The social construction of futures: Proposing plausibility as a semiotic approach for Critical Futures Studies

 Reference: Fischer, N. and S. Dannenberg (2021). "The social construction of futures: Proposing plausibility as a semiotic approach for Critical Futures Studies." Futures 129: 102729.

Abstract: This article examines the role of plausibility in the construction of futures, taking a critical constructionist perspective. Plausibility builds on the intersubjectively constructed coherence to prior knowledges and is understood, in line with constructionist meaning-based approaches, to be grounded in dominant and naturalized conceptions of the present. A re-reading of the ongoing discussions of plausibility in Futures Studies shows how plausibility is associated with different roles and implications depending on the epistemological perspective taken. Moreover, plausibility sets the range of futures for further consideration. Plausibility is thus at the core of constructing futures, prefiguring them based on the present, and thus re-stating the present within images of the future. This aspect renders the term fruitful as a semiotic approach for Critical Futures Studies. Plausibility is discussed as a starting point for reflexive inquiries. It enables the analysis of the overlaps to dominant perceptions of the world, and serves as a departure point for distancing and re-ordering knowledges and creating other futures through plausibilizing other presents. This paper enriches the ongoing attempts to understand plausibility through a critical constructionist perspective and suggests potential theoretical and methodological approaches for critically working with plausibility, including semiotic guiding questions for de- and reconstructing futures.

My notes: I'm simply adding here an image and a table to add to the abstract:

Illusory essences

Reference: Brick, C., et al. (2020). Illusory essences: A bias holding back theorizing in psychological science.

Abstract: The reliance in psychology on verbal definitions means that psychological research is unusually moored to how humans think and communicate about categories. Psychological concepts (e.g., intelligence; attention) are easily assumed to represent objective, definable categories with an underlying essence. Like the 'vital forces' previously thought to animate life, these assumed essences can create an illusion of understanding. We describe a pervasive tendency across psychological science to assume that essences explain phenomena by synthesizing a wide range of research lines from cognitive, clinical, and biological psychology and neuroscience. Labeling a complex phenomenon can appear as theoretical progress before sufficient evidence that the described category has a definable essence or known boundary conditions. Category labels can further undermine progress by masking contingent and contextual relationships and obscuring the need to specify mechanisms. Finally, we highlight examples of promising methods that circumvent the lure of essences and we suggest four concrete strategies to identify and avoid essentialist intuitions in theory development.

My notes: An excellent pre-print that tackles a key problem across science and one that seriously affects many areas of design research, including cognitive studies of 'fixation' and 'ideation' and, of course, neurological studies aiming to discover "the essence of design activity". Worth a careful read. These days I usually only scan papers and would only read the section I'm most interested in (methods, literature, findings, or discussion). I enjoyed going through this paper slowly and absorbing its content, especially the well-framed challenges and questions to think about how we conduct and interpret research.

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.

"Communities of Difference", DIY pedagogy and Maker Spaces

Reference: Gibbons, A., & Snake-Beings, E. (2018). DiY (Do-it-Yourself) pedagogy: a future-less orientation to education. Open Review of Educational Research, 5(1), 28-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/23265507.2018.1457453

Abstract: A future-less orientation, as defined in this article, explores approaches to education within the context of precarious, shifting, labour markets and the uncertain future of employment trends. A future-less orientation questions the validity of traditional views of education: as a means of preparing students for an imagined future career; one which may never happen. DiY (Do-it-Yourself) culture has a long tradition of finding innovative solutions to problems which institutions have failed to supply. In this article we explore the potentials of a DiY pedagogy based on a decentralised and transdisciplinary approach which emphasise diversity and community as a strategy to surviving a precarious future.

Notes: I collaborate with Andrew and have learned extensively from him. I selected this paper because it includes many key ideas which are interesting by themselves, including "Community of Difference" and "DIY pedagogy". It also connects to transdisciplinary, defined as:

"a transdisciplinary practice operates from a third space which is the excluded zones between two or more areas of specialised knowledge, creating a practice which remains outside or beyond areas of specialist knowledge and serves to highlight the negative space between specialist areas of  knowledge."

 I can't recommend enough this book to those interested in these topics:

Biesta, G. (2014). The beautiful risk of education. London: Paradigm.

'Third Objects' & 'Sandboxing' or design researchers reinventing the wheel...

Reference: Mannay, D. (2019). Artefacts, Third Objects, Sandboxing and Figurines in the Doll’s House. The SAGE Handbook of Visual Research Methods, 322. : https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781526417015

Abstract: Rather than exploring technology reliant techniques, this chapter considers the role of objects as a tool of elicitation and a way to engender participatory forms of research where participants can more easily set the agenda and lead the conversation. The chapter explores the usefulness of objects in relation to three distinct approaches. First, it is interested in the artefacts, objects and things that belong to participants: these are items that they own, which are shared with the researcher. Second, there is an exploration of ‘third objects’ that are introduced to the interview space by the researcher to provide a point of focus and to generate discussion. Third, the chapter examines the use of multiple objects and an accompanying backdrop scene (here a sandbox and doll's house), which are provided by researchers for participants to build a representation of an aspect of their lives or to create a scene in response to a specific research question. The chapter draws on a range of empirical examples to illustrate how objects are utilised in the research process, and what can be gained from their introduction as tools of elicitation.

My notes: This handbook has many interesting chapters, but this one in particular I think can help design researchers see how often times their claims of originality are really just evidence of their lack of awareness and appreciation for how other disciplines conduct research. In particular, I've heard *many* design researchers make claims about their use of artefacts and artefact-creation in so-called 'design workshops' used for research purposes. The problem is that they seldom acknowledge the various scholars across social studies and other fields who adapt and apply 'creative methods'. I still believe that 'designerly researchers' (Joyce Lee dixit) have a lot to contribute to these efforts by applying their knowledge and intuitions of the visual, material, and tangible qualities of artefacts and their potential for research activity. All good for those using 'design probes' and 'design workshops' as research methods, except please do your homework and respect non-design researchers who have already been working on these spaces for many years.

Indigenous Philosophies and Design

Reference: Watene, K. (2020). Transforming Global Justice Theorizing: Indigenous Philosophies. In Brooks, T. (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Global Justice, DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198714354.001.0001

Abstract: Indigenous philosophies are essential to indigenous peoples’ self-determination, and essential to the pursuit and realization of justice for indigenous peoples globally. Given this contention, the absence of indigenous philosophies in mainstream global justice theorizing is problematic for the continued relevance of global justice theorizing today. The aim of this chapter is to think seriously about how to remedy this problem, and to begin to provide some of the solutions for moving forward, focusing particularly on Māori philosophies and Kaupapa Māori theory. More specifically, following a discussion of the importance of indigenous philosophies for global justice, we explore (1) why even the strongest (in intercultural terms) mainstream approach to justice—the capability approach—has so far fallen short, and (2) why indigenous methodologies remain vital to the appropriate articulation and inclusion of indigenous philosophies in justice theorizing. In so doing, the chapter highlights some of the opportunities within, and challenges to, mainstream justice theorizing—and philosophy more generally—for remedying this shortfall.

My notes: Accessible and general discussion that helps inform ways forward to transform design based on indigenous epistemologies. Watene talks specifically about the 'capability approach' but these ideas are easily transferable to design work.

"Speculative design’s efforts are ‘'idiotic’'..."

 Reference: Michael, M. (2012). “What are we busy doing?” Engaging the idiot. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 37(5), 528-554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243911428624 

Abstract: Engagement events—whether interviews, installations, or participatory encounters—can entail a range of happenings which, in one way or another, “overspill” the empirical, analytic, or political framing of those engagement events. This article looks at how we might attend to these overspills—for instance, forms of “misbehavior” on the part of lay participants—not only to provide accounts of them but also to explore ways of deploying them creatively. In particular, Stengers’ figure of the “idiot” is proposed as a device for deploying those overspills to interrogate “what we are busy doing” as social science researchers in engagement events. This interrogation is furthered by considering the proactive idiocy of “Speculative Design’s” version of the public engagement with science which seems directly to engender “overspilling.” Providing examples of speculative design prototypes and practices, the article develops an ideal typical contrast between social scientific and designerly perspectives on public engagement. It is suggested that speculative design can serve as a resource for supplementing “science and technology studies” (STS) conceptualizations of, and practices toward, public, engagement, and science.

My Notes: 

This paper makes a couple of thought-provoking contributions. One in relation to 'misbehaviours' that tend to go unnoticed in events such as participatory workshops, which Mike Michael tentatively classifies as:

• absence (failing to turn up); 
• incapacity (e.g., being too tired, or drunk, or ill); 
• refusal (e.g., being present but remaining silent); 
• disruption (heckling at, or aggressively challenging); 
• distraction (focusing on something ostensibly irrelevant); 
• irony (actually doing something different)

The second argument is that 'speculative design' offers a complementary way of engaging with people. summarised in Table I below, and by the title of this post, a direct quote (p. 541):

"Speculative design’s efforts are ‘'idiotic’'... an idiotic prompt to reflection on, and a slowing of, what STS practitioners are busy doing"

Extra note: The journal "Science, Technology, & Human Values" has interesting content of relevance to designers. And it includes papers authored by design researchers, so it seems like a suitable outlet in addition to the more typical 'design research journals'...

Designing for 'infrastructuring'

Reference: Agid, S. (2018). ‘Dismantle, change, build’: Designing abolition at the intersections of local, large-scale, and imagined infrastructures. Design Studies, 59, 95-116. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.05.006

Abstract: As a theory and practice within the field of participatory design, infrastructuring holds complex intersections between people, groups, technologies, systems, and ideologies in view. Building on other researchers in participatory design, this article argues for an approach to infrastructuring that focuses on how we do, and create capacity to do, the work of infrastructuring locally with people and groups affected by and working in relation to the systems we seek to engage. These dynamics are explored in the literature and through a case story of an embedded design engagement with a social justice organization, where our focus and the relational practices we designed through long-term work together were shaped by the intersections of local, large-scale, and imagined infrastructures central to their organizing work.

My notes: Disclaimer, I know Shana personally and have learned about their work through personal conversations, still this paper blew my mind as I finally read it carefully in 2020, as it seems more relevant today than two years ago, or twenty as it feels now. Based on a project with a group that seeks to "make policing obsolete", Shana continues their previous work examining how designers 'infrastructure' (as a verb) in participatory projects. This is very welcome in PD where often papers (imho) merely report well-intended experiences done in/with communities. Shana's paper is refreshingly accessible for outsiders (like me) to grasp these ideas of 'designing for infrastructuring' where deep ideas are not always clearly articulated in the literature -it doesn't help that both of these terms are nouns and verbs and that people seem to enjoy applying new terms to very, very different things. Yes, Thomas Kuhn, I'm looking at your thirty uses of 'paradigm' here. At five pages long, the introductory section serves well as a literature review on 'infrastructuring' for the uninitiated. 

Section 2 describes the case study where Shana uses the expression 'design of local infrastructures' to refer to the design of things like 'an internal campaign proposal graphic' and 'a system for first collecting stories'. Shana then focuses on a wall-chart they co-designed with the group in a process they relate to ‘participatory knowledge-building’ as a way that 'exceeds a primarily instrumental notion of participants’ contributions, and emphasizes the dynamic production of, and struggle for, knowledge as part of political engagement in (re)making the world they are researching' (p. 108). 

Being 600% honest, I feel that in the design research community, the design of a checklist and a wall chart can seem at first exaggerated to analyse as 'infrastructuring', but one way I (think that I) understand this comes from my experiences with groups where a name for a project is being decided collectively: sometimes these discussions have taken extremely deep and rich turns where members of the team suggest names and slogans that help everyone understand where others are coming from and how they actually see the work and the goals, even the worldviews of others. 'Naming the baby' in those occasions has ended up being one of the most important planning stages, as the name becomes the 'piñata' that is collectively assembled and filled with everyone's ideas, and then the lolly scramble reveals deep assumptions, agendas, identities, and relationships. If I'm correct, such 'transition points' as Shana calls them can be designed and thus it follows that designers could (should?) be educated to be experts in facilitating transition points in collective projects (participatory, n-disciplinary, etc). I am both excited to think and work on that premise, but also remain sceptical that transitions can be 'designed' at least in the conventional use of the word by designers. I think, for example, of the years that passed from the creation of "Black Lives Matter" by Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi in 2013 to its general acceptance and embracing by the general population in 2020. Would design interventions shorten such 'natural diffusion times'? Designing in such contexts implies a degree of control and top-down decision-making that may not be desirable or possible. I'm sure that Shana has a lot to say about this and I look forward to learning from their wisdom soon.