Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
|
Daily Overview |
Co-creation with carbon data: Reframing the designer’s role in the decarbonization of the built environment
Technische Universiteit Delft, The Netherlands
Data and the Changing Landscape of Architectural Intelligence
1: Harvard Graduate School of Design, United States of America; 2: Washington University in St. Luis, United States of America
Practice-as-paradigm: Towards ethical and affective methodologies in participatory architectural research
University of Reading, United Kingdom
Reframing architectural practice through territory and emotion: The atlas of emotions in Bajo Atrato, Colombia
Universidad del Rosario, Colombia
Testing the unbuilt: Design studios as research for Wicked Opportunities
1: School of Design and Architecture, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia; 2: Melbourne School of Design, The University of Melbourne, Australia
Design as Interface: From Architectural Design to Circular Systems Design
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
The future of architectural design research: An emerging niche in digital transition
Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, The
Co-creating connections: How design, healthcare, and museum actors experience a co-creation process
1: University of Antwerp, Faculty of Design Sciences, Architecture + Interior; 2: University of Antwerp, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, CAPRI; 3: KU Leuven, LINC (current); 4: University of Antwerp, Design Science Hub; 5: Stad Antwerpen, Middelheim Museum; 6: University of Antwerp, Faculty of Design Sciences, Ubanism and Spatial Planning; 7: University Centre of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (ZAS-UKJA), Antwerp
The changing role of diagrams in architectural publications: From creative to communicative
Ariel University, Israel
Human and nonhuman collaborators: Written information and people in the process of detailed design for early career architects.
Liverpool John Moores University, United Kingdom
Networking for design researchers interested in or working in rural (+coastal, remote, post industrial) settings- all welcome!
Please be aware that this event will start at 1 PM.
Led by Marion Lean and Scott Schmidt
Between Worlds: Play Materials As Mediators of the Lived and the Ludic
1: KLEST Lab, Bengaluru, India; 2: BITS Design School, Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS) Pilani
Designing for transversal play: experience, materiality and connection
1: University College Copenhagen, Denmark; 2: Aarhus University, Denmark
Play and Pilina: Reimagining Play Design Through Material Kinship and Cultural Practice
Okada Design, United States of America
Crafting semiotic riddles: Materiality and interpretive play in speculative design
Kolding School of Design, Denmark
Sticky Vitalities: Developing Play Design Sensitivities Through Material-Affective Practices
1: University College Absalon; Denmark; 2: Kolding School of Design, Denmark
Designing the playing machine: stage design as play catalyst
National University of Theatre and Film "I.L. Caragiale", Romania
‘Can I cut the big box?’: Exploring doubt and material hierarchies in child-centred design
Kolding School of Design, Denmark
Playing with possibility: Exploring materiality, affordances and forms of participation through construction play
Kolding School of Design, Denmark
Building together(ness): Exploring constructive play when designing for social–emotional learning (SEL) in late childhood.
Kolding School of Design, Denmark
Design games as rehearsals for collaborative innovation: Playing out the future system to learn the collaborative game
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
Care-full Co-Production — an Aotearoa case study
1: Massey University of New Zealand, New Zealand; 2: Massey University of New Zealand, New Zealand
Care-ful reorientations in design
1: Northeastern University; 2: Illinois Institute of Technology
Designing with and through care: from empathy to relational accountability
Università della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Italy
Unwording Design: Demilitarizing the Imaginaries of Design
1: Umeå Institute of Design; 2: UAM Azcapotzalco / Estonian Academy of Arts
Reframing design success: Care as a chain of responses
1: Shantou University: Shantou, Guangdong, CN; 2: University of the Arts London: London, GB; 3: School of Architecture, Design and Planning, The University of Sydney, Sydney, AU
Exploring Common Understandings and Bodily Experiences of Vulnerability in Design Researchers in Sensitive Contexts
1: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands; 2: University of Twente, The Netherlands; 3: Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Decolonizing Care in Design Research: Familiness and Relational Practices from Creative Ageing in Thailand
1: Bangkok University, Thailand; 2: Thammasat University, Thailand
Reconfiguring Care: Envision Postpartum Support for Women in Southern China through the Lens of Home-based IoT
Hunan University, China, People's Republic of
Narrativizing Care: Exploring Narrative Medicine for Designing AI-Mediated Remote Patient Monitoring
1: University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom; 2: TU Delft, The Netherlands; 3: Department of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, The Netherlands; 4: Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands; 5: University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Re-voicing Identity: Care Ethics and the Politics of Unsilencing After Total Laryngectomy
Virginia Tech, United States of America
Exploring Relationality for Future Care Technology Design
IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Care through ambiguity: Findings from participatory health design
1: School of Design, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong S.A.R. (China); 2: School of Architecture and Design, Harbin Institute of Technology, People’s Republic of China
Build & Connect: Designing a constructive, participatory physicalization activity & toolkit for community reflection
1: University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom; 2: Glasgow Women's Library, United Kingdom
Design for care-full inclusion: Foregrounding the voices of vulnerable communities through vignettes in co-design
1: National University of Singapore, Singapore; 2: RMIT University School of Design, Australia
Designing with care for the end of life: a reflective co-design workshop using material facilitation
Northeastern University, United States of America
Material Agencies in Co-Design: A New Materialist Perspective on Workshop Practices
1: Adelaide University, Australia; 2: Monash University, Australia
Cut it out: Reframing hand paper-ripping as a collage method for wellbeing and care
Loughborough University, United Kingdom
Participatory Design as Third Space: Iterative Ethic in Singapore’s Contemporary Multiculturalism
National University of Singapore, Singapore
Patterns of everyday care: Translating cultural practices for online communities
Indiana University Bloomington, United States of America
The fair share of care: A distributed care account of circular design
TU Delft, Netherlands
Caring for Memory: A Neuroscientific Framework for Commemorative Exhibition Design
Sapienza Università di Roma, Italy
Crafting Legacies with Care: Speculative Frameworks for the Digital Afterlife
1: Independent Researcher, Denmark; 2: Independent Researcher, Denmark
Toward caring urban design: developing care practices through thinking with Forno Vagabondo
1: Academy of Fine Arts Vienna; Zukunfts*archiv; 2: La Foresta – Accademia di comunità; Basel Academy of Art and Design and the Art University Linz, Zukunfts*archiv
The spectral right to the city: Cartographies of care through ethnographic projection
1: Shenkar, Israel; 2: Technion, Israel
Reading Against the Grain: Ubuntu, Sankofa, and Rhythm as Pedagogical Infrastructures in First-Year Design Education
RMIT University, Australia
Beyond the menace of the gaze: Archetypes, dualities, and emptiness in Alexander McQueen’s fashion philosophy
University of Wollongong in Dubai
Rethinking our relationship with technology through the translation of a film prop: The case of Pyle and his rifle
1: Royal College of Art, United Kingdom; 2: Feng-Chia University, Taiwan
Opening portals to the posthuman: A pedagogical framework for materializing philosophy
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Desiring Production: Design as an Ethical Action
Tongji University, China
Crafting savage futures: Translanguaging and the material politics of peripheral making
1: University of Vale dos Sinos, Brazil; 2: University of the Arts London; 3: University of South-Eastern Norway
Code Ecologies: Reclaiming design as meaning-making within human–ecological systems
Royal College of Art, United Kingdom
From Interface to Intuition: Rethinking Design Ontologies in the Age of Ambient Intelligence
istituto Marangoni, Italy
Collective handiness in prospective design: philosophical musings on a serious play workshop on articulation work
1: Federal University of Technology Paraná (UTFPR), Brazil; 2: Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná (PUCPR), Brazil
Towards Positional Citizenship: designing for the More-than-Human Political
1: TU Delft, IDE Faculty, Human Centred Design Department, Netherlands, The; 2: Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Solutions
The lustre of hands
University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Lunch meeting to share research interests
Making Futures with Textiles: Boundaries, Practice, Sustainability
Royal College of Art, United Kingdom
Decoding the Visual Language of Embroidery: Making, Knowing, and Recontextualising
University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Designing a toolkit to explore the Design Space of Woven Textiles
Delft University of Technology, Netherlands
Degree of anisotropy: A textile epistemology of making
Rhode Island School of Design, United States of America
Designing with changeability: Material agency and theory in textile design
1: Academy of Fine Arts and Design, Bratislava, Slovak Republic; 2: Technical University of Liberec, Liberec, Czech Republic; 3: Slovak National Gallery, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
The act of crafting textile dialogues
VIA University College, Denmark
Lifting threads, piercing fabrics, and tracing stories through stitches: An embroidery inquiry into analysing empirical material
