Exploring the Roles of Artifacts in Speculative Futures: Perspectives in HCI

Abstract

In an era where technology increasingly blurs the boundaries between humans and machines, artifacts have become crucial mediums for critically examining the technological, social, and ethical dimensions of Human–Computer Interaction (HCI). This study explores artifacts as a key yet underutilized medium for speculation in the evolving field of HCI from a systemic perspective. While artifacts increasingly enable HCI to move beyond optimizing user experiences towards critically and collaboratively envisioning futures, perspectives comprehensively examining artifacts across the speculative design process and their impacts remain limited. Through a literature review of 53 speculative artifacts within the scope of HCI, this research elucidates the roles of artifacts across intention, making, and impact. Four categories of speculative artifacts emerged—Reflective, Exploratory, Interventional, and Heuristic—demonstrating how artifacts employ material, ambiguous, functional, and provocative forms to shape experiences, behaviors, and social norms. This study highlights the need for HCI to increasingly recognize the capacity of artifacts to support critical, sustained, participatory speculation by providing tangible representations of alternative futures. Speculative artifacts thus serve as powerful mediums to engage in societal discourse around the ethics and values of emerging technologies and to envision and enact responsible innovation. The materialization of alternative futures through artifacts allows researchers to reimagine socio-technological relationships, pushing design into inclusive, controversial spaces where diverse stakeholders can collaboratively shape desired and undesired futures.

1. Introduction

Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) is a multidisciplinary field that explores the design, evaluation, and implementation of interactive computing systems for human use and the complex relationships between people and technologies, with the goal of creating technology that enhances human activities and experiences.

The rapid advancements in technology, such as artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and the Internet of Things, have led designers and researchers to fundamentally question the elements, relationships, and functions of human-machine systems, disrupting the self-image of the discipline of HCI. Consequently, this shift has sparked a philosophical debate about the ideal technological future, moving from optimizing user experience to designing meaningful relationships [1], from human-centered to future orientation, and fostering more interdisciplinary collaborations, such as with design, sociology, and psychology.

The development of HCI has undergone four waves of shifts, transitioning from a focus on functionality and cognition in the first wave to user experience in the second and third waves and now moving towards a fourth wave that emphasizes social and ethical considerations. In response to the uncertain future of social technology, various new methods and epistemological positions, such as critical design [2], design fiction [3], speculative design [4], Material Speculation [5], Discursive Design [6], and speculative enactments [7], have been introduced into HCI since the early 2000s. However, the introduction of speculative design in HCI has not been without challenges and controversies, such as the lack of clear definitions and frameworks and the difficulty in evaluating its impact on design practice and society [8].

Historically, artifacts in HCI have played a crucial role in shaping the discipline’s trajectory. In the early stages, artifacts were inherently forward-looking and speculative, as they were developed as engineering prototypes aimed at future possibilities in the context of continuous technological progress. Notably, the term “speculative” gained significant traction in HCI literature following the work of Dunne and Raby [4]. Prior to this, the term did not have a clearly defined meaning within the HCI context. However, these artifacts differ from those created within the framework of speculative design, which are primarily intended for social critique and exploration rather than practical implementation [9]. We acknowledge the limitations of focusing solely on publications containing “speculative” terminology, as it may not fully capture the historical breadth of HCI’s engagement with futures. Many early HCI works, although not explicitly labeled as “speculative”, possessed forward-looking and exploratory qualities. Speculative artifacts in HCI serve as a means of exploring potential technological, social, and ethical developments, challenging current assumptions, and envisioning alternative futures [10]. These artifacts are part of speculative design practice aimed at stimulating debate about the potential roles, impacts, and ethical dimensions of technology in our lives. The definition of speculative artifacts in HCI emphasizes several key aspects. (1) They serve as a critical medium for reflecting on potential technological futures and their impacts on society, culture, and individual behavior by encouraging the questioning and rethinking of current assumptions surrounding technology design and usage. Due to their inherent ambiguity, artifacts foster creativity, expression, and discussion [11]. (2) They facilitate the exploration of possible worlds, employing speculative and counterfactual scenarios to consider a wide array of future possibilities situated within everyday contexts. This enhances the relevance of these artifacts and prompts deeper reflection on their integration into daily life [6,12]. (3) The creation and analysis of speculative artifacts typically involve an interdisciplinary approach, drawing from design theory, anthropology, sociology, and philosophy. By focusing on the use and durability of technology beyond its production and intended applications, artifacts inspire interdisciplinary collaboration and enrich the theoretical framework [13].

Existing research has predominantly concentrated on the theoretical application of speculative methods in HCI, such as critical design and design fiction, and the manifestation of artifacts, such as provocative prototypes and counterfactual objects [14]. However, there is a notable gap in the literature regarding a holistic and systematic examination of the speculative process of designing and studying future artifacts. This includes aspects such as the fundamental design process, the intentions behind designs, methods of presentation, their impacts, and the consideration of intangible entities that exist between artifacts and humans. Furthermore, it raises the following questions:

(1) Who are the target audiences of artifacts? (2) Who is paying attention to speculative artifacts? (3) What are the research methods for speculative artifacts (4) What are the impacts of speculative artifacts on HCI? (5) How do speculative artifacts facilitate participants’ engagement in conversation?

To address this gap and respond to these questions, we conducted a scoping review, a comprehensive and systematic literature review method of 1011 HCI publications that explicitly use “speculative” terminology, with a focus on 53 papers that underwent grounded theory encoding [15], a qualitative research method that involves the systematic generation of theory from data, and hierarchical clustering analysis. By examining the intent behind the creation of speculative artifacts, their production process, and their impact on HCI and society, we aim to develop a comprehensive analytical framework that clarifies their roles in exploring and influencing future possibilities. This approach seeks to enrich the academic discourse on speculative design in HCI and provide researchers and practitioners with a structured framework to guide and evaluate their speculative design initiatives. In the following sections, we will present our findings and discuss their implications for the field of HCI.

