The non-participatory patient (or plurality in participation?)

Reference: Sanin, J. (2020). The non-participatory patient. In ServDes.2020 – Tensions, Paradoxes, Plurality. RMIT University, Melbourne Australia. 411-421

Abstract: This paper discusses tensions and paradoxes of codesign paradigms and calls for more plural approaches to participation in order to establish collaborations with non-participatory users. It builds on research experiences in the field of design for wellbeing to challenge assumptions about user participation and introduce the concept of ‘the non-participatory patient’. This conceptual figure is used to represent those users who do not engage with codesign activities, or those who engage, but contribute in ways that contradict expectations of designers and industry partners. It is argued that most service design projects are not able to account for the needs and preferences of non-participatory users, who are most of the time excluded from design processes and outcomes for being considered as disengaged or disobedient. These experiences make evident the need for collaborative tools, techniques and formats beyond those traditionally used in codesign, and able to bring more plurality into service design.

My notes: An advantage from the Covid-19 pandemic is conferences moving online. Organisers are still figuring out how to run online conferences. In 2020, most conferences kept charging very high registration fees and basically hid their content behind paywalls and youtube unlisted videos. We can only hope that moving forward, conference organisers will see the new opportunities of online conferences. Imagine, for example, charging a $10 fee to get the proceedings, live webinars, and a thematic catalogue of pre-recorded presentations. I can imagine hundreds perhaps thousands of students, academics and professional designers joining these events. 

Anyway, moving on to Juan Sanin's ServDes2020 paper, like many other papers of this conference I found it refreshing and insightful. Juan questions some of the most pervasive assumptions behind participatory design calling for adopting the word in plural "participations" to think in more sophisticated and ethical ways about who participates, why, and how.

Decolonizing design

Reference: Ansari, A. (2019). Decolonizing design through the perspectives of cosmological others: arguing for an ontological turn in design research and practice. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students, 26(2), 16-19.

Abstract: A closer attention to cultural and cosmological difference as the basis for thinking about how we redesign our own modern technological infrastructures may be the way to decolonize design research.

My comment: A short but well-presented reflection on the "decolonial turn" in design. The notion that the differences between ways of designing and ways of being across cultures is "deeper and much more fundamental" is something that resonates with me in particular. Having lived in multiple continents for a number of years, I do have experienced in my life a certain type of illusion about how we think we understand each other, within but especially across cultures. An idea that I am currently working myself is what Ansari points out here on how designers <<perceive and make sense of concepts central to design practice such as the nature of creativity>>. Ansari formulates 3 takeaways:

1. Cultivate an epistemic humility
2. See our own knowledge and perspective as local and [be] open to globalization within another's worldview
3. Show concrete examples of how things could be otherwise

You can follow Ahmed on Medium.com: https://medium.com/@aansari86

The dialectics of serendipity in Management

Reference: Pina e Cunha, M., Rego, A., Clegg, S., & Lindsay, G. (2015). The dialectics of serendipity. European Management Journal, 33(1), 9-18.

Abstract: Serendipity in organizations has often been perceived as a mysterious occurrence. We approach the process of serendipity via reconsideration of Honda’s entry into the US market using an alternate templates analysis, showing that serendipity can be conceptually interpreted as the synthesis of preparation and openness to novelty, articulated through generative doubt. In this sense, it can be thought of as a dialectical process that thrives through the creative synthesis of the existing and the new. It is a practical accomplishment rather than an organizational form of mystery.

I enjoyed reading this, here's my favourite part: "We asked “how do organizations turn luck into serendipity”, and responded that they do so via the dialectical interplay of preparation, openness, and doubt. Serendipity can thus be defined as unexpected observations framed as opportunities, made actionable by a frame of reference that is kept dynamic via the cultivation of doubt..."

The expatriate-creativity hypothesis

Reference: Fee, A., & Gray, S. J. (2012). The expatriate-creativity hypothesis: A longitudinal field test. Human Relations, 65(12), 1515-1538.

Abstract: While prior research suggests that the cognitive changes triggered by cross-cultural experiences can enhance an individual’s creative-thinking abilities, this is yet to be verified through empirical field research. We draw on schema theory, and the principle of psychological dissonance experienced during cultural adaptation, to argue that expatriates undergo wholesale cognitive changes that can lead to enhanced creative-thinking abilities. We test this hypothesis by measuring changes in the creative-thinking abilities of a sample of expatriates over the first 12 months of their placement. When compared with a control group of non-expatriates, the expatriates showed significant increases in overall creative-thinking abilities and cognitive flexibility, although not originality, elaboration, or ideational fluency.

Notes: TBD