Two dogmas of futures ontology: the Quinean turn
Ali ChaparakPurpose
Futures studies continues to face questions of legitimacy arising from the apparent paradox of systematically investigating futures that do not yet exist. This paper argues that attempts to resolve this problem have been constrained by two tacit assumptions embedded across diverse ontological approaches: the dogma of a priori unitary objecthood (the assumption that scientific legitimacy requires a single pre-specified object of inquiry) and the dogma of ontological priority (the assumption that ontology must be settled prior to epistemology, methodology and practice). This paper aims to develop a Quinean naturalised meta-ontology as an alternative framework.
Design/methodology/approach
This study uses conceptual, meta-ontological and comparative analysis. First, major streams of futures ontology are examined to demonstrate the presence of the two dogmas across otherwise divergent approaches. Second, Quine’s criterion of ontological commitment is introduced and applied through a worked regimentation of futures methods to identify the entities to which they are committed. Third, the framework is integrated with social reliabilism and evaluated against potential philosophical objections concerning normativity, pluralism and the assessment of successful futures practice.
Findings
The analysis shows that many ontological debates in futures studies share a common foundationalist structure despite their substantive differences. The two dogmas encourage the search for a pre-established ontology of the future and separate ontology from the practices through which futures knowledge is produced. A Quinean approach reframes ontological commitments as a posteriori, practice-sensitive and revisable. Rather than asking what the future is, the framework asks what entities must be assumed for successful anticipatory practices to function. This approach accommodates epistemological pluralism while maintaining standards of epistemic accountability through social reliabilist criteria that make explicit for whom, and for what purposes, anticipatory knowledge is reliable.
Research limitations/implications
As a conceptual paper, this work offers no empirical testing of futures studies methods but lays a theoretical foundation for future research. It invites regimentation of paradigms, biographical studies of futures objects and empirical validation of commitments in real-world foresight practices.
Practical implications
The framework guides futures studies practitioners in clarifying indispensable ontological posits within methods such as scenario planning or causal layered analysis, while promoting reflexive, participatory processes and aligning institutional structures with broader scientific norms to enhance credibility in policy and decision-making.
Social implications
By grounding futures studies in reliable, practice-sensitive ontology, the approach strengthens its capacity to support inclusive anticipation and democratic governance of long-term societal challenges, including sustainability, technological change and equitable futures.
Originality/value
This paper contributes a novel Quinean meta-ontology for futures studies. Rather than proposing another ontology of the future, it diagnoses a shared foundationalist structure underlying existing ontological debates and offers an alternative practice-centred framework. The argument is demonstrated through the formal regimentation of representative futures methods, showing how ontological commitments can be identified, compared and revised without appeal to metaphysical foundations. By linking ontology to successful anticipatory practice, the paper provides a philosophical foundation that strengthens reflexivity, methodological pluralism and the legitimacy of futures and foresight work.