2. Related Work

2.1. The Focus of HCI: From User-Centered Design to Social-Technology Interaction

The field of human–computer interaction has experienced three distinct waves of development, with the first wave centering on cognitive science and human factors, followed by a second wave that prioritized user-centered design and contextual inquiry, and a third wave that highlighted the significant influence of social, cultural, and societal changes on the discipline; now, discussions are underway regarding a potential fourth wave that may concentrate on human values, ethics, embodiment, and well-being, while embracing interdisciplinary design paradigms to address the evolving needs and challenges within the community [16], Ashby et al. suggest that this wave will prioritize politics, values, and ethics while still leveraging the advantages of previous waves, using “MANIFESTO! Futures” as a unique and effective tool to stimulate discussion and energize groups around tasks [17]. Höök et al. investigated various methods of generating insights within the field of human–computer interaction, advocating for the development of intermediate forms of understanding that bridge the gap between the production of knowledge and its manifestation, positing that these forms of understanding exist between generalizable theories and individual instances [18].

The widely adopted user-centered design approach considered the most influential method for designing interactive artifacts, is being challenged by entangled theories that emphasize the interconnectedness of actors and their relationships, shifting focus beyond users and towards provocative design practices [1]. The advent of technologies like the Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, and big data has expanded the concept of interaction to include exchanges between humans and the environment, objects, and intelligent systems, encompassing diverse and multilayered interactions with complex systems, environments, communities, and services.

Evolving design methods and theories now emphasize critical and systemic thinking paradigms, urging designers to question existing social, cultural, and technological assumptions. Lim et al. [19] argue for capturing the interpretative and generative qualities learned through “design through research” and clarifying the field’s foundations. Designers often use continuous learning and adaptation to address uncertainty and complexity, enabling them to navigate the ever-changing landscape of interactive systems design. As interaction design evolves and expands, embracing new perspectives, critically examining assumptions, and adapting practices to address the increasing complexity and interconnectedness of interactive systems will be essential for designers to create meaningful and sustainable solutions in the future.

2.2. Speculative Design, Speculative Futures and Speculative Artifacts

Speculative design, pioneered by Anthony Dunne and Fiona Raby in the 1990s through seminal works like Hertzian Tales [2] (published in 1999) and Design Noir [20] (published in 2001), employs critical and imaginative design to challenge technological and societal norms, promoting deeper engagement with the complex interplay between technology and socio-ethical dimensions [21]. Speculative futures, design philosophy, and methodology explore and imagine future possibilities through design, sparking critical thinking about technology and society’s development [22]. It drives designers to create speculative artifacts that challenge assumptions and discuss alternative futures [10].

Speculative artifacts, tangible manifestations of speculative design, embody diverse characteristics and forms. Auger (2013) argues they should be plausible, transcend the present, and possess a metaphorical nature, classifying them into Speculative Futures (exploring possible future scenarios) and Alternate Presents (presenting alternative current realities) [8]. Wakkary et al. (2015) differentiate between “diegetic prototypes” (creating engaging narratives) and “vaporware” (emphasizing visual expressiveness) [5]. These artifacts concretize abstract future scenarios, trigger reflection, and invite diverse interpretations [23,24,25]. Speculative artifacts serve as intermediaries, fostering critical thinking about complex social and technological issues through their material forms, acting as a “preconceptual bridge” between audiences and speculative narratives [9]. Unlike traditional design artifacts that prioritize functionality and usability, speculative artifacts often have a longer lifespan, provoking ongoing reflection and discussion. Wong & Khovanskaya [26] highlight various forms of speculative design used to imagine alternative socio-technical configurations and inquire about values and political issues through design. Speculative artifacts provide a new perspective to examine current socio-technical systems and explore future possibilities, facilitating a deeper understanding of socio-technical relationships and stimulating critical discourse on the implications of emerging technologies. Engaging with these artifacts allows researchers, designers, and the public to collectively envision and shape the future of technology and society, incorporating ethical considerations and diverse perspectives into the design process.

2.3. The Impact of Speculative Artifacts on Human-Technology Dialogue: From Social-Technology Context

Speculative artifacts play a crucial role in facilitating dialogue between humans and technology by acting as intermediaries that challenge existing socio-technical assumptions and explore alternative futures. From a theoretical perspective that emphasizes the complex and evolving relationships within socio-technical systems, Spiel et al. [27] developed a new approach to capture technological experiences through critical discourse analysis. Similarly, Storni [28] argues for the need to evolve our Participatory Design (PD) practices and consider how to create spaces and processes where humans and nonhumans can come together in creative, political, contentious participatory speculation and future socio-technical configurations. In addition, critical approaches such as critical discourse analysis and feminist theory bring attention to the power dynamics and diversity in design practices. For instance, Rosner [23] redesigns dominant design practices from critical and feminist perspectives through critical fables, which are speculative narratives that challenge dominant assumptions and values in design. Redström and Wiltse [24] place fluid assemblages at the center of their analysis of future things, emphasizing the ever-changing nature of (digital) things and their entanglement with networked characteristics intertwined with our lives. Liu et al. [25] take a post-anthropocentric view, which decenters human agency and considers the well-being of both human and nonhuman species, to design digital tools for collaborative survival.

Despite these significant contributions, there remains a gap in understanding how speculative artifacts function as “agents” that stimulate critical thinking and discussion about the future of society. For example, how do the material properties and aesthetics of speculative artifacts influence their ability to engage audiences and provoke reflection? What are the long-term effects of engaging with speculative artifacts on individuals’ attitudes and behaviors toward emerging technologies? Existing studies often focus on the theoretical and methodological aspects of speculative design and artifacts, but there is limited research on their practical impact and effectiveness in real-world contexts.

To address this gap, our research will adopt a holistic systems perspective to examine how tangible speculative artifacts act as intermediaries, fostering critical reflection and debate about socio-technical futures. This approach aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the role and influence of speculative artifacts in shaping human-technology interactions and societal discourse. By bridging theory and practice, this research will contribute to the development of more effective and engaging speculative design practices that can help navigate the complex challenges posed by emerging technologies.

3. Method

3.1. Selection of Papers

According to the PRISMA statement [29], we conducted and reported a scoping literature review to determine existing publications in HCI that claim to adopt, utilize, or are formed by speculative artifacts. We utilized the ACM Digital Library as the primary data source, with retrieval criteria defined as [all: speculative design], [all: hci], [abstract: artifact], and [publication date: (1 January 2000–15 September 2023)]. We required all returned articles to simultaneously contain “speculative design”, “HCI”, and “Artifact” and be published between 2000 and 2023. Our theoretical framework was based on the following inclusion criteria, resulting in 53 selected cases:

Eligibility: We initially retrieved 1011 candidate papers, returning 689 relevant papers from highly recognized HCI venues, including the TOCHI journal and 8 conferences: CHI (316), DIS (136), TEI (69), NordiCHI (68), C&C (38), CSCW (26), UbiComp (13), MobileHCI (10). We then eliminated any papers that could not be coded with certainty based on the following criteria:

(1)

Papers where the created artifacts were primarily used as educational tools without describing the process of their creation.

(2)

Papers proposing an experiment focusing on outlining experiential guiding principles. We prioritized papers that demonstrated the design process through artifacts generated in the paper.

(3)

Papers presenting multiple artifacts but with each artifact displaying vague coding. To minimize ambiguity, we prioritized papers that offered insights into holistic design approaches used in developing artifacts.

(4)

Papers introducing a new technology but not explaining how the application of that technology or design is applied to the creation of artifacts.

Based on these inclusion criteria, two members of the research team independently examined half of the corpus, removing any papers that did not meet the criteria or required further discussion. Papers requiring discussion were reviewed by the entire research team. To balance the analysis of different teams’ work, we retained only one paper per first author and excluded other papers by the same author (a total of three papers). Finally, 53 papers that comprehensively documented the entire process of artifacts from conceptualization to design were determined as the subject of analysis.

3.2. Code Book

The coding originated from 53 selected papers (see Figure 1), covering multiple conferences in the fields of human–computer interaction and design, including CHI (25/53), DIS (18/53), TEI (7/53), C&C (2/53), NordicCHI (1/53). From our coding process, we organized the coding into three aspects: Intention for making Speculative Artifact (i.e., design intent, such as creating new solutions, providing experiential value, etc.), Making process (i.e., material aspects of production methods, materials, processes, etc.), and Impact (i.e., what impact is generated, and how to evaluate) to discuss the five questions proposed in Introduction: 1. Who are the target audiences of artifacts? 2. Who is paying attention to speculative artifacts? 3. What are the research methods of speculative artifacts? 4. What are the impacts of speculative artifacts on HCI? 5. How do speculative artifacts facilitate participants’ engagement in conversation? The two authors coded the 53 papers using the five questions, generating a total of 44 labels, and after negotiation, 7 secondary labels were determined. The coding sheet is shown in

Table 1. The final codebase consists of 3 primary labels, 7 secondary labels, and 44 tertiary labels.

1st	2nd	3rd
INTENTION	Collect	Data Identification (38), Perception (40), Reflection (35), Uncertainty (17)
	Create	Experiential richness (39), Alternative (38), Value (26)
MAKING	Craftsmanship	3D printing (10), Bio (7), Cement/ceramic (5), Fabrication (17), Handcrafting (11), Shape-changing (26), Un-crafting (3)
	Placement	Automation (11), Ethics (12), Home (15), Longevity (3), Outdoor (5), Rituals (9), Socio-ecological context (18)
	Presentation	Active artifact (32), Embodied interaction (40), Passive artifact (21), Performing arts (19), Physical interaction (27), Pilot test (4), Provocation (26), Slow technology (16), Unselfconscious (5), Wizard-of-Oz (4)
IMPACT	Use	Civic participation (3), Community (8), Individual development (21), Stakeholder (7), Utility (25)
	Interpretation	Behavior change (30), Entanglement (22), Materiality (25), Metaphor (23), More-than-human (6), Nostalgia (11), Passing down and inheriting (4)

.

Intention. The intention of designing speculative artifacts, such as creating new solutions or providing experiential value, is to explore complex technological systems, critically examine HCI, and ensure that artifacts achieve their intended purposes [9,30,31]. Tharp and Tharp [6] emphasized interrelated factors like intention, context, artifact, audience, interaction, and impact. This section of coding analysis (Collect, Create) reveals two primary motivations for creating speculative artifacts in HCI research. First, designers use artifacts to collect Data Identification, i.e., to identify and collect relevant data through the creation of physical devices or systems [32]. The unique form and interaction of artifacts can prompt reflection, i.e., users’ Reflection [33] on themselves, technology, or societal issues [34], breaking norms and contributing new Perceptions [35] to create experiential value. Artifacts are seen as opportunities to challenge assumptions and stimulate deeper thinking through material interventions. Artifacts make open-ended inquiry possible through their Uncertainty [36] and interpretative flexibility. Second, researchers utilize artifacts to create and explore Experiential Richness [37], possibilities, and Alternative [38] related to technology and society. By materializing abstract data and concepts, they stimulate user reflection, disrupt conventional thinking, explore new viewpoints, Value [39], and possibilities and participate in constructing social discourse.

Making. Making refers to the material aspect of production methods, materials, craftsmanship, etc. The production process involves collaborative creation, interdisciplinary integration, enhanced participant engagement, and challenging traditional assumptions and constraints [8]. Sanders and Stappers [10] position making as a core creative act in design research that constructs and transforms meaning, whether through designers creating probes/toolkits or participants making interpretations. This section of coding (Craftsmanship, Placement, Presentation) provides insights into how researchers document and track the development trajectory of speculative artifacts. The papers detail the craftsmanship techniques used for artifacts, including 2D draft [40], 3D printing [41], Handcrafting [42], mashup [25], laser cutting [36], and more. The coding reflects the intentional use of various construction methods such as Un-crafting, which involves dismantling and reshaping traditional craft processes to imbue craftsmanship with new experiences and meanings [37], unmaking [12], material choices such as paper [43], plastic [44], wood [45], Bio [41], Cement/Ceramic [37], and Fabric [46], and transformative attributes such as deformation (able to change shape over time, demonstrating dynamic developmental processes) and Shape changing [47] to monitor the aesthetic appearance of evolving artifacts. The process of making speculative artifacts emphasizes interdisciplinary collaborative practices, integrating various creative techniques and materials, shaping the material form and aesthetic aspects of artifacts through dismantling and reshaping, and providing an open space for interpretation.

