Content uploaded by Maria laura Ramirez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maria laura Ramirez on May 18, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
INDUSTRIAL DESIGN 2203
INTERNATIONAL DESIGN CONFERENCE – DESIGN 2022
https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2022.223
Design Strategies to Promote Intercultural Meaningful Social
Interactions
M. L. Ramírez Galleguillos , A. Eloiriachi, B. Serdar and A. Coşkun
Koç University, Turkey
mgalleguillos18@ku.edu.tr
Abstract
Intercultural interactions encourage social inclusion and diversity, but they are often avoided due to
prejudices. Intercultural Meaningful Social Interactions (IMSI) can overcome such prejudices; still, the
literature lacks guidelines on how to promote them by Design. In this study, we propose eight design
strategies to facilitate these interactions, which were originated by bridging four theories for prejudice
reduction and exemplar IMSI experiences of 15 intercultural participants. This paper presents the strategies
and discusses their use to inspire new design concepts for promoting IMSI.
Keywords: intercultural meaningful social interactions, design strategy, bridging concepts, design
research, human-centred design
1. Introduction
Intercultural social interactions refer to encounters held by people from different cultures. These
cultures frame the patterns of values, beliefs, and behaviors shared by any group of people (Neuliep,
2012). Culture has different levels of group categorizations (Laroche, 2012) (e.g., family culture,
generational culture, national culture). In this study, we refer to culture as pertaining to different
nationalities. Positive and meaningful intercultural interactions are needed to promote diversity and
social cohesion among different cultural groups (i.e., migrants and locals) besides contributing to
decreasing biases (Fonseca et al., 2021; Government, 2009; Pettigrew, 1998). Moreover, these kinds
of interactions are crucial to promote social inclusion under the current global migration context, as
lately there has been an increase in hate of speech, hate crimes, and nationalistic movements
(Associazione Carta di Roma, 2016; International Crisis Group, 2018; Ozduzen et al., 2020). Despite
these benefits, interactions between intercultural strangers are often avoided for various reasons, such
as language barriers, homophily, and biases and prejudices between them.
Design is an interdisciplinary field that integrates knowledge from other fields as psychology,
sociology, and computer sciences. Due to its quality of turning current situations into preferred ones
(Simon, 2019), design can be used to encourage/or discourage certain behaviors (Consolvo et al.,
2009; De Medeiros et al., 2018). Though previous work on design for behaviour change examined
how design can encourage healthy (Consolvo et al., 2014) and sustainable behaviors (Bhamra et al.,
2011), and create empathy (B. Gaver, T. Dunne, 1999; Mattelmäki and Battarbee, 2002), we have not
found studies exploring how to promote intercultural meaningful social interactions (IMSI). There
have been efforts to characterize these interactions (Ramírez Galleguillos et al. 2021), explore
elements that enable and disable them (Askins, 2016), and provide design speculations to promote
them (Ramírez Galleguillos et al., 2019).
Advancing on this previous work, and inspired by the notion of bridging concepts (Dalsgaard and
Dindler, 2014), we identified eight design strategies for promoting IMSI by connecting participants'
CONFERENCE PRE-PRINT
2204 INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
situated knowledge (Haraway, 1988; Harrison et al., 2011) with existing psychology theories for
prejudice reduction. We first conducted a focus group with nine migrants and six locals living in
Istanbul to explore their previous experiences engaging in IMSI, understanding what made their
interactions meaningful. Then, we turned to social psychology, the body of work focusing on
developing theories for decreasing prejudices. We linked the insights derived from the focus group to
the theories for prejudice reduction, finding eight strategies to encourage IMSI: facilitating empathy,
syncing feelings, supporting understanding, boosting the self, nudging positive perspectives,
experiencing together, encouraging cross-learning, and identifying similarities. Finally, we conducted
a preliminary evaluation of these strategies through a design workshop, initially exploring the
strategies' potential to aid designers in creating new design ideas for promoting IMSI. In this paper, we
first present previous work on meaningful social interactions. Then, we introduce the bridging
concepts along with our methodology. After presenting prejudice reduction techniques from social
psychology literature and participants' insights into IMSI, and describing the proposed strategies, we
discuss initial insights from designers into the strategies' usefulness for inspiring new design ideas.
