Abstract This article examines the integration of strategic foresight (SF) as a source of evidence for policymaking. As with past-oriented evidence, SF faces challenges related to its reliability and usability; yet, because it addresses uncertainty and long-term change, these issues take distinctive forms that warrant dedicated consideration. To advance this debate, we specify the conditions under which SF can be recognized as a legitimate and effective form of evidence. Through a comparative analysis of two policy-focused cases, the UK Government Office for Science’s Net Zero Society: Scenarios and Pathways report and the JRC’s Policy Lab and the ESPAS Horizon Scanning exercise, we develop a conceptual framework based on three enablers that enhance SF’s evidential value: robustness, appropriateness, and inclusivity. When SF outputs are designed with these factors in mind, they can meaningfully complement other forms of evidence within a broader, pluralistic knowledge ecosystem. We conclude in favor of integrating SF with established evidence practices under clearly articulated enabling conditions and limitations.
Vito et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: