First-Person Speculative Fabulation: A Workshop Method for Times of Crisis

Covid grafitti in the United Kingdom. Image Courtesy of User:Zakhx150 / Wikimedia Commons / CC-BY-SA 4.0.
Inte Gloerich and Gabriele Ferri investigate the impacts of Covid-related datafication on marginalized urban communities, emphasizing the importance of creativity and imagination in fostering resilience and agency in the face of ongoing and future crises.
[Ed. Note: This article is part of a dossier on Creative Urban Methods.]

During the Covid pandemic (2019–), the urban environment became a challenging place to address critically. Technologically driven social distancing measures like crowd control and biometric analysis were swiftly implemented without thorough reflection. For example, Singapore leveraged its digital infrastructure early on, resulting in state-backed apps such as SafeEntry, a mandatory check-in/out system for public spaces, and TraceTogether, a Bluetooth-based tracing app. Later, many other crowd control, monitoring, and social distancing technologies were deployed worldwide. The urgency of the pandemic called for immediate solutions, while the long-term implications and potential exclusions arising from these datafying systems were often overlooked. As a result, the technological solutionism featured in dominant urban datafication practices became more tangible, extreme, and ubiquitous, while creative, collaborative, and bottom-up technological practices were marginalized.

Verhoeff et al. write that “[c]ities today are datafied cities,” and the intensified datafication of cities during the pandemic offered a glimpse into an extreme future scenario of rushed smart tech experimentation and implementation that stretched beyond the particularities of Covid-19.1Nanna Verhoeff, Sigrid Merx and Michiel De Lange, “Creative Urban Methods for the Datafied City,” in Situating Data: Inquiries in Algorithmic Culture, ed. Karin Van Es and Nanna Verhoeff (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2023), 257. As researchers working between the humanities, design, media, civics, and politics, this context prompted us to challenge the use of smart city infrastructure for Covid control. We aimed to explore creative, empowering, and inclusive uses of emerging technologies in times of crisis. Our stated interest resonates with Verhoeff et al.’s critical stance on datafying systems that solve problems for some while complicating or preventing societal participation for others. We wondered whether datafying Covid-tracking systems could somehow be creatively reappropriated and play a role in the support of justice.

In this article, we articulate our interest in (and concern for) Covid-related datafication in several ways. Firstly, we examine Covid-related measures as a case of urban datafication, pointing at some overlooked consequences for marginalized communities. Secondly, we present a creative urban method that we employed in July 2020 to address these issues while social distancing measures were in place. Thirdly, we offer glimpses of a dystopian Covid scenario envisioned by participants in our workshop session and show how the workshop method allows us to distill productive takeaways from these speculations. Lastly, we explore the method’s continuing relevance after the pandemic. We find it important to keep reflecting on the phenomenon of social distancing even after the Covid emergency has been declared concluded, as we suspect that – considering, for example, the looming climate catastrophe – it will not be the last time that similar emergency measures will be necessary. Ulrich Beck reminds us that even threats that are never actualized cause societies and their institutions to transform.2Ulrich Beck, World at Risk (Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2009). In the final part of our article, we explore how creativity and imagination could play a role in maintaining or regaining agency and resilience amid such unprecedented technological shifts in anticipation of catastrophe.

This article explores a workshop method that emphasizes the value of situated knowledges in crafting inclusive urban futures. By combining collective speculative fabulation and design fiction, it delves into complex urban issues within social, cultural, and material contexts. This approach addresses individualization – during the pandemic and beyond – and the need for empathetic connections with others to establish inclusive imaginaries for datafied cities. Our approach seeks to engage individuals from diverse backgrounds in collaboratively imagining futures from diverse perspectives. We provide an overview of the workshop process and showcase insights gained from focusing on the experiences of marginalized communities during the Covid pandemic.3Inte Gloerich and Gabriele Ferri, “The Underdistanced and the Undernetworked,” in Network Imaginaries, ed. Anja Groten and Juliette Lizotte (Amsterdam: Hackers & Designers, 2021), 245–256. Additionally, we reflect on the contributions and limitations of this method for making more inclusive urban imaginaries through speculative fabulation from the ground up.4As proposed in Donna Haraway, Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene (Durham: Duke University Press, 2016).

