Disruptive Design and Sociopolitical Change in Hong Kong by christyho317

[ DISRUPTION FOR CHANGE ]

What is disruptive design and how is it being used to navigate sociopolitical change in Hong Kong?

A dissertation by Christy Hon Yan Ho

Design Management & Cultures

Contextual and Theoretical Studies, Route A

18029839

Acknowledgements

Thank you to my parents for supporting me throughout my education, through thick and thin, for being my source of pride in everything I do.

Thank you to Dene, who patiently advised us all throughout our sessions.

Thank you Hong Kong, for always being my home.

… and of course, thank you to everyone that participated in my thesis artefact and survey. Every contribution helped shape my understanding, process and outcome.

ABSTRACT Disruptive design is a convoluted idea that can be understood differently across different contexts. From commercial application to social change, certain theories and frameworks have supported the journey towards varied goals. By no means does this dissertation argue in favour or opposition of any political standpoint sensitive to Hong Kong. Instead, it dissects the meaning of disruptive design, and a design-oriented evaluation of this unique approach to sociopolitical change. As a Design Management student, my theoretical understanding of Design Thinking greatly aided my exploration into disruptive design theory. Upon writing my dissertation, I was pleasantly surprised to find overlaps between my course learnings and dissertation topic; not only did it help reaffirm my learning, I was able to situate my research and analytical skills in the most rigorous academic practice I have ever undertaken.

My dissertation answers the question: “What is disruptive design and how is it being utilised to navigate sociopolitical change in Hong Kong?”. Firstly, three concepts of disruptive design are explored in the forms of a mindset, systems theory and method. Concurrently, supporting examples of disruptive design forms are diversified in social, cultural and commercial contexts to provide a holistic review. My research question continues to be addressed by establishing links between the three forms of disruptive design and tactics utilised by Hong Kong activists. To constrain my research, I analysed the tactics of the most recent political demonstrations in 2019 exclusively. As context, a brief account of Hong Kong’s political landscape, rationale behind the protests, and the escalation of these events are also reviewed. After responding to how the features of disruptive design have navigated Hong Kong’s sociopolitical change, I concluded with a cultural and ethical evaluation of how this approach could be perceived in terms of eﬀectiveness and implications.

Secondary research methods include, but were not limited to, digital safari, guerrilla research and various studies I found in support of my research response. The main literatures studied closely were drawn from the “Disruptive Mindset Model” (Brett, 2018), “Places to Leverage a System” (Meadows, 1997) and “The Disruptive Design Method Handbook” (Acaroglu, 2017). Primary methods undertaken as a short survey also supplemented my response in drawing connections to youth mindsets in Hong Kong with Brett’s model. In doing so, my dissertation holistically responds to the research question, taking into account the multi-faceted nature of disruptive design, and Hong Kong sociopolitical change.

DESIGN RATIONALE My thesis artefact is reflective of themes such as linguistic subversion, artistic solidarity and conflict. Much like the iterative nature of the disruptive design process, the significance lies in the process of developing my artefact. Drawing inspiration from the Lennon Wall sightings of Hong Kong (p.25-26), I designed a process that involves participatory design to create a spontaneous space of ideas, thoughts and expressions relating to disruption or disruptive design (not local politics). Lennon walls were considered to be one of the most artistically ‘disruptive’ acts of free expression against the Hong Kong government during the protests (source). In light of the new National Security Law, they are now banned, though I intended to contribute to the ongoing eﬀorts in preserving and digitalising these artworks. Harnessing the power of social media, like disruptive tactics demonstrated in the protests (p.21), I uploaded a public ‘story’ on my personal Instagram platform, inviting the audience to ‘participate’ in my process:

After a few hours, I recorded the digital responses in the form of sticky notes and surrounded a wall space full of ideas and quotes. Some of these contributions were humorous, perhaps not even entirely relevant, but they had a place in my artefact in value of inclusivity. My artefact also involved printing A4 pages of my written thesis, where blue paint was used to ‘censor’ words considered to be politically sensitive. These brush strokes is interruptive of the reader’s flow of my dissertation, literally ‘disrupting’ one’s understanding of my topic. The colour blue was chosen, being the political colour of the pro-establishment camp. Altogether, visual style in colour choice was politically deliberated, my process was inspired by artistic disruption and as a Design Management student, I adapted my understanding of participatory design to develop this prototype.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements

ABSTRACT

DESIGN RATIONALE

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1. Disruption in three forms

1.1 Disruption as a Mindset Model

1.2 Systems Thinking approach to disruption

1.3 Disruptive Design as a Method

CHAPTER 2. Disruptive activism in Hong Kong

2.1 Political landscape of Hong Kong and youth movement

2.2 Disruptive mindsets amongst Hong Kong youths

2.3 Digital disruption in Hong Kong activism

2.4 Disruptive structure adopted by youth activists

CHAPTER 3. Analysis of disruptive change

3.1 Cultural implications of disruptive design

3.2 Ethical implications of disruptive design

CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

FIGURE LIST

APPENDIX: Survey Results

INTRODUCTION “DESIGN, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CREATING INTENTIONALLY DISRUPTIVE CREATIVE INTERVENTIONS THAT ARE FUNCTIONALLY IMBUED WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF CHALLENGING THE STATUS QUO AND MAKING POSITIVE CHANGE.” — L. ACAROGLU, 2016 Disruptive design, as a catalyst for sociopolitical change, is not a foreign concept. When we consider the realm of social design — for inclusivity, accessibility, and even human rights protection — we see how being calculative in process can lead to powerful, impactful outcomes. In similar fashion, social change can be achieved with disruptive design. History witnessed successful examples of disruptive change as early as the 20th century during the women’s suﬀrage movement, to the Extinction Rebellion (XR) in 2019 and more recently, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) demonstrations in 2020. Despite having faced unfavourable odds, their sociopolitical goals were still largely achieved due to a united intention: to selectively intervene the system, perhaps even radically so, and therefore enact change to last. Evolved throughout decades of activist movement — this intention to think, behave and design disruptive tactics for change — is precisely what my dissertation will explore.

Fig 1. Screenshot of Google Image result page of ‘disruption’

Defining ‘disruption’ or even ‘disruptive design’ can be a challenge. Plainly speaking, ‘disruption’ is defined as “a disturbance or problem which interrupt an event, activity, or process” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020). Yet, the visualisation of disruption (Fig 1) displays an array of abstract images, conveying a juxtaposed sense of both urgency and inspiration (Google Images, 2021). The reception of disruption is also somewhat conflicting, subject to one’s feelings towards change. No design is absolutely inclusive, and disruptive design is no diﬀerent. However, ‘disruption’ hailed positively in the discourse of innovation and technology — but for whom, and in what sense exactly?

The meaning of disruption can be explored diﬀerently through respective technological, sociological and cultural contexts. Technologically, ‘disruption’ has manifested into somewhat of a zeitgeist of the industry from the 21st century. As we embrace rapid acceleration of innovation, disruptive tech has also presented a considerable overturn of shiny new products like Apple — likening disruption to a business philosophy of ‘survival of the fittest’ (Hollestelle, 2019). Sociologically, definition is defined as “the alteration, dysfunction or breakdown of social life, often in a community setting” (Ulrich, 2016, p.46). An example of social disruption may be a crowd-sourcing platform for neighbourhood projects (Ioby, 2020). Culturally, being ‘disruptive’ can allude to mindsets and behaviours towards societal change, for instance. Mindsets also pertain beyond race and culture; in an organisation for example, an agile start-up might embrace disruption, whereas larger, less lean corporations tend to see disruption as a complication.

This dissertation looks at disruption engaged to navigate sociopolitical change. Overtime, this idea has evolved into the design of forms such as mindsets, theory and methodology. Having said that, disruption can still be perceived as a niche way of thinking (likened to ‘design thinking’), despite gaining a foothold in academic theory and social frameworks. However niche, disruptive change is now being used as a problem-solving approach towards ‘wicked’ problems — namely Hong Kong’s political crisis, my dissertation topic. The eﬀectiveness and reception of disruptive methods still remains controversial: to some, disruption is viewed as extremist, and even ostracised by the public. XR is an example of this: their tactical disruption of public commute garnered immediate attention from those questionable, but also led to many angry commuters, wavering public support. On the other hand, disruptive tactics for sociopolitical change remains popular and likened amongst the youth generation. A survey found that XR rallied the most support from those aged 18 to 24 years old (YouGov, 2019). Since disruptive change is often associated with new technologies, and essentially, means rendering the old ‘obsolete’, it rationalises an appeal to younger generations, namely the youth activists of Hong Kong.

As a youth born and raised in Hong Kong myself, this dissertation is uniquely connected to me through identity, culture and politics. Having never taken part in the political movement myself, I intend for my research to understand and analyse the idea disruptive design and how it can be a tool for sociopolitical change, in the most objective way possible. In light of my direct connection to the dissertation topic, and for the sake of political sensitivity, I respond to my research question from a purely design-oriented point of view.

Chapter One will dissect the topic of disruptive design, through its manifestation in three forms: as disruptive mindsets (Brett, 2018), systems thinking (Meadows, 1997) and structured method (Acaroglu, 2017). Chapter Two then establishes the links between the aforementioned forms of disruptive design and youth activism culture in Hong Kong. This draws upon my own research methods in surveys and insider ethnography, paired with secondary findings through digital safari and literature. Chapter Three, as a subject analysis, evaluates the reception and eﬀectiveness of disruptive design for sociopolitical change, from cultural and ethical standpoints.   7

CHAPTER 1. Disruption in three forms Disruption is a complex idea that can be broken down into diﬀerent modes. Chapter One provides a subject review of disruption, highlighting how disruptive features have been borrowed and manifested in three ideas: as mindsets, systems theories and methodologies.

1.1 Disruption as a Mindset Model We begin by exploring the idea of disruptive design as a form of a mindset, defined as “a pattern of thinking” or “a person’s way of thinking and their opinions” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020). Similar mindsets can be shared amongst groups of people, and these comprise of the beliefs, attitudes and assumptions that form a basis for our behaviours and philosophies towards life (Cherry, 2020). Leadership strategist and thinker, James Brett, contextualises disruptive mindsets in a cognitive approach. In the “Disruptive Mindset Model” (Fig 2), he explains that our brains are run by multitudes of ‘meta-programs’, commonly known as personality traits, where he identifies only seven meta-programs directly accounting to a ‘disruptive mindset’ (Medium, 2018). To be succinct, only the meta-programs most relevant to social change will be introduced: ‘Change Adapter’, ‘Authority Source’ and ‘Conventional’. Brett’s model also inspires my research in the cross-analysis of disruptive personalities of Hong Kong youth activists in Chapter 2.2.

Fig 2. Seven Elements of the Disruptive Mindset (Brett, 2018)

Change Adapter Brett refers to the next meta-program as a ‘Change Adapter’, and those who tend to embrace change or ‘adapt’ quicker are more disruptive (2018). Positive or negative, early adapters are energised even in the unknown, whereas late adapters tend to fight and resist change. Psychologically, mindsets are said to be conditioned by past experiences, by theory of classical conditioning (McLeod, 2018). Brett sees disruptors as fast adapters, acknowledging change without the need for conditioning (2018). They have the ability to identify where change is needed, and may even feel bored in the lack of change (Brett, 2018). Socially, ‘Change Adapter’ is core in the early stages of widespread change: from larger scales such as protest rallies, to ‘smaller’ acts 8

like signing a petition. In other words, ‘disruptive thinking’ and ‘change adaption’ are essentially synonymous, and the former cannot exist without the latter.

Authority Source Brett argues that our ‘Authority Source’ also plays a considerable role in establishing a disruptive mindset (2018). On one end, there is internal authority, where some rely on instinct and past experiences to justify their actions. On the other end, some are inclined to seek external authority from figures like thought leaders or even dictators for decision-making. Brett argues that disruptive mindsets identify with internal authority, as disruption involves the creation of something new without a need for authority figures (2018). Culturally, history has witnessed the downfalls of authoritarianism, and a disruptive rise towards democratic changes (Mérieau, 2020). Since unconditional reliance on leadership has not always produced the healthiest outcomes, true disruptors are uniquely diﬀerent by pivoting and iterating for longer lasting change. Hence, this shifting trend exemplifies how ‘Authority Source’ as just a ‘way of thinking’ can still cause sweeping, universal changes.

Conventional The ‘Conventional’ meta-program implicates the diﬀerences between conformists and nonconformists (Brett, 2018). Conformity, or ‘Conventional’, implies a sense of belonging, approvalseeking and meeting the status quo. On the contrary, disruptors have no desire to be conventional. Disruption and conformity are basically counter-intuitive; Brett explains that disruptive mindsets is key to pioneering ideas even if disagreement is resulted (2018). The idea of disruption is to oppose the status quo (Acaroglu, 2017, p.6) Alternatively, social issues can arise from excess maintenance of the status quo. Clayton Christensen, pioneer of the business ‘disruptive innovation’ theory, argues that healthcare in the US is inaccessible for this reason:

“Too much of the money available to address social needs is used to maintain the status quo, because it is given to organizations that are wedded to their current solutions, delivery models, and recipients.” (Christensen et al, 2006)

Fig 3. Diagram mapping the influence of mindsets (Drake, 2019) 9

Brett’s model is significant because it helps to humanise the rationale behind disruptive behaviours. Although this model was devised for a commercial context, and does not medically determine whether an individual is either ‘disruptive’ or ‘not disruptive’, it does propose a mental perspective for perhaps why some individuals act disruptively. Our mindsets influence the way we approach life, both sociologically and politically. Fig 3 demonstrates how mindsets can establish our values, frame our roles, and ultimately, the events that have impact our world (Drake, 2019). For example: conservative mindsets can establish traditional values, and if a role of a leader retains such mindset, they could instigate significant, impactful events reflecting this mindset.

1.2 Systems Thinking approach to disruption A ‘wicked’ problem is essentially a problem of ‘unfixable’ nature (Horst, 1973). They may be incomplete, lack clarity, have perpetually changing requirements, and hence seem ‘impossible’ to resolve. A systems thinking approach recognises this challenge, but advocates for iterative solutions instead of seeing outcomes as either right or wrong. In this sense, solutions can be limitless, and themes like circularity and dynamism are also reflected.

In order to enact systematic change, one must first wholly interpret the system before locating points of intervention. Donella Meadows, one of the first thinkers of systems thinking, defines a system as “a set of related components that work together in a particular environment to perform whatever functions are required to achieve the system’s objective” (1993, quoted in Popin, 2020). In this case, social change is the objective, and the system’s functions are potential interventions of change. Looking at the system from a bird’s eye view acknowledges the complexity of the system, but also allows us to identify which areas require change, how much change is necessary to better evaluate the eﬀectiveness of such change outcomes. Envision a system as a network of nodes each representing a vital function, and systems existing within other systems: examples of complex systems could be atoms and electrons, ecosystems and forms of government (Meadows, 1997).

The value of systems thinking is evident when we genuinely consider who we are designing for, and where these changes will take effect. Take Hong Kong’s housing issue for example: since government ownership of land has reserved little for public housing, it has only exacerbated the housing crisis, leaving private land developers an unfair leverage over an unaffordable housing market. More than 200,000 people in the city currently live in sub-divided flats, known as ‘cage’ or ‘coffin’ homes amounting to £420 monthly rent (South China Morning Post, 2016). With 21 residents squeezing into a mere 500 square-feet flat, it poses no ideal situation in times like COVID-19, where meeting adequate hygiene standards is virtually impossible (Fig 4). This poorly designed system also implicates factors such as population growth, personal income, gross domestic product and far-reaching government policies (Hu & Shen, 2000). To adopt a systems approach, linear thinking must be rejected. To alleviate the problem of people living in cage 10

homes, it is therefore crucial to consider all components of the housing system rather than simply cite ‘lack of land’ as the root of the problem.

Fig 3. Man living in cage home of a sub-divided flat (Cheng, 2019)

In Meadows’ text, “Places to Leverage in a System” (1997), a total of nine ‘leverage points’ for change can be identified in a system. To be concise, only three leverage points most relevant to Hong Kong’s housing crisis (as well as sociopolitical activism elaborated in Chapter Three) will be raised, from least to most significant:

The power of self-organisation In the context of systems thinking, this leverage point is the ability to “change themselves by creating whole new structures and behaviours” (1997, p.14). Self-organisation is comparable to self-resilience. Without enacting change, organisations and structures cannot last, regardless of state of power. In a natural sense, the human body exhibits powers of self-organisation through regulating biological processes: in our development of bacterial immunity and our mental capacities to process and adapt to new information (1997, p.15). To leverage self-organisation in the system, is to recognise that systems that do so, have better chances of survival. Likewise, systems that lack self-organisational qualities such as agility, receptiveness to criticism and change adaption (p.8) are more fragile.

As mentioned, Hong Kong’s land supply is completely monopolised by the government. This eﬀectively makes land a source of sizeable income for the government, and largely reasons why it is a city that records one of world’s lowest income taxes (Davis, 2019). The government’s increasing dependence on real-estate tax and land sales has remained unchanged for decades, reaching a historic high of 30% in 2018 (Leung, Ng & Tang, 2020, p.10). A weak leverage point in self-organisation lies here: despite Hong Kong being hailed as a ‘tax haven’, this relentless fiscal model has only emphasised the deep-rooted inequalities between the wealthy and poor, or in other words, those who can aﬀord private housing, and those who cannot.

The paradigm of the system Meadows then identifies the mindset as a leverage point as second to most significant (1997, p.17). The mindset of the system, known as its ‘paradigm’, is described by Meadows as “the shared idea in the minds of society, the great big unstated assumptions—unstated because unnecessary to state” (1997, p.17). Paradigms therefore make up the source of our systems, and

why we should view our system as a result of collective ideas, the intangibility of the system.

Again, looking at Hong Kong’s housing crisis, it can be argued that leveraging this paradigm is feasible. From a utilitarian perspective, the government should supply more land for public housing, and seek alternative sources of fiscal income. However, Hong Kong’s capitalist nature is firmly embedded with paradigms likened to ‘trickle-down economics’, an idea popularised by former US president Reagan in the 1980s (Amadeo, 2021). This superposes tax-cuts for the wealthy on the intent that it will ‘trickle’ down resources in the form of working-class jobs and resources. In understanding the power that capitalist paradigms impose, the housing problem appears far more complex than perhaps understood from a purely utilitarian standpoint.

The power to transcend paradigms Above all, Meadows regards the leverage point in transcending paradigms as the most significant in systems change (1997, p.19). Beyond shifting the paradigm, she argues that the realisation that no paradigm is ‘true’ and our agency to be flexible around it is what Meadows refers to as ‘paradigm transcendence’. Perhaps also the least accessible leverage point, yet arguably the most disruptive, we see examples of transcending paradigms inspired in Hong Kong across the sociopolitical demonstrations to be elaborated in Chapter Three.

1.3 Disruptive Design as a Method

Fig 4. The Disruptive Design Process in 3 Parts (Acaroglu, 2017)

Disruption has also been structured as a methodology, typically used in creative briefs or social organisations. Leyla Acaroglu, social innovator and designer, theorised a three-part method for using disruptive design tactics for enacting change in “The Disruptive Design Method Handbook” (2017). Although this method is typically applied in business transformation, certain principles have also been deployed in Hong Kong’s own activism strategies (elaborated in

Chapter 2.3). This section summarises the key points of Acaroglu’s disruptive process, visualised in Fig 5 as a reiterative loop.

As the first phase suggests, ‘Mining’ is about digging deeper, in search for something previously unforeseen in a chaotic system. Acaroglu encourages the adaptation of the role as a ‘problem lover’ where you begin to define the arena to recognise its hyper-complexity rather than adopt a reductionist view (2017, p.17). Although recognising interconnectivity is important, understanding the limitations of your scope is also critical as disruption only works to a certain extent. Formally, in disruptive design practice, a scope would be established to communicate the intention of your actions. Although the intentions of social disruption may not be always be laid out meticulously, we have seen successful movements mobilise quickly through realistic inquiry. For example, BLM raises specific questions such as “How do we scaﬀold and support our well-being through direct action and confrontation?” in their manifesto (Healing in Action Toolkit, 2018). These questions have provoked thoughts and discussion at a global scale, forming talking points for BLM educators to articulate their social objectives to relevant stakeholders.

Amongst the many research approaches at our disposal, Acaroglu recommends fieldwork-based methods above all (2017, p.33). This is because disruption is positioned against linear ways of investigation (e.g. hypothesis-testing) and when we work with real-world issues — research should be relevant by being dynamic and human-centric. Relevant methods could be observation, ethnography and participatory research. Participatory action took a foothold in the BLM movement when we saw a viral shift towards ‘self-education’ on social media. Additionally, online communities have rallied people from across the globe, and facilitated a new wave of solidarity that had advantage over other historic justice movements (Stephen, 2020). Mining, the first phase of disruption, is therefore about prioritising awareness over solutions, in order to frame realistic social goals before anything else.

Fig 6. Interconnected Feedback Loops (Acaroglu, 2017)

The middle phase in Acaroglu’s disruptive method is ‘Landscaping’ (2017, p.47), where we see some parallel with Meadows’ systems thinking (1997). Landscaping uses systems theory to locate intervention points, also known as ‘interconnected feedback loops’ (Fig 6). Acaroglu condenses complex systems into three kinds: ecological/planet, industrial/products and human/people 13

(2017, p.53). All are eﬀective of one another, but for the sake of relevance, this section centralises specially on the human element, otherwise known as our social systems. These systems impose order and maintain the way of life as we know it through governance, society and education— even our own family and friendships are part of a social system (Fig 7).

Fig 7. The Three Interconnected Complex Systems (Acaroglu, 2017)

To identify the relationships that prevail within our precious social systems, Acaroglu refers to these intervention points as feedback loops, of which belong to two types: balancing and reinforcing (2017, p.55). A balancing feedback loop involves input and output to maintain equilibrium. She uses the example of an indoor thermostat to represent a feedback loop between a machine and room in how the thermostat only produces enough heat to maintain a desired temperature level (2017, p.57). Sometimes the output will be more, and other times less, subject to the room’s requirement.

However, systematic balance cannot be successful alone. This is evidenced in the balancing feedback loops that exist in our social systems such as recycling incentive programs, for example. Vouchers have been rewarded to encourage people to produce less waste, indeed leading to positive results in household engagement and reduced landfill usage (Plastic Smart Cities, 2014). Having said that, a report evaluating the success of the UK’s Recycling Rewards and Recognition scheme in 2011 concluded the following:

“Schemes aimed at raising awareness but that do not provide the necessary supporting infrastructure will lead to a frustrated target audience unable to carry out the intended action. Alternatively a poorly promoted scheme with an excellent delivery system in place will simply result in lack of understanding and commitment.” (Widdowson, Maunder & Read, 2014, p.258)

This realises the intent of recycling initiatives as successful, though only to an extent that is subject to understanding and commitment. Reinforcing feedback loops ensure that no social system is ever truly balanced (2017, p.57). Acarogolu explains that whereas balance loops insinuate a ‘give and take’ principle, reinforcement loops can continue to ‘take’ without regard. Acaroglu describes this through the example of exponential population growth. Currently, we see hardly any balancing feedback loops in our social systems to tackle issues such as limited 14

housing, resource depletion and global warming. Reinforcing loops are therefore more impactful, as it highlights the biggest discrepancies within even functional systems. Once feedback loops are identified, Acaroglu suggests systems mapping techniques in her method (2017, p.57). This is where solutions begin to manifest upon intervention points. An example of a systems map can be referred to in Fig 7. There are various systems mapping techniques at our disposal — some as simple as brainstorming — but the importance of mapping lies in our ability to visualise the extent of where to enact change.

Fig 8. Theory of Change Model (ActKnowledge & Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change, 2003)

In traditional disruptive practice, this leads to the stage of developing a theory of change (2017, p.60). It is used as a tool that initially starts with a desired outcome, and works backwards to ideate the necessary steps leading up to it. Applications of ToC have been used for change initiatives for female victims of domestic violence for example (Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change, 2004). Fig 8 provides the model adapted for this specific community project, also known as ‘Project Superwoman’. In this ToC, a very specific, desired outcome is highlighted in orange: to support women in obtaining employment. The narrative of change is then broken down to a series of inputs, activities and outputs, where it appears to be reiterative in sequence. Likened to Acaroglu’s view, awareness (input) is preceded by action (activity) then an outcome (output). In summary, Landscaping is where we view disruption systematically through identifying relationships, models and theories for subsequent solutions.

The final phase of the disruptive design method is known as ‘Building’ (2017, p.74). This revolves around the development of leveraging change as seen in the ToC (Fig 8). Emphasising reiteration in nature, insights are gathered. These take form in “ideas, opportunities, possibilities and provocations” to name a few (2017, p.75), and are essentially the tangible outcomes of the process. Within our sociopolitical context, an example of insight strategy is compelled in the civil disobedience tactics used by XR in 2019 (Fig 9). Daily disruptors such as blocking traﬃc, grounding flights and halting entry to public buildings were used to leverage change (Givetash, 2019). Their radical vision in engaging public and government attention, at the cost of sustained daily life, succeeded: within weeks of the grassroots movement, the UK parliament declared a state of climate emergency and legally binding target for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 (Nugent, 2020).

Fig 9. Extinction Rebellion activists disrupt Canning Town station (Extinction Rebellion, 2019)

After insights, we can start to ideate solutions rapidly using a rules-based approach. Acaroglu lays out ten rules for imagining potential leverage points, but for relevance, only some will be reviewed (2017, p.77). To achieve social disruption at a successful degree, it must first be understood that unique problems require unique solutions, and some solutions can be as simple as promoting awareness. It is also practical to constantly refer to the scope and functions of your sociopolitical outcomes (p.13). Moreover, cultivating empathy is a powerful tool, one of which instigates change through motivations, actions and desires within the human sphere of the main system (Fig 7). Embracing a do-philosophy can produce a wide array of solutions, emphasising prototyping and testing until the planned outcome is achieved (2017, p.77-81). Prototyping is the idea of rapid reiteration for solutions to continually evolve, be more eﬀective, and therefore embody lasting change.

During the prototyping phase, Acaroglu advocates using gamification to explore game mechanics for incentives even in non-gaming environments (2017, p.87). Examples of gamification may include the recycling initiative case study cited in p.14 and Freerice (Fig 10), a website that donates ten grains of rice each time a user answers correctly in an online trivia quiz (United Nations World Food Program, 2007). This encapsulation of ‘learning for a cause’ has gathered 16

over a million users worldwide, raising more than 100 billion grains of rice since its launch (UN News, 2012). Building is a phase that need not be perfect or complete. It does not have to present an ideal solution answering to the complexity of social systems. Instead, it should help to unravel, and perhaps re-initiate a new cycle of the three phases. To recap this stage, insights are established, the concepts of ideation and prototyping are introduced, and tools for change such as gamification can be taken inspiration from.

Fig 10. Screenshot taken from the Freerice website (United Nations, 2020)

The disruptive design method intends to create a positive impact on our social systems at play, and requires thinking in a way that ignores the past — in fact, rendering it completely obsolete. Principles of this method have been applied to a range of successful social initiatives, where this chapter has highlighted through examples in sustainability schemes, support programs for victims of domestic violence and protest demonstrations. This concludes a subject review of disruption, where we addressed the meaning of what ‘disruption’ entails. From here, how these disruptive features are being applied in Hong Kong’s activism will be discussed in Chapter Two.

CHAPTER 2. Disruptive activism in Hong Kong This chapter accounts for a subject analysis of how disruptive design has been utilised by Hong Kong youths to navigate sociopolitical change. It provides political context to the city’s colonial history and how such complications have led to the recent protests throughout the last decade. Primary research is then introduced that establish psychological links between disruptive mindsets and youth activists. Finally, through the research of digital safari, various tactics and methods used in the movement argue how they have been disruptive, with reference to the forms mentioned in Chapter One.

2.1 Political landscape of Hong Kong and youth movement Generation Z youths of Hong Kong, roughly born between 1997 to 2012 (Kasasa, 2020), are known to have played major roles in movements such as Umbrella Revolution in 2014 and the mega-scale protests in 2019. Hong Kong, home to many others like myself, holds a uniquely special place in my heart. For the rest, it is an international hub, the world’s freest economy (Index of Economic Freedom of The Heritage Foundation, 2019) and also where the highest life expectancies have been recorded (CNN Health, 2018). Despite the stellar rankings, Hong Kong is sealed to a sociopolitical fate to ratify in 2047. Its position as a Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), one that falls directly under the People’s Republic of China (PRC), is a result of a convoluted colonial past. After 156 years of British governance, HKSAR’s colonial rule came to an end with an agreement to remain independent for 50 years, known as ‘One Country, Two Systems’. On that account, HKSAR is said to ‘enjoy a high-degree of autonomy’. This maintains a completely separate political and economic system from the PRC: one of which leaves HKSAR wholly capitalist, independently judiciary, and democratic to an apparent extent. As laid out in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration (Constitutional and Mainland Aﬀairs Bureau, 2005), HKSAR has encouraged the practice of freedom of speech, political criticism and rights to assembly — liberties not simultaneously enjoyed in the PRC, where its socialist politics have remain fairly unchanged despite exponential GDP growth in the last decade.

Fig 11. 2 million protesters show solidarity for movement against PRC interference (Tsang, 2019) 18

That being said, whilst this 50-year grace period has yet to come to an end, the PRC has demonstrated acts of considerable interference threatening HKSAR’s independent status. These acts include the kidnapping of politically-sensitive book sellers, violent attacks against Hong Kong journalists and the unjustified expulsion of pro-democracy Hong Kong lawmakers (Boyajian & Cook, 2019). This led to a series of eventful protests, first attested in 2004 when the Hong KongChina extradition bill was first introduced, then later in 2014 when the PRC attempted to intervene the city’s elections for its Chief Executive and most recently in 2019, when the extradition bill was re-introduced, this time recording more than two million marchers at a time (Fig 11; BBC, 2019).

In the article “The Infinite Heartbreak of Loving Hong Kong”, written not long after the 2020 enactment of the much-dreaded National Security Law, Wilfred Chan describes the deep-rooted sociopolitical, ‘wicked’ problem of Hong Kong in a way I most sympathise with:

“The way out was never going to be simple. Liberating Hong Kong from any law or state power, from the totality of these clashing histories, would require undoing colonialism, capitalism, nationalism, and imperialism all at once. This was both Hong Kong’s impossible challenge and the source of its emancipatory potential: to not just stand at the midpoint of competing poles but also produce alternative ways of being.” (2020)

Today, Hong Kong youths are still fighting a never-ending battle against their own wicked problem: independency from an uncertain, militant future. Shortly after protestors began to use masks to hide their identities, an anti-mask law was introduced (Chan, 2020). Later, a veteran activist was sentenced to four months in prison for “desecrating the national flag” (Hong Kong Watch, 2021). Hong Kong police have also been criticised for using unreasonable crowd-control forces like blue-dye cannon guns, tear gas, and rubber bullets (Amnesty International, 2019). For these reasons, young protestors are calling for the necessity to disrupt, in face of oppression.

2.2 Disruptive mindsets amongst Hong Kong youths To evaluate disruptive mindsets amongst Hong Kong youths, I conducted an online survey and applied Brett’s “Disruptive Mindset Model” (2018) to consolidate questions based on the seven meta-programs. Due to political sensitivity, the responses remained anonymous and were not followed-up for interviews. Fig 12 is a screenshot of how I asserted the ethical and privacy implications taken into account in my survey:

Fig 12. Screenshot of my survey

Fig 13. Survey result summary

Using a score-based system, I designed a five-point scale for each question, accumulating 35 points total: higher scores would therefore indicate a more ‘disruptive’ mindset (Fig 13). Every question provided context and appropriate scenarios for clarification. Fig 14 shows an example of how I framed question seven based on the ‘Conventional’ meta-program (p.9).

Fig 14. Example of question based on the ‘Conventional’ meta-program

Out of 33 responses, all of whom were directly involved in the political demonstrations, 26 respondents scored more than 30 out of 35 on the scale. This places 76% of respondents on the more disruptive end of the spectrum, supporting my argument that Hong Kong youths tend to exhibit more disruptive traits, precisely when measured against Brett’s model. Although these survey responses cannot generalise an entire population of the city’s youth activists — cultural markers like Hong Kong’s East-West hybridity and trans-nationalist identity have direct correlations with disruptive thinking (Colon, 2016). Again drawing connections upon Brett’s metaprograms, a strong sense of internal authority (p.9) is emphasised in the leaderless nature of Hong Kong’s youth movement. The determination to remain leaderless maintains a strong sense of agility, explained by Jason Ng, Hong Kong lawyer and political author:

“The current movement is completely leaderless. As a result there is not one coherent strategy. Not one vision. Every day they will react to new events as they unfold…” (2017, cited by Ag, 2019)

Being leaderless presents a greater challenge for Hong Kong authorities to halt the massive movement, once demonstrated in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, where activist eﬀorts were quickly thwarted after the identification and arrests of their leaders (Ag, 2019). The organisational structure of this youth movement without an acting leader or authority figure has been likened to the names of ‘organised anarchy’ and ‘functioning decentralised organisation’ in an article by the Harbour Times (2020). Their unique ‘leaderless leadership’ approach has proven to be disruptive through democratic processes, insight-building and exploiting digital tools. Online forums and encrypted messaging platforms have also aided Hong Kong’s leaderless structure extensively: LIHKG, a local version of Reddit, features a voting system where users can invite the community to participate and collectively strategise future demonstrations (Pomfret, Torode & Jim, 2019). Various contributors to the Harbour Times article describes Hong Kong’s ‘organised anarchist’ style as such:

“Social media also plays a crucial role in the development of the protests. On one end, as we have seen, it allows the organisation of actions without a structural hierarchy to govern decision-making. On the other end, it is also a space to share information about the events as they occur, as well as a one to share the opinions from diﬀerent perspectives.” (2020)

Embracing digital democracy through internal authority is also reflective of Meadows’ leverage point in intervening the “paradigms of the system” (p.12). The fierce sense of collectivism felt in digital activism alone has managed to disrupt the fabric of complex political structures. Digital paradigms are hence powerful leverage points in Hong Kong’s sociopolitical system. However, these points can also pose risks in public accessibility to false information. Hence, to preserve the value in freedom of speech, balancing feedback loops such as restrictions for new users have been put in place by LIHKG, a local version of Reddit. New users must now sign up with a Hong Kong Internet Service Provider (ISP) or local university email, and are limited in votes and posts per day. Such accounts are also labelled ‘P’ — like provisional drivers on the road — as a warning for youth activists to interact with caution, in case of undercover police activity and spread of Mainland Chinese propaganda (Oshawott_12, 2019). Moreover, these restrictions act as the balancing feedback loops identified by Acaroglu (p.13), in reinforcing freedom of speech whilst preventing misinformation at the same time.

As previously discussed, mindsets have a large impact in one’s way of approaching life and decision-making, particularly through political response. This section has evidenced how youth mindsets in Hong Kong have been disruptive, and thus, supported their navigation towards sociopolitical change. As a result of the protests attended by a record-breaking 26% of the entire population on June 17th, 2019, and the many more who showed solidarity online — the Hong Kong government issued a formal apology hours later, eventually withdrawing the controversial extradition bill entirely (South China Morning Post, 2019). Beyond Hong Kong, the world has also recognised the success of youth demonstrators when it won first place in ‘Time’s Person of the Year’ that same year (Time, 2019). This outcome was owed not only to the record-breaking number of participants that day, but also accredited to their persistent agility, attested then, and maintained throughout the remainder of their sociopolitical course.

2.3 Digital disruption in Hong Kong activism The internet and social media played major roles in facilitating Hong Kong’s political dialogue, but more importantly, oﬀered a considerable edge: the ability to quickly mobilise when necessary. It implicates another systems leverage point, Meadows’ “power of self-organisation” (p.11). Leveraging the power of horizontal organisation, otherwise seen as a flat hierarchy, youth activists are able to act responsively depending on police activity in real-time. For that reason, LIHKG was ranked as the most visited site in Hong Kong due to its function as an online headquarters for youth protestors (McLaughlin & Cheung, 2020).

Fig 15a. Screenshot of LIHKG’s landing page

Fig 15b. Screenshot of LIHKG’s thread page

An example of how online systems have been cultivated for disruptive organisation is evident in LIHKG’s user interface (UI). On ‘normal’ mode, the online forum’s UI (Fig 15a) utilises minimal use of colour and streamlined hierarchy of information. LIHKG’s landing page contains a left sidebar of the most popular or ‘upvoted’ topics, and by default, does not reveal a thread until selected (Fig 15b). The thread page maintains a similar level of visual ‘indiﬀerence’ and posts interactions are strictly limited to ‘upvote’, ‘downvote’ and ‘share’ (Fig 15b). Despite being a ‘social’ platform that actively encourages a diversity of topics, LIHKG does not seem to reflect this diversity in its visual aesthetic. Besides from the logo, the overall UI is rather ‘incognito’ for the sake of clarity, anonymity and impartiality (even the most upvoted posts are unhighlighted nor larger in size). Yet, its unappealing interface has attracted a user base of 300,000 members, with tens of thousands considered to be ‘active’ users on a regular basis (McLaughlin & Cheung, 2020). Strategically, this relieves autonomy for users, allowing them to engage without unwanted attention, and also hinders cyber-police investigations into protest timelines and strategies.

Fig 16a. Screenshot of Reddit’s landing page

Fig 16b. Screenshot of Reddit’s thread page

For comparison, Reddit’s UI has been designed with emphasis to personalisation according to thread topic, and its informational hierarchy prioritises the user identity over content (Fig 16a, 16b). Reddit and LIHKG is also distinguished in its user interaction (UI) features: the former has the ability to ‘private message’ other users, whereas the latter does not, confining all interactions to the public domain. This major diﬀerence highlights how LIHKG is considered to be less a form of ‘social media’ but rather, an online discussion forum masking political dialogue, in protection of user anonymity.

Another disruptive UX feature of LIHKG is the integration of the ‘boss key’ mode, which disguises the interface as an Excel sheet to avoid suspicion even when users are active in public view (Fig 15c). This mode is a creative prototype that retains the same degree of UI, whilst being mindful of the user demographic comprised of everyday students and workers (McLaughlin & Cheung, 2020). Fig 15b is exhibited once again to draw a direct comparison between ‘normal’ and ‘hidden’ mode on LIHKG:

Fig 15b. LIHKG’s thread page (‘Normal’ mode)

Fig 15c. LIHKG’s thread page (‘Hidden’ mode)

LIHKG is only one of the many digitally disruptive tools that have benefitted Hong Kong’s youth activists. ‘Telegram’ is a popular messaging tool that guarantees anonymity through end-to-end encryption (Hill, 2019). ‘HK.map.live’ is web-mapping service that tracks and documents police presence according to real-time data, also providing crucial information such as locations of where tear gas has been deployed (HK.Map.Live, 2020). Though youth activists have largely relied on technology as a tool for disruptive change, Hong Kong social science professor Simon Shen notes that culture still embodies the most irreplaceable part of the mechanism (2019, cited by McLaughlin & Cheung, 2020). The iteration of disruptive mindsets, leaderless organisation and digital tools are just some of the aspects that represent this irreplaceable culture.

2.4 Disruptive structure adopted by youth activists Beyond the digital space, disruptive techniques have also been adopted to the protest tactics used by the youth demonstrators of Hong Kong. We see evidence of Acaroglu’s “Disruptive Design Method” (2017) constantly iterated in the youth movement, and how it has presented certain implications for being disruptive, for better or worse.

Although the protests of 2019 were first initiated by the extradition agreement, a social goal that was later met by the government, their objectives shortly evolved to what the activists deemed as “Five Demands, Not One Less” (Chan, 2019). With no horizon in sight for those who seek independency from China — independency, being a far-sought, unrealistic goal — five ‘demands’ were hence formed as compromise, iterated by the violent escalation of events. The demands are as follows (Wong, 2019):

1. Full withdrawal of the extradition bill

2. A commission of inquiry into alleged police brutality

3. Retracting the classification of protestors as “rioters”

4. Amnesty for arrested protestors

5. Dual universal suﬀrage, for both the Legislative Council and Chief Executive

The Five Demands are a realistic inquiry of what the activists aim to achieve, rather than a reductionist view of purely ‘democracy’ or ‘freedom’. It demonstrates use of Acaroglu’s disruptive method by establishing their ‘problem scope’ in an otherwise impossible sociopolitical course (p.13). These demands also represent a main talking point in Hong Kong’s sociopolitical dialogue, where it has a shadow in both online and oﬄine. Youth activists tend to use journalistic techniques in public spaces and social media as a mode of carrying information, much like the BLM movement. This strong channel of awareness also has a presence in the West, prompting the bill passage of the “Hong Kong Human Rights & Democracy Act” in the US (United States Congress, 2019). Certain acts of international support have been hugely practical: the UK announced citizenship passage for the three-million Hong Kong British National Overseas (BNO) passport holders (BBC, 2020). This move will allow even the children of BNO passport holders to immigrate to the UK — particularly benefitting the youth protestors that have been charged with rioting in Hong Kong, and is a key insight in the form of an opportunity (p.14), drawn from Acaroglu’s disruptive method.

Evidence of leveraging strategic change can also be seen in the ‘Yellow Economic Circle’ conceptualised by the protestors (Lau, 2020). The colour ‘yellow’ represents the visual political identity of the pro-democracy movement, whilst the colour ‘blue’ is associated with proestablishment, pro-government and pro-police. Whilst this colour is typically personified from individuals, reputable businesses in Hong Kong have also sided with ‘yellow’ or ‘blue’. This ideological divide patronises typically small-sized businesses whom are yellow, whilst ostracising blue businesses — known as the biggest food and beverage groups in Hong Kong — such as Maxims Catering, local franchise of Starbucks and server for more than 645,000 daily customers (Thistle, 2020, p.15). Protestors have even taken the steps to vandalise and destroy blue restaurants and shops to damage their operations (Fig 17)

Fig 17. ‘Blue’-identified Starbucks franchise vandalised by protestors (Dim Sum Daily, 2019) 24

The Yellow Economic Circle encourages the boycotting of blue businesses, flooding support to yellow businesses instead. For a city known as an international finance hub, even consumption can be politicised and leveraged for social change. Whilst this aspect of culture has a play over disruptive tactics, it also presents a feasible solution (p.13) for protestors or anyone prodemocratic to follow suit. Again, there is a creative pattern of emerging digital prototypes, in light of the Yellow Economic Circle. Various apps and websites provide updated directories for locations of yellow businesses (Shen, 2020). Whilst some yellow businesses achieve their status through financial donations to support protests, others host spaces for ‘Lennon Walls’, a public display of ideas and thoughts around democracy, as well as hopes for the future (Fig 18). Visually, these displays cultivate empathy and a do-philosophy, and are solution tools advocated by Acaroglu in her disruptive design method (p.17).

Fig 18. ‘Yellow’ tea shop in Hong Kong, featuring a Lennon Wall (Lam, 2019)

More importantly, this tactic reduces local economic dependence on Mainland China, through supporting like-minded business owners and creating job opportunities for youth activists. The Yellow Economic Circle has proven to be quite eﬀective: Maxims Catering saw a 22% decline in revenue (HKET, 2020), whilst yellow businesses that were less business-resilient (especially during COVID-19) mostly saw an incline in their profits (Yu, 2020). Kenneth Chan, Hong Kong political scientist, describes the “conscience-driven initiative” of the Yellow Economic Circle as as a “form of protest in daily life which breeds a sense of self-determination and solidarity against the government” (2020, cited by Yu). The feasibility and circularity of this tactic is reflective of Acaroglu’s ideation rules, and has shown to be capable of enacting productive change. It is a move that breeds disruption in a sociopolitical system weighed down by economy, policy and politics. Through systematic disruption on an economic scale, youth activists were able to structure a course towards lasting, ideal change — albeit, at the cost of a polarising divide in consumerism and acts of violence towards opposition businesses.

Chapter Two has highlighted how disruptive techniques have been employed in only some of the many ways Hong Kong demonstrators have used to oppose the police and government, with mention to mindsets, systems thinking and disruptive methods. Disruptive tactics used by youth 25

activists include, but are not limited to, digital tools as specific as UI/UX of LIHKG, Five Demands, Yellow Economic Circle and the widely seen Lennon Walls (Fig 19). Having provided an analysis of how disruption has been designed into a sociopolitical course for change, the next chapter will analyse the implications of this use.

Fig 19. Screenshot of (now removed) Instagram profile “lennonwallhongkongarchive”, featuring various Lennon Walls seen across Hong Kong (Instagram, 2021)

CHAPTER 3. Analysis of disruptive change The final chapter further analyses disruptive design as a catalyst for sociopolitical change. It reviews the cultural and ethical implications of such practice, providing both supportive and counter-views on disruptive change. This extends my response to the research question on a more holistic and objective note.

3.1 Cultural implications of disruptive design Prior to the prevalence of youth activism, the younger generations of Hong Kong were not perceived as particularly politically active (Lam, 2018). However, since the Umbrella Movement in 2014, these passive attitudes shifted massively. Two years later, legislative voters saw a record high of 57.9% within the 18 to 35 voter age group (Legco, 2017, p.3) The demonstrations in 2014 can also be described as ‘disruptive’ in similar ways previously mentioned, where many of the events inspired the creative tactics cited in Chapter Two.

In a report analysing Hong Kong’s youth activism in light of the 2014 protests, multiple interviews found strong links between youth future orientations and political struggles, demonstrating a newfound sense of awareness (Ting, 2017). There is a significant relational quality when we see the scope of youth activism manifested into consumption, identity and even personal aspirations:

“In fact, many youth activists, who took part in the Umbrella Movement, altered their personal life goals and future plans in the course of their movement participation. These shifts in future orientations tended to be expressed in terms of everyday decisions and mundane projects. They include university students who changed their career choices in order to avoid (participation in) potential political suppression, young adults who decided to not have babies or to not invest in Hong Kong properties, and youth who considered emigration as a result of lacking confidence in the future society.” (Ting, 2017, p.8)

Sociopolitical disruption in Hong Kong implicated a huge culture shift that had a role in protest tactics (p.23) and now, its societal structure and attitudes. These changing attitudes have also been described as increasingly xenophobic, as youths begin to adopt a more separatist identity (Pang & Jiang, 2019). Numerous attacks against Mainland Chinese tourists (SCMP, 2019) and prejudice against Mandarin speaking customers (Chan, 2020) were reported that same year. Currently, there are more than a million Mainland Chinese individuals that live in Hong Kong (Zhu, 2019), and the resulted prejudice has only exacerbated the polarising divide between the two cultures in the city, as well as the ideological divide between the pro-establishment and prodemocracy camps. This divergence can easily threaten the deep-rooted, multi-cultural values held by “Asia’s World City”, a reputation already said to be ‘tarnished’ by the disruptive events (Kammerer, 2020). Disruption therefore, can have implications to culture that hinder peace, incite segregation, and even violence.   27

3.2 Ethical implications of disruptive design From a public standpoint, the reception of disruptive tools for change used by the Hong Kong protestors have been controversial. Like XR, Hong Kong’s disruptive protests are largely conditional to self-restraint and solidarity, and a sudden death or case of serious injury can dramatically lose support (Yuen, quoted by Reuters, 2019). Yet, though disruption has no correlation with violence, youth protestors have resorted to violent tactics in their protests. One of the only two recorded deaths involved a government cleaner accidentally struck on the head by a presumed protestor (Yau, 2019). Public opinion often likens Hong Kong protestors to ‘violent rioters’, including the government (Mang & Chow, 2020). This implicates how disruptive change can lead to turbulent consequences, and begs the question of whether use of violence or militant responses, albeit for a ‘greater cause’, can be morally justified.

Systematically, violence realises the uncontrollable nature of reinforcing feedback loops, with great impact to public safety. When we evaluate the violence provoked by the youths of Hong Kong, there are varying degrees. On the less violent spectrum, we see acts of property vandalisation against blue businesses. Then, the escalation of xenophobic attacks against Mainland Chinese tourists, including an incident where a man was set on fire by angry youths (RTHK, 2019). The most violent tactics take place in the clashes between police and protestors, where weapons like tear gas, rubber bullets and dye guns are introduced by police (Fig 20), and likewise, protestors have been seen to return molotov cocktails and resort to physical violence (Fig 21).

Fig 20. Hong Kong police fires tear gas (Reuters, 2019)

Fig 21. Hong Kong protestor throws molotov cocktail (Kwok, 2019)

Traditionally, Hong Kong’s longstanding protest culture has expressed tenacious sensitivity to violence, respecting the Cantonese principle called “woh-lei-fei” (Leung, quoted by Ramzy, 2019). This translates to “peaceful, rational and non-violent”, and dates back to the demonstrations held in remembrance of the Tiananmen Square victims in 1989. However, due to the limited success peaceful demonstrations have seen in the recent decade, the new generation of protestors are resorting to more confrontational approaches, one that challenges elites and authority even if it incites violence. When a tradition like “woh-lei-fei” is disrespected — or ‘disrupted’ — it is both 28

unpredictable and challenging for the public to re-evaluate their political views. After all, disruption regards rendering the old ‘obsolete’, and in many instances, can disregard the implications of doing so. For example, should Hong Kong be fully independent, what would that be of its future? Without modelling a ToC, it is a near impossible consideration even for political experts (Barron, 2020).

Technologically, ethical implications have also been raised in disruptive design. LIHKG is arguably yellow because it has been engineered in such a way that reduces security risks and protection of identity from the police. On the other hand, similarly popular messaging tool Telegram (p.23) is not based locally — designed without privacy in mind — and can leave its systems architecture vulnerable to cyber-government crackdowns against protestor identities (Hill, 2019). This vulnerability was exposed in the arrest of activist Ivan Ip, administrator of a pro-democratic group chat of 200,000 members (Stand News, 2019). Hence, communication technology can favour Hong Kong activists, but only when designed disruptively: similar apps have done little to achieve the level of user privacy LIHKG provides. Human rights technologists have also been critical of this, and rallied for developers and engineers to consider the drastic consequences for users most in need of encrypted security — not just in Hong Kong, but also for activists and reporters in heavily-censored countries like China (York, 2017).

However, politicised technology demands for companies to establish political views, and this has implications beyond ethical consumption. Apple’s decision to remove HK.Map.Live (p.23) from its app store, citing conflict with Hong Kong law, has been condemned by Hong Kong people and activists alike (Hern, 2019). This example highlights the ethical dilemma presented to Apple — and very likely, other tech companies in the future — in face of China’s pressurising monopoly. Systems design, can therefore pose limitations for disruption if not designed iteratively, unintentionally hindering possibilities for radical, sociopolitical transformation.

Chapter Three concludes the main topic by providing an implicative analysis of using disruptive design for change. It contextualises certain negative and positive implications from both lens of culture and ethics, although only to a certain extent. This analysis aims to realise that disruptive design is still a flawed process, and stresses how ignorance should not be feigned in its practice. Consequences of cultural prejudice, violence and technological ethics are also alluded.

CONCLUSION Hong Kong’s sociopolitical future is a wicked problem. Even at this degree of tactical disruption, the problem continues to unfold today. However uncertain and problematic, the success disruptive change has achieved is still being felt: upon writing this conclusion, thousands of Hong Kong youths are rushing to apply for UK citizenship (Tian & James, 2021). The extradition bill remains withdrawn. The pro-democracy camp won its first landslide victory at the District Council elections, with a record-breaking voter turnout in the year of the protests (p.27; Lam, Sum & Ng, 2019). Undoubtedly, disruption has navigated change to this extent.

To clarify, disruptive design has been presented as a multi-faceted approach in this dissertation, and precisely how these varying approaches have changed Hong Kong’s sociopolitical landscape were evaluated. One approach to disruption looked at attitudes, actions and behaviours (Brett, 2018). It deliberates how simply by thinking ‘disruptively’, one can alter their ways of perceiving and resolving certain issues, particularly the sociopolitical kind. Through my survey findings, Hong Kong youths demonstrated similar mindsets, in relation to internal authority and change adaptation. How these mindsets played roles in justifying their sociopolitical decisions were then analysed through the leaderless nature in protest tactics, as well as the escalation in violent clashes between police and protestors. Although tactics are based on logic, disruptive thinking realises the human rationale behind radical decisions, demonstrated by the youth generation of Hong Kong.

Cognitive mindsets, of course, cannot explain disruption entirely. Meadows’ systems thinking approach (1997), supplements the understanding of disruptive design in problem theory. It reveals how disruptive change can be leveraged in seeing a problem as a system, rather than a linear view. Leverage points within the system, such as “the ability to self-organise”, is recognised through the disruptive examples like iterative user experience features and other prototypes emerged in light of activism protection. Disruptive tactics that account for the wider system implicate a much more holistic view of the problem, and can play a major role in the longevity of sustained change. To this day, disruptively designed online platform LIHKG, is still widely used amongst pro-democracy users now unable to participate in physical demonstrations.

Moreover, disruptive design is explored as a structured method, according to Acaroglu’s “Disruptive Design Method Handbook” (2017). Although this process is detailed thoroughly in sequential order, only certain parts of it have been reflected by Hong Kong’s sociopolitical activism, such as the formulation of the Five Demands. The method promotes a more thorough and feasible understanding towards sociopolitical objectives, through both a local and international scale, aligning with Acaroglu’s problem-solving philosophies. This scope of influence has therefore achieved safe foreign passage for compromised youths, helping to relieve a significant number of young protestors from harsh prison sentences. As mentioned, these 30

impactful changes are still being appreciated today, and these sociopolitical impacts can be said to last a lifetime abroad, far from serving a prison sentence in Hong Kong.

There is an irony that lies with disruption when so much of it revolves around the future, and in this case, when the future also looks so uncertain. To reiterate: “Disruptive design, as a catalyst for sociopolitical change, is hardly a foreign concept” (p.6). Disruptive change was witnessed decades ago in other movements, although its conceptualisation is still fairly recent. This approach to designing the activist’s course towards change has been inspirational to various other movements. The “Milk Tea Alliance” formed between Hong Kong, Thailand and Taiwan, has been recognised as an emerging leaderless, youth-driven rebellion for democracy (Time, 2020). It is a network in support of this changing system of sociopolitical, and although their own ‘demands’ may diﬀer between respective countries; a distinct sense of solidarity remains. Whether disruptive design is the most eﬀective approach towards sociopolitical change, is still questionable. However, disruption can be explored in plenty of ways, and in this age of increasing technology, cultural diversity and newfound attention focused our youths, one thing is for sure: disruption prevails, and will continue to for some time.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Acaroglu, L. (2016) Making Change by Design: The Disruptive Design Method, Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/disruptive-design/making-change-by-design-the-disruptive-designmethod-d38e11aed413 (Accessed: November 19, 2020)

Acaroglu, L. (2016) Problem Solving Desperately Needs Systems Thinking, Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/disruptive-design/problem-solving-desperately-needs-systemsthinking-607d34e4fc80 (Accessed: November 19, 2020)

Acaroglu, L. (2016) Tools for Systems Thinkers: The 12 Recurring Systems Archetypes, Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/disruptive-design/tools-for-systems-thinkers-the-12-recurringsystems-archetypes-2e2c8ae8fc99 (Accessed: November 19, 2020)

Acaroglu, L. (2016) What is Disruptive Design? Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/ disruptive-design/what-is-disruptive-design-5988e290ad88# (Accessed: November 19, 2020)

Acaroglu, L. (2017) The Disruptive Design Method Handbook, Disrupt Design. Available at: https:// www.creativityandchange.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Disruptive-Design-Method-Handbookby-Leyla-Acaroglu-Jan-17.pdf (Accessed: November 19, 2020)

Ag, M. (2019) Inside Hong Kong’s Leaderless Uprising, The Diplomat. Available at: https:// thediplomat.com/2019/10/inside-hong-kongs-leaderless-uprising/ (Accessed: January 28, 2021)

Amadeo, K. (2021) Why Trickle-Down Economics Works in Theory But Not in Fact, The Balance. Available at: https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-eﬀect-does-itwork-3305572 (Accessed: January 28, 2021)

Amnesty International (2019) Hong Kong: Arbitrary arrests, brutal beatings and torture in police detention revealed. Available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/09/hong-kongarbitrary-arrests-brutal-beatings-and-torture-in-police-detention-revealed/ (Accessed: January 14, 2021)

Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change (2004) Project Superwoman. Available at: https://www.theoryofchange.org/pdf/Superwomen_Example.pdf (Accessed: January 25, 2021)

Barron, L. (2020) 'We Share the Ideals of Democracy.' How the Milk Tea Alliance Is Brewing Solidarity Among Activists in Asia and Beyond, Time. Available at: https://time.com/5904114/milktea-alliance/ (Accessed: February 6th, 2021)

Barron, L. (2020) With Opposition Lawmakers Exiting the Legislature, What Is the Future of Hong Kong's Democracy Movement? Time. Available at: https://time.com/5912573/hong-kongdemocracy-future/ (Accessed: February 6th, 2021)

BBC (2019) Hong Kong protest: 'Nearly two million' join demonstration. Available at: https:// www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-48656471 (Accessed: January 27, 2021)

BBC (2020) Hong Kong: UK makes citizenship oﬀer to residents. Available at: https:// www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-53246899 (Accessed: February 5th, 2021)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Black Lives Matter (2018) Healing in Action. Available at: https://blacklivesmatter.com/wpcontent/uploads/2018/01/BLM_HealingAction_r1.pdf (Accessed: November 15, 2020)

Boyajian, A., Cook, S. (2019) Democratic Crisis in Hong Kong: Recommendations for Policymakers, Freedom House. Available at: https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/ 2020-02/08142019_UPDATED_FINAL_Hong_Kong_Democratic_Crisis_Brief.pdf (Accessed: November 19, 2020)

Brett, J. (2018) How to Build a Disruptive Organization: Part 1 (of 3): The Disruptive Mindset Demystified, Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/swlh/how-to-build-a-disruptiveorganization-part-1-of-3-the-disruptive-mindsetdemystified-272149692ae5#:~:text=The%20Disruptive%20Mindset%20is%20held,lack%20of%2 0change%2C%20by%20normality. (Accessed: January 25, 2021)

Buchanan. L, Bui. Q and Patel. J (2020) Black Lives Matter May Be The Largest Movement in U.S. History, The New York Magazine. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/03/ us/george-floyd-protests-crowd-size.html (Accessed: January 22, 2021)

Cambridge Dictionary (2020) Disruption. Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/ english/disruption (Accessed: January 23, 2021)

Cambridge Dictionary (2020) Mindset. Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/ english/mindset (Accessed: January 23, 2021)

Chan, C. (2020) Hongkongers’ prejudice and mainlanders: there’s more to it than politics and the virus, Hong Kong Free Press. Available at: https://hongkongfp.com/2020/02/15/hongkongersprejudice-mainlanders-theres-politics-virus/ (Accessed: February 6th, 2021)

Chan, H. (2019) Explainer: Hong Kong’s Five Demands – universal suﬀrage. Available at: https:// hongkongfp.com/2019/12/26/explainer-hong-kongs-five-demands-universal-suﬀrage/ (Accessed: February 5th, 2021)

Chan, M. (2019) Hong Kong court rules anti-mask law partially unconstitutional, Nikkei Asia. Available at: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Hong-Kong-protests/Hong-Kong-court-rules-antimask-law-partially-unconstitutional (Accessed: February 14, 2021)

Chan, W. (2020) The Infinite Heartbreak of Loving Hong Kong. Available at: https:// www.thenation.com/article/world/hong-kong-china-national-security-law/ (Accessed November 21, 2020)

Cherry, K. (2020) Why Mindset Matters for Your Success, VeryWell Mind. Available at: https:// www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-mindset-2795025 (Accessed: January 27, 2021)

Chow, V. (2019) Hong Kong demonstrations are driven by creative spirit, The Art Newspaper. Available at: https://www.theartnewspaper.com/comment/hong-kong-s-international-artisticvoice-is-growing-stronger (Accessed: January 14, 2021)

Christensen et al (2006) Disruptive Innovation for Social Change, Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2006/12/disruptive-innovation-for-social-change (Accessed: January 14, 2021)

Colon, G. (2016) The Hybrid Thinker, LinkedIn. Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ hybrid-thinker-cultural-content-marketing-key-connecting-colon/ (Accessed: January 30, 2021)

Constitutional and Mainland Aﬀairs Bureau (2005) The Joint Declaration. Available at: https:// www.cmab.gov.hk/en/issues/jd2.htm (Accessed: November 19, 2020)

Daisyme, P. (n.d.). What Is Disruption, Really? 8 Examples and What to Learn From Them, StartUp Grind. Available at: https://www.startupgrind.com/blog/what-is-disruption-really-8-examples-andwhat-to-learn-from-them/ (Accessed: November 21, 2020)

Davis, H. (2019) Hong Kong’s tax system explained: why levies are so low, how it competes with Singapore, and why it’s ‘both out of date and ahead of its time’, South China Morning Past. Available at: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/hong-kong-economy/article/2188256/ hong-kongs-tax-system-explained-why-levies-are-so (Accessed: January 27, 2021)

