Content uploaded by Cristina Ampatzidou
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Cristina Ampatzidou on Feb 20, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Designing for Transformative Futures: Creative Practice, Social
Change and Climate Emergency
Markéta Dolejšová
Aalto University, Espoo, Finland
marketa.dolejsova@aalto.
Cristina Ampatzidou
RMIT Europe, Barcelona, Spain
cristina.ampatzidou@rmit.edu.au
Lara Houston
University of Sussex, Brighton,
United Kingdom
L.Houston@sussex.ac.uk
Ann Light
University of Sussex, Brighton,
United Kingdom
Ann.Light@sussex.ac.uk
Andrea Botero
Aalto University, Espoo, Finland
andrea.botero@aalto.
Jaz Hee-Jeong Choi
RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
jaz.hee-jeong.choi@rmit.edu.au
Danielle Wilde
University of Southern Denmark,
Kolding, Denmark
wilde@sdu.dk
Hilary Davis
Swinburne University of Technology,
Melbourne, Australia
hdavis@swin.edu.au
Ferran Altarriba Bertran
UC Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz,
California, USA
faltarri@ucsc.edu
Felipe Gonzales Gil
ZEMOS98, Seville, Spain
felipe@zemos98.org
Ruth Catlow
Furthereld, London, United Kingdom
ruth.catlow@furthereld.org
ABSTRACT
We discuss three cases of transformative creative practice that aim
to address large-scale societal issues related to the climate emer-
gency by taking a series of interconnected, small-scale actions.
Drawing on our rst-hand perspectives, we reect on how the
cases address such issues by proliferating across dierent social
contexts and supporting creative engagements of diverse stakehold-
ers. We oer this empirical reection at a time of rapid social and
ecological change that has aected all life on the planet. Eco-social
challenges and structural inequalities caused by shifts in global eco-
nomic, political and technological power require new approaches
and transformative actions to stabilize and restore ecosystems on
which life depends. Our research shows that creative practice in art
and design has a critical role to play in these processes of transfor-
mation. By discussing the opportunities and challenges encountered
by our three cases within their transformative eorts and analyzing
how they proliferate across diverse scales, we aim to expand the
emerging scholarship on the transformative potential of creative
practice.
CCS CONCEPTS
•Human-centered computing
;
•Interaction design
;
•Empir-
ical studies in interaction design;
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed
for prot or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation
on the rst page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the
author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specic permission
and/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.
C&C ’21, June 22, 23, 2021, Virtual Event, Italy
©2021 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-8376-9/21/06. . . $15.00
https://doi.org/10.1145/3450741.3465242
KEYWORDS
Creative practice, Climate emergency, Transformation, Social
change
ACM Reference Format:
Markéta Dolejšová, Cristina Ampatzidou, Lara Houston, Ann Light, Andrea
Botero, Jaz Hee-Jeong Choi, Danielle Wilde, Hilary Davis, Ferran Altarriba
Bertran, Felipe Gonzales Gil, and Ruth Catlow. 2021. Designing for Trans-
formative Futures: Creative Practice, Social Change and Climate Emergency.
In Creativity and Cognition (C&C ’21), June 22, 23, 2021, Virtual Event, Italy.
ACM, New York, NY, USA, 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3450741.3465242
1 INTRODUCTION
The scale of global challenges has become urgent and apparent,
aecting all creatures living on this planet. New approaches and
transformative actions that stabilize and restore social and ecolog-
ical systems are critically needed [
31
]. Increasingly, researchers
are pointing to the need for a wider rethink of humanity’s impacts
on the earth as a whole [
7
,
12
]. However, the pathways towards
necessary changes in practices, lifestyles, productive means and
political systems are highly contested and intrinsically interde-
pendent. Eco-social mitigation and adaptation require integrative
approaches to transform how we live together on the planet, which
in turn depend on our cultures, value systems and worldviews
[
64
]. We argue that creative practice in art and design has a critical
role to play in these processes of transformation. While design
and other forms of making contribute to social and ecological un-
sustainability [46], they can also play a pivotal role in bringing us
towards more positive, sustainable futures. Creative practitioners
and researchers have long experimented with diverse methodolo-
gies, theories and approaches to support transformative social ac-
tion; showing that art and design are potent in provoking situations
that bring together stakeholders in imaginative, reective exchange
C&C ’21, June 22, 23, 2021, Virtual Event, Italy Markéta Dolejšová et al.
[
4
,
13
,
21
,
28
,
32
,
34
,
36
,
43
,
49
,
56
,
57
]. This process of stimulat-
ing transformative thinking and action is fundamental to the kind
of shifts in culture that are needed. Creative practitioners are ad-
dressing unsustainability, recognizing that it infuses many dierent
domains. This has resulted in diverse creative expressions, from
immersive installations urging publics and policymakers to back
post-fossil projects [
19
], to projects enacting a change towards more
equal and just social systems [
1
], to developing new world-views
that imagine how we might live well with other species through
interconnected existence [
9
]. An emerging challenge in transfor-
mative creative practice today concerns how new practices can
proliferate in ways that link scales of operation (e.g. from the local
to the global) while being purposeful in making change. This paper
explores how three creative projects reach from situated practice
to societal change: 1) the Hologram social technologies for peer-to-
peer health, 2) the Commonspoly game and community round the
topic of commoning, and 3) the Feeding Food Futures practice and
network for sustainable food transitions. All three projects work
across eco-social concerns (dealing with interrelated domains of
ecological and social sustainability and acknowledging that climate
and ecological sustainability goals will only be attained by address-
ing social sustainability issues [
52
]). Each operates within a distinct
area of creative, participatory practice: socially oriented art (Holo-
gram), cultural mediation (Commonspoly) and experimental design
research (Feeding Food Futures), to foster social change across par-
ticular domains of everyday life: health and wellbeing; commoning
and governance; food systems and practices - by prototyping more
sustainable and just models. Each is structurally interesting in how
it scales.
Informed by the concept of scaling out from transition theories
[
29
,
39
,
41
] we reect on how the projects have been designed to
proliferate across dierent social contexts, and support creative en-
gagements with societal challenges. To do this, we critically engage
with the scalar relationships and tensions involved in transforma-
tive creative practice. We rst discuss emerging research on the
potential of creative practice to foster sustainable transformation.
