Advertisement

AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 125–132 | Cite as

The positioning cards: on affect, public design, and the common

  • Maurizio TeliEmail author
  • Antonella De Angeli
  • Maria Menéndez-Blanco
Original Article

Abstract

In this paper, we present a design tool, the positioning cards that we have developed, validated, and used in different projects. These cards are built to allow CI4CG and Participatory Design researchers to discuss the political alignment of design projects, in iterative processes of design involving people in the definition of the technological features to be implemented. The background of the cards is the conceptualization of contemporary participatory design as public design, engaging with societally relevant phenomena outside the traditional environment of the workplace. To engage with such an extended dimension of participatory design, we frame our contribution in the contemporary form of capitalism, stressing how contemporary capitalism dispossess the wealth created by social production. In this context, we argue, CI4CG designers need to engage deeply with the theoretical implications of their work. To support this effort, we built the cards combining a political perspective oriented toward nourishing the common—the ensemble of the material and symbolic elements tieing together human beings—with the “affect turn” in the social sciences—therefore including affective dimensions like joy, sadness, and desire in the design of CI4CG technologies. In the final part of the article we discuss how we have used the cards in four different projects.

Keywords

Participatory design Public design Common Affect Cards Collective intelligence 

References

  1. Bardzell J, Bardzell S (2015) Humanistic HCI. Synth Lect Hum-Cent Inf 8(4):1–185Google Scholar
  2. Berridge KC, Morten LK (2013) Neuroscience of affect: brain mechanisms of pleasure and displeasure. Curr Opin Neurobiol Soc Emot Neurosci 23(3):294–303.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2013.01.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bilandzic M, Venable J (2011) Towards participatory action design research: adapting action research and design science research methods for urban informatics. J Community Inform 7(3). http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/786/804?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter. Accessed 29 Nov 2017
  4. Binder T, Brandt E, Ehn P, Halse J (2015) Democratic design experiments: between parliament and laboratory. CoDesign 11(3–4):152–165.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1081248 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bosio E, Girardi T, Stefanescu D, D’Andrea V, Teli M (2014) Understanding online deliberation: the dis-alignment between designers and users. The Internet, Policy and Politics Conference, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  6. Botto F, Teli M (2016) PIE news. A public design project toward commonfare, 13th Prato CIRN Conference. Monash Center, PratoGoogle Scholar
  7. Bozzon R, Murgia A, Poggio B (eds) (2016) Supporting early career researchers through gender action plans. A design and methodological Toolkit, GARCIA working paper n. 9, University of Trento (ISBN 978–88-8443-682-5) Google Scholar
  8. Clough PT, Halley J (2007) The affective turn: theorizing the social. Duke University Press, DurhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dahlberg L (2011) Re-constructing digital democracy: an outline of four ‘positions’. New Media Soc 13(6):855–872.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810389569 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dick B (2002) Building agreement from disagreement: the anatomy of dialectical processes. Interchange, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  11. DiSalvo C, Clement A, Pipek V (2012) Participatory design for, with, and by communities. In: Simonsen J, Robertson T (eds) International handbook of participatory design. Routledge, Oxford, pp 182–209Google Scholar
  12. DiSalvo C, Lukens J, Lodato T, Jenkins T, Kim T (2014) Making public things: how HCI design can express matters of concern. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. CHI’14. ACM, New York, pp 2397–2406.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557359
  13. Ehn P (2008) Participation in design things. In: Proceedings of the tenth anniversary conference on participatory design 2008. Indiana University, Indianapolis, pp 92–101Google Scholar
  14. Foth M, Tomitsch M, Satchell C, Haeusler MH (2015) From users to citizens: some thoughts on designing for polity and civics. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Australian special interest group for computer human interaction, ACM, pp 623–633Google Scholar
  15. Guattari F, Deleuze G (1972) Anti-oedipus: capitalism and schizophrenia. Trans. Mark Seem et al. Viking Press, New York (trans 1977) Google Scholar
