Conference Agenda

Data has emerged as a fundamental driver of value creation within design processes, shaping economic, ethical, and environmental outcomes across societies and socio-technical systems. Existing scholarship often frames value in binary terms of co-creation and co-destruction, overlooking the systemic complexities introduced by interconnected, data-intensive systems. This paper introduces the novel concept of value co-displacement to capture how alternative forms of value emerge and displace others within human–data interaction. Drawing on four design research case studies, we investigate how value and values are co-created, co-displaced, and co-destroyed across interconnected, data-intensive systems. We develop a framework that conceptualises the dynamic interplay of these processes, demonstrating how design actively redistributes value across socio-technical contexts. This contribution advances a more nuanced understanding of value as dynamic, contested, and relational, highlighting the need for more reflexive and responsible approaches to data-driven design.

Design for Values (DfV) offers a robust approach for embedding values into technology, yet practitioners often face a “principles-to-practice gap” due to a lack of methodological guidance. To bridge this gap, an operational framework is developed, connecting abstract design processes with concrete practical methods. Through a systematic literature review, this research identifies 47 specific methods that explicitly support DfV practice. These methods are analysed from four dimensions—source discipline, methodological nature, operational characteristic, and practical purpose—to map the current DfV methodological landscape. This analysis informs the construction of a six-stage framework integrated with the Double Diamond model: discover, manage conflicts, conceptualise, translate, verify, and monitor. The 47 methods are mapped to their corresponding stages in the framework. The resulting “method map” enhances the practical guidance of DfV by providing clear navigation and highlighting critical methodological gaps for future research directions.

Value has been conceptualized differently across disciplines, while the negotiation of values is inherent to design collaboration. In many multidisciplinary design projects, professionals struggle to articulate or align values due to disciplinary differences, limited value awareness, and imbalanced value prioritisation, which can lead to communication difficulties or even collaboration failure. Reconciling diverse values and underlying motivations is therefore essential. This paper explores how structured dialogue can help participants in multidisciplinary design teams work towards value reconciliation. Using a qualitative approach, six structured value dialogues involving twenty participants were conducted, followed by twenty post-dialogue interviews to capture participants’ reflections. The findings reveal that structured value dialogue helped participants become more aware of their own values as well as those of others. By recognizing value differences and reinterpreting value tensions, participants developed a basis for value reconciliation, thereby fostering more conscious and cooperative communication within their multidisciplinary design practice.

The adoption of generative AI in heritage storytelling has revealed hidden tensions among stakeholders due to competing values. To investigate how design research can negotiate values differences, we conducted a three-session qualitative study surrounding the “Kawagoe Festival” in a bottom-up, three stakeholder-group setting. Session 1 used photo-elicitation to ground memories; Session 2 adopted human–AI image co-creation to explore past representations and speculative futures; while Session 3 facilitated reflective discussion. Grounded theory analysis identifies three values shaping GenAI-mediated co-creation: authenticity as a symbolic baseline, vividness as the enrichment of remembered details, and engagement as enabler of iterative, playful participation. Stakeholders balanced these values differently, thereby demonstrating AI mediation’s multiple affordances. GenAI promoted value transparency, yet also led to group polarisation when competing values such as authenticity and engagement collided. The study contributes a framework for value negotiation and offers design implications for socially engaged AI.

Local news sustains democratic life by connecting citizens to community issues and fostering public deliberation. Yet the global phenomenon of Local News Desertification—the decline of trustworthy local media—has weakened civic discourse, civic knowledge, and collective belonging in local areas. Citizen-participatory journalism enables citizens to report and interpret local issues; however, conventional newsroom hierarchies and insufficient support for community participants without formal journalistic training hinder its democratic potential. This study frames that tension as a Participatory Design (PD) problem concerning power and imbalanced agency in sociotechnical news systems. Through a PD process, the study develops a citizen–AI participatory journalism model that enables citizens to democratically produce, verify, and publish local news with AI-assisted support and humans' collaborative judgment. The findings contribute a framework for Community News Resilience and a value-sensitive design approach that democratizes local information ecosystems through citizen–AI collaboration for future participatory journalism.

Conventional impact assessment tools can overlook subtle sensory, cognitive and interpersonal transformations experienced in participatory design and making interventions by focusing on metrics, often retrospectively, rather than facilitating shared dialogue-based learning. The process of designing the QUILT toolkit discussed in this paper is anchored in a values-based approach that aims to prioritise participant-led narratives of discovery and change. Working with seven researcher-practitioners undertaking active projects in varied interdisciplinary and socially engaged design and making contexts, and their participant groups, we designed and tested questions, presented as a set of cards, for prompting dialogue and co-reflection. Findings highlight a) the significance of moving away from extractive transactions towards reciprocity in generating deeper understandings of impact, and b) the importance of attending to impact emerging at different stages of a project. The paper concludes that designing for impact should aim to be a reciprocal process maximising learning for both participants and researchers.