Impact. Impact refers to the effects produced and how they are assessed. The impacts generated by speculative artifacts include promoting future-oriented thinking and critique, enhancing participant engagement, questioning future themes in design research, assisting in building multi-agent systems, and introducing biases in functional connectivity research. This section of coding (Use, Interpretation) demonstrates researchers’ emphasis on evaluating speculative artifacts based on their experiential, disruptive, and relational impacts. The “Use” coding captures how artifacts influence Community [48], Civic participation, i.e., how they affect public civic awareness and engagement [49], Utility [35], and Stakeholder [50] involvement. Counterfactuals reflect efforts of artifacts unfamiliar with norms and “overturning” assumptions in design. Furthermore, speculative insights are evaluated from a dual perspective. The “Interpretation” code tracks Individual development [51], Behavior change [36], Nostalgia [52], and Entanglement [53], considering how artifacts express themes through Metaphor [54], temporality [55], and Materiality [34]. It also investigates how artifacts configure intimate relationships, More-than-human [37] relationships, and agency. This indicates a motivation to understand firsthand crucial and interpersonal insights generated by speculative artifacts. Evaluation prioritizes the impacts of artifacts on experience, reflection, and association.

3.3. Coding Process and Inter-Coder Agreement

Two trained coders independently applied the code book to each survey paper. They coordinated the codes after the first 12 papers to ensure a common understanding and application of the codes, followed by another coordination after the addition of each new code. A consistency check of the coded subset was conducted to ensure consistency in the code application. Any discrepancies in coding were resolved through discussion and consensus, with coders discussing any conflicting codes with other members of the research team to reach an agreement. The overall inter-coder consistency exceeded 90%, indicating a high level of reliability in the coding process. After multiple discussions, the final corpus was determined (Figure 2).

4. Literature Analysis Process and Results

Chapter three outlines seven design dimensions that summarize the central role of speculative artifacts in interaction design from the aspects of intention, making and impact. In this section, in line with the research questions, we will further analyze the application and manifestations of speculative artifacts.

Initially, based on the examination of speculative design cases mentioned in 53 articles, researchers manually explored multivariate information concerning target user groups, relevant researchers, and research methodologies and conducted a preliminary analysis of research trends over time. Section 4.1 addresses the following questions: (1) Who are the target audiences of artifacts? (2) Who is paying attention to speculative artifacts? (3) What are the research methods of speculative artifacts?

Furthermore, Section 4.2 utilizes the aforementioned key features through a systematic qualitative analysis to reveal the interrelationships among the elements of Intention, Making, and Impact, resulting in four distinct categories of speculative artifacts. The following two dimensions are used to explain their impact on HCI: (4) What are the impacts of speculative artifacts on HCI? (5) How do they facilitate participants to engage in conversation?

4.1. Classification and Analysis of Targeted User Groups, Associated Researchers and Research Methods

4.1.1. Who Are the Target Audiences of the Artifacts?

From the collected 53 papers, we identified four user groups (refer to Figure 3): 46% of the papers focus on users with certain professional experience, such as experts, researchers, students, or those working in the HCI field for decades; 36% of the papers target specific user groups, including specific professions, emotions, or habits; 9% of the papers focus on family members/spouses/children/adolescents/elderly, while 9% of the papers do not explicitly specify the target user group. Based on the research findings, 46% of the papers focusing on users with certain professional experience tend to analyze universal issues, including privacy data analysis [36,55,56], material innovation design [48,57,58], physical computing and user interaction [35,38,42,50,59,60], gestural interaction design [26,42,48,61,62], and irreversible speculation [44,45,46,54]. The 36% of literature that targets specific user groups implies a more diversified focus on various domains and generalizes to their industry user groups, such as media performers [56,62], worshipers/devotees [52,63], local/agricultural/farming communities [32,64], martial arts professionals [65], women’s lifestyle products [37,66], etc. The research outcomes in these two major domains indicate that current academic studies on artifacts are expanding not only to assist professionals but also into a growing number of diverse fields.

In our dataset, articles targeting family members/spouses/children/adolescents/elderly constitute 9%. These papers primarily focus on the interactions between different types of artifacts and various aspects of family life across different age groups. This includes object-centered design [43], household energy conservation [67], family ecology [68], and more. Some works, such as those grounded in the ontological nature of plants, construct a plant printer that interacts with both natural and electronic climates, bringing a plant-like sense to family life [43]. Additionally, designs that encourage communication between grandparents and grandchildren living separately foster intergenerational communication [69]. In summary, these papers emphasize how object-centered design and various artifacts relate to family life and daily behaviors. The target user groups are extensive, with a focus on social impact and privacy protection. While there is a limited number of related studies in the dataset, the research trends are promising and provide valuable insights into the interaction between family ecology and artifacts. Similarly, 9% of the literature does not emphasize a target user group, indicating its potential applicability to any group.

4.1.2. Who Is Paying Attention to Speculative Artifacts?

In addition to investigating user groups, this study examined the composition of research teams working on artifacts. The research aimed to explore the evolution of expertise and skills required for artifacts over time and track the latest identity transitions of researchers in the field. The goal was to provide resources for new entrants in artifacts research, enabling them to align their research with their expertise and needs. The study analyzed keywords, main content, future prospects, and discussion sections of 53 papers to infer and interpret these identities based on the technical issues addressed, design considerations proposed, and insights provided. Three distinct sub-identity categories were summarized: Designer, Developer, and User Researcher. Developers primarily include test engineers, data scientists, and hardware and software engineers, who are responsible for development, data collection, building user behavior models, and testing. User Researchers focus on human factors engineering, psychology, and behavioral science, primarily analyzing user cognition and conducting user experience testing. Designers, unlike the other two categories, have more diverse roles. Besides basic product and interface aesthetic design, interaction design, and user experience design, they play inclusive and collaborative roles in multidisciplinary research teams, interacting with other researchers.

As the speculative artifacts are a typical interdisciplinary research area, the research results indicate a diverse combination of researchers, including Developer + Designer, Developer + User Researcher, Designer + User Researcher, and Designer + Developer + User Researcher. After determining the types of researchers, we subsequently created a distribution chart of researcher types from 2010 to 2023 (refer to Figure 3b). During the period from 2010 to 2012, research mainly focused on the design discipline. However, since 2016, teams consisting primarily of designers, supplemented by user researchers, have gradually gained prominence. Starting in 2018, interdisciplinary collaboration among designers, developers, and user researchers has emerged to facilitate greater professional research support for the artifacts. From this perspective, the Artifacts field not only incorporates professional skills and knowledge but also enriches researchers with diverse talents.

