Although the future is mentioned frequently in overarching aims and visions, and it is a major drive in the daily work of archaeological heritage managers and indeed heritage professionals more generally, it remains unclear precisely how an overall commitment to the future can best inform specific heritage practices. It seems that most archaeologists and other heritage professionals cannot easily express how they conceive of the future they work for, and how their work will impact on that future. The future tends to remain implicit in daily practice which operates in a continuing, rolling present. The authors argue that this needs to change because present-day heritage management may be much less beneficial for the future than we commonly expect.

This study investigates how managers and employees at County Museums in Sweden think about, work with, and relate to the future in their daily practice. We examined which tools and routines the museums employ to work concretely with different future perspectives. The study is thus about those forms of future consciousness that exist in the museums. The results show that the future is implicitly present but often remains unarticulated in the work of the museum. The museums work with short future perspectives which are often linked to concrete tasks or development work. The future perspectives at the museums are largely locked in the present or in a near future. Concrete tools, skills and routines to develop future consciousness are lacking. However, the results show that there is great interest and willingness among Swedish County Museums to implement tools, skills, and routines for a more developed engagement with futures.

This report presents results from a project that aims at increasing future awareness in the cultural heritage sector, using the SoPHIA model. The project was run by the Centre for Applied Heritage at Linnaeus University, with funding from the university. Work on the report was carried out in2021 and 2022 by NCK (The Nordic Centre of Heritage Learning and Creativity AB) under the direction of Gustav Wollentz, in co-operation with Kalmar County Museum, Jamtli Museum, andDaniel Laven from the Department of Economics, Geography, Law and Tourism at Mid  Sweden University. Results from the project show that the model succeeded in exploring possible future effects of a heritage intervention, defined as any action that results in a physical change to an element of a historic place, and related these effects to prioritized issues for societal development, such as participation, inclusion, and wellbeing. It managed to expand the range of potential action in the present. Furthermore, it also provided a useful tool for identifying significant areas where there is the potential to think more innovatively and creatively regarding future change and effects. The model helped in identifying the necessary steps and actions needed for realizing the interventionin accordance with a desirable scenario. The model failed in anticipating long-term futures or futures radically different from the present. It mostly provided insights into how the intervention could have an impact upon future change, but not on how future change would have an impact upon the intervention. Ways of adapting the model for increased future awareness are suggested.These include ways to make the model more suitable for anticipating long-term futures as well as futures of radical change.