1: Department of Health Science, Innovation and Design, Mälardalen University, Eskilstuna, Sweden; 2: Västmanland County Museum, Region Västmanland, Västerås, Sweden
Affective Epistemologies: Textile Teaching at University of Chile, 1930-2000
1: Pontificia Universidad Católica, Chile; 2: Universidad de Chile, Chile
Situating textile design: Practice research in interdisciplinary material science projects
University of the Arts London, United Kingdom
Spatial Tapestries: Negotiations between bodies, experience, and architecture
Kent State University, United States of America
Does taboo constrain self-knowledge?: A design-led inquiry into the intimate health of older women
Universidade de Lisboa, ITI/LARSyS, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal
Longing for: Designing activities to break the taboo of female sexuality in care homes
1: LUCA School of Arts, KU Leuven, Caring and design research, Genk, BE; 2: The School of Health in Social Science, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; 3: Edinburgh College of Art, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
A messy substance: Mediating the stigma and lived experience of endometriosis through participatory design
1: SDSI - Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree - Service Design Strategies and Innovations (Art Academy of Latvia, University of Lapland and Estonian Academy of Arts); 2: Fraunhofer Portugal AICOS, Portugal
Is There Limitless Romance Behind a “Bunch of Ones and Zeros”? How Social VR Shapes Romantic Interaction and Its Design Implications
1: Moholy-Nagy University of Art and Design, Hungary; 2: Dublin City University - School of Psychology; 3: Dublin City University - School of Communications & Insight Research Ireland Centre for Data Analytics
The Invisible Playground for Taboos: A framework for recognising and designing for Inner Play to engage with Death and Anticipatory Grief
1: Independent Researcher, Portugal; 2: Kolding School of Design, Denmark; 3: University of Liverpool, United Kingdom; 4: Danish National Centre for Grief, Denmark
The Ecology of Effort: Aesthetics of Resistance in the Age of Frictionless Design
Istituto Marangoni, Italy
Mapping design’s contribution to policymaking: A framework for understanding design’s roles across policymaking levels
Royal College of Art, United Kingdom
Frame excavation: Revealing and critiquing existing problem frames to improve migrants’ awareness of public services
1: Tampere University, Faculty of Information Technology and Communication Sciences, Finland; 2: Aalto University, Department of Information and Communications Engineering, Finland
From critique to city council: A design framework for inclusive public discourse
University of Tennessee Knoxville, United States of America
From sustainable campuses to regenerative governance: A design perspective on participation and institutional learning in the Pays de la Loire university ecosystem
1: University of Sapienza, Rome; 2: École de design Nantes Atlantique, France
Seeing systemic design through policy eyes: A frame-work to navigate complexities of policy contexts
1: Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands; 2: Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Infrastructuring public participation for sustainability transitions
Department of Design, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Norway
From citizen innovation labs to social transformation: analysing the Conectando Cozinhas case through the lens of infrastructuring
1: Federal Institute of Santa Catarina, Brazil; 2: Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Brazil; 3: Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Not another design that ends up in a drawer: mechanisms to legitimize design outcomes in the public sector
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands, The
When frames collide: Participatory frame navigation through co-design in policy contexts
Northumbria University, United Kingdom
Public sector’s climate commoning and infrastructural care
1: Malmö university, Sweden; 2: City of Malmö, Environment department, Sweden
Youth as cultural agents: Facilitating cultural and civic engagement through game design
1: Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, the Netherlands; 2: Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision, the Netherlands
Computational User Research for a Public Helpline for Continuous Service Improvement: Parents Anonymous® as a Service Ecosystem
1: Myron E. Ullman, Jr. School of Design, University of Cincinnati; 2: Arizona State University
The wicked problem of AI policy design
1: The University of Queensland, Australia; 2: Captial One
Framing Data Choices: How Pre-Donation Exploration Designs Influence Data Donation Behavior and Decision-Making
Institute of Design (ID), Illinois Institute of Technology, United States of America
Visualisation for citizen participation: Data practices in the Copenhagen Climate Citizens' Assembly
Aalborg University, Denmark
Infographics as a tool for communicating and promoting public policies for women
University of Brasilia, Brazil
From metrics to meaning: Enabling iterative design for multi-stakeholder engagement and behavioural change in systemic climate transitions with quali-quantitative assessment and sensemaking
1: Politecnico di Milano; 2: Climate KIC
TechWork: Developing and validating a reflective tool for impact-aware design
1: ETH Zurich, Switzerland; 2: Cornell University, USA
A Perceived Value Framework for Automotive Design Innovation: Rethinking Strategic Transition of Incumbent OEMs in the Post-ICE Era
School of Design, Hunan University, Changsha, China
Navigating LCA in Circular Design: Methodological Barriers When Applying Life Cycle Assessment to Industrial Waste Upcycling Design Decisions
Aalborg University, Denmark
The DCF framework: Integrating Cross-Cultural and Multi-Stakeholder Perspectives on comfort experience
School of Design, Hunan University, Changsha, People's Republic of China
Enquête d’âme: A participatory visualisation of wellbeing through embodied reflection
1: Loughborough University; 2: Royal College of Art
Bridging macro sustainability and everyday life: Developing a meso–micro indicator framework for sustainable design in historic districts, The case of laomendong, nanjing
1: School of design, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214100, China; 2: Academy of Arts & Design, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
Evaluating Impact as a Distributed Ecosystem: Insights from a Coral-Themed Museum Late
1: Royal College of Art, United Kingdom; 2: Queen Mary University of London; 3: City St George's University of London
From Mindset to Measurement: Developing Scales for Inclusive and Reflective Design Practice
1: Technical University of Denmark, Denmark; 2: Technische Universität Berlin
Capturing the impact of co-creation in circular transitions: A comparative analysis of evaluation frameworks and models
TU Delft, Netherlands
Design As Strategic Competence for the Evolving Energy Industry
Tongji University, China, People's Republic of
Embedding design capability in growth-oriented SMEs in China: A multiple-case study
Central Academy of Fine Arts, China
Strategic design in practice: Mapping strategy formulation and implementation in Nordic design job advertisements
1: LAB University of Applied Sciences, Finland; 2: Aalto University Design Factory and Aalto University School of Engineering, Finland
Strategic design in business organizations: An approach for design management, business strategy, and design strategy
Arizona State University, United States of America
The future of designers: A study on the transition of designer occupations and corresponding strategic responses
1: Korea Institute of Design Promotion (KIDP), Republic of Korea; 2: Ulsan National Institute of Science & Technology (UNIST), Republic of Korea
Service Design-Driven Formation of Dynamic Capabilities for International Service Innovation: A Case Study of a Chinese NEV Firm
School of Design, Hunan University, China
Strategic Design for Circular Transitions: Co-defining Servitisation Strategies with a Furniture Company
Department of Design, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Reflective practices for ESG: a framework for organisational learning and transformation
1: Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering - Design and Manufacturing, Aarhus University; 2: Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering - Design for Sustainability, Technical University of Denmark
Design-led ecodesign implementation: Enabling product and organisational transformation for sustainability transitions
Politecnico di Milano, Italy
A Product-Service System Design Approach for the Frame Innovation of Automated Robotaxi Interior Space Cleaning
1: College of Design and Innovation, Tongji University, Shanghai, China; 2: Köln International School of Design, TH Köln, Cologne, Germany
How automation impacts worker ecosystems in organizations: a case study of autonomous bus operations at an international airport
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
A survey of generative AI adoption amongst industrial design experts
1: AHO, Norway; 2: Lund University
Craft as Experiential Knowledge: Designing Workshops and Record-Keeping Practices for Cultural Transmission among Young Generations
Kyoto Institute of Technology & University of the Arts London
Producing knowledge for whom? Parallel knowledge worlds in Chinese doctoral education in design and international design research
1: North Carolina State University, United States of America; 2: Hong Kong Polytechnic University; 3: Cornell University
Interdependencies of Art History and Design History curriculum in Indian undergraduate education
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
Design education in multicultural contexts: Student perceptions of cultural inclusivity in the classroom
Northeastern University, United States
Weaving Local Knowledge into Design Education: Situated Learning in Ethnic Regions of Western Sichuan
Minzu University, People's Republic of China
Educating Inclusive Human Augmentation by Design: A Triadic Definitional Framework and Pedagogical Validation
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong S.A.R. (China)
Extending futures literacy to speech scientists and technologists
Tilburg University, Netherlands, The
Embracing Complexity: Reimagining Design for Health Education
Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand
Enacting Micro-Utopias: Situated Pedagogies of Collective Imagination in Design-based Education
Häme University of Applied Sciences, Finland, Mondragon University, Spain
Design education leadership as constellation practice: Moving beyond the heroic leader
1: Heriot-Watt University Dubai, United Arab Emirates; 2: University of Dundee, Scotland, UK
Territorial Quest | A phygital urban game for Public Design Education
Università di Parma, Italy
Reflective Sociomaterialist Learning for Design for Sustainability (DfS) in the Global South: Evaluations of Students’ Product Service System (PSS) Design Projects at a Thai Design School
Thammasat University, Thailand
Reciprocal Sensing: Expanding Body Mapping Through Lenca and Mestizo Ontologies of Relational Embodiment
Georgia Institute of Technology
Relational embodiment: Rethinking artifacts as mediators of being-with-others
School of Industrial Design, China Academy of Art, Hangzhou, China
Cob Club: co-exploratory earth building experiments, foolish in technique and form
The University of the West of England, Bristol, United Kingdom
Disrupting and reimagining women’s identities: A feminist design methodology inspired by the self-combing women’s “Goddess Fictual” practice
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Urban typography and cultural memory: A literature review in support of a design-led approach to heritage and preservation
University of Waikato, New Zealand
Data and power: A tool for designing data visualisations from a feminist perspective
Universidade de Brasília (UnB), Brazil
Research through game design
1: School of Computing and Communications, Lancaster University, UK; 2: fractals co-op, UK; 3: School of Arts and Creative Technologies, University of York, UK; 4: UK Centre of Ecology and Hydrology (UKCEH)
Unlearning to Rest: Machine unlearning as a method of mitigating design fixation in human-AI creative collaboration
1: University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom; 2: University of the Arts London, United Kingdom
“Why Do All the Schools Look the Same?” Exploring Children’s Spatial Design Preferences through Generative AI in India
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, India
Meaning at a Distance: Redefining Aesthetics in the Age of Intelligent Objects
Istituto Marangoni, Italy
Decoding physicality in human–artifact interaction: An evolutionary concept analysis
College of Design and Innovation, Tongji University
Tectonic Computation: Crafting Logic through Material and Geometry
National Technical University of Athens, Greece
Drawn To Think: A Step Toward Decolonising Design Visualcy
UAL - Central Saint Martins, United Kingdom
Agreements for Collective Real-Time Sketching Practice in Design Research
1: Chalmers University of Technology and University of Gothenburg, Sweden; 2: Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands
How does costume illustration sketching mediate between visual development concept art and the practical construction of film costumes?
arts university bournemouth, United Kingdom
Drawing in the minor key: An approach for multi-actor designing for societal transformation
1: Eindhoven University of Technology; 2: Drawing in the minor key
Sketching Social Robots: Visualising Futures of Human–Robot Interaction through Participatory Imagination
University of Waikato, New Zealand
DDENSO: an evaluation-driven methodology for information visualisations
Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Designing Narrative Reconstruction from Bamboo Slips: A RAG-Agent Approach for Cultural Scene Generation
1: Hunan University, Changsha, Hunan, China; 2: Hunan Normal University, Changsha, Hunan, China
Toward a culturally situated perspective: Rethinking the role of AI in intangible cultural heritage pattern creation
1: School of Design, Hunan University, Changsha, Hunan, China; 2: Creative Computing Institute, University of the Arts London, London, United Kingdom
Archives and graphic memory: 1980s Brazilian rock album covers as cultural heritage
FAUUSP, Brazil
Visual thinking with artificial intelligence and augmented and virtual reality
1: Design Program, Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, Stanford University; 2: Center for Design Research, Mechanical Engineering Design Group, Stanford University
Applying AI Fine-Tuning and VR 3D Sketching for Conceptual Design Proposals: A Case Study of Footwear Design
1: National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan; 2: National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan
Is this the “me” they want to see? Exploring near-future adaptations of AI for professional visibility and self-presentation
1: Delft University of Technology, Department of Human-Centered Design; 2: Delft University of Technology, Department of Human-Centered Design, AI Futures Lab
The fidelity-flexibility paradox: Student creative experience with AI-assisted visualisation in design ideation
1: School of Product Design, University of Canterbury, New Zealand; 2: School of Design and Architecture, Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
The Pen or the Prompt: Investigating Novice Design Students' Use of Sketching and Generative AI for Initial Concept Visualisations
University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom
Promoting the Development of Critical Thinking Among Design Novices in AIGC-Aided Design Processes
College of Design and Innovation, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
Emerging Hybrid Human-GenAI Workflows to Optimise Human Ideation, Sketching and Design
1: Western Sydney University, Australia; 2: Universite de Montreal, Canada; 3: University of Cincinnati, USA
Friend and foe: Characterising (counter)productive prompting of generative AI to supplement exploratory sketching
1: Swinburne University of Technology, Australia; 2: University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Sketch-Based AI: How AI-Influence Levels Shape Perceived Authorship and Creativity in the Design Process
1: North Carolina State University, United States of America; 2: Carnegie Mellon University, United States of America
Cuia Colab: Toward a Design Across Species, Worlds and Relations
Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Belas-Artes, Centro de Investigação e de Estudos em Belas-Artes (CIEBA)
Beyond binaries of reconciliation: Working across knowledge systems at the cultural interface
RMIT University, Australia
Public Dialogues: A citizen participation platform for adaptive deliberation
The Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands
Mapping agents: a Fab City Full Stack geospatial framework for interdependent, community-led interventions
1: Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, Chile; 2: Fab City Foundation; 3: Tongji University
Reorienting design futures with hope
Politecnico di Milano, Design Department
Learning through relationality: A curated conversation between popular education and design pedagogy
1: Strate School of Design, France; 2: Tiers-lieu paysan de la Martinière, France
“Even if I do it, I cannot see any differences”: Designing Strategies to Facilitate Adolescents’ Low-Carbon Behavior
Southern University of Science and Technology, China, People's Republic of
Bridging Awareness and Action: Visual Communication Strategies for Sustainable Consumption in Fast Fashion
TU Delft, Netherlands, The
Buying, Consuming and Discarding: Consumer Value and Furniture Lifetimes
Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom
Heterodox economic perspective for designing sustainability transitions: Integrating fundamental human needs and the milieu approach
1: Mines Saint-Etienne, Univ Lyon, CNRS, Univ Jean Monnet, Univ Lumière Lyon 2, Univ Lyon 3 Jean Moulin, ENS Lyon, ENTPE, ENSA Lyon, UMR 5600 EVS, Institut Henri Fayol, F - 42023 Saint-Etienne France; 2: Univ. Bordeaux, CNRS, Bordeaux INP, I2M, UMR 5295, F-33400 Talence, France; 3: Arts et Métiers Institute of Technology, CNRS, Bordeaux INP, I2M, UMR 5295, F-73375 Le Bourget-du-Lac, France
Towards a more sustainable industrial design sketch modelling practice: An overview of associated materials and their life cycles
University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Should sustainability come second? Artifact analysis toward more positive outcomes through design
1: Syracuse University - School of Design; 2: Cornell University - Department of Human Centered Design
Dropping Pebbles: The Ripple Effect of Designerly Co-creation in Steering Sustainability Transitions in Hospitals
1: Delft University of Technology; 2: Erasmus Medical Center
Reciprocal value between learning and circular practices
University of Pretoria, South Africa
The environmental citizen’s playbook: A catalogue of playful participation for environmental action
1: Sooon Studio, Denmark; 2: Escola Universitària ERAM (Universitat de Girona); 3: Aalto University, Finland
“Everything that no longer relates to anything”: Discard Studies for thinking through waste in design
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Spain
Design, territory and gastronomy: Relational practices in local transformation processes
Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Brazil
Playing Future Places Together
RMIT University, Australia
Harriet Simms (GSA); Yuanrong Guo (Edinburgh); Yitong Zhang (GSA)
Collaboration and participation are central to many PhD projects, yet they are often understood and enacted in highly diverse ways across disciplines, methods, and research contexts. While these terms are frequently associated with inclusivity, co-creation, and shared authorship, they also raise critical debates about agency, power, decision-making, and the conditions under which participation becomes meaningful. This session invites doctoral researchers to move from situated experience towards a critical understanding of how collaboration and participation operate in doctoral research. Structured around two main participatory activities, participants will be organized into interest-based groups for a small-group mapping activity, where people examine concrete experience, tensions, responses, and shaping conditions. A gallery walk will follow, facilitating cross-group engagement and the identification of connections across different experiences. The session creates a space for exchanging situated practices while encouraging reflections on questions such as what influences collaborative processes, what is open to negotiation, and when participation becomes meaningful, symbolic, or limited.
