Conference Agenda

Visualisations provide an accessible way to unveil new patterns or promote new perspectives on data. Data visualisations can also aid in highlighting the context and scope of social issues and is a compelling way to disseminate research findings to the general public. This paper presents an interactive exhibit displayed at the 2022 Accelerate Creativity and Innovation Festival, at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History. The exhibit utilised participatory and interactive visualisations, prompting visitors to share their experiences regarding trust and respect in maternity care. This case study demonstrates how a design research team effectively utiliaed participatory visualisation activities to educate and engage museum visitors on sensitive topics in maternity care and inequities in postnatal care. The use of these activities allowed for an inclusive experience, encouraging visitors to actively participate, reflect, and contribute to the conversation. Additionally, it allowed the research team to disseminate and validate their findings.

According to an estimate by Children of Prisoners Europe, there are 2.1 million children in Europe with a parent in detention. Despite this alarming number, children of prisoners remain invisible to the general public. Children of Prisoners Europe describe a child with an incarcerated parent as a double victim. Beyond the loss of a parent, these children face stigmatization, trauma and stress. The effects of parental detention impact the emotional well-being, physical well-being and personal development of the child. Children with detained parents are innocent, but carry the sentence too, they are three times more likely of mental health problems, and five times more likely to end up in prison than other children. The impact of these children on society is underestimated.

Scientific research shows that a good relationship between the child and the incarcerated parent results in less recidivism. So by supporting and guiding children with imprisoned parents, the number of prisoners will decrease in the long run, the mental health will increase, and the amount of recidivism will decrease because both children and parents are taken into account. However, designing for children in precarious social situations requires a specific approach. Unheard and unseen in a world made by adults for adults, they are reliant on their environment. The whole system of actors and actants around them should be included and addressed.

On the one hand, this paper reports on a design research that applies a systemic design approach to tackle social issues, providing insight in the complexity of the context. On the other hand, after mapping the context, the major challenge lies in translating the output towards a design solution, in order to shape a product-service system that empowers children with imprisoned parents. Thus, obtaining autonomy for children with incarcerated parents based on the levers of trauma, attachment and resilience. The paper focuses on the transition from systemic sensemaking to the design of a product-service system by employing an outcome map, allowing the designer to advance from the analysis to the possibility space.

The process applied in this research is about supporting children with incarcerated parents as a case study. Qualitative research was applied to understand the context of children with imprisoned parents in the analysis phase. The data collection methods supporting this research are literature research, observations, in-depth interviews with psychologists and prison staff, cultural probes, brainstorming sessions, focus groups and user tests. This paper contributes to the design field by evaluating outcome mapping as a possible bridge between the analyses and the idea generation.

This paper reflects on alternative approaches in design education and how it can shift to include current discourses of post-Anthropocentrism, through a review and reflections in current design education. While design is still considered a human-centered field and practice, many theories challenge human-centered approaches, such as non-Anthropocentric and post-Anthropocentric discourses that place nonhumans in a non-hierarchical order with humans. So far, with the exception of a few design courses and workshops from some universities, post-Anthropocentric approaches are not included in the current design curriculum. Therefore, there is still a need to address how design education can deal with the Anthropocene itself, and how post-Anthropocentric approaches can be introduced to students. While the foundations of industrial design education relates to craftsman traditions, for the last 50 years, it has been shifting to several directions. As Atkinson (2017) states, we are in a post profession era, and the definitions of “design”, “designer” and “professions” have become more fluid. Buchanan (1988: 66) discusses a misunderstanding that design education should follow the design practice, and states that “when properly understood and studied, design provides a powerful connective link with many bodies of knowledge. Design integrates knowledge from many other disciplines and makes that knowledge effective in practical life”:

Dutton (1987) writes by exploration, that the student is not guaranteed to be a “better designer”, but “he/she has definitely begun to be a designerly thinker”. As Oxman (1999: 120) states; “if we are design educators, we must find means to supplement traditional pedagogy by educating the designerly thinker as well as the maker of designs”.“Designerly thinkers” emerge not only from designing the best possible objects at school/creating near to perfect products but from learning to develop their own methodologies while designing (Oxman, 1999; Curry, 2014). According to Findeli, design education must exceed what design is today, as the design profession can not stay as it is (2001). It is the academy’s ‘responsibility to imagine the future profile of our professions’ (2001: 17). Accordingly, the paper reflects on how design can shift to other directions with current discourses, reflecting on post and non-Anthropocentric discourses and design education. It reflects on how post-Anthropocentric approaches could be introduced in design education, to educate designerly thinkers and to challenge traditional pedagogical methods in design.

Atkinson, P. (2010) Boundaries? What Boundaries? The Crisis of Design in a Post-Professional Era, The Design Journal, 13:2, 137-155.

Buchanan, R. (1998). Education and professional practice in design. Design Issues, 14(2), 63–66.

Curry, T. (2014). A theoretical basis for recommending the use of design methodologies as teaching strategies in the design studio. Design Studies, 35(6), 632-646

Dutton, T. (1987). Design and Studio Pedagogy. Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), 41(1), 16-25.

Findeli, A. (2001). Rethinking design education for the 21st century: Theoretical, methodological, and ethical discussion. Design Issues, 17(1), 5-17.

Oxman, R. (1999). Educating the designerly thinker. Design Studies, 20, 105-122.

Tovey, M. (2015). Designerly thinking and creativity. In M. Tovey (Ed.), Design pedagogy: Developments in art and design education (pp. 1-14). Surrey: Gower Publishing Limited.