We then introduce the background of our three cases, their en-
gagement and proliferation strategies, and outcomes so far. Our
reporting is informed by our rst-hand perspectives as researchers
and self-reective creative practitioners. We aim to provide three in-
sights of relevance to the C&C community into the transformative
potential of creative practice: 1) how participatory creative prac-
tice can enable a shift from the design of universalizing solutions
to the nurturing of stakeholders capacities and relations, 2) how
novel dissemination processes for participatory creative practice
can function through a nuancing of the concept of ’scaling out’,
and 3) how creative practice can contribute to new understandings
of eco-social transformation.
2 TRANSFORMATIVE POTENTIAL OF
CREATIVE PRACTICE
Emerging research [
21
,
27
,
32
,
34
,
36
,
43
] shows that creative prac-
tice in art and design can help us achieve transformative change, by
bringing an experiential quality to sustainability projects and stim-
ulating collective reections and imaginaries of preferable futures.
However, this transformative potential has been underutilized and
there is untapped knowledge about social change from the arts that
can inform social shifts towards resilient living [
32
,
34
]. Sustainabil-
ity sciences often overlook the value of involving people directly in
envisioning conditions for change, re-imagining futures and work-
ing towards them. Imaginaries of future situations can help people
grasp how changes proposed within eco-social mitigation measures
may aect their own and collective lives [
21
,
24
,
44
,
53
], yet science
tends to focus on the material changes needed. Speaking from the
context of art and artistic research, Maggs & Robinson [
36
] propose
that public engagement on sustainability be explored through the
lens of aesthetics; as a question of experience, aect, creativity and
self-reection. Artists can produce knowledge that goes beyond
rational and physical phenomena to uncover emotional, subjective
and experiential insights that lead to a greater understanding of
barriers to social change [27, 43, 57].
In design research, creative approaches to inspire social change
have long involved participatory design [
4
,
13
,
30
,
47
,
56
], transition
design [
28
], critical speculative design [
3
,
37
,
48
,
59
] and more.
For example, the Collaborative Future-Making platform merges
co-design and imagination in its anticipatory projects aimed at
transformative goals [
22
]. Much of this work places a focus on
locally-situated social innovation that originates within concerned
communities, starting from attention to local details, but aiming to
inspire long-term, ’ontological’ change [
15
]. In their framework for
transformative practice, Hummels et al. [
26
] highlight that when
working towards transformative change, a rst-hand perspective
is needed: those aiming to foster a change need to engage with,
live, feel, embody and ‘become’ the change on their own. However,
while the change may happen at individual or community level,
the impact must reach beyond those directly involved to make a
signicant contribution improving broader social and ecological
conditions. This scalar tension underpins our insights here.
In creative practice, there is a strategy of small-scale activity
and lateral proliferation across diverse personal, local, social and
temporal contexts ([6, 33]). This bears similarities to the conception
of scaling out, discussed in transition theories [
29
,
39
,
41
]. Scal-
ing out involves the proliferation of an intervention through its
iterative, situated duplication in dierent sites [
41
]. It stands in
inherent opposition to the strategy of scaling up, which follows a
commercial-economic expansionist dogma of ‘growth at any cost’,
celebrates centralization, and is thus deeply embedded in many
least sustainable industrial practices. Denitions of scaling up and
out share the notions of seeking to grow and have greater impact
[
39
], yet they aim to generate dierent forms of value. Scaling
out aims to build capacities that can proliferate across social con-
texts over time and be changed by the people involved, rather than
building xed products and solutions for generalized, or undieren-
tiated consumers [
29
]. It is unsurprising that arts projects tend to
favor scaling out, since proliferation allows for local appropriation
and a more creative response. The three projects we discuss here
take a local focus but experiment with novel and interesting pro-
liferation strategies to expand towards their transformative goals.
They address large-scale problems through an ongoing series of
interconnected, small-scale actions that are designed to support
collaboration and network building. We unpack the projects and
their strategies in detail, considering these mechanisms to be of
generalizable interest to the C&C community.
Designing for Transformative Futures: Creative Practice, Social Change and Climate Emergency C&C ’21, June 22, 23, 2021, Virtual Event, Italy
Figure 1: Illustrative images for our three cases: the Hologram system for non-expert healthcare; the Commonspoly game
board; FFF’s experimental food design prop. Detailed visual documentation of the cases is available at https://creatures-eu.org/
3 TRANSFORMATIVE CREATIVE PRACTICE:
THREE CASES
The three cases explored here (Figure 1) have been recently brought
together by the research project CreaTures (Creative Practices for
Transformative Futures; https://creatures-eu.org/). Prior to this,
they developed independently. The co-authors of this paper have
varied professional relationships with the projects: some have been
involved as practitioners directly designing the creative works and
engagement activities; others had the role of participant observers.
For the analysis here, we used heterogeneous materials collected by
all co-authors, experimenting with “inventive methods” [
35
] drawn
from the social sciences. For the Hologram, data used included: 7
interviews with the project’s initiators, auto-ethnographic journal
entries from 2 Hologram courses, 6 interviews with course facilita-
tors; for Commonspoly: 3 interviews with the project’s initiators,
participation notes from 4 gaming sessions, and visual outcomes of
a mapping session sketching relational networks of individuals and
communities that emerged from the game’s deployment [
10
]; for
FFF: 3 interviews with project initiators, auto-ethnographic notes
and visual documentation from 2 FFF workshops, a set of 9 survey
responses gathered from participants. Drawing on these materials,
we crafted textual narratives for each case, summarizing insights
that were analysed using a reexive thematic analysis approach [
8
]
where all co-authors were part of a generative process of meaning-
making. For the sake of consistency, the cases are reported in the
third person.
3.1 The Hologram
3.1.1 Background. The Hologram: Collective Health as a Really
Beautiful Artwork (https://thehologram.xyz/) is a strand of work
led by artist Cassie Thornton, dedicated to developing social tech-
nologies for peer-to-peer healthcare. At the center of the project is
a simple structure: a person – known as ’the hologram’ – invites
three friends or acquaintances (known as ’the triangle’) to meet on
a regular basis to discuss their physical, emotional and social health.
The project as a whole has produced a protocol that individual
holograms can use to facilitate these meetings (The Hologram is
capitalized when referring to the project; in lower case when refer-
ring to individual practitioners). Thornton rst encountered this
structure in 2016 whilst visiting the Thessaloniki Workers’ Clinic
(set up in response to Greece’s nancial and refugee crises) where
people are treated by a team of three practitioners, producing a
three-dimensional or ‘holographic’ view of their physical, social
and psychological life [
58
]. In 2020, Thornton embarked on a resi-
dency with the non-prot arts organization Furthereld, working
with artists Ruth Catlow and youth worker Lita Wallis, where she
began to experiment with the possibilities of the hologram structure
outside of a clinical setting. Out of this came an ongoing series of
ten-week courses that have acted as experimental sites to stabilize a
protocol for the practice of ‘social holography’ and as dissemination
channels for newcomers to learn the practice [
58
]. To date, three
courses have been completed, with around 25 participants each.
The following auto-ethnographic excerpt gives an overview of the
ve steps in a hologram meeting.
‘The sun is setting when I log into the rst Hologram session. As the
Zoom window utters open, I hear the sound of pop music as I watch
27 other faces pop up on-screen. After an introductions round, it’s
time for a demonstration. A course facilitator becomes the hologram,
three volunteers take the role of her triangle. 1] Each group member
starts with the ‘stuck dance,’ making a shape with their body, to share
corporeal impressions. 2] The hologram ‘marks the task’ that she’d
like to address today – she’s at a transition point in her life and wants
to be surrounded by positive feelings. 3] The triangle gently ask her
clarifying questions, using "we" instead of "I", thereby creating a pow-
erful collectivizing eect. In answering their questions, the hologram
allows herself to become vulnerable, even in front of this unknown
audience. 4] The triangle members are invited to reect. One tells the
hologram how privileged he felt to take part in the meeting. In that
moment any trace of shame stemming from vulnerability is trans-
muted into radical acceptance. I feel my heart swell. 5] The triangle
provides feedback to the hologram in the form of patterns, wishes or
provocations.’ (researcher’s notes, 2020)
3.1.2 Transformative Goals. Central to the Hologram project
is an understanding of health that moves beyond the idea of
(dys)functional bodies. Health is understood in relational terms, as
selves and bodies take shape in relation to the prevailing conditions
of social, economic and political life – echoing research showing
that people are more able to maintain good health in more equal
C&C ’21, June 22, 23, 2021, Virtual Event, Italy Markéta Dolejšová et al.
societies that feature higher degrees of trust [
50
]. The Hologram
therefore responds to societal-scale challenges and seeks to make
change at that level, as Thornton explains: “at its broadest and
most ambitious scale the Hologram is intended as an open-source,
peer-to-peer, viral social technology for de-habituating humans
from capitalism”[58]. Since capitalism is a social phenomenon that
“deeply inuences how we relate to one another, how we interact,
how we imagine ourselves and one another, even how we talk and
feel” [
58
] the Hologram, as a social technology, intends to change
these “cultures of nancialization” [
18
] by giving people experi-
ences of radical acceptance, and a structure that they can use to
prioritize self-care with trusted others. Two participants (who were
later trained as facilitators) detailed the skills they had learned from
the course: including patience, courage, listening, questioning and
emotional stamina – the experience “of not needing to have the
answer and feeling condent enough to try something, knowing it
might not work out” (interview, 2021). They felt the course boosted
participants’ sociological imagination: “your capacity to imagine
yourself as part of a whole and imagine how that whole impacts
you” (interv., 2021). Hologram practitioners are invited to share
these insights (and the inevitable challenges that also arise) in a
dedicated community of practice – convened via a text chat app
and online monthly meetings. The assumption at the heart of the
project is that these intimate transformations will aggregate in
ways that change wider capitalist relations towards structures that
are more sustainable for humans and earth systems. The concept
of care is central to the Hologram: people need caring relations in
their lives, but they also need to be treated with care when inter-
facing with wider systems (care is conceived throughout this text
as fundamental respect for all living entities – following emergent
work bridging feminist, materialist scholarship with concerns for
environmental phenomena [
51
]). The Hologram aims to create a
transformative program of un-learning to help people undo inter-
nalized norms about who deserves care, and gives them tools to
remake their own conditions.
3.1.3 Scaling out the Hologram Practice. Given the project’s huge
ambition, Thornton has given thought to how the project can scale,
and has embedded a viral scaling mechanism inside the practice
itself. Simply put, when a new triangle is formed, the hologram is
tasked with supporting her triangle members to set up new holo-
gram groups for themselves. This is not merely a dissemination
mechanism but is central to the relations of care. As Catlow ex-
plains: “as a hologram you are very invested in the health of your
triangle, you understand that it’s equally important to take respon-
sibility for the health of your triangle members by helping them to
learn how to be a hologram themselves” (interv., 2020). This central
convention allows for reciprocation between the triangle members
(who are providing care) and the hologram (who is receiving it).
However, it also avoids any transactional requirement that the ex-
change be equalized. Instead, relations of care radiate outwards
as holograms invite triangles, who become holograms, who invite
triangles. In designing this viral peer-to-peer form, Thornton was
inspired by the Black Panther Party’s sharing of acupuncture tech-
niques within their activist movement [
38
]. The project team are
continuing to disseminate the practice via this viral scaling mecha-
nism, the aforementioned courses, and The Hologram book [
58
].
They are currently inviting groups from beyond the art world (such
as healthcare workers) to join the project and to actively mutate
the practice. Thornton hopes to exit project in 2023 and is actively
opening up stewardship to curators, co-facilitators and others in
the community of practice.
3.2 Commonspoly
‘As I open the box and take out the game board, I take the time
to look carefully at all the spaces laid out. I know that this game
is a criticism of Monopoly, so I immediately look for familiar ref-
erences. I make unexpected discoveries, such as the hack lab and
the multi-confessional chapel and I appreciate the diversity in the
character descriptions. As I lay down the rest of the game tokens, I
instinctively wonder: Where is the money?’ (researcher’s notes)
3.2.1 Background. Commonspoly (https://commonspoly.cc/) is a
non-prot, open source board game initiated by the Spanish cul-
tural cooperative ZEMOS98, designed to stimulate a collaborative,
commons-based approach to the use of public resources and ques-
tion the violent model of neoliberal privatization. The rst Com-
monspoly version was developed in 2015 during a cultural festi-
val in Seville: a working group of 13 decided to hack the popular
board game Monopoly [
40
] whose design principles prescribe land
monopolization, rent extraction and driving competing players to
bankruptcy as a win strategy. In contrast, Commonspoly invites
players to collectively convert private spaces on the game board
to public, and eventually into common holdings. Commonspoly
is typically played in public game sessions at cultural events, but
the game can also be purchased or downloaded as print-ready les
and played privately. Upon request, ZEMOS98 provides editable
game les to encourage collaborative game development, which
is further supported through co-creative events with diverse local
communities. So far, the game has reached people in 23 countries,
been released in ve iterations, and exists in four languages.
3.2.2 Transformative Goals. The game’s design principles draw on
insights from commoning practices [
5
] and encourage players to
pool their resources and act collectively against ‘looming specula-
tors’ – nefarious game characters advocating privatization, often
played by the game facilitators. ZEMOS98 co-founder adds: “In
this game, as in reality, you’re in a race against time and need all
the help you can get to bring about change” (interv., 2020). The
game thus aims to bring players together to negotiate and imagine
various commoning strategies and engage in critical discussion.
As such, Commonspoly forms part of a growing corpus of critical
games [
11
,
16
] that encourage critical thinking about hegemonic
ideas and unsustainable practices through principles embedded in
the game design. The Commonspoly project works towards social
change through two means: 1) the collective development, distri-
bution and appropriation of the game across diverse local, social
contexts; 2) the individual gameplays that bring together stakehold-
ers interested in commons into a critical discussion. Through these
processes, the project has attracted a variety of stakeholders and
scaled into a distributed community network focused on the topic
of commons.
3.2.3 Scaling out the Commonspoly Practice. The growth of the
Commonspoly network has brought about a greater diversity of
Designing for Transformative Futures: Creative Practice, Social Change and Climate Emergency C&C ’21, June 22, 23, 2021, Virtual Event, Italy
inputs for the game, but also several practical concerns. One of
the key challenges for ZEMOS98 is to manage tensions emerging
from the collective game development and Intellectual Property
(IP). Dening the exact scope of contributions by all authors who
supported the iterative game progress and including them in ev-
ery new game version release is impossible. Managing contribu-
tors’ expectations and facilitating negotiation about various game
changes became too resource-demanding for a small collective like
ZEMOS98 that currently has 5 members and is supported mostly by
arts funding. To address the issue, ZEMOS98 embraced the concept
of ‘forking’ that originates in the free software movement [
54
] and
involves individual naming of all dierent versions coming from
one original source to satisfy contributors’ distinct needs. Each
new Commonspoly fork is thus named and described by its author
and licensed under the Peer Production License that enables any
non-prot entity to use and adapt the game for non-commercial
use. ZEMOS98 is only listed as author of the rst fork, for which
it is accountable; thus leaving an open space for a collective Com-
monspoly authorship to ourish. Many fork authors have shared
their versions: For instance, a Brazilian teacher adapted the game
to the local context for her students; a UK-based Esperanto expert
made a game translation. The collective game development is an
ongoing process, and – similar to the free software movement –
the ‘success’ of this approach is likely to emerge over time, as the
collective authorship of the game unfolds.
Another issue in scaling out Commonspoly is distribution: nd-
ing appropriate channels and resources to distribute the physical
game widely, across diverse geographical areas and communities,
has proved dicult. Staying true to their commitment to common-
ing values, ZEMOS98 deliberately avoids large suppliers with mo-
nopolistic practices such as Amazon. Until recently, the collective
would store the full stock of game copies and dispatch them on an
individual basis, which was costly and inecient. To scale out their
distribution system, ZEMOS98 has recently started leveraging the
Commonspoly community to establish a network of ‘Ambassadors’:
individuals and small bookshops that manage the sales and distribu-
tion of small game stocks locally, acting as Commonspoly advocates
as well as gameplays facilitators. 10 bookstores around Spain have
been successfully secured and the network is envisioned to expand
internationally. To address how lack of resources hinders their ef-
forts in Commonspoly development, ZEMOS98 has also worked on
sustaining collaborations and relations with like-minded cultural
institutions. Through their long-standing collaboration with the
European Cultural Foundation (ECF), the collective has been able to
produce more physical game copies, and expand their community
of practice by accessing ECF’s audiences. The decision to include
institutions in their – decidedly grassroots – processes was not
straightforward for ZEMOS98: “By having access to larger institu-
tional bodies, we can sustain our connections with smaller actors
and individuals. But that’s related to our survival rather than our
desire. Ideally, we would skip larger bodies...but till now they have
been an essential resource for” (pers comm., 2020). Nevertheless,
the aim is to keep these institutional collaborations truthful to the
commoning values and maintain a mutually benecial relationship:
“ECF provides nancial support, but also knowledge; we provide our
knowledge and experience in return. We don’t feel merely funded,
but rather like nurturing a relationship that follows a shared goal:
fostering solidarity and strengthening democracy.” (pers. comm.,
2020). For ZEMOS98, Commonspoly is not a product but a resource.
Rather than promoting the game to sell more copies, Commonspoly
is designed to help educate people about commoning; its methods of
distribution are designed with the same values as the game board.
Rather than developing a network for ecient distribution, ZE-
MOS98 nurtures an international network of relations that includes
local Commonspoly players, Ambassadors, and cultural institutions.
By dissolving their authorship and ‘forking’ it widely, ZEMOS98
enables a pluralistic game development, paying attention to local
contexts.
3.3 Feeding Food Futures
‘At our foraging walk around the workshop venue, we notice that
local dining options consist of either expensive hotel restaurants or
fast-food chains. Acknowledging our privilege of ‘luxury of choice’,
we take lunch at a pizza joint. While eating pizza and sipping soda
from gigantic plastic cups, we talk about unequal socio-economic
access to ‘good’ (healthy, sustainable) food-tech products designed
for ‘good’ food practices. As food-tech designers, we need to pay
attention to diverse socio-economic sensitivities in food cultures.’
(FFF practitioner, auto-ethnographic notes).
3.3.1 Background. Feeding Food Futures (FFF; https://foodfutures.
group/) is a long-term experimental design research project aiming
to support critical inquiry into emerging food-technology innova-
tion and nurture imaginaries towards resilient food futures. The
project was co-founded in 2019 by four design researchers working
at four dierent universities across the world. It encompasses an
ongoing series of co-creative events including workshops, future
enactments and performative tastings that enable critical exchange
among food-oriented researchers, designers and practitioners. The
events are situated primarily at academic conferences where key
stakeholders in food-tech design and research usually meet (e.g.
DIS, CHI, C&C, CHIPlay). Academia is FFF’s ‘natural habitat’, from
where it sprouts, and from where it aims to start making a change:
“Supporting a change in food-tech scholarship – which is inevitably
connected to the food-tech industry – is the rst step for us to
help foster sustainable change in wider food systems” (interview
with FFF co-founder, 2020). Through the ongoing events series, FFF
has proliferated into a globally distributed network of contribu-
tors interested in experimenting with diverse co-creative means to
support sustainable food transitions.
3.3.2 Transformative Goals. FFF critically reects on the role of
food-tech innovation in addressing systemic challenges such as
food insecurity and unsustainability, which have been identied as
outcomes of climate change [
63
]. Food-tech designers are proposing
a variety of techno-solutions for ‘better’, more sustainable food prac-
tices – from smart kitchenware to digital farming platforms. Many
of these proposals are problematic in their impacts on food cultures,
extending socio-economic inequalities in global food markets and
causing negative changes to social food traditions [
14
]. Concerned
with what has been identied as a lack of critical reection in exist-
ing food-tech design and research [
2
], FFF was initiated to gather
critical voices and foster new experimental collaborations. The
project leverages the methods of experimental food design research
C&C ’21, June 22, 23, 2021, Virtual Event, Italy Markéta Dolejšová et al.
[
14
] grounded in embodied co-creation [
23
,
62
] using food both as
a research object and a sensory-rich bio-design material. In FFF,
food and food practices are considered as relatable everyday-life
elements that happen at the scale of the body – the scale at which
people operate, think and easily imagine. Thus, designing with food
enables consideration of issues that are global in scope, yet intensely
personal in their unfolding. Starting from this methodological angle,
each FFF event is dierent: taking place in a local venue, engaging
dierent groups of participants in activities including co-designing
future food scenarios and prototypes, conducting foraging walks,
and working with food design props such as the Food Tarot cards
[
17
]. While dierent in their formal scope, the events are designed
with the same goal in mind: to bring diverse food stakeholders
into a critical human-food-tech exchange that results in co-creative
outcomes to be disseminated to wider publics. Among examples
from past events are the open-access Human-Food Interaction Zine
with recommendations for equitable food-tech design and research
[
25
] or the More-than-Human Food Futures Cookbook with exper-
imental recipes for resilient food system processes [
42
]. Detailed
description and analysis of 6 FFF events are available in [14, 61].
3.3.3 Scaling out the FFF Practice. FFF workshops have shown
there is interest among scholars and designers in addressing food-
tech innovation issues through critical, experimental means and
a lack of venues for long-term exploring. This gap has motivated
the ongoing proliferation of FFF into a decentralized, globally dis-
tributed network of collaborators, who are invited to propose new
food design research activities and develop them autonomously,
leveraging the network as a resource of knowledge and opportuni-
ties for collaboration. These eorts in scaling out a food community
network are envisaged to contribute to societal level (food system)
change. Reaching from situated events into a distributed network
for food system transitions, this work could be a step towards larger
social impact. Yet, distributing design research practice in this way
can be challenging: “We have been encouraging network contribu-
tors to co-organize events with us, engage in joint co-authoring of
publications, and to propose new events on their own. The over-
sight of network activities still remains largely with us, though
[...]. Network contributors have engaged actively but not yet au-
tonomously” (FFF co-founder, interv., 2020). A number of factors
contribute: FFF contributors may have diverse motivations and
commitments; academia’s traditional authorship model may be a
constraining factor as well. The pressures of the job keep many
academics tightly focused on activities recognized by their institu-
tions as having value, and authorship can be a contested process
– in academia, shared collective co-authorship that decenters the
role of ‘lead’ author is not well supported. At the heart of FFF’s
journey in becoming a diverse, transformative network is thus the
challenge of transcending the boundaries of academia while still
being a productive part of it. The project makes an ongoing eort to
bring new critical voices into the academic food design research and
nurture its post-disciplinary ourishing. To learn more and support
the network, new open-ended FFF activities have been planned
including seminars led by network members, a co-organized work-
shop at an artistic research festival, a free-access workshop at a
design research conference, and an online reading group. These
activities are envisioned as less formal entry points from which
network members might take the initiative and propose new – per-
haps unexpected, surprising – forms of collaboration. Nurturing
such ‘hybrid’ food design research spaces on the boundary of the
academic realm can be a potent strategy for co-creative design
research initiatives: they can provide an opportunity for knowl-
edge exchange that may be benecial for long-term work of both
academic and non-academic participants. Through these actions,
FFF aims to foster rich post-disciplinary ground from which buds
of better futures – in food practices as well as in related research
eorts – might sprout.
4 CRAFTING TRANSFORMATIVE CHANGE:
CREATIVE PRACTICE PROLIFERATING
ACROSS SCALES
We have introduced three empirical cases where creative practice
opens up new terrains for thinking and prototyping alternate vi-
sions for more socially and ecologically sustainable ways of life. The
projects use creative approaches drawn from art, cultural mediation,
and experimental design research to explore transformative eco-
social change in various everyday-life contexts. While their basic
structures are specic to a small number of people and a particular
context, they aspire to simultaneously engender change in global
systems through various forms of proliferating. The Hologram en-
acts healthcare that works towards a speculative post-capitalist
future where peer cooperation is an essential value. It supports
people’s personal transformation within small groups through a
functional ‘self-replicating’ system based on mutualistic care rather
than normative transactional relations. The Commonspoly game is
a playful, discursive artifact and process designed to stimulate a col-
laborative, commons-based approach to the use of resources. As a
commoning artifact itself, Commonspoly considers players as game
co-developers, leveraging their diverse local and personal knowl-
edges both in the game development and in distribution. The FFF
project nurtures experimental approaches to academic food-tech
design and research, challenging the lack of critical scholarship in
the area. By functioning as a long-term network for decentralized
collaboration, FFF’s goal is to support a post-disciplinary change
in food-tech academia; a small but important step in contributing
towards sustainable transitions of food systems and practices. In
these three distinct but carefully designed methods for the spread
of transformative ideas, we see the artistry, not merely of new spec-
ulations, but of the cunning manipulation of the health, ownership,
and food systems being challenged. Each project is designed for
spreading within its system, as well as for addressing its core theme.
By looking at these reproductive mechanisms, we can learn some-
thing generalizable about the structure and agency of change and
the nature of tackling systems from within, as well as the more
idiosyncratic goals of each project.
4.1 Shifting Modes: from Knowledge of
Problems to the Nurturing of Relations
The three projects serve as a common ground for open-ended en-
gagements among diverse stakeholders who are interested in work-
ing together towards social change. They aim to empower civil
and civic society actors to be collaborative agents of change by
Designing for Transformative Futures: Creative Practice, Social Change and Climate Emergency C&C ’21, June 22, 23, 2021, Virtual Event, Italy
following co-creative approaches to capacity building from partici-
patory design [
4
,
13
,
30
], embodied design experiments [
14
,
23
,
62
],
commoning practices [
5
] and alternative techniques for social and
health care [
38
,
58
]. The participatory structures in the heart of all
three projects – the setting up of triangles of care in the Hologram;
the collaborative strategies that Commonspoly players need to em-
brace; the food scenarios co-designed at FFF events – contribute
towards networks of relation that help each project to disseminate
their activities more widely and invite new people across new sites
to become active part of the infrastructure. Rather than aiming to
change personal behaviors by imposing individualistic solutions
based on top-down agendas, the projects build capacities, nurture
relations, and provide resources that can be adapted to suit stake-
holders’ specic – local, personal, research-oriented – needs, while
keeping the needs of the overall system in view. This marks an
important shift from older, knowledge-based models of creative
practice and sustainability, where creative works are used to com-
municate (often scientic) ndings to wider audiences in order to
encourage behavior change (as discussed at length e.g. in [
36
]).
As Light et al. [
34
] explain, creative practice can, instead, “allow
people to explode systems, expand cause-eect relations, and raise
consequences in a manageable way. At its most eective, [cr. prac-
tice] inspires people to make changes for themselves and (..) inspire
others to follow”. Our projects show that creative art and design
practice can indeed play such a role and engage people actively with
their interconnectedness and interdependence. By staying open to
participants’ inputs, the projects and their practices nurture (and
scale-out) new relations.
4.2 Proliferating Relations by ’scaling Out’
With transformative ambitions, the three projects remain perpetu-
ally unfolding: experimental processes in progress, where spread
and mutation are designed into the form of the work. The projects
scale their practice across local and social contexts by leveraging
networks of triangles and holograms, game players and ambas-
sadors, and design/research co-authors who enact the practice – or
mutations thereof – in their distinct, personally-situated contexts.
These networks are the focus of considerable eort: the relational
aspects are part of what is being modelled and replicated. To spread
their practice in this lateral way, the ‘monopoly’ over the projects’
authorship is purposely dissolved and the projects’ processes and
structures are open to be renegotiated. Openness to (re)negotiation
of community values based on emerging insights is a dening el-
ement of scaling out processes [
29
] standing in direct contrast to
the notion of scaling up, which furthers the idea of progress and
growth, without changing organizational structures and framings.
Although network contributors in the three projects are encouraged
to propose their own project iterations, spin-os, forks or entirely
new activities, there is trust that values stay true and in line with
the networks’ goals. The projects are thus being gradually trans-
formed in the direction of a large-scale aim – not by performing
a series of linear steps towards a concrete and denable goal, but
by iteratively performing small changes and actively accumulating,
nurturing, and responding to diverse situated knowledges. Har-
away [
20
] articulates situated knowledges as a crucial counter to
the false ‘objectivity’ of economic and policy perspectives based
on the top-down managerial models of socio-technicality and we
see this countering here. As Haraway and others [
55
,
60
] observe,
eorts to enact alternative values are not trivial, and there are risks
and uncertainties inherent to how such eorts unfold. While pur-
posefully bypassing mainstream distribution chains like Amazon,
ZEMOS98 struggles with securing sucient resources to facilitate
the game distribution across alternative channels, such as indepen-
dent bookstores. The ‘autonomous sprouting’ of the FFF network,
which hinges on proactive behavior of network contributors and
collective authorship, can be challenging to achieve within the aca-
demic context. The Hologram recognizes that its culture is shaped
by the Anglo-American art world, and encounters productive fric-
tions as it experiments with new ways to engage diverse groups in
learning the practice and intervening into the culture of the project
itself. However, what the mechanisms in the three projects point
to is a dierent structural relationship with change, which is not
merely invested in proposing new ideas, but new ways of encoun-
tering the domain in which they are performing. For instance, as
noted, IP is a particular theme for Commonspoly and it uses open
source approaches to sharing and in its Ambassador program. It is
a network encounter with form following function. Each project
is a comment on the domain as much as functioning as a set of
specic activities within the domain.
4.3 Challenges of Designing for Relational
Transformative Structures
Supporting long-term, relational, open-ended engagements and
knowledge exchange among interested groups as a form of design-
ing for change can be dicult to articulate at the level of policy-
making and evaluation for impact, which often require quanti-
tatively measurable evidence. As Light et al. [
34
] observe, while
sustainable change requires shifts in knowing, feeling and being,
the ‘rational actor’ myth has led to emphasis on information at
the expense of work on collective values and more collaborative,
creative approaches to transformation. In contrast to normative,
universalizing solutions where value can be measured through, for
example, the number of copies sold and apps downloaded, rela-
tional transformative work requires considerable eort and time to
prove its ‘success’. This may sound counter-intuitive when global
social change is urgently needed. However, as we have addressed
throughout this paper, the urgency of climate crisis requires both
large-scale global action and transformative practices at smaller,
interpersonal scales. Personal connections and a relational sense
of peer investment are necessary ingredients of any recipe for
eco-social transformation [
45
]. The projects we introduced trou-
ble spatial metaphors and make themselves hard to classify. Yet,
through scaling out, they provide much needed space for local ac-
tors to re-iterate and re-form specic practices according to their
own needs and desires, rather than imposing a centralized, top-
down control. The support and networking structures that link
their disparate oshoots become responsive to local conditions as
they grow. These kinds of transformative creative practice demand
new, more diverse epistemological approaches to recognize their
value and foster further proliferation. Policy-making and evaluation
strategies for their impact must adapt to, if not welcome, the oppor-
tunity to address this urgent need. Priorities need to be adjusted to
C&C ’21, June 22, 23, 2021, Virtual Event, Italy Markéta Dolejšová et al.
foster transformation in fundamental values and systems instead of
focusing on conspicuous, easily measurable attributes of individual
actions. As our cases demonstrated, meaningful success is not just
about recycling more food containers or spending less on health-
care, but questioning the system that enables the continued uses
of plastic packaging, or preventing the establishment of universal
healthcare.
5 CONCLUSION
Living and designing in uncertain times requires us to work with
resistance to existing structures and oer hope by proposing new
ones. In this paper, we discussed some ongoing strategies and tactics
used in creative practice to foster transformations towards more re-
silient and equitable living. Through our empirical cases, we aimed
to demonstrate the ability of creative practice to work across scales
and facilitate sustained engagements of diverse stakeholders with
contemporary societal challenges. Given the global scale of the
challenges addressed, the class of practice identied here is a valu-
able addition to the many more change-focused, solution-oriented
initiatives intended to elicit sustainable lifestyles. Instead of follow-
ing this path, the practices here continue to develop the capacity to
leverage experimental, open-ended processes of co-creative think-
ing and acting through their own transformations, thus helping to
plant seeds for imaginative exchange, new intersectional coalitions,
learning and action. In oering this analysis, we hope to further
understanding of these alternative practices, so that they are recog-
nized, valued, and supported at all levels of transformation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Hori-
zon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agree-
ment No 870759. The content presented in this document represents
the views of the authors, and the European Commission has no
liability in respect of the content.
REFERENCES
[1]
Shana Agid. 2018. ‘Dismantle, change, build’: Designing abolition at the inter-
sections of local, large-scale, and imagined infrastructures. Design Studies 59:
95–116.
[2]
Ferran Altarriba Bertran*, Samvid Jhaveri, Rosa Lutz, Katherine Isbister and
Danielle Wilde*. 2019. Making Sense of Human-Food Interaction. In CHI Con-
ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Proceedings May 4–9, 2019,
Glasgow, Scotland UK. ACM, New York, NY, USA. *co-rst authors
[3]
Heidi R. Biggs and Audrey Desjardins. 2020. High Water Pants: Designing Em-
bodied Environmental Speculation. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20). Association for Computing
Machinery, New York, N Y, USA, 1–13.
[4]
Erling Björgvinsson, Pelle Ehn, and Per-Anders Hillgren. 2012. Agonistic partici-
patory design: working with marginalised social movements. CoDesign 8, 2–3:
127–144.
[5]
David Bollier and Silke Helfrich. 2015. Patterns of commoning. Commons Strategy
Group and O the Common Press.
[6]
Andrea Botero, Ann Light, Lone Malmborg, Sanna Marttila, Mariana Salgado, and
Joanna Saad-Sulonen. 2016. Becoming Smart Citizens: How Replicable Ideas Jump.
In Workshop at the Design and the City conference, Amsterdam. Retrieved Febru-
ary 17, 2021 from https://designandthecity.eu/programme/workshop/becoming-
smart-citizens- how-replicable-ideas-jump.
[7]
Corey J. A. Bradshaw, Paul R. Ehrlich, Andrew Beattie, Gerardo Ceballos, Eileen
Crist, et al. 2021. Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future.
Frontiers in Conservation Science.
[8]
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2020. One size ts all? What counts as quality
practice in (reexive) thematic analysis?. Qualitative research in psychology, 1-25.
[9]
Rachel E. Clarke. 2020. Ministry of Multispecies Communications. In Companion
Publication of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, 441–444.
[10]
Commonspoly network mapping. 2021. Retrieved April 28, 2021
from https://creatures-eu.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/201217-The-
Commonspoly-network.pdf .
[11]
Francesco Crocco. 2011. Critical gaming pedagogy. The Radical Teacher, 91:
26–41.
[12]
Partha Dasgupta. 2021. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review.
Retrieved 26 April, 2021 from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/
nal-report- the-economics-of- biodiversity-the-dasgupta- review.
[13]
Carl DiSalvo, Illah Nourbakhsh, David Holstius, Ayça Akin, and Marti Louw.
2008. The Neighborhood Networks project: a case study of critical engagement
and creative expression through participatory design. In Proceedings of the tenth
anniversary conference on participatory design, 41–50.
[14]
Markéta Dolejšová*, Danielle Wilde*, Ferran Altarriba Bertran, and Hilary Davis.
2020. Disrupting (More-than-) Human-Food Interaction: Experimental Design,
Tangibles and Food-Tech Futures. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing
Interactive Systems Conference, 993–1004. *co-rst authors
[15]
Arturo Escobar. 2018. Designs for the pluriverse: Radical interdependence, au-
tonomy, and the making of worlds. Duke University Press.
[16]
Mary Flanagan. 2009. Critical Play: Radical Game Design . Cambridge, Mass: MIT
Press.
[17]
Food Tarot cards. 2021. Retrieved February 17, 2021 from https://foodtarot.tech/
[18]
Max Haiven. 2014. Cultures of nancialization: Fictitious capital in popular
culture and everyday life. Springer.
[19]
Maarten A. Hajer and Peter Pelzer. 2018. 2050—An Energetic Odyssey: Under-
standing “Techniques of Futuring” in the Transition towards Renewable Energy.
Energy Research & Social Science 44: 222–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.
01.013.
[20]
Donna Haraway. 1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism
and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist studies 14, 3: 575–599.
[21]
Mia Hesselgren, Elina Eriksson, Josen Wangel,and Lo oveBroms. 2018. Exploring
Lost and Found in Future Images of Energy Transitions: Towards a Bridging
Practice of Provoking and Arming Design. In Proceedings of Design Research
Society 2018, University of Limerick.
[22]
Per-Anders Hillgren, Kristina Lindström, Michael Strange, Richard Topgaard,
and Hope Witmer. (eds.). 2020. Glossary: Collaborative Future-Making. Malmö
University.
[23]
Kristina Höök. 2018. Designing with the body: Somaesthetic interaction design:
MIT Press.
[24]
Rob Hopkins. 2019. From what is to what if: Unleashing the power of imagination
to create the future we want. Chelsea Green Publishing.
[25]
Human-Food Interaction Zine. (2019). Retrieved February 18, 2021 from http:
//bit.ly/HFIzine
[26]
Caroline Hummels, Ambra Trotto, Jeroen Peeters, Pierre Levy, Jorge Alves Lino,
and Sietske Klooster. 2019. Design research and innovation framework for trans-
formative practices. In Strategy for change. Glasgow Caledonian University,
52-76
[27]
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. 2017. The art of systems
analysis. How can artists support transformations to sustainability? Laxenburg.
Retrieved February 17, 2021 from http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/about/scarts/
ScienceArt_Brochure_A4_28pages_singlepages_web.pdf
[28]
Terry Irwin. 2015. Transition Design: A Proposal for a New Area of Design
Practice, Study, and Research. Design and Culture 7(2): 229-46.
[29]
Airi Lampinen, Chiara Rossitto, and Christofer Gradin Franzén. 2019. Scaling Out,
Scaling Down: Reconsidering growth in grassroots initiatives. In Ethnographies
of Collaborative Economies Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
[30]
Christopher A. Le Dantec and Carl DiSalvo. 2013. Infrastructuring and the forma-
tion of publics in participatory design. Social Studies of Science 43, 2: 241–264.
[31]
Melissa Leach, Kate Raworth, and Johan Rockström. 2013. Between Social and
Planetary Boundaries. In ISSC/UNESCO, World Social Science Report 2013:
Changing Global Environments. Paris: OECD publishing and UNESCO Pub-
lishing, 84–89. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264203419-en
[32]
Ann Light, Deborah Mason, Tom Wakeford, Ruth Wolstenholme, and Sabine
Hielscher. 2018. Creative practice and transformations to sustainability: Making
and managing culture change. AHRC Connected Communities Projects.
Retrieved February 17, 2021 from https://connectedcommunities.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/08/Creative-Practice- and-Transformations- to-
Sustainability-Making- and-Managing- Culture- Change.pdf
[33]
Ann Light and Clodagh Miskelly. 2019. Platforms, scales and networks: meshing
a local sustainable sharing economy. Computer Supported Cooperative Work
(CSCW) 28, 3: 591–626.
[34]
Ann Light, Ruth Wolstenholme, and Ben Twist. 2019. Creative practice and
transformations to sustainability – insights from research. SSRP Working Paper
No1, Sussex Sustainability Research Programme, Sussex University.
[35]
Celia Lury and Nina Wakeford. 2012. Inventive methods: The happening of the
social. Routledge.
[36]
David Maggs and John Robinson. 2020. Sustainability in an Imaginary World:
Art and the Question of Agency. Routledge.
Designing for Transformative Futures: Creative Practice, Social Change and Climate Emergency C&C ’21, June 22, 23, 2021, Virtual Event, Italy
[37]
Luiza Prado de O. Martins. 2014. Privilege and Oppression: Towards a Feminist
Speculative Design. In Proceedings of Design Research Society 2014 conference,
Umea, Sweden
[38]
Eana Meng. 2020. An Introduction: The Black Panther Party and Acupuncture?
Retrieved February 17, 2021 from https://www.ofpartandparcel.com/blog-2/an-
introduction-the- black-panther- party- and-acupuncture
[39]
Joanne Millar and John Connell. 2010. Strategies for scaling out impacts from
agricultural systems change: the case of forages and livestock production in Laos.
Agriculture and human values 27, 2: 213–225.
[40]
Monopoly – Hasbro (1935/2021). Retrieved February 18, 2021 from https://
monopoly.hasbro.com/
[41]
Michele-Lee Moore, Darcy Riddell, and Dana Vocisano. 2015. Scaling out, scaling
up, scaling deep: strategies of non-prots in advancing systemic social innovation.
Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 58: 67–84.
[42]
More-than-Human Food Futures Cookbook. 2021. Retrieved February 18, 2021
from http://bit.ly/book_anon
[43]
Lucy Neal. 2015. Playing for Time: Making Art as if the World Mattered. Oberon
Books.
[44]
Alexandra Nikoleris, Johannes Stripple, and Paul Tenngart. 2017. Narrating
climate futures: shared socioeconomic pathways and literary ction. Climatic
Change 143, 3-4, 307-319.
[45]
Karen O’Brien. 2012. Global environmental change II: From adaptation to delib-
erate transformation. Progress in Human Geography 36, 5: 667–676.
[46]
Victor Papanek. 1972. Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social
Change. London: Thames and Hudson.
[47]
Leonardo Parra-Agudelo, Jaz Hee-jeong Choi, and Marcus Foth. 2017. The city as
canvas for change: Grassroots organisations’ creative playing with Bogota. In
Playable Cities. Springer, 189–210.
[48]
Sarah Pennington. 2018. Taking Care of Issues of Concern: feminist possibilities
and the curation of Speculative and Critical Design. In Proceedings of Design
Research Society 2018, University of Limerick.
[49]
Laura J. Perovich. 2018. Environmental art: A path to civic progress in a time of
policy retreat in the United States. Cogent Arts & Humanities 5, 1: 1523269.
[50]
Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson. 2010. The Spirit Level: Why Equality is
Better for Everyone. Penguin Books.
[51]
Maria Puig de la Bellacasa. 2017. Matters of Care, Speculative Ethics in More
Than Human Worlds, University of Minnesota Press, USA.
[52]
Jorgen Randers, Johan Rockström, Per Espen Stoknes, Ulrich Golüke, David
Collste, and Sarah Cornell. 2018. Transformation is feasible: How to achieve the
sustainable development goals within planetary boundaries. A report to the Club
of Rome, for its 50 years anniversary, 17.
[53]
Paul G. Raven. 2017. Telling tomorrows: science ction as an energy futures
research tool. Energy Research & Social Science, 31, 164-169.
[54]
Gregorio Robles and Jesús M. González-Barahona. 2012. A comprehensive study
of software forks: Dates, reasons and outcomes. In IFIP International Conference
on Open Source Systems, 1–14. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
[55]
Peter Rogers. 2013. The Rigidity Trap. in Global Resilience: Neoliberalisation
through Principles, Standards, and Benchmarks, Globalizations 10, no. 3 (2013):
383–95.
[56]
Elizabeth B-N Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2008. Co-creation and the new
landscapes of design. Co-design 4, 1: 5–18.
[57]
Robert Soden, Perrine Hamel, David Lallemant, and James Pierce. 2020. The
Disaster and Climate Change Artathon: Staging Art/Science Collaborations in
Crisis Informatics. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems
Conference, 1273–1286.
[58]
Cassie Thornton. 2020. The Hologram: Feminist, Peer-to-Peer Health for a Post-
Pandemic Future. Pluto Press. ISBN: 9780745343327
[59]
Josen Wangel, Mia Hesselgren, Elina Eriksson, Loove Broms, Gabriel Kanulf,
and Andrejs Ljunggren. 2019. Vitiden: Transforming a policy-orienting scenario
to a practice-oriented energy ction. Futures 112: 102440.
[60]
Danielle Wilde. 2020. Design research education and global concerns. She Ji: The
Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation 6, 2: 170–212.
[61]
Danielle Wilde*, Marketa Dolejšová,* Sjef van Gaalen, Ferran Altarriba Bertran,
Hilary Davis & Paul G. Raven. (2021). Troubling the Impact of Food Future Imag-
inaries. Proceedings of the 2021 Nordic Design Research Conference (NORDES).
*co-rst authors
[62]
Danielle Wilde, Anna Vallgårda, and Oscar Tomico. 2017. Embodied design
ideation methods: analysing the power of estrangement. 5158–5170. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025873
[63]
Walter Willett, Johan Rockström, Brent Loken, Marco Springmann, Tim Lang,
Sonja Vermeulen, Tara Garnett, David Tilman, Fabrice DeClerck, and Amanda
Wood. 2019. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy
diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet 393, 10170: 447–492.
[64]
World Economic Forum. 2021. The Global Risks Report 2021, 16th Edition. ISBN:
978-2-940631-24-7. Retrieved February 17, 2021 from http://www3.weforum.org/
docs/WEF_The_Global_Risks_Report_2021.pdf