Abstract
This paper offers a critical reflection of a design practice in which a speculative approach to design became entangled with upstream engagement with biotechnology research. Given that both practices claim to enable a public discussion about emergent technology, what is the nature of their mixing, and how should an analytical account of such a design practice be made? I focus on the project Material Beliefs as a case, and argue that the move on upstream engagement by speculative design is an imbroglio that goes beyond mixing the formal features of practice, and requires a discussion concerning the actions of the designer in relation to a broader set of accountabilities. Ultimately, I contend that this mixing provides an opportunity to foster a reflexive and empirical account of speculative practice, inciting analysis of the organisations and settings that support a speculative approach, and providing a critique of upstream engagement.
Keywords
Speculative, Engagement, Qualitative, Empirical
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2016.22
Citation
Kerridge, T. (2016) Designing Debate: The Entanglement of Speculative Design and Upstream Engagement, in Lloyd, P. and Bohemia, E. (eds.), Future Focused Thinking - DRS International Conference 2016, 27 - 30 June, Brighton, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2016.22
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Designing Debate: The Entanglement of Speculative Design and Upstream Engagement
This paper offers a critical reflection of a design practice in which a speculative approach to design became entangled with upstream engagement with biotechnology research. Given that both practices claim to enable a public discussion about emergent technology, what is the nature of their mixing, and how should an analytical account of such a design practice be made? I focus on the project Material Beliefs as a case, and argue that the move on upstream engagement by speculative design is an imbroglio that goes beyond mixing the formal features of practice, and requires a discussion concerning the actions of the designer in relation to a broader set of accountabilities. Ultimately, I contend that this mixing provides an opportunity to foster a reflexive and empirical account of speculative practice, inciting analysis of the organisations and settings that support a speculative approach, and providing a critique of upstream engagement.