当前位置:首页>> >>


设计与设计思维当代参与式设计的挑战.rar

收藏

资源目录
    文档预览:
    编号:20181101170115541    类型:共享资源    大小:528.68KB    格式:RAR    上传时间:2019-04-06
    尺寸:148x200像素    分辨率:72dpi   颜色:RGB    工具:   
    15
    金币
    关 键 词:
    设计 思维 当代 参与 挑战
    资源描述:
    Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges Erling Bjögvinsson, Pelle Ehn, Per-Anders Hillgren 1 Tim Brown, Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation (New York: HarperCollins Press, 2009). 2 See, e.g., Erling Björgvinsson, Socio-Material Mediations: Learning, Knowing, and Self-Produced Media Within Healthcare, PhD Dissertation Series 2007-03 (Karlskrona: Blekinge Institute of Technology, 2007); Pelle Ehn, Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts: Arbetslivscentrum (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988); and Per-Anders Hillgren, Ready-Made-Media-Actions: Lokal Produktion och Användning av Audiovisuella Medier inom Hälso- och Sjukvården (Ready-Made-Media-Actions: Local Production and Use of Audiovisual Media within Healthcare) (Karlskrona: Blekinge Institute of Technology, 2006). Introduction Design thinking has become a central issue in contemporary design discourse and rhetoric, and for good reason. With the design thinking practice of world leading design and innovation firm IDEO, and with the application of these principles to success-ful design education at prestigious d.school, the Institute of Design at Stanford University, and not least with the publication of Change by Design, in which IDEO chief executive Tim Brown elaborates on the firm’s ideas about design thinking,1 the design community is challenged to think beyond both the omnipotent designer and the obsession with products, objects, and things. Instead, what is sug-gested is: (1) that designers should be more involved in the big picture of socially innovative design, beyond the economic bottom line; (2) that design is a collaborative effort where the design pro-cess is spread among diverse participating stakeholders and com-petences; and (3) that ideas have to be envisioned, “prototyped,” and explored in a hands-on way, tried out early in the design process in ways characterized by human-centeredness, empathy, and optimism. To us this perspective sounds like good old Participatory Design, although we have to admit it has a better articulated and more appealing rhetoric. As active researchers in the field of Par-ticipatory Design for many decades, we fully embrace this design thinking orientation. However, we also hold that, given design thinking’s many similarities to Participatory Design today, some of the latter’s challenges also might be relevant to contemporary design thinking. In this paper we put forth both some practical-political and some theoretical-conceptual challenges and dilem-mas in engaging in design for change. We do so using the background of our own idiosyncratic encounters with the field and our view on how Participatory Design as a design practice and the-oretical field has emerged and evolved since the early 1970s.2 © 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 3 Summer 2012 101 3 Bruno Latour, Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999). 4 This frame or structure is also used for the book Design Things by Thomas Binder, Pelle Ehn, Giorgio de Michelis, Per Linde, Giulio Jacucci, and Ina Wagner (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011), in which we explore socio-material founda-tions for contemporary design from a pragmatic perspective. Ideas in this paper are dealt with in much more detail in the book. 102 In this paper, we argue that a fundamental challenge for designers and the design community is to move from designing “things” (objects) to designing Things (socio-material assemblies). We also argue that this movement involves not only the challenges of engaging stakeholders as designers in the design process, as in “traditional” Participatory Design (i.e., envisioning “use before actual use,” for example, through prototyping), but also the chal-lenges of designing beyond the specific project and toward future stakeholders as designers (i.e., supporting ways to “design after design” in a specific project). We see this movement as one from “projecting” to one of “infrastructuring” design activities. As fur-ther reflections on these challenges, we discuss our ongoing “infrastructuring” engagement in Malmö Living Labs as one in which we design “Things” for social innovation. We conclude by returning to design thinking and exploring the further challenges to infrastructuring and to open “design Things.” Designing: From “things” to Things As background, we suggest the need to revisit, and partly reverse, the etymological history of “things,” as well as the political history and the value base of Participatory Design. The etymology of the English word “thing” reveals a journey from the meaning of a social and political assembly, taking place at a certain time and at a certain place, to a meaning of an object, an entity of matter. Origi-nally, “Things” go back to the governing assemblies in ancient Nordic and Germanic societies. These pre-Christian Things were assemblies, rituals, and places where disputes