The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible

Living Edition
| Editors: Vlad Petre Glăveanu (Editor-in-Chief)

Speculative Research

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_118-1

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.

Keywords

Speculation Constructivism Event Research Device Idiot Probe Possible Co-becoming 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Billig, M. (1988). Social representations, objectification and anchoring: A rhetorical analysis. Social Behaviour, 3(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Boucher, A., Gaver, B., Kerridge, T., Michael, M., Ovalle, L., & Wilkie, A. (2018). Energy babble. Manchester: Mattering Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, N., Rappert, B., & Webster, A. (2000). Contested futures: A sociology of prospective techno-science. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  6. Bryant, L. R., Srnicek, N., & Harman, G. (2011). The speculative turn: Continental materialism and realism. Melbourne: re.press.Google Scholar
  7. Connolly, W. E. (2011). A world of becoming. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 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.
  9. De Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. de la Bellacasa, M. P. (2017). Matters of care: Speculative ethics in more than human worlds. Minneapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative everything: Design, fiction, and social dreaming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology (p. 1984). Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  14. Gaver, W. W., Boucher, A., Pennington, S., & Walker, B. (2004). Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty. Interactions, 11(5), 53–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Highmore, B. (2002). Everyday life and cultural theory: An introduction. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lury, C., & Wakeford, N. (Eds.). (2012). Inventive methods: The happening of the social. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Marres, N. (2012). Material participation: Technology, the environment and engaging publics. London/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marres, N., Guggenheim, M., & Wilkie, A. (2018). Inventing the social. Manchester: Mattering Press.Google Scholar
  21. Massumi, B. (2011). Semblance and event. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meillassoux, Q. (2008). After finitude: An essay on the necessity of contingency. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  23. Michael, M. (2012). “What are we busy doing?”: Engaging the idiot. Science, Technology and Human Values, 37(5), 528–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. Stengers, I. (2005). The cosmopolitical proposal. In B. Latour & P. Weibel (Eds.), Making things public (pp. 994–1003). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Stengers, I. (2008). A constructivist reading of process and reality. Theory, Culture & Society, 25(4), 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stengers, I. (2010). Cosmopolitics I. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  29. Stewart, K. (2007). Ordinary affects. Durham/London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stewart, K. (2011). Atmospheric attunements. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29(3), 445–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Uncertain Commons. (2013). Speculate this! Durham/London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. Whitehead, A. N. (1997 [1925]). Science and the modern world. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  34. Wilkie, A. (2017). Speculating. In C. Lury et al. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of interdisciplinary research methods. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wilkie, A., Savransky, M., & Rosengarten, M. (2017). Speculative research: The lure of possible futures. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology, Philosophy and AnthropologyUniversity of ExeterExeterUK
  2. 2.Department of DesignGoldsmiths, University of LondonLondonUK

Section editors and affiliations

  • Alice Chirico
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversità Cattolica del Sacro CuoreMilanItaly