2. Meaningful social interactions
Meaningful social interactions (MSI) can promote social diversity, increase the quality of life, and
influence the resilience of society (Fonseca et al., 2019). Such interactions can promote positive
attitudes and learn about other social groups perceived as different. However, these interactions are
often avoided in intercultural contexts because individuals prefer interactions with similar people
(Ingram and Morris, 2007; Karimi et al., 2018) or because of language differences and biases and
prejudices against other cultural groups.
Meaningful interactions between humans have been less explored in design literature, compared to the
work seeing meaningful interactions from the perspective of product attachment (Grosse-Hering et al.,
2013; Lukoff et al., 2018; Medeiros, 2014). Concerning meaningful interactions between humans, Litt
et al. (Litt et al., 2020) studied meaningful social interactions in the context of social media. The
authors explained that meaningful interactions are those with emotional, informational, or tangible
impact people believe enhance their lives, the lives of their interaction partners, or their relationships.
Fonseca et al. (Fonseca et al., 2021) explored children and teenagers' perceptions of meaningful social
interactions by studying if and when these interactions occur during gameplay, how they happen, and
with which impact. They indicated that designing for these interactions requires considering
participants' preferences, needs, and requirements to support interactions that are both desired and
meaningful to those interacting. Ramírez Galleguillos et al. investigated how MSI develops,
identifying that a memorable event needs to occur for the interaction to be meaningful (Ramírez
Galleguillos et al. 2021) and proposed igniting, sharing, and reflecting as a process to drive
meaningful interactions between intercultural strangers (Ramírez Galleguillos et al., 2019). Askins
and Pain (Askins and Pain, 2011) explored how elements of a participatory art project enabled and
disabled meaningful interaction between young people with African and British heritage.
The design field has also been concerned with promoting migrants' social inclusion. For instance,
ICTs have been developed for migrants keep in contact with their families (Gifford and Wilding,
2013), overcome language barriers (Abujarour et al., 2018), understand the regulations in the hosting
community (Harney, 2013), and increase their digital inclusion (Giglitto et al., 2019). There have been
efforts to explore storytelling for the empowerment of migrant women in Germany (Weibert et al.,
2017) and Finland (Bengs et al., 2018) and of Palestinian youth in the West Bank (Sawhney, 2009). It
can be observed that most of the works promoting contact between migrants and locals rely mostly
upon facilitating empathy between them (B. Gaver, T. Dunne, 1999; Batson et al., 1997; Kouprie and
Visser, 2009; Shu-huei Wang et al., 2018)
With all the above, though studies have explored MSI in the context of design, the literature lacks
strategies for encouraging strangers to interact meaningfully in everyday environments. Addressing
this gap, we aimed to propose such strategies to inspire designers when creating ideas that promote
IMSI.
CONFERENCE PRE-PRINT
INDUSTRIAL DESIGN 2205
3. Methodology
3.1. Bridging concepts
Bridging concepts (Dalsgaard and Dindler, 2014) represent intermediary knowledge between design
theory and practice. They facilitate the exchange between these different ways of knowing, rather than
being constructed solely on one of them. This study presents design strategies to promote IMSI as
bridging concepts between theory (i.e., theories for prejudice reduction) and practice (i.e., participants'
experiences being part of IMSI). Bridging concepts are composed of three aspects: theoretical
grounding, articulations, and exemplars. In this study, the theoretical grounding is based on social
psychology theories for prejudice reduction as prejudices represent a critical challenge for intercultural
interactions, articulations are based on participants' perceptions of previous experiences that express
relevant qualities of the bridging concepts, exemplars are participants' stories of previous MSI, which
express relevant characteristics of these interactions. Hence, we grounded the articulations and
examples of the present study on participants' empirical and situated knowledge collected during a
focus group.
3.1.1. Theoretical grounding: Analyzing relevant theories from social psychology
We analyzed a body of work from social psychology that focused on prejudice reduction theories from
both intergroup and interpersonal approaches. While intergroup theories aim to decrease prejudice
among different social, economic, and cultural groups, interpersonal strategies focus on individuals and
their own identities, thoughts, and cognitive processes, instead of the groups they identify with,
representing a more one-to-one approach. We integrated both approaches into the analysis since
although meaningful interactions have a relevant personal and subjective component related to feelings
and what is meaningful to everyone, prejudices are generally originated from a group perspective. We
identified four critical theories for prejudice reduction: intergroup contact theory, social identity, and
categorization theories, targeting emotions, and self-affirmation theory (see section 4.1.).
3.1.2. Practice: Focus group study
We conducted the focus group in collaboration with an NGO working to promote the social inclusion
of migrants living in Istanbul. We made an open call through the NGO's internal email and social
media. Participants were between 19 and 32 years old. Nine were migrants. Six were locals. All of
them lived in Istanbul at the moment of the workshop (Table 1).
Table 1. Participants' demographics.
We aimed to learn about their previous experiences engaging on IMSI and their perspective of this kind
of interaction. Therefore, a focus group dynamic provided a unique opportunity for participants to openly
Participant
Age
Nationality
Time Spent in Turkey
Pronouns
1
28
Azerbaijan
6 years
He/him
2
23
Turkey
Whole life
She/her
3
20
Morocco
3 years
She/her
4
28
Turkey
Whole life
He/him
5
28
Iraq
4 years
He/him
6
24
Turkey
Whole life
She/her
7
27
Morocco
6 years
She/her
8
26
Turkey
Whole life
She/her
9
32
Kashmir
3 years
She/her
10
23
Pakistan
5 years
She/her
11
19
Palestine
6 years
She/her
12
19
Turkey
5 years
She/her
13
20
Syria
8 years
He/him
14
27
Turkey
Whole life
She/her
15
22
Vietnam
3 years
He/him
CONFERENCE PRE-PRINT
2206 INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
share their experiences being part of IMSI and comment on each other's stories. Specifically, we asked
them (i) to think about previous experiences being part of IMSI and to share those stories with the group,
and (ii) to express what IMSI means to them. After sharing their stories, the participants organically
discussed their feelings and thoughts during and after the interactions. The session lasted four hours, and
it was audio-recorded. Authors made in situ annotations during the sessions. The transcripts and notes
were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2019, 2020). We focused on the
experiences participants had with IMSI and brainstormed the initial codes. With these, we identified the
following initial themes: stories, feelings, perceptions, and outcomes of interactions. Then, we
performed a round of open coding. Finally, we extracted four main themes, which framed different ways
of achieving an IMSI: feelings associated with the interaction, reflections of the interaction, activities
performed while interacting, and outcomes of the interaction.
3.1.3. Intermediary knowledge: Building strategies
After collecting knowledge from theory and practice, we revisited the focus group data to identify the
strategies. First, we coded the theories from social psychology according to their approach to prejudice
reduction: positive attitudes, re-shaping social category patterns, targeting emotions and fostering self-
affirmation. Then, we coded the experiences shared being part of an IMSI and associated outcomes as
exemplars embodying qualities of IMSI. Finally, we explored these qualities concerning the selected
prejudice reduction theories to make evident connections with this knowledge. Thus, by connecting
the three aspects of bridging concepts, we created the strategies to reflect that link between the
theories and practice.
4. Findings
This section presents the findings of focus group and the analysis of key prejudice reduction theories.
4.1. Theoretical grounding: theories for prejudice reduction
We have explored various ways to reduce prejudices from social psychology. Intergroup Contact Theory
(Allport, 1954; Pettigrew and Tropp, 2008; Pettigrew et al., 2011), one of the most comprehensive
strategies for reducing prejudice, states that positive contact can reduce biases. Bringing members of
different social groups into contact is thought to improve intergroup relations. However, not just any
contact is considered positive (Allport, 1954; Arias et al., 2000; Government, 2009; Pettigrew, 1998;
Pettigrew et al., 2011; Wessendorf, 2014), as some can be more damaging or validate biases (Pettigrew,
1998). Plus, optimal conditions need to be achieved for positive contact to happen, such as equal status,
shared goals, authority sanction, and the absence of competition.
Social identity theory (Grigoryan et al., 2020; Paluck and Green, 2009) posits that intergroup conflict
may arise because of social categorization processes. Categorization process (Turner et al., 1987)
explains that individuals present differences in their ability to cognitively access different levels of their
social and personal categorization. These differences are based on their previous experiences,
expectations, motivations, and goals when expressing such categorizations (i.e., what aspects of the self
are we trying to highlight at that moment). Besides, these categories are adapted to different kinds of fits.
The comparative fit refers to categorizing themselves in comparison to other groups. The normative fit
refers to categorizing themselves with what would be expected from members of those groups.
Interventions derived from this social identity and categorization perspective aim to change individuals'
categorization levels by four approaches: (i) individuals are encouraged to decategorize themselves, a
situation in which individual's identity(ies) is (are) emphasized over group's identity, (ii) recategorize
themselves, on which participants are encouraged to think of people from different groups as part of one
superordinate group, (iii) cross-categorize when people from opposing groups become aware that they
share membership in a third group and (iv) integrate, which aims to promote the acceptance of group
differences within a shared group identity (Paluck and Green, 2009).
Emotions can affect cognitions and stereotypes. Therefore, targetting emotions is proposed to
manipulate the expression of prejudices (Smith, 1993). An example is perspective-taking interventions
that encourage individuals to experience the feelings of being discriminated against by the opposing
CONFERENCE PRE-PRINT
INDUSTRIAL DESIGN 2207
group [3, 4, 36] to feel what others feel. Experiments promoting empathy and feelings while learning
the experience of a discriminated group, for example, when watching a video portraying anti-black
discrimination, can increase the desire to interact with members of that group, which is explained by a
change in emotions towards black people (Esses and Dovidio, 2002).
Self-affirmation theory (Steele, 1988) predicts that people discriminate against others to affirm their
self-identity when they feel threatened. Hence, people can refrain from demeaning others when their
identity is affirmed, for example, when they receive positive feedback about themselves or their work
(Paluck and Green, 2009). This body of work suggests that self‐protection motivations drive
individuals to be biased in their judgments of conflict‐related information because they challenge their
previously held beliefs about their group's role in the conflict (Sherman et al., 2017).
4.2. Practice: Insights from focus group
Focus group study revealed various insights into IMSI. Overall, participants perceived IMSI as a more
profound kind of interaction that can promote a change, even if small, in individuals themselves or
their day. Analyzing participants' discussions during the session, we identified five characteristics that
make intercultural interactions meaningful and positive. First, these interactions involve a mutuality
component in what people feel, think, and show of themselves. For instance, participants defined
interactions as meaningful when they perceived mutual trust, safety, and tolerance. Therefore, some
IMSI are related to empathy, experiencing similar feelings, and understanding individuals' differences.
Second, these interactions allow participants to feel like they belong to the moment they live.
Participants perceived belonging as being part of something bigger and feeling accepted by others.
Further, they linked belonging to feels like security, openness, and compatibility. Hence, even though
participants might be from different cultures, they expressed that they felt they were part of the same
group at the time of the interaction through IMSI.
Third, participants explained that by being part of these interactions, they could learn and reshape
parts of themselves and, thus, of their identity. They described identity as an image about oneself that
comes from being part of a group of people who have something in common. They expressed that
their identity, belongings, and perceptions of others are somewhat contextual and change depending
on their life experiences. For example, participants said that meaningful interactions could allow them
to change their perspectives about people they would normally avoid. In fact, according to their
previous IMSI, these interactions allowed them to experience or learn something that leads to
perceiving others as good people or discovering aspects they have in common.
Fourth, participants felt more confident and safer when they were part of IMSI compared to
interactions that might make them feel judged or threatened. Furthermore, they explained that feeling
trust and vulnerability, when mutually felt, could make the interaction more meaningful.
Figure 1. Design strategies as bridging concepts notion of intermediary knowledge. Colors
express the link between theory and practice for each strategy.
CONFERENCE PRE-PRINT
2208 INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
Finally, connectedness was related to the experiences participants shared. They noted that connectedness
often occurred due to shared interests, experiences, or thoughts while doing something relevant together.
Furthermore, they would have that experience connecting them for the rest of their life.
5. Intermediary knowledge: IMSI design strategies
By bridging the theories with the characteristics of IMSI, we synthesized eight design strategies to
facilitate IMSI. We present each strategy below:
1. Facilitating Empathy. With this strategy, design interventions can explore ways of enhancing
the gathering of insights about the life of people from a different social, economic or cultural
group by accessing each other's experiences and attached feelings, reflections, and goals as if
these were their own. An example of this strategy could be the various VR experiences (Yee
and Bailenson, 2006; Youn et al., 2016) that facilitate experiencing something through
someone else's eyes and then reflecting on it.
2. Syncing feelings. With this strategy, design interventions can explore ways for people to
feel the exact same thing at the very same moment. It is different from empathy in that with
empathy, people put themselves in the position of the other, while, by syncing feelings,
people feel the same from their own perspective. For instance, when hearing a song that
wakes similar senses at the same time. To make a case, we could think of a system that
encourages intercultural groups to visit a museum together, matching them according to
their favorite painting, so they receive a unique route according to the items that provoke
their similar feelings.
3. Supporting understanding. With this strategy, design interventions explore ways to create
awareness and tolerance of each other's actions, cultures, and beliefs to understand and accept
the other as another human being. This strategy is different from empathy in that individuals
do not switch points of view. Instead, intercultural people create dialogues about their
thoughts and ways of understanding the world, ensuring respect and safety. As an example,
we would create mobile spaces in town squares to facilitate peaceful dialogues between
residents.
4. Boosting confidence. With this strategy, design interventions can look for ways of increasing
individuals' self-appreciation and self-compassion, so they do not feel threatened by others
and their perceived differences. Examples of this could be receiving good feedback about
themselves, their performance or even nudging diversity advocacy. To make a case, we could
think of an intercultural community or neighborhood clapping app on which neighbors are
encouraged to give positive comments about others, their businesses, their gardens, or other
contributions people could make to their community.
5. Nudging positive perspectives. This strategy involves designing interventions that extend a
positive mindset and attitudes towards those perceived as different. Hence, it includes
interventions that highlight positive aspects about the others. Examples can be social media or
radio shows that portrait cooperative qualities and values regarded as positive within the local
culture about migrants (Paluck, 2009).
6. Experiencing together. With this strategy, design interventions can explore different ways to
nudge intercultural people to perform activities together, therefore, having that experience in
common for the future. Examples could be systems that offer discovering the city together or
urban games that allow people to be out of their comfort zone while doing something together.
7. Encouraging Cross-learning. With this strategy, design interventions can ideate ways to
support people learning something new about their culture and beliefs, hence producing a
cultural exchange. To make a case, we could think of a free food sharing app (Ganglbauer et
al., 2014) that facilitates people sharing their traditional foods and having meals together.
8. Identifying similarities. With this strategy, design interventions can explore ways to show
people that they are connected through obvious or unexpected similarities. Thus, people can
find common ground between themselves and their group identities. An example of the latter
could be an add-on of Spotify, which would suggest meeting with intercultural people who
share a similar music taste.
CONFERENCE PRE-PRINT
INDUSTRIAL DESIGN 2209
6. Using the strategies
Next, we present the initial outcomes of the preliminary evaluation of the strategies by designers.
6.1. Preliminary evaluation of the strategies
To initially test the usefulness of these strategies to inspire designers to create solutions for promoting
IMSI, we gave these strategies to eight designers with a design challenge asking them to think about
how two characters from different cultures could meaningfully meet in a public place of their selection.
Each designer was assigned with one of the strategies, and received the same challenge, the same
characters, and a different strategy. This way, we could initially observe whether the designers reached
divergent ideas related to their assigned strategy or not. The activity was individual, conducted in Miro,
an online collaboration tool. To communicate the strategies to the designers, we created a set of cards
(Figure 2) and provided the same description of the strategy as in 4.3 as text in the Miro board. Finally,
we asked the designers about their cognitive process to understand and use the strategies, their decision
process, and how they integrated the strategy we gave them into their idea.
Figure 2. Example of cards used to conduct a preliminary evaluation of the strategies.
6.2. The strategies potential to inspire new ideas
To evaluate whether the strategies could be helpful to inspire ideas, we assessed the designers' comments
and ideas they generated in the workshop. Overall, we observed that the strategies helped boost
divergent design solutions between apps, interactive installations, services, games, and speculative
artifacts. Further, the eight final ideas touch upon a broad array of design concepts from space design,
public services, artifacts, public interventions, apps, and online services, hence corroborating the
divergence of ideations the strategies provide to identify how design could contribute to creating IMSI.
Notwithstanding the diversity of the design solutions, we observed that the strategies allowed designers
to converge around the initial challenge of promoting IMSI. The strategies narrowed down their
possibilities and provided an appropriate frame to ideate around these interactions. The preliminary
insights gathered were positive, providing them with a better frame to focus on while ideating. D2
explained that "It was very helpful to have a strategy. Otherwise, I would have spent a long time
deciding how I could go about creating MSI and perhaps would have felt lost. So, I was glad to have a
starting point." -D5 added that "I think they [strategy] limited me very effectively, it was easier to
develop an idea (…) I also based my idea solely thinking on a shared experience which enabled me to
find ideas faster without getting lost."
6.3. Touching on interculturality, beyond empathy
The theories for prejudice reduction are broader than just about intercultural contact. In that sense,
personas seemed to help build ideas around more grounded information about the characters involved in
the interactions. With the preliminary evaluation, we understood how relevant feelings, character traits,
and previous experiences of the fictional characters were for creating appropriate solutions. For example,
D1 stated that "persona was especially helpful in imagining a story and take the perspective of users in
order to perceive what will/won't work". Further, by complementing the strategies with these fictional
characters, designers were able to create more contextually relevant ideas. For example, D4 explained
CONFERENCE PRE-PRINT
2210 INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
that "cards and personas helped me to find a common interaction ground for my ideation phase. They
helped me to ideate freely, widening my perspective on what can happen between two strangers. They
were designed in such detail that, I was able to create empathy between myself and them".
Consequently, it seems that, for the ideas to include even a broader array of cultures, these could reflect
characters' different intercultural experiences and cultural diversity aspects (Pride, 2015) such as
migration status, languages, values, among others.
Additionally, one designer who was using the facilitating empathy card mentioned she needed a more
detailed explanation of the persona, and a clarification of the subtle differences between strategies, as
she thought empathy was required for all strategies. We think that this is because empathy has been a
broadly used concept in design and overused idea concerning social inclusion interventions. Still,
only because someone can understand the other does not mean they are being empathetic towards that
person, as there are differences between empathy , triggering emotions (Smith, 1993) (e.g., self-
compassion, kindness), motivating positive attitudes (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew and Tropp, 2008;
Pettigrew et al., 2011), between other theories. This confusion highlights the need to appripiatly
integrating theories from other fields into design. Actually through this study we transferred
knowledge from theory and practice into actionable strategies, making visible that IMSI can be
promoted in seven other ways, besides through empathy. Therefore, by identifying relevant theories
and linking them to participant's experiences, we are proposes seven other strategies that could expand
the ways of achieving meaningfulness.
6.4. Recommendations from designers to improve the cards
It should be noted that we initially created the cards only to communicate the strategies to designers,
and other materials to observe how the strategies could contribute to inspiring new design ideas. Thus,
our aim is not to create a finished design tool that can be immediately utilized in design practice.
However, we identified two main areas to improve the design strategies' cards based on designers'
suggestions. First, designers suggested to have different colors and sizes of fonts to visually
distinguish between strategies.Second, it was suggested that we expand these tools' applicability by
improving the design of the Miro board in which it was used. Furthermore, through this study, we
have understood the relevance of creating tools specific to design activities. It seems that creating
tools that guide designers becomes even more critical in relation to topics and goals that seem to be far
from design such as sociology and psychology. By bridging existing knowledge from social
psychology with the empirical knowledge derived from participants, we were able to identify
strategies that could benefit designers by guiding them to create solutions. These strategies need to be
appropriately communicated to designers to guide them effectively. Hence, in the scope of future
work, we aim to iterate the design of the cards to communicate the strategies better and explore other
tools which could be integrated into the ideation process (i.e., personas, boards).
7. Conclusion
Intercultural Meaningful Social Interactions (IMSI) are required to promote social cohesion and
diversity in society. These interactions are relevant to promoting the social inclusion of migrants in
their hosting society. However, there are no directions to encourage them within everyday life. This
study was concerned with creating strategies to inspire designers while ideating for promoting IMSI.
We were inspired by the notion of bridging concepts, linking empirical knowledge from a focus group
with migrants and locals living in Istanbul, and social psychology literature on prejudice reduction.
We proposed eight design strategies to promote IMSI. We made a preliminary evaluation of these
strategies in their potential to inspire ideas that diverge in the kind of design interventions while still
converging to the type of interaction they promote. There are different aspects limiting this work, one
is the number of participants, their composition and specific social culture they are part of, hence they
might not represent every migrant experience. However, our study does not look for generalizability
as much as collecting situated knowledge (Haraway, 1988) and insights to inspire designers.
Therefore, this work could be complemented by being performed in other multicultural contexts as
well. Still, through the strategies devised, we put forward ways in which IMSI can be promoted
through design based on both literary work and participants’ situated knowledge, by generating
CONFERENCE PRE-PRINT
INDUSTRIAL DESIGN 2211
practical tools for designer's inspiration in creating solutions promoting IMSI and eventually
promoting social inclusion. We will continue to develop and iterate tools that can inspire design
solutions for facilitating IMSI in future work.
References
Allport, G.W. (1954), “The Nature of prejudice”, The Nature of Prejudice, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Arias, E., Eden, H., Fischer, G., Gorman, A. and Scharff, E. (2000), “Transcending the individual human
mind—creating shared understanding through collaborative design”, ACM Transactions on Computer-
Human Interaction (TOCHI), ACM, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 84–113.
