Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Contents -- List of Figures -- Acknowledgements -- Introduction: Within and Beyond Error -- Part 1 Design -- 1 Design Theory 101 -- 2 Design as Symbolic Violence -- 3 Design versus The Design Industry -- Part 2 Ecology -- 4 Ecological Theory 101 -- 5 Epistemology Error -- 6 Ecological Literacy -- 7 Ecoliterate Design -- 8 Ecological Movements -- 9 Ecological Perception 1 – Theory -- 10 Ecological Perception 2 – Practice -- 11 Ecological Identity -- Part 3 Politics -- 12 Social Marketing -- 13 The Green Economy -- 14 The Technofix -- 15 Data/Knowledge Visualization -- Conclusion: Towards the Ecocene -- References -- Index

Múltiples hallazgos en diversas ciencias han demostrado la complejidad de las relaciones humano-naturaleza, y han expuesto las limitaciones de las tradiciones filosóficas que minimizan, descartan o incluso niegan la importancia de los procesos que sostienen la vida y que permiten la existencia humana. Este artículo revisa el pensamiento ecológico histórico y contemporáneo como una base para el Diseño para la Transición. El diseño ecológicamente comprometido presenta desafíos profundos para una variedad de suposiciones incrustadas en las culturas del diseño. En este documento se exploran las tensiones asociadas junto con algunas de las formas en que el Diseño para la Transición, ecológicamente alfabetizado, puede conducir a la creación de futuros sostenibles.

This book is in closed access. ; Design, Ecology, Politics links social and ecological theory to design theory and practice, critiquing the ways in which the design industry perpetuates unsustainable development.

This is an Open Access Conference Paper. It is published by Design Research Society under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) licence. Full details of this licence are available at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ ; In this paper I advance the theory of critical communication design by exploring the politics of data, information and knowledge visualisation in three bodies of work. Data reflects power relations, special interests and ideologies that determine which data is collected, what data is used and how it is used. In a review of Max Roser's Our World in Data, I develop the concepts of digital positivism, datawash and darkdata. Looking at the Climaps by Emaps project, I describe how knowledge visualisation can support integrated learning on complex problems and nurture relational perception. Finally, I present my own Mapping Climate Communication project and explain how I used discourse mapping to develop the concept of discursive confusion and illustrate contradictions in this politicised area. Critical approaches to information visualisation reject reductive methods in favour of more nuanced ways of presenting information that acknowledge complexity and the political dimension on issues of controversy.

In this paper I advance the theory of critical communication design by exploring the politics of data, information and knowledge visualisation in three bodies of work. Data reflects power relations, special interests and ideologies that determine which data is collected, what data is used and how it is used. In a review of Max Roser's Our World in Data, I develop the concepts of digital positivism, datawash and darkdata. Looking at the Climaps by Emaps project, I describe how knowledge visualisation can support integrated learning on complex problems and nurture relational perception. Finally, I present my own Mapping Climate Communication project and explain how I used discourse mapping to develop the concept of discursive confusion and illustrate contradictions in this politicised area. Critical approaches to information visualisation reject reductive methods in favour of more nuanced ways of presenting information that acknowledge complexity and the political dimension on issues of controversy.

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Environmental Communication on 13th Mar 2015, available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2015.1018296. ; The green economy is an emergent approach to sustainable development launched at Rio+20. Herein environmental decision-making is increasingly achieved through economistic processes and logic. The natural commons is quantified and managed as natural capital. This paper summarizes the trajectory of the project and its ideological framework. It examines various conceptualizations of economic approaches to the environment and considers philosophical, methodological and political problems associated with the green economy project. In the face of very different definitions of what constitutes a green economy, environmental communicators face a situation characterized by discursive confusion as the complexity of natural capital accounting processes conceal new political configurations. Counter-movements argue that the green economy program is performing ideological work that uses the language of the environmentalism to obscure an intensified agenda of neoliberal governance and capital accumulation. The concept now has contradictory meanings. Environmental communicators have an important role to play in exposing the contested nature of the project and in helping to define the emerging green economy.

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Design Philosophy Papers on 29 Apr 2015, available online: https://doi.org/10.2752/144871314X14159818597513. ; This article argues that designers are currently not able to effectively address contemporary environmental and social problems due to the systemic priorities of the design industry. Despite the fact that emergent cognitive and perceptual capacities enable a greater understanding of complexity and design practice evolves creating potential for social and technological innovation, the structural dynamics of the design industry reproduce conditions of deep unsustainability. In this article,"design" is theorized as the professional practice of creating new products, buildings, services, and communication. This is a broader practice than the work that is produced within the "design industry." The design industry operates according to highly reductive feedback generated by capitalism that systemically ignores signals from the ecological and social systems. The exclusive focus on profit and quantitative economic growth results in distortions of knowledge and reason thereby undermining prospects for the design of long-term prosperity. Redirected design practice could be an antidote to this dilemma by transforming the system that determines what is designed. This article provides an overview of the political and economic dynamics that are relevant to designers concerned with sustainability.

