4Rs and Tracks

These are theme tracks proposed in an open call by groups of researchers interested in bringing together scholars and practitioners working on specific areas, along with tracks organised by the DRS’s Special Interest Groups.

>>> Please note: A recent Safari update causes issues with the below track links. The page works fine in the Chrome browser. <<<

Design Education

1. Resisting, Recovering, Reflecting, and Reimagining Design Education

Health, Sustainability, and Behavior Change

2. Design for Longevity (D4L): Project Your Future Self through Service and Technology

3. Design for Wellbeing and Happiness

4. Reimagining Care Through Evidence: Design Research, Patient Centered Solutions, And A Culture Of Care For Healthy Societies

5. Liveable Cities: Reimagining Design for Healthy Cities and Communities

6. Design for Balance: Reimagining Processes and Competences for Sustainable Futures

7. Co-design Towards Behaviour Change

Citizenship, Governance, Policy, and Law

8. Past, Present, and Future: Understanding the Expanse of Design for Policy and Governance

9. Designing Policies in the Space between Institutions and Experimental Government Practices

10. Systemic Citizens: Equity, Power, and Relational Autonomy

Criticality, Justice, Power, and Futuring

11. Joyful Complexity: Queering, Intersecting, and Navigating Alternate Futures

12. Design For Empowerment

13. Pluriversal Design as a Paradigm

14. Polyphonic Speculations

15. Spatial Justice in Design Research: A Transdisciplinary Discourse

Alternative Perspectives on Design Research and Practice

16. Language in Design

17. More-Than-Human Design in Practice

18. Data as Design Research: Mediating Processes, Protocols, and Precedent in Practice

Systems and Transitions

19. Translational Design: Enabling Impact in Complex, Multi-Stakeholder Research Projects Through Design

20. Designing Resilient Food Futures: Food Commons, Transitions, and Sovereignty

21. Designing (for) Transitions and Transformations: Imagination, Climate Futures, and Everyday Lives

Making and Manufacturing

22. Design for Manufacturing: Rehumanising Digital Manufacturing

23. Making in the Digital Era

Design Ethics and Responsibility

24. Ethics in/of/for Design

Mediums for Engagement with Design

25. Design Sketching and Visualization, Futures & Research

26. How Do You Sound Design? Articulating Experiences And Cultures Via Listening

27. Play Design: Initiating transformation through Imagination

28. Retail, Hospitality and Service Design Futures

1 Resisting, Recovering, Reflecting, and Reimagining Design Education

James Corazzo, Sheffield Hallam University, UK
Violeta Clemente, University of Aveiro, Portugal
Derek Jones, The Open University, UK
Nicole Lotz, The Open University, UK
Lesley-Ann Noel, North Carolina State University, US
Naureen Mumtaz, Mount Royal University, Canada

  • New, ongoing, and unremitting urgencies are aggregating at a furious rate—climate, inequality, populism, poverty, artificial intelligence, and unchecked capitalism. This uncertainty is daunting, but as bell hooks reminds us, “[t]he classroom, with all its limitations, remains a location of possibility” (1994: 207). The DRS EdSIG invites contributions that explore design education and its limitations and possibilities in the following ways: Resisting Education / The Education of Resistance What forms of design education should be resisted? How has design education been complicit in supporting existing orders? / What does it mean to educate future designers and design researchers for resistance, and what kinds of resistance should we be educating for? Recovering Education / The Education of Recovery What should we recover design education from? And what might we need to lose? / What does educating future designers and design researchers for recovery mean? Reflecting on Education / The Education of Reflection Which established epistemologies of design education should we critically reflect on? What modes of reflection are needed nowadays? / How can the education of future designers and design researchers utilise reflection to challenge existing orders and worldviews? Reimagining Education / The Education of Re-imagination How do we reimagine? With whom and what are the fruits of this re-imagining? / What does educating future designers and design researchers for re-imagination mean? We invite speculations, positions, possibilities, case studies, and empirical investigations that reconsider our knowledge, methods, and approaches in design education at undergraduate, postgraduate, and doctoral level.

  • hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. Routledge. Fernández-Cárdenas, J.M. (2014). El dialogismo: Secuencialidad, posicionamiento, pluralidad e historicidad en el análisis de la práctica educativa [Dialogism: Sequentiality, positioning, plurality and historicity in the analysis of educational practice]. Sinéctica, 43, 183–203. Freire, P. (1996) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Penguin Books. Gibbs, P. (Ed.). (2017). Transdisciplinary higher education: a theoretical basis revealed in practice. Springer. Schwittay, A. (2021). Creative Universities: Reimagining Education for Global Challenges and Alternative Futures. Policy Press. Yelavich, S., & Adams, B. (Eds.). (2014). Design as future-making. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Back to top

2 Design for Longevity (D4L): Project Your Future Self through Service and Technology

Sheng-Hung Lee, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA
Joseph F. Coughlin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA
Sofie Hodara, Northeastern University, USA
Anna Meroni, Politecnico di Milano School of Design, Italy
Carla Sedini, Politecnico di Milano School of Design, Italy

  • Amid the advancement of technologies, robust socioeconomic systems, transformational healthcare systems, and sustainable wealth management, people not only live longer but want to live better: with purpose, delight, and respect (Coughlin, 2017). As lifespans extend, the traditional stages of life—learning, earning, and retiring—have transformed into multi-generational stages (Golden, 2022). The demographic shift and social-economical context have inspired and generated the concept of Design for Longevity (D4L), which emphasizes a sustainable life-long cycle (Lee et al., 2023; Ulrich et al., 2020; Sedini et al., 2020; Justice, 2019). One key factor to maintaining a better quality of life depends on strategic planning and executing the idea of D4L. Thus, D4L can be seen as a universal language that empowers individuals to make sustainable decisions with keeping longevity in mind (Attia & Gifford, 2023). We invite papers about case studies, methods, and theories to realize D4L's vision according to angles: place (Meroni & Selloni, 2022), technology (Zakir Abdul Hamid & Suoheimo, 2023), and service (Miettinen, 2017).

    D4L in Wealth: envision financial planning, and how to enhance financial literacy.

    D4L in Health: reshape healthcare system, and how to transform social-economical platforms.

    D4L in Mobility: reimage mobility through multigenerational perspectives, especially active forms of mobility.

    D4L in Housing: designing social, collaborative, shared, and aided habitats.

    D4L in Place: redefine living community, placemaking, housing, and city planning.

    D4L in Technology: empower emergent technologies to improve multigenerational societies.

    D4L in Service: cultivate new service system infrastructure to enhance physical and cognitive wellbeing

  • Attia, P., & Gifford, B. (2023). Outlive: The Science and Art of Longevity (First edition). Harmony.

    Coughlin, J. F. (2017). The Longevity Economy: Unlocking the World’s Fastest-Growing, Most Misunderstood Market (First edition). PublicAffairs.

    Golden, S. (2022). Stage (Not Age): How to Understand and Serve People Over 60 - the Fastest Growing, Most Dynamic Market in the World. Harvard Business Review Press.

    Justice, L. (2019). The Future of Design: Global Product Innovation for a Complex World. Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

    Lee, S.-H., Yang, M., de Weck, O. L., Lee, C., Coughlin, J. F., & Klopfer, E. (2023). Macro-Trend Study Under Service System: Preliminary Research in Service Innovation and Emerging Technology. In U. Z. A. Hamid & M. Suoheimo (Eds.), Service Design for Emerging Technologies Product Development: Bridging the Interdisciplinary Knowledge Gap (1st ed.). Springer Cham. https://link.springer.com/book/9783031293054

    Meroni, A., & Selloni, D. (2022). Service Design for Urban Commons. Springer.

    Miettinen, S. (Ed.). (2017). An Introduction to Industrial Service Design. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

    Sedini, C., Pei, X., & Zurlo, F. (2020). Co-designing with vulnerable social groups: LONGEVICITY project. In C. Sedini, Collectively Designing Social Worlds. History and Potential of Social Innovation (pp. 94-110). FrancoAngeli.

    Ulrich, K. T., Eppinger, S. D., & Yang, M. C. (2020). Product Design and Development (Seventh edition, International student edition). McGraw-Hill.

    Zakir Abdul Hamid, U., & Suoheimo, M. (Eds.). (2023). Service Design for Emerging Technologies Product Development. SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PU.

Back to top

3 Design for Wellbeing and Happiness

Leandro Miletto Tonetto, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
Ann Petermans, Hasselt University, Belgium
Rebecca Cain, Loughborough University, UK

  • The influence of design on wellbeing and happiness is a subject of growing research across various design domains, including products, services, systems, and environments. However, a challenge remains in grounding research on solid theories and methods that can unveil how design impacts people's wellbeing, enabling evidence-based approaches to design. This theme track focuses on contributions from design in fulfilling the societal need to promote wellbeing and happiness, aligned with the conference theme: Resistance, Recovery, Reflection, Reimagination. The conference encourages us to expand our design horizons by reflecting on how the world is challenging the prevailing focus of design, which is often limited to addressing superficial and incremental improvements to existing realities. It urges us to advance our methods, approaches, and processes to effectively solve complex problems. We welcome papers that report on theoretical and empirical studies contributing to developing the 'design for wellbeing and happiness' (DfW) field, addressing individual and/or social challenges. Examples include, but are not limited to:

    Design and research methods: Reflecting on the challenges and proposing ways to embrace individuals and their subjective experiences in exploring wellbeing and happiness.

    Design decision-making: Exploring methods, tools, and approaches or research projects that focus on supporting and facilitating decision-making regarding DfW.

    Evidence-based design: Exploring projects in DfW across various design domains.

    Emerging technologies: Examining how technology can enhance or negatively impact wellbeing and happiness.

    Wellbeing and sustainability: Reflecting on the challenges between individual and general goals and needs.

    Ethics of DfW: Identifying and addressing ethical questions in DfW.

  • Desmet, P. M. A., & Pohlmeyer, A. E. (2013). Positive design: An introduction to design for subjective well-being. International Journal of Design, 7(3), 5-19.

    Petermans, A. & Cain, R. (Eds.) (2020). Design for wellbeing: An applied approach. London: Routledge.

    Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and wellbeing. New York: Free Press.

Back to top

4 Reimagining Care through Evidence: Design Research, Patient Centered Solutions, And a Culture of Care for Healthy Societies

Diana S. Nicholas, Drexel University, USA
Minou Afzali, Swiss Center of Design and Health
Ajla Aksamija, The University of Utah, USA
Liz Sanders, The Ohio State University, USA
Nora Coleman, Emory University School of Medicine, USA
Angela Mazzi, GBBN Architects
Isil Oygur Ilhan, University of Cincinnati, USA

  • This session will explore patient centered evidence based design in healthcare, as a model of recovery, resistance, reflection, and reimagination. We are particularly interested in works of practice, scholarship, and research that put patients at the center of their care. Central to this session will be practices that invoke a culture of care and health both for patients and those that are caregivers (Evan & Fischer, 2022; Fuentes, 2020; Lightburn et al., 2005; Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2020) Culture of care is a form of reimagination that calls on all actions to put care at their center for those in need (Evan & Fischer, 2022). Over the past 40 years in healthcare, as buildings, products, and services and the roles they play in our lives and the environment have become more intricate, our focus as designers has shifted to a deeply research-oriented practice (Chong et al., 2010; Wang & Groat, 2013). Due to the complexity of design practice, especially in the healthcare space, these human-centered and patient centered, approaches to design are increasingly necessary and are often called Design Research (Chong et al., 2010, 2010; Frayling, 1994). There is much work underway to undertake physical, virtual, and augmented reality simulations to study spaces, services, and products before they are built, this session will explore these practices and others that put patients at the center of their care, and prioritize a culture of care.

  • Aksamija, Ajla. Research Methods for the Architectural Profession. 1st edition. New York: Routledge, 2021.

    Mazzi, A. (2020). Toward a Unified Language (and Application) of Salutogenic Design: An Opinion Paper. HERD, 1937586720967347. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/10.1177/1937586720967347

    Sanders, L., & Stappers, P. (2013). Convivial toolbox: Generative research for the front end of design. BIS Publishers.

    Klingemann, Harald, Arne Scheuermann, Kurt Laederach, Birgit Krueger, Eric Schmutz, Simon Stähli, Minou Afzali, and Vero Kern. “Public Art and Public Space – Waiting Stress and Waiting Pleasure.” Time & Society 27, no. 1 (March 1, 2018): 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X15596701.

    Diana Susan Nicholas, Shivanthi Anandan, and Yvonne Michael. “Covid-19 Home Sign-Posts | Enquiry The ARCC Journal for Architectural Research.” Architecture Research Centers Consortium 17, no. 2 (June 11, 2021). https://doi.org/10.17831/enq:arcc.v16i2.1073.

    Oygur, I. & Thompson, J.A.A. (2019. ) Intra-Organizational User-Centered Design Practices: The Impact of Design Research Departments at Design Consultancies.Creativity and Innovation Management, , 29 (1 ) ,112-127

Back to top

5 Liveable Cities: Reimagining Design for Healthy Cities and Communities

Emmanuel Tsekleves (Professor in Global Health design, ImaginationLancaster, Lancaster University, UK)
Jen Ballie (V&A Dundee, UK)
Cláudia de Souza Libânio (Associate Professor in Accessibility, Inclusion and Design for Health, Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre, Brazil)
Blaise Nguendo-Yongsi (Associate Professor of health geography and spatial epidemiology, University of Yaoundé II, Cameroon)
Mariluz Soto Hormazábal (Researcher and Professor at Universidad del Desarrollo, Chile)
Juan Motalvan (Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú (PUCP), Peru)
Leigh-Ann Hepburn (Senior Lecturer in Design Innovation, University of Sydney, Australia)

  • The Theme Track explores the intersection of design and urban health, aiming to create healthier, more liveable cities for all. This track welcomes design researchers, practitioners, passionate about addressing the complex health challenges faced by urban populations. We invite researchers to share their insights, case studies, and best practices, promoting the exchange of knowledge and fostering the creation of healthier urban environments. Key Areas:

    Healthy Urban Spaces: Creating inclusive and sustainable public spaces that promote physical activity, social interaction, and well-being. Designing resilient, efficient, and responsive healthcare systems and facilities in urban contexts. Also, exploring the role of design in local policy.

    Health Equity and Participatory Design: Addressing health disparities and promoting equitable access to healthcare services, places, information and resources in urban areas. Engaging communities and stakeholders in the design process to develop user-centered health solutions and interventions. Explore how does design help communities to understand and to shape change in their urban environments.

    Digital Cities for Health: Exploring the role of technology, data analytics, and IoT in improving health outcomes and urban health management. Looking at the role and impact of the latest advancements in artificial intelligence in building more regenerative cities.

    More-than-human Cities: exploring the role of animals and nature (green and blue spaces) in enhancing the health and wellbeing for all.

    Join us in this dynamic Theme Track as we shape the future of urban health through innovative design research. Together, let's create healthier, happier cities for all!

  • Cushing, D. F., & Miller, E. (2019). Creating great places: Evidence-based urban design for health and wellbeing. Routledge.

    Ghani, F., Tsekleves, E., & Thomas, Y. F. (2020). Urbanization and Cities as Drivers of Global Health. In Eds. Haring, R., Kickbusch, I., Ganten, D., & Moeti, M. Handbook of global health. 1-28.

    Merino Sanjuán, L., Puyuelo Cazorla, M., & Val Fiel, M. (2017). Design for the smart cities. Investigation about citizen’s needs and products to improve public places. The Design Journal, 20(sup1), S4748-S4750. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352979

    Tsekleves, E., & Cooper, R. (2017). Design for health. Taylor & Francis.

    Sepe, M. (2022). Designing healthy and liveable cities: Creating sustainable urban regeneration. Routledge.

Back to top

6 Design for Balance: Reimagining Processes and Competences for Sustainable Futures

Paola Bertola, Department of Design, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Erminia D’Itria, Department of Design, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Silvia Maria Gramegna, Department of Design, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Carmen Bruno, Department of Design, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Ruta Valusyte, Design Centre, KTU Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania
Luca Simeone, Aalborg University, Denmark
Rike Neuhoff, Aalborg University, Denmark

  • The 6th Assessment Report (2021) claims that the most ambitious threshold of the Paris climate agreement will be reached and exceeded by 2040: climate change and climate diplomacy do not coincide. The adaptation and mitigation failure indicates a certain increase in inequalities at the intra-state and global levels and substantial economic damage. Design for Balance stimulates the reimagination of our productive, technological, societal and cultural systems, moving away from compensation strategies, which focus on balancing their negative impacts, to embrace systemic change, which focuses on establishing new balance within their components. Design principles, processes and competences have highly contributed to the simplistic vision of facing sustainability through compensation strategies. Reaching a systemic “balance” asks designers challenging questions: which design principles could inform this new paradigm of balance? Which design processes could enable its growth? Which diverse knowledge and competences are required to design for embracing it? The track invites proposals reflecting on the evolution of design practices, processes and related competences. The track goal is to address design practices, processes and competences that failed in promoting sustainable change, by analyzing their gaps and limitations and reimagining them through redefying principles, bodies of knowledge and systems of competences.

  • Bianchi, G., Pisiotis, U., & Cabrera Giraldez, M. (2022). GreenComp The European sustainability competence framework (No. JRC128040). Joint Research Centre (Seville site).

    Ceschin, Fabrizio, and Idil Gaziulusoy. "Evolution of design for sustainability: From product design to design for system innovations and transitions." Design studies 47 (2016): 118-163.

    da Costa Junior, J., Diehl, J. C., & Snelders, D. (2019). A framework for a systems design approach to complex societal problems. Design Science, 5, e2.

    Fletcher, K. T., & Goggin, P. A. (2001). The dominant stances on ecodesign: a critique. Design Issues, 17(3), 15-25.

    Lambrechts, W., & Van Petegem, P. (2016). The interrelations between competences for sustainable development and research competences. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education.

Back to top

7 Co-design Towards Behaviour Change

Gubing Wang, Tilburg University, Netherlands
Haiou Zhu, Loughborough University, UK

  • This theme track aims to explore the synergy between co-design methodologies and behaviour change. Interdisciplinary collaboration is key to shaping human behaviour and fostering societal transformation. Moreover, engaging end-users and relevant stakeholders in collaborative practices is essential for the design team to create interventions that encourage individuals and communities to adopt new behaviours, leading to more sustainable change. This theme track will delve into the methodologies, theories, and case studies that demonstrate the potential of co-design in driving behaviour change for a better future. We hope to bring together researchers, practitioners, and scholars from diverse disciplines to share their insights, experiences, and reflections on fostering behaviour change at the individual, community, and systemic levels. Objectives:

    Investigate the theoretical foundations and frameworks that underpin co-design for behaviour change.

    Demonstrate the use of co-design and mixed methods to facilitate behaviour change by reconciling qualitative insights and quantitative evidence in framing, developing and delivering behaviour change interventions.

    Explore the role of co-design in addressing complex societal challenges and fostering sustainable practices.

    Showcase successful case studies and projects that highlight the effectiveness of co-design in promoting behaviour change.

    Discuss ethical considerations, inclusivity, and accessibility in co-design processes and their impact on behaviour change interventions.

    Foster interdisciplinary collaborations and dialogue among researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders in the field of behaviour change design.

    Identify future directions and challenges in co-design methodologies for behaviour change.

  • Heiss, L., & Kokshagina, O. (2021). Tactile co-design tools for complex interdisciplinary problem exploration in healthcare settings. Design Studies, 75, 101030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2021.101030

    Maier, A., & Cash, P. (2022). Designing for Human Behaviour in a Systemic World. In Handbook of Engineering Systems Design (pp. 1–34). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_16-1

    Niedderer, K., Clune, S., & Ludden, G. D. S. (2017). Design for behaviour change.

    Tay, B. S. J., Edney, S. M., Brinkworth, G. D., Cox, D. N., Wiggins, B., Davis, A., Gwilt, I., Haveman-Nies, A., & Ryan, J. C. (2021). Co-design of a digital dietary intervention for adults at risk of type 2 diabetes. BMC Public Health 2021 21:1, 21(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12889-021-12102-Y

    Wang, G., Kasraian, D., Valk, C., Lu, Y., Hurst, W., Jambroes, M., & van Wesemael,

    P. (2022). A Toolkit for Co-Designing towards Community-Based Active Ageing: Lessons Learned during Development. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(23), 15591. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192315591

    24.

Back to top

8 Past, Present, and Future: Understanding the Expanse of Design for Policy and Governance

Scott Schmidt, Georgetown University, USA
Marzia Mortati – Politecnico Milano, Italy

  • Sponsored as the official track of PoGoSIG, this track aims to critically explore and define the relationship between policy and design. Further, this track will serve as an initial call for papers for the upcoming edited volume of the same subject in the Routledge series ‘Design for Social Responsibility’ edited by Rachel Cooper. The track can be divided into an expanse of three key areas:

    Past: Resistance | Where did design for policy emerge from? Papers that can provide historical overviews of key initiatives that have demonstrated the value of and challenges for design for policy. The papers will provide understandings of where design for policy has developed and contributed across a broad range of policy areas.

    Present: Recovery & Reflection | What are current global examples of success in the field of design for policy and governance? Papers focused on case studies that highlight recent examples of designing policy (in innovative areas), e.g., local, national, regional/global, as well as case studies of design methods being used in a range of scales.

    Future: Reimagination | What do we mean by design futures for policy and governance? Papers exploring how design might support the emergence of a new generation of public policies as well as the future of government as an organization. These papers will explore how design methods/heuristics are being or might be used to create and implement policies in the future e.g., world building, design fiction, and how they help reimagine the future of policymaking.

  • Bason, C. (2014). Design for Policy. London: Routledge.

    Howlett, M. (2019). The Policy Design Primer: Choosing the Right Tools for the Job. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Manzini, E. (2015). Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Mortati, Marzia, et al. “Design-Led Policy and Governance in Practice: a Global Perspective.” Policy Design and Practice, vol. 5, no. 4, 2022, pp. 399–409.

    Sangiorgi, D., & Prendiville, A. (Eds.). (2017). Designing for Service: key issues and new directions. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Back to top

9 Designing Policies in the Space between Institutions and Experimental Government Practices

Francesco Leoni, Department of Design, Politecnico di Milano
Diana Pamela Villa Alvarez, Fundación Saldarriaga Concha
Sofía Bosch Gómez, Northeastern University
Federico Vaz, MIT GOV/LAB
Luis Garcia, Carnegie Mellon University
Natalia Villaman, University of Helsinki / Aalto University Silvia Pau, UAL
Beatriz Belmonte, Better Public Services

  • This track explores designing approaches and practices in the space currently separating actors within and outside public institutions—and how they interplay with the making of just and sustainable policies. The climatic crisis, global ecological decline, algorithmic intelligence’s influence, and geopolitical upheavals have raised public awareness and collective concern. Governments are attempting to make policies through innovative perspectives and practices. This includes to empower other societal actors, to account for the socio-material impact of public decision-making and to incorporate lived experiences as policy knowledge. This awareness shows in cases such as the New European Bauhaus, which will concretise the European Green Deal through inclusiveness, participation and quality of experiences. As a field that advocates for and works with human-centeredness, design aligns with this new policymaking orientation and might play in it an increasingly important role. However, most research on “design for policy” to date has regarded design’s contribution from an instrumental and procedural perspective. This official track of the Designing Policy Network seeks to collect research highlighting how design can influence institutions and challenge existing governmentalities in the public sector by introducing new concepts and practices. Assuming that designing and policymaking practises are currently co-evolving at the periphery of institutions, we solicit contributions demonstrating which public issues, policy areas, and service systems they are transforming and how. We invite theoretical and empirical analysis from academics and practitioners inside and outside the design field, from the Global South and Global North, that can nurture novel ideas and approaches to drive action.

  • Garcia, L.(2023). Understanding the designer’s role in Public Sector Innovation Labs. In The 6th International Conference on Public Policy, Toronto, Canada.

    Leoni, F., Carraro, M., McAuliffe, E. & Maffei, S., (2023). Data-centric public services as potential source of policy knowledge. Can “design for policy” help? Transforming Government:People, Process and Policy. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TG-06-2022-0088

    Pau, S., and Villaman, N. (2022) Beyond tokenistic approaches: How can engaging with vulnerable groups shape the policy process?, in Lockton, D., Lenzi, S., Hekkert, P., Oak, A., Sádaba, J., Lloyd, P. (eds.), DRS2022: Bilbao, 27 June - 3 July, Bilbao, Spain. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.918

    Vaz, F., and Bosch Gomez, S. (2022) Who designs for policy?, In Lockton, D., Lenzi, S., Hekkert, P., Oak, A., Sádaba, J., Lloyd, P. (Eds.), DRS2022: Bilbao, 27 June - 3 July, Bilbao, Spain. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.903

    Villa Alvarez, D. P., Auricchio, V., & Mortati, M. (2022). Mapping design activities and methods of public sector innovation units through the policy cycle model. Policy sciences, 55(1), 89-136.

Back to top

10 Systemic Citizens: Equity, Power, and Relational Autonomy

Cecilia Landa-Avila, Loughborough University, UK
Shichao Zhao, Loughborough University, UK
Sine Celik, TU Delft, Netherlands
Pushpi Bagchi, The University of Edinburgh, UK
Nicolai Brodersen Hansen, Aalborg University, Denmark

  • Citizen-led design approaches enable spaces for communities to explore and negotiate their priorities into actionable strategies. Digital technologies have played a paramount role in encouraging them to have a stronger voice in public services, local democracy and their wellbeing. However, these approaches might exacerbate barriers to equity and just participation. Moreover, in some domains (e.g., education, healthcare or urban planning), those stakeholders that "hold the power" are reluctant to partake in genuine participatory approaches. Given this situation, systemic design can transform citizen engagement practices to strengthen the connectedness among citizens and create awareness of the relational attributes of societal issues. This systemic lens could then help in the transition towards responsible communities that recognise themselves as part of the wider (problematic) system, be able to identify leverage points to face existing societal complex crises. This track aims to explore and reflect on the following questions:

    How to enable citizens to recognise themselves as interrelated actors that have an impact on collective wellbeing and flourishing?

    How can collective agency and relational autonomy be creatively and fairly embedded in individual decisions?

    How could systemic design be used to empower vulnerable groups to map out their future wellbeing in their local community?

    How can systemic inequalities become design principles to break perpetuated harming structures?

    How to explore efficient systemic design strategies to understand the complexity of social systems in an interdisciplinary research environment?

    How do we nurture societies to learn and strengthen bonds after negative consequences of a ‘failure’ community initiative?

  • Cazacu, S., Brodersen Hansen, N. and Schouten, B. (2021). Empowerment Approaches in Digital Civics. In Proceedings of the 32nd Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (OzCHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 692–699. https://doi.org/10.1145/3441000.3441069

    Jones, P.H. (2018). Contexts of Co-creation: Designing with System Stakeholders. In P. Jones, K. Kijima (eds.), Systemic Design: Theory, Methods, and Practice (pp. 3-52). Tokyo, Japan: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55639-8_1

    McIntyre-Mills, Janet J. (2008). Reconsidering relationships across self, others, the environment and technology. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 193.

    Olivier, P. and Wright, P. (2015). Digital civics: taking a local turn. Interactions 22, 4 (July - August 2015), 61–63. https://doi.org/10.1145/2776885

    Reynolds, M. (2005). Churchman and Maturana: Enriching the Notion of Self-Organization for Social Design. Syst Pract Act Res 17, 539–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-005-1228-7

Back to top

11 Joyful Complexity: Queering, Intersecting, and Navigating Alternate Futures

Jess Parris Westbrook (they/them), DePaul University (DPU), Chicago, IL, USA
Coraline Ada Ehmke (she/her), Organization for Ethical Source (OES), Chicago, IL, USA

  • Queering imagines the end of rigid binaries, norms, traditions, assumptions, and impositions of the dominant culture. Intersectionality multiplies connections and amplifies perspectives. Affordances like these can free us to navigate our timelines on our own terms, to rethink our pasts and reframe our futures. This track explores how complexities of positionalities improve our ability to design models, methods, practices, and strategies compatible with more equitable futures across all our identities.

  • Browne, K. (2008). Selling My Queer Soul or Queerying Quantitative Research? Sociological Research Online, 13(1), 200–214. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.1635

    Doherty, E. (2022, February 19). One in five gen Z adults identifies as LGBTQ, Gallup finds. Axios. https://www.axios.com/2022/02/17/lgbtq-generation-z-gallup

    Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2014). Speculative everything design, fiction, and social dreaming. MIT Press.