4.1.3. What Are the Research Methods of Speculative Artifacts?

Through a thorough analysis of the 53 papers, it is evident that the research methods in the dataset primarily fall into three categories: quantitative, qualitative, and development. The quantitative research methods encompass survey investigations, statistical analyses, and other related techniques. On the other hand, qualitative research methods include diverse approaches such as participatory design, structured and semi-structured interviews, collaborative design, and speculative design. We classify the term “development” as involving both software and hardware development in the Artifacts domain, as well as the construction of predictive models for user behavior. Our study also reveals a close connection between the research methods employed and the identities of the researchers in the 53 papers. Recent project cases indicate that designers play a significant role in the research efforts within the Artifacts domain, predominantly utilizing qualitative research techniques to advance their studies.

According to our in-depth analysis of literature from 2010 to 2023, we observe a decline in the number of purely design-oriented papers (see Figure 3). More work is now adopting the integrated application of multiple methods. First, research in speculative artifacts typically involves the combined use of multiple methods and different stages of research. Second, the interdisciplinary composition of research teams is increasing, leading to the continual emergence of new methods. With the development of speculative design, an increasing number of research projects are focusing on more-than-human or nonhuman methods. Simultaneously, assessing users’ skill levels presents challenges, prompting deeper research into relevant tools and technologies. Perhaps this is one reason these papers extensively adopt qualitative methods, as these approaches enable researchers to collect diverse and high-fidelity data sources and ideas, incorporating them into the research process to make more flexible decisions.

4.2. Literature Cluster Analysis Method and Results

4.2.1. Refine the Study Case Features

To address our research objective of understanding the role of speculative design in HCI, we will further analysis the design features of artificial objects in all literature, therefore elucidating the presentation modes and resultant impacts of speculative artifacts. These features are derived from the original coding in the code book of Table 1 (3rd labels). We specifically focus on the label categories of Intention and Impact, which are more closely aligned with the design purposes of speculative artifacts. The reason for excluding features such as production processes and physical materials from analysis is that while these labels, to some extent, describe the features of artificial object design, their relevance to explaining the role and impact of speculative design is limited. Subsequently, we implemented a frequency-based selection process, prioritizing the most frequently occurring keywords to ensure objectivity and consistency in the cases, for example, perception (40/53) and embodied interaction (40/53). As illustrated in Figure 4, we ultimately selected 20 labels arranged in descending order of frequency of occurrence in the articles. These features will serve as the basis for further systematic clustering analysis, facilitating the classification of literature containing speculative design cases based on relevance and differences.

4.2.2. Hierarchical Cluster Analysis and Visualization

Using the 20 features outlined in Section 4.2.1, we conducted a hierarchical clustering analysis. These features served as the variables for this analysis, systematically grouping the artifacts based on their similarities and differences to elucidate the role of speculative artifacts in facilitating discussions of alternative futures. The aim was to identify similar clusters of articles among the 53 academic papers relevant to speculative artifacts. We employed a binary coding scheme to generate a 53 × 20 data matrix, indicating the presence or absence of each characteristic in each article. To ensure objectivity, the coding was independently performed by two researchers, with an inter-coder reliability exceeding 90%. Subsequently, hierarchical clustering analysis was performed on the data matrix using SPSS Ver.27, employing the between-groups linkage method, with squared Euclidean distance as the measure of similarity.

Through an analysis of clustering time and coefficient changes, we determined the optimal clustering configuration [70]. Figure 5 depicts the hierarchical clustering results of the 53 articles based on the 20 literature feature labels distilled by researchers. The appropriate number of clusters was determined by examining the dendrogram. The dendrogram serves as a visual tool for clustering processes, where the horizontal axis represents rescaled distances, and the vertical axis represents cases or clusters. Notably, at certain rescaled distance points, a pronounced “jump” in the graph indicates significant dissimilarities among previously merged clusters. By plotting reference lines on the X-axis, the cluster results were determined from the intersections of reference lines and horizontal dendrogram lines (as indicated by the red vertical dashed lines). Qualitative analysis conducted by knowledgeable coders familiar with all literature within each derived cluster identified consistent general features and research focuses. Among all resultant categories, the division into four categories, as depicted in Figure 5, exhibited minimal divergence. Thus, we opted for four classes to define distinct speculative artifacts. Tracking and contrasting the distribution of coding labels across literature examples within each category, we summarized the characteristics of speculative artifacts in each class, naming them “Reflective Speculation”, “Exploratory Speculation”, “Interventional Speculation”, and “Heuristic Speculation”. In subsequent Section 5.1, we will provide detailed comparisons of these categories in terms of their explanations, implementation approaches, and impacts, aiming to clearly delineate the characteristics of each speculative entity class.

To elucidate and differentiate the relationships among cases within each article, we opted to conduct further data visualization. This aimed to identify and illustrate the interrelationships among multivariate data and analysis how the four categories of speculative object design are reflected in the coded data through associations and differences. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was employed to explore representative constructs from the measured items. The objective of PCA is to replicate the covariance matrix using a smaller set of components and linear combinations of the original item set. This aids in reducing the dimensions of the dataset describing these literature features, therefore simplifying data analysis and visualization. We utilized the PCA method to encode the frequency counts of classification codes from all literature, treating them as the respective values for each variable. The final dimension of the feature matrix S comprises 21 columns, representing 20 dimensions of article features and 53 rows representing selected articles. Article features are simplified into a lower-dimensional representation to facilitate visualization.

We conducted factor analysis using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and varimax rotation. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy yielded a value of 0.546, and Bartlett’s test was significant (p < 0.05), indicating the suitability of the data for factor analysis [71]. Four factors were ultimately extracted, cumulatively explaining 72.680% of the total variance. The first and second principal components captured the largest variances in the data, thus encapsulating the primary features of the original data to the greatest extent. Despite the cumulative contribution of the first two principal components being only 30%, it is important to note that PCA was not utilized for case classification but rather applied to the 20-dimensional data of article features. This article’s feature data were transformed into two-dimensional representations through PCA for visualization purposes. Subsequently, we distributed each article case based on their scores on the newly obtained two principal components, as depicted in Figure 6, with articles represented in different colors according to their respective categories. This approach enabled the visualization and analysis of the relationship between cases within articles and the design features of speculative objects. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that hierarchical clustering analysis was employed as the primary method for further analysis of clustering categories. This helped address the limited explanatory power of PCA results, allowing for a more comprehensive and objective interpretation of classifications through the integrated use of multiple statistical methods.

