Designing Debate: the Entanglement of Speculative Design and Upstream Engagement
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Designing Debate: The Entanglement of Speculative Design and Upstream Engagement Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) 30th July 2015 Tobie Kerridge Design Department Goldsmiths, University of London Designing Debate: The Entanglement of Speculative Design and Upstream Engagement DECLARATION The work presented in this thesis is my own. Signed: Tobie Kerridge Tobie Kerridge, Design Department, Goldsmiths, University of London 2 Designing Debate: The Entanglement of Speculative Design and Upstream Engagement ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The supervisory energies of Bill Gaver and Mike Michael have been boundless. Bill you have helped me develop an academic account of design practice that owes much to the intelligence and incisiveness of your own writing. MiKe your provocative treatment of public engagement and generous dealings with speculative design have enabled an analytical account of these practices. I have benefited from substantial feedbacK from my upgrade examiners Sarah Kember and Jennifer Gabrys, and responded to the insightful comments of my viva examiners Carl DiSalvo and Jonas Löwgren in the body of this final transcript. Colleagues at Goldsmiths, in Design and beyond, you have provided support, discussion, and advice. Thank you for your patience and generosity Andy Boucher, Sarah Pennington, Alex WilKie, Nadine Jarvis, Dave Cameron, Juliet Sprake, Matt Ward, Martin Conreen, Kay Stables, Janis Jefferies, Mathilda Tham, Rosario Hutardo and Nina WaKeford, along with fellow PhD-ers Lisa George, Rose Sinclair and Hannah Jones. A huge thanKs to those who have provoked rich conversations, which have nourished the subjects and analysis of this thesis. Over these seven years of study I have pursued, and benefited from insight from, Alex Taylor, Ann Light, John Bowers, Tony Dunne, Fiona Raby, Durrell Bishop, Emily Dawson, Kevin Burchell, Gisa WeszKalnys, David Crowley, Adrian Smith, Bjorn FranKe, Dave Elliot, Robert Philips, Ros Oakley, Abigail Durrant, Maja Horst, Jo-Anne Bichard, Katharina Bredies, Regina Peldszus, Simon Bowen, Benedict Singleton, Alice Bell, Claire RocKs, Massimo Botta, Louis BucKley, Cristiano Storni, Ana Rita Rodrigues, Luís Filipe de Oliveira Barbeiro, Ramia Mazé, Peter Wright and Matthew Malpass. Your conversations have spurred thought. Collaborators, partners, supporters and participants of the activities related to the Material Beliefs project are too numerous to mention, I thanK you all for the vibrancy of your association. I need to mention and thanK Tony Cass, Olive Murphy and Nick Oliver, and fellow designers Elio Caccavlale, Jimmy Loizeau, James Auger and Susana Soares, your contributions to the project have been a source of inspiration and provocation, I hope this thesis reflects the richness of your worK. Finally, my parents Shelia and Martin, my sister Tammy and family and friends will be as surprised as me that this writing is completed. My partner Kate has managed to read not a word of this thesis while endlessly supporting its materialization, Kate you are amazing. Finally, our daughter Irma has only been here for ten months; thanKs Irma for being excellent and sleeping well enough for me to get this done. Tobie Kerridge, Design Department, Goldsmiths, University of London 3 Designing Debate: The Entanglement of Speculative Design and Upstream Engagement ABSTRACT This thesis 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 start with separate reviews of the respective features of these two approaches, considering practitioner accounts and histories along with analytical literature where those practices are objects of research. Then I take the case of the public engagement project Material Beliefs to develop an empirical account of their confluence. Initially I discuss labs as sites where designers, scientists, and non- experts come together to discuss and to problematize accounts of biotechnology research. Next, I examine the process of maKing speculative designs, and here I emphasise the ways in which issues, materials and practices become compiled as exhibitable prototypes. Finally I consider the circulation and reception of these designs in public settings, including exhibitions, workshops, and online formats. I argue that speculative designs’ move on upstream PEST 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. Authorship of the processes that lead to design outcomes, the description of design outcomes, and the effects of those outcomes become distributed and negotiated by an extended set of commitments coming from researchers, policymaKers, educators, curators and promoters. Ultimately, I contend that this mixing provides an opportunity to foster a reflexive and empirical account of speculative practice, to engage in analysis of the organisations and settings that support a speculative approach, and to provide a critique of upstream engagement. Tobie Kerridge, Design Department, Goldsmiths, University of London 4 Designing Debate: The Entanglement of Speculative Design and Upstream Engagement TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION ........................................................................................ 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................... 3 ABSTRACT .............................................................................................. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................. 5 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .......................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 1: THE TOPIC AND APPROACH OF THIS THESIS ....................... 12 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 12 Speculative design and upstream engagement ..................................................... 12 Introducing the project that is treated as a case study ......................................... 13 A Public Engagement with Engineering Workshop ................................................ 13 The project proposal .............................................................................................. 14 Too busy speculating? ............................................................................................ 15 The contribution of the thesis ............................................................................... 17 A thesis based in practice ..................................................................................... 19 Methods and data .................................................................................................. 20 Practice-based design research ............................................................................. 20 Design reflexivity .................................................................................................... 22 Extending reflexivity .............................................................................................. 23 Critical empiricism ................................................................................................. 23 Practice and analysis .............................................................................................. 25 Thesis structure ................................................................................................... 26 Reviewing Speculative Design and Public Engagement ......................................... 26 Critical and Speculative Forms of Design ........................................................... 27 Public engagement with Science and Technology ............................................. 27 Overview of the empirical chapters ....................................................................... 28 Situating biotechnology ..................................................................................... 28 Designing Speculatively ..................................................................................... 29 Circulating Design .............................................................................................. 30 Summary ............................................................................................................. 30 CHAPTER 2: THE PRACTICE AND ANALYSIS OF SPECULATIVE DESIGN ... 32 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 32 Practicing critical and speculative design .............................................................. 33 Introducing critical design ...................................................................................... 33 Exhibiting critical design ........................................................................................ 34 Other formats for dissemination ........................................................................... 37 Design as a form of public debate ......................................................................... 39 Debate and the Public Understanding of Science .................................................. 41 Funding Design as Public Engagement with Science and Technology