ResearchPDF Available

Transformation Design als Heterotopie—Praxisorientierte Designforschung im Kontext gesellschaftlichen Wandels (Dissertation)


Abstract and Figures

Die Arbeit beschreibt eine transdisziplinäre Forschungsreise. Auf der Suche nach Angemessenheit, Anwendungsbereich, Legitimation und Erkenntniszuwachsen von designerischen Eingriffen in eine rasante, dramatische und komplexe Zeit gesell-schaftlichen Wandels, bewegt sich ein praxisorientiertes Forschungsprojekt zwi-schen Ausstellungshäusern und Betonwerken, Galerien und Livestreams, Beteili-gungsformaten und ironischen Artefakten. Der Begriff des Transformation Designs wird aus seinem anhaltenden Nischendasein ins Rampenlicht gerückt und dient dem Entwurf eines Designverständnisses, das Widersprüchlichkeiten zulasst, keine Lösungen, sondern Handlungsoptionen entwirft und als Strategie zur Bearbeitung gesellschaftlicher Herausforderungen vorgeschlagen wird.
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Full-text available
The editors of this anthology have invited me to write a synthesis, which should relate the texts to each other and discuss them with respect to the general design research discourse. Most contributions are closely leaning on Pask and Glanville. Building on Pask, Glanville conceives the design process as a conversation that the designer holds with objects, with him/herself or with others. Two basic traits of the approach become apparent that limit the approach: First, the largely personal character of the conversation; the ideal constellation consists of two people present, talking to each other. Second, the harmonic tendency towards consensus in conversations, even if the constructivist character of generating individual meaning is emphasized. My concluding essay contextualises and situates design cybernetics within the harsh and unfriendly environment of present-day digitized global capitalism, which is excessively exploiting the unlimited potential of so-called social media. Based on this and taking into account the feedback of the contributing authors I formulate some concerns regarding the deficits of current second-order cybernetics and design cybernetics. The critique can be concentrated on the missing of an advanced systemic social theory and focuses on three topics: systems, communication and evolution. Furthermore, I suggest to work out the necessarily political character of design cybernetics. In a final section I reflect on the issue of rigour and/or relevance in design cybernetics.
This chapter provides evidence of the value of design in creating improved security and well-being, with reference to work on Design Against Crime at the University of Salford in the UK. Following several UK- and European-funded projects, we established the Design Against Crime Solution Centre at the University of Salford to support and develop design-led approaches to tackling crime and insecurity. In accord with numerous designers over the last fifty years, we recognise the potential for design as a social good, and so welcome the opportunity to participate in efforts to promote a greater role for design in addressing important societal issues of the twenty-first century. Coined by the UK Design Council in a report published in 2006, 'transformation design' is currently being discussed in Germany, while it appears to be no longer promoted in its country of birth. In this chapter, we explore the utility of transformation design in supporting design approaches to addressing social issues, highlighting some limitations with this 'new' approach and its relationship to traditional design method. We consider whether the transformation design approach offers any advantages that differentiate it from the more traditional but less grandiloquently titled socially responsible design.
Scientific work is heterogeneous, requiring many different actors and viewpoints. It also requires cooperation. The two create tension between divergent viewpoints and the need for generalizable findings. We present a model of how one group of actors managed this tension. It draws on the work of amateurs, professionals, administrators and others connected to the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at the University of California, Berkeley, during its early years. Extending the Latour-Callon model of interessement, two major activities are central for translating between viewpoints: standardization of methods, and the development of `boundary objects'. Boundary objects are both adaptable to different viewpoints and robust enough to maintain identity across them. We distinguish four types of boundary objects: repositories, ideal types, coincident boundaries and standardized forms.
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.