Forecasts can take a number of different forms and carry varying degrees of claims. On the one hand there are pure predictions, which are characterized of both truth claims and explanatory claims in which the author states what will happen when and what causes the event. On the other hand there are predictions that neither have claims on what is being forecasted in fact will happen nor what causes it. Finally, there are predictions in the borderland between these extremes. As scholars within serious futures research claim that it is impossible to predict with certainty, they devote themselves to developing better understanding for the way in which causal powers influence different courses of events and processes and how to influence these in order to reach a wanted outcome. They are, for example, talking in terms of ‘back-casting’ rather than ‘forecasting’: They identify what they wish to attain and try to intervene in a way that can lead to what is desired. In some cases it concerns forecasting the actual or the probable and in other cases the possible or the wanted. The collected knowledge of futures research has, however, not had any real impact on working life research, which has led to there being a certain uncertainty in using different concepts for different types of forecasts. Proper predictions are not common in this kind of research and even when scholars talk about forecasts in a looser meaning they make up a very small part. This might seem conflicting as there are works which are said to contain statements about the future, but it has become apparent that this does not always correspond to the much more modest claims made by the text itself.

In futures research working life does not play a prominent role. To the extent that it dealt with, it often concerns how different social changes, as e.g. technical and economic, have consequences for the labour market. Common questions in working life research, e.g. conditions of work, qualification, power and resistance, class, gender, ethnicity and the relation between work and family, are evidently absent. Working life researchers do not show much interest in the future and futures researchers do not show much interest in working life. An implicit and non-problematizing attitude to the future is, however, often present in working life research. It is fairly common to finalize a report through pointing out future research areas and/or discussing the implications of the results in relation to the future.

We are still critical to predictions in the naïve positivistic meaning and we see a danger in these being presented as truths, but at the same time we are considerably more positive to futures research as such than when we started the project. To be sure, focus is on something most important, the future, and the often very nuanced and humble way researchers relate to it is, in our eyes, quite fruitful. Although the future cannot be predicted in any simple way it is too important to be left to prognosticators, trend detectives and naïve estimates. We want to point to two of our publications as especially important for analyses of these questions. The first deals with types of forecasts, the second under which preconditions forecasts can be made. There are several proposals of how futures studies can be classified, but most of them fall under one of two categories: epistemological or normative. We suggest an ontologically based typology as a complement, as epistemological as well as normative statements follow from ontological accounts. Our point of departure is the concept forecast: a statement about future events or states. The classification we propound constitutes, then, a typology of forecasts. Its basis is two ontological dimensions, truth claims and explanatory claims respectively. We do not assign the first term the pejorative ring it sometimes has; it means that the author of a forecast explicitly claims that it will come true. The second term means that the author explicitly indicates mechanisms behind the events or states that are forecasted. Both dimensions can have the values ‘yes’ and ‘no’. This leads to a property space which defines four ontological kinds of forecasts, which we regard as ideal types that can be used as measures of different forecasts. In the article we present an example of each type in order to elucidate its content. 1) A ‘prediction’ raises both explanatory and truth claims. Our example is Kahn and Wiener’s famous ‘The Year 2000’. They make predictions, although cautious ones, classified as ’surprise free’, ‘most probable’ and ‘absolutely probable’. They also specify mechanisms. 2) A ‘prognosis’ does not make truth claims but explanatory claims. Our example is another famous book, Alvin Toffler’s ‘The Third Wave’, which includes themes which often return in later futures studies, such as the idea of the electronic cottage and the fusion of producers and consumers into prosumers. 3) Common definitions of ‘science fiction’ have led us to this term for forecasts which do not make truth claims but indicate explanatory mechanisms. We take Ayn Rand’s novel ‘Atlas Shrugged’ as example. The mechanisms discussed by Rand all concern the importance of individual geniuses acting only on egoistical motives. 4) ‘Utopias’ and ‘dystopias’ do not care about truth or causes. They paint a picture of future societies, often as illustrations of deficiencies in the society in which they are written. Our example is Kurt Vonnegut’s dystopian novel ‘Player Piano’. It plays out in a society in which technology has taken over and human work is not necessary anymore. A rebel group therefore struggles for people again taking control over the machines. Today, forecasts are often intended as tools for creating a better society, i.e. the ontological dimensions is in the foreground. We think that the relative simplicity has an important epistemic value when it comes to navigating in the difficult terrain of futures studies (Bergman, Karlsson & Axelsson 2010).

In social science it is often claimed that predictions are not possible to make because of social contexts always being open systems and predictions presuppose closed systems. In open systems there are no invariant regularities, but there are in closed systems. The latter require that there are neither any qualitative internal changes in the system (internal closure) or any outside changes that affect the system (external closure). Towards that background there are two reasons given for social systems always being open. One says that people have the capacity to learn, which counteracts internal closure; the other that people can act on their environment, which makes external closure impossible. This means that social systems are always either open or closed, there is nothing in between. This way of reasoning is contradictory if we take our point of departure in the question of the potentials of forecasts in social science. If the argument is that social systems always are open, it is not logical to claim at the same time that they can be partly closed. Our suggestion in order to disentangle this confusion goes like this: As there are no spontaneously closed social systems and social is not possible if there are no invariant regularities, the possibilities to at least partly close social systems become decisive for social life. Individuals and groups therefore devote much creativity and effort trying to at least partly close social systems. This also entails that the ways in which these systems are being (partly) closed are subject of social antagonisms and struggle. One obvious field for this is working life, as work organisations are partly open/partly closed systems. Research therefore ought to move away from the idea that systems can only be closed or open. Instead we suggest these conceptual principles: 1) In a closed system there are only invariant regularities, following from both internal and external closure; this results in there not being any spontaneously closed social systems. 2) In an open system there are no invariant regularities as there is both internal and external closure. 3) in a partly open/partly closed system there are degrees of regularities following from either internal or external closure or partial closure of any of them or both. Partly open/partly closed systems have a real social existence and they are extremely interesting for social science as they are centres of the creativity of groups and social struggles. Because there are some invariant regularities in these systems it is possible to make certain forms of forecasts. Researchers can analyse in which way the social system they study is partly closed or partly open, i.e. how robust invariant regularities it contains. Thereby they can also judge to which extent forecasts are possible and the qualities of them. So far it has turned out that these forecasts are conditional, qualitative, crude and are made at an aggregated level. – But it is pretty good at that (Karlsson 2011).

Research questions to pursue seem to us to concern what type of working life studies are performed and being supported today. The comprehensive undertaking is to map and analyse which fields and which type of working life research that are encouraged and prioritised and which is not. The aim is not to predict the future working life but to identify research that can influence it. Using knowledge generated in the project we think that debate on the focus and results of possible, probable and desirable effects thereof in relation to the future is fruitful.