12  Dilemma-thinking as a means to enhance criticality in design for wellbeing

Deger Ozkaramanli

Design for wellbeing is intricately linked to handling complex societal challenges through design. Wellbeing-oriented design approaches, such as social design (Tromp, 2013), persuasive technologies (e.g., Fogg, 2003) or positive design (Desmet & Pohlmeyer, 2013), are often applied in domains such as social exclusion, obesity, mental ill-health, online privacy or the refugee crisis. However, societal challenges are unanticipatedly complex requiring interdisciplinary expertise, as well as the ability to bridge and make sense out of such interdisciplinary expertise. As a result, an increased attention to the notions of critique and criticality is needed when tackling societal challenges in the context of design for wellbeing. Following Butler (2001), critique can be defined as the mode of purposive and reflective questioning that seeks to identify the familiar and unchallenged thoughts and assumptions that underlie accepted practices, i.e., seeing what lies beneath the surface.

A number of design approaches have recently emerged that place criticality at the centre of their activities – they will be referred to as ‘critical design approaches’ in this chapter. Among these are critical and speculative design (Dunne & Raby, 2013), adversarial design (DiSalvo, 2012) and reflective design (Sengers et al., 2005). These approaches, despite important nuances in their practices, converge at the main aim of raising questions and stimulating critical reflection and debate, among designers and users alike, about the implicit values and assumptions that drive the agenda of existing design practices. Because of this, they act as an ‘inward-looking’ mechanism that question and critique the state of existing design practices, i.e., the ‘status quo’ (Malpass, 2017; Bardzell & Bardzell, 2013; Dunne & Raby, 2013). The ideologies underpinning these approaches can in fact be traced back to radical design practices that originated in Italy in the 1950s (Malpass, 2017). However, only recently have critical design approaches started receiving scholarly attention (see Bardzell & Bardzell, 2013). This arguably reflects the increasing need for critique in the socially and ethically expanding landscape of design research.

The way critical design approaches place criticality at the heart of their practices can inform and enhance design for wellbeing approaches, particularly approaches that aim for societal wellbeing by influencing people’s experiences, attitudes and behaviour. The aim of this chapter, therefore, is to expand on the value of critique in the context of designing in order to address societal challenges and to propose three criticality skills that can support framing societal challenges in design. The proposition here is that developing a critical design practice can support handling the complexity of societal challenges, and, thus, increase the chance of designing meaningful interventions that contribute to wellbeing. The first part of this chapter aims to position criticality as a way of thinking that can pervade all design activities instead of being considered an isolated method or style of designing. The second part focuses on the need for criticality when addressing societal challenges. Finally, the third part explores the intimate link between criticality and dilemmas, proposing that dilemma-driven design can be used as an approach to catalyse criticality in design. Based on this understanding, three skills are proposed to enhance criticality in design activities.

This chapter builds on previous work in which three ideation strategies (i.e., embodying symbols, forced choices and behavioural barriers) were proposed that could be used to trigger emotional dilemmas as a means to design for provocation (Ozkaramanli & Desmet, 2016). Implementing these strategies in idea generation revealed that designers, who are trained in a creative problem-solving type of tradition, may find it challenging to adopt the nature of reasoning necessary to design for provocation (Ozkaramanli & Desmet, 2016). This outcome indicates that critical design approaches require a distinct mindset and skills, as suggested by Dunne and Raby (2013, p. 34): ‘It [critical design] was more of an attitude than anything else, a position rather than a methodology’. This chapter is a step towards uncovering what that critical mindset can be and the role of dilemmas in supporting it.

Critical design vs criticality in design

Critical design, a term originally coined by Dunne and Raby (2013), emphasises a distinction between ‘affirmative’ design practices that reinforce the status quo defined by global capitalism and ‘critical’ design practices that subvert this status quo. The main intention of critical design is to examine and critique design through design, i.e., to critique market thinking that dominates existing design practices through hypothetical design concepts that embody this critique. This is a noble and valuable intention that can be expanded upon in a number of ways.

