Keywords

1 Introduction

1.1 Context

Resource depletion, climate change, and social injustice are a few examples of self-evident future challenges that design needs to encounter. Since the role of design in shaping the future is paramount (Margolin 2007), design should find a way to introduce alternative future visions and take an oppositional stance towards the hegemonic structures that created these challenges. Fry and Nocek (2021) argue that design lies at the heart of the ontological crisis. For years, design has served the capitalist-driven market inquiry, which led to the current state of unsustainability. In response to this, several design directions have emerged to counter the negative effects of design (they could be collectively referred to as “critical design”). These practises are critical about design itself; they try to interrogate the status quo and propose alternative future visions aiming at enacting change in the present, thus leading the world toward more sustainable futures. Under the overarching umbrella of “critical design”, some of these practises are specifically concerned with the futures, which is referred to in this paper as “Critical Design Futures” (CDF). Indicative examples of these practises are Speculative Design (Dunne and Raby (2013), Design Fiction (Bleecker 2009), and Experiential Futures (Candy 2010), to name a few. In the first section of this paper, CDF practises will be briefly introduced. In the second section, a concise explanation of “the Critical Catalyst” which is a set of design activities and tactics developed by the author to facilitate the process of triggering criticality in design futures practise and research, will be provided. The Critical Catalyst follows the 10 Pillars framework that aims to work as a self-reflexive device and tool for designing and making the future. The third section focuses on the paper's main topic, critical forms of scenarios that aim to push design futures scenarios beyond their usual and conventional boundaries.

1.2 Critical Design Futures (CDF)

CDF describes a set of practises that are trying to operate outside the external borders of market-driven inquiry to question and redirect the actions we take today. They are meant to better handle the uncertainty of the future and look critically at the “otherwise” possibilities. The final aim is to enact constructive social change through design to mitigate the unfavourable consequences of the actions we take today by a) offering alternative visions of the future or b) showing the consequences and implications of today’s design actions. c) democratising the visions of the future through participation and public inclusion.

Provocative critical actions are used in CDF practises to call the contingency of futures into question. They interrogate, question, and induce discussions about future issues through design. Criticality in this context aims to facilitate the induction of a discursive space. It indicates being critical, as in the etymologic meaning of “breakdown” or “dissect” of future challenges and issues.

CDF practises explore the borders of the issue to problematise it. It is more of a problem-finder or problem-maker rather than a problem solver. CDF does not refer to a linear and relaxed sequential process for a designer, but rather to a process of complex decisions, fuzzy actions, foggy roads, blurry destinations, and unexpected arrivals. The peculiar nature of CDF makes it very difficult to follow a defined path; its process is packed with uncertainty, indeterminacy, and philosophical enactments. The complexity of CDF has always raised questions about their methodological approaches, and many scholars have noted the importance of tackling this gap in the literature (Bardzell et al. 2012; Ferri et al. 2014; Ozkaramanli and Desmet 2016; Pierce 2021). To address this gap, the author introduced the Critical Catalyst as a non-prescriptive framework that can help design researchers and practitioners adopt a critical position in their projects.

2 The Critical Catalyst (CC)

The critical diegetic scenarios are the focus of this paper, but it is important to briefly introduce the critical catalyst before explaining them. The Critical Catalyst (CC); is a set of reflexive design activities, tactics, and devices developed by the researcher to fill the gap in the methodological approach of CDF. The CC serves as a catalyst for designers’ reflections on future challenges and as an initiator of critical debates in design futures. The CC started as an outsourced lexicon of methods, approaches, concepts, and techniques excavated from the literature review as well as case study analysis and backed by the interviews. Then, the CC was refined through cycles of validation with expert interviewees and through observing and developing validation design experiments. The CC is a catalyst; it supports and facilitates rather than guides. It provides practitioners and researchers with tactics to problematise a future challenge and to look at the hidden and intangible sides of it. The CC follows a structural framework that builds on Ollenburg (2019) participatory design futures model and Jonas (2007) Research through Design (generic design process), as well as the Voros Generic Futures Model (2005). The CC layers build on the findings and insights gleaned from all of these models combined. The model is set to have four macro layers: (A) analysis, (B) projection, (C) synthesis, and (D) communication and reflection (Fig. 1). The first three layers have a wide agreement in futures studies, while the fourth layer, “communication and reflection,” is added since the author identified it as a fundamental factor in CDF practises (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.
figure 1

The Critical Catalyst process model, by Author (2022)

Full size image

3 Critical Diegetic Scenarios

3.1 Conventional vs Critical Design Scenarios

Before identifying the critical forms of design scenarios, it is important to make a distinction between conventional and unconventional scenarios.

On the one hand, conventional scenarios refer to scenarios as a tool to depict alternative futures (Dator 2018). Scenarios could be materialised as storytelling or reporting (as in Futures Studies), yet they could also be design output, solutions, or mapping in design futures. The latter could be referred to as Design orienting Scenarios (DOS) introduced by Manzini and Jègou (2003). DOS provide a structure to design and realise new products and product service systems (Manzini et al. 2009). Design scenarios can 1) show alternative futures, their implications, and risks. 2) They tend to create a shared language or vision for many parties and actors to understand the focal issue, 3) have a focus on particular options, potentials, or possibilities, and 4) analyse contexts and products (Zindato 2016).

Evans (2010) puts three structural elements for design scenarios: a) Current worlds: Based on the information, data, and intelligence gathered during the scanning exercise. B) Plot or Story: depicts what made this scenario happen or arise. C) End state: what situations, circumstances, features, or properties prevail at the end stage of the scenario? D) Logics: what is the rationale of the plot or the events that caused a scenario to arise. What logically explains the plot.

These pillars would make up a traditional or typical progressional scenario that shows an alternative future or how a concept should be placed in the future.

On the other hand, the critical forms of design scenarios aim at subverting this view of scenarios. They comply with the function of CDF to provoke, debate, resist, twist, and trigger thoughtful insights. Critical forms of scenarios seek to call into question the sociocultural and technological contexts in which this product may be found. They do so by exposing the factors that motivated these changes to appear on the features of such futures-oriented products; although both types, the critical and the conventional, might, in some cases, seem utilitarian scenarios, they have different purposes, functions, and agendas. Tharp and Tharp (2019) note that discursive (critical) scenarios can be clearly distinguished by the intention and quality of the scenario to set a context for rhetoric. They allow “the designer to communicate substantive ideas through what might otherwise be thought of simply as a utilitarian or aesthetic object for the marketplace. (Tharp and Tharp 2019, p.18).

3.2 Features of Critical Diegetic Scenarios

Critical scenarios rely on fictional and narrative world-building since the aim is to examine how the world could be rather than how it is now (Dunne and Raby 2013). Dunne and Raby define this concept as a trip from the real world to a fictional one for the purposes of reflection, critique, and inspiration. Thus, the need to create a fictional world is fundamental to developing critical scenarios. Dunne and Raby argue that the core of the scenario is the ideological background behind it. The core value lies in identifying what drives a critical scenario and what values are being put under investigation in the end state of the scenario. Critical scenarios start a conversation about the complex relationship between the reality we live in now and make us wonder and think about it, as well as enjoy the unreality in critical forms of scenarios (Dunne and Raby 2013).

Scenarios are where the object of critical design is positioned and situated. They allow the user to have a context for understanding the future narrative that the designer wants to convey and discuss. Scenarios here are the world where all the elements can fit together in one narrative. The elements of criticality here are transversal elements that pass through all of the scenario elements and their supporting media, such as video, images, or sketches. The narratives here are meant to ridicule and expose the flaws or errors in the topical issue under discussion (e.g., environmental impacts of design, such as climate change) (Malpass 2017).

In terms of world-building, it is critical to explain diegesis (from which the term “diegetic” scenarios is derived). Diegesis means story world, and the creation of diegesis leads to world-building, which is the context and setting where the CDF elements are positioned (for example, diegetic prototypes (Kirby 2010) refer to the objects that are situated in the diegesis with all the values of the new “built” world. This means that everything that lies within the diegesis (built world) is called “diegetic” and has the features of this world. A diegesis of the future should show the qualities of this future-oriented world, and through these features, critical designers could debate the implications and consequences of particular (present) issues.

From the premises put forth, it has to be clear that the features and qualities that differentiate conventional futures scenarios from critical diegetic scenarios are distant, contrasting, and do not share the same purpose and function. In this section, the gathered features of the critical diegetic scenarios are articulated and discussed. Five main features were identified for critical diegetic scenarios.

Plausibility:

The concept of plausibility is often mentioned in futures studies and in design futures as well. Plausible means something that is not obviously untrue. Plausibility is what can suspend doubt about future-oriented scenarios. This happens through the creation of plausible prototypes that lie within a diegesis or story world (Coulton et al. 2016) and helps bridge the perceptual gap of the audience (Auger 2014).

Plausibility indicates the credibility and believability of a particular concept to the audience it should interact with. It also indicates the potentiality of being true. However, plausibility is a difficult issue because how a concept is perceived by each individual with a different cultural background, worldview, and experience is subjective.

