From Prediction to Wisdom: A Systematic Review of the Epistemology of Futures Studies

Objective: Due to its engagement with the inherently non-existent nature of "the future," Futures Studies has consistently faced a challenge of epistemological legitimacy. This research, through a systematic review of the field's epistemological debates, aims to map its main paradigms and trace its intellectual evolution, thereby clarifying the pluralistic foundations of its legitimacy.

Method: This qualitative study employed a systematic literature review and the PRISMA framework to analyze 83 key articles from reputable international databases (1985–2024). The data extracted from these articles were analyzed using qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis to identify the main patterns and paradigms.

Findings: The findings indicate that the epistemological landscape of the field is pluralistic, comprising four main paradigms: the predictive (in search of objective truth), the interpretive (focused on the social construction of the future), the critical (with an emancipatory approach and deconstruction of power), and the integrative (emphasizing synthesis and complexity). A genealogical analysis of these paradigms reveals the field's evolution from a mere attempt at "prediction" toward a deeper understanding of "wisdom" in confronting the future. Consequently, the concept of "future knowledge" has been redefined from an objective, verifiable proposition to a social, contextual, value-laden, and performative process.

Conclusion: This study concludes that the legitimacy of Futures Studies lies not in a single framework but in the recognition of this paradigmatic pluralism. Accordingly, the validity of "future knowledge" and its evaluation criteria (ranging from correspondence truth to narrative coherence and inspirational capacity) are relative and contingent upon the adopted paradigm and its normative goals (such as enhancing resilience or achieving social justice).