Transformative practices

Transformative practices

Transformative practices squad

Transformative Practices (TP) considers the transformations of our societies, dealing with major societal issues, local challenges for social resilience, or everyday activities, as well as their interrelations. Envisioning transformative practices, we question through designing the how, who, why and what of design for these major societal issues.

TP aims at sharing knowledge and sparking collaborations. Since the TP squad is not merely focusing on doing projects, but on learning together to become transformative designers, we are specifically looking for students to join our squad and community, who are interested in experimenting with our underlying philosophy and approach.

In the TP squad, the projects we run are formed from a combination of elements within three main categories: theories, approaches and application areas. For more information, you can explore here these different elements.

Theoretical concepts

held by Caroline Hummels and Pierre Lévy
Our society is changing continuously, and when looking more closely, one can detect several underlying paradigms and types of societies over the last 40-50 years, with a current move towards the purpose economy (Hurst, 20xx) and the transformation economy (Brand and Rocchi, 2011). In the latter, the central value proposition is an ethical value exchange (trust, collaboration); consumers are starting to appreciate products that are ethically and sustainably produced and traded. It has attention for global and societal issues. To solve these issues, industry, government, academia and local user communities will need to collaborate to create local solutions that contribute to the larger whole (Brand and Rocchi, 2011; Gardien et al., 2015). The transformation paradigm potentially has two future directions, steady state and eco-entangled, also labelled as Habitania and Gaia (Brand, 2019).

Why is it useful? This paradigm, coined by Brand and Rocchi (2011) is part of a framework that looks back on how society has developed in terms of different paradigms, as well as part of a recent framework that looks forward how society might develop in the future (Brand, 2019). Based on an understanding of these (potential) developments, it provides a vision for the future of society and how design and your design project relates to this.

Brand, R., & Rocchi. (2011). Rethinking value in a changing landscape: A model for strategic reflection and business transformation. Eindhoven, the Netherlands: Philips Design. Retrieved August, 30, 2019, from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c34a/3e300f1b9d1d4eb45e2af3cf7e2aa3d0344b.pdf
Gardien, P., Djajadiningrat, J., Hummels, C., and Brombacher, A. (2014). Changing your hammer: the implications of paradigmatic innovation for design practice. International Journal of Design, 8(2), 119-139.
Brand, R. (2019). Co-emerging futures: a model for reflecting on streams of future change. Eindhoven, the Netherlands: Philips Design. Retrieved September 2, 2019, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333972702_Co-Emerging_Futures_A_model_for_reflecting_on_streams_of_future_change

held by Sander van der Zwan, Maarten Smith
There are many takes on technological systems. Building on phenomenological foundations the squad is interested in the experiences of systems and chains of interconnected technologies. How do we conceptualise technological systems with a mixed form of material and service-oriented mediation, where we consider ‘material’ to be physical and digital? How do we investigate the face-to-face dimension of the technologically mediated services and how do we face the challenge of sparking multiple forms of mediating relations at the same time, e.g. embodied, hermeneutic and immersion relations, for which there isn’t a theoretical account yet?

Why is it useful? Exploring the topic of technological systems will make you wiser when it comes to understanding how your design will always be part of a larger technological whole that co-shapes what the meaning of your design is and will be in context.

Rosenberger, R. (2014). Multistability and the agency of mundane artifacts: From speed bumps to subway benches. Human Studies, 37(3), 369-392.
Rosenberger, R. (2018). Why it takes both postphenomenology and STS to account for technological mediation: the case of LOVE Park. In J. Aagaard, J. Friis, J. Sorenson, O. Tafdrup and C. Hasse (Eds.), Postphenomenological methodologies: New ways in mediating techno-human relationships (pp. 171-198). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Empty section. Edit page to add content here.
Empty section. Edit page to add content here.
Empty section. Edit page to add content here.
Empty section. Edit page to add content here.
Empty section. Edit page to add content here.
Empty section. Edit page to add content here.
Empty section. Edit page to add content here.
Empty section. Edit page to add content here.

Approaches

Pierre Lévy, Caroline Hummels
Embodied interaction is a term originally coined by Paul Dourish (2001) which refers to products, objects, conversations, actions etc. that unfold in the world and are meaningful in the social and physical world. We have the ability to use our body to interact with technology in a natural way. We perceive the world in terms of what we can do with it, in terms of our skills, especially our perceptual-motor and social skills. Designing for embodied interaction is based on these principles and results in designs that are ‘inherently meaningful’.
According to Kia Hook, professor at KTH, Sweden “ID has a unique, well-recognised focus on embodied interaction, with strong theoretical groundings while still being practice-led, and with a firm focus on aesthetics.” Also, the philosophy of transformative practices is based on embodied-situated theories and embodied interaction. Having an understanding of these underlying concepts, helps you designing embodied interactions.
Hook, K., Jonsson, M., Stahl, A., Tholander, J., Robertson, T., Marti, P., … Khut, G. (2016). Move to be moved. In CHI EA ’16 Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3301-3308). New York, NY: ACM Press.
Hummels, C., and Van Dijk, J. (2015). Seven principles to design for embodied sensemaking. In TEI’15 Proceedings of the 9th international conference on tangible, embedded and embodied interaction (pp. 21-28). New York, NY: ACM Press.
Van Dijk, J., and Hummels, C. (2017). Designing for Embodied Being-in-the-World: Two Cases, Seven Principles and One Framework. In: Proceedings of the 11th International conference on tangible, embedded and embodied interaction (pp. 47-56), New York, NY: ACM Press.
Djajadiningrat, J., Overbeeke, C., & Wensveen, S. (2002). But how, Donald, tell us how? on the meaning of interaction design through feedforward and inherent feedback. In: N. MacDonald (Ed.), DIS ’02 Proceedings of the 4th conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, (pp. 285-291). New York, NY: ACM Press.

Empty section. Edit page to add content here.

Application areas

Pierre Lévy, Caroline Hummels
Embodied interaction is a term originally coined by Paul Dourish (2001) which refers to products, objects, conversations, actions etc. that unfold in the world and are meaningful in the social and physical world. We have the ability to use our body to interact with technology in a natural way. We perceive the world in terms of what we can do with it, in terms of our skills, especially our perceptual-motor and social skills. Designing for embodied interaction is based on these principles and results in designs that are ‘inherently meaningful’.
According to Kia Hook, professor at KTH, Sweden “ID has a unique, well-recognised focus on embodied interaction, with strong theoretical groundings while still being practice-led, and with a firm focus on aesthetics.” Also, the philosophy of transformative practices is based on embodied-situated theories and embodied interaction. Having an understanding of these underlying concepts, helps you designing embodied interactions.
Hook, K., Jonsson, M., Stahl, A., Tholander, J., Robertson, T., Marti, P., … Khut, G. (2016). Move to be moved. In CHI EA ’16 Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3301-3308). New York, NY: ACM Press.
Hummels, C., and Van Dijk, J. (2015). Seven principles to design for embodied sensemaking. In TEI’15 Proceedings of the 9th international conference on tangible, embedded and embodied interaction (pp. 21-28). New York, NY: ACM Press.
Van Dijk, J., and Hummels, C. (2017). Designing for Embodied Being-in-the-World: Two Cases, Seven Principles and One Framework. In: Proceedings of the 11th International conference on tangible, embedded and embodied interaction (pp. 47-56), New York, NY: ACM Press.
Djajadiningrat, J., Overbeeke, C., & Wensveen, S. (2002). But how, Donald, tell us how? on the meaning of interaction design through feedforward and inherent feedback. In: N. MacDonald (Ed.), DIS ’02 Proceedings of the 4th conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, (pp. 285-291). New York, NY: ACM Press.

Empty section. Edit page to add content here.