Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper addresses the lack of rigorous evaluation criteria in speculative design by framing it as a resource-bounded knowledge generation process. It introduces the concept of "epiplexity" to decompose the knowledge generated by speculative artifacts into structured epistemic information and entropic noise. The authors propose a practical audit framework with a self-assessment questionnaire to help designers evaluate the quality of insights generated by their speculations.
Speculative design can be more than just "what if?" scenarios: it can be rigorously evaluated for its ability to generate transferable insights about the future, not just aesthetic shock.
Speculative design uses provocative"what if?"scenarios to explore possible sociotechnical futures, yet lacks rigorous criteria for assessing the quality of speculation. We address this gap by reframing speculative design through an information-theoretic lens as a resource-bounded knowledge generation process that uses provotypes to strategically embrace surprise. However, not all surprises are equally informative-some yield genuine insight while others remain aesthetic shock. Drawing on epiplexity-structured, learnable information extractable by bounded observers-we propose decomposing the knowledge generated by speculative artifacts into structured epistemic information (transferable implications about futures) and entropic noise (narrative, aesthetics, and surface-level surprise). We conclude by introducing a practical audit framework with a self-assessment questionnaire that enables designers to evaluate whether their speculations yield rich, high-epiplexity insights or remain at a superficial level. We discuss implications for peer review, design pedagogy, and policy-oriented futuring.