First, the emergence of wellbeing-oriented design approaches has blurred the affirmative/critical divide. Many examples of wellbeing-oriented design prioritise individual and societal wellbeing over profitability (see Desmet, Pohlmeyer & Forlizzi, 2013). In that sense, design for wellbeing practices can be considered critical to the extent that they reassess design’s priorities, and affirmative to the extent that they can be commercialised and adopted by the masses. Related to this, Bardzell and Bardzell (2013, p. 8) noted: ‘A design is critical inasmuch as some aspect of it critiques the status quo, and it is affirmative inasmuch as it affirms the status quo; that is, any given design may be both affirmative and critical.’ Second, criticality consists of a multitude of perspectives that go beyond global capitalism. When reformulating critical design approaches, Bardzell and Bardzell (2013) proposed a more holistic understanding of critical thought, borrowing from critical theory and literary criticism. Among these are matters of gender, race, class, sexuality, religion, education and other social dynamics (Tyson, 2014). These critical perspectives can be leveraged to a wide range of design practices, including those in design for wellbeing. As a result, criticality is a way of thinking that can infuse and enhance any design activity (versus being a specific method or a style of designing).

The need for criticality in design for wellbeing

Every intellectual endeavour that aspires to ‘change the social world for the better’, which essentially applies to design for wellbeing, can benefit from ‘inward-looking’ mechanisms to critically examine the values and assumptions underlying its activities. In humanities and social sciences, critical theory-based approaches have a long history. For example, critical approaches to international law focus on the possible biases and blind spots of international law and its role in propagating unequal global power relations (see Schwöbel-Patel, 2014). This debate is not as far off from critical design approaches as one may think. In ‘International Law’s Objects’, Schwöbel-Patel and Werner (2017) investigate the screen as an object that symbolises how media displays societal challenges (e.g., the refugee crisis) in a way that hides aspects of the problem presumably unsuited for public debate. In addition, critical marketing challenges institutional relationships that solely focus on the satisfaction of the customer (see Saren et al., 2007). These critical standpoints welcome the discomfort of dealing with societal tensions, unexamined power relationships and disputed interests. Having such perspectives in design can help establish an intellectual space motivated by the need for critique (versus the need for monetary gain or for technological advancement that often dominate existing design practices, see Malpass, 2017). When applied to design for wellbeing, such an intellectual space can create room for questioning various conceptualisations of wellbeing (e.g., from the perspectives of age, gender, sexuality and so on) and how these conceptualisations inform design practices.

In addition, design has become increasingly more sensitive to complex societal challenges, such as the refugee crisis (see Margolin & Margolin, 2002; Tromp, 2013). Handling this complexity can greatly benefit from critical perspectives that help questioning design decisions and the implications of proposed design interventions for societal wellbeing. Societal challenges are often unanticipatedly complex. They have historical roots and unforeseen consequences that influence society at many levels. In addition, they often involve political agendas, power struggles and emotional tensions. As a result, approaching these challenges in the same way one would traditionally approach a design brief may prove to be a futile, or even damaging, effort unless creative problem-solving skills are coupled with criticality skills. This is evidenced in Pater’s (2016) reaction to a design competition launched to address the refugee crisis, which stated:

Pater’s (2016) reluctance to position design as the ‘solution’ to such a complex societal issue deserves attention for several reasons. First, addressing societal challenges through design requires holistic/systems thinking and collaboration among governments, non-profit organisations and experts across a variety of disciplines. This point has also been articulated by Siegel and Beck (2014) when outlining a theory of slow change in interaction design. Siegel and Beck (2014) stated that problems have histories and futures, and they relate to other problems that permeate individual, community and global levels. Second, left to their own devices, novice designers may fall short of responses to various political, economic, ethical and cultural questions that arise in the context of such issues. These questions require critical thinking, which is not always sufficiently emphasised in educational contexts as is, for example, market thinking. Third, societal challenges are often morally loaded subjects. The refugee crisis, for instance, receives wide media coverage; it often gets associated with even more morally loaded subjects such as terrorism, and it affects the political landscape of many countries in shocking ways. Because of this, falling into ethical biases when designing to address such challenges seems inevitable.

The aforementioned challenges indicate that much is left to designers’ intuition, empathic capacity and worldview when striving to adopt a viable approach to contribute to societal wellbeing. Should industrial design avoid addressing complex societal challenges then? An example may help to answer this question. In November 2016, the replica of a Syrian home was set up in an IKEA store to create a stark contrast between the cosy idea of a Western house and a house affected by the horrors of war (see Figure 12.1). The set-up was part of a Red Cross fundraising campaign in Norway. One can imagine that, upon an unexpected encounter with the Syrian home, a shopper would be confronted with their own privileged position. The execution of this idea (e.g., whether stereotypical representations of refugees were used or the vulnerability of women and children was exploited) is as crucial as its intention in qualifying it as critical design. If we strictly focus on the context of the intervention, however, encountering this intervention at the heart of commercial design (i.e., an IKEA store) may be considered a clever choice in stimulating critical reflection. As the example illustrates, design can (and should) aim to tackle societal challenges and, in doing so, every effort should be made to remain critically engaged with the process and outcome of designing.

fig12.1

Figure 12.1  Photo of 25 m2 Syria project.

