Current 08

G G G G G G G G G G G G G

E E E E E E E E E E E E E

N N N N N N N N N N N N N

E E E E E E E E E E E E E

R R R R R R R R R R R R R

A A A A A A A A A A A A A

T T T T T T T T T T T T T

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

V V V V V V V V V V V V V

E E E E E E E E E E E E E

R R R R R R R R R R R R R

G G G G G G G G G G G G G

E E E E E E E E E E E E E

N N N N N N N N N N N N N

E E E E E E E E E E E E E

R R R R R R R R R R R R R

A A A A A A A A A A A A A

T T T T T T T T T T T T T

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

V V V V V V V V V V V V V

E E E E E E E E E E E E E

R R R R R

R R R R R R

E

G G G G G G G G G G G G G

E E E E E E E E E E E E E

N N N N N N N N N N N N N

E E E E E E E E E E E E E

R R R R R R R R R R R R R

A A A A A A A A A A A A A

T T T T T T T T T T T T T

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

V V V V V V V V V V V V V

E E E E E E E E E E E E E

R R R R R R R R R R R R R

E E E E E E E E E E

G G G G G G G G G G G G G

E E E E E E E E E E E E E

N N N N N N N N N N N N N

E E E E E E E E E E E E E

R R R R R R R R R R R R R

A A A A A A A A A A A A A

T T T T T T T T T T T T T

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

V V V V V V V V V V V V V

E E E E E E E E E E E E E

R R R R R R R R R R R R R

E E E E E E E E E E E E E

G G G G G G G G G G G G

E E E E E E E E E E E E

N N N N N N N N N N N N

E E E E E E E E E E E E

R R R R R R R R R R R R

A A A A A A A A A A A A

T T T T T T T T T T T T

I I I I I I I I I I I I

V V V V V V V V V V V V

E E E E E E E E E E E E

R R R R R R R R R R R R

E E E E E E E E E E E

E E E E E E E E E E E

S S S S S S S S S

E E E E E E E E

A A A A A A

A A A A

R R R R R

S S S S S S S S S S S S S

S S S S S S S S S

E E E E

E E E E E E E E E E E E E

E E E E E E E

O O O

C C C

I I I

A A A

L L L

H H H

A A A A

N N N N

D D D D

S S S S

O O O O

C C C C

I I I I

A A A A

L L L

I

H H H H H H H H H H H H H

A A A A A A A A A A A A A

N N N N N N N N N N N N N

D D D D D D D D D D D D D

S S S S S S S S S S S S S

O O O O O O O O O O O O O

C C C C C C C C C C C C C

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

A A A A A A A A A A A A A

L L L L L L L L L L L L L

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

H

A N D A N D

S S

O O

C C

I I

A

R

C C

R R R R R

C C C C C

R R R R

E

S S S S S S S

S S S

H H H H

S A A

A N D A N D A N D

C C C C

C C C C C

I I I I

N N N N N

N N N N N N N N N N N N N

A A

A A A A A A A A A A A A A

A A A A A A

N N N N N N

N N N N N N N N N N N N N

N

R

C C C

H H H H

A A A A A

N N N N N

D D D D D

R R R R R R R R R R R R R

C C C C C C C C C C C C C

H H H H H H H H H H H H H

A A A A A A A A A A A A A

N N N N N N N N N N N N N

D D D D D D D D D D D D D

C

H H

A N D A N D A N D

R R R R R

C C C C

H H H H

A N D A N D A N D

S S S S S

O O O O O

C C C C C

I I I I I

A A A A A

L L L L

I I

N

S S S S S S S S S S S S S

O O O O O O O O O O O O O

C C C C C C C C C C C C C

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

A A A A A A A A A A A A A

L L L L L L L L L L L L L

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

N N N N N N N N N N N N N

S S S

O O O

C C C

I I I

A A A

L L

O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O

V V V V V V V V

V V V V V V V V V V V V V

V V V V

A A A A A A A A A

T T T T T T T T T T T

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

O O O O O O O O O O O O O

N N N N N N N N N N N N N

G G G G G G G G G G G G G

E E E E E E E E E E E E E

N N N N N N N N N N N N N

E E E E E E E E E E E E E

R R R R R R R R R R R R R

G G G G G G G G G G G G G

E E E E E E E E E E E E E

N N N N N N N N N N N N N

E E E E E E E E E E E E E

R R R R R R R R R R R R R

G G G G G G G G G G G G G

E E E E E E E E E E E E E

N N N N N N N N N N N N N

E E E E E E E E E E E E E

R R R R R R R R R R R R R

N N N N N N N N N N N N N

G G G G G G G G G G G G G

E E E E E E E E E E E E E

N N N N N N N N N N N N N

E E E E E E E E E E E E E

R R R R R R R R R R R R R

N N N N N N N N N N N N

G G G G G G G G G G G G

E E E E E E E E E E E E

N N N N N N N N N N N N

E E E E E E E E E E E E

R R R R R R R R R R R R

A A A A A A A A A A A A A

T T T T T T T T T T T T T

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

O O O O O O O O O O O O O

N N N N N N N N N N N N N

A A A A A A

T T T T T T T T

I I I I I I I I I I

O O O O O O O O O O O O

N N N N N N N N N N N N N

G E N E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H A N D S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N

DESIGN RESEARCH JOURNAL ISSUE 08 N N N N N N N N N N N

EMILY CARR N N U N I V E R S I T Y I ON F N A R T + D E S I G NN N S S

O O

C C

I I

A A

L L

I I

N N

N N

O O O O O O

V V V V V V V

A A A A A A A A

T T T T T T T T T

I I I I I I I I I I I

O O O O O O O O O O O O

G G G G

I V E E R A T I V E E N E R A T I V E G E N E R A T I V G E N E R A T I V G E N E R A T I V G E N E R A T I V E N E R A T I V E E N E R A T I V E E N E R A T I V E E N E R A T I V E

G G G G

E E E E

BUDGET MANAGER Bri Minsoo Kim

ILLUSTRATORS Jingjing Wang Nami Ha

PHOTOGRAPHER Grace Finnie

DESIGNERS Bri Minsoo Kim Joyce Peng Laurens Spangenberg Olivia Wakeham Sabrina Lam

PRODUCTION MANAGERS Laurens Spangenberg Olivia Wakeham

G

ASSISTANT EDITOR Brianna Collins Sabirna Lam

ART DIRECTOR Cathy Yang Sahil Mroke

FOUNDING EDITORS Bonne Zabolotney Deborah Shackleton

Current is published annually. ©2018. All rights reserved. current@ecuad.ca

Phone 604-844-3800 Toll Free: 1-800-832-7788 Fax: 1-604-844-3801

CURRENT ADVISORY BOARD Bonne Zabolotney Celeste Martin Cameron Neat Deborah Shackleton Dr. Ron Burnett Grant Gregson

EMILY CARR UNIVERSITY OF ART + DESIGN 520 E 1st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5T 0H2 Canada

EDITORS Celeste Martin Deborah Shackleton

REVIEWERS Aldona Czajewska Jesse Cathcart Jessica Bayntun Mariko Kuroda Michal Cabaj Prakriti Mukhopadhyay Reyhaneh Yazdani Ricardo Leal Barrocas Sukriti Tandon Song Tang Tammy Tan Yufei Yao

G G G G G G

E E E E E E E E E

G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G

G G G G

E E E E

N N N N N N N N N E E E E

E E E E E E E E E

E E E E E E E E E E E E

N N N N N N N N N N N N

E E E E E

N N N N N

R R R R

A A A A

T T T T

T T T T T

I I I I

R R R R R R R R R N N N N

A A A A A A A A A

E E E E E E E E E E E E

R R R R R R R R R R R R

A A A A A A A A A A A A

T T T T T T T T T T T T

I I I I I I I I I I I I

E E E E E

R R R R R

A A A A A

T T T T T

I I I I I

V V V V

I I I I I T T T T E E E E

V V V V V I I I I

V V V V V V V V V V V V

E E E E

R R R R E E E

R R R R

E E E E

E E E E

S S S S

E E E E

E E E E E E E E E E E E

V E V E V E V E V E G E N E R A T I V G E N E R A T I V G E N E R A T I V G E N E R A T I V E N E R A T I V E E N E R A T I V E E N E R A T I V E E N E R A T I V E

R R R R A A A A

E E E E

R R R R R S S S S T T T T

E E E E

R R R R R R R R R R R R

S S S S

A A A A A E E E E A A A A

R R R R R S S S S R R R R

C C C C C E E E E C C C C

H H H H H A A A A H H H H

E A R C H E A R C H E A R C H E A R C H R E S E A R R E S E A R R E S E A R R E S E A R C H R E S E A R C H R E S E A R C H R E S E A R C H R E S E A R C R E S E A R C

E E E E E V V V V R R R R

E E E E E R R R R E E E E

S S S S

E E E E

E E E E G E N E R A T I V G E N E R A T I V G E N E R A T I V E N E R A T I V E E N E R A T I V E E N E R A T I V E E N E R A T I V E E N E R A T I V E E N E R A T I V E

G G G G G G G G G G G G G

N N N N

R R R R

E E E E E E E E S S S S

R R R R R

E E E E E E E E E

S S S S S S S S E E E E

E E E E E

E E E E E E E E A A A A

S S S S S

E E E E R R R R

E E E E

S S S S S A A A A I I I I

S S S S

E E E E E R R R R

A A A A A A A A R R R R

E E E E E R R R R E E E E

A A A A A C C C C V V V V

R R R R R H H H H

C C C C C C C C

H H H H H H H H

C C C C C E E E E C C C C

H H H H H A A A A H H H H

R R R R R R R R C C C C

A A A A A E E E E A A A A

C C C C

N N N N N

N N N N

D D D D

N N N N

D D D D

A A A A

N N N N A A

S O C S O C S O C S O C A N D S A N D S A N D S D S O C D S O C D S O C D S O C N D S O N D S O

A A A A A A A A A

N N N N N N N N N

D D D D D D D D D

A A A A C H C H C H

H H C C C C C

H H H H H

D D D D D A A A A

S S S S S S S S S R R R R

A A A A A A A A A A A A

R R R R

S S S S S D D D D S S S S

N N N N

E E E E

H H H H R R R R R S S S S R R R R

R R R R

A A A A A H H H H A A A A

N N N N N N N N

C C C C

N N N N

D D D D

D D D D D D D D A A A A A H H H H A A A A

S S S S S S S S S S S S

N N N N N

D D D D D A A A A

N N N N

O O O O O O O O

D D D D

N N N N

O O O O O

C C C C C

O O O O

C C C C

O C O C O C O C O C O O O O E E E E O O O O

C C C C

C C C C C C C C

I I I I I I I I

S S S S S D D D D S S S S

O O O O O

O O O O

C C C C C

I I I I I

O O O O O I I I I O O O O

N N N N N O O O O N N N N

G G G G G N N N N G G G G

E E E E E

O O O O I I I O O O O O O

N N N N O O O N N N N N N

O N O N O N O N O N C I A L I O N C I A L I O N C I A L I O N C I A L I O N R E S E R E S E R E S E R E S E R R C I A L I N N O V A T I R C I A L I N N O V A T I R C I A L I N N O V A T I R C I A L I N N O V A T I R A L I N N O V A T I R A L I N N O V A T I R A L I N N O V A T I R A L I N N O V A T I R A L I N N O V A T I R A L I N N O V A T I R A L I N N O V A T I R A L I N N O V A T I R A SOCIAL INNOVATION GENERATIVE DESIGN R N SOCIAL DESIGN D SOCIAL GENERATIVE A SOCIAL DESIGN N SOCIAL GENERATIVE D SOCIAL DESIGN A SOCIAL GENERATIVE N SOCIAL DESIGN D SOCIAL GENERATIVE A SOCIAL DESIGN N SOCIAL GENERATIVE D SOCIAL DESIGN A SOCIAL GENERATIVE N SOCIAL INNOVATION GENERATIVE DESIGN

S S S S

C C C C

A A A A A O O O O

I I I I I I I I

L L L L L C C C C

A A A A A A A A

I I I I L L L L

A A A A

I I I I I L L L L I I I I

L L L L

S S S C C C C O O

O O O I I I I C C

I I I I C I A L C I A L C I A L A L I A L I A L I A L I I A L I A L

C C C C C

I I I I I

A A A A A

L L L L L

I I I I I

N N N N N

N N N N N N N N

N N N N N I I I I A A A A

N N N N I I

N N N N N

A T A T A T A T A T I N N O V A I N N O V A I N N O V A I N N O V A N O V A T I N O V A T I N O V A T I N O V A T I N N N N I I I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

O O O O O

O O O O

V V V V V

V V V V

A A A A

N N O V N N O V N N O V O V A O V A O V A O V A N O V A N O V A O O O O O N N N N R R R R

V V V V V O O O O

A A A A A V V V V C C C C

T T T T T A A A A

T T T T A A A T T T T T T I I I I I T T T T H H H H

I I I I I T T T T

I I I I T T T I I I I I I

E E E E

N N N N N G G G G N N N N

E E E E E E E E E E E E E

R R R R R N N N N R R R R

A A A A A E E E E A A A A

T T T T T R R R R T T T T

I I I I I A A A A I I I I

V V V V V T T T T V V V V

E E E E E I I I I E E E E

G G G G N N N G G G G G G

E E E E G G G E E E E E E

N N N N E E E N N N N N N

E E E E N N N E E E E E E

R R R R E E E R R R R R R

A A A A R R R A A A A A A

T T T T A A A T T T T T T

I I I I T T T I I I I I I

V V V V I I I V V V V V V

E E E E

G G G G G G G G G E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

E N E N E N E N E N E N E N E N E N S A S A S A S A S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

R R R R

E E E

S S S

E E E E

E E E E

S S S S R R R E E E E

E E E E E E E S S S S

E E E E E E E E E E E E E

A A A A A S S S S A A A A

R R R R R E E E E R R R R

C C C C C A A A A C C C C

A A A A S S S E E E E

R R R R E E E A A A A

C C C C A A A R R R R

H H H H R R R C C C C

H H H H H R R R R H H H H

A A A A A C C C C

C H C H C H R H R H R H R H R E S E A R C H R E S E A R C H

R E R E R E R E C S C S C S C S C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

E

A

E

A

E

A

E

A

E

A

E

S

E

A

E

S

E

A

R

E

S

E

A

R

E

S

E

A

R

E E E E E

E E E E

S

R

S

D D D D D D

E E E E

R R R R

R R R R

S S S S S R R R R S S S S

E

R

E

N N N N N N

V V V V

V E V E V E E E E E E E

E R A T I V E E R A T I V E E R A T I V E E R A T I V E E R A T I V E E R A T I V E R A T I V E R A T I V E R A T I V E A R N D E A R N D E A R N D E A R N D E A R E A R E A R E A R E A R E A R E A R E A R R A E N A R A E N A R A E N A A E N A D R A E N A D R A E N A D R A E N A D R A A A A A A D D D D

R R R R R

N N N N N

H H H H

A A A A

D D D D D A A A A D D D D

A A A A

N N N N

N N N N

D D D D A N A N A N N D N D N D N D A N A N

A A A A

S S S S S N N N N

D D D D S S S S S S S S

O O O O

D D D S S S S D D

O O O O O

O O O O

C C C C C S S S S C C C C

I I I I I O O O O I I I I

A A A A A C C C C A A A A

L L L L L I I I I L L L L

C I A L C I A L C I A L C I A L S O C I A S O C I A S O C I A O C I A L O C I A L O C I A L O C I A L S O C I A S O C I A

I I I I I A A A A

N N N N N

L L L L I I I I I I I I L L L I I I I

L L

N N N N

N N N N N I I I I N N N N

O O O O O N N N N O O O O

V V V V V N N N N V V V V

O O O O A A A A

A T A T A T A T A T V A T V A T V A T V A T T I T I T I T I

N N N N

N O V A N O V A N O V A N O V A I N N O V I N N O V I N N O V N N O V N N O V N N O V N N O V I N N O V I N N O V

A A A A A A A A A

T T T T T T T T T T T T T

I I I I I I I I I

O O O O O O O O O O O O O

N N N N N N N N N N N N N

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

O O O O O O O O O O O O O

N N N N N N N N N N N N N

R E S E A R C H A N D S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N R E S E A R C H A N D S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N R E S E A R C H A N D S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N R E S E A R C H A N D S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N R E S E A R C H A N D S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N S E A R C H A N D S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N S E A R C H A N D S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N S E A R C H A N D S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N S E A R C H A N D S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N H O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N H O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N H O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N H O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N H AND SOCIAL I N N O V A T I O N H AND SOCIAL S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N H SOCIAL I N N O V A T I O N AND SOCIAL H SOCIAL I N N O V A T I O N AND SOCIAL H SOCIAL I N N O V A T I O N AND SOCIAL H SOCIAL I N N O V A T I O N AND SOCIAL H SOCIAL I N N O V A T I O N AND SOCIAL H S O C I A L INNOVATION AND SOCIAL H O C I A L INNOVATION AND SOCIAL S H S O C I A L INNOVATION AND SOCIAL H S O C I A L INNOVATION AND SOCIAL H S O C I A L INNOVATION AND SOCIAL H S O C I A L INNOVATION AND SOCIAL H S O C I A L INNOVATION AND SOCIAL H ND SOCIAL GENERATIVE DESIGN AND AND ND SOCIAL G GENERATIVE DESIGN AND S ND SOCIAL E R C H SOCIAL INNOVATION O

N D SOCIAL N R C H DENERATIVE DESIGN C N D SOCIAL E SOCIAL INNOVATION R N D SCO C I A LH I R DENERATIVE DESIGN R C H A N D SOCIAL A SOCIAL INNOVATION L N D SOCIAL T R C H DENERATIVE DESIGN INNOI R N D SCO C I A LH SOCIAL INNOVATION VA ND SOCIAL V DENERATIVE DESIGN R C H TI D S O C I A L E SOCIAL INNOVATION R C H D S O C I A L DESIGN O SOCIAL INNOVATION R D C S O HC I A L N SOCIAL INNOVATION

CONTENTS

SOCIAL INNOVATION 05

GENERATIVE DESIGN RESEARCH FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION ELIZABETH B.-N. SANDERS

09

CONNECTING THE AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER COMMUNITY THROUGH DESIGN CAYLEE RABER & STACIE SCHATZ

13

INFORMATION DESIGN, RESEARCH AND ETHICS JORGE FRASCARA

DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY 19 REGENERATING DEMOCRACY:

THE SCENARIO OF A PROJECT-CENTRED DEMOCRACY EZIO MANZINI

23 DEMOCRACY MUST BE DEFENDED,

BY UNDEMOCRATIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS CAMERON TONKINWISE

30 NEIGHBOURHOOD TIME EXCHANGE |

DOWNTOWN PRINCE GEORGE KATE ARMSTRONG, CAITLIN CHAISSON, LAURA KOZAK, & JUSTIN LANGLOIS

DIALOGUES AND MAKING 37 ONE WEEK, TWENTY-ONE PEOPLE AND TOMORROWS RESEARCHERS: THE BECOMING OF A DESIGN PHD PROGRAM FOR TRANSDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH LISA H. GROCOTT

41 WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBOURHUB

LEAH KALBERG, STEPH KOENIG, HALINA RACHELSON, ADÈLE THERIAS & EMI WEBB

44 CONTRIBUTORS

SOCIAL SOCIAL SOCIAL SOC INNOVATION SOCIAL I N N O V A SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION IAL SOCIAL SOCIAL SOCIA INNOVATION I SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION T I O N L SOCIAL SOCIAL SOCIAL NNOVATION INN SOCIAL SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL I N N O V A SOCIAL SOCIAL SOCIAL OVATION INNOVA SOCIAL

SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION T I O N SOCIAL SOCIAL SOCIA TION INNOVATION I SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL I N N O V A L SOCIAL SOCIAL SO NNOVATION INNOVATIO SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION T I O N CIAL SOCIAL SOCIA N INNOVATION INNOVAT INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL I N N O V A L SOCIAL SOCIAL INNOVATION INNOVATION INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION T I O N S O C I A L S O C I A L INNOVATION INNOVATION IN SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL I N N O V A SOCIAL SOCIAL NNOVATION INNOVATION INNOV SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION T I O N SOCIAL SOCIA ATION INNOVATION INNOVATION SOCIAL SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL I N N O V A L SOCIAL SO INNOVATION INNOVATION INNOVA SOCIAL

SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION T I O N CIAL SOCIA TION INNOVATION INNOVATION INN SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL I N N O V A L SOCIAL OVATION INNOVATION INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION T I O N SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O NS O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O NS O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIALSOCIALSOCIAL I N - SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION INNOVASOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N NOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIALSOCIALSO I N N O V A -TION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL SOCIAL INNOVATION TIONINN SOCIAL INNOVATION INNOVASOCIAL SOCIAL INNOVATION INNOVATION CIALSOCIAL O V A T I O N I N - SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION TION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION NOVATION S O C I A L SOCIAL SOCIAL INNOVATION INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL I N N O V A T I O N I N - SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION INNOVASOCIAL SOCIAL INNOVATION INNOVATION NOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATIONIN- TION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L SOCIAL SOCIAL INNOVATION INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N NOVATION INNOVASOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIALSOCI I N N O V A T I O N -SOCIAL INNOVATION TION SOCIAL INNOVATION INNOVAT SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION ALSOCIALLSOCIA I O N I N - SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION INNOVASOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N NOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O NS O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATIONS O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O NS O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL INNO- SO IN S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O NVATION SOCIAL INNOVACI NO SOCIAL INNOVATIONS O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N S O C I A L AL SOCIAL INNOVATION TION SOCIAL INNOVATIONI N N O V A T I O N VA

SOCIAL INS O C I A L I N N O V A T I O NSOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O SOCIAL INNOVATION TI NOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O NSOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A - CI SOCIAL INNOVATION ON S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N AL SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O NT I O N SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION I N

SOCIAL INNOSOCIAL INNOVATION SO SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL SOCIAL INNOVATION VATION NO INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION

SOCIAL INSOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL INNO- CI SOCIAL INNOVATION NOVATION VA VATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL INNOVATION AL SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION

SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION

SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL SOCIAL INNOVATION INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL SOCIAL INNOVATION INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION

SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL SOCIAL INNOVATION INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION

SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL SOCIAL INNOVATION INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION

SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION

SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION

S O C I A L

GENERATIVE DESIGN RESEARCH FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION

I N N O V A T I O N

SOCIAL INNOVATION

SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION

ELIZABETH

I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL I NNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVA- SOCIAL I N

B.-N.

SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L

S O C I A L

S O C I A L

I N N O V A T I O N

SOCIAL INNOVATION

I N N O V A T I O N

SOCIAL INNOVATION

SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION SOCIAL INNOVATION 0 0 5

C

Start

U R R E

The Culture Container

N T I S S U

Make the plan +the tool kit

Execute the plan

Make sense of what happened

E 0

Insights ideas and concepts

The Generative Toolbox

8

Figure 1: The Culture Container is a framework for generative design research in social innovation.

INTRODUCTION This paper describes what you will need to consider when you are planning to do generative design research for social innovation. I will start by discussing generative design research for commercial innovation in comparison to social innovation and then describe what is unique about design for social innovation.

COMMERCIAL INNOVATION VS. SOCIAL INNOVATION Designers have long focused on commercial innovation, but today we see increasing interest and activity in social innovation. How are the two forms of innovation similar? They both play out in the front end of the design and development process. They both address a wide range of stakeholders and explore their larger contexts of use. In addition, they use the same general design process, including many of the same methods and tools.

How are they different? In commercial innovation, we usually design for others like us. In social innovation, on the other hand, it is more likely that we will be designing with people from other cultures. For example, our codesigners could live in another part of the world or they could live nearby but have very different experiences of living.

Commercial innovation uses design to serve the marketplace and to benefit companies, whereas social innovation uses design to improve the lives of people, often people who live with limited resources. But there are also commercial organizations with social aims. I believe that we will see far more interest in social innovation from commercial organizations in the future because of the cracks that have recently appeared. For example, we can see the negative social consequences of commercial innovations such as Facebook and Twitter playing out in front of us on the political landscape.

0 0 6

OPPOSING TRENDS IN DESIGN RESEARCH Design researchers in the commercial realm are expected to work more quickly than ever before in exploring the needs of future consumers in order to arrive at insights to drive the next new thing. We can see signs of this trend on the internet where they share ready-to-use playbooks, templates, canvases, starter kits and toolkits for design research. These ready-made tools can be useful for less experienced design researchers, but they should be approached with caution so they are not taken out of context.

Design research for social innovation, on the other hand, has been slowing down. Design researchers who work on social challenges have realized that their work must become more connected to the people who will be affected by the results of design. Slow design research for social innovation today embraces a co-design mindset as we can see in the language that social design innovators use. They have shifted from designing for others to designing with others.

I do not recommend the use of ready-made generative design research methods and tools for addressing social challenges. These situations call for custom-made methods and tools in the hands of experienced design researchers.

Imagine a line with ready-made methods and tools for design research on the left side and bespoke (i.e., custom-made) methods and tools on the right. Designers and design researchers need to be aware of where their work is positioned on the line from readymade to bespoke. For example, if you lack deep experience, it is best to start by using and adapting ready-made methods and tools. More experienced design researchers can work at the bespoke end with custom-made methods and tools for co-designing. Commercial innovation sits on the left of the line and uses modifications of ready-made methods and tools. Social innovation is best when it sits to the right of the line using bespoke methods and tools.

Figure 1 shows a framework for generative design research in social innovation. You can see the core process in the middle (i.e., making the plan and the toolkits; executing the plan; making sense of what happened). At the end of the core process, you can see insights, ideas, and concepts popping out. The core process connects to the Culture Container at the top and to the Generative Toolbox at the bottom. The framework shows only one cycle through the process but in design for social innovation, many cycles through the framework will take place. The feedback arrows show that both the Culture Container and the Generative Toolbox grow with iterative cycles through the framework.

How is this framework different for social innovation versus commercial innovation? The main difference is in the size and content of the top and bottom components. For commercial innovation, the Culture Container is smaller and would more aptly be named Understanding the Market. The Generative Toolkit for commercial innovation is about the same size but would probably contain more ready-made tools.

The first step in generative design research for social innovation is to understand the culture of your co-designers. This understanding is essential for making a good design research plan and creating relevant generative toolkits.

The next step is to make the plan and prepare the toolkits, drawing from the Generative Toolbox that you build during your practice. The third step is to execute the plan. This step is followed by the making sense stage where you figure out what you have learned. It is important to take time for reflection so that you can capture the insights and ideas that pop out. Every cycle through the framework adds to the depth and breadth of the Culture Container and the Generative Toolbox. The Culture Container will grow larger to the extent that you engage in more co-design relationships with people from cultures different from your own.

S O C I

Idea

A L I Head

N N

Heart

O V

Body

Spaces

A T

Materials

I

Places

O N Figure 2: The Contexts of Creativity Framework: A guide for planning cultural connection experiences. As referenced from “The Convivial Toolbox”.

Let’s take a closer look at the Culture Container and the Generative Toolbox because these are the components unique to design for social innovation. The core process (making the plan and the toolkits, executing the plan and then making sense of what happens) is covered in chapters 5, 6, and 7 in the book Convivial Toolbox if you are interested in learning more about that.

THE CULTURE CONTAINER The greater the difference between you and the people you are co-designing with, the more time and energy you will need to put into understanding their culture. You need to become familiar with each other. This experience of cultural connection takes time and is best done in a face-to-face manner.

You will need to understand who you are co-designing with so that you can prepare a relevant co-design plan and toolkits. Your role, as a generative design researcher for social innovation, is to prepare your co-designers to be able to express their creativity. Sometimes the co-design sessions will occur with individuals and sometimes in groups. Your co-designers will need time and activities to become comfortable with each other, particularly if they did not already know each other before the co-design session begins.

I use the Contexts of the Creativity Framework (See Figure 2) from v as a guide to prepare and plan for cultural connection experiences.

The Contexts of Creativity Framework shows that individual creativity is influenced by three layers of context around the head of the individual. It shows that individual creativity is not only in the head but in the heart as well. We are more creative when we are having fun. And creativity takes place in the body. We are more creative when our bodies are in motion. The last layer shows that creativity is in the environment.

We can impact the creativity of our co-designers by carefully considering the places, spaces, props and materials that we provide for them to use.

And finally, there is a timeframe for creativity.

We can enhance people’s creativity through preparation and with the passage of time.

HEAD >> Are you using your co-designers’ language and natural forms of expression? >> Have you learned about their values, traditions, and practices? >> Have you managed their expectations about what will take place before, during and after their participation?

HEART >> Have you planned for activities that will be fun for your co-designers? >> Are you aware of what your participants value and what is meaningful to them?

BODY >> Have you invited your co-designers to engage physically in the planned activities? >> Do any of your participants have physical disabilities that you need to consider so they can contribute at an equal level to the other participants?

>> Don’t forget about using safe online social spaces as a preliminary means of making cultural connections.

PHYSICAL SPACES >> Have you considered the mobility of your co-designers when deciding where to hold the sessions? >> Will the workshop take place in surroundings that are familiar to your co-designers? >> Is there enough space for people to move around? >> Have you worked out the need for individual vs. collaborative spaces?

SOCIAL SPACES >> Do your participants already know each other? >> Are there hierarchical differences that you need to consider? >> I f your participants do not know each other, have you planned activities for them to get to know one another in meaningful ways?

MATERIALS >> Are you using locally sourced materials with which your co-designers will be familiar? >> Will individuals or teams use the toolkits?

Have you designed the toolkits to optimize their use by individuals and/or teams?

TIMELINE >> Have you prepared your co-designers well ahead of the generative session so that they come to the session with creative confidence?

0 0 7

C U R R E N T I S S U E 0 8

Figure 4: The Generative Toolbox in use during Workchops.

WHAT DOES THE GENERATIVE TOOLBOX LOOK LIKE?

THE GENERATIVE TOOLBOX The Generative Toolbox is a collection of all the materials that you have ever used and will ever use for executing generative design research.

The Generative Toolbox helps you to grow from being a design researcher who modifies readymade toolkits to becoming a design researcher who can create custom-made toolkits for the situation at hand.

The toolbox grows in use over time. You take toolkits and materials out of the Generative Toolbox for use in generative sessions. Later on, you return materials, the used toolkit and insights.

Some of the materials will be reusable, and others you will need to replenish. You should always be on the lookout for new toolkit materials as you never know what you might need in the future.

Some of the 2D materials and tools that I have in my Generative Toolbox include:

0 0 8

>> Photos, both concrete and abstract including images of people, places, things, and feelings >> Colored shapes made out of paper.

They may be iconic, symbolic, abstract, representational, etc.

They come in many sizes. >> Words >> Phrases >> Symbols >> Pictograms >> Emoticons >> Stories and story headlines >> Small sketches showing people in action >> Blank cards for writing on (or to use in making games)

>> Blank booklets > >“What if? cards� for provoking thoughts and actions >> Colored tape in many thicknesses >> Markers, both thin and thick and in many colors. Some Dry-Erase. >> Glue and tape. (Removable is best so participants can change their minds.) >> Scissors >> Post-it notes, both square and round Some of the 3D materials and tools that I have in my Generative Toolbox include: >> Clay and Play-Doh >> People figures that range from abstract to realistic, small to large, etc. >> Wooden blocks of many different shapes, sizes, and colors >> Paper boxes that fold flat for travel, in all sizes and colors >> Velcro-modeling components for full-scale mockups of prototypes >> A sandbox full of sand and a wide range of plastic sand toys >> Puppets of people and animals >> Dress-up items such as hats, glasses, etc. >> LEGOs, both Duplo and regular >> Wire and wire cutters >> Pipe cleaners of all types and sizes >> Yarn of different colors and thicknesses >> Little balls made of wool >> Felt and other fabrics

The photo above shows the Generative Toolbox during a workshop in New Zealand called Workchops (https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=m67m0E3D108). The fourteen workshop participants were experienced design researchers wanting to learn more about using generative design toolkits for social innovation. I put together this toolbox for them to use in making their own toolkits which they then used on each other.

Because of the travel distance involved, I could only bring items that traveled well, so many items were locally sourced.

CONCLUSION I hope this short paper has helped to get you thinking about planning and conducting generative design research for social innovation.

As social innovators, we need to slow down and take the time we need for the co-designing process. Look for opportunities to practice at both ends of the ready-made to bespoke scale of design research methods and tools. If we are to become better at addressing the future consequences of what is designed, we will need more design researchers who can facilitate generative design research for both social and commercial innovation.

REFERENCES [1] Sanders, E.B.-N. & Stappers, P.J. Convivial Toolbox: Generative Research for the Front End of Design.

Amsterdam: BIS Publishers. 2012.

S O C

CONNECTING THE AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER COMMUNITY THROUGH DESIGN

I A L I N N O V A T I O N

CAYLEE RABER AND STACIE SCHATZ

INTRODUCTION Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is the most common neurological disorder in children and is impacting our society in profound ways. ASD now affects approximately one in 68 births. Given this prevalence rate, it is estimated that there are 60,000 people affected by ASD in British Columbia alone [1]. Autism is characterized by a complex behavioural phenotype and deficits in both social and cognitive functions. This disorder’s complexity requires early detection, as it is an integral component of relieving symptoms, finding appropriate interventions and ensuring individuals are taught the skills necessary to enhance their quality of life at a young age when brain plasticity is much more pronounced [2]. This complicated neurological disorder is situated within an elaborate and diverse landscape of stakeholders including individuals on the spectrum, families, researchers, health care practitioners, clinicians, therapy and service providers, educators and policymakers.

In BC, once a diagnosis is confirmed, families accessing autism funding must learn to navigate a complex system of therapies and supports and many struggle to find and access evidence-based research and information. They are often left to their own devices to make critical decisions about where to invest their money, trust and time knowing that each delay could impact the efficacy and benefits of early interventions [3].

The Pacific Autism Family Network (PAFN) is a new centre and network of support for individuals with autism spectrum disorder and their families across British Columbia. Their

vision includes the creation of an environment where autism researchers and clinicians can come together to bring current, evidence-led best practices to families and adults living with ASDs [4]. In this spirit, the Health Design Lab at Emily Carr University of Art + Design has been collaborating with the Pacific Autism Family Network (PAFN) since 2015 to gain a better understanding of the communication challenges and research needs of families in the BC ASD community through generative design research and co-design [5].

A common phrase in the ASD community is often recounted, “If you have met one person with Autism, then you’ve met one person with Autism”. Autism is a spectrum disorder, as such each diagnosis comes along with a unique set of traits and qualities ascribed to an individual.

Each person’s needs, care plan and experiences are quite unique. As a result, there is a diverse range of stakeholders, as well as information, services and resources available which families must navigate. Underlying the work of the Health Design Lab with the PAFN over the past 3 years has been a key question: How might design (and designers) foster communication and enhance knowledge exchange between diverse members of the Autism Community, to better support families?

This collaboration has undergone three distinct phases, each of which has illustrated different ways in which designers can support and facilitate social innovation. Beginning in 2015, the Health Design Lab first collaborated

with PAFN in an exploratory research phase to understand family needs in relation to Autism research. In 2016, we moved towards a more generative research phase, using co-creation workshops to facilitate dialogue and ideation between families and researchers. Most recently, in 2017 we transitioned into a more concrete codesign phase to conceptualize a web-platform design that will address the needs of families uncovered through the initial phases of work.

PHASE 1: EXPLORATORY RESEARCH 2015/2016 The first phase of collaboration between the Health Design Lab and PAFN sought to gain a family-centred perspective regarding the needs of families and individuals with ASD, and an understanding of how they viewed their needs connecting to existing and new areas of ASD research. This was achieved through the facilitation of eight co-creation workshops with families and individuals with ASD, led by the Health Design Lab team, as an exploratory participatory design research process. These two hour co-creation workshops involved two key activities: an abstracted road map that allowed parents and adults with ASD to visually articulate and express their personal ASD journey, and a wooden block and string exercise that allowed parents to physically show where they saw their personal needs connecting to areas of research.

During the first activity, an abstracted road map with traffic signs acted as a platform for participants to tell their stories including,

0 0 9

C U R R E N T I S S U

ONCE A DIAGNOSIS IS CONFIRMED, FAMILIES ACCESSING AUTISM FUNDING MUST LEARN TO NAVIGATE A COMPLEX SYSTEM OF THERAPIES AND SUPPORTS AND MANY STRUGGLE TO FIND AND ACCESS EVIDENCE-BASED RESEARCH AND INFORMATION

E 0 8

0 1 0

“roadblocks,” from diagnosis until adulthood. being experts in their own rights. The outline As the individuals plotted out their experiences, of family needs that we developed from these workshops revealed that it would be beneficial they verbalized their stories, including frustrations and hurdles met along the way. to establish a more family-centric approach to research. More specifically, we observed Visually the map provided a way for the HDL that communication between researchers and team to extrapolate existing mental-models families was very limited, and in particular, and experiences, and led to the identification that families had a hard time navigating and of opportunities and pain points. Through this exercise, participants found the act of sharing, accessing credible research and information to inform their child’s care. Families expressed an comparing and articulating their journeys to urgent need for better access to knowledge - on others, to be both informative and cathartic [4]. best practices, the latest research, and evidenceThe physical and dialogic activities created based treatments and support. for these workshops enabled participants and the HDL team to develop new understandings and empathy. This reflects design’s ability to PHASE 2: GENERATIVE RESEARCH collaborate actively in the social construction & DESIGN 2016/2017 of meaning, as was demonstrated in the participatory sessions in which families The goal of the second phase of our collaboration articulated their struggles collectively [6]. The was to address the gap in knowledge exchange participatory methods used positioned families identified through our research in phase one. and individuals on the spectrum as the true We did this by gathering researchers and famiexperts of their own experiences. Often during lies together in order to challenge the existing the workshops, families were able to offer communication paradigms and to inspire both suggestions and advice to other participants, stakeholder groups to participate in identiand it became evident that families had gained fying opportunities and ideas for improvement. expertise through their own experiences As designer and Founding Chair of the MFA that may be complementary to the expertise program in Design for Social Innovation at of researchers or practitioners in the field. the School of Visual Arts, Cheryl Heller states, This confirmed that their perspectives were “the real work of social innovation is to fix our invaluable and could potentially inform Autism broken human systems, the way to do that is research, and aid in the creation of valuable by inviting real diversity into our lives; seeing feedback loops in which both families and and then removing the boundaries between researchers learn and respond to one another, us [7]”. This year we began honing in on ways

to mitigate the intractable problem of creating cohesion among diverse individuals in groups, such as the Autism Community. With this in mind, we began to design workshops and activities for cross silo interaction in order to break down barriers and gain insights on ways to design a future-state. Employing co-design methods was a radical turnaround from current modes of communication, and we felt this would help galvanize researchers and families as agents of desirable change [6].

The Health Design Lab hosted a series of workshops primarily comprised of researchers and parents or family members of individuals on the spectrum, in which storytelling was employed as a means of relaying the past and imagining the future [8]. These workshops involved two key activities: a string mapping exercise to help articulate and visualize current communication challenges; and an interview and brainstorming activity to generate ideas for improvement.

The first string mapping activity tasked parents/family members to recall a time when they had an Autism research question. For example, “What are the benefits of art therapy for children with Autism?”. Then, taking turns around the table, each family member was asked to articulate where they might look for information to answer their question. Using an orange string on a pegboard, families members marked their journey, wrapping the string around the various places/people they might

S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N

Figure 1: String mapping activity to illustrate where families access research and information in comparison to where researchers disseminate.

go to in order to find the information they were looking for. The board had 24 suggested sources (such as: clinician, social worker websites, books, conferences, etc.) to choose from, and participants were also encouraged to add new points in case they didn’t find the ones they needed. While each family member visualized their journey using string, the other participants listened and conversation about these sources and their value naturally occurred. Researchers also participated in the string mapping activity.

Using blue string, they mapped the sources where they typically disseminate their research and explained their process and rationale for dissemination. After all participants finished mapping their personal routes, they were asked to engage in a group discussion about the pros and cons of the different points of access [9].

In this activity we were interested in identifying opportunities through individual narratives but also in fostering a rapport and discussion between the groups. Visually, one could see a striking difference between where knowledge was being accessed and where it was being disseminated. For example, researchers typically disseminate to academic journals and conferences, where as families get a lot of information from other families and online sources. The string created a useful visual and kinesthetic task which triggered rich conversation. What emerged from this activity was a new framework invaluable for understanding how the transference of knowledge was taking place.

We caught glimpses into different perspectives of design stewardship as “the art of getting about knowledge acquisition and saw tension as things done amidst a complex and dynamic a result of existing systemic constraints, such as context. Stewardship is a core ability for agents current research funding models, which do not of change when many minds are involved in inherently support or encourage public dissemi- conceiving a course of action, and many hands nation of information. in accomplishing it [10]”. The third chapter of Following this, we moved onto an interview- our partnership with the PAFN, which at the time ing and brainstorming activity which focused on of this publication is on-going, takes root in this generating ideas for improved communication definition. As we shift from generative research and knowledge exchange in the future. Here into designing and implementing, our focus researchers and families were able to create a has expanded beyond the interactions between collective vision for the future based on an im- ourselves and the specific stakeholders in the proved understanding of each other’s perspec- ASD community to a larger sphere in which we are tives and needs. Based on the insights gathered meeting with developers, owners and operators. from these workshops, we developed a series of We are taking our findings and insights, grown design recommendations for the PAFN in order from our generative design research phases, and to improve communication and connect parents are now striving to concretize a web-platform to research, at the right time and in the right concept which can be actualized by the PAFN. context. The most pertinent proposed outcome In developing a web platform for the PAFN, we was a web platform which could compliment the are interjecting a new platform into an existing face-to-face services at the PAFN. This would ecosystem of stakeholders and impressing serve as a digital hub where parents could access upon them new ways of communicating. This relevant and credible research in a format both is a challenging venture that requires both a top accessible and specific to their individual needs, down and bottom up approach. The Helsinki connecting them with evidence-based and local- Design Lab describes this further: “pressing ized services and resources. ‘down’ to induce the creation or adoption of new means of directly meeting the challenges at PHASE 3: CO-DESIGN 2017/2018 hand, while simultaneously pushing ‘upwards’ to question the assumptions of today’s systems For the third phase of our collaboration, we and create space for redesign [10].” Currently are currently employing a co-design process to we are operating in a middle space, navigating conceptualize a web-platform that will curate credible research and information for families. between the desires of the intended audience and the realities of those who will be in charge The Helsinki Design Lab defines the practice

0 1 1

C U R R E N T I S S U E 0 8

Figure 2: Discussion around the string mapping activity.

of the implementation and maintenance of our design. It is important to remember that co-design as a dialogical tool and strategy is an integral part not only in the design phase, but in the execution of outcomes, bearing in mind all of the stakeholders. Moving forward we intend to continue utilizing co-design strategies with families, researches and the PAFN. These are integral tools of stewardship, and we recognize that as designers, we should work with those in positions of power to implement designs, to support this endeavour beyond our initial involvement and ensure they are prepared for pivots and feedback.

CONCLUSION

0 1 2

Over the past three years we have contended with the question: “How might design (and designers) foster communication and enhanced knowledge exchange between diverse members of the Autism Community, to better support families?”

During this time our collaboration with the PAFN has undergone 3 distinct phases, each illustrating a different way in which designers can support and facilitate social innovation. Throughout this research and design process we have played a critical role as dialogic collaborators in triggering and supporting a co-design process within the autism community. In essence, we have begun to fulfil the roles of expert designers that Manzini describes: “[expert designers] should feed the conversation with visions and ideas (using their personal skills and specific cultures), listen to the feedback from other interlocutors (as well

as, more in general, listening to feedback from the whole environment in which they operate), and then, in view of the feedback, they should introduce new, more mature proposals into the conversation” [11]. As expert designers on this project, we started by listening to the community, we fed the conversation with new ideas, and we are now working to support the development and implementation of the collectively established vision; ultimately seeking to enhance knowledge exchange and support for families in the autism community.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many faculty and students at Emily Carr University of Art + Design have contributed to this work over the past three years. We would like to acknowledge the contributions of: Jonathan Aitken (past HDL Director), Caylee Raber (current HDL Director), Deborah Shackleton (Dean of Design and Dynamic Media), and the following research assistants — Stacie Schatz, Ateret Buchman, Natalia Franca, Zora Trocme, Amanda Roy, Dina Smallman, Juliana Forero, Lauren Low and Rachelle Lortie.

Funding for this project between 2015-2018 has been provided by: Pacific Autism Family Network Foundation, Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, Emily Carr University of Art + Design, University of British Columbia, University of Victoria, BC Institute of Technology, and BC Children's Hospital Research Institute.

REFERENCES [1] Pacific Autism Family Network. About ASD. http:// pacificautismfamily.com/about-asd/ [2] Fakhoury, M. Autistic spectrum disorders: A review of clinical features, theories and diagnosis. PubMed: April, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2015.04.003 [3] The Campaign for the Pacific Autism Family Centre: Building Potential for a Brighter Future. http://pacificautismfamily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/PAFC-Case-for-Support.pdf [4] Aitken, J., Forero, J., Franca, N., Lortie R., Low L., Roy, M., and Smallman D. Connecting Family Needs to ASD Research in BC. Summary report 2015/2016.

Emily Carr Health Design Lab: 2016. [5] Inform Every Autism. Research. http://informeveryautism.com/ research/. [6] Manzini, E. Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation.

Cambridge, Massachusetts USA: MIT Press, 2015. [7] Quoted in Brooks, S. Collective Strength and Greater Understanding through Co-Design. In Leap Dialogues: Career Pathways in Design for Social Innovation. Edited by: Amatullo, M., Boyer, B., Danzico and Shea, A. Pasadena California, USA: Design Matters at ArtCentre College of Design 2016. p. 121 [8] Sanders, Elizabeth B.-N, and Stappers, Pieter J. Convivial Toolbox: Generative Research for the Front End of Design. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Bis Publishers, 2012. [9] Raber, C., Buchman, A., Franca N., Schatz, S., and Trocme, Z. Bridging Researchers and Families in the ASDs Community. Emily Carr Health Design Lab: 2017. [10] Boyer, B., Cook J.W., and Steinberg, M., Legible Practices: Six Stories aboutthe Craft of Stewardship. Helsinki, Finland: Sitra 2013 p. 7-8 [11] Manzini, E. Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. Cambridge, Massachusetts USA: MIT Press, 2015, p. 67

INFORMATION DESIGN, RESEARCH & ETHICS: HELPING PEOPLE SATISFY THEIR INFORMATION NEEDS JORGE FRASCARA

C U R R E N T I S S U E 0 8

Figure 1 Crete, Knossos Palace, council room. Around 1800 BC.

0 1 4

Information design is an ethically motivated approach to designing. It is ethical because it recognizes the people addressed as different from the groups that create the communications.

Awareness of the differences, however, is indispensable but insufficient. It motivates the approach, but to execute it in an effective manner it becomes necessary to engage in user research.

User research includes many aspects and involves many methods, tools and approaches that help overcome our usual ignorance about the real nature of other people, their motivations, their sensitivities, their needs, their perceptions, their possibilities and their limitations.

There are two basic modes of user research in design: a) bibliographic, studying the perceptual, cognitive, cultural, behavioural and psychological issues involved in communication, as well as the kind of problem confronted; and b) interpersonal, interviewing, observing, working together, meeting and analysing people in action.

As designers that craft messages to be deployed in the public space, we have to be aware that our messages operate at two levels. One is conscious, and is the reason why a project comes to be: a need that has been perceived, identified and defined, and that has to be satisfied. The other is not conscious, and is connected to the way in which the communication is planned and crafted. Ways of communicating create models that eventually become assumptions and habits.

A respectful way of communicating creates a paradigm that leads to positive processes of socialization. The forms of things express the beliefs of the makers and affect people's behaviour. A clear

Figure 2 Paris: Napoleon’s Throne. Early 19th Century.

complete, accurate, timely and usable [3] This example is the comparison between the throne involves considerations of human perception [4] of the king of Knossos, a product of a minimally hierarchical commercial society (Figure 1), and [5] attention [6], cognition [7], reading [8], learnthe throne of Napoleon (Figure 2), a strongly hi- ing [9] [10] and behaviour, just to mention the more important factors. These considerations erarchical one. The difference between the seat for the leader and the seats for the members of affect type selection [11] [12] [13], type size [14], [15] [16] [17], layout, line length [18], visual hicouncil says a lot about the power differences they represent, and also affect the behaviour of erarchies, language [19], information chunking [20], information sequence, language editing, the room users. [1][2] use of color [21] [22], use of images, relations The same happens with information design: between images and text [23], document type, visual appearances elicit immediate emotional document size, and medium. Design decisions reactions. One feels welcome or put-off. This happens all the time with contracts, govern- are developed in an iterative process that begins with a participatory approach to studying the ment forms, or many other legal documents problem and planning the design response, and whose content and presentation are cognitively reaches maximum interaction during the develand visually overwhelming. The visualization of information conditions our feelings and our opment and testing of prototypes. behaviours: a bad solution to an information MY APPROACH TO DESIGN design problem (medicine leaflet, Figure 3) is not information design, because it does not support The first issue to think about when undertaking reading and understanding, hence it does not a project is its relevance. Does the project facilitate access to information, nor does it sup- matter? Does it matter to users, to the community, to society? Relevance is a key issue in the port memorization and use. In addition, it makes ethics of design. users feel incompetent or visually impaired.

Once that point is taken care of, my approach A good solution to an information design to design focuses on impact, not on objects; on problem (UK railway timetable, figure 4) is in formation design, because it supports quick ref- performance, not on looks. Our task as designers is not that of “form-givers,” a term popuerence, has a comprehensible code, and comes larized as a direct translation from the German in a type-size that responds to optometric values “Gestalter,” which now translates as “designer.” for comfortable reading.

Objects, looks and forms are means that have to Human-­centred, ethical and empathic design be used to help achieve the objectives pursued. takes form in matters of principle, but also in a One has to master them, but they are not the number of micro decisions that aim at facilitating the users tasks, making information accessible, focus of designing. The focus of designing is to attractive, relevant, readable, understandable, achieve the change one is pursuing, a change that

S O C I A L I N N O V A Figure 5 "There will be a slogan"

T

"Antibiotics are a precious resource for everybody"

I

"LET'S NOT USE THEM WRONGLY"

O

"Why? ..."

N

"Because they might no longer work when they would really be necessary, and could produce undesirable side effects" "LET'S LEAVE THE PHYSICIAN DECIDE WHEN SHOULD THEY BE USED"

Figure 3 Package insert for a pharmaceutical product:

Figure 4 Railway timetable from the UK. Easy to read

6 pt type set solid, printed in blue ink, challenges the

and understand printed on good paper, it folds down

best sighted people. Two sides of a 16 x 30 cm paper.

to 7.5 x 10.5 cm and shows all the fast trains from London Paddington to Oxford and back. (Red bits in the original facilitated navigation)

involves an improvement of something tangible or intangible for the interested parties, a change that centers on people. This often involves changes in objects, habits and behaviours, and represents the most difficult challenge designers confront. The only way to face this challenge is by involving representation of all people involved in different aspects of a project, so as to capitalize their collective intelligence, because as designers we do not work for clients and users; we work with them. [24] To do this, we apply a wide variety of design and research methods that support the work at four stages: 1) generation of ideas through an understanding of the problem, the objective, the users and the situation of use; 2) development of prototypes; 3) Implementation; and 4) Evaluation. [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30].

AN INFORMATION DESIGN EXAMPLE Working in Italy with Guillermina Noël for a campaign to reduce antibiotic abuse, the client gave us a model to use as a basis for our design.

The key message of this model was: “Let's leave the physician decide when (the antibiotics) are necessary.” (Figure 5) This type of message positions the doctor as an authority, turning the patient into a passive receiver of an order.

Our cover’s text (Figure 6) was simplified, to explain clearly which was the problem to contend with, as opposed to the mixed messages of the proposed cover. Our type of solution keeps present the limitations of people's cognitive capacity. However, making things easily understandable is not only a cognitive choice:

it is also an ethical choice, because it allows the user to feel competent and comfortable, and therefore respected and confident, in front of the information. This is emotionally important for the reader, because, deep inside, not understanding a text is like not understanding one's environment, an indispensable condition for survival.

Unfortunately, we were not able to convince the client to use just one message, not two: “The antibiotics can be good, but they can also be bad.”

Defenders of antibiotics in the client's group did not allow that. At least we managed to simplify the cover's message.

With regards to the inside, the proposed solution was as figure 7.

We changed the brochure into a shared decision-­making tool, something that supports a conversation between patient and physician, helping patients see that there were three possible scenarios: 1, when the antibiotics are useless; 2, when it is better to wait two or three days to assess whether the infection is viral or bacterial; and 3, when antibiotics are required. Explanations follow each heading.

The patient, in conversation with the physician, is to understand under which conditions the antibiotic should or should not be used. Our final design (Figure 8) showed these three scenarios clearly, as opposed to the sketch that was proposed to us, which had 14 paragraphs. This change brings to mind the concept of the designer as “transformer,” coined by Michael Macdonald Ross and Robert Waller when working at the Open University in England in the late 1960s [31].

Our solution was designed in the context of seeing the relation of the physician-­p atient as a social exchange, instead of a top-­d own authoritarian situation that requires obedience instead o f v. This alternative mo de o f communication based on mutual understanding is ethical, has deep implications for human relations, personal responsibilities and social life, with all the sharing that it implies. In addition, research shows that when patients understand the reasons for their therapy, adherence to treatment and health outcomes improve.

This design process can be summarized as follows: 1. Define with clarity and precision the main objective of the project (in this case, reduction of antibiotic abuse aimed at reducing the development of resistant bacteria).

2 . Understand why the problem comes to exist (in this case why physicians prescribe an antibiotic even in cases where they know that it is not necessary or useful. This requires understanding social and other factors that affect their decision).

3 . Understand the needs, perceptions and expectations of the full spectrum of users (in this case healthcare providers, patients and families).

4. Plan a set of tools (Figure 10) that make use of the different opportunities that exist to make an impact on the current situation and achieve the stated objective (in this case: a) a brochure/ prescription fold-­o ut to help the dialogue between physicians and patients, b) a pocket size brochure to leave in waiting rooms and

0 1 5

C U R R E N T I S S U

Figure 7 In here, too many units of information do not communicate with clarity that the patients confront

E

three possible scenarios, even if the shapes of the layout create three areas (of uneven size).

0 8

Figure 6 “Antibiotics” “Solution or problem?” “They

Figure 8 The brochure showed the three possible scenarios, and also included a page for prescription and notes, so

are a solution for many infections,” “but using them

that it became an educational tool that the patient took home and kept until the treatment was completed.

wrongly can make them lose their power.” “This could become a big problem.”

pharmacies, and c) a poster – in two sizes – for pharmacies and waiting rooms).

5. Design prototypes and evaluate them with the client and the public.

6 . Implement and measure the impact by means of: a) comparing the average number of antibiotic prescriptions issued in the three months preceding the intervention, to the average number prescribed during the three months of intervention; and b) measuring the reduction of prescriptions in a control zone of a similar region where the intervention did not happen.

7. Results showed an 11.9% reduction in the intervention zone, as opposed to a 7.4% reduction in the control zone (demonstrating that there is a generalized interest in the topic in the whole region but that the intervention area showed a stronger change), and a 3.2% reduction in the rest of the country (demonstrating that the region in which we worked was a leader in the efforts to reduce antibiotic abuse).

Graph below shows another way of summarizing the design process very briefly:

and lem rst prob e d e Un th 0 1 6

1

str ne i f De

2

ate

In addition to the specific results achieved, the project proposed a more ethically-oriented model of relation between people and information, as well as between people and people. This is what can be seen as an act of positive social innovation at the micro-­level, thanks to seizing the opportunity offered to information design by a healthcare need.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE Some times, as Mies van der Rohe said, “God is in the details.” Establishing the right tone of a message so that people adhere to recommendations is key to gaining attention, acceptance and use. In a recent project that Guillermina and I worked on designing a medical document, the original text read: “4 days before your test” “Start the low-­fibre diet” We changed it to: “4 days before your test” “Please start eating low-­‐ibre foods and keep eating them until one day before your colonoscopy test.”

gy Ide

3

ate

Pro

4

to

e typ

Eva

5

lu

ate

In both documents there is a list of low-­fibre foods to eat and foods to avoid. In our re-­design the low fibre foods were illustrated by a photograph, reinforcing the verbal message. The more conversational tone of our text is welcome by patients.

CONCLUSION When information design is focused on the users’ needs, is ethical and practical, it respects people and helps them in their daily life. Access to information should be regarded as a human right. Information design should not be seen as an option, but as a necessity. [32] Information design is not only hard, focused, precision-­driven, cognition supporting work: it is also joy. The joy of learning more about people and communication with every project, is the joy of helping people achieve their goals. But this requires two conditions: 1) The will to help others (an ethical motivation); and 2) Sufficient knowledge to be able to do it.

nd e a ment n i e Ref Impl

6

Mea

7

s

Imp ure

act

S O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N

Figure 10 Poster and brochure cover text: “Antibiotics” “Solution or problem?” “They are a solution for many infections,” “but using them wrongly can make them lose their power.” “This could become a big problem.”

I believe that through this kind of ethical, user-­ educational communications and technology (2). Mahwah, centred, systematic, socially conscious approach, N.J.: Erlbaum. (2004). 917–947. [11] Frascara, J. Typography and the visual design of warnings. In Michael much can be gained not only regarding the Wogalter (Ed.) The Handbook of Warnings. Mahwah and specific objective of a project, but also regarding London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, (2006).385-405. the promotion of interpersonal models of relation [12] Craig, J. Designing with type (4th ed.). New York: Watson-­ Guptill. (1999).[13] Perfect, C. & Austen, that lead to a more respectful and fairer society.

REFERENCES [1] Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, (1980).[2] Hall, E.T. The hidden dimension. New York, NY: Anchor books, (1966).[3] IDX. Information design: core competencies.

Vienna, Austria: IIID, (2007).[4] Appleton, J. The experience of landscape. London: John Wiley & Sons, (1975).[5] Koffka, K. Principles of Gestalt Psychology.

Abingdon, UK: Routledge, (1935-2013).[6] Oberly, H. S. The range of visual attention, cognition and apprehension. American Journal of Psychology, 35, (1924).

332.[7] Miller, G. A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review, 63. (1956).

81–97.[8] Schiepers, C. Global attributes in visual word recognition. Nijmegen: Centrale Reprografie, (1976).[9] Dixon, P. The processing of organizational and component step information in written directions.

Journal of Memory and Language, 26. (1987). 24–35.[10] Hartley, J. Designing instructional and informational text. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.). Handbook of Research on

J. The complete typographer. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Quarto Publishing, (1992).[14] Luckiest, M., & Moss, F. K. The dependency of visual acuity on stimulus distance. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 23(1), (1933). 25-29.[15] Poulton, E. C. Size, style and vertical spacing in the legibility of small typefaces. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(2), (1972).

156–161.[16] Smith, S. L. Letter size and legibility. In R. Easterby and H. Zwaga (Eds.),Information design. London: John Wiley & Sons, (1984). 171–186 [17] Tinker, M. A. Legibility of print. Aimes: Iowa University Press, (1963).[18] Spencer, H. The visible word. London: Hastings House, (1968).[19] Klare, G. R. Readability and comprehension. In R. Easterby and H. Zwaga (Eds.), Information Design 479–495. London: John Wiley & Sons, (1984).[20] Sless, D., & Wiseman, R. Writing about medicines for people (2nd. edn). Melbourne: Communication Research Institute of Australia, (1997).Adams, A. S., and J. Edworthy. "Quantifying and predicting the effects of basic text display variables on the perceived urgency of warning labels: Tradeoffs involving font size, border weight and color." Ergonomics38, no. 11 (1995): 2221-237.[21] Chapanis, A.,

& Halsey, R. Absolute judgements of spectrum colors.

Journal of Psychology, 42. (1956). (99).[22] Miyake, R., Dunlap, J. W., & Cureton, E. E. The comparable legibility of black and colored numbers on coloured and black backgrounds. Journal of General Psychology, 3, (1930). 340–343.[23] Mayer, R. Multimedia learning.

Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, (2009).[24] Frascara, J. & Noël, G. Design as collective intelligence: tools and strategies. Current #6, Emily Carr University of Art and Design, 2014, (2014). 4-8.[25] Cross, Nigel & Roy, Robin. A design methods manual.

Milton Keynes, UK:Open University. (1975) [26] McTavish D. G. & Loether, H. J. Social research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, (2002).[27] Neuman, W. L. Social Research Methods. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, (2003).[28] Bains, C. B. Research methods. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc, (2004).[29] Sanders, E. B. & Stappers, P. J. Convivial toolbox. Amsterdam, NL: BIS Publishers, (2012).[30] Kumar, V. 101 methods. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, (2013).[31] Macdonald Ross, M. & Waller, R. The transformer revisited. Information Design Journal 9/2&3, (2000). 177–193.[32] Frascara, J. Information design as principled action. Champaign, IL: CommonGround Publishing, (Ed. 2015). 50.

0 1 7

O DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY DESIGN DEMOCRACY D E S I G N A N D D E M O C R A C Y A NDESIGN D O DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY DESIGN DEMOCRACY D E S I G N A N D D E M O C R A C Y A NDESIGN D O C R A C Y DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY DESIGN DEMOCRACY D E S I G N A N D D E M O C R A C Y A NDESIGN D O C R A C Y DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY DEMOCRACY DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY DESIGN O C R A C Y DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY DEMOCRACY DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY DESIGN O C R A C Y DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY O C R A C Y DESIGN AND DEMOCRACYDESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY D E M O C R A C Y A N D DESIGN DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY D E M O C R A C Y DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY A N D DESIGN DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY D E M O C R A C Y A N D DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY N D D E M O C R A C Y DE- A AND DEMOCRACY DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY N D D E M O C R A C Y A NDESIGN D D E M DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND A N D SIGN AND DEMOCRACY DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY D E S I G N A N D D E M O C R A C Y A NDESIGN D D E M D E S I G N A N D D E M O C R A C Y A N D D E S I G N A N D D E M O C R A C Y A NDESIGN DESIGN A N D AND DEMOCRACY DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY D D E M O C R A C Y A N D DESIGN DEMOCRACY AND AND DESIGNANDDEMOCR A N D D E M O C R A C YDESI AND DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN DESIGN DEMOCRACYDESIGN AN AND AND DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND DEMOCRACYDESIGN AND DEMO AND AND DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN DEMOCRACY DEMOCRACYDESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND AND ISED DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND DEMOCRACYDESIGN AND DEMO AND NA NGISED DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN DESIGN DEMOCRACYDESIGN AN AND OMED DNA NGISED DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND DEMOCRACYDESI AND YCARCOMED DNA NGISED DESIGN AND YCARCOMED DNA DESIGN DEMOCRACY DEMOCRACYDESIGN AN AND OMED DNA NGISED DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND DEMOCRACYDESIGN AND DEMO AND NA NGISED DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN DESIGN DEMOCRACYDESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND ISED DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND DEMOCRACYDESIGN AND DEMO AND DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN DEMOCRACY DEMOCRACYDESIGN AN AND DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND DESIGN A N D D E M O C R A C YDESI DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND E M O C R A C Y A N DD DESIGN A N D D E M O C R A A DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY M O C R A C Y A N D E DESIGN A N D DEMOCRA N

DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY M O C R A C Y A N DE DESIGN DEMOCRACY D E A NS D I G N

DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY O C R A C Y A N D M DESIGN DEMOCRACY DA N D

DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY M O C R A C Y A N DE DESIGN A N D DEMOCRACY

DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY M O C R A C Y A N D E DESIGN D A N D DEMOCR DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY E M O C R A C Y A N D DESIGN E DEMOCR DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY E M O C R A C Y A N D DESIGN M A N D DEMOCR DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY E M O C R A C Y A N D DESIGN O A N D DEMOCRAC DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY E M O C R A C Y A N D DESIGN C A N D DEMOCRACY

DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY M O C R A C Y A N D DESIGN RA N D DEMOCRACY

DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY E M O C R A C Y A N D DESIGN A N DA DEMOCRAC

DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY E M O C R A C Y A N D DESIGN C A N D DEMOCR

DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY E M O C R A C Y A N D DESIGN Y DEMOCR DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRACYAND DESIGN AND DESIGN AND D E M O C R A C Y D E S I G N A N D D E M O C R A C Y A N D DESIGN DES DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND DESIGN DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND AND D E M O C R A C Y IGN DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND AND D E M O C R A C Y DESI DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN ESIGN DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND AND D E M O C R A C Y GN DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY DESIGN DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND AND D E M O C R A C Y DESI DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY AND IGN DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND AND D E M O C R A C Y GN DEMOCRACY AND AND DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND AND D E M O C R A C Y DE DEMOCRACY AN IGN DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND D E M O C R A C Y SIGN DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY DESIGN DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND AND D E M O C R A C Y DE DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY SIGN DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND AND D E M O C R A C Y SIGN DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY DESIGN DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND AND D E M O C R A C Y DES DEMOCRACY ANDAND DEMOCRACY DESIGN DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN AND AND D E M O C R A C Y IGN AND DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY AND DESIGN DESIGNAND D E M O C R A C Y D E S I G N A N D D E M O C R A C Y A N D DESIGN A N D DEMOCRACY DESIGN DESIGN AND DEMOCRACY DEAND DEMOCRACY D E S I G N A N D D E M O C R A C YD E M O C R A C Y A N D A N D DESIGN MOCRACY DEMOCRACY DESIGN AND D E M O C R A C Y DEMOCRACY AND A N D DESIGN RACYDEMOCRACY D E S I G N A N D D E M O C DEMOCRACY AND DESIGNA

AND DEMOCRAN D DE- A DEMOCACYA N D D E S I G N DEMOCRACY AND CY A N D SIGN MOCRACYDEMOCRACY D E S I G N A N D D E DEMOCRACY AND D I A L O G U E S AND MAKDESIGN A N D ANDDESIGN DEMOCRACY DEMOCRACY AND ING A N D DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN ANDDEMOCRACYDEMOCRACY AND D E E S I G N A N D D E M O C R A C Y DEMOCRAC DESIGN A N D A N D D E S I G N D E M O C R A C Y A N D D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N G DEMOCRAC DESIGN A N D DESI DESIGNANDDEMOCDEMOCRACY AND DIALOGUES

AND MAKDEMOCRACYR A C Y D E S I DESIGN A N D DEMOCRACY AND ING DE-G N A N D D DE- A N D EMOCRACYANDDESDEMOCRACY AND D I A L O G U E S AND MAKSIGN A N DMOCRACY IGNANDM DEMOCRACY AND ING DEMOCRAC D E S I G N A N D D E DESIGN A N D MOCRACYD I A L O G U E S AND MAK- D E M O C R A C Y A N D DEMOCRA DESIGN A N D ANDDESIGN DEMOCRACY AND ING DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN

A N D A N D A N D A N A N D A N D A N D

D D D DD D D D

E E E E E E E

M M M M M M M

REGENERATING DEMOCRACY: THE SCENARIO OF A PROJECT-CENTRED DEMOCRACY EZIO MANZINI

DESIGN

A N D

D

E

M

O

C

R

A

C

Y

DESIGN

A N D

AND

DESIGN

A N D

D E S I G N

DESIGN D

E

M

O

C

R

A

C

Y

DESIGN

A N D

D

E

M

O

C

R

A

C

Y

DESIGN

A N D

D

E

M

O

C

R

A

DESIGN

D

E

M

O

C

R

A

C

A N D

D

E

M

O

C

R

A

C

Y

D

E

M O C DESIGN

R

A

C Y A N D

A N D

DESIGN DESIGN D E

M

O

C

A N D R A

C

Y

A N D

D E S I G N

Y 0

D

E

M

O

C

R

A

C

Y

D

E

M

O

C

R

A

C

Y

0 2

C U R R E N T I S S U E 0 8

0 2 0

“We are in difficult and dangerous times. For many years, we lived in a world that, despite its problems, was nevertheless committed to principles of democracy in which human rights, fundamental freedoms, and opportunities for personal development, were increasing. Today, this picture has changed profoundly. There are attacks on democracy in several countries – including those where democracy had seemed to be unshakable. Faced by these developments, we believe the design community should take a stand, speak out, and act: practitioners, researchers, theorists, students, journalists, publishers and curators - all who are professionally involved in design-related activities” [1].

This is the incipit of an Open Letter to the Design Community Victor Margolin and I wrote one year ago, March 2017. Since them several things happened, several discussions took place and several reflections have been done. The following one is a contribution moving in this same direction. It doesn’t deal with the whole issue of democracy regeneration, but it focuses on the one of participatory democracy. More precisely, it proposes the following question: can the experiences of social innovation in general, and the ones of design for social innovation in particular, help to update and upgrade the ideas and practices of democracy (and, specifically, those of participative democracy)?

In order to start this discussion a scenario is proposed, i.e. a scenario of a project-centred democracy. The idea is to extend the definition of democracy by considering its 'designing' dimension: democracy as a hybrid, physical and digital space, equipped to offer people an increased possibility to meet, to start conversations, to conceive and collaboratively enhance their projects. That is, a democracy that not only gives people the freedom to meet and

collaboratively design their lives and their world, but that also has to be seen as a space equipped to give these conversations and codesign processes a better chance of concrete results [2].

LESSONS LEARNT FROM SOCIAL INNOVATION In recent years, the crisis of democracy has not spared participatory democracy. But I think it has affected it in ways that are different and less disruptive than those we are witnessing in representative democracy. Above all, it has left space for significant signs of vitality and renewal.

More precisely, I think that, on this field too, as in many others, social innovation, converging with technological innovation, is indicating to us a viable direction. That is, how to make new forms of participation possible.

To discuss it, let’s start from some simple, naïve questions: why should people participate?

In other words, why should they invest time and energy in participatory actions? Why should they commit themselves, imposing constraints on their own freedom of action?

The traditional reply is that they should do so out of a sense of civic responsibility: because it is right to take part in decision-making, and in the actions this entails, when it concerns the entire community. I think this reply is still valid, but we should add to it another; one which refers to the motivations and the capabilities of active citizens, as they emerge – as I said – from a perusal of recent social innovation.

For example, let’s consider people deciding to live collaboratively. Why do they do it? The experience says: they do it because they think sharing residential spaces and services is useful, feasible and economically advantageous.

Furthermore, they undoubtedly also recognize value in sharing with their neighbours, and in

relational quality in general. Lastly, they very probably think that what they are doing is also positive for the neighbourhood and the whole city (in that it produces a social commons and feeds conversation on this theme with innovative ideas about living better). The same can be said for the farmers and local citizens who create farmers' markets, and for all those committed to mutual help (in the general frame of collaborative welfare) or who organize neighbourhood cultural activities (such as local initiatives of urban regeneration); or for makers and the new craftspeople (when they are involved in open production activities, distributed over the local area).

All this highlights a first lesson that social innovation teaches us: there is a ‘new kind of civic sense.’ The civic sense of a person who not only takes part in discussion about issues of public interest, but who also puts into practise and manages what he has discussed. He does so for himself, for the people he collaborates with, and for society as a whole.

PARTICIPATING AS CO-DESIGNING The cases offered as examples also teach us another lesson: they are forms of participation in which decision-making is directly linked with putting things into practice. It is not only a question of talking about what to do, but also of doing what has been talked about. In other words, the people discussing must also be in a position to actually do what has been discussed.

So, the second lesson to be learned from social innovation is this: the composition of the group collaborating to achieve a result defines the field of possibility within which that result can be imagined and achieved. Or to put it the other way round, having established what we wish to achieve, we must create a group that is able to

D E

...HOW DO WE RECONCILE THE ORIENTATION GIVEN BY THE AFFORDANCE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE, WITH THE FACT THAT DEMOCRACY IS, BY DEFINITION, THE REGIME WHERE AUTONOMY AND DIVERSITY OF OPINIONS ARE CULTIVATED?

S I G N A N D D E M O C R A C Y

achieve it. It must not only be willing, but also technically capable and possess the political power to do what has been decided.

This way of proceeding, which to all intents and purposes is a designing activity, has the advantage of obtaining tangible results but, given a context, it also limits the field in which this form of participation can operate. However, this limit is not a fixed one. It depends on the coalition that can be formed. Coalitions composed almost entirely of active citizens, like those that animated the cases I previously referred to, mainly lead to local-scale initiatives.

On the other hand, coalitions may also include other actors and therefore other competencies and powers. When this happens, they may aspire to developing much wider projects and thus extend the field in which this participatory model can take place.

A NEW PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY Let's imagine society as an interweaving mesh of networks of people intent on discussing and making decisions about what to do and doing (or trying to do) what they have decided. The environment in which this is happening may be more or less favourable, meaning that it may make it more or less probable that such conversations take place and that, focusing on the common interest, they become decisions and then collaborative actions. The environment in which all of this can happen in the best way imaginable is democracy. More precisely, it is project-centred democracy, meaning a participatory enabling ecosystem in which everybody can develop their projects and achieve their results, in so far as they do not reduce the possibility of other people doing the same. On the other hand, since we cannot design and produce alone, it is also a democracy that is born out of collaboration and

produces collaboration. In doing so it fosters the regeneration of a social commons.

In this scenario, project-centred democracy is therefore an environment that tends to give everybody the possibility of meeting and collaborating and, in so doing, to achieve objectives pursuing interests that are both individual and collective. In this definition, the co-existence of these two planes, one personal and the other collective, is the characterizing aspect. If the environment were only to provide favourable conditions for individual projects, it might appear to offer people greater freedom, but this would only occur within the limits of what the system in which they would be operating were able, and willing to, offer. On the other hand, as we have seen, an environment that provides favourable conditions for collaborative projects gives space to coalitions that have, or can assume, the power to carry out their decisions.

In other words, they can themselves build the conditions by which to accomplish what they wish to achieve.

Given these characteristics, project-centred democracy is a form of participatory democracy that supports, integrates and, hopefully, collaborates to regenerate other forms of democracy. It enriches them with ideas and practices from the new civicism of those who operate to produce value for themselves and for the community they belong to. The issue that arises now is to understand better how all this can happen, or in other words, how the relationship between these different forms of democracy will take shape.

ACTIVE CITIZENS, AND THE OTHERS We shall start with the following, rather obvious, consideration: the projects made possible by project-based democracy are the result of the

actions of groups of citizens who are particularly sensitive to the issue in question. They are active citizens who find the time, attention and energy required to participate. On the other hand, just because they are so active, these people are often not representative of the majority. Indeed, very often, the most interesting and dynamic experiences of social innovation have been promoted by small groups of active citizens who, at the beginning, were not understood by others.

Sometimes, they were even in clear contrast to the ways of thinking and acting that were prevalent at that time and in that place.

However, these experiences, or at least the more successful ones, show us how to overcome this problem: if the ideas thought up and enhanced by small groups of citizens are good, they gradually spread, become more consistent and are finally democratically discussed and approved. The neighbourhood gardens, urban vegetable gardens and organic food projects are clear examples of how this has in fact happened: at the beginning these activities were proposed and carried out only by small, fringe groups of activists (sometimes even illegally). Then, as we know, they grew in number and at a certain point, they have been acknowledged and regularized by the public administration, which means also that they have been formally approved by the organisms of representative democracy.

It follows that in the participatory and enabling ecosystem we are talking about, a virtuous circle may develop between groups of active citizens, who informally generate new ideas, and the organisms of representative democracy, which have the authority to approve and institutionalize them. Thus they are democratically approved and regulated, becoming part of a more favourable ecosystem.

0 2 1

C U R R E N T I S S U E 0 8

A DEMOCRATIC INFRASTRUCTURE

0 2 2

How can we create the conditions that make the existence of project-centred democracy more probable? How can we bring the group actions of active citizens and the practices of representative democracy together so they support each other? How can a ‘democratic infrastructure’ be produced for project-centred democracy?

The experience of mature social innovation enables us to answer these questions too: the infrastructure of project-centred democracy corresponds to the existence of an enabling ecosystem: an infrastructured environment where a variety of projects can emerge and thrive [3]. To play this role, this enabling ecosystem must include various elements, as: the rules of the democratic game (which make sure that every project respects the right of the other projects to exist with equal possibility of succeeding), the physical and virtual arenas (where people can meet and decide on their aims and how to achieve them), the online services and offline support (which make the co-designing and co-production activities more accessible and effective) and the social commons (such as trust and shared values which, as we have already seen, are the precondition for all forms of collaboration).

As well as these elements, infrastructure is also characterized by the way in which it supports the project activities. This is never in fact neutral; it always entails a certain orientation. We can refer to this characteristic as ‘affordance’: the capacity of an artefact to invite a certain mode of use. A way of being that does not force any particular behaviour, but which makes it more probable than others. In our case, the ‘affordance’ we are talking about is the capability of the infrastructure to orientate the projects it supports, which means that it invites their designing coalitions to consider the knowledge and values that are

embedded in the infrastructure (and that are proposes a dangerous simplification of reality if the knowledge and values that the community pursued unilaterally, reducing choices relating which conceived and created that particular in- to the public good to a sort of continual plebiscite frastructure considered relevant). in which everyone is invited to express his/ It seems to me that the theme of affordance her individual opinion, without the effort of in democratic infrastructure is of great practical creating shared opinions and mediating between and theoretical importance. It is also delicate, in different opinions. that it is easily misunderstood: how do we recIn contrast to this drift towards plebiscitary oncile the orientation given by the affordance of democracy, project-centred democracy enrichthe infrastructure, with the fact that democracy es the general idea of democracy with a new is, by definition, the regime where autonomy dimension: one which, when added to repreand diversity of opinions are cultivated? To an- sentative democracy, feeds it with meaningful swer this question we have to keep in mind that conversations. It is democracy intended as a democracy is also a regime capable of learning. ‘space of possibilities’ in which the (often long This means that it is capable of accumulating and difficult) construction of shared ideas and well-pondered experiences, filtering the best practices takes place. In turn, precisely because and embedding them within itself in the form of they emerge through dialogue, and the effort it shared knowledge and values. This means that involves, these ideas and practices may lead to cultivating diversity does not coincide with an results that are more coherent with the irreducidea of neutrality at all levels. For example, the ible complexity of the world. idea of democracy we refer to today is not neutral towards human rights, and its infrastructures should include affordances capable of inviting us not to act against them. The same should be true, in the case of project-centred democracy, for certain basic themes we have been talking about: collaboration, the interweave of relationships between people and the places they live in, regeneration of the commons. In short, we can say that the role of affordance is to connect the operational level of infrastructure (enabling projects) with the cultural level (orientating projects).

A SPACE OF POSSIBILITIES The project-centred democracy uses digital technologies but clashes with the presently most diffuse experiments of digital democracy that very often reduce it to the idea of a direct democracy online: an idea which, in using the appeal of digital technology and social media,

REFERENCES [1] Manzini, E. Open Letter to the Design Community: Stand Up For Democracy, 2017. http://www.democracy-design.org/ [2] Manzini, E. The Politics of Everyday Life. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2018. [3] Manzini, E. Design, When Everybody Designs. An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. MIT Press, 2015.

CAMERON TONKINWISE

DEMOCRACY MUST BE DEFENDED,

BY UNDEMOCRATIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

C U R R E N T I S S U E 0 8

0 2 4

The 20th Century involved the very worst of modern human beings. Widespread minorities were systematically denied citizenship, autonomy and then their lives, by members of the communities in which they lived. For fascists to find, gather and then kill that many people required comprehensive designs. The holocaust names the moment at which humans designed the mass destruction of humans.

Groups of humans seem to have always fought and made weapons to that end, but the 20th Century is the first time that humans explicitly designed systems for the mass extermination of non-combatants.

The scale of the horror that should come from the fact that humans did that, that they designed and operated such killing infrastructures, was supposed to be the guarantee that it would never be allowed to happen again. To ensure that anything remotely similar to the Shoah never, ever happens again, any and all precaution was considered necessary. Words and symbols associated with fascism were banned; people were asked to make every effort to avoid treating others in ways that even risked reproducing various fascisms; onerous rules and conventions that strengthened equality before an international Rule of Law were introduced.

Overreach in relation to those precautions was considered impossible, given that the worst case had actually taken place.

The process, after the Second World War, of trying to ensure that any kind of genocide be forevermore impossible was not quick, always successful, or even without hypocrisy and corruption. Representatives of the nations who fought against fascism continued to perpetuate their own racisms, colonialisms, and overt and covert wars. Capitalism’s drive toward inequality increasingly competed with those societies’ political espoused efforts to enhance equality and autonomy. Nevertheless, at the close of the 20th Century, there was – it seemed to me at least – a broadly consensual commitment, in principle, across much of the globe, to protect the future from ever repeating what had happened in the 20th Century.

Democracy has a complicated role in all this. org (referred to as ‘Stand up for Democracy’ On the one hand, those fascisms and their from now on). Margolin and Manzini are highly mass murders are the ultimate anti-democratic respected and influential, at least in academic action, effecting inequality at the level of design, so it is exemplary that they are lending erasing people’s being. On the other hand, their status to kicking off this initiative. these fascisms did, in key instances, begin Given what is at stake, ‘Stand up for Democracy’ with popularly elected political components. exposes as complicit any leader of Design Democracy in principle is an essential way of Education or Research who has not yet signed up. resisting fascism, yet democracy can in practice The ‘Stand up for Democracy’ call is deliberately enable fascism’s emergence. Because of this pluralist. There is little at risk in signing up with fundamental ambivalence, democracy must be a supportive statement. It is possible to make a constantly asserted and defended. To be more contribution and be critical of the initiative. Why pointed, democracy can be axial in resisting then have so few design (school) leaders signed fascism, but only when it is being repeatedly on? Are they cowards or contrarians? If they will re-designed to be resistant to fascism. not support this initiative, now, what would it Right now, democracy is threatened. While take for them to declare that a key priority of continuing to be threatened from without by their research and education be the restoration greedy growth-hunting capitalist corporations, of faith in democracy as resistance to fascism? now with monopolistic surveilling powers over I do however, find the ‘Stand up for Democall sources of information, democracy is being racy’ to be inadequate. The nature of what is threatened from within, by anti-democratic happening demands a stronger and more populists winning elections and effecting changes directed response. The initiative must identify to instituted equalities in order to threaten select the threat and name its enemies. It is insufficient groups’ autonomy. These threats are sufficient to say vaguely, ‘there are threats to democracy’ to require decisive action defending democracy. when people are no longer hiding that they are But even more urgently, these internal threats, ‘white supremacists.’ And it is insufficient to which have majority voting population support, ‘stand’ for a wide range of unspecified ‘designs are explicitly xenophobic, even racist and often for/of/in democracy’ when very clear and presexplicitly self-identify as fascist. This is not just ent dangers abound: targeted dissemination some usual disgruntledness with aspects of of lies on social media, platforms legitimating democracy. This is the form of anti-democracy fascist opinions, jerrymandering, corporate fithat that democracy after the Holocaust exists nancial political influence, vilification of investito resist. gative press and the delegitimation of courts, etc.

If you are going to acknowledge that democIn what follows, I want to make specific racy is under threat, if you are going to declare proposals about what designers resisting that publicly, in order to exhort others to being fascism by redesigning democracy should to defend democracy, it seems to me essential be. Despite the urgency of the current crisis in that you fully register the nature of what is hap- democracy, I want to criticize the current formupening. We face today fascist anti-democracy. lation of the ‘Stand up for Democracy’ initiative What we vowed to never, ever let happen again, with counter proposals. is happening.

WHAT STYLE OF DESIGNED DEMOCRACY

MORE DEMOCRACY It is excellent that Victor Margolin and Ezio Manzini have led the creation of a platform demanding that designers publicly commit to defending democracy: www.democracy-design.

Manzini and Margolin, and others who have supported their initiative, are perhaps not simply calling for quantitatively more democracy, which may in fact enable greater mandates for anti-democratic parties and their policies. The

D E

WHAT PROTECTS DEMOCRACY, SOMETIMES UNDEMOCRATICALLY, ARE DESIGNS, PRINCIPLES REMOVED FROM OPINION AND DEBATE BY BEING MATERIALIZED INTO STRUCTURES AND PROCESSES.

S I G N A N D D E M O C R A

project is to enhance the quality of democracy by advocating for the strengthening of democracies in principle and not just practice. But this seems to me to demand, upfront, articulation of the particulars of those principles. If an appropriate response is not just designing ‘more’ democracy, pluralizing democracy in general, then the project must stand up for – promoting and facilitating – clearly defined versions of democracy, for example (to my mind): >> compulsory voting >> well-resourced, independent electoral commissions governing voter registration and districting >> restrictively regulated campaign financing >> restrictively regulated informatively policy-based campaigns >> paper-based elections (for quality control and security) What is important to note here is that each of these principles represents a non-democratic aspect of democracy. Requiring citizens to vote, and enforcing those regulations, is not a democratic way to practice democracy (though instituting it would invariably involve a constitutional referendum), but it is a system design that responds to the ways in which antidemocratic forces are eroding democracies.

Similarly, restricting freedom of speech, especially when extended to corporations, is illiberal; but that is because democracy is not the answer to everything, especially the protection of democracy. What protects democracy, sometimes undemocratically, are designs, principles removed from opinion and debate by being materialized into structures and processes.

To put this another way, democracy, despite being a system for inclusion, depends on exclusion. Only citizens for example get the right to vote, so democracies are founded on more or less draconian determinations of citizenship. Much of what motivates antidemocratic tendencies today are attempts to restrict enfranchisement further (as a result of unjustifiable racism, sexism and classism), a

restrictive act that is nevertheless essential to the pragmatics of democracy. To stand up for democracy requires standing up for certain restrictions on democracy. I think that it is dangerous to not be explicit about which enabling constraints one is standing up for, especially when what you are fighting are racist versions of those constraints.

Again, this should not be foreign to the practice of design. Design is the art and science of mass production, so its central expertise involves judging the right way to preserve the quality of an innovation when trying to maximize the quantity of people it can serve (or at least be marketed to). As argued previously, design, as postmodern, embraces context-specific design, satisfying for particular personae from specified market segments rather than ‘universal design.’

Designs that work well do so only for certain groups of people; to design for some is to restrict others (who should therefore be designed for in turn, or prior if already marginalized by existing politics and economics). To stand up for democracy as a designer therefore requires being specific about who you are standing up for; it means arguing for certain restrictions on democracy – for example, to my mind:

C Y

>> restricting the scale of democracy, from nations and states, to cities and bioregions >> enabling societies to specify the timeframes of different kinds of democratic decisions – neither regular, nor too frequently; making mandates and regulations have specified durations before they are subject to subsequent democratic review

DEFENDING AGAINST SOCIAL MEDIA MARKETS To stand up for certain forms of democracy for certain people therefore also means to stand against certain people. As one of the great testers of the limits of democracy, Carl Schmitt, once argued, politics is the determination of friends and enemies [1]. If there is a need to be specific about what kind of democracy one is standing for, then it is necessary to articulate who you

0 2 5

C U R R E N T I S S U E 0 8

0 2 6

are seeking to exclude. Xenophobes, to my mind, especially those who celebrate militancy and oppose the rule of law, cannot be tolerated, and must be outlawed from democracy, militantly. Such a contradiction is what taking a stand means. There is no unhypocritical position from which to take a political stand – which is not a reason to exploit or celebrate hypocrisy, but rather a demand to take responsibility for containing the consequences of that hypocrisy.

More significantly, to militantly outlaw certain people and positions, is precisely a task for design. Identifying and censoring sympathizers for Nazi perspectives on Facebook and Twitter for instance is a systems design problem. No such system would function perfectly, and it would certainly never function automatically – which is to say, it will always be a matter of people making judgments, not a technology making identifications – and it may well therefore be expensive, but it could be facilitated through service and interface design. To stand up for democracy as an interaction designer is therefore not a vague commitment, but a very specific, material design challenge. And instituting the outcomes of any successful designs will then require challenging those in power at Facebook and Twitter, whether founders or investors.

My talk of calling out the way Facebook and Twitter profit by not taking responsibility for the erosions of democracy they enable, draws attention to another crucial area of neglect in the Stand up for Democracy initiative so far: corporate capitalism. Democracy once depended on slavery, and then on invasive colonialism, even if certain democracies have also enabled the ending of some forms of slavery and colonialism. The point again is that democracy is dependent on non-democratic systems, especially economic ones. Contemporary liberal democracies are tightly coupled with capitalism, which bears an ambiguous relation to democracy, one that directly implicates design.

Capitalism begins with inequitable property rights. A capitalist induces workers to make use of the means of production he owns to produce goods that he can sell for the accumulation of profit. One limit on this system of exploitation is that the goods produced need to be saleable.

When these goods afford experiences that lie beyond survival necessities, people can lessen

the capitalist’s wealth accumulation and so power by choosing not to buy those goods. In this way, the market, though founded in inequity, can operate somewhat like a democracy, with individuals theoretically able to choose collectively which goods they would like capitalists to produce. In practice, the system has many obstacles and lags. To have power, consumers need to have comprehensive, timely information not only about the goods available, but other not-currently-available options with which those goods could be compared. Even in these cases, markets take a long time to respond to flagging sales. In the current era of corporate capitalism, managers are incentivized to force customers into sales that can translate into shareholder returns rather than being responsive to customer feedback. Consequently, to take a stand for democracy means at least opposing incentivizing business managers in terms of share price increases [2].

Nevertheless, formal democratic processes are being eroded by the ideology that customers have more power as consumers than as citizens, that privatized market-based organizations deliver better quality services than government agencies, that brands are more attentive and trustworthy than politicians or civil servants. A crucial way to stand up for democracy given this is to: >> promote the value of government, government run services, and regulation The mediaries between customers and corporations who are tasked with democratizing what capitalism produces are designers. Design research promises to poll people about what they really want and designers commit those opinions into the materialized policies that are products, environments, platforms and services.

This version of designing then begins to displace formal democracy. With rapidly flexible digital products and systems, designers almost promise direct democracy, with perpetual polling about, and so weekly upgrades to, the forms and features of goods and services.

This existing set of pseudo-democratic relations between design and capitalism should be a central consideration to any attempted reassertion of the value of democracy. Is the

D E

THIS EXISTING SET OF PSEUDO-DEMOCRATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN DESIGN AND CAPITALISM SHOULD BE A CENTRAL CONSIDERATION TO ANY ATTEMPTED REASSERTION OF THE VALUE OF DEMOCRACY.

S I G N A N D D E M O C R A C Y

democracy designers should be standing up for pluralistly compatible with non-democratic aspects of cor porate capitalism? Does standing up for democracy entail endorsing corporate capitalism’s apparent commitment to co-designing for instance? Or is this kind of commercial co-design precisely what has been weakening formal democracy, undermining the capacity of government to deliver services, and redirecting consumer confidence toward monopolistic mega-tech-corporations? If it is the latter, then standing up for democracy means opposing corporate capitalism in some or all forms.

Every time a designer concedes that a major priority in any design work should be preserving the profitability of the corporation they work for, either because they believe that ideology or out of some self-preservation reflex, are they not being anti-democratic? Are they not using the innovative power of design to entrench inequality?

POST NORMAL PARTICIPATION Whilst supporters of the Stand up for Democracy initiative may not wish to commit to opposing corporate capitalism, there is a commitment to the tactic of expanding democracy within capitalism. The politics here seems to be: if corporations currently use design to do a version of democratizing the products and services offered to the market, then designers can stand up for democracy by making those moments of design research and co-design more participatory.

It is important to recall here that participatory design emerged from labour activism in Scandinavia to make workplaces more formally democratic. It was unions that insisted that workers should participate in the design of the computers that would restructure their work [3]. The principles and processes of Computer Suppor ted Cooperative Work were the foundation for Human Computer Interaction

and then Human Centred Designing. Stand up for Democracy could and should be the reaffirmation of the politics of this lineage (which interestingly Agile in some circumstances appears to do) [4].

But the task is again not just one of making design more participatory. Participatory design, often considered sacrosanct, is now the subject of useful critiques [5] ones that question: Who is invited to Participate (and who is not)? Who has the skills to Participate (and who could be taught those skills)? Who frames the extent to which Participants can participate (and what questions and proposals will not be entertained no matter how insistent certain participants are)? How are participants compensated for their labour and get access to learning from the project (and what happens to issues that are not incorporated into the project)? All these questions concern not just how to design comprehensively and justly, but central questions of democracy–diversity and delegation.

If enhancement of participatory design in commercial designing (as opposed to social design where it is mostly the norm) is part of promoting democracy outside of conventional electoral politics, then the initiative should be taking a particular stand in this regard – for instance, to my mind: >> demanding in every project is a widening of the scope of who counts as a stakeholder – including marginalized peoples, by race, class or ability, but also including a wide range of non-users, people from across the whole-of-life supply chain, including delgates representing future generations and non-human actors 0

>>

2 7

C U R R E N T I S S U E 0 8

>> affirmative action on behalf of marginalized peoples becoming designers and taking the lead on all projects > > a dvocating for wide participation in nonproject – based aspects of an organization, such as the visions for the future that the organization is working toward and prepared to evaluate its work against >> advocating for participation in the profits from design for all involved – from makers and maintainers to users and disposers (or recoverers) This leads to a final important deficiency in the current Stand up for Democracy project.

Many current anti-democratic discourses take the form of scepticism toward experts.

Modern democratic governance has always required a cohort of expert advisors. This is why the modern university, as the arbiters of those experts, is axial to democracy, even though universities and the notion of expertise is fundamentally undemocratic. The crisis of democracy at the moment is not just a collapse of faith in progress toward increasing democratic enfranchisement, but a discrediting of progress in expert knowledge production[6]. It is not a coincidence that anti-democratic populists are also anti-science in their reactions to urban elites.

As a fundamental part of the current challenge to democracy, it is essential that defences of democracy take this into account. As with other problematic aspects of the pluralist version of Standing up for Democracy, a loose version of ‘more democracy’ is actually the cause of the problem rather than its solution. Those refuting key scientific recommendations often do so by appealing to their democratic rights to vote for such scepticism, or to a disingenuous version of their free speech right to articulate such ‘diverse’ denials.

Standing up for Democracy therefore demands very carefully designed responses to the question of experts in postmodern societies. There have been concerted efforts to clarify what enhanced participation in technoscientific expertise might

0 2 8

involve[7]. Deliberative Democracy forums for technology assessment; the lay peer review processes advocated as part of Post Normal Science to evaluate scientific research directions, Citizen Juries making delegated determinations about acceptable risk. In each of these cases, the processes have expanded the role of the citizen from occasional election of political leaders to more regular judgements about technoscientific developments. The forms and formalities of each are designed to democratize access to the technical issues without empowering destructive doubt about those technicians. To the contrary, these exercises aim to enhance faith in the work of experts by exposing their processes to diversely lay scrutiny. Seeing how knowledge is constructed is supposed not to destroy faith in those domains but rather bolster it [8].

These initiatives lie very close to participatory design research and prototyping processes at their best. But there are still too few well-formed bridges between Design Research and these ‘Post Normal’ initiatives, ones that involve citizens in well-informed decisions about what goods should be produced, and which bad (risks of harmful social and ecological impacts) communities are prepared to live with. ‘Standing up for Democracy’ must involve building, demonstrating and promoting those bridges. This would mean not just inviting participants to help with creating a successful design, but creating mechanisms by which participants can scrutinize the wider strategy that any particular design is part of, and evaluate the risks and future impacts that might flow from widespread adoption of those designs.

If democracy is about equitable access to decision-making about our shared futures, then a democracy worth defending would regulate broad inclusiveness in all design decisions. It should not be possible to take a product to market before delegated representatives had evaluated the risks associated with that introduction, making judgements about what that design will design.

D E S I G N

DESIGN POLITICS BEYOND THE MICROPOLITICAL

REFERENCES

Poststructuralism drew attention to the political [1] Fry, Tony. (2010) Design as Politics. Berg.[2] Martin, Roger. (2011) Fixing the Game: Bubbles, – the more personal and material discourses in crashes, and what capitalism can learn from the which new political possibilities were fostered – NFL.Harvard Business Press.[3] Ehn, Pelle. (1988) Work-oriented Design of Computer Artifacts. Arbetas opposed to formal realm of politics – electoral slivscentrum.[4] Bulajewski, Mike. (2013) "The politics and a parliamentary politicians [9]. This Agile Labor Union." West Space Journal 2.[5] focus opened the way to seeing how design Palmås, Karl, and Otto von Busch. (2015) "Quawas political, concreting power relations into si-Quisling: Co-design and the Assembly of Collaborateurs." CoDesign 11, no. 3-4: 236-249.[6] everyday environments and practices, but also Fuller, Steve. "Brexit as the unlikely leading affording niches for experimenting with new edge of the anti-expert revolution." European ways of living and working [10]. On this side of Management Journal 35, no. 5 (2017): 575-580.[7] Callon, Michel. (2009) Acting in an Uncertain World: Brexit and Trump, etc, it feels like in attending An essay on Technological Democracy. MITPress.[8] to the political, there was an attending away Latour, Bruno. (2004) "Why has critique run from politics. There was, sometimes, a mistaken out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of assumption that democratic systems, though concern." Critical inquiry 30, no. 2: 225-248. flawed, were pretty inviolable and so not needing [9] Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe, and Jean-Luc Nancy. (1997) Retreating the Political. Routledge.[10] focused defending; or that democratic systems Marres, Noortje. (2016) Material Participation: were eroding in the postmodern condition and, Technology, the Environment and Everyday Publics. as a result, the only games left to the play were Springer.[11] “Open Letter to the Design Community: Stand Up For Democracy.” Democracy and Demicro-political ones. sign Platform, www.democracy-design.org/open-letFormal politics has now reasserted itself, as ter-stand-up-democracy/. Kenzidor, Sarah (2016) the active threatening of democracy. Those “Trump and Putin: The Worst Case Scenario” QZ, Decemdemocratically supported forms of anti- ber 23, 2016: https://qz.com/871436/donald-trumpnuclear-weapons- putin-and- trump-release- statedemocracy are strengthened by a range of racisms ments-that-hint- at-increased- nuclear-armament/ and Nazism on the one hand, and corporate [12] Latour, Bruno. (1990) "Technology is Socapitalism on the other. The size and force of ciety made Durable." The Sociological Review 38, no.1_suppl: 103-131.[13] Scarry, Elaine. (2014) the latter and the extreme danger of the former Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing between Democracy demand responses that do not prevaricate. It is and Doom. WW Norton &Company. no longer acceptable to say “We do not have to share exactly the same idea of what democracy is: to defend it as a core value, it is enough to recognize the strong convergence between democracy and design” [11]. The liberal pluralist version of democracies, fearing that they might appear sometimes undemocratic, have allowed the return of the worst of the project of modernity. But democracy can only, and so must, be defended undemocratically, by design. And those designs need to be informed by strong, clear visions of what they stand for. Designers standing up for Democracy must take the form of formal politics, not just (micro)political social innovations. Designers must strongly articulate policies that seek to exclude anti-democratic expressions, whether racist or capitalist.

A N D D E M O C R A C Y

0 2 9

C U R R E N T I S S U E 0 8

NEIGHBOURHOOD TIME EXCHANGE| DOWNTOWN PRINCE GEORGE KATE ARMSTRONG CAITLIN CHAISSON LAURA KOZAK JUSTIN LANGLOIS

D E

WE FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT THE WORK DIRECTLY SUPPORT THE NEIGHBOURHOOD AND ENGAGE AUTHENTICALLY WITH THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.

S I G N A N D D E M O C R A C Y

Emily Carr University of Art + Design began the process of launching a new campus in Prince George by partnering with the Wood Innovation Design Centre (WIDC) in 2015. Living Labs took on an active role in programming creative research and industry projects through this new lens of institutional activity. Through discussion with Justin Langlois, Associate Professor in the Faculty of Culture and Community, the idea emerged to produce another iteration of Langlois’ Neighbourhood Time Exchange project, which he had piloted in Philadelphia in 2015. It would be the first major research project created by Emily Carr in this new geographical context, and would be the first time that the Neighbourhood Time Exchange model had been realized in Canada.

Drawing inspiration from reciprocity-based exchange practices such as time-banking, the goal was to create a generative framework in a lived context that would allow us to reach into the local community in Prince George while creating sustainable and supportive opportunities for artists. Between September 2016 and April 2017 the Neighbourhood Time Exchange : Downtown Prince George linked community-engaged social practice with artistic studio production, operating on a simple principle: for every hour an artist spends in their studio, they provide an hour of volunteer service to the community.

We saw the project as a perfect opportunity to create a “living lab” in a city that was new to us, allowing us to support local and visiting artists-in-residence while forming a network of foundational relationships with community partners that we knew would be crucial to future activities in Prince George. Working with the Northern Development Initiative Trust, we engaged Downtown Prince George and the City of Prince George as key partners for the

project, which became the Neighbourhood Time Exchange : Downtown Prince George.

In the summer of 2016 Living Labs circulated an open call to the Prince George community organizations inviting ideas for how they might wish to collaborate with artists. This process helped us understand the core work, and the needs and possibilities for working with a variety of prospective community partners. Non-profits, locally-owned businesses, schools, councils, social service organizations, and other groups were asked to propose projects beyond the scope of their existing capacity that would draw upon the expertise of artists. Through this process Downtown Prince George, the Innovation Central Society, the Prince George Public Library, the Recycling and Environmental Action Planning Society (REAPS), and the Two Rivers Gallery were identified as community partners.

In a parallel process, the curatorial team began thinking of how to match community partners to the skills and expertise of artists.

As curator, Justin Langlois – in collaboration with Emily Carr MFA grad and Assistant Curator Caitlin Chaisson – sought out socially-engaged practitioners locally and nationally at different career stages whose expertise would serve community partners in unique ways.

In the end, nine artists worked in the Prince George storefront studio, each for a period of one month. Artists were given the time, space, and resources to develop their independent practices while being immersed in the context of Prince George. Each artist was paired with one or more community organizations for the duration of their residency.

We felt it was important that the work directly support the neighbourhood and engage authentically with the surrounding community. We secured a vacant storefront in the downtown area

that had been closed for several years, and with minor renovations transformed the underutilized space into a lively cultural centre. We sourced materials from neighbourhood stores, thrifted furniture from second-hand vendors, invited local musicians to perform at openings, and hired local photographers to document our events. We hired a Prince George-based Project Coordinator – Roanne Whitticase – whose work enriched the programming of the residency by continuously linking artists with the local community. The community’s engagement grew each month as more people heard about the studio.

In September, we officially launched Neighbourhood Time Exchange : Downtown Prince George with Vancouver-based artists Rachel and Sarah Seburn as inaugural artists-in-residence. Recent graduates from Emily Carr University of Art + Design’s Bachelor of Fine Arts program, the collaborative practice of these emerging artists addresses real estate, architecture, urban planning, and land use. Working with their community partner, Downtown Prince George, Seburn & Seburn activated forgotten spaces in the downtown core by creating an outdoor platform space designed to encourage gatherings and dialogue. The Prince George Activator Society, a non-profit that helps reintegrate recently released prison inmates into the workforce, volunteered to help construct the installation. The artists also worked with the Recycling and Environmental Action Planning Society (REAPS) to develop a contribution to the annual Rivers Day event. The artists developed an installation by submerging bright red silk material below the surface of the river. The material ebbed and flowed with the currents, unexpectedly conjuring the bright colours of a school of salmon.

Lily Mead Martin arrived in early October.

Martin’s art practice uses drawings, photographs,

0 3 1

C U R

Figure #1 Part of Rachel and Sarah’s contribution to the NTE

R E N T I S S U E 0 8

Figure #2 Part of Rachel and Sarah’s contribution to the NTE.

0 3 2

D Figure #3 A part of Jacob Hardner’s project during his residence at NTE.

E S I G N A N D D E M O C R A C Y

sculpture, installation and performance to understand the tensions between urban development and the individual, architecture and the body. “Building”became a metaphor and a strategy for both Martin’s studio practice and her work on her community project, where she worked with Two Rivers Gallery to redeck the gallery’s sculpture court. In the studio Martin’s thoughts turned to the architectural plans of the city, and the legacy of the flood and fire history in Prince George. Over the course of the month Martin developed a new body of inkbased drawings using starchy, net-like gauzes and staining processes. The resulting marks of the paper-based work flip between looking like the page has been smokily scorched or seared, or flooded by pools of watery ink. Martin refers to some of the drawings in the series as “small geographies”, creating a connection to the tropes of mapping.

In November Alana Bartol arrived from Calgary. Immediately, the confluence of the Nechako River and the Fraser River became a point of inspiration for her. Throughout the month, Bartol framed her work both in the studio and on a community project with Downtown Prince George through metaphors of “coming together”, an idea evoked through the natural course of the meeting of the rivers.

Working on Downtown Prince George’s ‘Love Downtown’ project prompted the artist to think about what it means to love, care, and support a place. Bartol initiated conversations with Nusdeh Yoh Elementary School, The Fire Pit, met with local historians, spoke with local women at UNBC’s Inspiring Women Among Us panel, and developed relationships with many other individuals committed to telling their own stories of Prince George. These conversations formed a significant part of Bartol’s artistic research during the residency.

In December the storefront studio was turned over to our Project Coordinator, Roanne Whitticase, who developed and facilitated a number of community event requests. The momentum of the residency was carried during this month by a swell of interest and support from the local community, when the space hosted musical performances, exhibitions, craft nights, and discussions about the importance of community-driven art spaces in the city.

David Jacob Harder took up residence over January. Based in Wells, British Columbia, Harder is very familiar with the central interior of the province. Harder produced an extensive body of work that incorporates the immediate environment into his material and conceptual concerns, as well as collaborating

0 3 3

C U R R E N T I S S U E 0 8

with local musicians. Much of Harder’s practice involves collecting material from backwoods, riverbeds, or isolated logging roads. Harder returned in February to help his community partner Downtown Prince George create an ice sculpture and other public installations for the 2017 Winter Carnival.

Calgary-based artists Eric Moschopedis and Mia Rushton arrived in February, partnering with Downtown Prince George and the Prince George Public Library on two projects that sought out new strategies and methods for engaging the public. With the Library, the artists engaged community members in developing a strategy for redesigning the library’s Knowledge Garden, an outdoor sculpture park for children. In the studio, the duo developed a collaborative quilting process based on improvisation and strategies of collage.

In March we hosted Michelle Fu, co-founder of acclaimed artist-run centre, 221A. Fu has a wealth of knowledge about institutional development and community-minded initiatives, and she is experienced in looking to public infrastructures from social, critical or philosophical perspectives on designed media and space.

Partnered with the Innovation Central Society, Fu developed spatial organization strategies for the Hubspace, a technology-oriented co-working space. Fu worked in the studio developing new computer-aided embroidery work and created

an experimental engagement process involving the piling, hanging, stacking, balancing and stretching of objects into complex assemblages.

Towards the end of the month the artist invited the neighbourhood to participate in a giant version of her creative process, a workshop titled Objects Art Everyday Life Rhythms Smells and Things.

Concluding the program in April was local artist Frances Gobbi. Gobbi’s deep connections to the community resonated throughout the projects she took on during the residency. Gobbi worked with municipal partners to develop a strategy for murals in the downtown core. The artist took the opportunity to “dream bigger than the walls of her living room”, having a studio space for the first time in her career.

Building on the momentum of the residency, the storefront space we occupied over 8 months became a temporary exhibition space for a dynamic new project based on the work of Assistant Curator, Caitlin Chaisson.

Throughout the project, Justin Langlois had been working closely with Assistant Curator Caitlin Chaisson through a BCAC-supported mentorship, which enabled Chaisson to develop Far Afield, is an ongoing curatorial initiative that supports experimental research, publications, exhibitions, community engagement, and emergent practices in regional communities in British Columbia. The first iteration of

0 3

Figure #4 A part of Jacob Hardner’s project during his residence

4

at NTE

D E

this project, Disturbances in the Field, was another major outcome of this project, and was exhibited in the storefront studio in May. We can look back over the 6 months of development and 8 months of activity of the Neighbourhood Time Exchange : Prince George and see a number of incredible outcomes and effects that unfolded in a generative, social and highly located process of exploration and development. Working in the context of Prince George was an amazing opportunity for learning, mapping, and exploring that has played an integral role in shaping our understanding of the community and framing a number of subsequent projects and partnerships.

We were able to build an incredible team within Emily Carr that has become a model for how we can engage and support faculty while developing new knowledge and expertise in how we can work through the lens of Living Labs. We were able to develop this project in a highly collaborative process that had clear divisions in terms of being led on the artistic side by Justin Langlois and on the production side by Kate Armstrong and Laura Kozak but that was a highly iterative, cooperative, and dialogue-driven process.

The nine artists themselves were the ‘living layer’ of project activity, and were of course pivotal in how the project unfolded. There were multiple points where the artists themselves worked to break down barriers by opening up

the space for other groups in the community to use. In addition to the six original community partners, seventy-seven other artists, musicians, poets, societies, and clubs took part in using the downtown studio as a place to exhibit work, perform, meet, or organize. In just eight months, the program resulted in ten community projects and over sixty public-facing events, drawing over one thousand visitors.

These activities form a direct link to the unexpected but perhaps ultimate outcome of this work: inviting the community to participate in “long-form placemaking” in a temporary context led to the storefront space becoming a permanent, locally run artist run centre – the Omineca Arts Centre.

In the early spring of 2017 with the end of the Neighbourhood Time Exchange in view, Living Labs began to work with an emergent team of local artists, curators and musicians – including Roanne Whitticase, Evann Campbell, Jennifer Annaïs Pighin, Meghan Hunter-Gauthier, Adam Harasimiuk, Rob Budde, and Danny Bell – on a plan to transition the space into an independently operated artist run centre. We worked with the Omineca team over the course of the past year, supporting the group with mentorship and resources to get the project off the ground.

The Omineca Arts Centre launched in May with an interdisciplinary mandate to facilitate collaboration and diversify opportunities for

emerging and professional artists, performers, community organizations, indigenous and cultural groups, and citizens in Northern BC Through Omineca, the space will stay grounded in partnership with Emily Carr and the Two Rivers Gallery as well as with multiple other points of connection in the City of Prince George.

The Neighbourhood Time Exchange serves as both a model and an invitation to think about how communities and artists can work together in mutually beneficial ways. The relationships and connections formed throughout the residency empowered and strengthened existing community self-advocacies. The legacy of the project is one that provokes citizens, artists, and community leaders to think about how we can approach solutions to problems through mutual aid, and how to continue to generate resilient and supportive communities far into the future.

S I G N A N D D E M O C R A C Y

Learn more about the project online at: http://neighbourhoodtime.exchange/

0 3 5

AND MAKING DIAOLGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING D I A L O G U E S AND M A K I N G D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N G DIALOGUES DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING D I A L O G U E S AND M A K I N G D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N G DIALOGUES AND MAKING D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N G D I A L O G U E S AND M A K I N G D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N G DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING D I A L 0 G U E S A N D M A K I N G D I A L O G U E S AND M A K I N G DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIAOLGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING D I A L O G U E S AND M A K I N G DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING D I A L O G U E S AND M A K I N G DIALOGUES AND MAKING D I A L O G U E S AND M A K I N G DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIAOLGUES AND MAKING D I A L O G U E S AND M A K I N G DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUESANDMAKING DIAOLGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING D I A L O G U E S AND M A K I N G DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUESANDMAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING D I A L O G U E S AND M A K I N G DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUESANDMAKING D I A O L G U E S A N D M A K I N G D I A L O G U E S AND M A K I N G DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUESANDMAKING D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N G D I A L O G U E S AND M A K I N G DIALOGUEASNMDAKING DIAOLGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING D I A L O G U E S AND M A K I N G DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUAMENSDKIG DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING D I A L O G U E S AND M A K I N G DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING D D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N G DI- D I A L O G U E A N D M A K I N G A N D D I A L O G U E DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING I D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N G ALGUESANDMAKING DI DI M A K I N G DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N G DIALOGUESANDMAKING AL AL DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING L DIALOGUE AND MAKING D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N G DIALOGUESANDMAKING O G DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING O O G D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N G DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING A K I N G DIALOGUE AND MAKING UE M D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N G DIALOGUES AND MAKING U E DIALOGUESANDMAKINGDIALOGUESANDMAKING U DIALOGUE AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING AN DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUESANDMAKINGDIALOGUESANDMAKING E DIALOGUES AND MAKING AN DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING S DIALOGUE AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DM DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING A N D M A K I N G A N D M A K I N G DIALOGUESANDMAKING D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K - D M D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N G DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUE AND MAKING I N GA K DIALOGUESANDMAKING D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N G DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N G AK DIALOGUESANDMAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING IN DIALOGUE AND MAKING D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N G DIALOGUESAND DIA DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N G IN MAKING DIALOGUE AND MAKD I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N DGI A L D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N G DIALOGUES AND MAKING ING AND DIALOGUE DIALOGUES AND MAKING

DIALOGUES AND MAKING

DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUE AND MAKDIALOGUES AND MAKING

DIALOGUES AND MAKING

DIALGUES AND MAKING ING AND DIALOGUE

DIALOGUES AND MAKING D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N G DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUE AND MAKDIALOGUES AND MAKING

DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING ING AND DIALOGUE DIALOGUES AND MAKING

DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUE AND MAKDIALOGUES AND MAKING

DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING I N G A N D D I A L O G U E DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUE AND MAKDIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING

DIALOGUES AND MAKING ING AND DIALOGUE DIALOGUESANDMAKING

DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUE AND MAK DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUESANDMAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING I N G A N D D I A L O G U E DIALOGUESANDMAKING

DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUE AND MAKDIALOGUESAND

DIALOGUES AND MAKING

DIALOGUES AND MAKING ING AND DIALOGUE MAKING D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N G DIALOGUES AND MKAING DIALOGUES AND M A K DIA D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N GD I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N G DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING I N G DIALOGUES

AND MAK- DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKIG DIALOGUES AND M A K

DIALOGUES AND MAKING ING DIALOGUES AND MAKIG I N G DIALOGUES AND MAKING D I A L O G U E S AND MAK- DIALGUES DIALOGUES AND M A K MAKING DIALOGUES AND ING AND I N G DI DIALOGUES AND M A K I N GM A K I N G MAKING DIALOGUES AND M A K DIALOGUES D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N G DIALOGUES DIALOGUES AND MAKIG I N G DIALOGUES AND DI DIALOGUES

AND MAK- AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKIG M A K I N G DIALOGUES AND MAKING D I A L G O U E S A N D ING DIALGUES DIALOGUES AND M A K D I A L O G U E S AND MAK- M A K I N G DI AND I N G DIALOGUES AND MAKING D I A L G O U E S A ND DI ING MAKING DIALOGUES AND M A K D I A L O G U E S AND MAK- M A K I N G DIALOGUES AND MAKIG I N G DIALOGUES DIALOGUES ING DIALOGUES AND MAKIG DIALOGUES AND M A K AND M A K I N GA N D M A K I N G D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N GDIALOGUES DIALOGUES DIALOGUES D I A L O G U E S AND MAKINGS O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N S O C I A LDIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES D I A L O G U E S AND MAKINGS O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N INNOVADIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES DIALOGUES D I A L O G U E S AND MAKINGT I O N DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES D I A L O G U E S AND MAKINGS O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N S O C I A LDIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES DIALOGUES D I A L O G U E S AND MAKINGS O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N INNOVADIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES D I A L O G U E S AND MAKINGT I O N AND D I A L O G U E S AND MAKINGS O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL DIALOGUES AND MAKING D I DIALOGUES AND MAKD I A L O G U E S AND MAKINGS O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N INNOVAING D I A L O G U E S AND MAKINGT I O N DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING A N DIALOGUES AND MAKD I A L O G U E S AND MAKINGS O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL DIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKING M A ING D I A L O G U E S AND MAKINGS O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N INNOVADIALOGUES AND MAKING DIALOGUES AND MAKD I A L O G U E S AND MAKINGT I O N DIALOGUES AND MAKING ING D I A L O G U E S AND MAKINGS O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N SOCIAL DIALOGUES AND M A K - D I A L O G U E S AND MAKINGS O C I A L I N N O V A T I O N DIALOGUES AND MAKING INNOVA-

G

PHD DESIGN PROGRAM FOR TRANSDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

G

G G G G

G

ALOGUES LOGUES

A N D A N D

M A K I N G

M A K I N G

A

N

D

ONE WEEK, TWENTY-ONE PEOPLE AND TOMORROW'S RESEARCHERS: THE BECOMING OF A DESIGN PHD PROGRAM FOR TRANSDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH. DIALOGUES AND MAMKING

GA L O G U E S

A N D

M

A

K

ALOGUES

A N D

M A K I N G

ALOGUES

A N D

M A K I N G

ALOGUES ALOGUES

A N D A N D

M A K I N G

I

N

G

LISA GROCOTT

M A K I N G

D

I

A

L

O

G

U

E

S A

N

D M

A L O G U E S D K I N G

D I A L O G U E S

A

N

D

M

A

K

I

N

G

A

K

I

N

G

C U R R E N T I S S

WITH THE SPACE ODYSSEY METAPHOR I SEE A NINTENDO MARIO-LIKE PHD CANDIDATE BOUNCING AROUND THE SOLAR SYSTEM — EQUAL PARTS LIGHT SPEED TRAVELLER, ASTRONAUT,AND DOMESTIC TOURIST.

U E 0 8

0 3 8

If I start with the why will you listen? If I use well worn words like systemic/intractable/ wicked problems will you pay attention or roll your eyes? When I claim that today we face transdisciplinary challenges that cannot be solved by one discipline alone will you nod knowingly or sigh? Of course you already know this line of thinking because we are all living it. We experience everyday the complexity of the challenges in front of us and bear witness to how our local problems are not isolated from the pressing global issues of our time. From climate change to food security, from access to basic healthcare and education to income inequality and ecological sustainability, designers are increasingly exploring the role of design in mitigating the negative impact of our 21st century challenges. The question for design may not be one of complacency or urgency but perhaps it is one of agency.

So let’s start there. The value Monash (my university) places on making evident the agency of design is inseparable from our motivation to prepare a new generation of researchers who can tackle systemic problems. We are curious about how we might develop a research education that examines and enacts the agency of design so that we might confidently, with humility, assert what design brings to interdisciplinary collaborations.

Is this too abstract? We could start somewhere else. Would you listen more closely if I begin with an anecdote about the Laughing Yogi? My 6am accidental meeting with the yogi on the desolate Lazy Ranch Road out of Palm Springs makes for a good story. Not just bizarre and memorable – although it was both of those things – but poignant and relevant. The yogi’s lifetime dedication to teaching people how to laugh wholeheartedly

is at the heart of a provocative tale where conventional wisdom is confronted by cultural bias.

I can even make the case for how the contestation between our personal beliefs, our everyday practices and our institutional contexts makes the story resonate beyond my anecdotal experience. But engagement is a fickle thing and even the yogi knew that his tale of embodied knowing is best supported by biological and neurological scientific evidence. He understood that for me to hear his message of transformation my phenomenological experience of learning how to laugh (turns out I’d been laughing the wrong way) had to be made sense of, put into context.

I am guessing that you think nothing of my offer of multiple entry points into this paper because you appreciate a panoramic perspective.

As designers we like to toggle between global abstractions and situated experiences. There is no tension in this piece being as much about design agency and design research as it is about a week at a Californian dude ranch. Sensemaking for a designer is about reconciling the incommensurable. The (un)disciplined designer is not wedded to one way of making sense and is in fact open to synthesizing data points from multiple sources. Tracing connections between stories and numbers, theories and patterns, artifacts and experiences allows the designer to negotiate the space between evidence and emergence. This is how design moves from what we know to what might be.

So here, in this piece, I negotiate two entwined ambitions. First there is a social and intellectual commitment for designers to play their part in tackling the complex challenges of this century. Second it is a cultural and pedagogical commitment to co-design with a community the kind of doctoral education needed to prepare

design researchers to do this work. The first takes a global perspective that these challenges are best addressed by multiple disciplines. The assumption here is that the agency of design will be amplified if the researcher understands the integrative contribution design expertise brings to other disciplines. In return it helps to complement the limitations of design by respecting others disciplinary expertise. This informs the second more local commitment to create a new design PhD. This time the assumption is that engaging design allies in the shaping of the program will sharpen our perception of what design is and could be.

This is how twenty-two people from Europe, the Americas, India and the Asia-Pacific came to meet up at a dude ranch. We were there for the initial phase of co-creating a doctoral degree that educates designers for interdisciplinary research. Our goal was for this future PhD to illuminate and focus the contribution of design in collaborations with other disciplines.

Gathered together were a mix of potential doctoral supervisors and candidates who although invested in design came from a range of disciplinary backgrounds from performance studies, education, humanities and neuroscience. Intentionally the invited participants represented a breadth of methodological approaches from participatory action research to auto-ethnography and from fields such as social justice and creative technologies. The week-long event was conceived of and funded by the Design Department and Monash University.

The Australian context, Monash values and department beliefs had determined an initial commitment to a project-grounded, collaborative, pop-up PhD. The project-grounded focus defines an approach to design-led

D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K A. SUN (THEME)

A

B

C

B. MOON (COLLABORATION)

I N G

C. PLANET (PROJECT)

research that privileges the contribution of the research to the transdisciplinary project. The PhD topic will be grounded in a situated, specific context and in this way is distinct from a practiceled PhD or a doctoral topic focused on advancing the discipline. The belief that learning can be an intrinsic motivation for candidates, supervisors and project partners underpins the collaborative orientation. Collaborations extend beyond peer-to-peer to include co-authoring between candidates and supervisors, and working with industry and community partners. The onlyoffered-once pop-up PhD embraces a cohort model based around a thematic. The shared purpose and intellectual focus seeks to deepen the knowledge and impact of the cohort’s collective research. The pop-up nature allows future PhD thematics to be responsive to critical topics as they emerge. For the cohort starting in 2018 the theme is Design and Learning. Future themes could be design and mobility, design and social impact, or design and ethnography.

We came to the dude ranch believing this sketch presented a foundation for exploring what

this PhD might look like in practice. Turns out not so much. There was discord because we had no shared definition of design. There was discontent because in privileging design the voices of the non-designers felt muted. Yet for the tension between us there was little disrespect. From the outset we had a shared understanding that all voices are important, that homogeneity is not the way forward. We went into the week believing that disagreement will be uncomfortable yet necessary, challenging yet productive.

To begin the task of figuring out what the PhD might become we privileged four modes of generative design research. A series of social belonging exercises included life-sized physical mapping of our social networks, visual handshakes to introduce ourselves and a walking tour to share our intrinsic motivations. Between prototyping sessions participants volunteered playful interludes conceived as moments for embodied learning that opened up spaces for laughter and insight. The design-led orientation to the week began and ended with ‘material propositions.’ Carefully curated props helped

propose learning machines and playful video sketches stitched together the week’s verbal and visual conversations. However not-doing was also critical for a prototype of the program to evolve. These moments of ‘embodied wisdom’ significantly shaped the perspectives of the community. Storytelling under the stars emerged as a compelling way to wind down the day – with supervisors candidly narrating their PhD experiences. A silent performance called on each individual to position his or her whole self within the project. While contemplating the sunrise in Joshua Tree National Park offered the complementary yet humbling experience of questioning your role on the planet at this moment in time.

Post the dude ranch it is this notion of position, of location, that I keep returning to. In investigating our commitment to a pop-up, project-grounded and collaborative PhD we began to see that each quality calls for a different orientation. The conviction of a pop-up is wedded to a cohort drawn together around one thematic – in this case Design and Learning. The

0 3 9

C U R R E N T I S S U E 0 8

0 4 0

project-grounded commitment emphasizes an engagement with place and community – in this case individual researchers doing field work with global communities. The challenge becomes one of negotiating how we might together (collaboratively) undertake research that we collectively care about (thematic) yet be intentionally applied (project-grounded). During the week we wrestled with teasing apart the project stances people might be operating from. At the intersection of design and learning there is the field-building research we feel the thematic needs to investigate. In addition there is each individual’s project and the cohort’s desire to occasionally bump up against each other. During the week we returned to phrases like the “living field”, “colliding projects”, “the spine” to help us make sense of these different project engagements.

Back in Melbourne I began to wonder how to take this metaphoric thinking further. Rather than cast these projects' stances as competing orientations I went in search of a unifying metaphor. I became curious about how the interdependence between the sun, earth and moon might help us interrogate these related research stances. What if the planet is the home of project-grounded exploration, the sun represents the unifying pop-up thematic and the moons present spaces for collaboration? With the space odyssey metaphor I see a Nintendo Mario-like PhD candidate bouncing around the solar system – part light speed traveller, astronaut, and domestic tourist.

So let’s begin with the sun. The pop-up thematic is the star that has the greatest gravitational pull to bring a cohort of candidates and supervisors together. This is why we have come together.

But what kind of research happens on the Sun? At the dude ranch we explored the idea that all PhD students would for brief periods work on projects that advance our collective thinking and provide the useful evidence that helps build the field. We played with the idea that these foundational projects are passed from one candidate to another each building on the previous candidate’s new knowledge. However given the earth only revolves around the sun every 365 days, a sun project might only be an annual commitment.

Yet on the candidate’s own planet the distant star is still the source of gravitational force. Think of the sun’s presence by day as illuminating the project-grounded research. But the planet is critically the researcher’s home – the ‘living field’ where his or her core research question and activities are grounded. On the researcher’s planet the search is for design interventions that respect the social and systemic complexity of the chosen terrain. Here the practice orientation of

design is felt as the researcher works in context with a community to discover, speculate and evaluate the possibilities.

The moon projects draw the cohort together as they orbit the planet. The gravitational pull of the planet determines the orbit of the moon, but also recognizes that tides rise as the moon travels over the oceans. In valuing moments of productive collision the moon project invites researchers to learn from peripheral engagement. This is a version of the film school model where everyone gets their moment as director while learning from being crew. Given the 24 hour revolution of the moon these engagements might be as simple as helping someone out with a workshop or a sustained collaboration through a full lunar cycle to explore the transferability of research across contexts.

In that generative week at the dude ranch we had begun to give shape to the kind of Design PhD we want to supervise and study. But for this first pop-up PhD we intend to learn from piloting and prototyping the learning experience as we go. We still need to make sense of Jupiter’s 25 known moons with erratic orbits. We need to consider how and what forms of data our Hubble Telescopes and atmospheric satellites are collecting. We need to explore what happens if candidates chose to reside on the same planet. However, what we do have is a plan to spend two weeks each year in Melbourne and another two weeks at an always moving space station at the location of a candidate’s research.

We have a commitment to privilege the meta field-building questions, build on and apply the insights from other disciplines and learn from the transferability of our research when applied to specific contexts. In this way we dream of piloting a doctoral platform for this moment in time and place. Until the next pop-up that is.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I may have written these 2000 words yet I want to acknowledge the creative and critical input of the dude ranch participants as co-authors of this piece: Shana Agid, Yoko Akama, Gene Bawden, Kylie Brown, Doremy Diatta, Sean Donahue, Alli Edwards, Wendy Ellerton, Anne Gibbons, Ricardo Gonçalves, Anne Harris, Stacy Holman-Jones, Hannah Korsmeyer, Ricardo Sosa, Kate McEntee, Sarah Naarden, Sonali Ojha, Dion Tuckwell, Roby Vota and Yi Zhang. I am also grateful to MADA, the Monash faculty of Art, Design and Architecture, for the financial support behind hosting the dude ranch retreat and the and intellectual vision driving the pop-up PhD. To track the PhD as it goes into orbit please visit: www.monash.edu/mada/research/labs/wonderlab

D

WELCOME TO THE NEIGHBOURHUB

I A L O G U E S A N

LEAH KALBERG

D

STEPH KOENIG

M A

HALINA RACHELSON

K I

ADÈLE THERIAS

N G

EMI WEBB

VANCOUVER ON EDGE

THE NEIGHBOURHUB

Nestled between the ocean and the mountains on Canada’s west coast, Vancouver has been called one of the world’s most beautiful and livable cities [1]. Lucky for us, right? Well, not so fast. Our city also sits on the meeting point of two tectonic plates, which means we face a one in five chance of experiencing a serious crustal or megathrust earthquake in the next 50 years[2].

Under this bleak prognosis, our team of five students set out to explore themes of resilience, natural disaster preparedness, and community building at both city and neighbourhood levels through a collaborative, human-focused design approach. This design process, evolving at the epicentre of the City of Vancouver’s discussion on shocks and stresses, has led to the birth of a new NeighbourHub. The NeighbourHub is a replicable and adaptable model that sparks local conversations around community resilience and allows individuals to take ownership of their preparedness long before we feel a rumbling below our city’s surface.

NeighbourHubs are structures that promote community resilience by engaging residents with the collaborative planning of disaster response and recovery plans and stewardship of natural resources. They are located in public parks and open spaces in every neighbourhood, within a ten minute walk of all residences. The design plays on Vancouver’s strengths including an abundance of rain in the wet season, plentiful green space, cycling culture, sustainability design, placemaking via public art, and robust City-driven disaster response planning. It is designed to complement the existing network of Disaster Support Hubs designated by the City of Vancouver.

The local community is encouraged to engage with the NeighbourHub every step of the way. Neighbours will be consulted about the implementation of the project early in the process, and they will be invited to design and vote for the unique identifier, in the form of engraved patterns, on the structure closest

to them. NeighbourHub stewards will lead neighbourhood asset-mapping events with the help of local artists in order to produce a hand-drawn map of the surroundings that will be displayed on the structure and replaced on a yearly basis. At the NeighbourHub, neighbours will organize communications via a community message board. They will also generate energy and water for daily use and during disaster situations – all while being independent of the City’s existing infrastructure. The best part is that the NeighbourHub will be used constantly, regardless of any natural disaster, enabling a sense of ownership and belonging among community members.

FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTS The structures appear as public art that provides light and shelter on a rainy day. Upon further inspection, instructions explain the purpose of the NeighbourHub and reveal its interactivity.

If an earthquake were to occur, Vancouver

0 4 1

C U R R E N T I S S U E 0 8

0 4 2

could experience power outages all over the city leaving residents without use of critical communication devices. For this reason the NeighbourHub features two pedal charging stations that allow users to back their bike into the structure to generate power. LED lights glow to indicate how many Watts of energy are being generated by the user, and possibly the friends or neighbours racing beside them. Power is stored within multiple 12 volt batteries to charge cell phones and the embedded radio, which will be crucial to obtain information during disaster situations when wireless networks are down.

Vancouver’s abundance of fresh, drinkable water (in the form of rain) is captured via the structure’s large surface area that acts two-fold as shelter.