Interrogating the Unintended Consequences of Pandemic Technologies

While social isolation posed challenges for everyone during the pandemic, it disproportionately affected already vulnerable populations. For example, undocumented migrants faced difficulties in keeping physical distancing while living in crowded conditions. Similarly, people who were employed precariously found it financially impossible to stay at home for extended periods if ill. Access to remote education was not guaranteed for those lacking computers and reliable internet connections. Often, the struggle to mitigate the spread of Covid did not consider these people and their hardships enough.

Academics wanting to study these newly-datafied urban landscapes and their underserved populations faced a challenge. The dilemma lies in finding ways to highlight the struggles faced by marginalized communities during Covid when direct engagement was impossible due to social restrictions. Face-to-face ethnographic engagement would have been ideal for studying the marginalized populations affected by the datafied urban landscape of Covid lockdowns, but it was not feasible during the pandemic. This is where the concept of “speculative fabulation” becomes highly relevant.

Designerly Humanities: Speculative Fabulation and Design Fiction

Speculative fabulation offers a powerful approach to engage the needs of marginalized communities such as the ones described above. Theorized by Donna Haraway, speculative fabulation is a “mode of engagement, a theory of history, and a practice of worlding.”5Haraway, Staying With the Trouble, 213. Rather than a strict set of methodological guidelines, it is a way of being, relating, and reflecting that is committed to recognizing entangled experiences and creative potentialities with those that are other to oneself. It is a method for storytelling and philosophical inquiry that blurs the lines between fact and fiction, realism, and fantasy. It is used to question and disrupt traditional categorizations and hierarchies, such as those between humans, animals, and machines. Haraway’s speculative fabulation is deeply entwined with her feminist and posthuman perspectives, and she uses it to explore complex issues like gender, identity, technology, and environmental ethics. In this sense, fabulation is less about envisioning specific products and more about challenging dominant understandings of the world and our place as humans in it.

Fabulation and speculation are concepts that are known also in design, and indeed we wish to occupy a place in between these disciplines. These concepts are used in design research – particularly from a perspective called Humanistic Human-Computer Interaction to address the cultural, social, and ethical dimensions of technology design.6Jeffrey Bardzell and Shaowen Bardzell, Humanistic HCI (San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2015), https://doi.org/10.2200/S00664ED1V01Y201508HCI031. Similarly, we propose the Designerly Humanities as a complementary standpoint that allows speculative fabulation, enriched with designerly insights, to flow back into the humanities. We imagine this positioning as part of the bigger field of Creative Humanities (as described, for example, by Van der Tuin and Verhoeff) here with a particular focus on the connection between the methods developed in design research and humanistic inquiry.7Iris van der Tuin and Nanna Verhoeff, ed., Critical Concepts for the Creative Humanities (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2022). In what follows, first, we outline how speculation is used in design; then, we introduce fabulation to loop back from design to the scholarly terrain of the humanities to strengthen its capacity for the creation of critical, empowering, and inclusive imaginaries.

Design researchers such as Wakkary et al. and Markussen et al. recognize the potential of speculation and fiction as valuable resources, particularly in the context of challenges such as the ones identified above.8Ron Wakkary, William Odom, Sabrina Hauser, Garnet Hertz and Henry Lin, “Material Speculation: Actual Artifacts for Critical Inquiry,” Proceedings of The Fifth Decennial Aarhus Conference on Critical Alternatives, Aarhus, 19-21 August 2015, 97-108 (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press), https://doi.org/10.7146/aahcc.v1i1.21299; Thomas Markussen, Eva Knutz and Tau Lenskjold, “Design Fiction as a Practice for Researching the Social,” Temes de Disseny, no. 36 (October 2020): 16–39, https://doi.org/10.46467/TdD36.2020.16-39. Fiction allows us to construct scenarios that bring into focus matters of concern, imagining counterfactual realities and questioning societal implications of technology. Speculative artifacts, as crafted objects situated in the actual world, engage with users and audiences, prompting them to reflect on the relationships between functionality, interpretation, and everyday lives. By leveraging ambiguity and creating moments of suspended disbelief, these artifacts encourage users to imagine and engage with possible futures, thereby shaping their own understanding of the artifacts’ meaning and use.

Design fiction, as proposed by Bruce Sterling and others, is a genre in the field of speculative design, with an emphasis on innovation.9See, for example, Bruce Sterling, Shaping Things (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005). It creates narrative frames in which novel technologies, services, or products are envisioned and brought into existence. Design fictions are not fully formed stories but fictional artifacts (everyday objects, advertisements, user manuals…) that evoke speculative scenarios. The main goal is to create a tangible and specific vision of how a not-yet-existing technology might fit into people’s lives. Therefore, designers often rely on it to explore the social, cultural, and ethical implications of their work. Design fiction can help them predict the potential impacts and uses of their technologies, and it can provoke discussion and debate about these futures.

