R. Bendor
Please Note
42 records found
1
Undoing Gracia
Queering the self in the algorithmic borderlands
As the climate crisis continues, the question of who gets to shape the future, and how, has become increasingly urgent. Visions of the future are the building blocks of the futural public sphere; spaces where futures are imagined, deliberated and pursued. Desirable, alternative futures and pathways for their realisation reveal whom a group considers to be important social actors and what they believe are the necessary political levers for enacting change. Youth, although often marginalised in futural and environmental politics, are no different. In this paper, we ask how a future vision created by a Dutch youth environmental advocacy group seeks to intervene in the futural public sphere of water governance in the Netherlands. We employ techniques of close reading, thematic content and critical discourse analysis, and concepts of protagonists, antagonists and victims and of the future. Our findings reveal that the vision primarily extends existing governance frameworks into the future, reflecting dominant beliefs in Dutch political culture about pursuing change, and point to a potential gap between the politics of participation and politics of imagination in this instance of participatory futuring.
Teaching for Transformation
Lessons from Critical Pedagogy for Design Futures Education
All Hail the Imagination!
Expanding Notions of Engineering Expertise in Technical Jigher Education
Everywhere, all at once
Speculative layering of multiple temporalities with Augmented Reality
What Does 'Failure' Mean in Civic Tech?
We Need Continued Conversations About Discontinuation
Public participation in futuring
A systematic literature review
Against the background of continuous calls to democratize futures research and practice, this paper reports the results of a systematic literature review of the involvement of publics in participatory futuring processes. The paper considers three key research questions: Who participates in public futuring processes? Why are publics included in these processes? And what roles do they occupy? By considering practices of participation in futuring, we aim to build a comprehensive picture of the participatory futuring landscape and highlight elements of process design that may enhance or diminish a process's democratic potential. We conclude by suggesting directions for possible future research that could serve the field's continuing desire to democratize and further integrate participatory and critical approaches to futuring.
Fit for Purpose
Four considerations of how matter becomes material
Failed yet successful
Learning from discontinued civic tech initiatives
The design of civic tech is often confronted with impediments, barriers, and a lack of resources. These and other causes may lead to the discontinuation and even abandonment of initiatives. Since seemingly failed projects are much more difficult to publish as articles, this workshop will provide academics and practitioners with a rare opportunity to exchange experiences and insights on discontinued civic tech initiatives. The goal of the workshop is to develop a better understanding of why some civic tech initiatives fail and ask whether discontinued initiatives may still somehow contribute to social change and the growth of digital civics. A variety of sub-questions around discontinued civic tech will be addressed in the workshop, including matters of participation, citizen science, public management, power structures and biases, and communication.
Beyond the Design Code
Critical Design and Democratic Rationalizations
This chapter suggests a few touchpoints between Andrew Feenberg’s critical constructivism and current work in critical design, with the hope of initiating a productive dialogue between the two. Taking Feenberg’s notion of the design code as an invitation for such an encounter, the chapter illustrates how designers can take an active, meaningful role in facilitating what Feenberg calls “democratic rationalizations” in three different ways: in (co)design processes designers facilitate collaboration and nurture collective creativity while maintaining as much autonomy for participants to make the design process and its outcomes their own. In (re)design processes designers may be forced to respond to their users’ needs post-hoc, but they may also anticipate users’ needs and even embrace opportunities to provoke users to reflect on the social, cultural and political implications of the technologies they use. Lastly, and most radically, (un)design processes ask designers to let go of (some of) their intentionality and seed potentials for users to appropriate the technologies they design. In Feenberg’s terms, this equals an almost complete relinquishing of “operational autonomy” and the valorization of technical rationality that characterizes it.
Social dreaming together
A critical exploration of participatory speculative design
While often seen as an elitist practice found only in artistic and academic circles, speculative design has grown in popularity and is now practiced in more diverse contexts and with a variety of participants. In order to gain a better understanding of this ostensible 'participatory turn', this paper presents an initial exploration of participatory speculative design based on a pilot survey of recent projects. Using a sample of projects we develop an 8-step hierarchical taxonomy of participation in speculative design that moves from 'spectatorship' to 'reflection', 'inspiration', 'generative reflection', 'shared creativity', 'shared authorship', 'initiative' and, finally, 'ownership'. The taxonomy helps to raise important questions about the character and outcomes of participatory speculative design processes and the role played by designers as agents of the public imagination.