentioned earlier.
The first sets of questions exist. Each set begins with a very simple question
about futures that almost every human being should be able to answer cor-
rectly. The idea is to appreciate the normal, everyday engagement with fu-
tures. Like: did you speak this week? Then questions get more difficult as
they try to capture higher competence levels. For the advanced level, it might
make sense to ask for some explanations. And the question on the specialized
level should be more difficult to understand and very hard to fulfill across all
six sub-competences.
All of this needs refinement and improvement. So, if you are versed in de-
signing and running such questionnaires and want to support this effort,
please let me know. Same, if you would like to conduct a special research
project around the measurement of Futures Literacy and use my first set as
an input.
References
Aaltonen, Mika (2005). Complexity as a sensemaking Framework. FFRC
Publications.
Bergheim, Stefan (2022): On the Evaluation of Futures Literacy Laborato-
ries. ZGF.
Bergheim, Stefan (2003): Patterns of Anticipatory Assumptions. ZGF.
de Boer, Anke, Loes Damhof, and Carina Wiekens (2018): How Futures Lit-
erate are you? Exploratory research on how to operationalize and measure
Futures Literacy'- Paper for International Conference on Future-Oriented
Technology Analysis (FTA) – Future in the Making.
Ehlers, Ulf-Daniel (2020). Future Skills – Future Learning and Future
Higher Education.
Karlsen, Jan (2021): Futures Literacy in the Loop. European Journal of Fu-
tures Research. 9:17.
Lalot, Fanny & Ahvenharju, Sanna & Minkkinen, Matti & Wensing, Enrico.
(2020). Aware of the Future?: Development and Validation of the Futures
Consciousness Scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 36(5),
874-888.
Louie, Aloisius (2010): Robert Rosen’s Anticipatory Systems. Foresight,
12(3), 18–29.
Miller, Riel (2007): Futures Literacy: A Hybrid Strategic Scenario Method.
Futures 39, 341–362.
Bergheim, Stefan (2024). On the Competence of Futures Literacy. Page 12
Miller, Riel (2011): Futures Literacy – Embracing Complexity and Using the
Future. Ethos, Issue 10, 23-28.
Miller, Riel (Ed.) (2018): Transforming the Future – Anticipation in the 21st
Century. Routledge.
Miller, Riel and Richard Sandford (2019): Futures Literacy: The Capacity to
Diversify Conscious Human Anticipation. In: Poli, Roberto (ed.): Handbook
of Anticipation. Springer.
Nadin, Mihai (2012): Prolegomena – What Speaks in Favor of an Inquiry into
Anticipatory Processes? In: Rosen, R. (2012). Anticipatory systems: Philo-
sophical, mathematical and methodological foundations. Second Edition.
Springer.
Poli, Roberto (2019): Introducing Anticipation. In: Poli, R. (ed) Handbook of
Anticipation. Springer.
Roddrigues, Margarida, Enrique Fernández-Macías, and Matteo Sostero
(2021): A unified conceptual framework of tasks, skills and competences, Se-
ville: European Commission, JRC121897.
Rosen, Robert (1991): Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into the Nature,
Origin, and Fabrication of Life. Columbia University Press. New York.
Rosen, Robert (1985/2012): Anticipatory systems: Philosophical, Mathemat-
ical and Methodological Foundations. Second Edition. Springer.
Sen, Amartya (1999): Development as Freedom. Anchor Books.
Snowden, Dave and Mary Boone (2007): A Leaders Framework for Decision
Making. Harvard Business Review.
Tuomi, Ilkka. (2022): Artificial Intelligence, 21 st Century Competences, and
Socio-Emotional Learning in Education: More than High-Risk?. European
Journal of Education. October.
Vuorikari, R., Kluzer, S. and Punie, Y. (2022): DigComp 2.2 – The Digital
Competence Framework for Citizens, EUR 31006 EN, Publications Office of
the European Union, Luxembourg.
Available in open access under the license
“Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International”