As highlighted by Nijs et al., speculative fabulation allows for the exploration of “otherwise-possible” scenarios, going beyond the set conditions offered by the current situation.10Greg Nijs, Giulietta Laki, Rafaella Houlstan, Guillaume Slizewicz, and Thomas Laureyssens, “Fostering More-Than-Human Imaginaries: Introducing DIY Speculative Fabulation in Civic HCI,” Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society, Talinn, 25-29 October 2020, 4 (New York: Association for Computing Machinery), https://doi.org/10.1145/3419249.3420147. It offers a way for marginalized communities to imagine and invent alternatives to their current circumstances. Moreover, speculative fabulation also addresses the need for revitalizing our collective imagination in these “catastrophic times.”11Isabelle Stengers, In Catastrophic Times: Resisting the Coming Barbarism (London: Open Humanities Press, 2015). Nijs et al. argue that speculative fabulation offers a means to “repopulat[e] the devastated desert of our imaginations” that Stengers called for.12Stengers, In Catastrophic Times, 132. It opens possibilities for alternative story worlds, guides participants into paying attention to the situated practices that may exist there, and explores what may be learned from them to lead to more sustainable and just urban environments.

While both speculative fabulation and design fiction involve creating speculative frames, they differ in their form, focus, and application. Fabulation emphasizes stories and story worlds, while design fiction relies on artifacts to evoke scenarios. Speculative fabulation highlights challenging and reimagining social and philosophical categories, while design fiction foregrounds exploring the potential impacts and implications of specific technologies or designs. By adopting concepts and methods from design research, such as design fiction, and others from the humanities, such as fabulation, we connect a designerly vocabulary and epistemology with creative urban methods. This interdisciplinary bridge between Humanistic HCI and what we would like to call Designerly Humanities enables us to bring together the insights and approaches from both fields to address the challenges and complexities of the datafied urban landscape during the Covid lockdown.13Bardzell and Bardzell, Humanistic HCI. In creating our first-person speculative fabulation approach, we invited participants to collectively envision and reflect upon inclusive urban futures from their own perspectives while also bringing attention to the struggles faced by marginalized communities and highlight the potential exclusions and implications of datafying systems. Although this alternative approach cannot fully replace face-to-face engagement, it offers a valuable means of exploring and understanding complex issues within urban contexts, even during lockdown or similar distancing measures.

“The Underdistanced”: A Workshop while Social Distancing

We performed this workshop during the Hackers & Designers Summer Academy of 2020 (HDSA), which took place online between 20–24 July. Hackers & Designers is an initiative that engages a diverse community of makers and thinkers in DIY explorations of technologies. The theme of the 2020 edition was Network Imaginaries, which we responded to by exploring the imaginaries of emerging pandemic technologies. The title we chose for our workshop (“The Underdistanced”) alludes to underserved populations and refers to those who do not have the means to properly follow social distancing measures.

In what follows, we will give a general outline of what our participants envisioned and reflected upon, and then we will break down the workshop task by task. Workshop participants focused on electric driverless vehicles as a fundamental piece of urban infrastructure. They read about NemBots – speculative autonomous robot cars proposed by design consultancy Manyone to transport goods and patients in isolation pods – and latched onto the idea of delivery bots to exemplify seemingly innocuous “solutions” that often serve numerous agendas beyond pandemic response. Starting from a scenario where NemBots have become the only vehicles delivering food and medicines to people in lockdown while monitoring them, participants fabulated about isolated citizens striking up quasi-social relationships with anthropomorphized robots while experiencing urban spaces vicariously by “logging into” the robots’ sensors. From this, it was just a short step to wonder how Google-like corporations would naturally try to privatize the bots for their purposes. Our workshop prompted participants to adopt other viewpoints, considering how marginalized people might react creatively to these same robots to survive the pandemic’s impact. For example, they fabulated about hacking into the robots’ cargo hold to steal food, find shelter, spread information, and enable secret gatherings.