The intersection of economics and design has become a focus of attention for those seeking scalable social responses to global challenges. Design theorists and economists have both described how economic forces set the initial conditions and logic for design as well as determining whose interests are served by design. The political economy of design refers to the ways economic drivers shape the design industry by addressing particular types of problems. Since economic systems influence priorities within the design industry, the political economy of design is of central importance for everyone concerned with both social justice and sustainability.

Design embeds ideas in communication and artefacts in subtle and psychologically powerful ways. Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu coined the term 'symbolic violence' to describe how powerful ideologies, priorities, values and even sensibilities are constructed and reproduced through cultural institutions, processes and practices. Through symbolic violence, individuals learn to consider unjust conditions as natural and even come to value customs and ideas that are oppressive.Design functions as symbolic violence when it is involved with the creation and reproduction of ideas, practices, tools and processes that result in structural and other types of violence (including ecocide). Breaking symbolic violence involves discovering how it works and building capacities to challenge and transform dysfunctional ideologies, structures and institutions. This conversation will give participants an opportunity to discuss, critique and/or develop the theory of design as symbolic violence as a basis for the development of design strategies for social justice.

This track sought to contribute to design's potential to shift, redirect and transform power relations to achieve sustainability. We sought to direct attention to the political potential in and politics of transition design with a focus on the many ways that power flows through the systems in which design operates. Our intention was to address, directly, the commentary from the DRS2018 track on Designing for Transitions, which noted that authors had tended to "stay on the safe and perhaps conventional side" of the subject. Instead, we hoped that the papers in this track would address "'politicised issues such as migration, decoloniality, the politics of climate change mitigation… and other complex and controversial problems" (Boehnert et al. 2018) that must be considered in planning and implementation of ongoing sustainability transitions. The politics of design transitions remains marginal in design research. With our call, we hoped to receive contributions that problematised design's current roles and conceptualised new roles for design in the context of sustainability transitions to attend to issues related to how power is and should be dealt with. ; publishedVersion ; This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercialShare Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Material Trajectories: Designing With Care? turns towards material-driven design processes with the aim of relocating technoscientific trajectories. Concerned with new forms of caretaking, it combines positions from the extended fields of design research and humanities scholarship including practice-based approaches. The contributions explore current ecological conditions through multiple acts of making-with and seek to complicate questions of sustainability, livability, and cooperation. In reassessing the status quo in design and architecture as material practices, they provide outlines for a nuanced reading of these worldmaking processes and ask what different ways of designing with care and complicity might entail.

Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change. In this research we used a novel futures-oriented and participatory approach that asked what future envisioned knowledge systems might need to look like and how we might get there. Findings suggest that envisioned future systems will need to be much more collaborative, open, diverse, egalitarian, and able to work with values and systemic issues. They will also need to go beyond producing knowledge about our world to generating wisdom about how to act within it. To get to envisioned systems we will need to rapidly scale methodological innovations, connect innovators, and creatively accelerate learning about working with intractable challenges. We will also need to create new funding schemes, a global knowledge commons, and challenge deeply held assumptions. To genuinely be a creative force in supporting longevity of human and non-human life on our planet, the shift in knowledge systems will probably need to be at the scale of the enlightenment and speed of the scientific and technological revolution accompanying the second World War. This will require bold and strategic action from governments, scientists, civic society and sustained transformational intent.

Formalised knowledge systems, including universities and research institutes, are important for contemporary societies. They are, however, also arguably failing humanity when their impact is measured against the level of progress being made in stimulating the societal changes needed to address challenges like climate change. In this research we used a novel futures-oriented and participatory approach that asked what future envisioned knowledge systems might need to look like and how we might get there. Findings suggest that envisioned future systems will need to be much more collaborative, open, diverse, egalitarian, and able to work with values and systemic issues. They will also need to go beyond producing knowledge about our world to generating wisdom about how to act within it. To get to envisioned systems we will need to rapidly scale methodological innovations, connect innovators, and creatively accelerate learning about working with intractable challenges. We will also need to create new funding schemes, a global knowledge commons, and challenge deeply held assumptions. To genuinely be a creative force in supporting longevity of human and non-human life on our planet, the shift in knowledge systems will probably need to be at the scale of the enlightenment and speed of the scientific and technological revolution accompanying the second World War. This will require bold and strategic action from governments, scientists, civic society and sustained transformational intent.