Aspects of critical or speculative practice in design have long found their way into the futures departments of global consumer technology companies in the form of design probes or fictional prototypes for strategy and product development. Essentially, this development represents the re-appropriation of the practice back into a setting it seeks to critically address from an outside vantage point in the first place.
However, especially in non-consumer commercial or public sector science and technology contexts that are sometimes characterised by great uncertainty and rely on complex research and development phases, critical and speculative design may present an invaluable approach not only to comment and critique, but for high-level, applied trouble-shooting. Its concrete, qualitative edge can augment existing quantitative scenario modelling approaches; it provides a tangible approach to a systematic interrogation of assumptions, rationales and values; and it can push topical issues to the extreme in a fictional – i.e. safe – setting, thus circumventing ethical or organisational concerns that may otherwise hinder a meaningful discussion.
In light of this:
… what does critical or speculative design offer to the topical fields it addresses, engages with and critiques in science and technology contexts today?
… how can we leverage its potential for robust, rapid and reflective scenario building in applied industry contexts on a strategic level?
… or, in how far would such efforts affect the validity or integrity of critical practice itself?
good afternoon and welcome back from a hopefully restful or productive lunchbreak. I'll be moderating Session 3, which intends to address how critical and speculative design can function as a scenario tool in science & technology contexts.
My perspective is rooted in both aerospace and design strategy; I am particularly interested in how speculative practice can merge with, and inform, traditional and emerging R&D techniques such as simulation, full-scale mock-ups, serious gaming etc to engage with yet unprecedented near future scenarios in uncertain situational setting with often many layers of stakeholders (and, not to forget, a critical public).
I think this follows on well from Simon's point as to how we can interact with critical design outside the gallery:
"...can designers use critical artefacts during a participatory design process to enable designers and “users”/others to explore broader possibilities and design something more innovative or radically different as a result?"
...and his proposal for a Critical Artefact Methodology.
It's great that many of the discussion participants today have a strong background in design with an angle on STS. So, perhaps we could start off with looking at the first question above:
Who gains most from a critical design engagement - the design party, the public, or the topical field of critical design attention (i.e. biotechnology, ethics..)?
(This is, of course, hard to quantify, but possibly an important point to start with especially when we consider practical issues such as acquiring funding for projects that engage both sides - design and the 'other' stakeholding field.)
What does design have to offer to the fields it engages with?
In scarce of reducing CD into a rapid & robust scenariobuilding - Alex points out in thread 1 that there is a problem that theory is mobilised to inform CD. Instead 'perhaps rather than mobilising theory critical design could start to construct it's own theories'. This might be a much richer way for the field to develop. Can it create its own theories? And then we might ask; how might those theories relate to the field it engages with?
My initial response to Regina's initial questions is that the most important qualities of a critical-reflexive design practice is to do precisely the opposite of providing smooth, rapid and robust scenarios - rather is objective should be to make friction (disturbing, questioning, provocative...you know the buzz words). This criticism seems a little to easy. Instead it's more interesting to start looking at the specific infliction points by which to deploy a critical approach to an industrial context and what the different kinds of tools (prototypes, scenarios) enables in this respect.
Dear all, thanks for getting started, and for entertaining the thoughts posed above!
Regarding Tau's point, let me define some of the attributes I use above:
With rapid, I mean that thinking through critical artefacts - as heuristic tools - enables us to get to a point and debate an issue relatively quickly, without constructing code or algorithms used for a range of other scenario methods.
With reflective, I mean that, indeed they should be as disruptive, critical and wild as possible - otherwise, they'd just affirm, or extrapolate, the status quo.
... and if they are thus disruptive, they'd make our thinking about future technology contexts more robust.
That's why, I argue, it could be good in ST contexts where we are dealing with unknowns, especially those that seek or ought to involve a larger public (i.e. other than in purely corporate R&D departments).
Do you feel that critical practice, in its initial form (based on Frankfurter Schule) is more appropriate and useful as a thinking tool for theory development within design (research), than as a method or tool in natural scientific research or product development? Currently, I have not yet an idea of what the theory development might look like, but I think that the potential in scenario-building can be very well communicated to non-designers. Both are not exclusive of each other - but is the latter probably undesirable?
I think what design brings to the fields it engages with is the ability to explore future situations of use. We can use methods such as ethnography to understand existing situations of use, but by communicating new possibilities we can explore what might be rather than just what is.
Of course, this isn’t restricted to critical design. But critical design seems to have a particular way of doing this – by presenting visions that create friction (as Tau calls it). (I don’t intend visions literally as pictures here)
We might need to be careful about what we mean by theories here. Horkheimer’s (Frankfurt School) critical theories were about challenging and changing the world not just explaining it. I think most theories in science and technology are of the latter from (“traditional theories”). So, is there an epistemological barrier here if we try to develop science and technology theories via critical practice?
Although, I may have misunderstood Katharina's point.
you ask "Who gains most from a critical design engagement?", and you mention two settings, private/industrial and public/non-commercial.
I'm coming at this from public engagement with science and technology, where I am funded with public money to apply speculative forms of design to setting where technology research is done.
Some of the research groups I work with spin-out their own publicly funded research into private companies, indded they are encouraged to do this, under the auspices of innovation policy. I'm sure you see this in your industry.
So there is an immediate problem here, as it is no longer clear what is private and what is public, in terms of the ownership or agency of the research.
My design role here is a bit clearer, which is not to apply methods from design to encourage innovation pathways, but to deploy methods that bring together researchers and non-experts (the public, the laity) into some kind of dialogue.
However, much public engagement is institutionally mixed up with politics. To return to your question, I think that the people who usually gain, however engagement is seen to be done, are those who initially fund engagement, who also have a key stake in framing the perameters of engagement, and who evaluate the engagement.
This is why is important to unpack what we mean by design for debate, and I go back to some parameters suggested by Simon:
1 who makes these critical artefacts,
2 who is reflecting,
3 what are they reflecting on, and
4 what are they reflecting for?
Regina you have invited me to write a short essay for a Design Council publication. I discuss this stuff in a bit more detail there, and have copied in relevent references here.
bests,
Tobie
Ashcroft, R., & Caccavale, E. (2004). Hybrids: Towards a New Typology of Beings and Animal Products. London: edition of 2000.
CST. (2010). A Vision for UK Research. London: Council for Science and Technology.
Doubleday, R. (2007). Organizing accountability: co-production of technoscientific and social worlds in a nanoscience laboratory. Area, 39(2), 166-175.
Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2001). Design Noir: The Secret Life of Electronic Objects. Basel: Birkhäuser.
Gaver , W., Kerridge, T., & Custead, S. (2007). Material Beliefs - Collaborations for Public Engagement Between Engineers and Designers. Goldsmiths, University of London: Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC Ref: EP/E035051/1).
HM-Treasury. (2004). A Ten-Year Framework for Investment in Science and Innovation 2004–2014. London: Department of Trade and Industry, Department for Education and Skills.
HOL. (2000). House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology Third Report - Science and Society. London: The Stationery Office.
Jones, R. A. L. (2009). Designs for living. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(8), p. 471.
Macnaghten, P. (2010). Researching technoscientific concerns in the making: narrative structures, public responses, and emerging nanotechnologies. Environment and Planning A, 42(1), 23-37.
RS. (1985). The Public Understanding of Science. London: The Royal Society.
Thompson, I., & Kerridge, T. (2004). Biojewellery: Designing Rings with Bioengineered Bone and Tissue (Vol. £66,664). London: Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC Ref: GR/T26511/01).
Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.
Wynne, B. (2006). Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science -- Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music? Public Health Genomics, 9(3), 211-220.
As "the near future" is often the aim of design scenarios and prototypes, critical or otherwise, I came to think of the somewhat fuzzy notion of 'provotypes' proposed by Preben Mogensen in his long ago article TOWARDS A PROVOTYPING APPROACH IN SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT:
"(...) provotyping resembles prototyping with respect to the need for concrete experience by working with concrete ‘types’. On the other hand, the intention is not to ‘guess’ a possible solution (‘proto’), but, as in activity theory, to provoke current practice"
Just a quick thought that might be off the mark, but apart form the definition of prototypes in the quote, it might direct the attention to the existing contexts, publics and practices that constitutes the design process rather the the future design outcome.
-Tau
My name is Rosan and I am a colleague of Katharina. I have been following the discussions with interests. I have gotten the impression that Critical Design in the Gallery is considered as elitist by some of you. I am just wondering whether the Critical Designers in the Gallery might consider the adaptation and/or appropriation of the 'original' Critical Design outside the gallery a kind of blasphemy.
Hi All, hi Simon, in my view the point you make about critical and traditional theory might be one of the biggest differentiating factors between critical design and speculative design. A theory of critical design practice might aim to differentiate between the range of critical practices, the characteristics of the work produced and the methods used in each. Key to building theory is to clear the field of ambiguity and as a filed it is still full of ambiguity and misunderstanding. Not in the way ambiguity is used in CD SD practice but in how the field is discussed – events like this are key.
Thank you for the detailed references in the blurry public/private setting, Tobie, and for directing us back to what we could could call essential building bricks that Simon suggested:
[your snip]
1 who makes these critical artefacts,
2 who is reflecting,
3 what are they reflecting on, and
4 what are they reflecting for?
//
When I asked about the 'two sides' and who gains from mutual engagement, I initially meant design versus [science, technology, politics etc] - analogous to the debate in an art/science context. So it's superinteresting that you, from a practical (and, crucially, funded) perspective, point out that it would indeed be the funders.
Can funding stakeholders deal with critical 'provotypes' that Tau referred to (great ref to have digged out)? How far can you go with critique in a formally funded setting, or does speculation and fiction - in your experience - provide a shield, i.e. that 'safe' arena to discuss sensitive topics that I alluded to in the intro?
Sorry to come to the conversation late (though it's the start of the day here!).
I would shy away from the terms elitist or blasphemy and moreover from the assumptions that they seem to carry. It's not that there is anything wrong with the gallery space. Nor should we assume that so-called public space is any less elitist.
The question, for me at least, is Who is the intended audience? and What is the relationship between the audience, the space, and the object? Or to draw on something I think Alex mentioned earlier - we should ask - What is the work this object is supposed to do? From that, we can then begin to analyze whether or not it does that work and the role the space (be it a gallery or science center or youth club) plays in enabling or thwarting that work.
Thanks Regina,
I think the relationship between critical design and funding is really crucial here. It might be that funding create a 'safe' area, but it necessarily also provides predefined politics, specific interests and barriers, that is seldom addressed by critical design outcomes themselves.
-Tau
I did not want to suggest that it's impossible to derive theories (critical or not) from critical practice. It is, however, complicated, and probably more complicated than to communicate the approaches from critical design practice in other research and development settings. My question was really pointing to Regina's last question:
'...how far would such efforts affect the validity or integrity of critical practice itself?'
Thank you Tau, I agree there might be safety in funding, and it certainly makes a huge difference whether the funding comes from the party design engages with, or a third party that just wants design and the other field to engage.
What I originally wondered was that especially the fictional components of critical and/or speculative design allow you to regard sensitive issues from afar. If we want debates about sensitive topics about medical and research ethics, for instance, this kind of distance may be helpful, as it enables people to talk about an issue in abstract terms. This is especially powerful in serious gaming, and I think speculative design might be quite close to that, and might still add another dimension.
That is a good question Regina (reg. speculation & fiction as a shield in formally funded setting) But if bring back the reflexivities that happen when dealing with CD in a stakeholder setting we might also need to deal with what we mean by critique? Being critical does not equal being confrontational or provocative, but could rather be analyzing, or an interpretation. In that sense it could surely be argued to be a shield, but just as well to be argued to be a interpretation or analyze.
I don’t quite follow your point. When I talk about critical artefacts I think of them as embodied critical theories or critiques – the artefacts are both an alternative theory of the world (via the roles and uses they suggest) and an attempt to transform the world. So, in science and technology, such embodied critical theories are both alternative explanations and an attempt to change our understanding of science and technology (this isn’t my area, so Tobie or someone else please correct my crude portrayal if needed).
I wasn’t thinking about theories of critical design or speculative design practice. But you suggest that traditional/critical could make a distinction here. Please would you elaborate further?
p.s. I too think Mogensen’s ideas on Provotyping have relevance to this discussion in general, thanks Tau for bringing it up. The main distinction between Provotyping and Critical Design, as I see it, is that the former encourages friction primarily via use of provotypes rather than intellectual reflection on critical designs/artefacts.
Thanks Carl, I've been watching this discussion develop and looking for some traction. One thing I've been thinking about, referring back to Simon's questions, is to change the 'who' questions to 'how' questions – I think an old Foucauldian analytic trick and one that is taken seriously in STS. Here, the questions are transformed into:
1. who makes these critical artefacts? <------> how are critical artefacts made?
2. who is reflecting? <------> how is reflection done?
3. what are they reflecting on <------> how does the object of reflection emerge in the process of reflection?
4. what are they reflecting for? <------> how is reflection made accountable?
and in so doing these questions become instruments for understanding how CD is enacted in particular sites rather than identifying particular innovation actors. Indeed, I would argue that to identify innovation actors means to precisely understand their competencies and capacities.
Simon, I'm not sure if I get what you mean here: "So, is there an epistemological barrier here if we try to develop science and technology theories via critical practice?" Do you theories of science and technology? Not trying to be pedantic but it is making me think...
Regina, sorry I'm having difficulty getting purchase on your original premise - there seems to be a lot of assumptions that I'm trying hard to untangle.
This thread seems to raise some interesting questions about which and how theories are developed! Alex comment raised a question about theory development within (and by) design. Of course, design does not only import theory, even if it does look to other fields for theories, there is an inevitable process of interpretation, adaptation, development (?), etc. Otherwise, the designer role would be reduced to 'giving form' to theories developed elsewhere and by others. (However, it is the case that the sciences have tended to regard design and technology as an ‘applied’ version of its own knowledge – design merely as an instance, practical demonstration, or ‘packaging’ for principles and discoveries made elsewhere.)
You pose an interesting question, Regina, "What does design have to offer to the fields it engages with?".
There are perhaps some interesting questions asked in the field of Critical Futures Studies: "The critical futures tradition questions the empiricist notion of 'trend as destiny' and unpacks the narrowly and negatively constructed 'probable future', thus opening up such questions as “Whose future is being predicted?' 'Whose science is being used to measure the trends?' and 'Who decides what is preferred?'" (Gidley)... questions that can be staged in dissentual processes with diverse publics in Participatory Futures Studies... Would it be useful to develop similarly critical questions for 'critical practice' of design operating in science?
Gidley, Jennifer, John Fien, Jodi-Anne Smith, Dana Thomsen, and Timothy Smith. “Participatory Futures Methods: Towards adaptability and resilience in climate-vulnerable communities.” Environmental Policy and Governance 19, no. 6 (2009): 427-440.
Your transformation to How questions is helpful. However I think you may have lost some of my intent for the fourth question. Perhaps the How version is:
4. How does this reflection cause change?
And, to answer your question, yes I meant theories of science and technology (scientific theory?).
Introduction
Aspects of critical or speculative practice in design have long found their way into the futures departments of global consumer technology companies in the form of design probes or fictional prototypes for strategy and product development. Essentially, this development represents the re-appropriation of the practice back into a setting it seeks to critically address from an outside vantage point in the first place.
However, especially in non-consumer commercial or public sector science and technology contexts that are sometimes characterised by great uncertainty and rely on complex research and development phases, critical and speculative design may present an invaluable approach not only to comment and critique, but for high-level, applied trouble-shooting. Its concrete, qualitative edge can augment existing quantitative scenario modelling approaches; it provides a tangible approach to a systematic interrogation of assumptions, rationales and values; and it can push topical issues to the extreme in a fictional – i.e. safe – setting, thus circumventing ethical or organisational concerns that may otherwise hinder a meaningful discussion.
In light of this:
… what does critical or speculative design offer to the topical fields it addresses, engages with and critiques in science and technology contexts today?
… how can we leverage its potential for robust, rapid and reflective scenario building in applied industry contexts on a strategic level?
… or, in how far would such efforts affect the validity or integrity of critical practice itself?
Dear all, good afternoon
Dear all,
good afternoon and welcome back from a hopefully restful or productive lunchbreak. I'll be moderating Session 3, which intends to address how critical and speculative design can function as a scenario tool in science & technology contexts.
My perspective is rooted in both aerospace and design strategy; I am particularly interested in how speculative practice can merge with, and inform, traditional and emerging R&D techniques such as simulation, full-scale mock-ups, serious gaming etc to engage with yet unprecedented near future scenarios in uncertain situational setting with often many layers of stakeholders (and, not to forget, a critical public).
I think this follows on well from Simon's point as to how we can interact with critical design outside the gallery:
"...can designers use critical artefacts during a participatory design process to enable designers and “users”/others to explore broader possibilities and design something more innovative or radically different as a result?"
...and his proposal for a Critical Artefact Methodology.
It's great that many of the discussion participants today have a strong background in design with an angle on STS. So, perhaps we could start off with looking at the first question above:
Who gains most from a critical design engagement - the design party, the public, or the topical field of critical design attention (i.e. biotechnology, ethics..)?
(This is, of course, hard to quantify, but possibly an important point to start with especially when we consider practical issues such as acquiring funding for projects that engage both sides - design and the 'other' stakeholding field.)
What does design have to offer to the fields it engages with?
robust scenariobuilding?
In scarce of reducing CD into a rapid & robust scenariobuilding - Alex points out in thread 1 that there is a problem that theory is mobilised to inform CD. Instead 'perhaps rather than mobilising theory critical design could start to construct it's own theories'. This might be a much richer way for the field to develop. Can it create its own theories? And then we might ask; how might those theories relate to the field it engages with?
Response to the first set of questions...
My initial response to Regina's initial questions is that the most important qualities of a critical-reflexive design practice is to do precisely the opposite of providing smooth, rapid and robust scenarios - rather is objective should be to make friction (disturbing, questioning, provocative...you know the buzz words). This criticism seems a little to easy. Instead it's more interesting to start looking at the specific infliction points by which to deploy a critical approach to an industrial context and what the different kinds of tools (prototypes, scenarios) enables in this respect.
Robust does not mean affirmative
Dear all, thanks for getting started, and for entertaining the thoughts posed above!
Regarding Tau's point, let me define some of the attributes I use above:
With rapid, I mean that thinking through critical artefacts - as heuristic tools - enables us to get to a point and debate an issue relatively quickly, without constructing code or algorithms used for a range of other scenario methods.
With reflective, I mean that, indeed they should be as disruptive, critical and wild as possible - otherwise, they'd just affirm, or extrapolate, the status quo.
... and if they are thus disruptive, they'd make our thinking about future technology contexts more robust.
That's why, I argue, it could be good in ST contexts where we are dealing with unknowns, especially those that seek or ought to involve a larger public (i.e. other than in purely corporate R&D departments).
Thinking or development tool? Or both?
Do you feel that critical practice, in its initial form (based on Frankfurter Schule) is more appropriate and useful as a thinking tool for theory development within design (research), than as a method or tool in natural scientific research or product development? Currently, I have not yet an idea of what the theory development might look like, but I think that the potential in scenario-building can be very well communicated to non-designers. Both are not exclusive of each other - but is the latter probably undesirable?
what design brings
Hi Regina,
I think what design brings to the fields it engages with is the ability to explore future situations of use. We can use methods such as ethnography to understand existing situations of use, but by communicating new possibilities we can explore what might be rather than just what is.
Of course, this isn’t restricted to critical design. But critical design seems to have a particular way of doing this – by presenting visions that create friction (as Tau calls it). (I don’t intend visions literally as pictures here)
Best regards,
Simon
______
http://www.simon-bowen.com/
Theories and critical theories.
Katharina and all,
We might need to be careful about what we mean by theories here. Horkheimer’s (Frankfurt School) critical theories were about challenging and changing the world not just explaining it. I think most theories in science and technology are of the latter from (“traditional theories”). So, is there an epistemological barrier here if we try to develop science and technology theories via critical practice?
Although, I may have misunderstood Katharina's point.
Best regards,
Simon
______
http://www.simon-bowen.com/
engagement
hi Regina,
you ask "Who gains most from a critical design engagement?", and you mention two settings, private/industrial and public/non-commercial.
I'm coming at this from public engagement with science and technology, where I am funded with public money to apply speculative forms of design to setting where technology research is done.
Some of the research groups I work with spin-out their own publicly funded research into private companies, indded they are encouraged to do this, under the auspices of innovation policy. I'm sure you see this in your industry.
So there is an immediate problem here, as it is no longer clear what is private and what is public, in terms of the ownership or agency of the research.
My design role here is a bit clearer, which is not to apply methods from design to encourage innovation pathways, but to deploy methods that bring together researchers and non-experts (the public, the laity) into some kind of dialogue.
However, much public engagement is institutionally mixed up with politics. To return to your question, I think that the people who usually gain, however engagement is seen to be done, are those who initially fund engagement, who also have a key stake in framing the perameters of engagement, and who evaluate the engagement.
This is why is important to unpack what we mean by design for debate, and I go back to some parameters suggested by Simon:
1 who makes these critical artefacts,
2 who is reflecting,
3 what are they reflecting on, and
4 what are they reflecting for?
Regina you have invited me to write a short essay for a Design Council publication. I discuss this stuff in a bit more detail there, and have copied in relevent references here.
bests,
Tobie
Ashcroft, R., & Caccavale, E. (2004). Hybrids: Towards a New Typology of Beings and Animal Products. London: edition of 2000.
CST. (2010). A Vision for UK Research. London: Council for Science and Technology.
Doubleday, R. (2007). Organizing accountability: co-production of technoscientific and social worlds in a nanoscience laboratory. Area, 39(2), 166-175.
Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2001). Design Noir: The Secret Life of Electronic Objects. Basel: Birkhäuser.
Gaver , W., Kerridge, T., & Custead, S. (2007). Material Beliefs - Collaborations for Public Engagement Between Engineers and Designers. Goldsmiths, University of London: Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC Ref: EP/E035051/1).
HM-Treasury. (2004). A Ten-Year Framework for Investment in Science and Innovation 2004–2014. London: Department of Trade and Industry, Department for Education and Skills.
HOL. (2000). House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology Third Report - Science and Society. London: The Stationery Office.
Jones, R. A. L. (2009). Designs for living. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(8), p. 471.
Macnaghten, P. (2010). Researching technoscientific concerns in the making: narrative structures, public responses, and emerging nanotechnologies. Environment and Planning A, 42(1), 23-37.
RS. (1985). The Public Understanding of Science. London: The Royal Society.
Thompson, I., & Kerridge, T. (2004). Biojewellery: Designing Rings with Bioengineered Bone and Tissue (Vol. £66,664). London: Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC Ref: GR/T26511/01).
Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.
Wynne, B. (2006). Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science -- Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music? Public Health Genomics, 9(3), 211-220.
provotypes...
Thanks for elaborating on the notions Regina!
As "the near future" is often the aim of design scenarios and prototypes, critical or otherwise, I came to think of the somewhat fuzzy notion of 'provotypes' proposed by Preben Mogensen in his long ago article TOWARDS A PROVOTYPING APPROACH IN SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT:
"(...) provotyping resembles prototyping with respect to the need for concrete experience by working with concrete ‘types’. On the other hand, the intention is not to ‘guess’ a possible solution (‘proto’), but, as in activity theory, to provoke current practice"
Just a quick thought that might be off the mark, but apart form the definition of prototypes in the quote, it might direct the attention to the existing contexts, publics and practices that constitutes the design process rather the the future design outcome.
-Tau
Elitist & Blasphemous Critical Design
Dear All,
My name is Rosan and I am a colleague of Katharina. I have been following the discussions with interests. I have gotten the impression that Critical Design in the Gallery is considered as elitist by some of you. I am just wondering whether the Critical Designers in the Gallery might consider the adaptation and/or appropriation of the 'original' Critical Design outside the gallery a kind of blasphemy.
