Future-Oriented Design
This piece is an another snippet from my masters thesis, the first one I posted were about the ethical issues that I explored regarding AI and its current impact on society.
Brief introduction to Design fiction
To make sense of the future as innovation practitioners working with the ethical challenges of an technological innovation such as Artificial intelligence, the author of this research paper has been contextualising an argument for the need for a system that will explore potential problems and trends of the future.
While science aims to explain how things are, design aims to explore how things should be by finding a solution to a problem and improving the current status quo.
Inspired by Dunne and Raby (2007) who constructed the view
— “design today is concerned primarily with commercial and marketing activities but it could operate on a more intellectual level. It could place new technological developments within imaginary but believable everyday situations that would allow us to debate the implications of different technological futures before they happen”.
This design discipline proposed has been labeled with the name Speculative Design, also known as Design Fiction (the term used for this research paper), Design Futures or Critical Design (Nesta, 2016).
Design Fiction is described by MIT Media Lab (2017) as a research methodology which aims to critiques social, cultural and ethical implications of emerging technologies and trends.
Malpass (2012) defines design fiction as a design related approach rather than a practice that enables the exploration of novel possibilities through the creation of functional fictional futures.
Through the creation of fictional prototypes (as shown in figure 14), designers are able to establish compelling visions of alternate realities and speculative futures (Auger, 2013).
These prototypes causes those who interact with it to challenge their assumptions about the manner in which the world around them is developing.
This opens the opportunity for design fiction to function as a platform for integrated thinking that allows individuals to anticipate developments and make more informed choices in the present about the future.
Zimmerman and Forlizzi (2008) argue that making research artefacts/prototypes allows for researchers to address complex problems, enabling the evaluation of how current and future technologies may affect humans.
Such as the viewpoints of Dunne and Raby, they make it clear that the aim of research work is not for the development of commercial technology products but rather to apply design theory to new problems in order to create knowledge.
In regards to exploring the ethical futures of artificial intelligence, design fiction is a fusion of product design, science, and science fiction (Bleecker, 2009; Malpass, 2016).
The combinations of practices applied in a research environment, challenges the expectations of what each are able to do on its own and creates an amalgamation of something new.
Exploring the future, the work of design fiction expresses inspirations formed by the work of philosophers of science and technology (Kerridge, 2009; Michael 2012; Ward & Wilkie 2009; Wilkie, 2010).
Andrew Feenberg writes in his two books about the philosophy of technology (1999, 2002) that the alternative paths of technological progression which design fiction aims to map is one of a political nature.
He also disputes the viewpoints of Kranzberg (1986) that technological advancement is neutral as it embodies the values and ideologies of the certain society.
Examples of design fictions applied in a real world context
Reviewing examples of design fictions, there have been a number of studies on the ‘history of the future’ which has demonstrated that certain depictions of the future in popular culture have been a compelling force in creating and framing a desire for technological advances (Corn, 1986; Corn & Horrigan, 1996).
Further exploration of literature by scholars has identified the different methods in which representations in popular culture, (such as the examples displayed in the discourse analysis section of this paper — artificial intelligent robots depicted in films) have led to the production of real technoscience (Hayles, 1999).
There have also been strong evidence in American space programmes of the utilisation by scientists, engineers and space enthusiasts of science fiction literature to advocate and secure funding for a number of space initiatives (Bainbridge, 1991; McCurdy, 1997; Penley, 1997; Kilgore, 2003; Franklin, 2008).
An example of design fiction is the TV series Black Mirror (2012-present), a science fiction anthology television series available for viewing on online streaming service Netflix globally.
Dunne and Raby (2013) describes the series to ‘fast forwards technologies being developed today by technology companies to the point at which the dreams behind each technology turn into nightmares with extremely unpleasant human consequences’ (as seen in figure 15).
A criticism of this design fiction form by Kirby (2010) is that speculative scenarios represent implausible, impractical situations and technologies that film-makers and science consultants instill with a hint of plausibility; in order for the speculative future to exist within a film’s narrative despite knowing that they are currently impossible to achieve in present reality.
An example of design fiction where the artefacts produced which involved a practical and plausible form of a technology was the 1939 World’s Fair, with its theme of ‘The World of Tomorrow’ (Kuznick, 1994).
The 1939 World’s Fair had an exhibit titled Futurama, one sponsored by the General Motors Corporation and designed by the industrial designer Norman Bel Geddes.
As seen in figure 16 and 17, the major forecast was a technology advanced highway system connecting the United States of America, where cars would navigate curves at speeds up to 50 miles per hour using “automatic radio control” to maintain safe distances.
Cities would have elevated walkways where pedestrians could travel safely without being endangered by the vehicle traffic beneath them.
An extract from the exhibit promotional materials outline that the exhibit is not ‘a detailed forecast of what the highways of the future might be, but rather as a dramatic illustration of how, through continued progress in highway design and construction, the usefulness of the motor car may still be further expanded and the industry’s contributions to prosperity and better living be increased’ (Wood, 2003).
Despite the disclaimer, this fictional vision pictured how the transportation system would be in 1960, 21 years into the future (Ellis, 2005).
Design fiction techniques have played a role in UK government policy processes, one project in particular focused on the future of an ageing population. Conducted by the UK Government office for science with futures consultancy Strange Telemetry (Voss et al; 2015).
Three workshops were run with the public in which a number of bespoke visual artefacts (as seen in figure 18 and figure 19) were used to anchor discussion and debate. The workshops were centred around the themes of what work, services, and transport and mobility might be like in 2040.
Design fictions aim to work with generated futures that act as catalysts for public debate and discussion about the kinds of futures that the public want (Dunne & Raby, 2013).
Despite these viewpoints, self reflective criticism by the designers state that younger participants were absent from these public engagement workshops. Meaning that their perspectives were absent and familiarity with certain forms of technologies and services were lacking causing biased responses.
Criticism & Limitations
Despite design fiction being applied in current real world situations, as an design approach it is not without criticism.
Bardzell and Bardzell (2013) construct the viewpoint that although they are interested of the potential research benefits of design fiction, they are discouraged by its relatively weak showing in the field of human-computer interaction (HCI) design.
They further comment for design fiction to emerge as a design research program in HCI, they believe that other researchers need to employ the use of the approach contributing knowledge in a practical and theoretical nature.
Kerridge (2016) challenges the notion that design fiction engages the public and enables debate which are grounded in the analysis of actual events.
He expresses scepticism towards those claims by design fiction practitioners (Debatty, 2007; Dunne & Raby, 2003) and further states that certain design fiction concepts can be impossible to understand, academic and hard for people to connect with.
Tonkinwise (2016) highlights its limitations regarding the peoples interaction with an speculative provocations. The artefact should indicate that its context is near-future as if the design fiction is too futuristic, it will appear to be mere speculation; if it is too close to the present, those will interact with it will expect a researched critical understanding of its topic.
Tonkinwise furthers states that ‘though the artefact is thought provoking, it is certainly not the intention of Speculative (Critical) Design to actually participate in the discourse generated by its para-functional provocations”.
Design fiction has been criticised for dramatising ‘dystopian scenarios,’ and its principles rooted in the fears of a wealthy, urban, western population and failing to engage with existing social problems (Tonkinwise, 2013; Eshun, 2003; de O. Martins & Oliveira, 2014).
These viewpoints construct a claim that the narratives and criticism displayed by design fiction practitioners seem to only apply to the aesthetic concerns of the intellectual northern European middle classes.
That these dystopian futures fail to recognise that the design fictions that are being debated will only be accessible to a minimum percentage of the world’s population, but also that those who won’t have access to it will likely be exploited to make that reality happen, one way or another.
“Science fiction is now a research and development department within a futures industry that dreams of the prediction and control of tomorrow. Corporate business seeks to manage the unknown through decisions based on scenarios, while civil society responds to future shock through habits for — matted by science fiction.
Science fiction operates through the power of falsification, the drive to rewrite reality, and the will to deny plausibility, while the scenario operates through the control and prediction of plausible alternative tomorrows.”
(Eshun, 2003)
Innovation practitioners considering the deployment of design fiction must first acknowledge the fact that the future is not a fixed destination, but one which is constantly shifting and unfolding space of diverse potential.
They must acknowledge that achieving this potential is by understanding that every individual experiences the world differently, based on their personal, geographic, social, and economic standing in the world.
They must acknowledge while creating an image of the future may broaden people’s imagination for what’s possible, it can also really narrow their perception of what’s possible or what their options are.
Planning for possible futures must be a diverse and inclusive process, rather than one of a monolithic and presumptive nature outlined by its critics.
The aim is to show how everyone — from individuals, communities, to cities, governments and corporations can adapt to radical change, and grow, shape and flourish in an uncertain world.
Images
Figure 14 — Dunne, A. & Raby, F. (2007), Technological Dream Series: №1, Robots — Robot 3.
Figure 15 — Black Mirror. (2012-present). [film] Directed by C. Brooker.
Figure 16–17 — Kuznick, P. (1994). ‘Losing the World of Tomorrow: The Battle Over the Presentation of Science at the 1939 New York World’s Fair’, American Quarterly, 46(3), pp. 341–373.
Figure 18–19 — Voss, G., Revell, T. & Pickard, J. (2015). Speculative Design and the Future of an Ageing Population Report 1: Outcomes. [online] Gov.uk. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/441883/speculative-design-workshop-outcomes.pdf [Accessed 11 Mar. 2018].
References
Auger, J. (2013) ‘Speculative design: crafting the speculation’, Digital Creativity, 24(1), pp. 11–35.
Bainbridge, William S. (1991) Goals in Space: American Values and the Future of Technology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Bardzell, J., and Bardzell, S. (2013). What is “critical” about critical design? Proc. of CHI’2013. ACM: New York.
Bleecker, J. (2009). Design Fiction: A Short Essay on Design, Science, Fact and Fiction.
Corn, J. J. (1986) Imagining Tomorrow: History,Technology, and the American Future. Bethesda, MD: World Future Society.
Corn, J. J. & Horrigan, B. (1996) Yesterday’s Tomorrows: Past Visions of the American Future. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Debatty, R. (2007). Interview with James Auger. We Make Money Not Art. Available at: http://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/2007/01/interview-with-6.php
de O. Martins, L. and Oliveira, P. (2014). Questioning the “critical” in Speculative & Critical Design. [online] Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/a-parede/questioning-the-critical-in-speculative-critical-design-5a355cac2ca4 [Accessed 11 Mar. 2018].
Dunne, A. & Raby, F. (2007). Design for Debate. [online] Dunneandraby.co.uk. Available at: http://www.dunneandraby.co.uk/content/bydandr/36/0 [Accessed 8 Mar. 2018].
Dunne, A. & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. MIT Press.
Ellis, C. (2005) ‘Lewis Mumford and Norman Bel Geddes: the highway, the city and the future’, Planning Perspectives, 20(1), pp. 51–68.
Eshun, K. (2003) ‘Further Considerations on Afrofuturism’, CR The New Centennial Review, 3(2), pp. 287–302.
Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning Technology. London: Routledge.
Feenberg, A. (2002). Transforming Technology A Critical Theory Revisited. New York: Oxford University Press.
Franklin, B. (2008) War Stars: The Superweapon and the American Imagination. Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Hayles, N. (2010). How we became posthuman. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Kilgore, D.D. (2003) Astrofuturism: Science, Race, and Visions of Utopia in Space. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Kirby, D. (2010), ‘The future is now: Diegetic prototypes and the role of popular films in generating real-world technological development’, Social Studies of Science, 40(1), pp. 41–70.
Kerridge, T. (2009). Does Speculative Design Contribute to the Engagement of Science and Technology? Swiss Design Network Symposium, Lugano, Switzerland.
Kerridge, T. (2016). ‘Designing Debate: The Entanglement of Speculative Design and Upstream Engagement’, Proceedings of DRS 2016, Design Research Society 50th Anniversary Conference.
Kranzberg, M. (1986). ‘Technology and History: “Kranzberg’s Laws’, Technology and Culture. 27 (3), pp. 544–560.
Kuznick, P. (1994). ‘Losing the World of Tomorrow: The Battle Over the Presentation of Science at the 1939 New York World’s Fair’, American Quarterly, 46(3), pp. 341–373.
Malpass, M. (2012) Contextualising Critical Design: Towards a Taxonomy of Critical Practice in Product Design. PhD thesis, Nottingham Trent University.
Malpass, M. (2016) ‘Critical Design Practice: Theoretical Perspectives and Methods of Engagement’, The Design Journal, 19(3), pp. 473–489.
McCurdy, Howard E. (1997) Space and the American Imagination. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Michael, M. (2012) “What Are We Busy Doing? Engaging the Idiot. Science, Technology, and Human Values’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, 37(5), pp. 528–54.
MIT Media Lab. (2017). Group Overview ‹ Design Fiction — MIT Media Lab. [online] Available at: https://www.media.mit.edu/groups/design-fiction/overview/ [Accessed 10 Mar. 2018].
Nesta (2016). Speculative design: A design niche or a new tool for government innovation? | Nesta. [online] Nesta.org.uk. Available at: https://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/speculative-design-design-niche-or-new-tool-government-innovation [Accessed 8 Mar. 2018].
Penley, C. (1997) NASA/Trek: Popular Science and Sex in America. New York: Verson.
Tonkinwise, C. (2015) ‘How We Intend to Future: Review of Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby, Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming’, Design Philosophy Papers, 12(2), pp. 169–187.
Tonkinwise, C. (2016). What SCD Is as opposed to Could/Should be. [online] Academia.edu. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/21887979/What_SCD_Is_as_opposed_to_Could_Should_be [Accessed 11 Mar. 2018].
Ward, M. & Wilkie, A. (2009). ‘Made in Criticalland: Designing Matters of Concern’, In Jonathan Glynne, Fiona Hackney, and Viv Minton (eds), Networks of Design: Proceedings of the 2008 Annual Conference of the Design History Society, pp. 118–24.
Wilkie, A. (2010) User Assemblages in Design: An Ethnographic Study. Ph.D. diss., Goldsmiths’ College, University of London.
Wood, A. (2003) ‘The Middletons, Futurama, and Progressland: Disciplinary technology and temporal heterotopiain two New York world’s fairs’, New Jersey Journal of Communication, 11(1), pp. 63–75.
Voss, G., Revell, T. & Pickard, J. (2015). Speculative Design and the Future of an Ageing Population Report 1: Outcomes. [online] Gov.uk. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/441883/speculative-design-workshop-outcomes.pdf [Accessed 11 Mar. 2018].
Zimmerman, J. & Forlizzi, J. (2008) ‘The Role of Design Artifacts in Design Theory Construction’, Human Computer Interaction Institute, 37.
