Abstract
This entry begins by distinguishing speculative research from the broader cultural and academic meanings of “speculation.” The present “constructivist” approach to speculative research places emphasis on the ways in which the research question, the researcher, the researched and research device are actively involved in a process of becoming-with one another. This is explored through the notion of the “research event” into which a multiplicity of divergent elements (micro and the macro, the social and the material, the cognitive and the affective, and the human and the nonhuman) enters. In combining, they also “become-with” one other thereby opening the potentialities of the research event, including the possibility that it is no longer “about” research. Speculative research concerns enabling a sensibility attuned to this process of co-becoming. The entry suggests that a sensitivity to, and a taking seriously of, the “idiot” (i.e., that which does not make sense in the context of the research event as typically understood) facilitates this openness to the possibilities of the research event. More proactively, speculative researchers can also introduce idiocy into research events as a way of prompting participants to explore potential ways of reframing the research question, that is, of inventing new problems. The device of the “probe” (drawn from design practice) is used to illustrate this. It is further proposed that speculative research extends to the data analytic phase: introducing alternative materials (e.g., nonacademic artifacts) or traditions of engagement (e.g., aesthetic) can also enable “possibilistic” accounts.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
Billig, M. (1988). Social representations, objectification and anchoring: A rhetorical analysis. Social Behaviour, 3(1), 1–16.
Boehner, K., Gaver, W., & Boucher, A. (2012). Probes. In C. Lury & N. Wakeford (Eds.), Inventive methods: The happening of the social (pp. 185–201). London/New York: Routledge.
Boucher, A., Gaver, B., Kerridge, T., Michael, M., Ovalle, L., & Wilkie, A. (2018). Energy babble. Manchester: Mattering Press.
Brown, N., Rappert, B., & Webster, A. (2000). Contested futures: A sociology of prospective techno-science. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Bryant, L. R., Srnicek, N., & Harman, G. (2011). The speculative turn: Continental materialism and realism. Melbourne: re.press.
Connolly, W. E. (2011). A world of becoming. Durham: Duke University Press.
Dantec, C. L., & DiSalvo, C. (2013). Infrastructuring and the formation of publics in participatory design. Social Studies of Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312712471581.
De Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
de la Bellacasa, M. P. (2017). Matters of care: Speculative ethics in more than human worlds. Minneapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press.
Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative everything: Design, fiction, and social dreaming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fraser, M. (2010). Facts, ethics and event. In C. B. Jense & K. Rödje (Eds.), Deleuzian intersections: Science, technology and anthropology (pp. 57–82). New York/Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology (p. 1984). Cambridge: Polity.
Gaver, W. W., Boucher, A., Pennington, S., & Walker, B. (2004). Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty. Interactions, 11(5), 53–56.
Guggenheim, M. (2017). Creating idiotic speculators: Disaster cosmopolitics in the sandbox. In A. Wilkie, M. Savransky, & M. Rosengarten (Eds.), Speculative research: The lure of possible futures (pp. 145–162). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Highmore, B. (2002). Everyday life and cultural theory: An introduction. London: Routledge.
Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225–248.
Lury, C., & Wakeford, N. (Eds.). (2012). Inventive methods: The happening of the social. London/New York: Routledge.
Marres, N. (2012). Material participation: Technology, the environment and engaging publics. London/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Marres, N., Guggenheim, M., & Wilkie, A. (2018). Inventing the social. Manchester: Mattering Press.
Massumi, B. (2011). Semblance and event. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.
Meillassoux, Q. (2008). After finitude: An essay on the necessity of contingency. London/New York: Continuum.
Michael, M. (2012). “What are we busy doing?”: Engaging the idiot. Science, Technology and Human Values, 37(5), 528–554.
Michael, M., Wilkie, A., & Ovalle, L. (2018). Aesthetics and affect: Engaging energy communities. Science as Culture, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2018.1490709.
Savransky, M., Wilkie, A., & Rosengarten, M. (2017). The lure of possible futures: On speculative research. In A. Wilkie, M. Savransky, & M. Rosengarten (Eds.), Speculative research: The lure of possible futures (pp. 1–18). Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Stengers, I. (2005). The cosmopolitical proposal. In B. Latour & P. Weibel (Eds.), Making things public (pp. 994–1003). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stengers, I. (2008). A constructivist reading of process and reality. Theory, Culture & Society, 25(4), 91–110.
Stengers, I. (2010). Cosmopolitics I. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stewart, K. (2007). Ordinary affects. Durham/London: Duke University Press.
Stewart, K. (2011). Atmospheric attunements. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29(3), 445–453.
Uncertain Commons. (2013). Speculate this! Durham/London: Duke University Press.
Whitehead, A. N. (1978 [1929]). Process and reality: An essay in cosmology. Gifford Lectures of 1927–8; corrected edition ed. New York: The Free Press.
Whitehead, A. N. (1997 [1925]). Science and the modern world. New York: The Free Press.
Wilkie, A. (2017). Speculating. In C. Lury et al. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of interdisciplinary research methods. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Wilkie, A., Michael, M., & Plummer-Fernandez, M. (2015). Speculative method and Twitter: Bots, energy and three conceptual characters. The Sociological Review, 63(1), 79–101.
Wilkie, A., Savransky, M., & Rosengarten, M. (2017). Speculative research: The lure of possible futures. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Michael, M., Wilkie, A. (2022). Speculative Research. In: Glăveanu, V.P. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90913-0_118
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90913-0_118
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-90912-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-90913-0
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences