call for papers for THEME SESSIONS

Full papers can be submitted to any of the following Theme areas as part of the Call for Participation, which are intended to draw on existing and emerging research and networks.  Each theme will be managed independently.  If you would like further details about any Additional Theme then please contact the appropriate Sub-Chair by clicking on their name.  Below is a summary of the Themes for DRS2016 that you can read about in more detail as you scroll down.

Download the Full Paper Template

1. Reframing the Paradox: Examining the Intersections between Evidence-Based Design and Design for the Public Sector

SUB-CHAIR

Luke Feast, aalto university, Finland

CO-CONVENERS

Birger Sevaldson, Oslo School of Architecture and Design, Norway
Sabine Junginger, Hertie School of Governance, Germany
Peter Jones, OCAD University, Canada

Today we face complex challenges: preventing migrant deaths in the Mediterranean, delivering health and social care for an aging population, and dealing with the social impacts of growing economic inequality. Increasingly, designers are working to address such complex challenges and to deliver improved societal outcomes, for example, through the use of service design approaches to meet the needs of the elderly, the disabled, and the marginalised.

However, a paradox is emerging. On the one hand, governments are realising that they cannot address new complex socio-technical challenges in the way they approached them in the past, and so are turning to design for new strategies and techniques (Bason, 2014; Boyer et al., 2003; Dorst, 2015). On the other hand, policymaking and social design practices are increasingly being influenced by the positivistic view of research that underpins traditional evidence-based practice models (Pawson, 2006; Strauss et al., 2005). Furthermore, evidence-based practice and evidence-based design are seductive terms for those of us interested in advancing research-informed design. Therefore, we believe that critical examination of the underlying meaning and assumptions of evidence-based design and design for the public sector is warranted.

This theme seeks to bring together current design research that critically examines the tension between the potential of design approaches to address governments’ most urgent challenges and the growing influence of evidence-based practice in design.

Questions we are interested in could include:

• What constitutes evidence in the design of public services and policymaking?
• How is design being used to improve effectiveness in the public sector?
• What challenges and enablers are affecting capacity building of strategic design in the public sector?
• What ways of thinking and acting are special to evidence-based design practice?

We welcome submissions that concern any of the following aspects of evidence-based design and design for the public sector:

• Context – discussion of concepts and frameworks that underpin evidence-based design and design for the public sector;
• Case Studies – concrete illustrations of how design can drive the design of public services and policymaking;
• Tools – practices and strategies of using design as a tool in the public sector.

INDICATIVE REFERENCES

Bason, M. C., (ed) (2014) Design for policy, Gower Publishing.

Boyer, B., Cook, J., and Steinberg, M. (2013) Legible practices: Six stories about the craft of stewardship, Sitra.

Dorst, K. (2015) Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design, MIT Press.

Pawson, R. (2006) Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective, Sage publications.

Straus, S. E., Richardson, W. S., Glasziou, P., and Haynes, R. B. (2005) Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM, Elsevier Churchill Livingstone.

2. Design Research - History, Theory, Practice: histories for future-focused thinking

SUB-CHAIRS:

Maya Oppenheimer, London College of Communication, UK
HARRIET ATKINSON, UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON, UK
Livia Rezende, Royal college of art, UK

CO-CONVENERS

Cheryl Buckley, University of Brighton, UK
Jeremy Aynsley, University of Brighton, UK

Design historians continually revise and reflect upon their preoccupations, omissions, emerging methodologies and interdisciplinary approaches to design and research. Since design history’s emergence in the 1970s both as an academic discipline and as an intellectual practice concerning the past, present and future of design, this reflexive impulse has included several areas of critical discourse, including gender, material anthropologies, global narratives of design, histories of pedagogy, among others, with this panel’s added preoccupation with histories of design research.

The Design Research Society 2016 conference offers an opportunity to examine overlapping constituencies and interests between design history, design research and current practice and asks, what has changed over the last 50 years in the field of design research? This panel takes the anniversary occasion of the DRS, the first multi- disciplinary society for the international design research community, as a starting point and extends the question to include geographies, histories, figures, practices and new models. What can historians contribute to the understanding of design research as a methodology of history, theory and practice? How do social, cultural frameworks influence design research methods?

This theme aims to contribute to the formation of new knowledge about design research over the past 50 years in a global context. We invite contributions from a range of constituencies that take histories of future-focused design thinking as their remit. Proposals of interest include (but are not limited to):

• Translation and shared vocabularies of design research (including geographic, disciplinary, theoretical and practice-led approaches to design and design language);
• Experiments in and histories of design pedagogy;
• Emergent constituencies of design research methodologies, agency and trans- national design;
• Texts and contexts related to design research;
• Gender in histories of design research and design practice.

INDICATIVE REFERENCES

Clive Dilnot, “Design as a Socially Significant Activity: an Introduction” Design Studies vol. 3 no. 3, July 1982, 139-146.

Sheila Levrant De Bretteville, "Some aspects of design from the perspective of a woman designer." In Looking Closer 3: Classic Writings on Graphic Design, edited by Michael Bierut, et al., p. 238-245. New York: Allworth Press, 1999 [1973].

Jane Pavitt, “Input/Output: Design Research and Systems Thinking” The Perfect Place to Grow: 175 Years of the Royal College of Art, ed Octavia Reeve, Royal College of Art, 2012.

Victor Papanek, Design for Human Scale, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1983 and Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change 2nd ed London: Thames & Hudson, 1985.

3. AESTHETICS, COSMOPOLITICS, AND DESIGN

SUB-CHAIRS

Alex Wilkie, Goldsmiths, University of London
Tobie Kerridge, GOLDSMITHS, UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

CO-CONVENERS

Andy Boucher, Goldsmiths, University of London
Bill Gaver, Goldsmiths, University of London
Michael Guggenheim, Goldsmiths, University of London
Mike Michael, Goldsmiths, University of London
Liliana Ovalle, Goldsmiths, University of London

Over the past years, there has been a sustained interest in the interrelations between design and science and technology studies (STS). On the one hand, approaches in STS, notably actor-network theory, have been employed to provide an explanatory resource for design historians, theorists and practitioners. Perhaps, unsurprisingly, STS’ preoccupation with science, technology and society lends itself to the constructivist practices of design. On the other hand, scholars in STS have embraced design as another technical discipline, or ‘topic’, that is amenable to empirical analysis. Here, studies have focussed on the practice of architectural design (Yaneva, 2009), of user-centered and human-computer interaction design (Wilkie, 2010), participatory design (Callon, 2004) and so on.

There is, however, another recent genealogy of engagements between design and STS where the interrelations are more complex, involved and collaborative. Here, interdisciplinary efforts between designers and scholars in STS have shown that both disciplines can speak to one another through practice and productively engage with the ‘social’ in what might be called a performative idiom – where making and study combine in researching the becoming of social, scientific, political and economic relations. Projects such as the Issue Crawler (Rogers and Marres, 2000), Material Beliefs (Beaver et al., 2009) and Energy and Co-designing Communities (Gaver et al., 2015) exemplify how such interdisciplinary efforts study societies in the making.

The scope of this theme, then, is to explore recent interdisciplinary engagements between practitioners of design and STS. In so doing, we aim to invite presentations and discussion around developments in both design and STS where aesthetics (and its crafting and experience) is foregrounded as both a practical and theoretical concern and where the ‘politics of design’ moves towards a cosmopolitics of design (Michael, 2012). This builds upon recent developments in practice-based design research that draws upon publics–as–constructed (DiSalvo, 2009), so called material (Marres, 2012) and ontological (Woolgar and Lezaun, 2013) ‘turns’ in STS, process theory and speculative approaches (Wilkie et al., 2014) to grasp and rethink the entities and phenomena involved in the participatory politics of design (e.g. Binder et al., 2011). As such, we invite submissions that contribute to discussions where aesthetics and aesthetic practices engage with design research as a cosmopolitical endeavour.

INDICATIVE REFERENCES

Beaver, J., T. Kerridge, and S. Pennington (2009) Material Beliefs. London: Goldsmiths, University of London.

Gaver, W. et al. (2015) ‘Energy Babble: Mixing Environmentally-Oriented Internet Content to Engage Community Groups.’ Presented at the CHI 2015.

Michael, M. (2012) ‘“What Are We Busy Doing?” Engaging the Idiot’, Science, Technology & Human Values 37(5): 528–54.

Whitehead, A.N. (1933/1967) Adventures of Ideas. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Wilkie, A. (2010) User assemblages in design: an ethnographic study. London: Goldsmiths, University of London.

Woolgar, S. and J. Lezaun (2013) ‘The Wrong Bin Bag: A Turn to Ontology in Science and Technology Studies?’, Social Studies of Science 43(3): 321–40.

Yaneva, A. (2009) Made by the Office for Metropolitan Architecture: An Ethnography of Design. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers.

4. EMBODIED MAKING AND LEARNING

SUB-CHAIR

Marte Sørebø Gulliksen, Telemark University College, Norway

CO-CONVENERS

Pirita Seitamaa Hakkarainen, Helsinki University, Finland
Maarit Mäkelä, Aalto University, Finland
Kirstine Riis, Telemark University College, Norway
Camilla Groth, Helsinki University, Finland

Being immersed in a design process is an embodied process of making. In this proposed thematic session we will call for papers that 1) explore the phenomenon embodied making and the conditions for it within the wide spectrum of design processes, and 2) how embodied making contribute to learning during the design process. The term ‘design processes’ is used in a broad sense: the focus is on the act of making, and the maker could thus be everyone engaged in creative processes making objects in a material (ranging from children’s whittling to the professional carpenter, from the amateur knitter to the professional ceramist).

Papers presented in this thematic session will explore the basic conditions and consequences of being a body in the world, experiencing and learning through working in materials. Possible topics could be related to e.g. following keywords: making, creativity, and role of the body in design practice. We encourage papers on interdisciplinary approaches and within a variety of methods.