Deloitte (n.d.) Disruptive and Sustaining Innovation. Available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/il/en/ pages/innovation/article/disruptive_vs_sustaining.html# (Accessed: November 19, 2020)

Drake, G. (2019) The tactics and mindsets needed for leading change. Available at: https:// blog.barnar.do/the-tactics-and-mindsets-needed-for-leading-change-5b6ba302b99c (Accessed: January 14, 2021)

France-Presse, A. (2020) 'Hidden language': Hongkongers get creative against security law, The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/04/hidden-language-hongkong-security-law-residents-wordplay (Accessed: January 14, 2021)

Givetash, L. (2019) Extinction Rebellion's activists leverage disruption, arrests for climate action, NBC News. Available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/extinction-rebellion-s-activistsleverage-disruption-arrests-climate-action-n1075601 (Accessed: November 23, 2020)

Harbour Times (2020) Hong Kong protests, an organised anarchy. Available at: https:// harbourtimes.com/2020/02/20/hong-kong-protests-an-organised-anarchy/ (Accessed: January 28, 2021)

Hayes, A. (2020) Hong Kong SAR, China, Investopedia. Available at: https:// www.investopedia.com/terms/h/hong-kong-sar-china.asp (Accessed: November 21, 2020)

Hern, A. (2019) Tim Cook defends Apple's removal of Hong Kong mapping app, The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/10/tim-cook-apple-hong-kongmapping-app-removal (Accessed: February 6th, 2021)

Hill, D. (2019) As Hong Kong protesters embrace Telegram, when will the messaging app fix one of its biggest security flaws?, Hong Kong Free Press. Available at: https://hongkongfp.com/ 2019/07/07/hong-kong-protesters-embrace-telegram-will-messaging-app-fix-one-biggestsecurity-flaws/ (Accessed: January 31, 2021)

HK.Map.Live (2021) Hong Kong Live Map. Available at: https://hkmap.live/ (Accessed: January 31, 2021)

HKET (2020)

22%

[Maxims Decline: Revenue drops

22%. Mooncake sales continue to increase.] Available at: https://inews.hket.com/article/2582410 (Accessed: February 6th, 2021)

Hollestelle (2019) Apple: A prime example of how incremental innovation can lead to disruption (again), Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/@tom.hollestelle/apple-a-prime-example-ofhow-incremental-innovation-can-lead-to-disruption-again-7068299a84c1 (Accessed: November 21, 2020)

Holmes, A., Fulford, J., Pitts-Tucker, C. (2014) Investigating the Impact of Recycling Incentive Schemes, Plastic Smart Cities. Available at: https://www.serco.com/media/924/924.original.pdf (Accessed: November 15, 2020)

Hong Kong Human Rights & Democracy Act 2019, H.R.3289. Available at: https:// www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3289 (Accessed: February 5th, 2021)

Hong Kong Watch (2021) PROTEST PROSECUTION DATABASE. Available at: https:// www.hongkongwatch.org/protest-prosecution (Accessed: January 14, 2021)

Housley, W. (2019) Disruptive Technologies, Social Transformation and the Socio-Digital, The Sociological Review. Available at: https://www.thesociologicalreview.com/disruptivetechnologies-social-transformation-and-the-socio-digital/ (Accessed: November 15, 2020)

Hu, Y., Shen, Q. (2000) SYSTEMS THINKING IN THE STUDY OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN HONG KONG NEW TOWNS. Department of Building & Real Estate The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Available at: https://proceedings.systemdynamics.org/2000/PDFs/hu159p.pdf (Accessed: November 15, 2020)

Hunter, T. (2020) Why disruptive protests are the protests we need, Martlet. Available at: https:// www.martlet.ca/why-disruptive-protests-are-the-protests-we-need/ (Accessed: November 23, 2020)

Kammerer, P. (2020) Hong Kong is no longer ‘Asia’s World City’. Time for a radical rebranding. South China Morning Post. Available at: https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/ 3045695/hong-kong-no-longer-asias-world-city-time-radical-rebranding (Accessed: February 6th, 2021)

Kasasa (2020). Boomers, Gen X, Gen Y, and Gen Z Explained. Available at: https:// www.kasasa.com/articles/generations/gen-x-gen-y-gen-z (Accessed: November 21, 2020)

Lam, J. (2018) Are Hong Kong youths losing interest in politics? By-election turnout rates suggest they are. South China Morning Post. Available at: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/ politics/article/2156351/are-hong-kong-youths-losing-interest-politics-election (Accessed: February 6th, 2021)

Lam, J., Sum. L & Ng, K. (2019) Hong Kong elections: pro-democracy camp wins 17 out of 18 districts while city leader says she will reflect on the result, South China Morning Post. Available at: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3039151/hong-kong-electionstsunami-disaﬀection-washes-over-city (Accessed: February 14, 2021)

Lau, L. (2020) Are you blue or are you yellow? The colours dividing Hong Kong. The Foreign Correspondent’s Club. Available at: https://www.fcchk.org/correspondent/are-you-blue-or-areyou-yellow-the-colours-dividing-hong-kong/ (Accessed: February 5th, 2021)

Legco (2017) Youth participation in public affairs in Hong Kong, Research Office of Legislative Council, p.3. Available at: https://www.legco.gov.hk/research-publications/english/1718issf04youth-participation-in-public-affairs-in-hong-kong-20171218-e.pdf (Accessed: February 6th, 2021)

Leung, C., Ng, J., Tang, E. (2020) Why is the Hong Kong Housing Market Unaﬀordable? Some Stylized Facts and Estimations, Federal Bank of Dallas. Available at: https://www.dallasfed.org/~/ media/documents/institute/wpapers/2020/0380.pdf (Accessed January 28, 2021)

LIHKG (2021) Homepage. Available at: https://lihkg.com/thread/2388287/page/1 (Accessed: January 31, 2021)

Mang, C. & Chow, Y. (2020) Exclusive: Support dips for Hong Kong democracy protests as national security law looms - poll. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkongprotests-poll-exclusive-idUSKBN23W3KO (Accessed: February 6th, 2021)

McCole, A. (2016) DESIGNING DISRUPTION / DISRUPTIVE DESIGN, Blogspot. Available at: http://ilikelocal.blogspot.com/2015/02/designing-disruption-disruptive-design.html (Accessed: November 23, 2020)

McLaughlin, T. & Cheung, E. (2020) Burning Threads, Rest of World. Available at: https:// restofworld.org/2020/lihkg-hong-kong-protests-forum/ (Accessed: January 31, 2021)

McLeod, S. (2018) Classical Conditioning, Simple Psychology. Available at: https:// www.simplypsychology.org/classical-conditioning.html (Accessed: January 14, 2021)

Meadows (1993) Systems Theory Overview. Available at: http://www.cs.unb.ca/~fritz/cs3503/ system35.htm (Accessed: January 24, 2021)

Miller, J. (2018) How to Design for Social Change, Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/nycdesign/how-to-design-for-social-change-571a18e70bf5 (Accessed: November 19, 2020)

Mérieau, E. (2020) COVID-19, AUTHORITARIANISM VS. DEMOCRACY: WHAT THE EPIDEMIC REVEALS ABOUT THE ORIENTALISM OF OUR CATEGORIES OF THOUGHT, SciencesPo. Available at: https://www.sciencespo.fr/ceri/en/content/covid-19-authoritarianism-vs-democracywhat-epidemic-reveals-about-orientalism-our-categorie (Accessed: January 14, 2021)

Ng, N. (2016) Coﬃn cubicles, caged homes and subdivisions … life inside Hong Kong’s grim low income housing, South China Morning Post. Available at: https://www.scmp.com/news/hongkong/education-community/article/2022430/theyre-just-us-exhibition-shines-light-hong-kongs (Accessed: November 15, 2020)

Nugent, C. (2020) A Revolution's Evolution: Inside Extinction Rebellion’s Attempt to Reform Its Climate Activism, Time. Available at: https://time.com/5864702/extinction-rebellion-climateactivism/ (Accessed: January 22, 2021)

NWHM (2020) Woman Suﬀrage Timeline (1840-1920). Available at: http:// www.crusadeforthevote.org/woman-suﬀrage-timeline-18401920 (Accessed: January 22, 2021)

Oshawott_12 (2019) ‘English speakers, here’s an introduction to LIHKG!’, Reddit. Available at: https://www.reddit.com/r/LIHKG/comments/cxuuro/ english_speakers_heres_an_introduction_to_lihkg/ (Accessed: January 28, 2021)

Pang, Q., Jiang, F. (2019) Hong Kong’s Growing Separatist Tendencies against China’s Rise: Comparing Mainland and Hong Kong College Students’ National Identities, Journal of Current Chinese Aﬀairs. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1868102619886597 (Accessed: November 15, 2020)

Pomfret, J., Torode, G., Jim, C. (2019) Inside the Hong Kong protesters’ anarchic campaign against China, Reuters. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/ hongkong-protests-protesters/ (Accessed January 28, 2021)

Popin (2020) Systems thinking and sustainability. Available at: https://futurice.com/blog/systemsthinking-and-sustainability (Accessed: January 25, 2021)

Ramzy, A. (2019) In Hong Kong, Unity Between Peaceful and Radical Protesters. For Now. New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/27/world/asia/hong-kong-protestsviolence.html (Accessed: February 4th, 2021)

RTHK (2019) Man in a critical condition after being set on fire. Available at: https://news.rthk.hk/ rthk/en/component/k2/1491323-20191111.htm (Accessed: February 6th, 2021)

Schreiber, G. (2018) 6 Successful Social Innovation Projects, Real Leaders. Available at: https:// real-leaders.com/6-successful-social-innovation-projects/ (Accessed November 21, 2020)

SCMP (2019) Hong Kong protester’s attack on mainland banker belies city’s aspirations to be a free and democratic society. Available at: https://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/ 3031905/hong-kong-protesters-attack-mainland-banker-belies-citys (Accessed: February 6th, 2021)

Senthilingham, M. (2018) This urban population is leading the world in life expectancy, CNN HEALTH. Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/02/health/hong-kong-world-longest-lifeexpectancy-longevity-intl/index.html (Accessed: November 21, 2020)

Shen, S. (2020) How the Yellow Economic Circle Can Revolutionize Hong Kong. The Diplomat. Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2020/05/how-the-yellow-economic-circle-can-revolutionizehong-kong/ (Accessed: February 5th, 2021)