Verisimilitude:

In conjunction with plausibility, the second quality is verisimilitude, or the quality of being verisimilar. Verisimilitude in philosophy indicates “truth-likeness,” which refers to propositions that appear truer than other propositions (Stanford Philosophy Encyclopaedia, 2001). In fiction, “verisimilitude” refers to the similarity and closeness to reality. The action represented should be convincing enough and close to the audience’s knowledge and experience in order to be accepted. This has been used by fiction writers to suspend disbelief about improbable actions, events, or technologies within the borders of the narrative. James Auger (2013), in his influential paper about crafting speculation, argues that verisimilitude is an important quality where a designer can smartly adjust the borders of speculation so that it is not too far away from the “here and now” so that it turns out to be unbelievable and thus ineffective. Verisimilitude, according to Auger, is the ability to blur truths in order to suspend disbelief. This quality allows the audience to be the protagonist and experience the concepts being discussed in the CDF project since the audience’s reaction and reflection are the actual product of CDF and not the project itself (Auger 2013).

Ambiguity:

It means “a word or expression that can be understood in two or more possible ways: an ambiguous word or expression”. It can also be a synonym for uncertainty. Ambiguity in CDF draws on the works of William Gaver from the early 2000s, who identified how ambiguity creates a space for deeper interaction between the artefact, scenario and the user. Gaver et. al (2003) note that ambiguity can be “intriguing, mysterious, and delightful. “By compelling people to interpret situations for themselves, it encourages them to begin grappling conceptually with systems and their contexts, establishing deeper and more personal relationships with the meanings provided by those systems” (p. 1).

According to Gaver et al. (2003), ambiguity can allow designers to express their ideological point of view while allowing users from various socio-cultural backgrounds to interpret these ideologies or concepts through their own worldviews. Ambiguity is an attribute that gives a design the advantage of conveying more than one meaning, thus opening alternative interpretations for the users, which might, in turn, lead to an unexpected landing. Ambiguity is necessary to get people to use their imaginations and to get around the fact that familiarity with design and usefulness limits the user’s ability to understand and think creatively (Malpass 2017).

Dissonance:

Tharp and Tharp (2019) argue that the scenarios should be discordant with what the audience already knows, their experiences, and their sociocultural reality. This makes it different from conventional progressional scenarios, which tend to extrapolate on what is already known and what is expected to some extent. A critical and discursive scenario should challenge these sorts of future visions rather than embrace and affirm them. Dissonance sets the platform for the critical objects to be irrational and not normal, thus indicating that there is a different or alternative world to explore. It is a key aspect of conveying messages and balancing the discursiveness in a project. Dunne and Raby (2013) discuss that if the scenario is too consistent with reality, it will pass unnoticed, and if it is too dissonant, it will be ignored if misunderstood. This balance has to do with the audience and the message that is being conveyed, considering how to play it right.

Satire:

Humour, playfulness, and irony are essential elements that can be seen in many CDF projects. Dunne and Raby (2013), Malpass (2017), and Tharp and Tharp (2019) identify satire in critical practises as a central aspect that works as constructive social criticism. A scenario or narrative being humorous is one of the central features in CDF, humour can be used to engage the audience in an active discourse. Satire diminishes an issue by taking it to a ridiculous state, aiming at evoking various attitudes from indignation to amusement, contempt, or scorn (Malpass 2017). It is used to criticise individuals, environments, systems, society, or the discipline itself, aiming to trigger actions for improvement. Since both CD and satire share the same corrective purpose, it is not merely about mocking or being sarcastic for no reason. Satire is a device that offers critique in an interesting and attractive manner that affords critical reflection.

3.3 Tactics for Critical Diegetic Scenarios

Besides the features, the researcher identifies three important tactics for critical diegetic scenarios that are used in CDF. These are thought experiments, logical fallacies, and counterfactuals and hypotheticals.

Thought experiments are used in CDF to interrogate future visions and critically dissect a hypothesis or logically examine the implications and consequences of particular views about the future that come from the extrapolation of the status quo. Thought experiments are meant to provoke intellectual discussion, review logical consequences, and interrogate common understandings or widely agreed-upon concepts. They could test concepts, refute theories, and challenge the borders of particular issues. These qualities are particularly relevant to CDF’s purpose and function. Dunne and Raby (2013) use thought experiments to step out of reality to be able to think about complex issues. They move away from solid narratives and toward “thought experiments,” which are a collection of constructed ideas designed to investigate specific issues or hypotheses. Thought experiments are interdisciplinary; they expand to overlap with other scientific fields, such as biology, cognitive science, and mathematics, other than philosophy. They are, in particular, important in philosophy as they tend to trigger topical issues in meta-philosophy, including the nature of imagination and the role of intuition in human cognition (Stuart et al. 2017).

The second tactic is logical fallacies, which is a close form of thought experiment. A logical fallacy is meant to show an absurd logical argument that usually leads to unexpected output. Fallacies are typically reasoning errors, a disruptive mental and logical line of thought that may lead to an irrational path of logical consequences. The fallacy usually takes the form of an argument. There are other types, but this is the type that CDF could be interested in. Originally debated by Aristotle, the definition of fallacy is very challenging, and it is difficult to find a concrete description for it, yet a logical fallacy could refer to:

“to (a) a kind of error in an argument, (b) a kind of error in reasoning (including arguments, definitions, explanations, and so forth), (c) a false belief, or (d) the cause of any of the previous errors, including what are normally referred to as “rhetorical techniques.” (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, n.d.)

Counterfactuals and hypotheticals are the third form that critical diegetic scenarios could take:

The term “counterfactual” refers to events or world states that did not occur. Yet, they are constructed with factual knowledge of the current world either implicitly or explicitly (Kulakova et al. 2013). It simply means changing a historical fact that already happened to see what the current state of the world could be if different circumstances happened. Counterfactuals can support explaining causal relations (Woodward 2004) or delivering logical arguments. (Kulakova et al. 2013). A counterfactual is travelling back in time to imagine a change in what actually happened (Gerstenberg 2022). It is also a good way to create an alternative present so that the audience can know how we reached this alternative now (Dunne and Raby 2013).

On the other hand, Hypotheticals activate the suppositional component. A good example of it is the “What if?” question. A what-if question departs from the present to hypothetically imagine an alternative future state. Although both counterfactuals and hypotheticals are concerned with possibilities, the main difference is whether the change to reality or actuality happens or is imagined occurring (Gerstenberg 2022). Counterfactuals are about imagining a past event in a different way than facts or reality, whereas hypotheticals are about imagining possible futures, and one doesn’t need to travel back in time to consider past events and different states of the world.

Either counterfactual or hypothetical events are used in CDF scenarios so that a designer can create a parallel reflection on a past event, imagining how it could lead to an alternative present, or to depart from the “now” and show the implications and consequences of particular events that are happening or have already happened in the present.

4 Conclusion

The paper discusses the critical forms of design futures scenarios; it explains the notion of critical design futures as an umbrella concept for the critical design practises that are concerned with the future. The paper briefly discusses the critical catalyst, which is a device that facilitates the process of developing a CDF project in which the critical diegetic scenarios are situated. The paper discusses five features of critical diegetic scenarios and three tactics that could be used to develop them.

It is paramount to highlight that the features and tactics described in this paper are meant to be suggestive elements for designers or design researchers who wish to create a CDF scenario, they are not prescriptive, and they are not meant to be used all in one scenario. A designer or design researcher should instrument their usage and tactically select suitable features according to the purpose of the project. A provocative CDF project is different from an inspirational one. One project might need to use harsh satire to provoke the audience, and another project might require the use of plausibility and verisimilitude to make people believe in an encouraging future vision. It is also important to note that the critical diegetic scenarios are part of the whole framework of the critical catalyst so that they function in combination with the project paradigms, project motivations, and designers’ positions, as well as ways to disseminate and communicate these scenarios.

From a critical point of view, the features and tactics discussed in this paper are tools and means to provoke the audience towards positive actions aiming to enact social change. They are also tools that design researchers can use to think critically about their research, look into and propose different futures, and see the hidden goals of social, political, or economic systems behind design.

However, if CDF are used as means to produce visually interesting concepts or to be used for marketing purposes, in this case they would be deviating from their main purpose and functions, as Coulton and Lindley (2017) describe them as “vapourworlds” since they show visually entertaining artefacts yet are shallow in terms of content or core values in an artificial world with technologies that will never be realized. It has to be clearly highlighted that CDF proposals are about being sincere and transparent in exposing the issues incorporated in the systems where they operate.

The scenarios presented in this paper should take into account topics such as decolonization, equality, inclusion, and more than humans in order to achieve more sustainable futures and be resilient in the face of upcoming challenges. Humanity's future should be viewed through a critical lens, reflecting on current events and how they may affect our futures. This is the ultimate goal of critical diegetic scenarios and CDF. It is worth noting that this is ongoing research that still requires several rounds of testing, validation, and experimentation, but it serves as a preliminary platform for defining critical design futures practises in design research and education.

.