WORKSHOP THEMES

In recent years the role of social theory has received considerable attention in design research (e.g. Binder et al. 2011). In this context, Actor Network Theory (ANT) offers new interesting perspectives and concepts to explore the hybrid, relational and emergent nature of things. ANT also raises issues of design, participation and democracy that resonate with some of the traditional concerns in participatory design and conference theme: an ethnometodological eye on everyday practices, the collective dimension of and the different degrees of participation in construction processes, the distribution of power and authority, the political and normative dimension of design and technology, etc. In this sense, the links between ANT and PD are multiple and offers multiple occasions to appreciate ANT in PD (and possibly the other way around too). 

At a first level, ANT offers important analytical tools to explore and describe socio-technical settings to design for. A strong focus on ethnomethodology (Latour, 2005) and on following agency (Latour, 1987) with an explicit emphasis on the role of non-human actors, already offers useful perspectives to conceptualise settings, practices and stakeholders to inform the early stage of a design process (see for instance Stuedahl and Smørdal, 2011). 

At a second level, ANT has exposed to analysis design processes themselves (Law, 1992; Latour, 1987, 1996; Houdard, 2008; Yaneva 2005; Wilkie and Michael, 2009; Storni, 2010). Here ANT provides a rich and interesting analytical framework and methodological tools capable of producing new accounts of design practices contributing to the ability of the designer to reflect on their own actions and theory (Schon, 1987): design as a translation process where heterogeneous elements are associated and juxtaposed; design as the process of inscribing scripts into the design objects (Akrich, 1992) thus configuring a specific idea of the user (Woolgar, 1991), or as the place where what designs and what is designed mutually shape one another (Yaneva, 2008; Storni, 2012).

At yet another level, ANT’s concerns with democracy and participation in techno-science constitute important allies for the PD agenda and bring novel languages and models to unpack and manage techno-democratic processes (Latour, 2004, Callon et al. 2009) as well as a set of tools and practices to explore participation in public matters. In this ambit, ANT- based studies has recently shown interest in information design and knowledge representation as resources to re-present techno-scientific controversies and their publics (Venturini, 2010). 

Design research and PD have already started to take advantage of the analytical power of ANT to re-think PD theories and methods. For instance, Ehn reflects on the concept of things and the idea of designing things (2008, see also Telier et al. 2011), Nickelsen and Binder (2008) found it useful to understand design practices as heterogeneous engineering, Galloway discussed designing in the parliament of things (2005), Storni used the notion of scripts and socio-technical assemblage to describe current innovation practices (Storni, 2009). Despite these early attempts, we believe that the relationship between ANT and PD has yet to offer its best.

GOAL AND OUTCOMES

By acknowledging an interest in this confluence of ideas, the workshop aims to explore and further discuss how ANT is used and can contribute to PD, and what are its implications for PD theories and practices. The goal is to share participants’ experiences and facilitate the discussion by collaboratively mapping the workshop’s outcomes. 

SUBMISSIONS 

Participants are required to prepare a 2 pages contribution discussing their experience with ANT (with a focus on how ANT was used, in which context, and with what results) and send it to workshop organizers. We are seeking contributions such as, but not limited to:

1) ANT as descriptive tool for PD:

- ANT as descriptive tools supporting social investigation design research and design processes;

- Design as a translation process, and implications for the design and management of design processes;

- ANT to rethink the participation, design, methods and design objects at design- and use- time;

2) ANT as conceptual framework for PD:

- ANT’s to understand meta-design and appropriation involving networks and material-semiotics;

- Design, dasein, phenomenology and ANT;

- ANT and design as social experiment, critical design, design for debate and to make things public;

- ANT, Cautious Prometeus and the issue of re-presentation: the role of design in the Dingpolitik, and designing for the matter of concerns;

- Mapping controversies, mapping participations, mapping design: implications for PD.

3) ANT in PD education:

- How to use ANT as a pedagogical tool in design;

- How to use PD in ANT research.

A limited number of submissions will be accepted (20). Quality of contribution and the originality of the work are the main criteria for selection. The aim of this material is to support a short presentation and to enable group’s discussion.

SCHEDULE
After an introductory warming up, the workshop will be divided into two sessions (morning and afternoon) with short, prepared presentations and discussions with 15 minutes for each participant. Each presenter will be required to comment on at least one presentation. The workshop will end with a wrap-up discussion also addressing follow-up activities such as co-writing initiatives or a special issue. 

REFERENCES

Akrich, M. (1992). ‘The description of technical objects’ Bijker, W. E., Law, J. (eds) Shaping technology/building society, MIT Press, Cambridge

Akrich, M., Callon, M., Latour, B. (2002) The key to success of innovation: the art of interessment (Part 1), International Journal of Information Management, 6(2), 187-206 

Akrich, M., Callon, M., Latour, B. (2002) the key to success of innovation: the art of choosing a good spoken person (Part 2), International Journal of Information Management, 6(2), 207-225 

Binder, T. et al. (2011) Living the (co-design) Lab, Proc. of NORDIC Design Research Conference, Helsinki

Callon, M. Lascoumes, P. and Barther, Y. 2009. Acting in an uncertain world, an essay on technical democracy, MIT press, Cambridge 

Galloway, A. (2005) Designing in the parliament of things, presentation at Design Engaged, Berlin.

Ehn, P. (2008) Participation in design things, Proc. PDC 2008, 92-101

Latour, B. (1987) Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society, Harvard University Press, Harvard

Latour, B., (1996) Aramis, or the love of technology, Harvard, Harvard University Press

Latour, B. (2004) The politics of nature, Harvard, Harvard University Press

Latour, B. (2005) Reassempling the social, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Latour, B., and P. Weibel. (2005). Making things public, atmosphere of democracy, Cambridge, MIT Press.

Stuedahl, D. and Smørdal (2011) Rethinking museum assemblies, in Ciolfi, L., Scott, K., and Barbieri, S. (Eds.), Proc. of Re-thinking Technology in Museums 2011, University of Limerick.

Houdart, S. (2008). Copying, Cutting and Pasting Social Spheres: Designers’ Participation in Architectural Projects, Science Studies, 21(1): 47–63. 

Yaneva, A. (2005) Scaling Up and Down: Extraction Trials in Architectural Design. Social Studies of Science, 35(6): 867–94. 

Yaneva, A. (2008) “How Buildings ‘Surprise’: the Renovation of the Alte Aula in Vienna.” Science Studies, 21(1): 8–29.

Nickelsen, NC, and Binder, T. (2008) Design and heterogeneous engineering: toward an actor network perspective on design, Artifacts, 2(3-4), p. 164-175

Law, J. (1992) The Olympus 320 Engine: A Case Study in Design: Development, and Organizational Control, Technology and Culture, 33, pp. 409–40

Wilkie and Michael, (2009) Expectation and mobilization: enacting future users, Science, Technology and Human Values, 34(4): 502-522

Storni, C. (2009) The ambivalence of engaging technology: artifacts as products and processes, Proc. NORDIC Design Research Conference, Oslo.

Storni, C. (2012) Unpacking design practices: the notion of things in the making of artifacts, Science Technology and Human Values, 37, 88-123

Woolgar, S. (1991), ‘Configuring The User: the case of usability trials’, Law, J. (Ed.) A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, Routledge, London

Telier, A., Binder, T. De Michelis, G. et al. (2011) Designing things. Cambridge, MIT Press

Venturini, T. (2010) “Diving in Magma: How to Explore Controversies with Actor-Network Theory”. In Public Understanding of Science.