    Morrigan, C. (2017). Trauma time: The queer temporalities of the traumatized mind. Somatechnics, 7(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.3366/soma.2017.0205

    Pew (2020, May 30). A survey of LGBT Americans. Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic Trends Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2013/06/13/a-survey-of-lgbt-americans/

    Walsh, K. (2023, March 30). Cripping time at work. Early. https://www.earlymagazine.com/articles/cripping-time-at-work

Back to top

12 Design For Empowerment

Laura Santamaria, Royal College of Art, UK
Ksenija Kuzmina, Loughborough University London, UK

  • This track aims to explore empowerment as the primary focus of design for social change, and not merely a side effect or an outcome of design activity. While plenty of studies evidence empowerment through design, a more nuanced discussion on the ways in which empowerment by design is planned, achieved and articulated, how and what kind of empowerment is being facilitated through design projects is timely and necessary. These discussions are essential for introducing a critical perspective currently absent in the articulation of empowerment within design for social change. In the design literature, strong voices have emerged advocating for deeper awareness and accountability to address biases, privileges and positionality of designers, uncovering the ‘dark’ and unintended consequences arising from the noble intentions of empowerment in social design interventions, and mapping the interconnected dimensions, entanglements and power relations that emerge in ‘experts–diffuse’ design settings. In this track, contributions from interdisciplinary design research and practice informed by political theories of power, and/or by disciplines such as development studies, community organizing, and community psychology that can broaden and deepen current articulations of design for empowerment and social change are welcome. Suggested topics include:

    Explorations on how theories of power and empowerment inform design projects and practice;

    Theory-informed critical tools for power analysis used in design;

    Methodologies that facilitate discussions on power and empowerment in design projects;

    Methods and tools for elicitation of individual stories and collective narratives of ‘change and empowerment’ in design;

    Explorations of tensions and dilemmas of politically engaged design.

  • Zamenopoulos, T., Lam, B., Alexiou, K., Kelemen, M., De Sousa, S., Moffat, S., & Phillips, M. (2021). Types, obstacles and sources of empowerment in co-design: the role of shared material objects and processes. CoDesign,17(2),139-158.https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2019.1605383

    Santamariaa L., (2023) Seeing the Invisible: revisiting the value of critical tools in design research for social change. In: Rogers, P. and Yee, J. (Eds.). Routledge Companion to Design Research, 2nd Edition. Routledge.

    Avelino, F. (2021). Theories of power and social change. Power contestations and their implications for research on social change and innovation. Journal of Political Power, 14(3), 425-448. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2021.1875307

    Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. The MIT Press.

    McGee, R., & Pettit, J. (Eds.). (2019). Power, empowerment and social change. Routledge.

Back to top

13 Pluriversal Design as a Paradigm

Renata M. Leitão, Cornell University, USA
Lesley-Ann Noel, North Carolina State University, USA

  • The concept of the Pluriverse refers to a world where many worlds fit. But what is pluriversal design? While it has been used as a synonym for initiatives around diversity, equity, and inclusion, this track argues that pluriversal frameworks represent a distinct paradigm—in contrast with the universal design paradigm. These two paradigms, while important in their own right, deal with diversity and plurality in fundamentally different ways. The term ‘universal’ is grounded in the belief that we all live in one single world, with one right (or “developed”) way to live, with a dominant narrative in which the main characters have been affluent white men from the Global North. The universal paradigm is about convergence, normalization – and sometimes assimilation, othering, exotification, or tokenism. Within this paradigm, designers strive to cater to multiple cultures and diverse users, reduce deficits, increase access, and include marginalized perspectives—e.g., making people of color play significant roles in the dominant world narrative without transforming the underlying plot. The term ‘pluriversal’ recognizes there are many possible ways of being and world-making—multiple worlds and alternative narratives exist, and people from diverse cultures and geographies are struggling to enable alternative plots to flourish. Therefore a pluriversal design paradigm is grounded in divergence. Pluriversal designers focus on, for instance, societal transformation, self-determination of local communities, alternative ways of world-building, and the interdependence of all beings. This track welcomes papers that explore this conversation/argument or how pluriversal frameworks can be manifested/nourished/encouraged in design practice.

  • Escobar, A., & Maffei, S. (2022). What Are Pluriversal Politics and Ontological Designing? Interview with Arturo Escobar. Diid — Disegno Industriale Industrial Design, (75), 12. https://doi.org/10.30682/diid7521d

    Escobar, A., Tornel, C., & Lunden, A. (2022). On design, development and the axes of pluriversal politics: An interview with Arturo Escobar. Nordia Geographical Publications, 51(2), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.30671/nordia.115526

    Leitão, R. M. (2023). Pluriversal Worlding: Design, Narratives, and Metaphors for Societal Transformation. AM Journal of Art and Media Studies, (30), 17–35. doi: 10.25038/am.v0i29.551

    Mignolo, W. D. (2018). Forward: On Pluriversality and Multipolarity. In B. Reiter (Ed.), Constructing the Pluriverse: The Geopolitics of Knowledge: Duke University Press.

    Noel, L.-A. (2022). Designing New Futures for Design Education. Design and Culture, 14(3), 277-291. doi:10.1080/17547075.2022.2105524

Back to top

14 Polyphonic Speculations

David Philip Green, Lancaster University, UK
Spyros Bofylatos, Royal College of Art, London, UK
Mayane Dore Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid, Spain
Veronica Ranner, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

  • The notion "Polyphonic Speculations" unites two influential concepts—plurality and possibility—with potentially significant implications for the field of design research. 'Polyphony' in the Bakhtinian sense, advocates for a rich, dialogic interplay of various voices, viewpoints, ideologies, ethics, aesthetics, and even identities across multiple forms and disciplines.

    On the other hand, 'speculation' refers not just to uncertainties about the future, but also acknowledges the diverse histories in speculative design research, multiple readings of the present, and a multiplicity of possible futures. Practically speaking, polyphonic speculation could serve as a methodology to collectively speculate on complex challenges. This could involve a process that employs speculative design, dialogue, and reflection among design researchers (Green et al., 2023). It can also be used to foster transdisciplinary dialogues, imaginary creation processes, and knowledge exchange across disparate disciplines and the public (Ranner, 2014-ongoing). It's important to mention that the concept is nascent and continues to evolve.

    'Polyphonic Speculations' can be viewed as a framework for reflection, reimagination, or even as a basis for dialogues focusing on themes such as resistance and recovery. We welcome a wide array of contributions. These could range from critical examinations of the foundational concepts of polyphony and speculation to practical examples that intersect with these existing ideas.

    Potential submissions for this track could include:

    • Challenging and resisting existing interpretations of polyphonic speculation.

    • Reflections concerning the scope of polyphony within speculative design.

    • Examples of polyphonic speculation(s) in practice.

    • Critical perspectives that reconsider the various facets of polyphonic landscapes in design research.

    • Perspectives on how polyphonic and/or speculative design can serve as catalysts for resistance or recovery.

  • Aston, J., & Odorico, S. (2018) "The poetics and politics of polyphony: Towards a research method for interactive documentary." Alphaville: Journal of Film and Screen Media 15 (2018): 63-93. https://doi.org/10.33178/alpha

    Bakhtin, M. (1984). Dostoevsky’s poetics. Trans. C. Emerson.

    Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. The MIT Press.

    Elsden, C., Chatting, D., Duggan, M., Dwyer, A.C., & Thornton, P (2022). Zoom Obscura: Counterfunctional Design for Video-Conferencing. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 143, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501973

    Green, D.P., Lindley, J., Encinas, E., Dore, M., Benjamin, J.,and Bofylatos, S.(2023) Ways of seeing design research: A polyphonic speculation, in Holmlid, S., Rodrigues, V., Westin, C., Krogh, P. G., Mäkelä, M., Svanaes, D., Wikberg-Nilsson, Å (eds.), Nordes 2023: This Space Intentionally Left Blank, 12-14 June, Linköping University, Norrköping, Sweden. https://doi.org/10.21606/nordes.2023.96

    Ranner, V. (2014-ongoing). Polyphonic Futures. Royal College of Art, https://www.polyphonicfutures.com/about

Back to top

15 Spatial Justice in Design Research: A Transdisciplinary Discourse

Miriam Tedeschi, an Academy of Finland PostDoc Researcher at the Faculty of Law, is also a Docent in human geography at the Department of Geography and Geology, University of Turku
Amalia Verdu Sanmartin, Turku Institute for Advanced Studies (TIAS) Postdoctoral Researcher, Law
Sarah Kanouse, Associate Professor of Media Arts, College of Art Media and Design, Northeastern University
Jules Rochielle Sievert, Creative Director, NuLawLab, Northeastern University School of Law and Interdisciplinary Ph.D. Student College Of Art, Media, and Design

  • Our research track, "Spatial Justice in Design Research: A Transdisciplinary Discourse," embarks on an in-depth exploration of spatial justice, interweaving its multifaceted elements with broader themes of social, racial, economic, and environmental justice. This comprehensive approach probes spatial justice through its tangible embodiments and digital manifestations, underlining its profound influence on resource allocation, opportunities, and service provision. With an ambitious goal to challenge systemic socio-economic imbalances, the track formulates tangible design interventions, incorporating policy reform, urban planning, and community empowerment. We foster a collaborative environment, inviting a spectrum of professionals—designers, technologists, researchers, legal advocates, and policymakers—to jointly address spatial disparities and engineer innovative strategies to foster spatial justice. Through an array of case studies, ideations, and critical reflections, we intend to illustrate the application and impact of transdisciplinary strategies across diverse settings and contexts. Our platform aspires to ignite intellectually stimulating discussions, catalyze cross-disciplinary collaborations, and advocate for spatial justice in design on a global scale.

  • Soja, E. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. doi:10.5749/j.mp.2010.24.1.001

    Miller, E. (2019). Reimagining livelihoods: Space, place, and the politics of sustainability in the global south. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. doi:10.5749/j.mp.2019.29.2.001

    Lipsitz, G. (2011). How racism takes place. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctv114n6r

    Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America. New York, NY: Liveright. doi:10.1525/9780822395127

    Massey, D. (2005). For space. London, UK: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446277454

    Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, A. (2015). Spatial justice: Body, lawscape, atmosphere. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203700967

    Chetty, R., Friedman, J., Hendren, N., Jones, M. R., & Porter, S. R. (2018). The opportunity atlas: Mapping the childhood roots of social mobility. NBER Working Paper. doi:10.3386/w24044

    Fainstein, S. S. (2005). Planning theory and the city. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(2), 121–130. doi:10.1177/0739456X05279275

Back to top

16 Language in Design

Peter Lloyd, TU Delft, The Netherlands; p.a.lloyd@tudelft.nl
Senthil Chandrasegaran, TU Delft, The Netherlands; r.s.k.chandrasegaran@tudelft.nl
Arlene Oak, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; aoak@ualberta.ca
Colin Gray, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA; comgray@iu.edu
Ben Matthews, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; matthews@uq.edu.au
Tania Allen, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA; tlallen2@ncsu.edu
Sara Queen, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA; sgqueen@ncsu.edu

  • The role of language is central to the practice of designing, though our understanding of this role has evolved from more formal-language representations to more natural-language representations. Language plays a central, critical, and rhetorical role in all aspects of design including collaboration, research, problem understanding and framing, modelling, decision-making, creativity, and marketing. Designers’ use of language thus also determines how problems are framed as a direct path to the action taken upon them. Contemporary design discourse raises many questions about our fundamental assumptions related to equity, access, but there is less examination about the role that language plays within this discourse. Meanwhile, developments in artificial intelligence (AI) in the last few years have seen exponential growth in large language models (LLMs), which effectively represent human language and potentially human knowledge, reasoning, as well as values. Recent deployment of LLMs in various domains have thrown into sharp relief questions regarding the role of language in the exploration and representation of knowledge and of values; questions that will have a large impact on how we go about designing. This theme track re-examines the role of language in designing, asking questions about how the latest developments in technology will change practices of language use in general, and conversation in particular, in design processes, including how meaning and value are embedded in design products and processes. We invite contributions that focus fundamentally on language—as it is represented by human as well as artificial intelligences—and its role in understanding designing and design education.

  • Gray, C. M. (2022). Languaging design methods. Design Studies, 78, 101076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2021.101076

    Halstrøm, P. L. (2016). Design as value celebration: Rethinking design argumentation. Design Issues, 32(4), 40-51.

    Lloyd, P, Akdag Salah, A, & Chandrasegaran, S. (2021). How Designers Talk: Constructing and Analysing a Design Thinking Data Corpus. Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. Volume 6: 33rd International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology (DTM). https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2021-71200

    Matthews, B. (2009). Intersections of brainstorming rules and social order. CoDesign, 5(1), 65-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880802522403

    Oak, A. (2011). What can talk tell us about design?: Analyzing conversation to understand practice. Design Studies, 32(3), 211-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2010.11.003

Back to top

17 More-Than-Human Design in Practice

Joseph Lindley, Lancaster University, UK
Iohanna Nicenboim, TU Delft, Netherlands
Laura Forlano, Northeastern University, USA
Elisa Giaccardi, TU Delft, Netherlands
Arne Berger, Hochschule Anhalt, Germany
Cristina Zaga, University of Twente, The Netherlands

  • We are amid a "more-than-human turn" that spans the humanities and draws upon diverse theories, ontologies, and epistemologies. This transformative wave is partly driven by global-scale wicked problems and challenges such as the climate crisis, an interest in decolonisation agendas, and the need for more equitable, sustainable ways of living. This track invites submissions that report on practical experiments in this area. Despite the community’s prolific theoretical and methodological outputs, understanding how those can be enacted in concrete design practices requires urgent attention if action is to complement abundant theory. Hence, we encourage submissions that discuss, present, or analyze:

    Products, services, or artefacts inspired by or created using a more-than-human approach or insights from working with that approach materially. Research through design or speculative design projects that use more-than-human principles generatively, leading to generalisable findings or intermediate knowledge.

    Teaching approaches and materials that can demonstrably equip students with practical more-than-human skills they can apply to real-world challenges.

    Accounts of applied transdisciplinary research exploring socio-technical entanglements, ecosystemic plural perspectives, and human/non-human assemblages.

    Any other contribution that demonstrates a more-than-human approach and that has an applied, practical, or material element.

    If you are uncertain whether your work would fall within the scope of the theme track, then please contact one of the chairs to discuss it. We seek to assemble a collection of work that transcends theoretical discussions to demonstrate how more-than-human design can directly contribute to the wicked global challenges that are helping to define this moment in history.

  • Forlano, L. (2017). Posthumanism and Design. She Ji, 3(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2017.08.001

    Nicenboim, I., Giaccardi, E., & Redström, J. (2022, June 16). From explanations to shared understandings of AI. DRS2022: Bilbao. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.773

    Giaccardi, E. (2020). Casting things as partners in design: Towards a more-than-human design practice. In H. Wiltse (Ed.), Relating to Things: Design, Technology and the Artificial. Bloomsbury.

    Coulton, P., & Lindley, J. G. (2019). More-Than Human Centred Design: Considering Other Things. The Design Journal, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2019.1614320

    Benjamin, J. J., Biggs, H., Berger, A., Rukanskaitė, J., Heidt, M. B., Merrill, N., Pierce, J., & Lindley, J. (2023). The Entoptic Field Camera as Metaphor-Driven Research-through-Design with AI Technologies. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581175

Back to top

18 Data as Design Research: Mediating Processes, Protocols, and Precedent in Practice

Elizabeth Bowie Christoforetti, Harvard Graduate School of Design, USA
Andrew Witt, Harvard Graduate School of Design, USA

  • The theme aims to consider the evolution of design methods, processes, and outputs in relationship to the imperatives of data in design practice, and the ways in which data-integrated practices are changing the nature of design itself. The increasing availability of data and related processes due to networked artifacts, artificial intelligence, and cultural digitalization pose a significant paradigm shift for design methods, collaboration, and the scalable impact of design in the world. Discourse may consider the fact that the systematic nature of data structures pushes related design pursuits into a realm of scalable systems that exceeds the replicability of industrial production. As such, the values and ethical protocols below data-driven design activities become an increasingly important infrastructure to attend to and daylight within the design process. Papers for this track may include, but are not limited to, the following topics:

    Ethics of data collection and use for values-sensitive design outcomes

    Encountering gaps in data and the dark matter of data sets in a design setting

    Use of empirical and cultural data, and the ways in which design negotiates intuition and observation through the use of data

    Data set construction and the assembly of non-text-based data for cultural analysis and production

    The bridge or feedback loop between data-driven analytic and generative design processes

    Design methods and the integration of small data (precedent, qualitative data, etc.) vs. big data (databases, AIs, etc.)

    Methods and approaches to the design of digital-physical hybrids and continuously-becoming design in an era of AI and networked artifacts

  • D’Ignazio, Catherine and Klein, Lauren F. Data Feminism. MIT Press, 2023.

    Friedman, Batya and Hendry, David G. Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination. MIT Press, 2019.

    Giaccardi, Elisa and Redstrom, Johan. “Technology and More-Than-Human Design.” Design Issues (2020) 36 (4): 33–44.

    Winner, Langdon. “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” Daedalus, Vol. 109, No. 1, Modern Technology: Problem or Opportunity? (Winter, 1980), pp. 121-136

Back to top

19 Translational Design: Enabling Impact in Complex, Multi-Stakeholder Research Projects Through Design

Rowan Page, Monash University, Australia
Rosie Hornbuckle, University of the Arts London, United Kingdom
André Nogueira, Harvard University, United States of America
Leah Heiss, Monash University, Australia

  • Translational research converts the knowledge generated through basic research into tangible innovations, solutions, and interventions that directly impact people and the planet. As universities increasingly seek to maximise research impact, the applied, action-oriented, epistemology of design is well-positioned to support translational research. Successful translation requires strong communication and collaboration between different disciplines, industry partners, policy, and research end-users. Multi-stakeholder collaborations foster holistic approaches, leading to more effective and contextually relevant solutions. Designers are well-positioned to facilitate complex entanglements, integrating the needs and values of diverse perspectives. However, the emerging role of design as an enabler of translational research needs to be defined. How does the configuration and culture of the research ecosystem shape the translational role of design? Are new methodologies needed? And, how do we move beyond transactional roles to define and lead impactful projects alongside other disciplines? Translational research involves iterative cycles of dialogue, evaluation, refinement, and adaptation to effectively convert research findings into practical outcomes. Through prototype development, visual communication, and visualization, designers excel in translating complex research into compelling, imaginable, tangible, and accessible formats. Design processes guide us towards implementation, but are existing tools and methods fit for research contexts? By bridging the gap between research and application, translational design has the potential to enable innovation in universities; better connecting research to impact. Through reflection on the legacy of practice-based research in design, we invite design researchers to articulate the impact we can make by bringing strategic translational design research methodologies to complex, multidisciplinary, research projects.

  • Neubauer, R., Bohemia, E., & Harman, K. (2020). Rethinking design: from the methodology of innovation to the object of design. Design Issues, 36(2), 18-27.

    Whitney, P., & Nogueira, A. (2020). Cutting cubes out of fog: the whole view of design. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6(2), 129-156.

    Hornbuckle, R. (2022) Project proximities: A meta review of how design addresses distance in complex collaborations, in Lockton, D., Lenzi, S., Hekkert, P., Oak, A., Sádaba, J., Lloyd, P. (eds.), DRS2022: Bilbao, 25 June - 3 July, Bilbao, Spain. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.677

    Heiss, L., & Kokshagina, O. (2021). Tactile co-design tools for complex interdisciplinary problem exploration in healthcare settings. Design Studies, 75, [101030]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2021.101030

    Page, R., & John, K. (2019). Commercializing Academic Medical Research: The Role of the Translational Designer. The Design Journal, 22(5), 687-705. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2019.1629776

Back to top

20 Designing Resilient Food Futures: Food Commons, Transitions, and Sovereignty

Chun Zheng, Riverlife Pittsburgh
Francis Carter, Pittsburgh East End Food Coop

  • Design researchers and practitioners, please join us to explore the transformative potential of design in shaping sustainable and equitable food futures! In the face of pressing challenges within our current food systems, including waste, resource depletion, inequitable access, and cultural erosion, conventional and commodified food models have demonstrated their inadequacy. However, the rise of food-based movements like food commons, food transitions, and food sovereignty has sparked a renaissance in the design community, inspiring a collective commitment to co-creating resilient and regenerative global food landscapes. Food commons, transitions, and sovereignty encompass community and cultural-based knowledge of food resources, production, management, systematic design, distribution, and consumption. Concepts behind these food movements have permeated various areas of design research and practices, ranging from the design of gardens and farms involving the spatial layout of plants and crops; to co-design workshops that employ meals as ways to gather the users and generate social innovation; and to the latest stages of product design seen in the development of recyclable food packaging. Amidst this burgeoning interest, gaps remain in the integration of food systems and design practices. This theme track aims to bridge these gaps by exploring innovative approaches that leverage design to foster resilient, inclusive, and culturally enriched food systems. We invite you to contribute with your work that embraces the potential of circular food systems, community-driven food commons, strategies for systemic food transitions, empowerment through food sovereignty, and the importance of resilient policy and governance.

  • Gorgolewski, M., Komisar, J., & Nasr, J. (2011). Carrot City: Creating Places for Urban Agriculture. Monacelli Press.

    Massari, S. (2021). Transdisciplinary Case Studies on Design for Food and Sustainability. Elsevier.

    Trauger, A. (2018). Food Sovereignty in International Context: Discourse, Politics and Practice of Place. Routledge.

    Vivero Pol, J. L., Ferrando, T., Schutter, O. de, & Mattei, U. (2019). Routledge Handbook of Food as a Commons. Routledge.

    Watson, J., & Davis, W. (2019). Lo-TEK: Design by Radical Indigenism. Taschen.

Back to top

21 Designing (for) Transitions and Transformations: Imagination, Climate Futures, and Everyday Lives

Femke Coops, Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands

Dan Lockton, Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands

İdil Gaziulusoy, Aalto University, Finland

Cameron Tonkinwise, University of Technology Sydney, Australia

Joanna Boehnert, Bath Spa University, United Kingdom

Marysol Ortega Pallanez, Arizona State University, United States

Anja Overdiek, Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, Netherlands

Ida Nilstad Pettersen, Norwegian University of Science & Technology, Norway

Alma Leora Culén, University of Oslo, Norway

Silvana Juri, SARAS Institute, Uruguay / Stockholm Resilience Center, Sweden

  • The urgency of crises in planetary health—climate, biodiversity loss, inequality, and others—has made design’s role in transformative change ever-more important in the pursuit of sustainable, just and resilient futures. Arising from distinct disciplinary traditions within academia, design, futures, transitions, sustainability science and allied approaches (with their own norms, frameworks, and methods) are increasingly converging. Emerging from this space are new configurations and integrations, especially in practical applications where policymakers, communities, businesses, and new forms of organisation are engaging with challenges we face—often situated and local, but interdependent within complex systems of society and the environment. In design research, approaches such as transition design (Irwin et al, 2015) feed into a fertile landscape where futures studies, speculative and critical design, pluriversality (Leitão et al, 2021), imagination infrastructuring, justice (design justice, climate justice, just transitions), more-than-human and nature-inclusive perspectives (e.g. Veselova et al, 2022), emotions in transitions (e.g. Lindström et al, 2021), alternative economics, regenerative design, non-/decolonial perspectives (e.g. Juri et al, 2021), feminist perspectives, design education (and futures literacy), and many other lenses on transformative change overlap, creating a new space for exchange and exploration. This track aims to help this emergent community discover each other and cross-pollinate—enabling new connections, collaborations and learnings, and a first step towards building a DRS Special Interest Group. We build on tracks, conversations, and workshops at DRS 2018 (Boehnert et al, 2018) and DRS 2022 (Coops et al, 2022; Light et al, 2022) specifically focusing on designing for transitions or nurturing transformative futures by/through design.

  • Boehnert, J., Lockton, D., and Mulder, I. (2018) Editorial: Designing for Transitions, in Storni, C., Leahy, K., McMahon, M., Lloyd, P. and Bohemia, E. (eds.), Design as a catalyst for change - DRS International Conference 2018, 25-28 June, Limerick, Ireland. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2018.008

    Coops, F., Hummels, C., Dorst, K., Goldstein, B.E., Loorbach, D., and Gaziulusoy, İ. (2022) Designing for transitions and transformations, in Lockton, D., Lenzi, S., Hekkert, P., Oak, A., Sádaba, J., Lloyd, P. (eds.), DRS2022: Bilbao, 27 June - 3 July, Bilbao, Spain. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.897

    Edwards, F., Corsepius Melen, I.M., Syse, A.C., and Pettersen, I.N. (2022). Birds, bees and bats: Exploring possibilities for cohabitation in the more-than-human city, in Lockton, D., Lenzi, S., Hekkert, P., Oak, A., Sádaba, J., Lloyd, P. (eds.), DRS2022: Bilbao, 25 June - 3 July, Bilbao, Spain. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.770

    Forlano, L.E. and Halpern, M.K. (2023). Speculative Histories, Just Futures: From Counterfactual Artifacts to Counterfactual Actions. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 30, 2, Article 22 (April 2023), 37 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3577212

    Gaziulusoy, I., & Erdoğan Öztekin, E. (2019). Design for sustainability transitions: Origins, attitudes and future directions. Sustainability, 11(13), 3601. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133601

    Irwin, T., Kossoff, G. & Tonkinwise, C. (2015) Transition Design Provocation, Design Philosophy Papers, 13:1, 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14487136.2015.1085688

    Juri, S., Zurbriggen, C., Bosch Gómez, S. and Ortega Pallanez, M. (2021) Transition Design in Latin America: Enabling Collective Learning and Change. Frontiers in Sociology. 6:725053. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2021.725053

    Leitão, R. M., Men, I., Noel, L., Lima, J., and Meninato, T. (eds.) (2021) Proceedings of Pivot 2021: Dismantling / Reassembling, 22-23 July, Toronto, Canada, Design Research Society. https://doi.org/10.21606/pluriversal.2021.0052

    Lindström, K., Jönsson, L., and Hillgren, P.-A. (2021). Sketching hope and grief in transition : Situating anticipation in lived futures. Artifact: Journal of Design Practice, 8(1–2), 17.1-17.22. https://doi.org/10.1386/art_00017_1

    Light, A., Gray, C.M., Lindström, K., Forlano, L., Lockton, D., and Speed, C. (2022) Designing transformative futures, in Lockton, D., Lenzi, S., Hekkert, P., Oak, A., Sádaba, J., Lloyd, P. (eds.), DRS2022: Bilbao, 27 June - 3 July, Bilbao, Spain. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.896

    Lockton, D., and Candy, S. (2018) A Vocabulary for Visions in Designing for Transitions, in Storni, C., Leahy, K., McMahon, M., Lloyd, P. and Bohemia, E. (eds.), Design as a catalyst for change - DRS International Conference 2018, 25-28 June, Limerick, Ireland. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2018.558

    Srivastava, S., and Culén, A.L. (2018) Transition-oriented Futuring: integrated design for decreased consumption amongst millennials, in Storni, C., Leahy, K., McMahon, M., Lloyd, P. and Bohemia, E. (eds.),Design as a catalyst for change - DRS International Conference 2018, 25-28 June, Limerick, Ireland. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2018.512

    Veselova, E., Gaziulusoy, I., and Lohmann, J. (2022) Mediating the needs of human and natural nonhuman stakeholders: Towards a design methodological framework, in Lockton, D., Lenzi, S., Hekkert, P., Oak, A., Sádaba, J., Lloyd, P. (eds.), DRS2022: Bilbao, 25 June - 3 July, Bilbao, Spain. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.524

Back to top

22 Design for Manufacturing: Rehumanising Digital Manufacturing

Mersha Aftab, Senior Lecturer in Design Management, Birmingham City University

Rebecca Grant, Lecturer in Biometeorology & Design, Loughborough University

Mey Goh, Reader in Transdisciplinary Digital Manufacturing, Loughborough University

Iryna Yevseyeva, Associate Professor in Computer Science, DeMontfort University

  • What role is design research playing in the re-humanisation of digital manufacturing? This theme track aims to bring transdisciplinary researchers together, looking at how design explores, supports, and leads digital transformation within the manufacturing sectors worldwide to be more people-centred. Design research significantly contributes to digital transformation within the private and public sectors. Regarding manufacturing, existing literature provides measurable readiness levels, such as the technology readiness index (TRI) (Parasuraman, 2000; Parasuraman & Colby, 2015; Tsikriktsis, 2004) or the Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs). However, these models do not consider people and their perceived efficacy for new technologies. Design research and human-centred design have historically made systems, processes, and transformations more people-centred. Recent provocations have seen the proposal to improve readiness to change, looking at people-led readiness levels through empathy. Other significant contributions appropriate for this are the design’s role in improving the manufacturing process's efficiency, productivity, and sustainability. Also, material culture studies and data visualisation make manufacturing more sustainable. The conceptualisation of the future digital manufacturing ecosystem through design. And finally, what is the role of design in making digital manufacturing more open, diverse, and inclusive for the oncoming workforce? There is a need to showcase design’s contribution within this unchartered space. Where have design research or approaches like HCD, empathy, Design Thinking, and culture probes been applied to re-humanise a largely technology-heavy digital manufacturing industry?

  • Aftab, M., & Young, R. (2016). Researching the design innovation process in a multinational: an empathic approach to the application of the Delphi technique. In (pp. 139-162): Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Aftab, M., Goh, M. and Lattanzio, S. (under review) Empathy for Digital Transformation: Building Readiness for Technology Adoption Introduction. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies.

    Tonuk, D. (2016). Making bioplastics: an investigation of material-product relationships. [Doctoral Thesis, Lancaster University]. Lancaster University.

    Tsai, W.-C., & Hoven, E. v. d. (2018). Memory Probes: Exploring Retrospective User Experience Through Traces of Use on Cherished Objects.

    W. Zhang, J. G. a. K. C., Loughborough University, UK. (2023). Future of Digital Manufacturing Ecosystems – 2040 Scenarios.

Back to top

23 Making in the Digital Era

Nithikul Nimkulrat, OCAD University, Canada

Camilla Groth, University of South-Eastern Norway, Norway

  • The Experiential Knowledge Special Interest Group (EKSIG) focusses on the understanding of ‘knowledge’ and ‘contribution to knowledge’ in design research, especially in the areas where designing forms part of the research process.

    The EKSIG track at DRS2024 takes a closer look at the new and changing materiality of design practice that we, designers, face, due to digitalization and its challenges and benefits. Several areas of design practice and research involve processes of making things. More often such processes unfold in a hybrid form combining both making by hand and with tools, both analogue and digital. This year’s EKSIG strand focusses on discussing the theme ‘Making in the Digital Era’ that illuminates designers’ insider perspectives on making and embodied experience in hybrid analogue and digital material processes. The blurry border between the two modalities enables the designers to delve themselves into the hybrid environment of making in which they can move seamlessly between the analogue and the digital—but what happens with the experiential knowledge of materials in this process? Being insiders in such processes, designers can provide insights into their direct embodied experience in hybrid processes and contribute to the theoretical discussion of ways of knowing and how they use their experiential knowledge in this transition from the analogue to the digital realm—and back.

    The EKSIG track provides a forum for discussing the concept of ‘thinking in making’ in design research that entails action and perception coupling, which results in artifacts as extensions of the designer-researcher’s experience.

  • Baber, C. (2022). Embodying design: An applied science of radical embodied cognition. MIT Press.

    Frazer, M. (2010). Lab Craft: Digital adventures in contemporary craft. UK Crafts Council. Retrieved June 16, 2023, from http://www.labcraft.org.uk/_downloads/Lab-Craft-galleryguide.pdf.

    Harris, J. (2012). Digital Practice in Material Hands: How craft and computing practices are advancing digital aesthetic and conceptual methods, Craft Research 3(1), 91–112.

    Golsteijn, C., van den Hoven, E., Frohlich, D., & Sellen, A. (2014). Hybrid crafting: Towards an integrated practice of crafting with physical and digital components. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing volume 18, 593–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-013-0684-9.

    Malafouris, L., & Koukouti, M. (2022). Where the touching is touched: The role of haptic attentive unity in the dialogue between maker and material. Multimodality and Society. 2(3), 265–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/26349795221109231

    McCullough, M. (1996). Abstracting craft: The practiced digital hand. MIT Press.

    Nimkulrat, N. (2020). Translational craft: Handmade and gestural knowledge in analogue-digital material practice. Craft Research 11(2), 237–260.

    Pink, S., Ardèvol, E., & Lanzeni, D. (2016). Digital materiality. In S. Pink, E. Ardèvol & D. Lanzeni (Eds.). Digital Materialities: Design and Anthropology (pp. 1–26). Bloomsbury Academic.

    Wallace, J, & Press, M. (2004). All this useless beauty: The case for craft Zoran, A. (2015). Hybrid craft: Showcase of physical and digital integration of design and craft skills. Leonardo 48(4), 382–398.

Back to top

24 Ethics in/of/for Design

Deger Ozkaramanli, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands

Laura F. Ferrarello, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne ‐ EPFL, Switzerland

Linda N. Laursen, Aalborg University, Denmark

  • We frame design ethics as an invitation to care and argue against reducing it to a methodology, framework, checklist, toolkit, or an afterthought. This broad framing acknowledges that ‘ethics’ can carry multiple meanings in different contexts (e.g. responsible, critical, democratic) and can be approached from various theoretical perspectives (e.g. historical, cultural, speculative). Consequently, we recognize the need for a nuanced and reflexive discussion on why, where and how ethical questions and dilemmas intersect with design research and practices. For this, we aim to look back with critical historical awareness, while also looking forward with cautious optimism. We welcome both theoretical papers that unpack specific conceptual perspectives and practice-based explorations (e.g. in communities, organizations, policy-making). We invite submissions that are inspired by:

    Responsible design and innovation: What are the ethical and societal implications of design for innovation (processes, strategies, artifacts)? How to nurture an ethical awareness and accountability in design and innovation practices?

    The ethics of collaboration: What are the main questions concerning power, agency, and positionality that design should recognize and address in inter/transdisciplinary settings?

    Ethics in education: How to embed critical-ethical reflection in design education?

    Aesthetics of design: How do the value-laden imagery of design shape our perception of the world? What does this aesthetics say about design as a discipline?

    Ethics for social and climate justice: What is the role of design in preventing/perpetuating social inequalities and the exploitation of natural resources?

    The track will result in an edited book of selected papers and is a collaboration led by the Design Ethics SIG.

  • Ozkaramanli, D., Nagenborg, M., Fantini van Ditmar, D., Lehtinen, S., Schwobel-Patel, C., & Ferrarello, L. (2022) Design + Ethics: How is it more than the sum of its parts?, in Lockton, D., Lenzi, S., Hekkert, P., Oak, A., Sádaba, J., Lloyd, P. (eds.), DRS2022: 27 June - 3 July, Bilbao, Spain. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.921

    Mareis, C., Greiner-Petter, M., & Renner, M. (2022). Critical by design? An introduction. Critical by Design? Genealogies, Practices, Positions. transcript Verlag. https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/53572

    Gray, C. M., Chivukula, S. S., Carlock, T., Li, Z., & Duane, J. N. (2022). Scaffolding Ethics-Focused Methods for Practice Resonance. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (pp. 2375-2391). https://doi.org/10.1145/3563657.3596111

    Van Amstel, F. M., & Gonzatto, R. F. (2020). The anthropophagic studio: towards a critical pedagogy for interaction design. Digital Creativity, 31(4), 259-283. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2020.1802295

    Hansson, K., Forlano, L., Choi, J. H. J., DiSalvo, C., Pargman, T. C., Bardzell, S., Lindtner, S. & Joshi, S. (2018). Provocation, conflict, and appropriation: The role of the designer in making publics. Design Issues, 34(4), 3-7. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi_a_00506

Back to top

25 Design Sketching and Visualization, Futures & Research

Bryan Howell, Product & User Experience Design, Brigham Young University, United States
Jan Willem Hoftijzer, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands
Mauricio Novoa Munoz, School of Engineering, Design and Built Environment, University of Western Sydney, Australia
Amos Scully, Rochester Institute of Technology, United States
Mark Sypesteyn, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands
Jason Germany, University of Washington, United States
Wouter Eggink, University of Twente, Netherlands
Wendy Zhang, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Verena Paepcke-Hjeltness, Auburn University, United States
Alexander (Freddie) Holliman, University of Strathclyde, Scotland

For visual papers, you can use an extended version of the conference template.

  • Design sketching in analogue, tablet, and immersive technologies, combined with artificial intelligence, is rapidly evolving and is primed for reinterpretation and further contextualisation. Discussions about analogue and digital sketching, live and online education, traditional and emerging visual contexts, generative and explanatory visual knowledge, emerging technology and methods, and the visual power and speed of sketching with artificial intelligence have seeded the ground to reassess our relationships with the role of sketching, and visual knowledge. The “Design Sketching and Visualization, Futures & Research” track welcomes visual or written research papers from industry professionals and academics on three topics:

    1- Analogue and tablet sketching

    The purpose and character of sketching in a design research context.

    New insights sketching, either analogue or digital (tablet sketching), objects or systems.

    Philosophical views on sketching.

    The pedagogy of sketching.

    2- Sketching and visualisation in immersive realities

    How will XR influence design education?

    How should traditional skills and processes translate to new XR platforms and means of production?

    How will XR redefine our profession and practice?

    What new opportunities do virtual synchronous telepresence and asynchronous distributed work create?

    3- Sketching and visualisation with artificial intelligence

    The role of designers as curators of processes in partnerships with AI.

    The emerging skill sets required in design for this decade.

    New forms for development, management, and manufacturing.

    New fields for design development and application through exploratory research.

    Find additional information on submitting visual papers in this document.

