Synopsys
This paper examines speculative methods as an innovative approach in postdigital research and teaching, focusing on their ethical implications in higher education. It argues that such methods, while enabling engagement with uncertainty and future-oriented inquiry, also shape how futures are imagined and thus require careful ethical reflection. The paper calls for a rethinking of research integrity as a reflexive, responsibility-driven practice in the context of speculative knowledge production.
Abstract
This article examines the use of speculative methods in postdigital research and teaching, positioning them as an emerging and innovative methodological approach that raises important ethical considerations within higher education. Speculative methods are increasingly employed to engage with uncertainty, complexity, and future-oriented inquiry, opening up spaces of possibility and exploring the “not-yet” as a productive site of knowledge-making (Ross, 2022; Wilkie et al., 2017). As Ross (2022) argues, the future is neither an empty container to be filled nor a predetermined trajectory to be discovered; rather, it is actively shaped through present practices, relations, and imaginaries. In this sense, speculative methods operate not as tools for prediction, but as practices for engaging with possibilities and following them to see where they lead, foregrounding the relational and processual nature of future-making. Consequently, their application in research and teaching is inherently ethical, as it involves responsibility for how futures are imagined, whose perspectives are included, and what forms of knowledge are legitimised within higher education (Facer, 2021; Adam & Groves, 2007).
Situated within broader shifts in postdigital research, speculative approaches resonate with critiques of linear, evidence-based, and technologically deterministic models of knowledge production (Jandrić et al., 2018; Knox, 2019). Postdigital perspectives emphasise entanglement, hybridity, and the inseparability of digital and non-digital dimensions of experience, challenging clear distinctions between past, present, and future. Within this context, speculative methods offer a way to engage with complexity without reducing it, enabling researchers and educators to attend to the dynamic interplay of social, technological, cultural, and political forces that shape educational practices in higher education.
A central contribution of speculative methods lies in their capacity to reframe research as a generative and exploratory practice. Rather than seeking to solve predefined problems, speculative inquiry often engages in what Michael (2012) describes as “inventive problem-making,” opening up new questions and unsettling established assumptions. This shift challenges dominant understandings of research as a process of producing definitive answers and instead positions it as an ongoing engagement with uncertainty, emergence, and relationality. In doing so, speculative methods create space for unanticipated outcomes, surprising insights, and alternative imaginaries that might not emerge within more structured or outcome-oriented frameworks (Ross, 2022).
For example, speculative methods in higher education may take the form of future-oriented scenario design, where students are asked to imagine and critically evaluate possible educational or technological futures, or the creation of speculative artefacts and narratives that materialise alternative sociotechnical arrangements (Ross, 2022; Wilkie et al., 2017). In teaching contexts, such approaches have been used to explore issues such as the role of artificial intelligence in assessment or the future of academic authorship. While these practices foster critical thinking and ethical awareness, they also introduce specific ethical risks. For instance, speculative scenarios may unintentionally reinforce dominant or exclusionary imaginaries, privileging certain perspectives while marginalising others. These examples illustrate that the application of speculative methods requires careful ethical consideration, particularly in relation to representation, inclusion, and the potential consequences of future-oriented inquiry in higher education (Ross, 2022).
The openness of these methods also intensifies ethical challenges. Speculative methods do not simply describe futures; they actively participate in their construction. As such, they raise important questions about responsibility, accountability, and the consequences of future-oriented knowledge practices in higher education. Drawing on Adam and Groves (2007), futures are always entangled with ethical considerations, as they involve decisions about what is valued, prioritised, and made possible. Similarly, Facer (2021) emphasises the need for an explicitly ethical orientation in educational futures work, particularly in relation to whose futures are imagined, whose voices are included or excluded, and how power operates within these processes. Ross (2022) further highlights that speculative practices generate both “openings and closures,” shaping what can be thought, imagined, and enacted, and therefore require careful attention to the dynamics of participation and engagement.
Ethical considerations are also closely linked to the question of knowledge claims in speculative research. Unlike conventional empirical approaches, speculative methods do not produce stable or universally generalisable findings. Instead, they generate often imaginative forms of knowledge that must be evaluated differently. As Ross (2022) suggests, working speculatively involves acknowledging that representing knowledge differently creates different futures, and that these representations carry consequences. This aligns with broader discussions in qualitative research about the need to rethink criteria of validity in ways that account for creativity and resonance (Tracy, 2010). In this sense, ethics is not an external constraint on speculative work but is embedded within its epistemological foundations, shaping how knowledge is produced and interpreted.
Furthermore, speculative methods invite critical reflection on the politics of future-making. Futures are not neutral; they are shaped by existing power relations, dominant narratives, and institutional priorities. As Ross (2022) suggests, all visions of the future are “views from somewhere,” reflecting particular perspectives and assumptions. This raises important questions about the potential “colonisation of the future” (Milojević, 2005), where certain imaginaries dominate while others are marginalised or excluded. Speculative methods, when applied critically, can challenge such dynamics by creating space for alternative voices. However, this requires a conscious and reflexive approach that recognises the ethical and political stakes of speculative work.
In conclusion, speculative methods offer a powerful and timely approach for engaging with the complexities and uncertainties of contemporary research and teaching in higher education. By foregrounding imagination, relationality, and openness, they enable new forms of inquiry that move beyond instrumental and predictive paradigms. At the same time, they demand heightened ethical awareness, requiring researchers and educators to take responsibility for the futures they help to imagine and enact. In this sense, speculative methods are not only methodological innovations but also ethical practices, contributing to more reflexive, inclusive, and responsible engagements with the future.
Keywords: speculative methods; ethics of future-making; postdigital research; future-oriented inquiry; ethical responsibility
References:
Adam, B., & Groves, C. (2007). Future matters: Action, knowledge, ethics. Brill.
Biesta, G. (2007). Why “what works” won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2006.00241.x
Bretag, T. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of academic integrity. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7
Facer, K. (2021). Futures in education: Towards an ethical practice. UNESCO.
Jandrić, P., Knox, J., Besley, T., Ryberg, T., Suoranta, J., & Hayes, S. (2018). Postdigital science and education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(10), 893–899. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2018.1454000
Knox, J. (2019). What does the ‘postdigital’ mean for education? Three critical perspectives on the digital, with implications for educational research and practice. Postdigital Science and Education, 1(2), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-019-00045-y
Michael, M. (2012). What are we busy doing? Engaging the idiot. Science, Technology & Human Values, 37(5), 528–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243911428624
Milojević, I. (2005). Educational futures: Dominant and contesting visions. Routledge.
Ross, J. (2022). Digital futures for learning: Speculative methods and pedagogies. Routledge.
Springgay, S., & Truman, S. E. (2018). On the need for methods beyond proceduralism: Speculative middles, (in)tensions, and response-ability in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 24(3), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800417704464
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
Wilkie, A., Savransky, M., & Rosengarten, M. (Eds.). (2017). Speculative research: The lure of possible futures. Routledge.