Our analysis unveiled that ‘Reflective Speculation’ exhibited the broadest distribution, intersecting with the other three categories and predominantly located within the first quadrant. ‘Heuristic Speculation’ and ‘Interventional Speculation’, on the other hand, were relatively less prevalent, primarily situated in the second and third quadrants, respectively. Meanwhile, ‘Exploratory Speculation’ demonstrated a more concentrated clustering, indicative of greater similarity among cases, spanning across the second and third quadrants.

As shown in Figure 7, We redefined two dimensions—‘The Way of Presentation’ and ‘The Way of Interpretation’—to synthesize perspectives on how speculative artifacts impact the interaction between humans and technology. The X-axis, ‘The Way of Presentation’, examines how speculative artifacts challenge existing interaction paradigms, whether through explicit affordances guiding user interactions (Affordance) or through embedded ambiguities that provoke thoughtful exploration and reflection (Ambiguity). The Y-axis addresses the impacts of speculative design, highlighting interactions that evoke personal feelings and emotions (Internal) or spark debates on technological usability in political, technological, ecological, and social contexts (External).

The distribution of features for the four categories is constructed based on their contributions and clustering tendencies along their respective axes. We utilized systematic statistical methods to organize and analyze the literature. While the results obtained possess interpretative value in statistical terms, they may not entirely accurately reflect the actual relationships within the literature. Considering the expertise and experience of speculative design researchers, it is evident that the design features of these speculative artifacts do not exhibit clear exclusions, particularly concerning their impact on human and technology Interaction, which appears to be intertwined. Therefore, it is crucial to provide a reasonable interpretation and correction of the features and analytical results of these cases through manual intervention or qualitative analysis to describe the distributional distributions of the cases more convincingly.

In subsequent chapters, we will use these two interpretive dimensions as a starting point to address how to construct the role of speculative artifacts in the field of HCI. We will delve into a comprehensive exploration of how these different categories of speculative artifacts stimulate discourse among individuals based on specific cases and research objectives.

5. Findings and Discussion

5.1. Overall of Four Categories of Speculative Artifacts

Table 2. Characteristics of four types of speculative artifacts.

Category	Explanation	Topic	Approach	Role
Reflective speculation	To stimulate individuals’ reflections on their own values and changes in experiences under different time perspectives	Personal values Philosophical reflection Social interactions Relationship with technology	Unselfconscious interaction	Experiential materials
Exploratory speculation	To help users think about future issues and establish prefactual thinking	Temporality and materiality diversity Experiential richness Personal development and intimate	Embodied interaction	Alternative probes
Interventional speculation	To encourage users to change their usage habits and behavioral patterns	Usage contexts and utility Shape-changing Data collection and behavior change	Physical interaction	Engaged actors
Heuristic speculation	To attract audiences to engage in social and group participation, and conduct provocative discussions	Ecological and technology ethics Strategy foresight Human–nonhuman relationships Engagement in public	Socio-ecological interaction	Provocative catalyst

presents the explanation, approaches, and roles of the four categories of speculative artifacts, detailing their roles in the context of human-technology interaction.

“Reflective Speculation” exhibits a broad distribution, intersecting with all three other categories, highlighting their significant role in stimulating discussions across diverse personal experiences, cultural backgrounds, and temporal contexts. This wide dispersion explores themes typically focused on changes in personal values, guiding users to contemplate their positions through direct or unconscious interaction with design works. In this process, speculative artifacts serve as experimental materials, integrating digital technology into everyday objects such as wearable devices [25,34,36,72,73], or as non-intrusive installations in living spaces. Through participatory design, material speculation, slow technology, and speculative games, they record personal data and guide reflection on lifestyle, prompting individuals to contemplate philosophical issues [35], social interactions [50,64], and the symbiosis between humans, materials, technology, and nonhuman life forms from future perspectives [12,39,46,48,60,62]. Particularly emphasized are objects that blend non-daily items with counterfactual technologies. These objects aim to stimulate engagement and analysis of the relationship between humans and intelligent technology and future products by exploring technological and usability aspects, enriching personal experiences, and shaping the mutual construction of human subjectivity and objectivity through intermediary actions.

“Exploratory Speculation”, characterized by its high quantity and concentrated distribution, focuses on assisting users in contemplating the future and expanding their horizons. These designs are predominantly presented as interactive prototypes characterized by forms, craftsmanship, and functionalities that exhibit a certain degree of non-routine nature. For instance, they utilize information on plant activities and biological materials [37,43,44,65]. Such designs serve as crucial probes for envisioning alternative futures and cultivating a nuanced understanding of the intricate relationships among individuals, technology, and living entities. Similar to the first category of objects, they integrate counterfactual actions into various future problem scenarios, employing methods such as unmaking and deformation techniques [58,74]. However, compared to other categories of speculative artifacts, they place greater emphasis on the richness of personal experiential sensations, including tactile [38], gustatory [47], olfactory [75], and the creation of rich subjective perceptions through virtual reality [76]. It is noteworthy that non-material forms of interaction, such as performance and bodily experiences, encourage users to actively engage and focus on personal growth, presenting various solutions. These artifacts can drive users to comprehensively consider the potential developments of issues, starting from personal concerns, and thus engage in more forward-thinking prefactual thinking through tangible, participatory interactions.

“Interventional Speculation” focuses on transforming users’ habits and behavior patterns by presenting hypothetical future scenarios. Unlike other speculative artifacts, this category emphasizes practical, functional impacts on real-world behavior rather than fictional worlds. It identifies issues in current usage behaviors and designs scenarios representing improved habits. These artifacts guide users to experience and adopt new behaviors, therefore improving their understanding of intimate and social relationships. Moreover, they collect feedback to refine designs, ensuring long-term impacts on cognition and behavior. A notable example is “Shape-changing furniture”, which introduces the concept of transitional adjacency in the design of everyday meeting tables: how people negotiate space for collaboration through constantly changing furniture configurations, encouraging dynamic social interaction and prompting reflections on adapting to evolving group needs [51]. By combining physical and digital realms, these artifacts challenge prevailing conceptions and prompt users to reconsider their interactions with their environment. Ultimately, Interventional Speculation promotes behavioral changes in real-world contexts by stimulating creativity and imagination, providing better user experiences, and emphasizing the active role of material objects in shaping human interactions. Thus, this approach differs from traditional HCI design by recognizing materials as active participants in the design process.