Translating Industry: The Reception and Evolution of Industrial Thought in Early Modern
1: Royal College of Art; 2: Shanghai University Of Engineering Sciences
The black box in spatial planning: visualizations of indeterminacy in cybernetics and model theory
1: The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong S.A.R. (China); 2: Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China
Environmentality's integrated design: ISO standards as infrastructural semiotics
EPFL (École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne), Switzerland
Exploring Current Understandings of ‘Design Systems’: Toward a Conceptual Framework
1: Department of Communication & Culture, Aalborg University, Denmark; 2: Department of Digital Design and Information Studies, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark; 3: LEGO Group, Denmark; 4: IT University, Denmark
Historicising Speculative Design with McLuhan’s Tetrad
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA
User-Centered Dread: A Lovecraftian Critique of Design
University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom
When data systems meet ecosystems: Tensions between AI platforms and vitality in corporate sustainability
1: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA; 2: Interdisciplinary Transformation University (IT:U), Linz, Austria
More-than-human oversight: Designing a somaesthetic space for high-risk AI systems
1: Johannes Kepler Universität Linz, Austria; 2: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile: Santiago, CL
Speculative Design Through Synthetic Data: Exploring how synthetic data be used to represent missing ‘more-than-human' data
RMIT University, Australia
Designing algorithmic infrastructures for environmental regeneration: Autonomous systems in marine contexts
1: Izmir University of Economics; 2: Mälardalen University
Grounding Artificial Intelligence: Terrestrial Cartography and Rare Earths in Chile
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile
Scaffolding Oceans Futures: Design for embedded, embodied, and emergent thinking
1: Simon Fraser University, Canada; 2: Simon Fraser University, Canada; 3: Simon Fraser University, Canada; 4: Simon Fraser University, Canada
Occupying the sensors: Underwater sound in an urban river
Northeastern University, United States of America
Everything is an Instrument: Making Data Instruments as Critical Pedagogy
RMIT University, Australia
Plant biographies: Expanding more-than-human modes of relating
1: Design Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom; 2: Design Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom; 3: Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom; 4: Conservation Science, Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, United Kingdom
More-than-Human Self-Tracking: An Uncertain Account of Urine Monitoring, Protein Excess and Ecological Entanglements
Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, Sweden
More than Weeds: Thickening designer-plant relations in the Sonoran Desert
Arizona State University, United States of America
Imagining speculative design tools with a Capability Approach
Independent researcher
Mediating More-than-Human care: Art, design and climate governance
1: Hasselt University, Belgium; 2: Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands; 3: UAL, London College of Communication, UK; 4: Tokyo Keizai University, Japan
‘Wet’ policymaking: exploring the potential of open-water swimming in agonistically designing affective environmental policies.
1: R4D Research group, School of Social Sciences, Hasselt University, Belgium; 2: Civic & Policy Design (part of Arck) Research group, Faculty of Architecture and Arts, Hasselt University, Belgium
Modes of Being Amid Anthropocene: Living Through the 2024 Rio Grande do Sul Floods
Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos - UNISINOS, Brazil
Surfacing wetlands through design ethnography and critical visualisation
University of Technology Sydney
Materialising Ecologies of Intelligence: learning to design with and within more-than-human systems
The Glasgow School of Art, United Kingdom
An autoethnographic account of noticing in practice, through a more-than-human centred lens.
Cardiff Metropolitan University, United Kingdom
From Fragile Remnants to Regenerative Systems: Circular Design Through Eggshell Waste
1: Independent Researcher, Institute for Future Technologies, De Vinci Higher Education, Paris, France; 2: Sathyabama Institute of Science & Technology, Chennai, India
Translating nature's emotions: Building an affective design framework rooted in classical Chinese poetry
School of Design, Hunan University, Changsha, China
Co-creating with fungi: mycelium toys and pedagogies for regenerative futures
1: University of Applied Arts Vienna, Austria; 2: Mycotech Lab, Bandung Indonesia
Metaphors offer a powerful, inclusive way to articulate tacit wisdom within design research practice, serving as transformative pedagogical and cultural tools. Metaphors can also be exclusive; finding better metaphors helps improve understanding when working with different groups of people. What metaphors complement discourse on the design process and offer fertile pathways for evolving design pedagogy, culture, and communications?
Metaphors have long been used in design to conceive novel interventions and convey meaning to design concepts (Lockton et al, 2019; Blackwell, 2006). There's a parallel story about metaphors conveying the design research process itself—how they transmute expertise, inform practice, and shape broader design culture (Casakin, 2006). In studios and classrooms, skillful practice is conveyed through process diagrams, method collections, and case studies. But the metaphors practitioner-educators use to convey the embodied reality of their expertise and roles (Bisset & Kuštrak Korper, 2023) can be just as instructive and transformative in showcasing how design research unfolds in real practice.
Metaphors are not easily captured in scholarly papers; the patois of praxis is often erased for the reportage of method. DRS Conversations offer a powerful setting to stretch, collect, and co-investigate metaphors across global contexts. This is crucial given that metaphors are culturally situated and can disembody, exclude, or constrain as readily as they illuminate. If we wish to move towards a design culture where "world where many worlds fit," wrestling critically, carefully, and creatively with metaphor is foundational (Escobar, 2018).
When does care become control? Who remains invisible to technological systems?
These questions sit at the core of this workshop, which uses experiential and embodied methods to ask how design research can engage emerging public service technologies. Digital Twins (real-time digital counterparts of people, objects, and places) are spreading through public services on the promise of better coordination, prediction, and efficiency (Lyu, 2024). However, they also determine how people are sensed, represented, and acted upon, raising questions about surveillance, autonomy, and care that technical or policy analysis alone cannot address (Vesnic-Alujevic et al., 2019).
Our approach draws on Speculative Design, in particular Experiential Futures, which lets people encounter possible technological futures through action and perception rather than explanation (Candy, 2010; Candy & Dunagan, 2017). This 90-minute workshop treats lived experience as a source of knowledge for design research.
It unfolds in the initial warming-up activity and embodied experimentation.
