Abstract
In this chapter I shift the focus from questions of epistemology/methodology and turn, instead, to consider the social and political aspects of Dewey’s philosophy and their relation to design practice and research. The chapter opens with an exploration of how Dewey’s work has been drawn upon in participatory design discourse, looking in particular how individuals such as Pelle Ehn, Christopher Le Dantec and Carl DiSalvo as well as a number of related science and technology theorists have appropriated his ‘publics’ concept. From this presentation, I then turn my attention, again, to his original writings, with his stance in relation to democracy and ethics, as well as his melioristic perspective (i.e., the belief that human action can lead to positive change) all being highlighted in turn. The chapter draws to a close with a discussion of how these concepts can be related to contemporary understandings of the democratic/ethical within design practice and research. I conclude with the proposal that Dewey’s work might provide socially/politically motivated design practice and research with a value-based philosophic grounding that gives articulation to some pre-existing concerns.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The First Things First Manifesto was originally written by graphic designer Ken Garland and, subsequently, signed by another twenty-one other designers. In the manifesto, Garland called on designers to seek out opportunities to apply their skills in non–commercial, more socially–orientated contexts. For an overview and discussion of its relevancy beyond its initial presentation, see Poynor (1999).
- 2.
An overview of the economic policies of the mid to late–twentieth century is beyond the scope of the present text, it will be sufficient to note that, in the West, through the 1950s, 60s and early 70s there was a general consensus that state intervention in the economy was both necessary and positive. From the early 1980s onwards, with the election of Margret Thatcher in Britain and Ronald Regan in the United States, this consensus was gradually undermined. Both of these politicians held the firm belief that state intervention was unnecessary and, indeed, damaging—a view which is now termed ‘neo–liberalism’. For an overview of this historic shift see Kotz (2015).
- 3.
In the mid–2000s, von Hippel (2005) argued that increased access to information and technology meant that elite groups of ‘lead users’ might now participate in the production process. He referred to this development as a ‘democratization of innovation’.
- 4.
An ability which participatory design as design-only is seen to lack.
- 5.
At regular intervals through his works, Dewey bemoans what he sees as the poor state of social inquiry. This subject receives extensive treatment in The Public and its Problems but is also given a dedicated chapter in Logic: The Theory of Inquiry (see LW 12, pp. 481–505).
- 6.
Another key challenge for a reformed news, lay with presentation, i.e., how it was packaged. ‘A technical high-brow presentation’ he suggested, ‘would appeal only to those technically high-brow; it would not be news for the masses’. The need was for presentations/publications which appealed on a deeper level. Art was capable of breaking through the ‘plane of conventionalized and routine consciousness’ (ibid, p. 349). By disrupting everyday consciousness—news as it was commonly experienced—the well-crafted, well-considered presentation of social research would aid the formation of sound opinion and judgement. It would ensure that, when the time came, the public could make an informed political contribution.
- 7.
It is interesting to observe, for example, that the role of education is discussed more than once in The Public and its Problems (LW 2, pp. 235–372) and the ‘method of democracy’ is such a forceful theme in his Ethics co–written with Tufts (LW 7).
- 8.
How We Think (LW8, pp. 105–352) is the title of one of Dewey’s most famous works.
- 9.
It is important to note that, as we will see below, growth was as much a moral concept for Dewey as it was educational or democratic.
- 10.
In Democracy and Education, Dewey dedicates an entire chapter (Chap. 4) to the theme of education and growth (see MW 9, pp. 46–58).
- 11.
- 12.
Marianne McAra’s doctoral work (2017) presents a powerful example of how small-scale participatory design projects can effect positive change in young people’s lives.
- 13.
As well as a participatory design project, the study was also framed as participatory research project with the YFMs taking on the role of co-researchers at various stages.
References
Bannon, L., Bardzell, J., & Bødker, S. (2018). Introduction: Reimagining participatory design—Emerging voices. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 25(1), 1–8.
Bansler, J. P. (1989). Systems development research in Scandinavia: Three theoretical schools. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 1, 3–20.
Bason, C. (2016). Policy design. Abingdon: Routledge.
Beck, E. E. (2002). P for political: Participation is not enough. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 14(1), 77–92.
Becker, L. C., & Becker, C. B. (Eds.). (2001). Encyclopaedia of ethics (2nd ed.). Routledge: London.
Binder, T., Brandt, E., Ehn, P., & Halse, J. (2015). Democratic design experiments: Between parliament and laboratory. CoDesign, 11(3–4), 152–165.
Bjerknes, G., & Bratteteig, T. (1995). User participation and democracy: A discussion of Scandinavian research on system development. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 7(1), 73–98.
Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P. A. (2010). PD and democratizing innovation. In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial PD Conference, 29 November – 3 December, Sydney Austrialia, ACM New York, pp 41–50.
Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P. A. (2012). Design things and design thinking: Contemporary participatory design challenges. Design Issues, 28(3), 101–116.
Bødker, S., & Kyng, M. (2018). Participatory design that matters—Facing the big issues. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 25(1), 1–31.
Bratteteig, T. (2004). Making change: Dealing with relations between design and use. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Oslo: University of Oslo.
Bucchi, M. (2002). Science and the media: Alternative routes to scientific communications. Abingdon: Routledge.
Carroll, J. M. (2000). Making use: Scenario-based Design of Human Computer-Interactions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Carstensen, H. V., & Bason, C. (2012). Powering collaborative policy innovation: Can innovation labs help. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 17(1), 1–26.
Dewey, J. (LW 1–17). J. A. Boydston (Ed.) John Dewey the later works, 1925–1953. Carbondale IL: University of Southern Illinois Press.
Dewey, J. (MW 1–15). J. A. Boydston (Ed.) John Dewey the middle works, 1899–1924. Carbondale: University of Southern Illinois Press.
DiSalvo, C. (2009). Design and the construction of publics. Design Issues, 25(1), 48–63.
Duarte, A. M. B., Brendel, N., Degbelo, A., & Kray, C. (2018). Participatory design and participatory research: An HCI case study with young forced migrants. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 25(1), 1–39.
Dykhuizen, G. (1973). The life and mind of John Dewey. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Ehn, P. (2008). Participation in design things. In Proceedings of the tenth anniversary conference on participatory design 2008, Sept 30 – Oct 04, 2008 (pp. 92–101). Bloomington: Indiana University.
Ehn, P. (2017). Learning in PD as I found it (1970–2015). In B. DiSalvo, J. Yip, E. Bonsignore, & C. DiSalvo (Eds.), PD for learning: Perspectives from practice and research (pp. 7–21). Abingdon: Routledge.
Escobar, A. (2018). Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical interdependence, autonomy, and the making of worlds. Durham: Duke University Press.
Frens, J. (2006). Designing for rich interactions: Integrating form, interaction and function.. Ph.D. Dissertation. Eindhoven: TU Eindhoven.
Greenbaum, J. (1990). A Design of One’s own: Towards PD in the United States. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.), PD: Practices and principles (pp. 27–37). Hillsdale: Laurence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Halse, J., Brandt, E., Clark, B., & Binder, T. (Eds.). (2010). Rehearsing the future. Copenhagen: The Danish Design School Press.
Heidegger, M. (1971). Poetry, language, thought. (trans: Hofstadter A). New York: Harper and Row.
Huybrechts, L., Benesch, H., & Geib, J. (2017). Institutioning: Participatory design, co-design and the public realm. CoDesign, 13(3), 148–159.
Kensing, F., & Greenbaum, J. (2013). Heritage: Having a say. In J. Simonsen & T. Robertson (Eds.), Routledge handbook of participatory design (pp. 21–36). Abingdon: Routledge.
Kimbell, L., & Bailey, J. (2017). Prototyping and the new Spirit of policy-making. CoDesign, 13(3), 214–226.
Kotz, D. M. (2015). The rise and fall of neoliberal capitalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kyng, M. (2010). Bridging the Gap Between Politics and Techniques: On the next practices of participatory design. Scandinavian J. Inf. Systems, 22(1), 5.
Latour, B. (2005). From realpolitik to Dingpolitik or how to make things public. In B. Latour & P. Weibel (Eds.), Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy (pp. 14–41). Cambridge MA: MIT Press, ZKM/Center for Art and Media in Karlsruhe.
Latour, B. (2007). Turning around politics: A note on Gerard de Vries’ paper. Social Studies of Science, 37(5), 811–820.
Latour, B., & Weibel, P. (Eds.). (2005). Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, ZKM/Center for Art and Media in Karlsruhe.
Le Dantec, C. A. (2016). Designing publics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Le Dantec, C. A., & DiSalvo, C. (2013). Infrastructuring and the formation of publics in participatory design. Social Studies of Science, 43(2), 241–264.
Lippman, W. (1925). The phantom public. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Lockton, D., Harrison, D., & Stanton, N. A. (2010). The design with intent method: A design tool for influencing user behaviour. Applied Ergonomics, 41(3), 382–392.
Macdonald, S., & Basu, P. (Eds.). (2007). Exhibition experiments. Oxford: Blackwell.
MacIntyre, A. (1998). [1967] A Short History of Ethics. London: Routledge.
Manzini, E. (2015). Design when everyone designs. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Marres, N. (2012). Material participation: Technology, the environment and everyday publics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mattelmäki, T., Vaajakallio, K., & Koskinen, I. (2014). What happened to empathic design? Design Issues, 30(1), 67–77.
McAra, M. (2017). Participatory design with young people: Exploring the experiential, relational and contextual dimensions of participation. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Glasgow: Glasgow School of Art.
Narayan, J. (2016). John Dewey: The global public and its problems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Olander, S. (2015). The network lab: A proposal for design–anthropological experimental set-ups in cultural work and social research. Ph.D. dissertation. Copenhagen: Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Schools of Architecture Design and Conservation.
Papanek, V. (1971). Design for real world. London: Thames and Hudson.
Poynor, R. (1999). First things first revisited. Émigré, 51, 2–3.
Robertson, T., & Wanger, I. (2013). Ethics: Engagement, representation and politics-in-action. In J. Simonsen & T. Robertson (Eds.), Routledge handbook of participatory design (pp. 64–83). Abingdon: Routledge.
Rosenqvist T (2018a) Experiencing Everyday Sanitation Governance: A Critical Inquiry into the Governance of Urban Sanitation Services in Indonesia and How it could be Otherwise. Unpublished PhD thesis. Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney.
Rosenqvist, T. (2018b). Redirecting a scattered public toward alternative matters of concern: Shifting perceptions of urban wastewater governance in Indonesia. Design Issues, 34(4), 51–65.
Sanders, E. B. N. (2017). Learning in PD: Future aspirations. In B. DiSalvo, J. Yip, E. Bonsignore, & C. DiSalvo (Eds.), PD for learning: Perspectives from practice and research (pp. 213–224). Abingdon: Routledge.
Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-Design, 4(1), 5–18.
Shapiro, D. (2005). PD: The Will to Succeed. In O. W. Bertelsen, O. Bouvin, P. G. Krogh & M. Kyng (Eds.) Proceedings of the 4th Decennial Conference on Critical Computing: Between Sense and Sensibility (pp. 29–38). New York: ACM.
Steen, M. (2011). Tensions in human-centred design. CoDesign, 7(1), 45–60.
Steen, M. (2013). Co-design as a process of joint inquiry and imagination. Design Issues, 29(2), 16–28.
Steen, M. (2015). Upon opening the black box and finding it full: Exploring the ethics in design practices. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40(3), 389–420.
Telier, A., Binder, T., De Michelis, G., Ehn, P., Jacucci, G., Linde, P., & Wagner, I. (2011). Design things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Walker, S. (2010). Wrapped attention: Designing products for evolving permanence and enduring meaning. Design Issues, 26(4), 94–108.
Westbrook, R. (1991). John Dewey and American democracy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dixon, B.S. (2020). Making Things Better. In: Dewey and Design. Design Research Foundations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47471-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47471-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-47470-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-47471-3
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)