Critical design is one of a growing number of approaches that aim to ‘present and define interrogative, discursive, and experimental approaches in design practice and research’ (Malpass, 2016, p.4). It is located outside normal models of design, in that it is generally undertaken ‘for exhibit rather than sale’ (Malpass, 2009, p.1). It is socially and politically engaged, and can be considered a kind of creative activism which seeks to provoke reflection on pertinent societal issues (Malpass, 2016, p.6), and can ‘serve as a resource for supplementing STS conceptualisations of, and practices toward, public, engagement, and science’ (Michael, 2012, p.528).

In opposition to ‘regular’ design (which Malpass (2016) terms ‘explanatory’), critical design is ‘affective’. That is, rather than offering solutions to design problems, it poses questions and ‘opens lines of enquiry’ (Malpass, 2016, p.41). Or, as Ramia Mazé (2009) puts it, it is ‘less concerned with problem-solving than with problem-finding’. Like STS, critical design has a particular interest in considering the implications of new areas of science and technology, which is particularly pertinent to the subset of critical design termed ‘speculative design’. Speculative design uses future scenarios to pose ‘“what if” questions that are intended to open debate and discussion about the kind of future people want (and do not want)’ (Dunne & Raby, 2013), posing questions that explore ethical and societal implications of new science, and the technology that enables or distributes it.  

Critical design can mesh with other related practices and disciplines and borrow methodologies as appropriate, for instance ‘combining anthropological-­style observation and speculation on emergent social practices’ (Gunn, Otto, & Smith, 2013) to develop a distinct style of knowledge. It ‘legitimately uses tools, techniques, instruments, methods, genres and concepts such as fictional narratives, film language, screenplay, storyboard, user testing, interviews/questionnaires, games, but also media and pop culture phenomena…Anything considered suitable at a given moment is legitimate’ (Mitrović, n.d.).

Critical design has largely been experienced within a gallery context. There are few examples of critical design practice being employed specifically in relation to public engagement. However, the PhD of Tobbie Kerridge from Goldsmiths (London): Designing Debate: The Entanglement of Speculative Design and Upstream Engagement (Kerridge, 2015) identifies several projects where articles in the popular press were generated, and public workshops with ‘unfinished’ artefacts were instigated. These activities he considers to be ‘engagement’ in a PEST sense.

In his Hybrids and Biojewellery projects there was what he determined to be a ‘clear move from versions of debate rooted in disciplinary notions of criticality, to versions of public engagement responsive to the interests of science educators and funding councils, and which also invite the vicarious demands of individuals’ (Kerridge, 2015, p46). This, he contends, removes the designer from a position where they are an ‘isolated critic of technology in society’ into a position where the agenda for debate is mediated amongst public(s), scientists and policy makers – design becomes a catalyst to enable these discussions and a builder of ‘formats through which the outcomes of these encounters coalesce’ (Kerridge, 2015, p.46).