What is it about?
Scientific knowledge generation in futures studies and foresight is often challenged by the claim that "future facts do not exist." This paper critically examines this proposition from the perspective of epistemology, exploring how reliable knowledge about the future can still be produced. By addressing philosophical and methodological foundations, the study demonstrates that despite the inherent uncertainties of the future, systematic approaches can enable the production of scientifically grounded insights, fostering better decision-making and strategic planning.
Featured Image
Photo by Rashed Paykary on Unsplash
Why is it important?
This paper is important because it tackles a central, unresolved challenge in futures studies: how to produce reliable scientific knowledge about plural and uncertain futures without relying on predictive certainty, and in a way that gains legitimacy within the broader scientific community. Its significance lies in several contributions: Filling a conceptual gap – The paper provides a coherent, up-to-date epistemological framework for futures studies by applying social process reliabilism, moving beyond the fragmented debates that have previously focused either narrowly on methods or abstract philosophical positions. Strengthening scientific legitimacy – It identifies the institutional norms, methodological standards, and structural supports required for futures studies to align with established scientific practices and be recognized as a rigorous discipline. Redefining “reliability” – The work shifts the emphasis from predictive accuracy to the trustworthiness of processes, offering a defensible approach to futures research in contexts where certainty is unattainable. Bridging theory and practice – Through a tripartite framework of individual, process, and structural reliability, the paper offers practical pathways for improving foresight methodologies while remaining grounded in epistemological theory. Enhancing societal relevance – By reinforcing the epistemic robustness of futures studies, the research supports more effective decision-making in critical domains such as climate policy, technological governance, and innovation, thereby increasing the field’s public trust and societal impact. Overall, the paper is important because it offers both a theoretical foundation and a practical roadmap for positioning futures studies as a scientifically credible, methodologically rigorous, and socially relevant field.
Perspectives
The paper engages with multiple perspectives, both within and outside the futures studies community, and positions them in relation to its proposed framework: Philosophical perspective – It draws on contemporary epistemology, especially process reliabilism and social epistemology, to address the long-debated question of whether and how scientific knowledge about the future is possible. It critiques the limitations of the classical “justified true belief” model and incorporates newer accounts of knowledge. Methodological perspective – It evaluates existing foresight methods (e.g., Delphi, backcasting, visioning) not on their predictive success but on their procedural and structural reliability, proposing mechanisms to improve their epistemic robustness. Institutional perspective – It views science as a social institution and argues that futures studies must meet both normative (methodological rigor, neutrality, transparency) and organizational (standardized education, evaluation mechanisms, scientific awards, independent institutions) requirements to be recognized as a legitimate science. Practical and applied perspective – It considers the needs of policymakers, organizations, and communities, showing how more reliable futures knowledge can improve decision-making in complex and high-stakes contexts. Critical perspective on the field – It examines the historical development of futures studies, identifying how the consulting stream and the social activism stream have shaped the field, and highlights the need to balance participatory, normative work with scientific accountability. By integrating these perspectives, the paper situates its contribution at the intersection of philosophy, methodology, institutional design, and applied foresight practice, offering a multidimensional vision for the evolution of the field.
Ali Chaparak
Niroo Research Institute
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: The generation of scientific knowledge in futures studies and foresight, foresight, August 2025, Emerald,
DOI: 10.1108/fs-12-2024-0229.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