“Heuristic Speculation” exhibits a relatively scattered distribution and is not limited to addressing specific interaction technology and usability issues. Instead, it seeks to catalyze broader societal discourses while intersecting with Reflective Speculation, indicating similarities in design intent and impact. These artifacts use provocative scenarios, storytelling, and future visions as tools to stimulate collective reflection and dialogue. They aim to attract public support for certain group advocacies and guide shifts in values through provocative discussions. It focuses on broader, more conceptual themes such as environmental ethics [49], corporate innovation strategy [77], and reimagining human and nonhuman relationships [67,68,78]. These artifacts typically challenge existing policies and socio-technical systems from a philosophical perspective, proposing alternative models of interaction and coexistence. The research by Sabrina Großkopp et al. explores the internal workings of automotive companies by designing fictitious definitions of corporate needs and future opportunities, breaking away from product-centric and narrowly focused innovation demands, thus reflecting trends in egalitarian design [32]. This study underscores the difficulty of translating speculative questions into tangible design implications within the corporate environment. Although these cases involve prototypes that could be directly exchanged, discussions concerning direct practical applications are comparatively scarce. Instead, they predominantly delve into envisioning transformative futures, encouraging deep reflections on the roles of technology, design, and human institutions in shaping sustainable, ethical, and socially responsible futures.

5.2. The Impact of Speculative Artifacts on Human–Computer Interaction

Our analysis of different speculative artifacts reveals their multifaceted roles in enhancing human-technology interaction. Reflective and Exploratory Speculation artifacts challenge traditional HCI paradigms, encouraging users to rethink technology relationships. Interventional Speculation artifacts directly impact users’ intrinsic experiences, fostering new habits and interaction patterns. Heuristic Speculation artifacts provoke debates on societal and ethical issues, stimulating extrinsic reflections on technology’s implications for diverse stakeholders and environments.

5.2.1. Interpretation: Shifts to Ambiguity

Speculative design significantly influences individual interactions with technology by offering alternative perspectives and possibilities. It extends beyond direct, embodied interactions between people and artifacts, encouraging reflection and debate about the current state of reality [79]. This approach unlocks transformative potential by challenging existing interface and usability paradigms. From the perspective of the traditional concept of affordance in HCI, when individuals engage in embodied interaction through bodily behaviors with the physical environment, they rely on the physical interfaces of tools to accomplish tasks [80]. However, speculative artifacts often introduce ambiguity, lack clear cues, and require users to gradually understand their underlying metaphors through personal reflection and long-term trial and error. Moreover, these speculative items offer uncertain interaction modes, enabling participants to engage in more contextualized and performative interactions. For instance, artistic interventions and speculative design activities allow individuals to challenge their current viewpoints and envision new futures with technology [81].

5.2.2. Presentation: Intrinsic and Extrinsic Influences

This study categorizes the impact of speculative HCI products on individuals into two forms: intrinsic and extrinsic influences. Specifically, intrinsic impacts are primarily achieved through stimulating individual perception and self-observation. In most cases, tangible and interactive prototypes are the subject of study, aiming to provide insights into personal experiences and behavior changes. This demonstrates how speculative HCI products can help individuals gain a deeper understanding of themselves and their communication counterparts [12,38,39,52,53,64,66,82,83,84]. These artifacts shape individual experience through diverse perspectives, mediating human perceptions and actions [85] By integrating speculative objects and personal devices into daily routines, individuals can imagine harmonious ecosystems and bridge ambient and interactive spaces to create a seamless and assistive environment.

Moreover, extrinsic influences mainly involve critical reflections on societal and cultural environments through interaction artifacts. Aligning with previous studies on speculative design, particularly those by Forlano & Halpern [86] and Banu [87], who highlight the role of speculative artifacts in fostering critical reflection and ethical considerations in HCI. Through counterfactual actions and material speculations, researchers can envision alternative socio-technical systems that address ethical and social justice concerns. Consistent with our observation, these approaches stimulate critical reflections on societal and cultural environments, prompting users to reconsider their roles within these contexts. Building upon Banu’s emphasis on ethical and ecological considerations, our study extends this perspective by integrating the concept of participatory speculative experiential learning [88]. This addition highlights the active role of users in engaging with speculative design projects, thus promoting a more dynamic and interactive approach to addressing complex environmental and societal issues.

By categorizing these impacts into intrinsic and extrinsic influences, our research offers a structured framework that enhances the understanding of how speculative design can shape individual experiences and societal reflections.

5.3. How Speculative Artifacts Facilitate Conversations on Social-Technology Context

In this study, we categorize speculative object designs into four categories and employ a mixed-method approach to elucidate their interaction patterns and roles in participant-technology and system-environment interactions in HCI. We find that each type of speculative artifact embodies similar values, as designers stimulate discussions among different participants through materialized or tangible artifacts, embodied interactive devices, and intangible activities as mediums. We endeavor to reflect on speculative artifacts from three perspectives: experiential richness built upon a temporal lens, counterfactual technologies and actions, and perspectives beyond anthropocentrism, advocating for how speculative artifacts can foster discussions about society and technology futures.

5.3.1. Dynamics of Temporality and Materiality to Explore Alternatives

Our research proposes that diversity in temporality and materiality serves as a crucial means to engage people in discussions about future possibilities, particularly through reflective and exploratory speculative artifacts. Compared to existing research emphasizing the role of temporality in HCI design [89], which highlights a shift from static artifacts to dynamic events, reflective speculation artifacts employ slowness to challenge efficiency and productivity narratives, encouraging reconsideration of technology relationships and temporal rhythms. Furthermore, exploratory speculation artifacts leverage dynamic, shape-changing materials to create embodied experiences, inviting open-ended exploration and fostering a nuanced understanding of the interplay between technology, materiality, and human experience. By challenging conventional HCI experiences, our focus on interactive objects supported by deformable technologies from a temporal perspective is less emphasized in previous studies, which tend to discuss materiality and temporality more broadly. Moreover, while existing research touches on long-term engagements, our work explicitly aims to facilitate these through the impact of user perception, experience, and technology, offering a fresh perspective on rethinking these narratives in the broader context of human-technology interaction.