Askins, K. (2016), “Emotional citizenry: everyday geographies of befriending, belonging and intercultural
encounter”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 515–527.
Askins, K. and Pain, R. (2011), “Contact zones: Participation, materiality, and the messiness of interaction”,
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 803–821.
Associazione Carta di Roma. (2016), “Notizie oltre i muri”, Quarto Rapporto Carta Di Roma.
B. Gaver, T. Dunne, E.P. (1999), “Design: Cultural Probes”, Magazine Interactions, Vol. Volume 6 I No. 1, pp. 21–29.
Batson, C.D., Polycarpou, M.P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H.J., Mitchener, E.C., Bednar, L.L., Klein, T.R., et
al. (1997), “Empathy and Attitudes: Can Feeling for a Member of a Stigmatized Group Improve Feelings
Toward the Group?”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 105–118.
Bhamra, T., Lilley, D. and Tang, T. (2011), “Design for sustainable behaviour: Using products to change
consumer behaviour”, The Design Journal, Taylor \& Francis, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 427–445.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2019), “Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis”, Qualitative Research in Sport,
Exercise and Health, Taylor \& Francis, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 589–597.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2020), “One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic
analysis?”, Qualitative Research in Psychology, Taylor \& Francis, pp. 1–25.
Consolvo, S., Klasnja, P., McDonald, D.W. and Landay, J.A. (2014), “Designing for healthy lifestyles: Design
considerations for mobile technologies to encourage consumer health and wellness”.
Consolvo, S., McDonald, D.W. and Landay, J.A. (2009), “Theory-driven design strategies for technologies that
support behavior change in everyday life”, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, pp. 405–414.
Dalsgaard, P. and Dindler, C. (2014), “Between theory and practice: Bridging concepts in HCI research”,
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, pp. 1635–1644.
Esses, V.M. and Dovidio, J.F. (2002), “The role of emotions in determining willingness to engage in intergroup
contact”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Sage Publications Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA,
Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 1202–1214.
Fonseca, X., Lukosch, S. and Brazier, F. (2019), “Social cohesion revisited: a new definition and how to
characterize it”, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research.
Fonseca, X., Slingerland, G., Lukosch, S. and Brazier, F. (2021), “Designing for meaningful social interaction in
digital serious games”, Entertainment Computing, Elsevier, Vol. 36 No. January 2020, p. 100385.
Ganglbauer, E., Fitzpatrick, G., Subasi, Ö. and Güldenpfennig, F. (2014), “Think globally, act locally: a case
study of a free food sharing community and social networking”, Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference
on Computer Supported Cooperative Work \& Social Computing, pp. 911–921.
Government, C. and L. (2009), Guidance on Meaningful Interaction.
Grigoryan, L., Cohrs, J.C., Boehnke, K., van de Vijver, F.A.J.R. and Easterbrook, M.J. (2020), “Multiple
Categorization and Intergroup Bias: Examining the Generalizability of Three Theories of Intergroup
Relations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, No. September, available
at:https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000342.
Grosse-Hering, B., Mason, J., Aliakseyeu, D., Bakker, C. and Desmet, P. (2013), “Slow Design for Meaningful
Interactions”, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 3431–3440.
Haraway, D. (1988), “Situated Knowledges : The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article ”:, Feminist Studies, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 575–599.
Harrison, S., Sengers, P. and Tatar, D. (2011), “Making epistemological trouble: Third-paradigm HCI as
successor science”, Interacting with Computers, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 385–392.
Ingram, P. and Morris, M.W. (2007), “Do people mix at mixers? Structure, homophily, and the ‘life of the party’”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 558–585.
International Crisis Group. (2018), “Turkeys Syrian Refugees: Defusing Metropolitan Tensions”, Europe Report,
Vol. 248 No. January, available at: https://www.crisisgroup.org/europe-central-asia/western-
europemediterranean/turkey/248-turkeys-syrian-refugees-defusing-metropolitan-tensions.
CONFERENCE PRE-PRINT
2212 INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
Karimi, F., Génois, M., Wagner, C., Singer, P. and Strohmaier, M. (2018), “Homophily influences ranking of
minorities in social networks”, Scientific Reports, Nature Publishing Group, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1–12.
Kouprie, M. and Visser, F.S. (2009), “A framework for empathy in design: Stepping into and out of the user’s
life”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 437–448.
Laroche, L. (2012), Managing Cultural Diversity in Technical Professions, Routledge.
Litt, E., Zhao, S., Kraut, R. and Burke, M. (2020), “What Are Meaningful Social Interactions in Today’s Media
Landscape? A Cross-Cultural Survey”, Social Media + Society, Vol. 6 No. 3, p. 205630512094288.
Lukoff, K.A.I., Yu, C., Kientz, J. and Hiniker, A. (2018), “What Makes Smartphone Use Meaningful or
Meaningless ?”, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1–26.
Mattelmäki, T. and Battarbee, K. (2002), “Empathy Probes”, Conference Proceedings : Participatory Design
Conference Malmo Sweden., No. June, pp. 1–3.
De Medeiros, J.F., Da Rocha, C.G. and Ribeiro, J.L.D. (2018), “Design for sustainable behavior (DfSB):
Analysis of existing frameworks of behavior change strategies, experts’ assessment and proposal for a
decision support diagram”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier, Vol. 188, pp. 402–415.
Medeiros, W.G. de. (2014), “Meaningful Interaction with Products”, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 16–28.
Neuliep, J.W. (2012), Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach, SAGE Publications, available at:
https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=uxynfqkwYe4C.
Ozduzen, O., Korkut, U. and Ozduzen, C. (2020), “‘Refugees are not welcome’: Digital racism, online place-
making and the evolving categorization of Syrians in Turkey”, New Media and Society, available
at:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820956341.
Paluck, E.L. (2009), “Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: a field experiment in Rwanda.”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, American Psychological Association, Vol. 96 No. 3, p. 574.
Paluck, E.L. and Green, D.P. (2009), “Prejudice reduction: What works? a review and assessment of research
and practice”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 339–367.
Pettigrew, T. and Tropp, L. (2008), “How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three
mediators”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 38, pp. 922–934.
Pettigrew, T.F. (1998), “Intergroup Contact Theory”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 65–85.
Pettigrew, T.F., Tropp, L.R., Wagner, U. and Christ, O. (2011), “Recent advances in intergroup contact theory”,
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Elsevier, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 271–280.
Pride, M. (2015), “Measuring superdiversity: constructing a theoretical multi-dimensional framework”,
Unpublished MA Dissertation. Birmingham: University of Birmingham, School of Social Policy.
Ramírez Galleguillos, M.L., Sekerli, E. and Coskun, A. (2019), “Ignite, Share and Reflect: Design Tactics to
Foster Social Interactions Between Migrants and Locals in Istanbul”, International Association of Societies
of Design Research Conference.
Ramírez Galleguillos, M.L., Eloiriachi, A., Serdar, B., Coşkun, A. (2021). “Tell Me Your Story, I’ll Tell You
What Makes It Meaningful’’: Characterization of Meaningful Social Interactions Between Intercultural
Strangers and Design Considerations for Promoting Them. In: HCI International 2021. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science(), vol 13094. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90238-4_40
Sherman, D.K., Brookfield, J. and Ortosky, L. (2017), “Intergroup conflict and barriers to common ground : A
self ‐ affirmation perspective”, pp. 1–13.
Shu-huei Wang, Shyh-huei Hwang and Ming-chyuan Ho. (2018), “Empathic Design: Understanding User
Experience Through Schema Changes and Innovative Design”, Journal of Literature and Art Studies, Vol. 3
No. 5, available at:https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5836/2013.05.002.
Simon, H.A. (2019), The Sciences of the Artificial, The Sciences of the Artificial, available
at:https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/12107.001.0001.
Smith, E.R. (1993), “Social identity and social emotions: Toward new conceptualizations of prejudice”, Affect,
Cognition and Stereotyping, Elsevier, pp. 297–315.
Steele, C.M. (1988), “The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self”, Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 261–302.
Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D. and Wetherell, M.S. (1987), Rediscovering the Social
Group: A Self-Categorization Theory., Basil Blackwell.
Wessendorf, S. (2014), “Researching social relations in super-diverse neighbourhoods: Mapping the field”.
Yee, N. and Bailenson, J.N. (2006), “Walk a mile in digital shoes: The impact of embodied perspective-taking
on the reduction of negative stereotyping in immersive virtual environments”, Proceedings of PRESENCE:
The 9th Annual International Workshop on Presence, pp. 147–156.
Youn, S., Bailenson, J., Weisz, E. and Zaki, J. (2016), “Virtually old: Embodied perspective taking and the
reduction of ageism under threat”, Vol. 60, pp. 398–410.
CONFERENCE PRE-PRINT