Conference Agenda

This study confronts the theoretical challenges arising from the increasing practical overlap of Participatory Design (PD) and Co-Design. Existing research, largely confined to method comparisons, lacks an ontological perspective capable of explaining its underlying integrative mechanisms. To address this critical gap, this paper argues for a fundamental ontological shift. We introduce the concept of 'generative events' as the basic ontological unit of design, a concept constructed by synthesising Object-Oriented Design Ontology (OODO) with Process Ontology. This framework reframes design as a dynamic generative process where humans and non-human objects collaboratively construct relationships and meaning within specific contexts. The contribution of this research is to provide a unified theoretical foundation for understanding the fusion of PD and Co-Design, and it proposes a crucial methodological paradigm shift from a 'tool logic' to an 'event logic'. By doing so, this paper develops non-human centred methods and the ontological deepening of 'design as research'.

Design cognition is often described through a heuristics-and-biases lens that foregrounds systematic errors such as anchoring, fixation, and premature narrowing. Yet in professional practice, the same patterns may function as adaptive strategies for coping with ambiguity, constraint, and ill-defined problems. This paper examines how bias-like tendencies appear in expert data visualization work using a multi-phase qualitative study with 11 professional designers. We analyze situated episodes through two contrastive interpretive lenses: a bias lens that highlights potential distortions, and an adaptive-expertise lens that treats the same tendencies as resource-rational strategies. We situate these interpretations within a broader design cognition perspective, drawing on concepts such as framing, problem–solution co-evolution, and judgment. Our findings show that putative biases often enable tractable progress and sensemaking under bounded project conditions. We argue for a context-sensitive account of cognitive bias in design and discuss implications for theory, methods, and education.

Across contemporary design practice, an attitude has been consolidating design as diffractive sensemaking. It is not method- or outcome-oriented, nor even necessarily a discipline, but a habit of attention in which fragments, measures and memories, timings and routines, infrastructures and more-than-human traces are placed so they read through one another to develop conscious, situated practices. Often grounded in research practice, these approaches lead to diverse outcomes. In all of them, an ecosophic orientation keeps environmental, social and mental ecologies mutually in play without collapsing them into a single index or metric. In such practices, care appears as activism: framing, positioning, staging, doing and returning keep obligations alive beyond the designed event. Drawing on a diffractive reading of theory and exemplary practices, the article offers a compact synthesis that clarifies design’s role as situated diffractive sensemaking, making worlds more thinkable and, on that basis, more livable and answerable.

In today's world, AI technology is reshaping design practice. The modern design cognition is shifting from Cartesian disembodied rationality to phenomenological embodied intuition. This study draws on Nigel Cross's research on design thinking and the concept of “Shensi” from traditional Chinese aesthetics. It reveals the embodied essence of design cognition as a dynamic network of body, technology, and environment. This network reconfigures design problems, structures, and meanings. By comparing "Shensi" (embodied, intuitive, humanistic) with AI-mediated design (logical, data-driven, efficient), this study proposes a new design paradigm based on Eastern wisdom to broaden theoretical understanding of design cognition.

Design epistemology has long been divided by apparent dualities, such as science versus art and rationality versus intuition, which resist resolution within existing frameworks. This paper argues these are false dichotomies and that Critical Rationalism (Popper, 1963/2002, 1972; Deutsch, 1997, 2011) provides a universal account of knowledge creation that explains the distinctive character of design without requiring a separate epistemology. Knowledge is conjectural and fallible: progress occurs not through justification or verification, but through iterative creative conjecture and — crucially — error-correction via criticism. Deutsch's account of knowledge as physically instantiated information, subject to the same logic of variation and error-correction found in computation and biological evolution, further clarifies how design knowledge is created and improved. Comparison with pragmatism, constructivism, and phenomenology shows that each captures important features of design but none adequately explains how objective progress occurs. Implications for design practice, education, and research methodology are explored.

This paper argues that the question “How does the awareness of material sustainability change perceptions of aesthetics?” requires an interactionist framework from philosophical aesthetics, against both eliminativist and formalist models. Without treating materials as morally valuable entities, there is no room to integrate the ethical dimension into aesthetic evaluation. However, the question can be inverted, since aesthetic perceptions also contribute to how we ethically treat materials. Central to the argument is the claim that aesthetic properties, by virtue of their affective character, are partly constitutive of the moral dimension of visual representations, not mere embellishments but active elements in shaping ethical evaluation of materials. The framework is illustrated through analysis of visual strategies in fashion communication, examining how aesthetic smoke-screens occlude material ethics and how counter-images foster fine observation. Implications for design research and practice are discussed