Abstract

Science and Technology Studies (STS) emerged from a focus on the methods of natural scientists. Over the past decade, there has been an increasing concern with the field's methodologies. Two enduring points of contention are the performative effects of methods and the need to further appraise STS methodologies by comparing them to others to understand why they work-or fail to work. We contribute to this ongoing discussion by focusing on a prolific area of research where performativity has been a key concern, but methodological reflection is limited: the study of futures. Within this context, we ask how STS scholars methodologically render the future into something researchable. By constructing a comprehensive database of publications and a methodological appraisal instrument, we demonstrate that most studies in the field fail to meet minimum reporting criteria. Arguments often overreach their declared objectives or are inadequately justified in their methods. Moreover, research on the future currently fails to acknowledge the various types of inference required to build arguments about the meanings, actions, and materialities related to the future. To advance STS, we propose practical strategies and guidelines to address these issues when working with both verbal and observational data. In general, the recommendation is to (1) improve methodological reporting, (2) explicitly identify the inferences being made, and (3) secure them through data triangulation, comparative designs, proper interview structures, and by avoiding subject biases.