Futures Research Methods as Tools to Navigate in a Turbulent World

The current global political environment has created a profound sense of uncertainty about the future. The increasingly tense political atmosphere and shifting geopolitical dynamics, coupled with ongoing armed conflicts in many regions such as Ukraine and Middle East, contribute to this uncertainty (Akadiri and Ozkan 2025; Szostak 2024). Additionally, the looming threat of a global trade war and the evolving values of voters, for example, in Europe, suggest that significant changes may be on the horizon (Akadiri and Ozkan 2025; Ridge 2025; Fahey et al. 2022). Moreover, persistent global challenges like climate change and sustainability issues continue to pose serious threats, despite efforts to downplay or remove these topics from the global agenda (Ojanen 2025; Persson et al. 2025; Weh 2025). The rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) and their subsequent impacts are also shaping our future and influencing our visions of what lies ahead (Ojanen 2025). The combination of these complex issues, along with unpredictable behaviors’ and surprising decisions from global leaders, can paint a rather bleak picture of the future. This underscores the urgent need for long-term futures thinking, which is essential for exploring and sustaining possibilities for alternative and creative solutions to these multifaceted crises (Ojanen 2025; Szostak 2024; MacKenzie et al. 2023; Arocena et al. 2022; Granjou et al. 2017). Such an approach can empower us to envision and work toward more hopeful futures. The role of science and futures research is also a topic of ongoing debate. It is crucial to maintain and strengthen public trust in science, as it plays a vital role in addressing these global challenges and guiding us toward informed and effective solutions (Goldenberg 2023). Particularly, futures studies enable the advancement of systemic understanding, facilitate the strategic steering of societal development in a constructive direction, and support the proactive identification and mitigation of emerging challenges before they escalate. This Special issue is related to Futures Conference 2023 with a team “Empowering Futures—Long-term Governance, Democracy and Futures Research.” In this Special Issue, we are focusing to the futures of democracy, trust, power and sustainability in connection to problems and issues such as climate change, security, policy-making, well-being, and technological innovations. These topical issues are discussed in an interdisciplinary manner, on how we see futures and how futures studies can empower people, societies, and organizations for creating more just and sustainable futures. The special issue consists of seven papers. Each paper has focused on methods or method developments that aid anticipation and futures research, and analyses the potentials of these methods. This Special Conference Issue elaborate upon general sustainability and resilience challenges in the current turbulent situation of world politics. Participatory methods in futures studies are approaches that actively involve stakeholders in the process of exploring and shaping future (Popper 2008). These methods emphasize collaboration, inclusivity, and the integration of diverse perspectives to create more comprehensive and resilient visions of the future. Workshops are a key participatory method in futures studies. They bring together participants from various backgrounds to engage in structured activities, discussions, and exercises (Lehikoinen and Tuittila 2024; Persson et al. 2025; Weh 2025). Overall, participatory workshops in futures studies empower individuals and communities to take an active role in shaping their futures, ensuring that the outcomes are more reflective of their needs and aspirations. Four of the papers in this special issue concentrate on the participatory methods and three of those develop workshop methods. Lehikoinen and Tuittila (2024) explore arts-based approaches and assess their potential and limitations in the context of futures workshops within higher arts education. They collected data from multiple settings across eight European countries, including 15 test workshops and 12 Art School Futures Labs. The arts-based approaches included visual methods such as cartoons, needlework, and Legos; narrative-based methods such as short films; interactive and performative methods such as multisensory walks and role-play; as well as sound, music, and game-based approaches. Participants included teachers, researchers, students, professional artists, and representatives of arts and cultural organizations. The workshops aimed to envision the futures of higher arts education or related themes. Lehikoinen and Tuittila (2024) conclude that arts-based approaches can foster fresh perspectives on the future and contribute meaningfully to futures thinking. These methods offer additional benefits, including accessibility, nonverbal expression, immersive experiences, emotional engagement, and multimodality. However, it is important to recognize their limitations. Some approaches require specific skills, are time-consuming, or demand substantial preparation. Therefore, facilitators must carefully consider the strengths and constraints of each method in relation to the specific workshop context and participants. Participants’ perceptions of artistic value may also vary, influencing their level of engagement. Furthermore, the interpretation of the artistic representations of the future is a critical element in the process (Lehikoinen and Tuittila 2024). Persson et al. (2025) explore the integration of multiple theoretical approaches in a workshop setting, with a key objective of bridging foresight and transition research. They combine scenario planning with the multi-level perspective (MLP) framework. The paper presents experiences from applying this integrated approach in workshops focused on the Swedish food system. Specifically, two workshops were conducted to address sustainability transitions, involving stakeholders from two research projects—participants included food producers, processors, retailers, researchers, and others. In the workshops, pre-developed scenarios related to regime dimensions were used in conjunction with backcasting exercises. As a result, participants identified key drivers and barriers to sustainability transitions. The paper offers practical tools for combining different approaches and shares key insights from the process. The findings suggest that integrating theoretical perspectives can enhance understanding of transition dynamics and that the MLP provides a valuable model for explaining transitions and the drivers of transformation (Persson et al. 2025). Ludwig Weh (2025) examines multi-stakeholder processes and introduces a