were resolved and political decisions made. The prerequisite for understanding this journey from things as material object and back to Things as socio-material assemblies is that if we live in total agreement, we do not need to gather to resolve disputes—because none exist. Instead, the need for a common place where conflicts can be negotiated is motivated by a diversity of perspectives, concerns, and interests. Our starting point in this paper is participation in Things— these kinds of socio-material assemblies that Bruno Latour so strikingly has characterized as collectives of humans and non-humans.3 We argue that this shift of meaning in the word “thing” is of interest when reflecting on how we as designers work, live, and act in a public space of design—a space that permits a hetero-geneity of perspectives among actors who engage in attempts to align their conflicting objects of design. How can we gather and collaborate in and around design Things—Things that are modify-ing the space of interactions and performance and that may be explored as socio-material frames for controversies, opening up new ways of thinking and behaving, being ready for unex-pected use.4 DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 3 Summer 2012 5 Ehn, Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts. 6 Ibid. 7 Bruno Latour, “From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik or How to Make Things Public” in Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel, eds., “Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy” in Catalogue of the Exhibition at ZKM – Center for Art and Media – Karlsruhe, 20/03-30/10 2005 (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2005), 4-31. Participatory Design, seen as design of Things, has its roots in the movements toward democratization of work places in the Scandinavian countries. In the 1970s participation and joint deci-sion -making became important factors in relation to workplaces and the introduction of new technology. Early Participatory Design projects addressed new production tools, changes in production planning, management control, work organization, and division of labor from users’ shop floor perspective.5 Participatory Design started from the simple standpoint that those affected by a design should have a say in the design pro-cess. This perspective reflects the then-controversial political con-viction that controversy rather than consensus should be expected around an emerging object of design. In this situation, Participa-tory Design sided with resource-weak stakeholders (typically local trade unions) and developed project strategies for their effective and legitimate participation in design. A less controversial comple-mentary motive for Participatory Design was the potential to ensure that existing skills could be made a resource in the design process. Hence, one might say that two types of values strategi-cally guided Participatory Design. One is the social and rational idea of democracy as a value that leads to considerations of condi-tions that enable proper and legitimate user participation—what we refer to here as “staging” and ”infrastructuring” design Things. The other value might be described as the idea affirming the importance of making participants’ tacit knowledge come into play in the design process—not just their formal and explicit competen-cies, but those practical and diverse skills that are fundamental to the making of things as objects or artifacts.6 Hence, Participatory Design, as it emerged in the 1970s, might theoretically and practically be seen as a “modern” example of Things (or rather “thinging,” as Heidegger would call it). Latour has called for a thing philosophy or object-oriented politics.7 His explicit references to object-oriented programming are interesting, not least because a key actor in the early formation of Participatory Design in Scandinavia, Kristen Nygaard, also was one of the inventors of object-oriented programming. For our purposes, how-ever, we focus on participation in design Things and on strategies for “infrastructuring” them. Included in this focus is the design of objects as “matters of concerns.” So design Things are in focus when inquiring into the “agency” not only of designers and users, but also of non-human “actants,” such as objects, artifacts, and design devices. How do they get things done their way? How are design and use related? How do design projects and design processes align human and non-human resources to move the object of design forward? How might designers participate in these Things and position themselves in the “collectives of humans and non-humans?” DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 3 Summer 2012 103 8 Johan Redström, “Re:definitions of Use,” Design Studies 29, no. 4 (2008): 410-23. 9 Ibid. 10 Jens Pedersen, “Protocols of Research and Design” (PhD thesis, Copenhagen IT University, 2007). 