  16. Hakken D, Teli M, Andrews B (2015) Beyond capital: values, commons, computing, and the search for a viable future. Routledge, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Hardt M (2007) Foreword: what affects are good for. In: Clough PT, Halley J (eds) The affective turn: theorizing the social. Duke University Press, Durham, pp 12–13Google Scholar
  18. Hardt M, Negri A (2009) Commonwealth, 1st edn. Belknap Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Harvey D (2014) Seventeen contradictions and the end of capitalism. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Hassenzahl M, Tractinsky N (2006) User experience-a research agenda. Behav Inform Technol 25(2):91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kelty CM (2008) Two bits: the cultural significance of free software. Duke University Press, DurhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuntz AM, Presnall MM (2012) Wandering the tactical from interview to intraview. Qual Inq 18(9):732–744.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800412453016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Le Dantec CA, DiSalvo C (2013) Infrastructuring and the formation of publics in participatory design. Soc Stud Sci 43(2):241–264.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312712471581 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marx K (1857–1861) Grundrisse. Foundations of the critique of political economy, last retrieved on October, 28th, 2016, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ (trans. 1973). Accessed 29 Nov 2017
  25. Massumi B (2002) Parables for the virtual. Movement, affect, sensation. Duke University Press, DurhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Menendez-Blanco M, De Angeli A (2016) “Matters of Concern” as Design Opportunities. In: COOP 2016: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on the design of cooperative systems, 23–27 May 2016. Springer International Publishing, Trento, Italy, pp 277–293Google Scholar
  27. Menendez-Blanco M, Bjørn P, De Angeli A (2016) Critical design artefacts and cooperative activism. In: International conference on computer supported collaborative work and social computing (in press) Google Scholar
  28. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Posner J, Russell JA, Peterson BS (2005) The circumplex model of affect: an integrative approach to affective neuroscience, cognitive development, and psychopathology. Dev Psychopathol 17(3):715–734.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579405050340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schuler D (2013) Creating the world citizen parliament: seven challenges for interaction designers. Interactions 20(3):38–47.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2451856.2451867 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Spinoza B (1677) Ethica, ordine geometrico demonstrata, last retrieve on October, 28th, 2016, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3800/3800-h/3800-h.htm (trans. 1887). Accessed 29 Nov 2017
  32. Storni C (2014) The problem of de-sign as conjuring: empowerment-in-use and the politics of seams. In: Proceedings of the 13th participatory design conference: research papers, vol 1. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 161–170.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2661435.2661436
  33. Teli M (2015) Computing and the common. Hints of a new utopia in participatory design. Aarhus Ser Hum Cent Comput 1(1):4.  https://doi.org/10.7146/aahcc.v1i1.21318 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Teli M, Bordin S, Menéndez Blanco M, Orabona G, De Angeli A (2015) Public design of digital commons in urban places: a case study. Int J Hum Comput Stud 81:17–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.02.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Teli M, Di Fiore A, D’Andrea V (2016) Computing and the common: an empirical case of participatory design today. In: Proceedings of the 14th participatory design conference: full papers, vol 1. ACM, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  36. Vercellone C (2007) From formal subsumption to general intellect: elements for a Marxist reading of the thesis of cognitive capitalism. Hist Mater 15(1):13–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Watkins M (2010) Desiring recognition, accumulating affect. In: Gregg M, Seigworth GJ (eds) The affect theory reader. Duke University Press, Durham, p 269Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maurizio Teli
    • 1
    Email author
  • Antonella De Angeli
    • 2
    • 3
  • Maria Menéndez-Blanco
    • 4
  1. 1.Madeira Interactive Technologies Institute, Polo Científico e Tecnológico da MadeiraFunchalPortugal
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of LincolnLincolnUK
  3. 3.Department of Information Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversity of TrentoTrentoItaly
  4. 4.Human-Centred Computing, Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations