skip to main content
10.1145/2858036.2858446acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Pushing the Limits of Design Fiction: The Case For Fictional Research Papers

Authors Info & Claims
Published:07 May 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper considers how design fictions in the form of 'imaginary abstracts' can be extended into complete 'fictional papers'. Imaginary abstracts are a type of design fiction that are usually included within the content of 'real' research papers, they comprise brief accounts of fictional problem frames, prototypes, user studies and findings. Design fiction abstracts have been proposed as a means to move beyond solutionism to explore the potential societal value and consequences of new HCI concepts. In this paper we contrast the properties of imaginary abstracts, with the properties of a published paper that presents fictional research, Game of Drones. Extending the notion of imaginary abstracts so that rather than including fictional abstracts within a 'non-fiction' research paper, Game of Drones is fiction from start to finish (except for the concluding paragraph where the fictional nature of the paper is revealed). In this paper we review the scope of design fiction in HCI research before contrasting the properties of imaginary abstracts with the properties of our example fictional research paper. We argue that there are clear merits and weaknesses to both approaches, but when used tactfully and carefully fictional research papers may further empower HCI's burgeoning design discourse with compelling new methods.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

p4032-lindley.mp4

mp4

291.7 MB

References

  1. Paul Atkinston. 2013. Delete: A Design History Of Computer Vapourware. Bloomsbury, London & NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. James Auger. 2013. Speculative design: crafting the speculation. Digital Creativity 24, 1: 11-35. http://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2013.767276Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Mark Blythe and Elizabeth Buie. 2014. Chatbots of the Gods: Imaginary Abstracts for Techno Spirituality Research. Proc. NordiCHI 2014: 227-236. http://doi.org/10.1145/2639189.2641212 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Mark Blythe, Jamie Steane, Jenny Roe, and Caroline Oliver. 2015. Solutionism, the Game. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI '15, ACM Press, 3849-3858. http://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702491 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Mark Blythe. 2014. Research through design fiction. Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems CHI '14, ACM Press, 703-712. http://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557098 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Pam Briggs, Patrick Olivier, Mark Blythe, et al. 2012. Invisible design: exploring insights and ideas through ambiguous film scenarios. Proc. DIS 2012, 11-15. http://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2318036 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Laura Buttrick and Conor Linehan. 2014. Fifty Shades of CHI: The Perverse and Humiliating Human-Computer Relationship. 825-833. http://doi.org/10.1145/2559206.2578874 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. William Buxton. 2007. Sketching User Experiences - getting the design right and the right design. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. M. J. Carroll. 2000. Making Use: scenario based design of human - computer interactions. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Larry Christensen. 1988. Deception in Psychological Research When is its Use Justified? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 14, 4: 664-675.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Carl Disalvo. 2012. Spectacles and Tropes: Speculative Design and Contemporary Food Cultures. 20: 109-122.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Paul Dourish and Genevieve Bell. 2014. "Resistance is futile": reading science fiction alongside ubiquitous computing. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 18, 4: 769-778. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0678--7 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Nick Foster. 2013. The Future Mundane. hellofosta.com. Retrieved October 7, 2014 from http://hellofosta.com/2013/10/07/the-futuremundane/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Bill Gaver and John Bowers. 2012. Annotated Portfolios. Interactions 19, 4: 40-49. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. William Gaver. 2012. What should we expect from research through design? Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI '12: 937. http://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208538 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Rodrigo Freese Gonzatto, Frederick M. C. van Amstel, Luiz Ernesto Merkle, and Timo Hartmann. 2013. The ideology of the future in design fictions. Digital Creativity 24, 1: 36-45. http://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2013.772524Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Erich Goode. 1996. The ethics of deception in social research: A case study. Qualitative Sociology 19, 1: 11-33. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02393246Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Simon Grand and Martin Wiedmer. 2010. Design Fiction: A Method Toolbox for Design Research in a Complex World. Proceedings of the DRS 2010 conference: Design and Complexity.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Derek Hales. 2013. Design fictions an introduction and provisional taxonomy. Digital Creativity 24, 1: 1-10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Felix Heibeck, Alexis Hope, and Julie Legault. 2014. Sensory Fiction: A Design Fiction of Emotional Computation. 35-40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Anab Jain. The Drone Aviary. Retrieved September 17, 2015 from http://www.superflux.in/blog/thedrone-aviaryGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. David Kirby. 