The focal paper “The resistance to scientific theory in futures and foresight, and what to do about it” by Fergnani and Chermack is a welcome challenge to introduce more rigor into the futures field. The paper raises numerous issues that hinder incremental theory development in the futures and foresight field together with proposed solutions, and it provides an excellent starting point for discussion.

In this commentary, I would like to raise two general questions: the choice of reference fields and levels of theory. The first question concerns the use of the management and organization sciences as a reference point for considering theory in the futures and foresight field. I would like to discuss whether other reference points may lead to different lines of theorizing. Historical institutionalism and science and technology studies (STS) are presented as complementary reference fields. This discussion is intended as a reminder about the interdisciplinary nature of the futures field without succumbing to what the authors of the focal paper call “the enjoyment of being outliers.”

The second question is the consideration of different levels of theory and how this can contribute to discussions in the futures field. This issue is raised as a reminder that studies in the futures and foresight field may concern different kinds of phenomena at different levels of complexity.