5.3.2. Counterfactual Technologies and Action to Facilitate Participation

Counterfactual technologies and actions are approaches within Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) that explore alternative realities and possibilities by challenging and reimagining historical and future events [35]. Speculative artifacts explore how, by transcending conventional characteristics or, as Auger terms it, ‘alternative presents’, participants can reimagine a world organized into different social, political, economic, and technological configurations by asking “what if” questions [8], which open up new avenues for understanding and reflecting on human-technology relations. In our study, Heuristic Speculation artifacts use counterfactual actions to provoke discussions by challenging existing policies and socio-technical systems from a philosophical perspective. For instance, the integration of digital technology with drama, as explored by Barkhuus et al. [82], influences actors’ rehearsal processes in mixed-media performances, sparking speculative discussions on the future of performing arts. In practical terms, these speculative artifacts are used to create tangible representations of these counterfactual scenarios, such as designed objects or prototypes, and serve as focal points for discussion and reflection. According to Laura E. Forlano [86], counterfactual actions promote understanding the socio-political aspects of technology, encouraging designs that reflect ethical and social justice values. Our research further emphasizes speculative artifacts as catalysts for narrative modes and participatory design. It shifts the focus from the artifacts themselves to more contextualized, concrete, and performative guiding tools that inspire critical reflection.

5.3.3. Beyond Anthropocentrism Perspective to Expand Dialogues

More-Than Human-Centered Design (MTHCD) is proposed as a pivotal approach in provoking critical reflections on the future within socio-technical systems, emphasizing its importance in creating speculative artifacts that address the complex interdependencies of human and nonhuman actors, therefore enriching design processes with broader ethical and functional considerations [90]. Integrating speculative methodologies into the discourse of HCI not only shifts the focus from human-centered thinking towards constructing a more-than-human worldview but also embodies the principles of responsible innovation [91]. This shift facilitates user engagement and exploration of issues affecting both human and nonhuman entities, ensuring that innovation considers the broader ecological and ethical implications. Our study found that Exploratory and Heuristic speculative artifacts challenge the human-centered paradigm by emphasizing nonhuman agency and interconnectedness. These artifacts encourage consideration of ecological implications and sustainable futures, prompting a reevaluation of ethical and political boundaries between humans and nonhumans. This aligns with MTHCD, highlighting the necessity of integrating nonhuman perspectives and ecological mindfulness into speculative design. This approach is exemplified by the work of Katherine W. Song et al. [58], underscoring the importance of incorporating material perspectives in design to facilitate non-anthropocentric methodologies. Other studies integrate nonhuman entities into resource discussions from a post-human standpoint, as reflected in research utilizing biomaterials or tools that facilitate participation in biodiversity activities, extending care to nonhuman entities and the environment [38].

Moreover, speculative artifacts are employed to investigate the relationship between humans and artificial intelligence, with studies examining the future of daily life in the Anthropocene from the development of artificial intelligence technology [41,56]. These studies emphasize the cohabitation and interdependence of multi-species, highlighting the ethical considerations and societal impacts of AI development. Through designing fictional scenarios and engaging with prototypes, participants reflect on metaphors of human and artificial intelligence evolution. This exploration fosters discussions about the interpretability and trustworthiness of artificial intelligence and the coexistence of humans with AI systems in the future. By addressing these critical issues, speculative artifacts not only contribute to responsible innovation but also ensure that the development of technology aligns with societal values and ethical standards.

5.4. Limitations and Challenges

This study employs grounded theory to define the forms and impacts of speculative design in the field of HCI through a combined approach of coding and hierarchical cluster analysis. This systematic classification method offers a fresh perspective on the different roles played by speculative artifacts, which has been rarely explored in previous research. However, like most speculative design-related studies, discussions about speculative futures are inherently diverse and complex, encompassing a wide range of societal, technological, cultural, and environmental factors as constraints. This study recognizes the diversity of speculative design and aims to focus on how speculative design within the HCI field maps and directs attention to these diversities. At the same time, the scope of the literature collected in our study is limited, as discussions of speculative futures are broadly present in research beyond HCI design, such as in art creation [92] and sustainability transitions [93]. This limitation narrows the examination dimensions of speculative artifacts to emphasize human reflections on future challenges based on innovative technologies as mediators (e.g., material processes, tangible or intangible interactions, data visualization). Papers in our corpus may not cover all key features (e.g., some papers overlook aesthetics or audiences), introducing additional uncertainties for subsequent quantitative analysis.

Furthermore, both literature coding and quantitative analysis methods have limitations. The interpretability of coding based on grounded theory depends on the experience and understanding of the coders, and although over 90% reliability between coders was achieved, the coding and classification process of speculative artifacts is inherently subjective. Moreover, caution should be exercised in classifying samples based on hierarchical analysis, as researchers need to fully understand the differences between cases and the logic behind the classification results. In particular, when principal component analysis is applied to feature extraction, the simplified process may not fully capture the diversity of the roles and impacts of speculative artifacts in HCI.

6. Conclusions

The disruptive development of AI is reshaping the current landscape. HCI is shifting to a critical engagement with social complexity and to the exploration of possibilities for a more comprehensive. Speculative design plays a pivotal role, provoking debates about the future of society and technology by initiating discussions that go beyond usability and human-centrism. This study employs a range of systematic quantitative analysis techniques, including feature extraction, hierarchical clustering, and dimensionality reduction, to conduct a comprehensive analysis of literature data. The findings reveal four key types of speculative artifacts: Reflective Speculation, Exploratory Speculation, Interventional Speculation, and Heuristic speculation. These artifacts play a crucial role in fostering critical discourse and encouraging participants to envision alternative futures. Our findings underscore the importance of tangible speculative experiences in stimulating critical discourse among diverse participants, highlighting the potential of speculative design to address pressing social and technological challenges. By integrating speculative artifacts into broader socio-technical systems, designers and researchers can develop targeted strategies that provoke user reflection and engagement, ultimately contributing to the advancement of social-technology discourse. Future research should transcend the boundaries of HCI design and explore the forms and roles of speculative artifacts in other disciplines, such as sociology, ecological sustainability, and art. Challenges include establishing a more universally applicable classification framework and further exploring the specific mechanisms of speculative artifacts in guiding people’s thoughts and discussions about the future. For example, understanding how different design strategies and interaction methods can stimulate public engagement and reflection and how these strategies can adapt to various cultural and social contexts is crucial for validating and expanding the impact of speculative design. Overall, this study provides valuable insights into the effective use of speculative design in HCI, emphasizing its transformative potential to foster inclusive, participatory, and reflective practices that can shape the future of human-technology interaction.