novel framework for ecosystem scenario development. These scenarios describe possible futures of the natural environment and typically integrate both natural and social science perspectives. A central aim in recent developments of ecosystem scenario frameworks has been to enhance stakeholder participation. Accordingly, Weh's framework seeks to improve inclusivity, stakeholder engagement, and process reflectivity. The framework is derived from previous studies and structured as a 10-step sequence. According to Weh, scenario processes should be multi-method, multi-stakeholder, and multi-sectoral, and the framework should support continuous expression and configuration of process variables. Drawing on elements from both futures studies and ecosystem assessment, the framework also fosters collaboration between these fields. Silvia Vicente-Oliva (2025) investigates how citizens can participate in security and defence foresight exercises. Involving civil society in these domains promotes open dialogue, enhances learning, and strengthens preparedness for a range of threats (Susen 2010; Turnhout et al. 2020; Vicente-Olivia 2025). While participatory foresight exercises may include individuals without specific expertise in defence, bringing together diverse experts can yield significant benefits (Popper 2008; Vicente-Oliva 2025). Vicente-Olivia (2025) presents a Spanish case study in which security and defence experts acknowledge the need for citizen participation, but lack concrete proposals. Based on her findings, she proposes a model for participatory foresight in security and defence. She emphasizes that such efforts should focus on lawfulness, transparency, and participant empowerment. Additionally, careful consideration must be given to method selection and the creation of a balanced methodological mix. The paper evaluates the strengths and limitations of various participatory methods in this context. Ultimately, Vicente-Olivia argues that the level of public interest in security and defence issues within each country will significantly influence the future development of such participatory practices. Current democratic instability is driven by several factors, including political polarization, economic inequality, and social fragmentation. The erosion of democratic institutions and the rise of authoritarianism further contribute to this instability (Szostak 2024). Climate change and rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) add additional layers of complexity (Ojanen 2025; Arocena et al. 2022). This situation underscores the need for long-term futures thinking to identify alternative solutions and maintain public trust in science. Rick Szostak (2024) introduces a method called the backcasting wheel, which he uses to analyze democratic instability and democratic backsliding. The backcasting wheel is designed to identify changes that should be supported or addressed to achieve a desired future. Derived from the futures wheel, the method is intended to complement other tools in futures studies. Its strength lies in identifying causal relationships between present conditions and future outcomes (Szostak 2024). Szostak identifies several indicators of democratic weakening from the literature and applies the backcasting wheel to address these issues. According to him, actions to counter democratic instability include addressing populism, reducing polarization and income inequality, enhancing interaction, combating disinformation, and influencing cultural attitudes—for example, by promoting positive nationalism. In conclusion, the backcasting wheel helps individuals and groups reflect on what can be done today to shape a more democratic future (Szostak 2024). Atte Ojanen (2025) conducts a different type of analysis by presenting a framework for systematically comparing long-term governance challenges. He demonstrates the framework using two examples: the risks associated with climate change and artificial intelligence. Both are considered critical issues in contemporary decision-making due to their potential to pose existential risks (Ord 2020; Beard et al. 2021; Vold and Harris 2021; Bucknall and Dori-Hacohen 2022). Ojanen analyzes these risks across eight attributes that influence their governability: scientific certainty, spatiality, temporality, linearity, path dependence, accountability, capacity to address, and associated costs. The article aims to bridge foresight and policy analysis, encouraging reflection on our responsibilities toward future generations. Ojanen argues that climate change and AI differ as long-term policy issues, particularly because AI does not involve the same kind of intergenerational conflict as climate change. Nevertheless, both issues exhibit similar risks of lock-in effects, especially when considering path dependence. The article highlights the value of comparative methods, particularly in problem definition and horizon scanning (Ojanen 2025). Lastly, Liudmila Sivetc (2024) focuses on online commentators as prosumers—individuals who both produce and consume content. Her article presents innovative research on online commentary, moderation, and liability rules for digital platforms. She examines the current and future roles of commentators as prosumers from both legal and futures studies perspectives. Sivetc analyzes the freedom of prosumers to post lawful content in light of standards set by the European Court of Human Rights and the Digital Services Act. She constructs three models of information production—or prosumption—and anticipates their future trajectories. The study identifies tensions between prosumers and moderators and their implications for freedom of expression. As a result, Sivetc proposes ways to better balance the rights of prosumers to express themselves and the responsibilities of moderators to manage content. A key step in achieving this balance is resolving conflicts between legal frameworks (Sivetc 2024). This special issue of the Futures Conference 2023 presents a diverse array of methodological approaches and combinations, along with their ongoing advancements. It demonstrates the multiplicity of methods through which the future can be systematically investigated and understood. The future is dynamic and continuously evolving; therefore, a multidisciplinary approach is both a natural and necessary response—although it often presents challenges for both researchers and those seeking to apply research outcomes. We invite readers to engage with these insights, reflect on their implications, and take proactive steps toward shaping more sustainable and resilient futures. By employing different methods, futures studies can empower individuals, communities, and organizations to navigate uncertainty, address global challenges, and work toward more sustainable and just futures.