Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the results of futures studies are knowledge or if not, what it is that futures studies actually produce. Five types of representations of the future are the result of these studies. As the value of futures studies depends on no small measure of their credibility, the standards for carrying out and reporting these studies are identified along with a description of how Toulmin’s model of informal logic can be used to best improve their credibility.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper is based on a multi-disciplinary literature review and integrative analysis.

Findings

Using epistemological criteria for knowledge as truth, belief and rationale, the results of futures studies are not and cannot be knowledge. Instead, futures studies produce five kinds of “representations of the future”: predictions, projections and forecasts, scenarios, visions and structures for action. Six standards for conducting and reporting the results of futures studies are provided which will increase the credibility of these studies. Toulmin’s informal logic format will provide the foundation for the most persuasive basis of such studies.

Practical implications

Futurists will understand that the products of their studies are not knowledge and why this is the case. They will also understand that the type of futures studies they are conducting are either conditional, contingent propositions or normative prescriptions in nature. There are six guidelines for carrying out and reporting futures studies which can also be used to assess the quality of published studies. They will see how the use of a certain kind of informal logic can establish the most credible foundations for their studies.

Originality/value

As an integrative literature review, it incorporates and simplifies widely disparate existing contributions to the topic of the nature of knowledge regarding futures studies and the criteria for making such studies as credible as possible.

中文翻译：

---

关于未来，我们能知道什么？认识论和关于未来世界的主张的可信度

目的

本文的目的是检验期货研究的结果是否是知识，如果不是，那么期货研究实际产生的是什么。这些研究的结果是对未来的五种类型的表征。由于未来研究的价值很大程度上取决于其可信度的衡量标准，因此确定了开展和报告这些研究的标准，并描述了如何使用 Toulmin 的非正式逻辑模型来最好地提高其可信度。

设计/方法/方法

本文基于多学科文献综述和综合分析。

发现

以知识的认识论标准为真理、信念和理由，未来研究的结果不是也不可能是知识。相反，未来研究产生了五种“未来表征”：预测、预测和预测、情景、愿景和行动结构。提供了六个用于开展和报告未来研究结果的标准，这将提高这些研究的可信度。Toulmin 的非正式逻辑格式将为此类研究提供最有说服力的基础。

实际影响

未来学家会明白，他们的研究成果不是知识，为什么会这样。他们还将了解，他们正在进行的期货研究类型本质上是有条件的、或有的命题或规范的规定。有六项指导方针用于开展和报告未来研究，这些指导方针也可用于评估已发表研究的质量。他们将看到使用某种非正式逻辑如何为他们的研究建立最可靠的基础。

原创性/价值

作为一项综合性文献综述，它整合并简化了对未来研究知识的性质这一主题的广泛不同的现有贡献，以及使此类研究尽可能可信的标准。