Best,
Rosan
Theories and critical theories.
Hi All, hi Simon, in my view the point you make about critical and traditional theory might be one of the biggest differentiating factors between critical design and speculative design. A theory of critical design practice might aim to differentiate between the range of critical practices, the characteristics of the work produced and the methods used in each. Key to building theory is to clear the field of ambiguity and as a filed it is still full of ambiguity and misunderstanding. Not in the way ambiguity is used in CD SD practice but in how the field is discussed – events like this are key.
Are provotypes digestible for funding stakeholders?
Thank you for the detailed references in the blurry public/private setting, Tobie, and for directing us back to what we could could call essential building bricks that Simon suggested:
[your snip]
1 who makes these critical artefacts,
2 who is reflecting,
3 what are they reflecting on, and
4 what are they reflecting for?
//
When I asked about the 'two sides' and who gains from mutual engagement, I initially meant design versus [science, technology, politics etc] - analogous to the debate in an art/science context. So it's superinteresting that you, from a practical (and, crucially, funded) perspective, point out that it would indeed be the funders.
Can funding stakeholders deal with critical 'provotypes' that Tau referred to (great ref to have digged out)? How far can you go with critique in a formally funded setting, or does speculation and fiction - in your experience - provide a shield, i.e. that 'safe' arena to discuss sensitive topics that I alluded to in the intro?
Follow-up to Elitist & Blasphemous Critical Design
Sorry to come to the conversation late (though it's the start of the day here!).
I would shy away from the terms elitist or blasphemy and moreover from the assumptions that they seem to carry. It's not that there is anything wrong with the gallery space. Nor should we assume that so-called public space is any less elitist.
The question, for me at least, is Who is the intended audience? and What is the relationship between the audience, the space, and the object? Or to draw on something I think Alex mentioned earlier - we should ask - What is the work this object is supposed to do? From that, we can then begin to analyze whether or not it does that work and the role the space (be it a gallery or science center or youth club) plays in enabling or thwarting that work.
Carl
Re: 'safe' arena to discuss sensitive topics?
Thanks Regina,
I think the relationship between critical design and funding is really crucial here. It might be that funding create a 'safe' area, but it necessarily also provides predefined politics, specific interests and barriers, that is seldom addressed by critical design outcomes themselves.
-Tau
I did not want to suggest
I did not want to suggest that it's impossible to derive theories (critical or not) from critical practice. It is, however, complicated, and probably more complicated than to communicate the approaches from critical design practice in other research and development settings. My question was really pointing to Regina's last question:
'...how far would such efforts affect the validity or integrity of critical practice itself?'
gong!
... and again, time's up! Now, this is getting rrreally interesting, so let's proceed with the next session here:
https://www.designresearchnetwork.org/drn/content/feature-discussion-ses...
Safe through Fiction and Speculation
Thank you Tau, I agree there might be safety in funding, and it certainly makes a huge difference whether the funding comes from the party design engages with, or a third party that just wants design and the other field to engage.
What I originally wondered was that especially the fictional components of critical and/or speculative design allow you to regard sensitive issues from afar. If we want debates about sensitive topics about medical and research ethics, for instance, this kind of distance may be helpful, as it enables people to talk about an issue in abstract terms. This is especially powerful in serious gaming, and I think speculative design might be quite close to that, and might still add another dimension.
reg. speculation & fiction as a shield in formally funded settin
That is a good question Regina (reg. speculation & fiction as a shield in formally funded setting) But if bring back the reflexivities that happen when dealing with CD in a stakeholder setting we might also need to deal with what we mean by critique? Being critical does not equal being confrontational or provocative, but could rather be analyzing, or an interpretation. In that sense it could surely be argued to be a shield, but just as well to be argued to be a interpretation or analyze.
Sorry for always being a bit late with my posts!
Theories and provotypes
Hi Matt,
I don’t quite follow your point. When I talk about critical artefacts I think of them as embodied critical theories or critiques – the artefacts are both an alternative theory of the world (via the roles and uses they suggest) and an attempt to transform the world. So, in science and technology, such embodied critical theories are both alternative explanations and an attempt to change our understanding of science and technology (this isn’t my area, so Tobie or someone else please correct my crude portrayal if needed).
I wasn’t thinking about theories of critical design or speculative design practice. But you suggest that traditional/critical could make a distinction here. Please would you elaborate further?
p.s. I too think Mogensen’s ideas on Provotyping have relevance to this discussion in general, thanks Tau for bringing it up. The main distinction between Provotyping and Critical Design, as I see it, is that the former encourages friction primarily via use of provotypes rather than intellectual reflection on critical designs/artefacts.
Best regards,
Simon
______
http://www.simon-bowen.com/
Goodbye...
... and thank you for all your comments and thoughts this afternoon!
The How question
Thanks Carl, I've been watching this discussion develop and looking for some traction. One thing I've been thinking about, referring back to Simon's questions, is to change the 'who' questions to 'how' questions – I think an old Foucauldian analytic trick and one that is taken seriously in STS. Here, the questions are transformed into:
1. who makes these critical artefacts? <------> how are critical artefacts made?
2. who is reflecting? <------> how is reflection done?
3. what are they reflecting on <------> how does the object of reflection emerge in the process of reflection?
4. what are they reflecting for? <------> how is reflection made accountable?
and in so doing these questions become instruments for understanding how CD is enacted in particular sites rather than identifying particular innovation actors. Indeed, I would argue that to identify innovation actors means to precisely understand their competencies and capacities.
Simon, I'm not sure if I get what you mean here: "So, is there an epistemological barrier here if we try to develop science and technology theories via critical practice?" Do you theories of science and technology? Not trying to be pedantic but it is making me think...
Regina, sorry I'm having difficulty getting purchase on your original premise - there seems to be a lot of assumptions that I'm trying hard to untangle.
A
PS
Li, thanks, that's an excellent point - design as a way to support analysis! Looking forward to seeing you all in the next session.
Next Discussion
moves to here
https://www.designresearchnetwork.org/drn/content/feature-discussion-ses...
This thread seems to raise
This thread seems to raise some interesting questions about which and how theories are developed! Alex comment raised a question about theory development within (and by) design. Of course, design does not only import theory, even if it does look to other fields for theories, there is an inevitable process of interpretation, adaptation, development (?), etc. Otherwise, the designer role would be reduced to 'giving form' to theories developed elsewhere and by others. (However, it is the case that the sciences have tended to regard design and technology as an ‘applied’ version of its own knowledge – design merely as an instance, practical demonstration, or ‘packaging’ for principles and discoveries made elsewhere.)
You pose an interesting question, Regina, "What does design have to offer to the fields it engages with?".
There are perhaps some interesting questions asked in the field of Critical Futures Studies: "The critical futures tradition questions the empiricist notion of 'trend as destiny' and unpacks the narrowly and negatively constructed 'probable future', thus opening up such questions as “Whose future is being predicted?' 'Whose science is being used to measure the trends?' and 'Who decides what is preferred?'" (Gidley)... questions that can be staged in dissentual processes with diverse publics in Participatory Futures Studies... Would it be useful to develop similarly critical questions for 'critical practice' of design operating in science?
Gidley, Jennifer, John Fien, Jodi-Anne Smith, Dana Thomsen, and Timothy Smith. “Participatory Futures Methods: Towards adaptability and resilience in climate-vulnerable communities.” Environmental Policy and Governance 19, no. 6 (2009): 427-440.
oh but that's so uncritical
Hi Carl, but don't you find that is a bit too nice...in effect, to say that CD can take place everywhere and everywhere is the same.
The How question
Hi Alex,
Your transformation to How questions is helpful. However I think you may have lost some of my intent for the fourth question. Perhaps the How version is:
4. How does this reflection cause change?
And, to answer your question, yes I meant theories of science and technology (scientific theory?).
Best regards,
Simon
______
http://www.simon-bowen.com/