The generation of scientific knowledge in futures studies and foresight

Purpose The epistemological and institutional legitimacy of futures studies/foresight has been a long-standing topic of debate. This paper explores how the field can generate reliable knowledge about plural and uncertain futures, not through prediction or certainty, but through reliable processes of knowledge production and a commitment to the institutional norms, mechanisms and structures of science. Drawing on developments in social epistemology – particularly social reliabilism – this paper aims to provide a robust theoretical foundation for futures studies and related foresight practices, helping to strengthen their scientific credibility. Design/methodology/approach The study adopts a conceptual approach, engaging with theories of truth and knowledge from epistemology and science and technology studies. It critically analyzes how social process reliabilism can serve as a framework for evaluating the reliability of futures methodologies. It also considers the institutional norms required for legitimate scientific knowledge production in the futures field. Findings The analysis shows that futures studies/foresight can generate reliable knowledge when its methods are grounded in consistent procedural and structural standards, even in the absence of predictive accuracy. The integration of social reliabilism supports a shift from forecasting to exploring possible, probable and preferable futures in ways that remain epistemically reliable. The paper also identifies key institutional shortcomings and proposes pathways for aligning the field with broader scientific standards. Research limitations/implications As a conceptual paper, this work does not present empirical findings but lays the groundwork for future research testing the epistemic robustness of futures methodologies. It also highlights the need to carefully distinguish between exploring preferred futures and advocating for them, emphasizing that the process must be methodologically reliable and institutionally accountable to maintain scientific legitimacy. Practical implications This paper proposes how to enhance the reliability and scientific character of knowledge production in futures studies at three levels: individual, methodological and structural. At the individual level, the field needs tools to assess and improve the reliability of participants involved in futures studies processes. At the methodological level, existing methods should incorporate reliability indicators and be evaluated comparatively to identify ways to improve their epistemic robustness. At the structural level, futures studies must revisit and reorganize its scientific infrastructure to better support reliable and institutionally grounded processes of knowledge production focused on the futures. Social implications By enhancing the scientific foundations of futures studies, the field can more effectively support decision-making in critical areas such as climate policy, technological governance and long-term innovation. A commitment to reliable knowledge production and institutional standards may also increase public trust and societal impact. Originality/value This paper contributes to the theoretical foundations of futures studies by applying the lens of social reliabilism to the challenge of generating reliable knowledge about the futures. It presents a novel argument for aligning participatory foresight methods with the institutional and epistemic standards of scientific inquiry, helping to position futures studies as a rigorous and reflexive academic field.