I was quite intrigued by the concept of Science Fiction Prototyping, in the means that it is a narrative technique which intends to start a conversation about the implications, effects, or ramifications of specific technology rooted in the future. I find interesting the discussions that arise out of the creation of an artifact, or in this case a narrative, and in turn how those discussions then further shape the understanding of that item. The extent of my experience with scenarios are used in tandem with the creation of a new or revised interactive design, thus seeing how a new process plays out in a different light with more of an emphasis on the narrative is rather fascinating.
One particular note did stick out to me, where it’s mentioned that another author, Miles, “concludes that while it was acceptable for scenario practitioners to be interested in science fiction, serious futurological study should derive from other sources.” I’m really curious as to why the heir of superiority is necessary here. It seems to me any study in the futurology hopes to do one of two things: be accurate or promote discussion of key concepts touched upon within the study. Due to the nature of the field, I don’t really believe the source matters since accuracy is just as unlikely in any sense. More importantly, regarding the idea of touching upon specific concepts and crafting a discussion around it, I once more don’t believe it matters whether the study is grounded in reality or science fiction.
In regards to some of the failures of scientific prototyping, I wonder if they would be mitigated if the exercise was not completed in such a short manner as was done so at Emerge. I would be curious to see if the writing process became more collaborative, and the narrative more creative if the participants were given several weeks time to perfect the scenario.