Once again, the writings revolve around a theme of disparities and relationships between design, futures and scientific research. The authors talk about the accessibility of design fiction and design research by the public and by field of scientific research.
I had no strong reaction to anything mentioned by the authors. I found Candy’s concept of design joining forces with future studies to make sense. I agreed with the idea of the fields learning from each other rather than separating themselves. In a similar vein, Grand and Wiedmer talked about accessibility and shared methodology between the practices of traditional scientific research and design research. I agree with their stance that design research should not attempt to define itself as separate from scientific research but rather that research should be seen as design. I’ve stated before that my opinions on labeling practices and methods is not very useful except to an outsider to the field. In these instances, the defining and labeling makes sense because the authors are looking at ways that seemingly dissimilar fields can interact and share. Auger focused on some terminology as well and explained that he uses the word speculative so that the work is accessible by the public as work that references the current, present world in order to design for the future. This is an acceptable form of name-defining.