2011. Lab Coats in Hollywood. The MIT Press, Cambridge and London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Ben Kirman, Conor Linehan, Shaun Lawson, and Dan O'Hara. 2013. CHI and the future robot enslavement of humankind: a retrospective. CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems on CHI EA '13: 2199. http://doi.org/10.1145/2468356.2468740 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Eva Knutz, Thomas Markussen, and Poul Rind Christensen. 2013. The Role of Fiction in Experiments within Design, Art & Architecture. Nordes 2013, July 2015: 341-348. http://doi.org/10.14434/artifact.v3i2.4045Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. T.S. Kuhn. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Shaun Lawson, Ben Kirman, Conor Linehan, et al. 2015. Problematising Upstream Technology through Speculative Design: The Case of Quantified Cats and Dogs. 2663-2672. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. YK Lim and Erik Stolterman. 2008. The anatomy of prototypes: Prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 15, 2: 7:1-26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Rikard Lindell. 2014. Crafting interaction: The epistemology of modern programming. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 18, 3: 613-624. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0687--6 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Joseph Lindley and Paul Coulton. 2014. Modelling Design Fiction: What's The Story? StoryStorm Workshop at DIS 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Joseph Lindley and Paul Coulton. 2015. Back to the Future: 10 Years of Design Fiction. British HCI '15 Proceedings of the 2015 British HCI Conference, ACM, 210-211. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Joseph Lindley and Paul Coulton. 2015. Game of Drones. Proceedings of the second ACM SIGCHI annual symposium on Computer-human interaction in play. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Joseph Lindley and Robert Potts. 2014. A Machine. Learning: An example of HCI Prototyping With Design Fiction. Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human Computer Interaction. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Joseph Lindley. 2015. A pragmatics framework for design fiction. Proceedings of the European Academy of Design Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Conor Linehan, Ben J. Kirman, Stuart Reeves, et al. 2014. Alternate endings: using fiction to explore design futures. Proc. CHI EA '14: 45-48. http://doi.org/10.1145/2559206.2560472 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Thomas Markussen and Eva Knutz. 2013. The poetics of design fiction. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces DPPI '13: 231. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Tim Maughan. 2013. Zero Hours. Medium.com | Nesta Future Londoner Workshop. Retrieved September 21, 2015 from https://medium.com/@timmaughan/zero-hoursf68f17e8c12aGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Eran May-Raz and Daniel Lazo. 2012. Sight. Retrieved October 27, 2014 from http://vimeo.com/46304267Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Evgeny Morozov. 2013. To Save Everything Click Here: Technology, Solutionism and the Urge to Fix Problems That Don't Exist. Allen Lane Penguin Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Lene Nielsen. 2002. From user to character. Proceedings of the conference on Designing interactive systems processes, practices, methods, and techniques DIS '02, 99. http://doi.org/10.1145/778712.778729Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Nicholas Nova and Nancy Kwon. 2012. A Digital Tomorrow. Retrieved September 30, 2014 from http://vimeo.com/48204264Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. D. A. Schön. 1992. Designing as reflective converstion with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-Based Systems 5, 3-14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Bruce Sterling. 2005. Shaping Things. The MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Bruce Sterling. 2012. Bruce Sterling Explains the Intriguing New Concept of Design Fiction (Interview by Torie Bosch). Slate.com. Retrieved February 9, 2014 from http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/03/02/bruce_sterling_on_design_fictions_.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Bruce Sterling. 2013. Patently untrue: fleshy defibrillators and synchronised baseball are changing the future (Wired UK). Wired. Retrieved March 3, 2014 from http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2013/10/ play/patently-untrueGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Superflux. Uninvited Guests. Retrieved September 17, 2015 from http://www.superflux.in/work/uninvited-guestsGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Various. 2014. TBD Catalog (Vol.9, Issue 24). Near Future Laboratory.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Tracee Vetting Wolf, Jennifer a. Rode, Jeremy Sussman, and Wendy a. Kellogg. 2006. Dispelling "design" as the black art of CHI. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems CHI '06, 521. http://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124853 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. 2007. Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems CHI '07: 493. http://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240704 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. John Zimmerman, Erik Stolterman, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2010. An Analysis and Critique of Research through Design: towards a formalization of a research approach. Proceedings of DIS 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. EmotiDog - A Quantified Pet Product. Retrieved September 17, 2015 from http://www.thequantifiedpet.com/emotidog/index.ht mlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. 2012. Corner Convenience // The Near Future // Design Fiction | Near Future Laboratory. Near Future Laboratory. Retrieved October 15, 2014 from http://blog.nearfuturelaboratory.com/2012/03/04/corner-convenience-near-future-design-fiction/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Pushing the Limits of Design Fiction: The Case For Fictional Research Papers

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2016
      6108 pages
      ISBN:9781450333627
      DOI:10.1145/2858036

      Copyright © 2016 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 7 May 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader