The outputs of this project are distributed in various media. This page is to help us keep track of our results
Light, A., Miskelly, C., and Thompson, S. 2008. An analysis of building habitat with networked tools.
In Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Conference on Computer-Human interaction: Designing For Habitus and Habitat (Cairns, Australia, December 08 - 12, 2008).
OZCHI '08, vol. 287. ACM, New York, NY, 180-187. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1517744.1517803
Interactive network technologies are taking our attention away from our habitat and distributing it worldwide. Can outwardpointing tools be turned back to focus on local needs? We examine social networking tools and location sensitive media for their potential to connect people to their environment in different ways, putting the tools’ use in context through an analysis of socially-motivated design practice. We explore two case studies of designing and conclude with a description of how we can support the embedding of social practices, and thus people, in their habitat through design interventions.
Ann Light & Clodagh Miskelly, 2008. Brokering between heads and hearts: an analysis of designing for social change. In David Durling, Chris Rust, Lin-Lin Chen, Philippa Ashton and Ken Friedman (editors), Proceedings of the Design Research Society Conference, Undisciplined! Sheffield Hallam University, 16th - 19th July, 2008.
This paper describes a fluid and responsive design process identified among certain practitioners involved in solving social problems or inspiring social change. Their practice is both user-centred and participative in its approach and addresses the shortcomings of many top-down initiatives. These people work tactically to weave together policy knowledge, funding opportunities, local initiative and ideas for improving social and environmental conditions, acting as connectors, activists and facilitators in different contexts at different times. Although their activities are recognisably related to more conventional designing practices, the materials they use in finding solutions are unusual in that they may include the beneficiaries themselves and other features of the social structure in which they are effecting change. We present an ethnographic study of practices in designing that focuses on social initiatives rather than the tangible products or systems that might support them. We explore the how design practices map to the process of winning local people's commitment to projects with a social flavour. To situate the discussion in a political context we draw on de Certeau’s distinction between strategic and tactical behaviour and look at how our informants occupy a space as mediators between groups with power and a sense of agency and those without.
Ramondt, L. (2008) Chapter 18: CoPs: the next generation In Kimble, C, Hildreth, P., (eds), Volume 2: Communities of Practice: Creating Learning Environments for Educators, London, Information age publishing, 365-391 pages, ISBN=1593118651 (bookchapter)
Andy Dearden & Ann Light, 2008. Designing for e-Social Action: An Application Taxonomy. In David Durling, Chris Rust, Lin-Lin Chen, Philippa Ashton and Ken Friedman (editors) Proceedings of the Design Research Society Conference, Undisciplined!, 16th – 19th July 2008, Sheffield Hallam University, 16th - 19th July, 2008 UK.
Designers of technology for social action can often become embroiled in issues of platform and technical functionality at a very early stage in the development process, before the precise social value of an approach has been explored. The loyalty of designers to particular technologies and to ways of working can divide activist communities and, arguably, has weakened the social action world’s performance in exploiting technology with maximum usefulness and usability.
In this paper, we present a lexicon for discussing technology and social action by reference to the intention and relationship to use, rather than to detailed functionality. In short, we offer a language to support discussions of social function, and thus to avoid premature commitment or argument about architecture or implementation details.
Andy Dearden & Ann Light. On Social Function: New language for discussing Technology for Social Action. Presented at Directions and Implications of Advanced Computing (DIAC), 26th – 29th June 2008, Berkeley, CA.
Designers of technology for social action can often become embroiled in issues of platform and technical functionality at a very early stage in the development process, before the precise social value of an approach has been explored. The loyalty of designers to particular technologies and to ways of working can divide activist communities and, arguably,
has weakened the social action world’s performance in exploiting technology with maximum usefulness and usability.
In this paper, we present a lexicon for discussing technology and social action by reference to the intention and relationship to use, rather than to detailed functionality. In short, we offer a language to support discussions of social function, and thus to avoid premature ommitment or argument about architecture or implementation details.
Steve Thompson
Invited presentation at the Prato CIRN 2008 Community Informatics Conference:
ICTs for Social Inclusion: What is the Reality?
Practical Design for Social Inclusion Gauteng Online Schools Programme
How can we use ICT and digital media in a way that support and enhance social inclusion? I’ve been working with a group of Academics and Practitioners known as PraDSA (Practical Design for Social Action) and have taken from them ideas that I have applied back on my home ground in Teesside. In return I’ve taken some ideas from Teesside back to the PraDSA table. I’ve learned that free and open source software along with a smattering of Web 2.00 can be great and effective tools for social inclusion. That is, provided they meet the participant group’s needs. There can be no one size fits all and one has to adopt a fluid approach and go with the flow. For the past two years I have been delivering on a project called Social Inclusion demonstrators (SID) one of only 20 in the UK. I’ll talk about this project and I’ll conclude by sharing the conclusion of the project with you.
I will tell how a group of quite disadvantaged young people mounted an exhibition called “Dreams Hopes and Wishes” and then rose to the occasion and grew into the space that had been made available to them. These young people became someone other than what their background and environment might have modelled them to be. Even their vocabulary became different. Even their teachers talked about a possible new approach to teaching I was so mesmerised by this that I almost forgot to record it. Luckily I recovered long enough to record a few video clips which I will share with you.
Walker, S. (2008 ) Technology and Social Action: sociotechnical networks and design, in Stillman, L. (ed) Proceedings of Community Informatics Research Network Conference, Prato, Italy Oct 28-30
This review paper examines accounts of design practices in social action settings. Drawing on the conceptual model of the ‘sociotechnical interaction network’ from the social informatics literature it identifies examples of novel roles evident in sustaining sociotechnical networks, arguing that understanding such roles is essential to understanding and designing effective social action technologies. It characterises and discusses four aspects of design in social action settings: participation, learning, critique and entrepreneurship.
This video is inspired by our experience of the power of movement and music in re-invigorating our collective commitment to social action!
Download high quality version here
Steve Thompson, Carrie Singleton & Paul Davies, 2009.
This paper was a report to the UK Online community media beacon Destinations@Saltburn. It concentrates on community media in an East Middlesbrough School.