Dilemma-driven design as a catalyst for criticality

Engaging in critical design practices can be very challenging for those who are inspired by it, but do not have a background or training in realising their intentions. The work on critical design offers little information about the process of designing critically. For instance, Dunne and Raby (2013) clarify the main goals of critical design and provide many inspiring design examples, but they rarely provide reference to the theory and decisions that informed these examples. In fact, the focus of critical design mostly lies with the subject of design rather than the process of designing (Bardzell & Bardzell, 2013). This is unfortunate considering the value of criticality for design practice: to make people, including product users and designers, more critical about the values, norms, assumptions and power relationships that shape products and services used in everyday life. As a result, conceptual and methodological handles are needed to engage with critical design processes.

One way of engaging in critical design practices is to explicitly focus on triggering dilemmas (Ozkaramanli & Desmet, 2016). In fact, examples of critical design often stimulate dilemmas to encourage reinterpretation of sociocultural norms and practices (see Malpass, 2012, p. 186; Dunne & Ruby, 2013, p. 89; Bardzell et al., 2012). This shared appreciation of the dilemma phenomenon links critical design practices to dilemma-driven design (DDD). DDD considers the emotional dilemmas of end-users as fruitful starting points for user-centred design activities (Ozkaramanli, 2017). In the context of DDD, dilemmas are defined as the realisation that one cannot simultaneously engage in two behavioural alternatives, which are guided by contradictory desires, motives or personal values (Ozkaramanli, Desmet & Özcan, 2016). Dilemmas often produce discomfort as they evoke difficult emotions such as doubt, anxiety or anticipated regret. This discomfort, however, serves an important function: it slows down mental processes to collect information for making informed choices (Fleming, 2014). In transformative learning theories, experiencing a dilemma is considered a crucial starting point for critical reflection (Mezirow, 1990). On this, Mezirow (1990, p. 2) notes:

Here, the distinction between reflection and critical reflection is important, as the latter emphasises an element of critique as in ‘challenging the validity of presuppositions in prior learning’ (Mezirow, 1990, p. 4). Due to this relationship between dilemmas and criticality, DDD can provide methodological guidance on critical design processes.

Based on the relationship between dilemmas and criticality, triggering dilemmas through products can be a means to doing critical design (Ozkaramanli & Desmet, 2016). A good example of critical design that surfaces dilemmas is ‘New-born Fame’ by Laura Cornet in Figure 12.2a. It is a set of toys, which is attached to a baby’s crib, takes random photos of the baby and posts them on social media platforms. The function of ‘New-born Fame’ goes beyond the practical functionality of a playful object. Although it exhibits the properties of a regular toy, it deploys these properties to invite the viewer to think critically about the matter of online privacy. In doing so, ‘New-born Fame’ reveals various dilemmas such as:

fig12.2

Figure 12.2  a. Photo of ‘New-born Fame’. b. Framework of dilemmas for designers illustrating the dilemma of security vs belonging.

Source: a) photo courtesy of the designer; b) adapted from Ozkaramanli, 2017.

Figure 12.2b illustrates this example dilemma using the framework of dilemmas for designers (see Ozkaramanli, 2017). This framework serves as an analytical tool to structure and reflect on the deeply held motivations and emotions that underlie a dilemma, and, thus, it encourages reflection and discussion about the implications of design decisions (Ozkaramanli, 2017).

The reflective questioning facilitated by analysing dilemmas can enhance criticality when tackling societal challenges. This way of reflective questioning is particularly relevant for the problem-framing phase of the design process. Traditionally, the evolution of the problem and the solution go hand-in-hand, where the development of solutions adds to the understanding of the problem until ‘the feeling of having grasped the core of the problem’ is reached (Dorst & Cross, 2001, p. 436). As critique is about raising questions instead of finding solutions, the interest in critical design practices lies with lingering in the problem space. The goal here is to approach the problem from different perspectives and to find alternative ways of framing the problem through critical thinking and reflective questioning (e.g., Does the problem involve hidden agendas and power struggles among different stakeholders? Am I interpreting this problem, knowingly or unknowingly, in an elitist way?). These questions are likely to evoke numerous dilemmas, which may generate discomfort – the feeling of grasping the core of the problem, as suggested by Dorst and Cross (2001), may never be achieved. As a result, lingering in the problem space can be characterised by finding comfort in the discomfort of dilemmas. Three main criticality skills can be learned and nurtured to fuel this process, namely:

  1. (1) critical reflection;
  2. (2) systemic thinking;
  3. (3) suspending moral judgement.

The following paragraphs explain these skills and suggest preliminary practices through which they can be cultivated.

Critical reflection

Reflection is a core element of critical design approaches. In critical design, critical thinking is about ‘not taking things for granted and always questioning what is given’ (Dunne & Raby, 2013, p. 35). In reflective design, reflection is defined as ‘bringing unconscious aspects of experience to conscious awareness, thereby making them available for conscious choice’ (Sengers et al., 2005, p. 50). Slow technology is a design philosophy that places increased emphasis on time and presence in interaction as a means to engage users in reflection (Hallnäs & Redström, 2001). These definitions align with the reflective practice paradigm pioneered by Schön (1991), in which reflection in and on action form the basis of all types of design decisions (e.g., technical, creative, aesthetic and so on). In critical design, reflection has an added element of critique, which shifts the attention to critical reflection as defined by Mezirow (1990, p. 14):

A good starting point to foster critical reflection is to make it a routine exercise to structurally analyse existing designs. For this, Ferri et al. (2014) suggested four tactics to analyse critical designs based on semiotic analysis, namely thematic blending, semantic shifts, social transgression and body modification. In addition, Bardzell et al. (2014) proposed a matrix of common argument types, which is composed of six dimensions of interaction design (i.e., topic, purpose, functionality, interactivity, form, materiality) and four dimensions of criticality (i.e., changing perspectives, proposals for change, enhancing appreciation and reflectiveness). This matrix is intended to bring clarity in the form of justifiable arguments as to what makes a specific design an example of critical design (see Bardzell et al., 2014). Finally, Tyson (2014) suggested a set of reflective questions for each of the leading theoretical frameworks in literary critical theory (e.g., psychoanalytic criticism, Marxist criticism and postcolonial criticism), which can be used to analyse and unpack the hidden values and assumptions in literary texts. Some of these critical lenses can be adapted to reading existing designs in order to fine-tune criticality skills. Presumably, this starts as a conscious and effortful process, and gradually becomes embedded in everyday practice. Developing a critically reflective design practice can consequently support handling the complexity of societal challenges and increase the chance of designing meaningful interventions that enhance societal wellbeing.

Systemic thinking

Design problems are defined as wicked problems, characterised by unclear formulations, malleable goals and multiple possible solutions and solution paths (Simon, 1973). This ‘wickedness’ becomes even more challenging in the context of addressing complex societal issues. This is because any design intervention proposed to alleviate the problem eventually has to fit back into an interdisciplinary system in which the problem is situated. For instance, ‘Reframe Refugees’ is an intervention that was one of the five shortlisted designs of the 2016 What Design Can Do’s Refugee Challenge.1 It is an online platform that enables refugees to sell their own photographs to media companies to raise money for selected charities. The designers of ‘Reframe Refugees’ have placed self-representation and empowerment at the core of their design concept. The design concept has attracted many positive comments from the public, including refugees themselves. Although self-representation can be a powerful stance in combatting stereotypical representations of refugees, the hidden assumption here seems to be that refugees are aware of and ready to challenge their own stereotypical representations in powerful media channels – which may or may not hold true for distressed communities. The intention here is not to claim that ‘Reframe Refugees’ is unaspiring or unhelpful. A point to be taken is that, when faced with complex issues such as the refugee crisis, designers should seek to understand different parts of the system in which the problem is situated and how these parts relate to the whole of the system (e.g., how media companies benefit from using stereotypical images of refugees). This skill is an integral part of systemic thinking (Siegel & Beck, 2014).

As critical design approaches are interested in exposing the hidden relationships among different parts of the system, embracing and unpacking the complexity of systemic problems becomes a useful skill. A valuable starting point to foster this skill is to adopt participatory design principles and collaborative interdisciplinary practices. Open collaborations potentially raise conflicting needs and interests (i.e., dilemmas) within and between stakeholders. If managed productively, these dilemmas can generate a nuanced understanding of multiple, and potentially conflicting, perspectives of the stakeholders. For this, ‘framework of dilemmas’ (see Figure 12.2b) can serve as an analytical tool to reflect on these dilemmas (Ozkaramanli, Desmet & Özcan, 2016). Such reflection involves identifying the needs, goals and values underpinning the dilemmas in the context of the collaboration and reframing the design problem from multiple perspectives. Although the framework of dilemmas was developed in the context of intrapersonal dilemmas (e.g., health vs indulgence, belonging vs autonomy), it can be adapted to analysing interpersonal dilemmas (e.g., dilemmas among various stakeholders). The critical design objects can consequently be physical manifestations of this dialogue and its dilemmas.

Suspending moral judgement

The process of designing involves making ethical decisions (Lloyd, 2009; Verbeek, 2006). These decisions can be made implicitly when they are intertwined with other decisions, such as technical or aesthetic considerations that shape the design outcome (Lloyd, 2009). With the growing complexity and interdisciplinarity of design problems, however, the need to facilitate explicit ethical decision-making has increased (Lloyd & Poel, 2008). For instance, in the context of design for behaviour change, the designer makes an explicit decision to adopt an ethical stance right from the outset of the design process (e.g., to motivate responsible driving) (Tromp, 2013, p. 33). This stance is reflected in the product–person relationship in the form of a ‘script’ (Verbeek, 2006; Tromp 2013, p. 30). To cite an often-used example, a speed bump has the script, ‘slow down when you approach me’ (Verbeek, 2006, p. 366). As a result, ethical considerations of designers get materialised in products in a manner that influences how people act and feel in everyday environments.

In critical design practices, similar to designing for behaviour change, the ethical stance of the designer is often clear from the outset. However, unlike behaviour-change interventions, critical designs intend to inform behavioural choices instead of steering them in a socially desired direction (Ozkaramanli & Desmet, 2016). For instance, the designer of ‘New-born Fame’ (Figure 12.2a) intended to raise awareness about the issue of online privacy, without suggesting either behavioural choice (sharing vs not sharing baby photos on social media) as the desired alternative. The challenge here is to remove one’s own intuitive sense of ‘right or wrong’ from the way the design is executed. In this way, the designer exposes the reasoning behind each behavioural alternative to create space for a discourse that can accommodate multiple behavioural choices and, thus, multiple viewpoints. This means that the design needs to afford behavioural choices that the designer may not morally agree with, which requires suspending one’s moral judgement on the topic. For instance, ‘New-born Fame’ (Figure 12.2a) may in fact be used to share baby photos by extreme social media users. Although this does not seem to align with the moral starting point of the designer, it serves to accommodate the viewpoint of extreme social media users in the dialogue ‘New-born Fame’ intends to stimulate.

Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter was to establish the value of critique and critical design approaches in the context of designing to address societal challenges. Addressing issues of societal relevance, such as mental health issues, online privacy or the refugee crisis, is an integral part of design for wellbeing. Handling the complexity of societal challenges requires a skilful blending of interdisciplinary expertise, which can be supported by a critical mindset. The first part of this chapter provided an expanded definition of the term ‘critical’ in design, positioning criticality as a skill that can be learned and nurtured rather than a specific way or style of designing. The second part of the chapter elaborated on the benefits of critique in addressing societal challenges, suggesting that designing wellbeing-relevant interventions requires a combination of creative problem-solving and criticality skills. The third part of this chapter introduced dilemma-driven design as an approach to embed criticality in design activities through analysing the connection between criticality and dilemmas. Drawing from this connection, three criticality skills have been proposed, namely, critical reflection, systemic thinking and suspending moral judgement, in order to support criticality in design. These skills indicate that the development of criticality relies heavily on interdisciplinary thinking. Therefore, this chapter can be regarded as an invitation to increase interdisciplinary collaboration in design research and practice, and, in doing so, maintaining a critical attitude.

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Dr Christine Schwöbel-Patel for her valuable feedback on earlier versions of this chapter, the designers who kindly shared the images of their work, and the delegates and organisers of Critical By Design conference who, through valuable discussions and lectures, contributed to the insights in this chapter.2

Notes

References

  1. Bardzell, J., & Bardzell, S. (2013). What is critical about critical design? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3297–3306), Paris. New York, NY: ACM Press.
  2. Bardzell, J., Bardzell, S., & Stolterman, E. (2014). Reading critical designs: Supporting reasoned interpretations of critical design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1951–1960), Toronto. New York, NY: ACM Press.
  3. Bardzell, S., Bardzell, J., Forlizzi, J., Zimmerman, J., & Antanitis, J. (2012). Critical design and critical theory: The challenge of designing for provocation. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference: In The Wild (pp. 288–297), New Castle. New York, NY: ACM Press.
  4. Butler, J. (2001). What is Critique? An Essay on Foucault’s Virtue. European Institute for Progressive Cultural Policies. Available from: http://eipcp.net/transversal/0806/butler/en [Accessed 29 May 2018].
  5. Desmet, P.M.A., & Pohlmeyer, A.E. (2013). Positive design: An introduction to design for subjective well-being. International Journal of Design, 7(3), 5–19.
  6. Desmet, P.M.A., Pohlmeyer, A.E., & Forlizzi, J. (2013). Special issue editorial: Design for subjective well-being. International Journal of Design, 7(3), 1–3.
  7. DiSalvo, C. (2012). Adversarial Design. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  8. Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437.
  9. Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  10. Ferri, G., Bardzell, J., Bardzell, S., & Louraine, S. (2014). Analyzing critical designs: Categories, distinctions, and canons of exemplars. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 355–364), Vancouver. New York, NY: ACM Press.
  11. Fleming, S. (2014, 8 January). Hesitate! Aeon Magazine, [online]. Available from: https://aeon.co/essays/forget-being-boldly-decisive-let-your-brain-take-its-time [Accessed 19 December 2017].
  12. Fogg, B.J. (2003). Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Boston, MA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
  13. Hallnäs, L., & Redström, J. (2001). Slow technology – designing for reflection. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 5(3), 201–212.
  14. Lloyd, P. (2009). Ethical imagination and design. Design Studies, 30(2), 154–168.
  15. Lloyd, P., & Van De Poel, I. (2008). Designing games to teach ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(3), 433–447.
  16. Malpass, M. (2012). Contextualising Critical Design: Towards a Taxonomy of Critical Practice in Product Design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK.
  17. Malpass, M. (2017). Critical Design in Context: History, Theory, and Practices. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
  18. Margolin, V., & Margolin, S. (2002). A ‘social model’ of design: Issues of practice and research. Design Issues, 18(4), 24–30.
  19. Mezirow, J. (1990). How critical reflection triggers transformative learning. Fostering Critical Reflection in Adulthood, 1(20), 1–6.
  20. Ozkaramanli, D. (2017). Me Against Myself: Addressing Personal Dilemmas through Design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
  21. Ozkaramanli, D., & Desmet, P.M.A. (2016). Provocative design for unprovocative designers: Strategies for triggering personal dilemmas. In Proceedings of DRS 2016, Design Research Society 50th Anniversary Conference, Brighton, UK, 27–30 June.
  22. Ozkaramanli, D., Desmet, P.M.A., & Özcan, E. (2016). Beyond resolving dilemmas: Three design directions for addressing intrapersonal concern conflicts. Design Issues, 32(3), 78–91.
  23. Pater, R. (2016). Treating the refugee crisis as a design problem is problematic.Dezeen, [online]. Available from: https://www.dezeen.com/2016/04/21/ruben-pater-opinion-what-design-can-do-refugee-crisis-problematic-design/ [Accessed 19 December 2017].
  24. Saren, M., Maclaran, P., Goulding, C., Elliott, R., Shankar, A., & Catterall, M. (Eds.) (2007). Critical Marketing: Defining the Field. Amsterdam: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  25. Schön, D. (1991). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
  26. Schwöbel, C. (Ed.) (2014). Critical Approaches to International Criminal Law: An Introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
  27. Schwöbel-Patel, C., & Werner, W. (2017). The Screen as an object of international law. In Jessie Hohmann, & Daniel Joyce (Eds.), International Law’s Objects, OUP, Forthcoming. Available from: SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2966027
  28. Sengers, P., Boehner, K., David, S., & Kaye, J.J. (2005). Reflective design. In Proceedings of the 4th Decennial Conference on Critical Computing: Between Sense and Sensibility (pp. 49–58), Aarhus. New York, NY: ACM Press.
  29. Siegel, M.A., & Beck, J. (2014). Slow change interaction design. Interactions, 21(1), 28–35.
  30. Simon, H.A. (1973). The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4(3–4), 181–201.
  31. Tromp, N. (2013). Social Design. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
  32. Tyson, L. (2014). Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide. New York, NY: Routledge.
  33. Verbeek, P.P. (2006). Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 31(3), 361–380.
..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset