Cited by 181Scientific Research and Philosophical InquiryDigital Education and SocietyLiteracy, Media, and Education

Futures literacy and the diversity of the future

Open access
Mangnus, Astrid C., Oomen, Jeroen, Vervoort, Joost M., Hajer, Maarten A.·2021·Futures

Abstract

In this paper, we argue that a key component of futures literacy is reflexivity regarding different attitudes toward the future. Various intellectual traditions and futures practices make epistemologically distinct claims about the future and its manifestations in the present. Through their different outlooks on analyzing, understanding, and influencing the future, these diverse approaches represent fundamentally different attitudes to what it means to meaningfully engage with the future. Because of this diversity of attitudes toward the future, and the different possible modes of engagement with the future, futures literacy is more complex than it appears at first glance. Looking at recent developments in futures literature, we build on four epistemologically and ontologically distinct approaches to the problem of the future. We argue that being futures literate depends on reflexivity about these different engagements with the future, and what these different approaches can offer future-oriented action respectively. Such reflexivity entails being reflexive about how different approaches to the problem of the future arise, as well as about the underlying power structures. We also investigate possibilities to cultivate this futures reflexivity and conclude with a set of questions to guide future research in deepening reflexivity as a key element of futures literacy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.futures.2021.102793

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Work on futures literacy stresses the diversity of engagements with the future, and the importance of keeping multiple futures intelligible in educational practice.

    “Work on futures literacy likewise stresses the diversity of engagements with the future, and the importance of keeping multiple futures intelligible in educational practice [34].”

    From Hallucination as epistemic pollution: epistemic injustice and credibility in futures-oriented science education (2026) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Introduction and Section 4 stress reflexivity about diverse ways of engaging with the future and about which futures remain open to consideration. The paper mentions educating people in futures literacy, but the passages do not specifically place the need to keep multiple futures intelligible in educational practice. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Miller, R. (2018). Introduction. In R. Miller (Ed.), Transforming the future: Anticipation in the 21st century (pp. 1-13). Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
  2. Shapin, S., & Shaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air pump: Boyle, Hobbes, and the experimental life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  3. Snowden, D. (2011). Naturalizing sensemaking. In K. L. Mosier, & U. M. Fischer (Eds.), Informed by knowledge: Expert performance in complex situations (pp. 223-235). Hove: Psychology Press.
  4. Wack, P. (1985). Scenarios: Shooting the rapids. Harvard Business Review, 139-150. November-December.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mangnus, A. C., Oomen, J., Vervoort, J. M., & Hajer, M. A.
Affiliations
Utrecht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Oomen, Jeroen
Venue
Futures
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-09
Volume
132
Pages
102793
ISSN
0016-3287 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3177112528
Cited by
181
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 57 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 4
FWCI
19.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Futures (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Scientific Research and Philosophical Inquiry
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital Education and Society
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Literacy, Media, and Education
Keywords
futures literacy, reflexivity, attitudes toward the future, futures studies, power structures

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review