This analysis explores how futures are framed in Science, Technology, and Society studies, addressing emerging challenges.
In recent years, the future has re-emerged as a significant research topic, encompassing studies on perceptions, anticipations, imaginaries, and theoretical explorations of its nature. This article analyzes how the future is theoretically framed in Science, Technology, and Society studies (STS), and how this relates to its broader framing within futures studies. It identifies three core theses from research on futures that highlight shared ontological, epistemological, and normative commitments. By comparing STS and futures studies, the article demonstrates how these theses manifest in empirical research. Building on this analysis, we identify three challenges stemming from specific STS renderings that unwarrantedly go beyond the minimal core of these theses: (1) avoiding rigid cultural dynamics; (2) updating action models; and (3) addressing the attitudinal fallacy. Overcoming these challenges, the article argues, will open new research avenues and deepen the multidisciplinary intersections of futures studies with STS, anthropology, sociology, and history.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Navarrete et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: