Myriad methodologies, distinctly different study designs, conflicting definitions of key terms, and perpetual debate about purpose can give the impression that the futures field is a labyrinth of disorder. This sense disappears, however, once one perceives that, although deep differences in philosophy do persist, much of the apparent disarray results from the multi-level nature of futures activities, the variation in emphasis given to common components of studies and projects, the creative adaptation of standard methods, and the degree to which underlying processes are acknowledged. An exhaustive analysis of details cannot provide the orientation needed to see this pattern, but it can be acquired by looking at the field from a more distanced perspective.