  • Hoftijzer, J.W., Sypesteyn,M., & Kormelink, S. (2020, September 10-11). A New Language For Sketching The Intangible; Building On A Mutual Fundament. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE 2020), Herning, Denmark

    Howell, B.F., Jackson, A.R., Lee, H., DeVita, J., & Rawlings, R. (2021, September 24-26). Exploring the Experiential Reading Differences between Visual and Written Research Papers. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers (LXD 2021), Shandong University of Art & Design, Jinan, China.

    Novoa, M., Howell, B.F., Hoftijzer, J. W., Rodriguez, J. M., Zhang, W., & Kramer, N. (2022, September 8-9). New collaborative workflows - Immersive co-design from sketching to 3D CAD and production. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE 2022), London South Bank University in London, UK.

    Tsang, Y. P., & Lee, C. K. M. (2022). Artificial intelligence in industrial design: A semi-automated literature survey. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 112, 104884.

    Verganti, R., Vendraminelli, L., & Iansiti, M. (2020). Innovation and design in the age of artificial intelligence. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 37(3), 212-227.

Back to top

26 How Do You Sound Design? Articulating Experiences And Cultures Via Listening

Stefano Delle Monache, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering
Nicolas Misdariis, IRCAM STMS Lab, Sound Perception and Design group, Paris
Elif Özcan, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering
Davide Rocchesso, University of Palermo, Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science
Sara Lenzi, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering
Simone Spagnol, IUAV University of Venice
Sandra Pauletto, KTH Royal Institute of Technology. Division of Media Technology and Interaction Design
Daniel Hug, Zurich University of the Arts, Institute for Computer Music and Sound Technology

  • The SIG on Sound-Driven Design invites researchers and practitioners to delve into the multifaceted nature of sound, unraveling its physical, perceptual, emotional, and socio-technological dimensions, and contribute to the discovery and development of design methods and tools. In the sound-driven perspective, listening emerges as element that adds depth and richness to the design space, adding to the role of the senses in the experience of the form quality of products, services, and systems. We propose to reflect on the holistic and inclusive character of “sound-driven” as it combines the diverse sonic, experiential, technical, and cultural manifestations of sound with the creative, integrative, mitigative, and purposeful essence of designing. We welcome contributions that offer insights and actionable knowledge on the process of sound-driven design by:

    Exploring the sonic and creative aspects, with a focus on the sensory, emotional and aesthetic qualities of the audible embodiment to create unique and innovative sonic identity for projects

    Examining the experiential and integrative aspects, with a focus on how sound enhance and reinforce other sensory cues, such as vision and touch, and ultimately interacts with other design elements to create cohesive and coherent experiences

    Tackling the technical and mitigative aspects, with a focus on the sources and systems that produce unwanted or harmful sound, in order to create more comfortable and healthy environments

    Framing the cultural and purposeful aspects, with a focus on crafting culturally relevant and meaningful sound for specific audience or community, conveying values and practices, bridging communities, and fostering connections among stakeholders

  • Delle Monache, S., Misdariis, N., & Özcan, E. (2022). Semantic models of sound-driven design: Designing with listening in mind. Design Studies, 83, 101134.

    Özcan, E., Broekmeulen, C. L., Luck, Z. A., van Velzen, M., Stappers, P. J., & Edworthy, J. R. (2022). Acoustic Biotopes, Listeners and Sound-Induced Action: A Case Study of Operating Rooms. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(24), 16674.

    Misdariis, N., & Hug, D. (2020). Sound Design Methodologies: between Artistic Inspiration and Academic Perspiration. In Bull, M., & Cobussen, M. (Eds.) The Bloomsbury handbook of sonic methodologies, (pp. 685–704). Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

    Tarlao, C., Steele, D., Blanc, G., & Guastavino, C. (2023). Interactive soundscape simulation as a co-design tool for urban professionals. Landscape and Urban Planning, 231, 104642.

    Zanella, A., Harrison, C. M., Lenzi, S., Cooke, J., Damsma, P., & Fleming, S. W. (2022). Sonification and sound design for astronomy research, education and public engagement. Nature Astronomy, 6, 1241–1248.

    Hug, D. (2020). How do you sound design? An exploratory investigation of sound design process visualizations. In Proc. of the 15th International Audio Mostly Conference (pp. 114-121).

Back to top

27 Play Design: Initiating Transformation through Imagination

Helle Marie Skovbjerg, Design School Kolding, Denmark

Sofie Kinch, Design School Kolding, Denmark

Sune Klok Gudiksen, Design School Kolding, Denmark

Shanti Sumartojo, Monash University, Australia

Lisa Grocott, Monash University, Australia

Colleen Macklin, Parsons School of Design, USA

  • There is a growing interest in the new design field, play design. By applying qualities from play, play design can help create opportunities to meet an unknown future with curiosity, empowering designers to make decisions and to keep a shared hope. As a fundamental aspect of human existence, play has been a source of expression, social interaction, and transformative growth across various cultures for thousands of years.

    Play design can connect and transform us to keep imagining and reimagining the future—together.

    In this theme track we explore the transformative power of play and how play design and designers can sparkle, initiate and support us imagining together. With a particular focus on the engagement and participation of the designers´ hands, bodies and their ability to amplify collective imagination, we emphasize the role of imagination, wonder, curiosity, joy, teasing and surprise in the design process as well as in the resulting products, services, and systems we create.

    The theme track will be guided by questions like: How can play design spark imagination? How can play design trigger ways of imagining together? How can play design trigger ways of transforming? How can play design connect us during transformation?

    Papers about play design as initiating transformation through imagination can be related to a range of arenas: Industry processes, services and products; public services and developments within healthcare or urban initiatives; cultural and tourism experiences; educational informal and formal learning; toy, game and playground products.

  • Breuer, H.; Bessant, J. & Gudiksen, S. (2022). . Gamification for Innovators and Entrepreneurs - Using Games to Drive Innovation and Facilitate Learning. Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Castella, K. (2018). ‘Designing for Kids: Creating for Playing, Learning, and Growing’. London: Routledge.

    Christiansen, L.G., and Gudiksen, S.K. (2022) Play probe: An approach that reveals emergent identity building in youth, in Lockton, D., Lenzi, S., Hekkert, P., Oak, A., Sádaba, J., Lloyd, P. (eds.), DRS2022: Bilbao, 25 June - 3 July, Bilbao, Spain.

    https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.572

    Feder, K. (2020) Exploring a Child-Centred Design Approach: From tools and methods to approach and mindset. Ph.D. Dissertation. Design School Kolding

    Feder, K., & Gudiksen, S. (2022). Understanding Play: Designing for emergence. Paper Track at DRS2022: Bilbao, 25.

    Feder, K. (2022) Internship as a child – what designers can learning through play with children. In DRS2022: Bilbao, 25. June - 3 July, Bilbao, Spain.https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.337

    Gudiksen, S. & Skovbjerg, H. M. (2020) ‘Framing Play Design – A hands-on guide for designers, learners and innovators’. Amsterdam: BIS-Verlag.

    Jespersen, E.B. (2022) Emotional textures: Exploring children’s emotional and haptic play, DRS2022: Bilbao, 25. June - 3 July, Bilbao, Spain.

    Poulsen, M. (2022) The junk playground as agora: Designing spaces to re-invigorate democratic participation, in DRS2022: Bilbao, 25. June - 3 July, Bilbao, Spain. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.679

    Powell, L. (2022). Exploring the complexity and agency of play through co-design and experiential design with and for adults. in DRS2022: Bilbao, 25. June - 3 July, Bilbao, Spain.

    Sicart, M. (2014) ‘Play matters’. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Skovbjerg, H.M. (2020) On Play. Copenhagen. Samfundslitteratur.

Back to top

28 Retail, Hospitality and Service Design Futures

Katelijn Quartier, Hasselt University, Belgium

Mia Münster, PolyU School of Design, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong

Rebekah Matheny, The Ohio State University, USA

Bethan Alexander, London College of Fashion, United Kingdom

  • The value of design in the commercial sector has been studied for years across various disciplines, but in fragmented ways, each employing their own research methods. In the Special Interest Group ‘Designing Retail and Service Futures’, linked to this track, we strive to better understand the value of design in the commercial sector, including closely linked disciplines, such as retail and hospitality design, service design, product and fashion design, branding and graphic design, marketing and business economics, design management, environmental psychology, interior design and architecture. Why?

    Recent developments, accelerated by the pandemic, demonstrate a growing convergence between retail, hospitality, and services in design practice.

    All three sectors are undeniably intertwined and influenced by the digital world, leading to hybrid experiences and a demand for both global and local marketplaces. This challenges researchers in the retail, hospitality and service sector to reimagine and reflect upon future developments, the status quo, and explore new ways of doing and designing.

    Still recovering from the covid-crisis, and facing energy and climate crises that have a significant impact on the commercial sector, we need to ask ourselves: How can services and brands be developed in a sustainable way and remain relevant for consumers? How can they stay afloat despite the many challenges? This calls for resistance and innovation.

    We welcome papers that contribute to this new reality and futures. Papers may address issues including, but not necessarily limited to, case studies, pedagogy, and innovative research.

  • Quartier, K., Petermans, A., Melewar, T.C., and Dennis, C., (2012). ‘The Value of Design in Retail and Branding’. Emerald Group Publishing: Bingley.

    Petermans, A., and Kent, T. (2016). ‘Retail Design, Theoretical Perspectives’. Routledge: London.

    Mager, Birgit (Hg.) (2020), ‘The Future of Service Design’. TH-Köln, ISBN 978-3-9818990-6-1. P/ 1-24. https://bit.ly/393eI2P.

    Münster, M. B., Sönnichsen, S. D., Clement, J. (2022) ‘Retail Design in the Transition to Circular Economy: A study of barriers and drivers’, Journal of Cleaner Production https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132310

Back to top