South China Morning Post (2019) Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam announces formal withdrawal of the extradition bill and sets up a platform to look into key causes of protest crisis. Available at: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3025641/hong-kong-leader-carrie-lamannounce-formal-withdrawal (Accessed: January 31, 2021)

Stand News (2019)

[Authorities crack down on Telegram; ‘International Waters’ group chat administrator arrested] Available at: https://www.thestandnews.com/politics/ %E9%80%BE%E8%90%AC%E6%88%90%E5%93%A1%E4%BA%A4%E6%B5%81%E6%8A %97%E7%88%AD%E8%B3%87%E8%A8%8A-telegram%E5%85%AC%E6%B5%B7%E7%B8%BD%E8%B0%B7%E7%AE%A1%E7%90%86%E5%93%A1%E6%B6%89%E5%85%AC%E7%9C%BE%E5%A6%A8%E6%93%BE%E8%A2%AB%E6%8 D%95/ (Accessed: February 6th, 2021)

Stephen, B. (2020) How Black Lives Matter Uses Social Media to Fight the Power, Wired Magazine. Available at: https://www.wired.com/2015/10/how-black-lives-matter-uses-socialmedia-to-fight-the-power/ (Accessed: November 15, 2020)

Stoﬄe, L. (2017) Pseudo-Participatory Researchers and the #BlackLivesMatter Movement, Penn State. Available at: https://sites.psu.edu/aspsy/2017/04/15/pseudo-participatory-researchersand-the-blacklivesmatter-movement/ (Accessed: November 15, 2020)

Stony Brook University (n.d.). What’s a Wicked Problem? Available at: https:// www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/wicked-problem/about/What-is-a-wicked-problem (Accessed: November 21, 2020)

Thistle (2020) The Magazine of Jardine Matheson. Available at: https://www.jardines.com/assets/ files/NewsAndEvents/thistle/14_vol2.pdf Pg 15. (Accessed: February 5th, 2021)

Tian, Y. & James, W. (2021) UK oﬀers Hong Kong residents route to citizenship, angering China, Reuters. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-hongkong-security-britain-chinaidUSKBN29Y0Q1 (Accessed: February 6th, 2021)

Time (2019) Hong Kong Protestors Win TIME’s 2019 Person of the Year Reader Poll. Available at: https://time.com/5747261/person-of-the-year-2019-reader-poll-results/ (Accessed: January 30, 2021)

Ting, T. (2017) Struggling for tomorrow: The future orientations of youth activism in a democratic crisis, Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Department of Applied Social Sciences). Available at: http://ira.lib.polyu.edu.hk/bitstream/10397/74159/1/Ting_Struggling_Tomorrow_Orientations.pdf (Accessed: February 6th, 2021)

Ulrich, B. (2016) ‘Why Metamorphosis of the World, not transformation?’, Metamorphosis of the World, p.46. Cambridge: Polity. (Accessed: November 21, 2020)

UN News (2012) Online game that helps UN fight hunger gains one millionth user. Available at: https://news.un.org/en/story/2012/01/399842-online-game-helps-un-fight-hunger-gains-onemillionth-user (Accessed: November 23, 2020)

United Nations (n.d.) Freerice. Available at: https://unric.org/en/freerice/ (Accessed: November 23, 2020)

Widdowson, S., Maunder, R., Read, A. (2014) Household Recycling Incentives – Do They Work? 20th WasteCon Conference, p.258. Available at: https://infrastructurenews.co.za/wp-content/ uploads/sites/4/2015/06/Widdowson-S.J.-et-al-65.pdf (Accessed: January 25, 2021)

Wong, T. (2019) Hong Kong protests: What are the 'five demands'? What do protesters want? Young Post. Available at: https://www.scmp.com/yp/discover/news/hong-kong/article/3065950/ hong-kong-protests-what-are-five-demands-what-do (Accessed: February 4th, 2021)

Yau, C. (2019) Hong Kong protests: police treat death of 70-year-old cleaner as murder, saying he was struck by brick thrown with malice, South China Morning Post. Available at: https:// www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3037927/hong-kong-protests-police-treatdeath-70-year-old-cleaner (Accessed: February 6th, 2021)

York, J. (2017) “I don’t want to give out my phone number” — A gendered security issue, Wordpress. Available at: https://jilliancyork.com/2017/08/03/i-dont-want-to-give-out-my-phonenumber-a-gendered-security-issue/ (Accessed: February 6th, 2021)

YouGov (2019) Extinction Rebellion gets most support from young adults. Available at: https:// www.bbc.com/news/uk-48607989 (Accessed: January 22, 2021)

Yu, V. (2020) From loo roll to dumplings: Hong Kong protesters weaponise purchasing power, The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/23/from-loo-roll-todumplings-hong-kong-protesters-weaponise-purchasing-power (Accessed: February 5th, 2021)

Zhu, J. (2019) Mainlanders in Hong Kong worry as anti-China sentiment swells, Reuters. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-mainlanders/mainlanders-in-hongkong-worry-as-anti-china-sentiment-swells-idUSKBN1X90Q8 (Accessed: February 6th, 2021)

FIGURE LIST Figure 1 Google Images (2020) ‘Disruption’ results on Google Image search page. Screenshot taken of: https://www.google.com/search? q=disruption&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj4zubh2bTuAhVEE6YKHY3lCHgQ_A UoAXoECBEQAw (Accessed: January 23, 2021)

Figure 2 Brett, J. (2018) Disruptive Mindset. Available at: https://medium.com/swlh/how-to-build-adisruptive-organization-part-1-of-3-the-disruptive-mindsetdemystified-272149692ae5#:~:text=The%20Disruptive%20Mindset%20is%20held,lack%20of%2 0change%2C%20by%20normality. (Accessed: January 23, 2021)

Figure 3 Drake, G. (2019) The tactics and mindsets needed for leading change. Available at: https:// blog.barnar.do/the-tactics-and-mindsets-needed-for-leading-change-5b6ba302b99c (Accessed: January 23, 2021)

Figure 4 Cheng, B. (2016) Man Living in Hong Kong cage home. Available at: https://hongkongfp.com/ 2016/03/20/hkfp-lens-number-of-cage-home-residents-rises-to-nearly-200000/ (Accessed: November 15, 2020)

Figure 5 Acaroglu, L. (2017) The Disruptive Design Process in 3 Parts. Available at: https:// www.creativityandchange.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Disruptive-Design-Method-Handbookby-Leyla-Acaroglu-Jan-17.pdf (Accessed: November 23, 2020)

Figure 6 Acaroglu, L. (2017) Interconnected Feedback Loops. Available at: https:// www.creativityandchange.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Disruptive-Design-Method-Handbookby-Leyla-Acaroglu-Jan-17.pdf (Accessed: November 23, 2020)

Figure 7 Acaroglu, L. (2017) The 3 Interconnected Complex Systems at Play. Available at: https:// www.creativityandchange.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Disruptive-Design-Method-Handbookby-Leyla-Acaroglu-Jan-17.pdf (Accessed: November 23, 2020)

Figure 8 ActKnowledge & Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change (2003) Project Superwoman, p.12. Available at: https://www.theoryofchange.org/pdf/Superwomen_Example.pdf (Accessed: February 5th, 2021)

Figure 9 Extinction Rebellion (2019) Extinction rebellion activists disrupt Canning Town station. Available at: https://time.com/5864702/extinction-rebellion-climate-activism/ (Accessed: November 23, 2020)

Figure 10 United Nations (2020) Freerice website. Screenshot taken of: https://freerice.com/categories/ english-vocabulary (Accessed: November 23, 2020)

Figure 11 Tsang, S. (2019) Hong Kong Protests, South China Morning Post Available at: https:// www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3014737/nearly-2-million-people-take-streetsforcing-public-apology (Accessed: January 30th, 2021)

Figure 12 Christy Ho (2021) Disruptive mindset survey, survey disclaimer, screenshot. [Link unavailable] (Accessed: January 30th, 2021)

Figure 13 Christy Ho (2021) Disruptive mindset survey, survey result, screenshot. [Link unavailable] (Accessed: January 30th, 2021)

Figure 14 Christy Ho (2021) Disruptive mindset survey, survey question, screenshot. [Link unavailable] (Accessed: January 30th, 2021)

Figure 15a LIHKG (2021) Homepage. Screenshot taken of: https://lihkg.com/ (Accessed: January 30th, 2021)

Figure 15b LIHKG (2021) Thread page (normal). Screenshot taken of: https://lihkg.com/thread/2388287/page/ 1 (Accessed: January 30th, 2021)

Figure 15c LIHKG (2021) Thread page (hidden). Screenshot taken of: https://lihkg.com/thread/2388287/page/ 1 (Accessed: January 30th, 2021)

Figure 16a Reddit (2021) Homepage. Screenshot taken of: https://www.reddit.com/ (Accessed: January 30th, 2021)

Figure 16b Reddit (2021) Thread page. Screenshot taken of: https://www.reddit.com/r/SatoshiStreetBets/ Accessed: January 30th, 2021)

Figure 17 Dim Sum Daily (2019) Starbucks in Wan Chai & Festival Walk and two other outlets owned by Maxim’s Caterers vandalised by protesters. Available at: https://www.dimsumdaily.hk/starbucksin-wan-chai-festival-walk-and-two-other-outlets-owned-by-maxims-caterers-vandalised-byprotesters/ (Accessed: February 20th, 2021)

Figure 18 Lam, Y. (2020) ‘Yellow’ tea shop. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/19/world/asia/ hong-kong-protests-yellow-blue.html (Accessed: January 30th, 2021)

Figure 19 hongkonglennonwallarchive (2021) Instagram. Screenshot taken of: https://www.instagram.com/ hongkonglennonwallarchive/ [Now unavailable] (Accessed: February 5th, 2021)

Figure 20 Reuters (2019) Hong Kong police fires tear gas. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/worldasia-china-53942295 (Accessed: February 5th, 2021)

Figure 21 Kwok, B. (2019) Protests squared oﬀ with police. Available at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/hongkongs-protesters-test-riot-police-in-game-of-cat-and-mouse-11565444342 (Accessed: February 5th, 2021)

APPENDIX: Survey Results

Disruptive Design and Sociopolitical Change in Hong Kong

Articles inside

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CHAPTER 1. Disruption in three forms

DESIGN RATIONALE

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2. Disruptive activism in Hong Kong

CHAPTER 3. Analysis of disruptive change

CONCLUSION

ABSTRACT

Acknowledgements