104 As the paper evolves, two “thinging” approaches emerge. In the first, Participatory Design is characterized as an approach to involve users in the design and, as suggested by Redström, to encounter in the design process use-before-use.8 In such a “traditional” approach, Participatory Design is seen as a way to meet the challenges of anticipating or envisioning use before actual use, as it takes place in people’s lifeworlds. A complemen-tary position suggests deferring some design and participation until after the design project, opening up the possibility of use as design, or design-after-design.9 This approach means design as “infrastructuring,” addressing the challenge of design as ongoing and as anticipation or envisioning of potential design that takes place in use after design in a specific project. Thinging: From “Projecting” to “Infrastructuring” The project is the socio-material Thing that is the major form of alignment of design activities. A project is the common form for aligning resources (people and technology) in all larger design endeavors. Projects are Things that have objectives, time lines, deliverables, and more. In practice, resources that must be aligned in a design project might include project briefs, prototypes, sketches, ethnographies and other field material, buildings, devices, project reports, “users,” engineers, architects, designers, researchers, and other stakeholders. Projects often are designed to go through a number of con-secutive stages of gradual refinement. They typically have names like “analysis,” “design,” “construction” and “implementation.” However, the shortcomings of such an approach are well-known and many: the top-down perspective hindering adaptation to changing conditions, the hierarchical structure adverting “legiti-mate” participation, the rigidity of specifications. Hence, the call for user involvement and Participatory Design approaches. Rather than thinking of a project as a design Thing consist-ing of the four phases of analysis, design, construction, and imple-mentation, a Thing approach would see this as a collective of humans and non -humans and might rather look to the performa-tive “staging” of it. Inspired by Pedersen, we could then consider these questions:10 How do we construct the initial object of design for a project? How do we align the participants around a shared, though prob-lematic or even controversial, object of concern? How do we set the stage for a design Thing? As work proceeds, how can the involved practices be made reportable (e.g., fieldwork, ethnographies, direct participa-tion)? DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 3 Summer 2012 11 See Klaus Krippendorf, The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design (Boca Raton, FL: Taylor see also Susan L. Star, “The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving,” in Distributed Artificial Intelligence 2, Les Gasser and Michael Huhns, eds. (San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman, 1989), 37-54. 14 Robert Junk and Norbert R. Müllert, Zukunftswerkstätten: Wege zur Wiederbelebung der Demokratie (Future workshops: How to Create Desirable Futures) (Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe, 1981). How can the object of design be made manipulatable, enrolling the participating non -human actors represented in forms that can be experienced (e.g., sketches, models, prototypes, and games)? How are the objects of design and matters of concern made into public Things and opened to controversies among participants, both in the project and outside it (e.g., negotiations, workshops, exhibitions, public debate)? However, as Klaus Krippendorff has pointed out, projects are only part, or a specific form, of alignments in the life cycle of a device, and every object of design eventually has to become part of already existing ecologies of devices, in people’s already ongoing lifeworlds.11 Hence, both the beginning and end of a designed device is open and hardly ever constrained to the limits of the project. This openness is principally interesting because it empha-sizes the importance of understanding how design in a project is related to user/stakeholder appropriation, be it as adoption or redesign, and how users make it part of their lifeworld and evolv-ing ecologies of devices. Hence, strategies and tactics of design for use must also be open for appropriation in use, after a specific project is finished, and consider this appropriation as a potential, specific kind of design. Participatory Design Things and Use Before Use Early attempts to conceptualize Participatory Design were made by referring to Wittgenstein and the language -game philosophy.12 Design was seen as meaningful participation in intertwined lan-guage-games of design and use (professional designers and profes-sional users); whereas, performative design artifacts, such as mock-ups, prototypes, and design games, could act as boundary objects binding the different language-games together.13 With this conceptualization followed the specific design challenge of setting the stage for another specific design language-game—one that has a fami
    展开阅读全文
    1
      金牌文库所有资源均是用户自行上传分享,仅供网友学习交流,未经上传用户书面授权,请勿作他用。
    0条评论

    还可以输入200字符

    暂无评论,赶快抢占沙发吧。

    关于本文
    本文标题:设计与设计思维当代参与式设计的挑战.rar
    链接地址:http://www.gold-doc.com/p-288993.html
    关于我们 - 网站声明 - 网站地图 - 资源地图 - 友情链接 - 网站客服客服 - 联系我们
    copyright@ 2014-2018 金牌文库网站版权所有
    经营许可证编号:浙ICP备15046084号-3
    收起
    展开