The workshop was composed of thirteen tasks spread out over a week. Participants began by conducting an online scan of texts discussing experiences related to Covid, such as isolation, lockdown, and loneliness (task 1). They also explored technological artifacts, like thermal cameras and tracking robots, that were framed in the popular discourse as potential solutions (task 2). In these first steps, participants examined and discussed a wide range of artifacts and solutions, including wearable contact tracing devices, telehealth platforms, and flexible membranes for socially distanced hugs. Through these discussions, common themes emerged, including the shifting perception of time during lockdowns, fears and uncertainties surrounding the virus, and individual coping mechanisms.

A generalized list of tasks for our workshop method for others to adapt and use.14See Gloerich and Ferri, “The Underdistanced” (2021) for the specific tasks assigned during the HDSA 2020 workshop. Image Courtesy of Gabriele Ferri and Inte Gloerich.

Next, they identified “the underdistanced” and the challenges they faced by examining how the media covered marginalized groups in the context of pandemic responses (task 3). Communities identified included language minorities, individuals with limited access to media or the internet, queer and trans individuals, addicts, sex workers, and victims of domestic abuse. Participants also discussed specific examples of how broad public health measures can marginalize certain groups, like people with mental health issues who were unable to access regular therapy sessions due to lockdowns.

In tasks 4 and 5, participants imagined a dystopian near-future scenario where the Covid pandemic worsens, and governments deploy technocentric fixes to mitigate it. The scenarios allowed for reflections on socioeconomic disparities and privacy concerns. From the perspective of marginalized individuals, participants envisioned ways to adapt, hack, or repurpose the solutionist interventions to meet their needs or resist control. They then created high-fidelity mock-ups of these solutions and their hacks (task 6). For example, participants produced an anonymous hacker flyer with instructions for hijacking CCTV cameras and remounting them on autonomous delivery robots to scan public space for surveillance-free times and spaces.

Speculative hacker flyer with instructions to hijack CCTV cameras (Carlotta Thomas / all rights reserved, image reproduced with permission)

Tasks 7, 8, 9 and 10 involved writing exercises, where participants used defamiliarization techniques to produce detailed first-person experiential narratives set in the present day and the dystopian scenario.15Genevieve Bell, Mark Blythe and Phoebe Sengers, “Making by Making Strange: Defamiliarization and the Design of Domestic Technologies,” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 12, no. 2 (2005): 149–73, https://doi.org/10.1145/1067860.1067862. These narratives incorporated the technocentric solutions envisioned in tasks 2 and 6 and explored themes of isolation, frustration, broken routines, restricted freedom, surveillance, and the desire for human interaction. Participants also created fictional media products discussing the speculative artifacts and their users. These activities aimed to deepen understanding of how controlling systems affect different individuals and exacerbate inequalities.

The final three tasks (11, 12, 13) focused on reflection and back-casting, which is a technique that – given a future scenario – generates the logical steps necessary to reach it.16John B. Robinson, “Unlearning and Backcasting: Rethinking Some of the Questions We Ask About the Future,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 33, no. 4 (1988): 325–338, https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(88)90029-7. This prompted participants to step out of the fictional frame, consider the real-world implications of their imagined scenarios, and reflect on concrete actions that could be taken. Some steps they considered included reappropriating surveillance technologies, emphasizing informed self-regulation over imposed controls, and problematizing supposedly universal solutions by critically investigating their impact on marginalized populations. They proposed tangible solutions such as a lockdown buddy robot, reimagined online spaces for legal protests and demonstrations, and anonymized, universal, and peer-to-peer internet connectivity for people who would otherwise be cut off from digital tools.

In sum, we observed workshop participants constructing a nuanced argument through fabulation: even well-intended interventions are situated in a complex network of contrasting objectives and ideologies, and there is no such thing as a simple fix. Civic platforms are susceptible to takeover and monetization, isolated people might sign off their privacy for the sake of social connectedness, and struggling communities are likely to find their way around technologies to improve their chances of survival.

Conclusions: Rethinking Creative Methods in Times of Crisis

The HDSA workshop critically examined the design of datafying systems that were proposed (and often hastily implemented) to curb the spread of the Covid virus. By interrogating these systems through speculative fabulation, participants were able to take an imaginative approach to understanding urban spaces and challenging established narratives. As we were leading the workshops, we observed participants struggling with an undefined feeling of loss of control over their urban surroundings, and we nudged towards finding a (speculative) artifact representing it. The NemBot provided them with a material anchor for that feeling, and they fabulated about interacting with similar robots. They described the trepidation with which someone living alone might wait for an automated delivery, or the sense of longing from logging into a robot’s sensor and seeing once-familiar city sights. Then, we prompted again: if such robots were to be deployed, which agendas might be involved? Who might be left behind? How could this technology be reappropriated? More scenarios were fabulated: perhaps a Google-like corporation might monetize the robots, or critical activists might hijack them to spread pamphlets. In our view, these speculations aren’t too far removed from critical questions we face today: who governs public spaces, who mediates how people engage with them, and who is left out? Answering such questions was outside the scope of a one-week online workshop, but we find it very significant that our attendees spontaneously latched on to a (speculative) datafying intervention such as the NemBot and questioned it beyond its immediate solutionist objective.

We argue that the workshop method has potential beyond this specific case study. Its adaptable nature allows for its implementation in different urban contexts and in relation to different technological circumstances. However, the challenges and opportunities associated with applying creative methods in diverse urban settings need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The method offers possibilities for generating meaningful insights and contributing to urban research and practices more broadly in times when societal urgencies suddenly accelerate developments in unforeseen ways.

The workshop is designed to foster interdisciplinary cooperation between design researchers and humanistic scholars as well as a diverse group of participants. One significant aspect of the interdisciplinary collaboration was the integration of a “design fiction” approach, where participants were tasked with crafting plausible artifacts that aligned with their speculative scenarios. This emphasis on materiality and attention to detail allowed participants to delve into the concrete aspects of their fictional artifacts, enhancing the richness of their explorations. By connecting this to the critical engagement, attention to historical socio-political circumstances, and creative worlding that is practiced in speculative fabulation, these artifacts can be perceived from situated points of view, even if they are speculative. By combining insights from different disciplines, the workshop fosters innovative approaches that offer otherwise inaccessible understandings of urban phenomena. In the HDSA workshop, we saw that this interdisciplinary nature sparked creativity and allowed participants to approach urban research from multiple angles, leading to fresh insights and nuanced perspectives on the complexities of urban environments. By providing a space for interdisciplinary collaboration and critical reflection, the proposed method contributes to the development of innovative creative methods for various disciplinary and interdisciplinary urban inquiries and can reshape ways and forms of knowing (about) the city and its future.

In a time when shared and physical engagement with urban spaces was restricted, this workshop format provided a platform for participants to collectively imagine and interrogate the future of cities and technologies. At a critical juncture in time, when the urgency of the pandemic might give birth to highly-solutionist concepts such as the NemBot, we found that our workshop methodology is successful in inviting more critical approaches. By constructing stories and scenarios through speculative fabulation, they were able to shed light on the potential implications of pandemic technologies and reimagine urban environments. This process of production and exploration of urban knowledge amid the Covid lockdowns made explicit the specific marginalized communities that are at risk of being affected negatively by new technologies and offers a way of approaching their concerns when they are not able to speak for themselves. It not only contributed to a deeper understanding of the challenges faced by out-of-reach marginalized urban communities, but also sparked critical reflections on the role of technology, social dynamics, and power structures within these contexts. However, because of the inherent mediation involved in the workshop method, it is paramount that the process is continuously grounded in a commitment to the needs of those who are marginalized.

The anticipation of potential catastrophe is used to justify the widespread implementation of risk mitigation systems that quickly become normalized.17Beck, World at Risk. However, to counter marginalization, it is pertinent that the design of systems that structure society breaks out of dominant ideological molds. Stengers argues that to reinvigorate our imagination, we need to learn anew how to pay attention to things that seem to be natural or up to the powers that be. To pay attention is to recognize different forms of knowing and the agency that comes with that knowing.18Stengers, In Catastrophic Times. The speculations and reflections produced by participants are not proof of the likelihood of any potentialities or solutions emerging, instead they should be understood as valuable indications of the attention and empathy needed to expose, critique, or alter dominant technological advances in times of crisis, teasing out what else might happen besides the projections of corporations or governments. By breaking away from dominant knowledge frames, participants paid attention to complexities, emotional aspects, and embodied experiences that may be overlooked by traditional research approaches. They were able to question assumptions, explore new possibilities, and contribute to more ethical and inclusive urban practices.

The back-casting process that participants performed is a fundamental element in this regard. If speculative stories and artifacts are left to exist purely in some imagined future, their value and meaning to the present are limited. With back-casting, participants are required to change their focus back from a speculative lens to their present-day situated realities. They ask themselves what worries them about these futures and what people might do and pay attention to in the present to prepare for such circumstances or to prevent them from ever becoming real. They also think of who needs to be aware of their insights and how they might reach them. This reflection turns speculation from insightful potentiality to knowledge that is actionable in the present.

It should be noted that this format is inherently limited. Speculative fabulation, as we have applied it here, should not replace less mediated methods if they are at all possible. However, we expect that this workshop format might prove useful in potential future crises when regulations, weather conditions, or social circumstances make it difficult to have face-to-face interactions with diverse communities. We propose to keep this method ready in preparation for looming times of crises. However, this does not mean that the method does not serve any purpose now that crisis measures have subsided. There are spaces in which this method could be used to garner insights that would otherwise be hard to get to, such as in the case of speculative space colonization, rapid AI breakthroughs, or the impact of new surveillance technologies on hard-to-reach populations.

The Covid measures presented significant challenges for conducting research and engaging critically with urban environments. We shared our experience with creative research during social distancing, as similar situations may arise in the future. Whether it be other pandemics, extreme weather events, or unforeseen circumstances, understanding how to navigate research constraints is key to counterbalancing the creeping datafication that may come with those circumstances.

Notes

Notes
1 Nanna Verhoeff, Sigrid Merx and Michiel De Lange, “Creative Urban Methods for the Datafied City,” in Situating Data: Inquiries in Algorithmic Culture, ed. Karin Van Es and Nanna Verhoeff (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2023), 257.
2 Ulrich Beck, World at Risk (Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2009).
3 Inte Gloerich and Gabriele Ferri, “The Underdistanced and the Undernetworked,” in Network Imaginaries, ed. Anja Groten and Juliette Lizotte (Amsterdam: Hackers & Designers, 2021), 245–256.
4 As proposed in Donna Haraway, Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene (Durham: Duke University Press, 2016).
5 Haraway, Staying With the Trouble, 213.
6 Jeffrey Bardzell and Shaowen Bardzell, Humanistic HCI (San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2015), https://doi.org/10.2200/S00664ED1V01Y201508HCI031.
7 Iris van der Tuin and Nanna Verhoeff, ed., Critical Concepts for the Creative Humanities (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2022).
8 Ron Wakkary, William Odom, Sabrina Hauser, Garnet Hertz and Henry Lin, “Material Speculation: Actual Artifacts for Critical Inquiry,” Proceedings of The Fifth Decennial Aarhus Conference on Critical Alternatives, Aarhus, 19-21 August 2015, 97-108 (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press), https://doi.org/10.7146/aahcc.v1i1.21299; Thomas Markussen, Eva Knutz and Tau Lenskjold, “Design Fiction as a Practice for Researching the Social,” Temes de Disseny, no. 36 (October 2020): 16–39, https://doi.org/10.46467/TdD36.2020.16-39.
9 See, for example, Bruce Sterling, Shaping Things (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005).
10 Greg Nijs, Giulietta Laki, Rafaella Houlstan, Guillaume Slizewicz, and Thomas Laureyssens, “Fostering More-Than-Human Imaginaries: Introducing DIY Speculative Fabulation in Civic HCI,” Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society, Talinn, 25-29 October 2020, 4 (New York: Association for Computing Machinery), https://doi.org/10.1145/3419249.3420147.
11 Isabelle Stengers, In Catastrophic Times: Resisting the Coming Barbarism (London: Open Humanities Press, 2015).
12 Stengers, In Catastrophic Times, 132.
13 Bardzell and Bardzell, Humanistic HCI.
14 See Gloerich and Ferri, “The Underdistanced” (2021) for the specific tasks assigned during the HDSA 2020 workshop.
15 Genevieve Bell, Mark Blythe and Phoebe Sengers, “Making by Making Strange: Defamiliarization and the Design of Domestic Technologies,” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 12, no. 2 (2005): 149–73, https://doi.org/10.1145/1067860.1067862.
16 John B. Robinson, “Unlearning and Backcasting: Rethinking Some of the Questions We Ask About the Future,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 33, no. 4 (1988): 325–338, https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(88)90029-7.
17 Beck, World at Risk.
18 Stengers, In Catastrophic Times.
Gloerich, Inte and Gabriele Ferri. "First-Person Speculative Fabulation: A Workshop Method for Times of Crisis". Mediapolis: A Journal of Cities and Culture 8, no. 2 (June 2023)
and
Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.