Sensing the Future: Embodied and Dance Explorations of Seeing and Being Seen through Public Digital Twins
Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Design research increasingly engages multispecies and more-than-human relations, yet the hierarchies and violences that structure these relations often remain unnamed. This Conversation starts from the assumption that what is left unnamed also remains difficult to question. Antispeciesism is mobilized here precisely as a practice of naming: not as an ethical stance, nor as a claim about moral priority among forms of life, but as an analytical lens that makes visible how anthropocentrism functions as a hierarchical principle of knowledge, value, and legitimacy. This Conversation proposes to bring multispecies justice into design research precisely as a space of dissonance and divergence. Within design research, the critique of anthropocentrism has often focused on decentring the human through relationality, interdependence, and ecological entanglement. Building on this, what antispeciesism adds to this conversation is not a comparative or hierarchical concern between animals, plants, or other forms of life, nor an appeal to empathy or benevolence, which risk reintroducing paternalistic logics. Rather, it foregrounds a specific and often underestimated angle of the more-than-human: the role of species-based hierarchies as political and epistemic technologies that organize domination, disposability, and differential worth, in ways structurally entangled with colonial, patriarchal, and capitalist regimes of knowledge.
From a decolonial perspective, the anthropos at the centre of modern knowledge is never neutral or universal, but historically produced as white, Western, male (Wynter, 2015), and positioned as fully human in contrast to those rendered less-than-human bodies (Manning, 2016; Ahmed, 2000). From this perspective, anthropocentrism is inseparable from other hierarchical regimes – of race, gender, class, and species (Vázquez, 2024; Lorde, 2018 ed.; Foucalt, 1975; hooks, 1996, 2000; Davis, 1981) – that organize knowledge through exclusion, animalization, and biopolitical differentiation. By bringing antispeciesism into design research, this Conversation seeks to reconnect more-than-human concerns with these broader hierarchies – making visible how design already operates within multispecies relations shaped by institutionalized violence, and opening space for questions that more- than-human design has so far tended to overlook or underarticulate.
Unsettling the human in design research, without comfort: a conversation on antispeciesism as a destabilizing lens
1: Department of Design, Politecnico di Milano, Italy; 2: Art & Design Department, University of Madeira, OSEAN, Portugal; 3: Department of Human-Centered Design, Delft Technical University, Netherlands; 4: Eindhoven Technical University, Netherlands
Design, policy and governance have been increasingly discussed across the 60-year history of the Design Research Society conferences. Examples of this can be found as early as the 1982 conference on design policy (Langdon & Purcell, 1984) and continue to this day. Over the last ten years we have witnessed these themes consolidate, accounting for almost 50 publications spread across, but not exclusively, among four different tracks (Feast, 2016; Leoni et al., 2024; Mortati et al., 2022; Schmidt & Mortati, 2024). A simple keyword search for design, policy, and governance in the DRS Digital Library returns over 1,100 results, pointing to the abundance and depth of work produced by the community over time.
To reflect on how design for policy and governance has evolved over these 60 years in the DRS community, we propose this conversation as a venue to collectively discuss what knowledge has been produced and how we could move forward. Recent initiatives, such as the 2024 track “Past, present, and future: Understanding the expanse of design for policy and governance” (Schmidt & Mortati, 2024), indicate a growing interest in revisiting and critically examining this trajectory. Building on these efforts, the conversation is guided by the following research questions:
● What themes, changes and tensions emerge from examining DRS publications and proceedings at the intersection of policy, governance, and design?
● How might collective critical examination inform future directions for policy, governance, and design in the DRS community?
● How does DRS, through its conference contributions, participate in shaping the relationship between design and governance as a research domain?
Researching Design in Policy and Governance: A Collective Reflection through 60-Years of the Design Research Society Conference
1: University of Helsinki, Finland; 2: Aalto University, Finland
This conversation places the focus on the question of how the interest and adoption of transdisciplinarity within Design research and education has gained ground and been shaped in different degrees of breadth, depth and pace. This becomes particularly important in efforts to consolidate and articulate design’s impact in transdisciplinary areas that tackle complex problems in social and ecological research. In this sense, the session would appeal to design practitioners, researchers, educators, and students interested in and currently engaging with transdisciplinarity as an approach, knowledge production paradigm, and transformative and creative practice.
Building off from the work advanced in previous DRS conferences, specifically the 2022 Track on “Design Methods and Transdisciplinary Practices” (Ozkaramanli et al., 2022), as well as the 2024 conversation “Transdisciplinarity: Taking stock beyond buzzwords and outlining an agenda for design research” (Zaga et al., 2024), we propose a new dialogue arena that keeps this debate evolving in a context of increasing popularity but also expansion and depth. This session proposes to contextualize and expand beyond what has been learnt regarding the roles, metaphors and modes that Design takes in transdisciplinarity. The conversation will focus on observing and understanding the diverse topographies (outlines of features, boundaries and qualities of a territory) in current transdisciplinary design practice and the implications on design education.
Changing topographies of transdisciplinarity within Design
1: SARAS Institute, Uruguay;; 2: The Design School, Arizona State University, USA; 3: Linnaeus University, Department of Design, Sweden; 4: School of Design (EUCD-FADU), Universidad de la República, Uruguay
There has been a ‘participation turn’ in policymaking and a growth in participatory governance and democratic innovations due to many existing democratic processes facing a crisis of legitimacy (Warren, 2014). Participatory governance is seen to improve representative democratic processes by bringing in more citizen participation to make policymaking more responsive and collaborative (Escobar, 2021; Heinelt, 2018). With more policymakers and institutions interested in participatory governance, it has meant that these approaches have become more institutionalised (Bua and Bussu, 2021).
Scotland has a rich landscape of innovative design work in and around policy, and there is a clear civic participation and open government agenda through recent legislation and initiatives such as the Community Empowerment Act and Open Government Partnership that seek to enable people and communities to have more say over the decisions that affect their lives (Escobar, 2022). Scottish Parliament has a dedicated focus on involving people and community organisations in inquiries to share experiences and insights on the impacts of legislation and has embedded deliberative approaches through their People's Panels (Broadley et al., 2025). Within the Scottish Government, the Office of the Chief Designer is leading on embedding design and participation approaches within health and social care policy, alongside developing and promoting the Scottish Approach to Service Design (Hamilton, 2024; Lyne, 2019; Scottish Government, 2019). Scotland has a visible design leader, design teams within government, a national approach to service design and key participatory governance legislation. How do these different aspects of design benefit and enhance Scotland’s participatory governance agenda? Does this differ to other countries approaches and what can we learn from each other?
Using Scotland as a provocation, this conversation will invite participants to discuss the role of design within participatory governance across the world, bringing their own perspectives to the conversation and identifying synergies and differences between different contexts. We will bring together stories and perspectives from practitioners and researchers working in design and policy spaces in Scotland, England and Northen Ireland, and invite participants to discuss and bring their own experiences to the conversation. By sharing practitioner’s stories, we want to ground the discussions in lived experience of people working within these complex contexts. We hope this conversation will build a community of interested researchers and practitioners and provide critical reflection on the ways that design can/might be applied to participatory governance.
Does Scotland do it differently? Exploring the role of design within participatory governance
1: The Glasgow School of Art, United Kingdom; 2: Independent; 3: Belfast School of Art, United Kingdom
This conversation investigates Unlearning Design through lenses of relational practice, critical sustainability, and material ecology. Drawing from multiple disciplines including communication design, fashion design, architecture, more-than-human-centred design, industrial design, regenerative design, interaction design, technology design, and education, the panel addresses sustainability delay not as a lack of knowledge, but as a structural and pedagogical problem. While design discourse increasingly acknowledges planetary crises, design education largely perpetuates structures, assumptions, and methods that enable unsustainable practices. We propose that transformation requires not merely adding sustainability content, but questioning what design education is for and how it operates.
Fry reminds us that “we are not just designing things; we are designing futures” (Fry, 2018). If so, unlearning ways of unsustainability becomes a critical task: a process of questioning what design education teaches us to take for granted. Despite decades of sustainability discourse, design education has changed remarkably little. Sustainability often remains peripheral: an elective, a lecture, a keyword in program descriptions. Meanwhile, the underlying assumptions of design — linear progress, human-centered problem-solving, growth-oriented success, material extraction, and authorship — continue to be reproduced. As a result, design education risks sustaining the very conditions it claims to address. What assumptions constrain transformation? What structures must shift? What competencies matter? This conversation surfaces tensions, contradictions, and unresolved dilemmas that resist resolution in traditional paper formats, generating new research questions through structured dialogue.
Unlearning Design: Through Relational Practice, Critical Sustainability, and Material Ecology
1: University of Arts Linz, Austria; 2: Kunsthochschule Kassel, Germany; 3: University of Reikjavik, Iceland; 4: Technical University of Munich, Germany; 5: Technical University Dresden, Germany
Artificial intelligence, particularly large language models, is embedded through incremental features within everyday digital tools used in design research, framed as productivity or usability enhancements. While design scholarship has addressed AI’s implications for creativity, ethics, and authorship, less attention has been paid to how researchers experience these systems in practice. As LLMs recede into the background infrastructure of research, their subtle and often invisible nudges shape inquiry, attention, and what becomes visible as knowledge.
Design research, with its emphasis on context-aware inquiry, reflective and iterative methods, and the active role of artifacts and interfaces in shaping knowledge, is uniquely positioned to examine how AI-augmented research tools redistribute agency and influence epistemic practice. Embedded AI is not neutral and introduces new risks for design research (Van Der Maden et al. 2024). We suggest that while platforms claim to empower users, their designs enact subtle governance through defaults, nudges, and automated redirection, shaping research trajectories and agency without explicit consent.
Epistemic Systems in the Age of Embedded or Agentic AI
1: The Ohio State University; 2: ÉTS Montréal
Empathy is often invoked as a concept of foundational significance to the design process (Cross, 1982): as we design for others, we must seek to gain empathic understanding of them and their experiences. Recent advances in the capabilities of AI tools have seen a developing interest in their ability to simulate / emulate empathy. Studies show that humans interacting with AI chat agents consistently rate these systems as more empathetic than human interlocutors (Calero & Herrera, 2025; Sorin et al., 2024). Just as these AI tools have become widely accessible and easily applied across many areas of human activity, so too they are being adopted and integrated into design activity. Design processes typically recognised as enhancing empathy with users have been conducted with LLMs substituting for human participation, including persona development (Kocaballi, 2024; Schuller et al, 2024), scenario development (Spaniol and Rowland, 2022), stakeholder interviews (Kocaballi, 2024; Rime 2025) and empathy mapping (Higuera and Macías, 2023).
Useful applications of AI within design research and practice are potentially extensive, and should be explored and exploited where appropriate. However, in experimenting with the use of these tools, it is vital that we critically and carefully reflect on the nature of the systems we are dealing with, what their capabilities and limitations are, and how these differ from established understandings of human empathic experience in design contexts.
Empathy in the Age of Artificial Simulation
1: Edinburgh Napier University, United Kingdom; 2: Köln International School of Design DE, Germany; 3: Hong Kong Polytechnic University HK, Hong Kong S.A.R. (China); 4: Florida Atlantic University, USA
As we face mounting environmental and societal challenges, design has a critical role to play in shaping sustainable and meaningful futures. In response, the design research community is working to understand and tackle these issues head on in multiple ways – for example through facilitating radical transitions (Coops et al., 2024), developing regenerative practices (Nowaki & Foissac, 2022) and exploring beyond human perspectives (Bessai et al,. 2024). These aim to meet the systemic challenges of the future and address the complexity of plural evolving cultures. To support this growing body of work, there is a need for exploring new applied methods that challenge short-termism and build new modes of designing that foreground temporality and future significance.
Heritage practices offer a radically different temporal orientation through which to consider how we design. Heritage practices are explicitly concerned with value over time: how artefacts, practices, and environments are selected, protected, reinterpreted, and transmitted across generations (Harrison, 2021). Heritage thinking foregrounds questions of significance, care, stewardship, and loss, while acknowledging uncertainty about future values and contexts – offering the context necessary for developing lived futures (Sandford, 2019). What if we applied the same reverence to the things we design and to the methods of design practice today - treating all products, services, and systems as potential future heritage? This reframing, bringing together design and heritage, opens new possibilities for sustainable, culturally embedded, and ethically responsible design.
This Conversation proposes designing for future heritage as a provocation that brings these domains into dialogue. It asks what might change if designers approached products, services, systems, and infrastructures as potential future heritage - objects and practices that will shape cultural memory, environmental conditions, and social meanings over extended timescales. Rather than focusing solely on the near future and on reducing harm, this perspective invites design to engage with questions of long-term significance: what should endure, what might be allowed to disappear, and what responsibilities designers hold toward future generations.
Designing for Future Heritage: Reframing Sustainability through Cultural and Temporal Value
1: Imperial College London, United Kingdom; 2: Lancaster University, United Kingdom
Openly available tools, such as free online-templates, 3D printed models, or generative AI, can be applied at any point in the design process by designers and clients alike. While not perfect, these tools can still produce prototypes that are often indistinguishable from ‘finished’ or ‘polished’ artifacts. Whether one hails these tools as time-savers or condemns them as job-killers, their polished nature fundamentally changes the way clients and users experience the design process, and can have profound effects on the type of feedback designers receive. This conversation aims to understand the role of ‘incompleteness’ in the design process better (Hvidsten, 2019; Garud et al., 2008) and how designers might use it strategically for different types of participation, feedback, and critique. We ask the following sub-questions:
RQ1) How is incompleteness manifested in prototypes/design proposals, and how does it affect the activities of stakeholders and other testers and evaluators?
RQ2) How do we leverage incompleteness to highlight or hide aspects of a design to invite the kinds of feedback we need?
RQ3) Does designing for incompleteness change the roles, goals, or techniques of the designer?
Roughing up the edges: Why intentional incompleteness might create better designs
1: Kristiania University of Applied Technology, Oslo, Norway; 2: Georgetown University, Washington DC, USA
What does it mean to actively rebalance the design canon and how can historical, critical, and pedagogical design research work together to make that rebalancing durable, accountable and transformative?
Despite women now forming largest cohort in graphic design education globally, their professional contributions remain systematically underrepresented within design histories, disciplinary canons and institutional archives. This imbalance reflects deeply embedded historical discourses that have shaped what counts as legitimate design knowledge, whose work is preserved and which narratives are reproduced through research, education and professional culture.
Women Graphic Designers: Rebalancing the Canon (Resnick, 2025) responds to this absence by foregrounding the work of undervalued and marginalised women designers from diverse global contexts across the twentieth century. The publication operates not only as a recovery project, but as a critical intervention into the discourse of design history itself - challenging the epistemological assumptions, archival practices and methodological conventions that have shaped the field.
Led by contributors and the editor of the volume, whose broader research examines the historical invisibility of women in graphic design across the world, this conversation invites participants to critically examine how design canons are formed and contested. The session will explore how gendered structures of power influence recognition and how alternative historiographic approaches such as recovery work, situated narratives and intersectional analysis, can meaningfully rebalance design history.
Rebalancing the design canon: intersectionality, invisibility and the politics of design history
1: Swinburne University of Technology, Australia; 2: Massachusetts College of Art and Design; 3: Politecnico di Milano; 4: Lebanese American University; 5: Universidade de São Paulo
In what ways can landscape transitions be felt, interpreted, and narrated through sound? This workshop explores sound-based practices as a design research method for engaging with landscapes and human–environment relations. The research asks how working with sound as a material - rather than representation - can open alternative ways of understanding place, ecological processes, and human-landscape relations. The objective of the lab is to develop an embodied method collaboratively and to examine how this approach can contribute to design research concerned with landscapes, transitions, care, and situated knowledge.
This Is Not Airport Noise - Analogue Field Sound Lab
UNIBZ, Italy
This workshop invites participants to queer their disciplinary and pedagogical practices by making Index Wheels. The Index Wheels will be a Riso printed resource that will map: methods, references, gestures, and milestones in the participants own practice or teaching. The workshop will be a participatory, hands-on session involving critical making and collaborative reflection facilitated by Nina and Saffie jointly, using a series of specific prompts.
Through these guided prompts participants will collectively make and discuss how queer theory, critical pedagogy and design research can intersect to create more relational and experimental design practices that move away from fixed outcomes and instead form adaptable systems of learning and making. The prompts are inspired by discussions with designers and researchers who we were in conversation with for a publication we created titled, Queering Interdisciplinarity.
The aim is to build a holistic overview of how knowledge and practice emerge across multiple modes. Connecting making with thinking, the mind with the hand, this project frames queerness as a navigational tool; one that resists singular definitions and embraces fluid, embodied knowledge. We are thinking of an Index as a gauge that points toward something and in this way, the Index Wheel can be understood as a: circular, tactile system that organises and points to key elements of a practice (such as methods, references, gestures, or milestones) in a way you can rotate or navigate and use as a guide.
Queering Interdisciplinarity: a workshop with Riso printed materials
Central St Martins, University of the Arts London, United Kingdom
Mending offers a rich site for design inquiry because it shows how judgments about visibility, restraint, dignity, and reversibility are negotiated in real time through material engagement (Acharya et al., 2024). As a practice between care and intervention, mending foregrounds reciprocal relations among people, materials, and the systems shaping continued use (Caselli et al., 2022; Escobar et al., 2024). Working with damage brings to the surface the values and assumptions guiding decisions about maintenance, worth, and interdependence, enabling repair to challenge dominant narratives of efficiency or newness (Callén & Duque, 2023; Jackson, 2014).
Listening in Repair is grounded in previous mending research workshops (Image 1) framed through care aesthetics, understood as a relational, embodied, and socially embedded practice (Thompson, 2022). In this exploration, the mending circle incorporates listening – to materials, to one another, and to the environment, and guides how participants mend. Participants work with worn textiles (Image 2, 3, 4) while noticing how touch, visibility, pace, and intensity shape material outcomes and ethical relations (Denis & Pontille, 2023, 2025). Rather than focusing on technique, participants align mending gestures with their own research orientations. Through shared practice and listening encounters, the mending circle becomes a site where researchers build on method‑first approaches in design research (Forst, 2022; Mahler, 2024; Mäkelä, 2007) to surface how repair practices negotiate value, care, and continuation, and how these negotiations may challenge prevailing assumptions about aging, maintenance, and interdependence (Mattern, 2018). This format emphasizes experimentation, shared inquiry, and non‑textual knowledge, using embodied and aural‑material processes as primary modes of research development.
Listening in Repair: A Mending Circle for Relational Care
1: Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands, The; 2: Lancaster University, United Kingdom; 3: Amsterdam University of the Arts, The Netherlands; 4: Kent State University, USA
Crenshaw (1989) coined the term intersectionality to challenge "single-axis analysis" of identity and recognize how multiple social categories intersect to create unique experiences of privilege and oppression. This concept, now nearly forty years old, is just beginning to transform the field of design. Costanza-Chock (2020) argues that without embracing intersectional thinking, design perpetually overlooks the realities of those facing multiple forms of discrimination, yet, attempts to apply the concept in design remain limited (Chopra, 2022; Arquilla & Caruso; 2025).
This is due to design scholars’ recent engagement with feminist thinking and to the concept’s complexity, which resists simplification. The latter is a core feature that characterizes Dominant Design practice (Chopra & Del Gaudio, 2023) and risks treating intersectionality as a "checklist", losing its political value. To meaningfully apply intersectionality, designers must engage with two elements of intersectional thought: pluralism, and contextualization (Chopra, 2022). Pluralism involves recognizing and valuing diverse ways of being and knowing, and understanding that individuals’ multidimensional identities must be considered in design decision-making (Chopra, 2022; Leitão, 2022). Contextualization requires grounding analysis and action in the specific histories, geographies, social conditions, and knowledge systems that shape people’s lives and identities, ensuring responses to inequality are context-sensitive rather than universalized (Chopra, 2022).
Given the challenges of translating this complex concept into practice and design’s limited theoretical engagement with intersectionality, this exploration aims to advance the practice of intersectionality. It seeks to do so by engaging participants in a collective investigation and experimentation with one aspect of pluralism: how designers can acknowledge and value multiple ways of being and knowing within a design process.
The exploration will unfold through a hands-on workshop grounded in a real situation shared by participants, centring the embodied nature of intersectionality. It will also explore non-academic textual formats for knowledge dissemination of findings, further addressing the challenge of bridging theory and practice in intersectional design. Hence, this exploration addresses these research questions: How can designers acknowledge and value multiple ways of being and knowing within a design process? What non-academic textual formats can foster understanding of the practice of intersectional thought in design among practitioners?
The shared real‑world situation to explore the practice of intersectionality is how the DRS conference can continue to enhance inclusivity for attendees at different career stages and from diverse backgrounds. This inquiry aligns with the intersectional commitment to social justice, challenging dominant and universalizing practices, and valuing diverse experiences and worldviews. The aim is to support the conference, as DRS approaches its 60‑year celebration, in strengthening its role as a space that welcomes and honours a wide range of perspectives and needs.
Designing Through Plural Lenses: Reflection on Making Intersectionality Actionable
1: Politecnico di Milano, Italy; 2: Carleton University
Designing for transformation, transitions and systemic change is taking off, and there are dozens of methods and theories that support transdisciplinary teams in designing for transforming practices. However, in practice, it proves to be a major challenge to evaluate, interpret and discuss the quality, success and impact of such complex changes. Designing for transition and transformation seem to be becoming new buzzwords, with the risk of becoming empty phrases if there are no clear criteria for quality. Transformation occurs at many different levels, on different time scales, in different contexts and cultures, by different actors, and this plurality has contributed to the fact that there is not (yet) an adequate language or approach for assessing and discussing (the qualities of) transformation.
In this Explorations session, we will share a selection of the developed approaches to explore with all participants, which creative forms and transformation indicators resonate with them, to discuss and evaluate transformation. Through exploring and combining the outcomes of various participatory ‘creative stations’ we aim at finding a common language and understanding of transformation, which can spark both transformation processes and a thriving regenerative society, leading to the following research questions:
- How can different forms of art and design (e.g. performances, visual poetry, mutants) qualitatively extend our ways of seeing, doing and knowing, to explore alternative quality criteria for designing for transforming practices from a minor key perspective?
- How to describe, visualise, express “minor key” qualities of transformation such as fractal notions of resonance between the small scale and systemic change?
- How can Key Transformation and Thriving Indicators (KTIs) be developed to meet the needs of evaluate transformative design practices over time?
Evaluating the quality of transformation: Exploring Key Transformation & Thriving Indicators
1: Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands, The; 2: EIT Culture & Creativity; 3: University of Amsterdam; 4: Amsterdam University of the Arts; 5: Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers; 6: Future of Now; 7: Context Undefined; 8: Umeå Institute of Design
Design researchers normally ground computation as something that exists within an electronic device, relying on current industrialized processes and supply chains. This framing has been productive, yet it also narrows the designer’s set of possibilities when designing for computation. Within interaction design, this framing has shaped how data and intelligence are understood, often privileging stability, scalability, and abstraction over material variability and change (Akyildiz et al., 2007; Karl & Willig, 2004). Within sustainable human-computer interaction and circular economics, computation is increasingly understood as material, biodegradable and even permeable. This lab extends that trajectory by shifting attention from electronic devices toward biodegradable materials as active interfaces for computational infrastructure.
Drawing on a material-centred design approach, this lab investigates how materials such as clay, plant fibres, and organic composites can signal, store, and respond to environmental stimuli. Prior research demonstrates that biomaterials can register environmental conditions through physical change, including growth, deformation, hardening, and decay, offering alternative ways of recording and expressing information (Bell et al., 2024; Bell et al., 2025). Work on clay, microbial materials, and growable composites further shows how computation can be enacted through making processes, where sensing and feedback emerge from the material itself rather than being imposed through electronic layers (Rosner et al., 2015; Nicolae et al., 2023; Postl et al., 2024). These practices position materials as active participants in computation, capable of mediating data.
This lab builds on scholarship that treats material change as a design probe rather than design burden (Döring et al., 2013; Sylvester et al., 2010). Participants are invited to engage materials as infrastructure—systems that reliably change with use and environmental exposure. The lab surfaces questions about viable design practices when computation is embedded in biodegradable interfaces. By working hands-on with materials that evolve, the session explores how data is collected, adapted, and transformed in material interaction, providing space to re-explore tangible computation as a material-driven infrastructural design.
Extreme heat is becoming a defining condition of everyday life in many urban and peri-urban environments. Heat waves are increasing in frequency and severity, and cities often amplify thermal stress through the urban heat island effect, material surfaces, limited vegetation, and unequal access to cooling infrastructure (Adapting the Built Environment 2023). Yet heat is still commonly communicated through aggregate metrics such as temperature, humidity, and heat index. A reliance on such metrics alone renders climate legible primarily through quantitative data rather than through embodied experience (McQuillan 2018).
Heat is not lived uniformly. People encounter heat through bodies in motion, through effort, sweat, breath, fatigue, and the ongoing decisions that shape outdoor life: where to walk, when to rest, which surfaces to avoid, where shade or airflow can be found (NOAA 2025). These experiences are uneven, shaped by what bodies are doing (walking, carrying, working), what bodies can access (shade, water, shelter), and what places afford (vegetation, soil moisture, airflow, thermal mass) (Bramer et al. 2018; Adapting the Built Environment 2023). In practice, heat is often experienced at the scale of microclimates: meter-to-meter differences between a shaded edge, an exposed plaza, a humid pocket near dense plantings, or damp soil near irrigation or mulching (Bramer et al. 2018; Hemenway 2009).
At the same time, many climate-facing technologies and communication practices still treat sensing and computation as the primary path to awareness: gather measurements, visualize them, and encourage decisions. These approaches are necessary, but they can make heat feel distant, something known through numbers rather than through attention. Data-driven systems often “disappear” into the background of everyday life; their phenomena become perceptible indirectly (e.g., “rising heat,” such as climate stripes) (Karkera and Griffiths 2026), while moments of breakdown, threshold, or disruption (e.g., “the heat wave”) become foregrounded. This produces an experiential gap between measured conditions and felt conditions. Two areas can show similar readings yet feel different because of shade patterns, radiant heat from materials, airflow, or the cumulative strain of movement. Conversely, small measurable differences can feel significant when layered with humidity, direct sun, dehydration, or social constraints (Parsons 2020; NOAA 2025). When engagement is centered on dashboards and thresholds, microclimatic variation can be flattened into averages, and thermal experience becomes abstracted from the relational conditions that produce it, bodies, soils, plants, water, built surfaces, and the sensing technologies used to describe them.
Weathering With Microclimates: An embodied design exploration of extreme heat through movement, sensing, and more-than-human relations
University of Texas at Austin, United States of America
By surfacing the personal and professional sustainability-related experiences and competences (Goldberg, 2009) of participants we hope to collectively envision alternative scenarios in which fashion is sustainable and fairer for all. LSP is a well-established facilitation technique that encourages contributions from all participants, fosters reflective thinking, allows for individual and collective concept development, and has been successfully applied in co-design scenarios (Garde and van der Voort, 2016, Roos, 2018). The success of any LSP session is in the formation of the questions. We believe that it is only by asking the right – and difficult - questions that the norms of the industry can be disrupted and can be envisioned at a personal, professional and collective level.
Hence, the workshop aims to:
- Expand participants’ understanding of Lego® Serious Play® and metaphor as a systems design-based approach
- Explore participants’ personal relationship with fashion products and fashion retail experiences
- Foster co-design for sustainable fashion through interactive play facilitated through Lego® Serious Play®
- Encourage participants to reflect on a range of sustainable fashion prefigurations and scenarios
Fairer fashion by design: Visioning sustainability with Lego® Serious Play®
1: Ravensbourne University London, United Kingdom; 2: London College of Fashion, University of the Arts London
Quantum Computing is a field at the cutting edge of computer science. Yet, an understanding of the basic mechanics of this domain remains confined to a relatively small group of experts across the world. With this Exploration, we pose the question: what might the field of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) have to offer Quantum Computing in terms of learnability and engagement? Grounded in our teams’ nascent research and design work in this space, this Exploration will extend an invitation to academics, designers, and other practitioners to explore the opportunities for HCI practices to support better learning and engagement outcomes within the field of quantum computing. Specifically, participants will be invited to explore how the properties of physical materials (e.g. weight, texture, movement, magnetism) might be utilised to represent the highly abstract and often unintuitive principles of quantum computing concepts and make them more understandable to the average person.
The Exploration will start with an overview of the basic concepts of quantum computing. This will be followed by a hands-on investigation into the use of provided physical materials to represent these concepts. Rapid prototyping and open exploration will be encouraged. Rather than aiming to develop fully-realised learning tools or strategies, we instead will open a dialogue within the DRS community to investigate early design concepts and potential avenues for physically capturing and representing the qualities of quantum materials.
What Does a Qubit Feel Like? An Exploration into Making Quantum Computing Tangible
Munster Technological University, Ireland
This exploration investigates how common interaction framings with generative AI shape design research practice, specifically reflecting on the following hypotheses:
- Personification as a variable: Does anthropomorphising and addressing AI as a “persona” (social actor) versus as an “impersonal tool” change designers’ willingness to challenge outputs, attribute authorship, and maintain accountability? (Hsieh & Lee, 2024)
- Modes of co-intelligence: How do different “co-intelligence modes” (e. g., AI as coach, co-worker, creative partner or tool) alter ideation trajectories, decision points, and the distribution of agency in design work? (Mollick, 2024; Doshi & Hauser, 2024).
- After-AI practice: What remains of a design workflow when AI is restricted or removed, and what tactics help designers “unmake” AI’s influence while preserving designerly judgement? (Choi, 2024; Zhang, 2025).
The session has three main objectives:
- First, it aims to produce a comparative, practice-based account of how different framings of generative AI reshape design thinking, authorship, and accountability during co-creation.
- Second, it seeks to generate reusable research artefacts – such as templates, prompt protocols, agency & accountability maps, and co-/unmaking pipeline maps – that other researchers and practitioners can adopt, critique, and extend.
- Third, it is designed to bridge affirmation and critique by making visible what AI enables in design work, what it curtails or distorts, where it fails, and how its influence can be decentred through explicit “unmaking” practices.
Co-Intelligence: AI as a Persona or a Tool? Agency and Accountability in Human–AI Co-Creation
Academy of Fine Arts and Design in Bratislava, Slovak Republic
This lunch meet-up warmly welcomes conversations and productive tensions around design philosophy — from ontological, epistemological, methodological, and axiological angles, and any others you bring.
Rural craft practices represent a rich source of cultural heritage and traditional knowledge that is embedded in the lives and economies of rural communities. However, these craft practices, often face significant challenges. They are typically under-resourced, with many makers struggling to achieve a sustainable livelihood from their craft. This could lead to these craft skills disappearing due to a lack of inter-generational transmission. In addition, rural craft makers often work in isolated environments, which can impact their access to broader markets, or they may find it difficult to actively engage in collaborative endeavours and skill sharing. This precarious situation calls for innovative solutions and dedicated outreach initiatives. Proposed here, is the organisation of a rural craft workshop aimed at fostering access to and engagement with traditional rural crafts. The primary goals of this workshop are to revitalise these rural crafts, to facilitate the exchange and sharing of craft skills, and to stimulate discussions on effective strategies for promoting and safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage of rural craft for future generations.
Research question:
In what ways can co-creation workshops contribute to the democratisation of participation in rural craft practices and the re-evaluation of value-creating practices within less-explored craft sectors?
Objectives:
- To examine co-creation workshops as a design research method for investigating the sustainability and future trajectories of rural craft practices, with particular attention to how embodied and material forms of making can generate and critically reflect on knowledge beyond textual formats.
- To explore how co-crafting processes can contribute to the democratisation of access to rural craft knowledge, enabling participants from diverse disciplinary and cultural backgrounds to engage with and re-evaluate less-represented rural craft practices and their associated values.
- To generate non-textual research outputs suitable for the DRS Digital Library, including craft artefacts and visuals or reflective materials that document how craft knowledge emerges through material engagement and co-creation, so that it can be shared and revisited by the wider design research community.
Co-Crafting through Rural Craft: Exploring Material Engagement as Knowledge Production through Willow Weaving, Natural Plant Dyeing, and Textile Weaving
The University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
