“We discussed which texts had lingered and shaped us while we sat in a café in the park, each feeling like we had stolen ourselves from work, freed from our desks and devices, despite the fact that we sat discussing a research project. I remember mentioning the work of Jane Rendell, Jack Halberstam, Donna Haraway, and Katherine McKittrick whose work I encountered thanks to you… These works do not include an introduction that details their originality and impact. To engage with them has been to follow a trail of breadcrumbs through the woods. They have taken me somewhere entirely elsewhere, but I have had to work to follow them. I picture their disdain for the slides I am shown in a REF Impact workshop, these strategies to make work appealing to assessors. I imagine them laughing and slipping away between the trees, or at least that is what I want for them, to remain untethered and elusive, free to revel in wild strangeness.”
How do we sustain creative work in the face of burnout, institutional crisis, the end of funding, the mess of life? Like the workshops that it addresses, this article is a deliberate attempt to resist closure. It draws on the ongoing work of our “Speculative Space” project, which uses “SF as a creative practice for engagement and critical reflection within GLAM space”—galleries, libraries, archives, and museums. This project has comprised a series of workshops oriented around site-specific small acts of collective making. Over the last three years we have gathered in the back rooms of the Winchester Gallery, the Women’s Art Library, the Whitechapel Gallery, Science Museum London, the Museum of English Rural Life, the Natural History Museum, and in the digital institutional spaces of Teams meetings. Each workshop was fragile and fleeting, and the record of the work which lingers in photographs, quotes, and ephemera is only an echo of the true outcome which was in the act of gathering, the trust engendered, and the space created for concerns to be voiced. How then to document this work, and to answer the institutional demands to validate its worth using the metrics of academic research and funding frameworks?
In answer, this article consists of a series of images of scanned and annotated pages which revel in relational complexity. They are layered and non-linear, and while this reflects our ambitions for this work we do not want this form of representation to be an act of exclusion. Embedded within this work is metadata including the original bid and tracked changes as alt text, and image descriptions for each page and the photographs within, in a further digital layering of code and content.
Scroll down to view the images, or click this link to access the accessible version as a Word document.









Acknowledgements
The original Speculative Space project website can be accessed here: speculativespace.wordpress.com. It includes images and materials from, as well as further reflections on, the workshops.
This publication was supported by the AHRC’s Impact Acceleration Award [University of Southampton and University of Reading IAA accounts 2022-25]; and by a BA/Leverhulme Small Research Grant [grant number SRG25/250355].
It was also supported by our collaborations and engagements with the people whose work and words are included in this piece, most directly Noriko Suzuki-Bosco, Hannah Ishmael, Etta Mae Brookes, Ibtisam Ahmed, Anurita Chandola, Ellis Walker, Frankie Hallam, Tom Dillon, Jessa Mockridge, Verity Burke, Shanique Thompson, Olu Jenzen, Sarah Hayden, Annie Jael Kwan, Angela YT Chan, and anonymous Readers #1 and #2. More traditionally cited are the Salvage Editorial Collective, Evan Calder Williams, Emma Gomis, Avery F. Gordon, Gil Z. Hochberg, Stephen Shaviro, and Jack Halberstam. Many more uncited individuals and groups made this work possible, including the attendees and coordinators of the Speculative Space workshops.