The context of the thematic session is the collective endeavors of a research consortium formally established at the LearnXDesign2015-conference in Chicago, June 2015 by researchers from three research groups in Norway, Finland and Canada. At that conference, the consortium held a full-day open symposium. Papers from that symposium will be published prior to the DRS-conference as a special issue of FORMakademisk.

The aim of the thematic session is twofold. First, it will be a meeting point of researchers from a variety of backgrounds to jointly share and discuss their insights and ideas on the theme within the Design Research Society, and secondly it will be a forum for the research consortium to present their research to the larger DRS-community.

INDICATIVE REFERENCES

Gulliksen, M. S. (2015). Creative Cognition and Embodied Making. Paper presentation at LearnXDesign2015  

Niedderer, K. (2013). "Explorative Materiality and Knowledge. The Role of Creative Exploration and Artefacts in Design Research." FORMakademisk 6(2): 1-20.

Lopata, J. A. (2014). Creativity as a mental state: An EEG study of musical improvisation. The School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies. London, Ontario, Canada, University of Western Ontario. PhD: 161.

Mäkelä, Maarit (2007). Knowing through making: The role of the artefact in practice-led research. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 20(3), 157-163.

Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., et al. (2014). The promise of cognitive neuroscience in design studies. DRS2014. Umeå, Sweden.

5. DESIGN FOR DESIGN: THE INFLUENCE AND LEGACY OF JOHN HESKETT

SUB-CHAIRS

SYLVIA LIU, hong kong polytechnic university
TORE KRISTENSEN, copenhagen business school, Denmark

CO-CONVENERS

Clive Dilnot, Parsons the New School for Design, US
Cees de Bont, Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Ding-Bang Luh, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan
Suzan Boztepe, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Simona Maschi, Copenhagen Institute of Interaction Design, Denmark
Yongqi Lou, Tongji University, China
Xiangyang Xing, Jiangnan University, China
Huiming Tong, Guangzhou Academy of Fine Arts, China
Jun Cai, Tsinghua University, China

This theme invites papers relating to the ideas and influence of the late John Heskett who explored the value of design in IIT Chicago, Copenhagen Business School and Hong Kong Polytechnic Institute. This work was both theoretical and concerned with the development of practice.

In academic research and industry applications, Heskett’s research covered a broad scope with major topics including design history, corporate design strategies, national policies, and creating value by design. His theories have influenced studies and practice in many geographical regions and countries, following his research route from the UK to Germany, the U.S.A. and Hong Kong.

This theme will not only open to those who know John Heskett’s work and had contact with him, but also those with similar research areas which focus on bridging the gulf between design and economies.

INDICATIVE REFERENCES

Brand, R. and Rocchi, S (2011). Rethinking value in a changing landscape. A model for strategic reflection and business transformation. A Philip design paper.

Den Ouden, E. (2012). Innovation Design: Creating Value for People, Organization and Society. London: Springer.

Gardien, P., Djajadiningrat, T., Hummels, C., & Brombacher, A. (2014). Changing your hammer: The implications of paradigmatic innovation for design practice,  International Journal of Design, 8(2), 119-139.

Heskett, J. (2008). Creating economic value by design, International Journal of Design, 3(1), 71-84.

Normann, R. and Ramírez, R. (1993). From value chain to value constellation: designing interactive strategy, Harvard Business Review, 71 (4), 65-77. 

6. DESIGN POLICY

SUB-CHAIRS

Alex Williams, Kingston University, UK
Qian Sun, Royal College of art, UK

CO-CONVENERS

Sarah Teasley, Royal College of Art, UK
Liqun Zhang, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China

Design has played a vital role in the development of economies, societies and cultures worldwide.  Governments in developed nations - such as Korea, Denmark & the UK - have long recognised the contribution design makes towards success and have employed a wide variety of approaches to create environments conducive to design. Different national contexts have called for differing tactics to encourage companies to use design more strategically but have been met barriers. Yet research into those policies unlocking the potential of the design industry to respond to social challenges is comparatively recent. (Here, we define design policy as:

“the process by which governments translate their political vision into programmes & actions to develop national design resources & encourage their effective use” (Raulik-Murphy, 2014).

Although design policy is a new subject, interest has grown significantly in the last five years due to its high perceived impact. There is an imperative to advance thinking through collaboration and shared experience, demonstrated by the inaugural 2014 WDC Design Policy & 2015 DeEP Design, Innovation & Policy Conferences, representing the international forums for debate. These focus on design’s role and performance indicators, but do not develop the theoretical and evidence-bases which underpin this area and which form the basis for the proposed theme.

This session seeks to identify and critically examine national and regional design policies, which guide the interaction of design capacities, seen as a catalyst for economic and social change. These typically recognise the importance of design as a business strategy and promote factors such as design education, infrastructure, funding and IP exploitation, whilst the design sector itself struggles with competition, accreditation and fragmentation.

Issues we are interested in could include:

• design’s role in the evolution from developing to developed economy;
• the paradigm shift from resource and efficiency-driven to innovation-driven, wealth and post wealth-creation economy;
• understanding how design policies can be embedded within the private, public and service sectors across each of these stages.

Looking to the future, we are interested in how design policies may be instrumental in catalysing national responses to global challenges re: poverty, ageing and health; conflict and security; climate change; the ‘movement of everything’ (Cooper, 2015), and in setting the design agenda.

We particularly welcome submissions that address issues of agency and impact evaluation, which consider the roles of those organisations responsible for implementing policy along with their instruments and inter-relationships, using case-based evidence where available. 

INDICATIVE REFERENCES

Cooper R, Evans M, & Williams A (2009). Design 2020: Future of the UK Design Industry

Junginger, S (2014). Developing & Maintaining Design Capabilities – towards integrated design policy, Innovating the Public Sector, Paris

Love, T. (2007). National Design Infrastructures: the key to design-driven socio-economic outcomes & innovative knowledge economies. IASDR07, Hong Kong Polytechnic

Raulik-Murphy, G (2014). Design Policy into Practice, WDC Design Policy Conference, Cape Town

Sun, Q. (2010). Design Industries & Policies in the UK & China: A Comparison. Design Management Review, 21(4)

Whicher, Carwood & Walters, (2012). Research & Practice in Design & Innovation Policy in Europe, International Design Management Conference, Boston

Williams, A (2013). A Review of Global Design Economies: Implications for the Future of the Profession & for Policy Formation, Shenzhen Design Management Symposium

7. DESIGN EPISTEMOLOGY

SUB-CHAIRs

DEREK JONES, THE OPEN UNIVERSITY, UK
Philip D Plowright, LAWRENCE TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY, US

CO-CONVENERS

Leonard R. Bachman, University of Houston
Tiiu Poldma, Université de Montréal
Kathryn Moore, Birmingham City University

The last 50 years has seen major moves towards establishing a sound epistemic basis for design research and understanding (Cross, 2007). Despite this, there remain several epistemological ‘big challenges’ across the entire spectrum of design disciplines – particularly the development of a distinct design knowledge (Cross, 2013).

The primary motivation of this theme is to consider the current state of design theory research by examining the boundary between belief and knowledge, the unique offering of design epistemology (Gettier, 1963). The basic question is how these knowledge categories operate within and between design disciplines, and if there is a shared 'global' epistemological foundation. Specific questions might explore:

• An examination of the (possible) structured relationship between method and epistemology (e.g. Perez-Gomez, 1987),
• The validity of an epistemological foundation in practices which still stress intuition, tacit knowledge and reflective practice as primary approaches (e.g. Abelson, 1979).
• Whether common research activities provide mechanisms for epistemological exchange as opposed to knowledge transfer (e.g. McDonnell & Lloyd, 2009)
• Separating design as an activity from design as knowledge work through epistemological categorization (e.g. Plowright, 2014).

In particular, this theme will explore the relationship between traditional epistemological categories and newer tendencies, such as social, feminist or virtue epistemology, in relation to design. This exploration aligns closely to that of the PhD by Design project, acknowledging the difficulty faced in creating definitions of research -by, -of and -in design.

INDICATIVE REFERENCES

Abelson, R. P. (1979). Differences between belief and Knowledge Systems. Cognitive Science, 3, 355–366.

Cross, N. (2007). Forty years of design research. Design Studies, 28(1), 1–4.

Cross, N. (1999). Design Research : A Disciplined Conversation. Design Issues, 15(2), 5–10.

Gettier, E. (1963). Is Justified True Belief Knowledge ? Analysis, 23(6), 1–3.

McDonnell, J., & Lloyd, P. (Eds.). (2009). About: Designing. Analysing Design Meetings. Leiden: CRC Press.

Perez-Gomez, A. (1987). Architecture as Embodied Knowledge. Journal of Architectural Education, 40(2), 57–58.

Plowright, P. D. (2014). Revealing architectural design Methods, frameworks and tools (1st ed.). Oxon and New York: Routledge.

8. The Politics of Commoning and Designing

SUB-CHAIRs

Bianca Elzenbaumer, leeds college of art, UK
Valeria Graziano, middlesex university, UK
kim Trogal, university of the arts, london

This theme aims to bring together practitioners, activists and researchers to explore the tensions and potentialities around commoning in design and the (re)production of ‘community economies’. As De Angelis (2007) and others point out, commons are today thought as the basis on which to build social justice, environmental sustainability and a good life for all. But they, just as ‘community economies’ (J.K. Gibson-Graham and Roelvink, 2011), operate within a world dominated by capital’s priorities and are thus also sites of struggle as well as targets of co-optation and enclosure.

We invite papers that relate to the following questions:

• What are the tensions and contradictions we encounter or create when designing for the commons?
• In activating commons to create and sustain alternative livelihoods, how does the role of designers change as well?
• If we take the commons and ‘community economies’ as a tool rather than as a goal, what do they allow us to contribute to?
• What practices of self-organization and division of labour are useful in getting people involved in commoning for progressive social change?

This theme focusses on, amongst other things, how design relates to new forms of enclosure, struggles and social justice, and the reproductive labour necessary to care for commons. It seeks to benefit practitioners who want to imagine alternative ways of making their livelihoods away from waged relations and professionalism, and those who are questioning the role of the designer as a problem solver not implicated in the “community” s/he interacts with.

INDICATIVE REFERENCES

De Angelis, Massimo  and Stavrides, Stavros. 2010. “On the Commons: A Public Interview with Massimo De Angelis and Stavros Stavrides.” in E-flux 17 (August 2010). http://www.e-flux.com/journal/view/150.

Elzenbaumer, Bianca. 2014. “Designing Economic Cultures: Cultivating Socially and Politically Engaged Design Practices Against Procedures of Precarisation”. London: Goldsmiths, University of London.

Federici, Silvia. 2011. “Feminism and the Politics of the Commons”.

Gibson-Graham, J.K., and Gerda Roelvink. 2011. “The Nitty Gritty of Creating Alternative Economies.” Social Alternatives 30 (1): 29–33.

Graziano, Valeria, and Mara Ferreri. ‘Passions without objects: the politics of temporary art spaces’, Revue de Recherches Sociologiques et Anthropologiques, 45 (2), 2014: 83-102.

Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. 2009. Commonwealth. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Harney, Stefano, and Fred Moten. 2013. The undercommons: Fugitive planning & black study. Brooklyn: Minor Compositions.

Harvey, David, 2012 Chapter 3 The Creation of the Urban Commons, in Rebel cities: from the right to the city to the urban revolution. Verso Books, 2012: 67- 88

Midnight Notes Collective, 1990. The New Enclosures. Midnight Notes (10), Jamaica Plain, MA: Midnight Notes.

Petrescu, Doina and Trogal, Kim, (forthcoming).  The Social (Re)Production of Architecture.  Politics, Economies and Actions in Contemporary Practice. London: Routledge.

9. Design-ing and Creative Philosophies

SUB-CHAIR

Betti Marenko, university of the arts, London

CO-CONVENERS

Manola Antonioli, Ecole Nationale Supérieure d'Architetture de Paris La Villette
Jamie Brassett, University of the Arts, London

"Philosophy needs not only a philosophical understanding, through concepts, but a non philosophical understanding, rooted in percepts and affects. You need both. Philosophy has an essential and positive relation to non philosophy. It speaks directly to non philosophers" (Deleuze 1995 139) 

The theme for this additional theme focuses on the intersections of design-ing with a philosophical lineage that addresses material becoming, intensities, open-ended production, desire, and, crucially, sees the creation of concepts as a creative practice. Thus, this session seeks to engage with the thought of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari to start with – but also with other thinkers such as Spinoza, Gilbert Simondon, Isabelle Stengers, Michel Serres among others – to explore the extent to which this mode of philosophical thinking can trigger new ways of theorizing design, by critiquing the existent, provoking responses and destabilizing the known.

The aim is twofold: first, to present current research that pushes design interrogation beyond the boundaries of conventional philosophical engagement; second, to challenge the meaning and values of existing design ideas and practices in the light of creative philosophies.

• We invite papers that explore, but are not limited by, the following questions:
• Why would design need to engage with creative philosophies?
• What impact can Deleuze and Guattari’s philosophy have on design studies and theories, as well as on design processes and practices?
• Is there such a thing as a Deleuzian design? And if so, what would it look like?
• How to develop lines of “minor design”?

Indicative references

Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1994) What is Philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press

Deleuze, G. (1995) Negotiations. New York: Columbia University Press

Guattari, F. (1995) Chaosmosis. An ethico-aesthetic paradigm. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press

Guattari, F. (2000) The Three Ecologies. London and New Brunswick: The Athlone Press

Marenko, B. and Brassett, J. (eds.) (2015) Deleuze and Design. Edinburgh University Press

Simondon, Gilbert (1980), On the Mode of Existence of Technical Objects, London: University of Western Ontario

Stengers, I. (2005) Introductory notes on an ecology of practices. Cultural Studies Review 11:1 pp. 183- 196

10. FOOD AND EATING DESIGN

SUB-CHAIR

Rick Schifferstein, TU Delft, The Netherlands

CO-CONVENERS

Francesca Zampollo, Aukland University of Technology, New Zealand
Barry Kudrowitz, University of Minnesota, US
Pieternel Luning, Wageningen University, The Netherlands

Although almost all products in developed countries have been designed to some extent, the role of designers in determining what people eat and how they eat it, has been relatively small. Until recently, the development of food products has remained primarily in the hands of breeders and farmers (agriculture), food technologists and marketers (food industry), and chefs and hospitality experts (restaurants). However, most of these professionals have not been explicitly trained to conceive and create new products for consumers.

Fortunately, in the past 10 years we have seen a growing interest among scientific researchers, industrial partners and culinary innovators with an interest in food for the design discipline (Olsen, 2015). Researchers have teamed up with culinary experts to optimize food experiences (Bom Frøst & Jaeger, 2010; Deroy, Michel, Piqueras-Fiszman, & Spence, 2014; Spence & Piqueras-Fiszman, 2014) and to fight nutritional problems (Wansink, 2014). Designers are discovering food and eating as an interesting area to investigate and to test new designs (Stummerer & Hablesreiter, 2013; Vogelzang, 2009). The growth of this area has recently culminated in the foundation of the International Food Design Society, with a biannual conference and a scientific journal (Zampollo, 2015), and several new Master degree programs in Food Design.

In this theme session, we give an overview of developments in food and eating design. The scope of this session extends from the design of (new kinds of) food, through food packaging and restaurant services, to food systems and strategies to improve consumers’ health. We pinpoint what distinguishes food and eating design from other design disciplines, how it differs from current activities in food studies and marketing, and we determine the potential role of designers in the development of food products and eating practices. 

INDICATIVE REFERENCES

Bom Frøst, M., & Jaeger, S. R. (2010). Molecular gastronomy, chefs and food innovation: an interview with Michael Bom Frøst. In S. R. Jaeger & H. MacFie (Eds.), Consumer-Driven Innovation in Food and Personal Care Products (pp. 634-645). Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing.

Deroy, O., Michel, C., Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2014). The plating manifesto (I): from decoration to creation. Flavour, 3, 6.

Olsen, N. V. (2015). Design thinking and food innovation. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 41(2), 182-187.

Spence, C., & Piqueras-Fiszman, B. (2014). The perfect meal: The multisensory science of food and dining. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Stummerer, S., & Hablesreiter, M. (2013). Eat design. Vienna: Metroverlag.

Vogelzang, M. (2009). Eat love : Food concepts by eating-designer. Amsterdam: BIS.

Wansink, B. (2014). Slim by design: Mindless eating solutions for everyday life. New York: Harper Collins.

Zampollo, F. (2015). Welcome to food design. International Journal of Food Design, 1(1), in press. 

11. DESIGN INNOVATION FOR society

SUB-CHAIRS

Mieke van der Bijl-Brouwer, University of Technology, Sydney
Nynke Tromp, TU Delft, the netherlands

CO-CONVENERS

Kees Dorst, University of Technology Sydney
Adam Thorpe, University of the Arts, London

Victor Papanek (1984) already pointed at the social responsibilities of designers decades ago but it is only recently that design has gained popularity in the social sector – including government and NGO’s – as an innovation practice to tackle societal problems (Manzini 2015). These problems tend to have a complex, dynamic and networked character (Dorst 2015) and are related to topics ranging from poverty, climate change, crime, refugees, to health issues and an ageing population. The focus is shifting from socially responsible produced products to social innovation trajectories in collaboration with multiple stakeholders.

What distinguishes this type of practice from more traditional design practice is not agreed upon and measurements for success are underdeveloped. Bason argues that for a design project to become social innovation it needs to generate value for society (Bason 2010). 

Central to this theme is the relationship between design and value for society in the context of public and civic sector innovation. Submissions are welcomed that discuss and/or explain how to define social or public value in design innovation for society and/or how to generate it through a design outcome, including new business and governance models. We seek elaborations on the design process, and more specifically the role of the designer, stakeholders –including client(s), users, and non-users - and ethics in defining value for society. 

Papers could include:

• Design (case) studies in which social/public value definition and generation is a central aspect
• Design methodological studies that deliberately seek how to integrate social/public value in design activity
• Theoretical / ethical / critical discussions of social/public value considerations in design innovation for society

INDICATIVE REFERENCES

Bason, Christian. 2010. Leading public sector innovation. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.

Dorst, Kees. 2015. Frame Innovation; create new thinking by design, The MIT Press.

Kelly, Gavin, Geoff Mulgan, and Stephen Muers. 2002. Creating Public Value: An analytical framework for public service reform.

Manzini, Ezio. 2015. Design, When Everybody Designs - An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. Cabridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Mulgan, Geoff 2014. Design in public and social innovation: What works and what could work better 

Papanek, Victor. 1984. Design for the real world. second edition ed. New York: Van Nostrand.

Thorpe, A., & Gamman, L. (2011). Design with Society: Why Socially Responsive Design Is Good Enough. CoDesign, 7 (3-4), 217-230

12. EFFECTIVE INFORMATION DESIGN

SUB-CHAIRS

Alison Black, University of Reading, UK
Sue Walker, university of reading, uk

CO-CONVENERS

Katherine Gillieson, Emily Carr University of Art and Design, Canada
Jeanne-Louise Moys, University of Reading, UK
Keith Tam, University of Reading, UK
Clive Richards, Birmingham City University, UK

Information design seeks to make complex information clear. It embraces approaches and methods that go beyond purely visual design. It has been developing since the 1980s as a specialist discipline, with a growing research literature and critical tradition. Whether information is presented through words, pictures or combination of both on paper or on screen, concern for the user is key. Information design includes wayfinding, human computer interaction and data visualization and much information design research is concerned to benefit people and society. Excitement about the possibilities of new media for information presentation can sometimes obscure requirements for ease of access and usability. The principles of information design are relevant across all these contexts to ensure solutions have integrity and do not exclude individuals.

Successful information design means people can understand and respond quickly to information they receive (sometimes in critical situations), select options that are right for them, follow instructions in complex tasks, fill out forms appropriately, etc.. It underpins people’s engagement and participation in civic society and, although it sounds simple it’s surprising how often it goes wrong, with consequences and costs, both for the public and for organisations.

We invite papers in the history, theory and practice of information design research in all areas and especially in the following sub-categories:

• Health
• Risk
• Education

INDICATIVE REFERENCES

Abraham, S., Bartlett, R., Standage, M., Black, A., Charlton-Perez, A. and McCloy, R. (2015) Do location specific forecasts pose a new challenge for communicating uncertainty? Meteorological Applications, 22 (3). pp. 554-562.

Black, Alison and Karen Stanbridge. 2012. ‘Documents as “critical incidents” in organization to consumer communication.’ Visible Language 46/3, 246–81.

Burke, C., Kindel, E., and Walker, S. (eds), Isotype: design and contexts 1925–1971, London: Hyphen Press 2013

Waller, Robert. 2011. ‘What makes a good document? The criteria we use.’ The Simplification Centre: Technical Papers 2. 

Zwaga, Harm J.G., Theo Boersema and Henriëtte C.M. Hoonout (eds) (1999) Visual information for everyday use: Design and research perspectives. London and Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis

White, E., Basford, L., Birch, S., Black, A., Culham, A., McGoff, H., Lundqvist, K., Oppenheimer, P., Tanner, J., Wells, M. and Mauchline, A. (2015) Creating and implementing a biodiversity recording app for teaching and research in environmental studies. The Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership and Change, 1 (1).

13. DESIGN THINKING in industry and academia

SUB-CHAIRS 

Seda Yilmaz, Iowa State University, Us

CO-CONVENERS

Tejas Dhadphal, Iowa State University, US
Verena Paepcke-Hjeltness, Iowa State University, US

Theme Context: Best practices for applying Design Thinking in different settings and disciplines, both in industry and academia. 

Outline: In recent years, Design Thinking has gained increased momentum in both academia and industry. Despite the increasing amount of research, the main focus remains on education cases and the way universities teach innovation. There is much to be done to systematize the findings from empirical research from different areas aiming to establish best practices.

The research shows that there is a common set of phases observed in projects where Design Thinking was practiced; however, there is no agreement regarding the most relevant tools and methods to be applied in each phase. It is still not clear how the results obtained from studies of Design Thinking approaches vary across organizational contexts and how Design Thinking impacts diverse contextual innovations, such as Business Innovations, Social Innovations, and Educational Innovations. This brings the question of how to systematize the findings from empirical research conducted to determine which methods or tools are more appropriate for which contexts and for which stage within the process. What are the best practices in applying Design Thinking approach, both in quantitative and qualitative terms? 

This session will call for original research papers with the objectives below:

• What are the relevant definitions of Design Thinking?
• How does Design Thinking vary across disciplines, contexts, and problems?
• What are the methods/tools/techniques/strategies used in applying Design Thinking? How and why do they differ?
• How does practicing Design Thinking impact the process and the outcome?
• What are the best practices both in academia and industry in introducing/applying/practicing/advancing Design Thinking?

INDICATIVE REFERENCES

Beckman, S., Barry, M. (2007). "Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design thinking." California Management Review 50(1): 25

Bjogvinsson, E., Ehn, P. et al. (2012). "Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges." Design Issues 28(3): 101-116.

Brown, T. (2008). "Design thinking." Harvard Business Review 86(6): 84.

Johansson-Skoldberg, U., J. Woodilla, et al. (2013). "Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures." Creativity and Innovation Management 22(2): 121-146.

Li, M. F. (2002). "Fostering design culture through cultivating the user-designers' design thinking and systems thinking." Systemic Practice and Action Research 15(5): 385-410.

Papantonopoulos, S. (2004). "How system designers think: a study of design thinking in human factors engineering." Ergonomics 47(14): 1528-1548.

Pauwels, P., R. De Meyer, et al. (2013). "Design Thinking Support: Information Systems versus Reasoning." Design Issues 29(2): 42-59.

Plattner, H., Meinel, C., and Leifer, L. (2012). “Design Thinking Research: Measuring Performance in Context”. Springer-Verlag. 

14. AESTHETIC PLEASURE IN DESIGN

SUB-CHAIR 

Michaël Berghman, TU Delft, the netherlands

CO-CONVENERS

Paul Hekkert, TU Delft, The Netherlands
Marc Hassenzahl, Folkwang University of Arts, Germany
Janneke Blijlevens, RMIT, Australia

Aesthetic pleasure, or the experience of beauty, may be conceived of as the pleasure derived from the sensory and cognitive exploration of an object. As it constitutes the gratification we get from the mere use of our sensory faculties (including our brain), it is disinterested. Unlike emotional states, it is irrelevant to our envisioned goals.

The study of aesthetic pleasure has a long-standing tradition with reference to the arts. However, only fairly recently attention for aesthetic appreciation has burgeoned in design research, taking stock of the fact that products not only have a practical value, but that the way they are designed has the capacity to evoke pleasure. In fact, often they are designed precisely to this effect. This awareness has inspired efforts to uncover the principles determining the aesthetic experience of design, or to apply and adapt such principles found in different domains to design. Such an endeavour is highly relevant to design research, especially in view of findings indicating the relation of aesthetic pleasure to marketing success and usability (whether perceived or actual).

This theme session welcomes contributions that engage with product aesthetics – both theoretically and empirically. It does not restrict itself to visual aesthetics, but extends to the experience of beauty elicited by other senses (tactile, auditory, olfactory, …) as well as by interacting with (physical and virtual) products. In particular, we encourage submissions concerning studies that develop or test general models, frameworks or principles in the domain of product design aesthetics.

INDICATIVE REFERENCES

Hekkert, P. (2006). Design aesthetics: principles of pleasure in design. Psychology science, 48(2), 157.

Carbon, C. C. (2010). The cycle of preference: Long-term dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. Acta Psychologica, 134(2), 233-244.

Sonderegger, A., & Sauer, J. (2010). The influence of design aesthetics in usability testing: Effects on user performance and perceived usability. Applied ergonomics, 41(3), 403-410.

Landwehr, J. R., Wentzel, D., & Herrmann, A. (2013). Product design for the long run: Consumer responses to typical and atypical designs at different stages of exposure. Journal of Marketing, 77(5), 92-107.

15. DESIGN AND TRANSLATION

SUB-CHAIRS

Giovanni Baule, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Elena Caratti, Politecnico di Milano, italy

CO-CONVENERS

Basel School of Design
University of Barcelona
University of Granada
Université Paris 8
University of Newcastle, Australia

The “paradigm of translation” in the emerging scenarios of Communication Design, is the outcome of a close interdisciplinary interplay between Design Cultures and Translation Studies.

From the perspective of Communication Design, to translate means to facilitate comprehension, to make content accessible, to identify the most appropriate form of expression for a new medium, to improve the quality of communication in a multilingual, intercultural context, to actively promote criticism in all dimensions of social life, (education, work, politics...), to activate processes of inclusion of specific audience.

More broadly the connection between translation and design concerns, from our point of view, the research of different designed communicative modalities in a universe that is increasingly inter-linguistic, multimodal, inter-cultural, multimedia, trans-media, cross-media, and that requires more inclusion, interaction, collaboration and exchange.

The continuous shifting of boundaries between disciplines, fields of knowledge and productive models, demands more design skills able to develop themselves as a process of translation between different codes and patterns, and thus it makes necessary to redefine not only the linguistic and interpretative sphere, but above all the critical and analytical thresholds of the designers who produce communicative artefacts.

This issue could be approached through different kind of Communication Design research paths:

• intralinguistic translation, in other terms ‘rewording’ (Eco, 2001), that consist in an interpretation of signs by means of other signs of the same language;
• intersemiotic translation, that concerns the process of transposition / transmutation between different semiotic systems (for example from verbal to visual, from visual to sound…);
• cross-media/trans-media translation, that takes into account the interactions between different media and their narrative potentialities;
• interlinguistic translation, not only conceived as ‘interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of some other language’ (Jackobson, 1959), but in term of mediation by design in the process of communication between different cultures (for instance through extratestual translations).

INDICATIVE REFERENCES

Baule, G. (2009). La traduzione visiva. Forme dell’accesso peritestuale, in Copy in Italy. Autori italiani nel mondo dal 1945 ad oggi, Fondazione Arnoldo e Alberto Mondadori (a cura di), Milano: Effigie edizioni.

Berger, Arthur Asa, (1998). Seeing Is Believing. An Introduction to Visual Communication. London & Toronto, Mayfield Publishing Company.

Eco, Umberto, (2001). Experiences in translation, Toronto, University of Toronto Press Incorporated.

Flusser, Vilem. Medienkultur. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH, 1997.

Jenkins, Henry, (2008). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. Revised edition. New York, NY: NYU Press.

Kress, Gunther. (2010). Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Routledge.

Marks, Lawrence (1975). “On colored-hearing synesthesia: Cross-modal translations of sensory dimensions”, Psychological Bulletin, 82, 303-331.

Ong,  Walter J. (1977).  Interfaces of the Word. Studies on the evolution of consciousness and culture, Cornell University Press, London.

Torop, Peeter (2002). “Translation as translating as culture”,  Sign Systems Studies 30.2, 2002.