The rainwater is then filtered by charcoal and UV filters to meet municipal regulations and is funneled into a 1500 gallon cistern which, if full, has the ability to provide one litre of water a day to 3,000 residents for the 72 hours following a disaster . Residents can fill their water bottles, and watch the water collection gauge move, giving them a sense of water availability. A community board serves as a platform for sharing information, whether weekly neighbourhood

events or critial skill and equipment-sharing during disaster response and recovery.

CO-CREATING RESILIENCE Our multidisciplinary team has approached the Neighbourhub project by identifying local assets across sectors that could inform our design. We defined resilience as a population’s ability to develop regenerative solutions to challenges, being both structurally adaptable and socially responsive [3]. By delving deeper into the literature on resilience and previous examples of disaster response and recovery, we have found that the most successful technological projects are those that include and empower the local community members [4]. We have learned that a community’s ability to effectively bounce back from shocks depends on a range of decisions and environmental factors, including efforts to improve social cohesion, and create networks that connect people with institutions [5]. In particular, we understand that Vancouver requires stronger social support networks to ensure the population’s wellbeing when other systems fail. It is anticipated that following a natural disaster Vancouver will be left with

limited, if any, access to clean drinking water or power for what could be months [6]. It was made apparent to us that Vancouver needs a way to stock up on the resources that could be lost, and most importantly start the conversation around preparedness [7].

To start developing our solution, we turned to experts. We have consulted over a dozen specialists and City of Vancouver staff with expertise in planning, energy production, water collection, and clean technology. Each meeting brought new ideas, questions and knowledge that enabled us to refine our design. For example, Katie McPherson, Vancouver’s Chief Resilience Officer, emphasized that each community faces unique resilience challenges; therefore, our design needs to be adaptable to different neighbourhoods. As a team we are working to develop a proposal for the City of Vancouver that thoughtfully aligns with the upcoming Resilient City Strategy, and supports the existing Healthy City, Rain City and Renewable City Strategies and the Greenest City Action Plan.

In order to create a design that meets the needs of the Vancouver population, we have sought public participation in the design process. We

D I A L O G U E S A N D M A K I N G

hosted a focus group with the Engineers for a Sustainable World UBC chapter, whose members provided insight on the technological components of the structure. At a WinterAction event under the Cambie Street Bridge, we invited passersby to design identifiers and realized the importance of a creative platform in public spaces. In collaboration with Village Vancouver Main Street Neighbourhood, we have hosted a community conversation and asset-mapping workshops, which showed us the importance of including information-sharing features in the structure. By connecting with Ann Pacey, the leader of the Dunbar Earthquake and Emergency Preparedness group, we adapted our communications model to mirror existing efforts in the Vancouver community. As our iterative design process continues, and throughout the implementation of NeighbourHubs, we will continue to cocreate resilience in Vancouver’s neighbourhoods.

TODAY AND TOMORROW We hope to propose potential options for implementation that fit within the City of Vancouver’s existing disaster planning framework. We hope – more purposeful than any of

the physical resources that NeighbourHub provides – that this structure will prompt conversations among community members as people learn about its capacity, and start to think about individual steps they can take at the personal and neighbourhood level to plan for emergency preparedness. The Neighbour Hub will be a replicable model for facilitating discussions around social connection, civic engagement and preparedness for citizens to overcome diverse threats, such as social isolation and/or exclusion, climate change, drought, and earthquakes, both today and tomorrow.

a post disaster environment. Cities, 63, 41-50. [5] Boon, H. J., A-Z. (2016). Introduction. In Disasters and social resilience: A bioecological approach (pp. 1-17).

Taylor & Francis eBooks. London; New York, NY: Routledge.

[7] McPherson, Katie, and Katia Tynan. November 2017.

Personal Communication Robinson, M. (4 May 2016).

Vancouver leads the pack for bike commutes. Vancouver Sun [Online]. Available from: http://vancouversun.com/ news/local-news/vancouver-leads-the-pack-for-bikecommutes (Accessed 8 March 2018)

REFERENCES [1] Reuters (22 February 2011). Vancouver is the world’s most livable city for fifth straight year: Survey.

National Post. Available from: http://nationalpost. com/news/canada/vancouver-is-the-worlds-most-livablecity-for-a-fifth-straight-year-survey (Accessed 8 March 2018).[2] [6] Wagstaff, J. (2016). Faultlines [Audio podcast]. Available from: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ podcasts/fault-lines/ (Accessed 8 March 2018). [3] Nirupama, N., Popper, T., & Quirke, A. (2015). Role of social resilience in mitigating disasters. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 6(3), 363-377. doi:10.1108/IJDRBE-09-2013-0039 [4] Marek, L., Campbell, M., & Bui, L. (2017). Shaking for innovation: The (re)building of a (smart) city in

0 4 3

CONTRIBUTORS

KATE ARMSTRONG has over 15 years experience in the culture sector with a specific focus on intersections between art and technology.

Her interdisciplinary practice is conceptually driven and has included participatory work, objects, photography, video, events in urban space, generative text systems, and experimental narrative forms. As a curator she has produced exhibitions, events and publications in contemporary art and technology in Vancouver and internationally. She founded Upgrade Vancouver as part of an international network of art and technology organizations in 30 cities, was a founder of the Goethe Satellite, an initiative of the Goethe-Institute that produced ten exhibitions in Vancouver between 2011-2013, and is past President of the board of the Western Front (2007-2014).

Armstrong serves on the boards of BC Artscape, Innovation Central Society (ICS), and the New Forms Festival.

C A I T L I N C H A I S S O N is an artist and writer based in Vancouver, BC. She received a Master’s of Applied Arts at Emily Carr University of Art and Design in 2016, and holds a BComm with a Minor in Art History from the University of British Columbia. She has exhibited at the Charles H. Scott Gallery (2016), Hyphenated Sites (2016) and Ground Gallery (2015). Her writing has been published in Espace Magazine (Montréal), Breach Magazine (Vancouver), and Decoy Magazine (Vancouver).

0 4 4

J O R G E F R A S C A R A is Professor Emeritus and former Chairman, Art and Design, University o f Alb er ta; Honorary P ro fess or, Emily Carr University; Fellow, Society of Graphic Designers of Canada; Former-President of Ico-D (International Council of Design); Advisor, Doctorate in Design, IUAV University of Venice, and Editorial Board Member of Visible Language, Design Issues and Information Design Journal. He published more than 90 articles and ten books, the last being Information Design as Principled Action (Common Ground, 2015), and was guest editor of a special issue of Visible Language (49/1-2, 2015) on Design and Health.

He was advisor to the International Standards Organization (ISO), the Canadian Standards Association and the Canadian Standards Council on public information symbols. He has been a guest lecturer in 26 countries and has received honors from eight countries for

his socially-oriented practice and promotion of communication design. Past clients include the Government of Canada, the Government of Alberta, the Mission Possible Coalition (traffic safety), the Alberta Drug Utilization Program, Alberta Health Services, and the Health Services in Italy. He lives in Edmonton, Canada, consulting on communication design for health and safety.

L I S A H . G R O C O T T is the head of department and Professor of Design at Monash University.

Before coming to Monash Lisa spent the past 12 years at Parsons School of Design in New York where she was Dean of Academic Initiatives and core faculty in the Masters of Transdisciplinary Design. Lisa’s research specifically examines the contribution of the people-centred, speculation-driven practice of design in interdisciplinary collaborations. Her collaborations with cognitive psychologists, education researchers and behavioral change experts has been awarded more than $2.5 million in federal funding and applied industry research collaborations. At Monash she has founded WonderLab a co-design research lab that has at its heart a pop-up PhD cohort of researchers operating at the intersection of design, learning and play. Lisa is currently exploring how we shift beliefs and practices through her role as chief investigator of an Australian Research Council grant on Innovative Learning Environments and Teacher Change.

L E A H K A R L B E R G is a Bachelors student of Geography at the University of British Columbia and has applied social justice to technical problems in the Bay Area where she worked alongside a neighborhood to design adaptation strategies against various predictions of sea level rise, taking into account the areas specific demographics and collective capacity. She has engaged in project management by developing and implementing a multi-faceted campaign at Vancouver’s Granville Island to address the city’s highest rates of bicycle theft, reducing rates of bicycle theft by 60% by the end of the project.

S T E P H A N I E K O E N I G is a Bachelors student of Industrial Design at Emily Carr University and has represented North America in the 2017 Schneider Electric Go Green in the City competition. This was both a business and engineering competition, where students were

asked to develop proposals for implementing renewable energy systems into future urban environments. She worked collaboratively with a team of community members to create designs for the Local Prosperity Conference in support of local economic development in communities across Nova Scotia.

L A U R A K O Z A K is a designer, educator, and organizer. For fifteen years she has built partnerships and collaborated on projects with artists and organizations including Access Gallery, 221A, the Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design, the Aboriginal Housing Society, the Vancouver Park Board, and the City of Vancouver. She holds a Master of Advanced Studies in Architecture from UBC (2012) and a BFA from Emily Carr (2005), and currently teaches in the Master of Design program at Emily Carr.

J U S T I N L A N G L O I S is an artist, educator, and organizer. He is the co-founder and research director of Broken City Lab, an artist-led collective working to explore the complexities of locality, infrastructures, and participation in relation to civic engagement and social change, and he is the founder of The School for Eventual Vacancy. His practice explores collaborative structures, critical pedagogy, and custodial frameworks as tools for gathering, learning, and making. He is currently an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Culture + Community and Academic Coordinator of the Imagining Our Future initiative at Emily Carr University of Art and Design.

E Z I O M A N Z I N I works in the field of design for social innovation and, on this topic, he started D E S I S Network. Presently, he is Distinguished Professor on Design for Social Innovation at Elisava-Design School and Engineering, Barcelona; Honorary Professor at the Politecnico di Milano; and Guest Professor at Tongji University (Shanghai) and Jiangnan University (Wuxi). His most recent book is “Design, When Everybody Designs.

An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation”, MIT Press 2015.

CELESTE MARTIN Celeste Martin is an Associate Professor at Emily Carr. She has a background in communication design and specializes in

typography and publication design. She has a BFA and MFA from the University of Iowa. Her creative work examines the forms of written language, the shapes of letters and structures of text and their relationship to space. She is an editor of Current, the university’s design research journal, and a member of Emily Carr’s Senate. Her current design research focuses on the development of enhanced interactive ebooks and the categorization of emerging formal structures in book design for touch-based mobile devices.

C AMERON NEAT Cameron Neat is an Assistant Professor of Communication Design in the Ian Gillespie Faculty of Design and Dynamic Media at Emily Carr University of Art + Design. He holds a MFA in Graphic Design from the Rhode Island School of Design and has eighteen plus years of professional design experience. His areas of research interest include, typography, visual rhetoric and information design.

C A Y L E E R A B E R is the Director of the Health Design Lab at Emily Carr University of Art + Design. Within this role, Caylee establishes and leads health design projects that bring together faculty and students with industry and community partners to improve health services and products through a humancentred design approach. This includes collaborations with Vancouver Coastal Health, Providence Health Care, Ministry of Health, Centre for Aging and Brain Health Innovation, B C Children’s Hospital and many other local start-ups and non-profit organizations.

Caylee’s research interest lies in the use of co - design and par ticipatory research methodologies as a way to support the improvement of health product, services and systems through a community and patient-centred focus. Within the lab, Caylee leads research projects related to quality improvement, hospital redevelopment, and service design using participatory and community-based research methodologies.

H A L I N A R A C H E L S O N is a Masters student of Urban Planning at the University of British Columbia and has partnered with civil engineers in designing an enhanced mobility network system for the City of Kelowna based on the Dutch bicycle network design guidelines. She also worked in a team with emerging architects

in reimagining a South Florida barrier island, and designed culturally-appropriate and resilient infrastructure to adapt to 2075 sea level rise projections.

ELIZ ABETH B.-N SANDERS is joined the Design Department at The Ohio State University in 2011 after working in industry as a design research consultant since 1981. She introduced many of the methods and tools being used today to drive and inspire design from a human-centered perspective and has practiced co-designing across all the design disciplines. Liz is also the founder of MakeTools, LLC where she works at the front end of the changes taking place today in design. Her academic research focuses on generative design research, collective creativity, and transdisciplinarity. She shares her experiences in human-centered design with clients, colleagues, and students around the world. Liz’s goal is to bring participatory, humancentered design practices to the challenges we face for the future.

S T A C I E S C H A T Z is a fourth year interaction design student at Emily Carr University and has been working as a Research Assistant within the Health Design Lab for three years.

In this role, she has worked with the Provincial Health Services Authority to explore ways to increase fruit and vegetable consumption through interventions in the grocery store context, and with the Pacific Autism Family Network to enhance families’ access to Autism research and information. Her primary focus has been in service design, more specifically she is interested in design’s potential to promote and create opportunities for civic engagement and social innovation.

D E B O R A H SHACKLETON Deborah Shackleton is the Dean of Design and Dynamic Media and an Associate Professor who teaches design research and methods in the MDes program. Deborah’s research and teaching interests include design theory, human-centred designing, and learning theory for design development. In addition to her administrative role and teaching practice Deborah is a published designer, writer and photographer whose work has been recognized nationally and internationally. She is one of the founding editors of the award-winning Current (http://current.ecuad.ca) the University's design research journal, the founding Chair of the ECU

Research Ethics Board, and a certified member of the Society of Graphic Designers.

A D E L E T H E R I A S is a Bachelors student of Geography at the University of British Columbia and has conducted community-based research with the City of Surrey in which she evaluated a food security program by conducting expert interviews, a public survey, and a geospatial analysis on food accessibility. She proposed improvements for future City projects related to food access. She also worked with the Social Planning Council of Williams Lake to conduct focus groups and interviews in the community around transportation and youth employment rates. The group produced an alternative transportation proposal.

C A M E R O N T O N K I N W I S E is the Professor of Interdisciplinary Design at the School of Design, University of Technology, Sydney. He returned to Australia after a decade in North America holding the positions of Director Doctoral Studies at School of Design, Carnegie Mellon University, Associate Dean Sustainability at the Parsons School of Design and Co-Chair of the Tishman Environment and Design Center at the New School in New York City. Cameron has a background in continental philosophy of technology, but the focus of Cameron’s current research and teaching is sustainable design, service design and sharing economies. With colleagues at Carnegie Mellon University, he has been developing Transition Design, a collection of techniques for design-enabled multi-stage change toward more sustainable futures.

E M I W E B B is a Bachelors student of Industrial Design at Emily Carr University and has worked with a local educational institution to develop an interactive textile based system that could enable and empower children who have learning differences. She also collaborated with Vancouver’s Fraser Health Authority to design an internal facing campaign to promote self-care.

The goal of this project was to refocus attention on staff and emphasize their importance to healthcare, while humanizing them to patients.

0 4 5

Quality Matters

01 — Conventional & UV Offset 02 — Digital & Display 03 — Fulfillment & Mailing 04 — Online Solutions 05 — Sustainability Leadership

Large or small, complex or basic — the Hemlock team delivers flexible, innovative and high quality print solutions across a wide range of applications. Because your project matters.

hemlock.com 604.438.2456

BACHELOR OF DESIGN The Ian Gillespie Faculty of Design and Dynamic Media offers exciting and challenging majors in Communication Design, Industrial Design and Interaction Design. industrial design

interaction design

communication design

Industrial designers study the way people

Interaction designers design for everyday life

As societal issues become increasingly

create, make and engage with things, find

by shaping those human experiences that sit

complex, the need for effective nuanced

pleasure, comfort and safety in activities, and

at the intersection of needs, business goals,

communication constantly intensifies. The

overcome their physical and psychological

and technology. Through highly process-

Communication Design program allows

limitations to the built environment.

driven research and evaluation methods, the

students to explore and research cultural,

Combining conventional research with an

interaction designer focuses on human needs

historical, technical, ecological and theoretical

emphasis on user-centred methodologies,

and behaviour rather than just technological

issues in which to develop an engaging and

students learn to interpret people’s needs and

facility. The need for interaction designers to

relevant design practice. Communication

desires from aesthetic, material, and corporeal

envision new interactive produces, services,

Design offers a variety of study streams,

(experimental) terms, and to inform this

and systems, and spaces has increased

including publication design, interactivity,

methodology with knowledge of the social,

exponentially in recent years in virtually all

wayfinding, and information design. Graduates

economic, ecological, ergonomic and historical

industries. Interactive systems are present in

of this program are part of a community

contexts that influence the design process.

many areas of our daily lives from interactive

of thinkers and makers who are capable of

mobile devices and wearables, to online services

dealing with complex ideas, situations and

and automated systems, from sensor-activated

teams of experts, as well as engaging the very

environments to social networks, and to

people who use our designs.

systems that enable a more sustainable future.

design + dynamic media

www.ecuad.ca/admissions For more information call 604 629 4510

6 Months • Full-Time Studies at Emily Carr University of Art + Design

INTERACTION DESIGN CERTIFICATE Our Interaction Design Certificate is a six-month, full-time program that merges user experience and visual communication principles and concepts.

Students develop skills in web design, coding and motion graphics as they produce both web and mobile-based applications. Graduates exit the program with a professional-level portfolio and the skills demanded by industry. This career-focused program prepares graduates for a variety of roles in user interface and experience in the high-tech sector.

START DATES

April + September

COURSE CONTENT INCLUDES:

V Design and prototyping for responsive design, including mobile environments; V User interface (UI) and user experience (UX) skills; V Website development using HTML, XML, PHP, JavaScript, jquery, CSS; V Graphic design using Adobe Creative Cloud tools; and V How to lead effective projects and work in teams.

TERM 1

Design Fundamentals • Designing For the Web • Design Research and Management • Interaction Design Studio I • Motion Graphics • Portfolio Development I • Programming for Interactivity • User Centered Design • Web Development I

TERM 2

Mobile Web Development • Mobile Application Design • Mobile Application Production • Interaction Design Studio II • Portfolio Development II • Web Development II

HOW TO APPLY

Submit your application online and include the following: V A portfolio of work V CV or resumé V Academic transcripts (high school and/or university)

GET READY

New to interaction design? Start learning some basic skills and create work for your admissions portfolio with these CS courses: CEDA 232 Introduction To Web Design CECS 130 Adobe Illustrator: The Basics

LEARN MORE

Visit our website: essentials.ecuad.ca

FOR PROGRAM INFORMATION Design programs and courses: csdesign@ecuad.ca Registration Assistance: csreghelp@ecuad.ca

MASTER OF DESIGN AT EMILY CARR UNIVERSITY

Two-year, full-time, research-oriented, interdisciplinary degree for creative professionals at the forefront of design.

Expand your understanding of design in its contemporary and future contexts while drawing upon your knowledge and experience. Push the boundaries and purposes of design by integrating research methodologies within theoretical and experimental frameworks. ecuad.ca/admissions/graduate IMAGE: TOM ARBAN

C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G

E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N