Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

[X]CHANGING PERSPECTIVES

78 views

Published on

[X]CHANGING PERSPECTIVES:
ENRICHING MULTISTAKEHOLDER DELIBERATION WITH EMBODIMENT IN
PARTICIPATORY SOCIETY presented at the CeDEM17 Conference in Krems, Austria

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

[X]CHANGING PERSPECTIVES

  1. 1. [ X ] C H A N G I N G P E R S P E C T I V E S : E N R I C H I N G M U LT I - S TA K E H O L D E R D E L I B E R AT I O N W I T H E M B O D I M E N T I N PA R T I C I PAT O RY S O C I E T Y. [ X ] C P @ C E ’ D E M ’ 1 7 K R E M S , A U S T R I A | 1 7 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 7
  2. 2. I N T R O D U C T I O N • Transformation Economy • Multi-stakeholder collaborations • Bottom-up movements • Decentralisation • Deliberative democracy PA R T I C I PAT I O N S O C I E T Y
  3. 3. F O C U S C O N T R I B U T I O N • Our aim is not to design direct solutions to societal issues • but instead we focus on designing deliberation tools for multi- stakeholders to tackle the societal issues together • based on participatory sensemaking.
  4. 4. • Systemic mechanisms are ‘colonising’ the Lifeworld • ”…reaching understanding in the sense of a cooperative process of interpretation” [Habermas 1981, p. 40] • Stakeholders should engage in discussions that cross over the System and Lifeworld dichotomy and reach a common understanding • System-Lifeworld 
 (HABERMAS, 1981) • Plurality
 (ARENDT, 1945) • Phenemenology of Perception
 (MERLEAU-PONTY, 1985) • Participatory Sensemaking
 (DE JAEGHER & DI PAOLO, 2009) • Deliberative Democracy
 (FISHKIN & LUSKIN, 2005) • Embodiment
 (HUMMELS & VAN DIJK, 2015) F R A M E T H E O RY
  5. 5. • System-Lifeworld 
 (HABERMAS, 1981) • Plurality
 (ARENDT, 1945) • Phenemenology of Perception
 (MERLEAU-PONTY, 1985) • Participatory Sensemaking
 (DE JAEGHER & DI PAOLO, 2009) • Deliberative Democracy
 (FISHKIN & LUSKIN, 2005) • Embodiment
 (HUMMELS & VAN DIJK, 2015) F R A M E • Distinctness & otherness • Handeln • Through action, we can discover and even affect each other’s opinions • Table as metaphor of the public space T H E O RY
  6. 6. • System-Lifeworld 
 (HABERMAS, 1981) • Plurality
 (ARENDT, 1945) • Phenemenology of Perception
 (MERLEAU-PONTY, 1985) • Participatory Sensemaking
 (DE JAEGHER & DI PAOLO, 2009) • Deliberative Democracy
 (FISHKIN & LUSKIN, 2005) • Embodiment
 (HUMMELS & VAN DIJK, 2015) F R A M E T H E O RY • We perceive and make sense of the world by interacting with and in it • Designing for physical interaction opportunities (movements) might open up different ways to perceive and thus different ways to makes sense of the world • Opens up ‘understanding’ beyond the limits of a verbal discussion
  7. 7. • System-Lifeworld 
 (HABERMAS, 1981) • Plurality
 (ARENDT, 1945) • Phenemenology of Perception
 (MERLEAU-PONTY, 1985) • Participatory Sensemaking
 (DE JAEGHER & DI PAOLO, 2009) • Deliberative Democracy
 (FISHKIN & LUSKIN, 2005) • Embodiment
 (HUMMELS & VAN DIJK, 2015) F R A M E • Cognition is embodied in action • Focus on the encounter itself wherein interactions can influence one another and meaning is generated in the ‘in-between’ between people, not in their separate minds. T H E O RY
  8. 8. • System-Lifeworld 
 (HABERMAS, 1981) • Plurality
 (ARENDT, 1945) • Phenemenology of Perception
 (MERLEAU-PONTY, 1985) • Participatory Sensemaking
 (DE JAEGHER & DI PAOLO, 2009) • Deliberative Democracy
 (FISHKIN & LUSKIN, 2005) • Embodiment
 (HUMMELS & VAN DIJK, 2015) F R A M E • From the rationality of deliberation towards the interaction of deliberation • We aim to enrich the concept of deliberative democracy in two ways: • firstly, taking the autonomy of the interaction process into account, by focusing on the dynamics of participatory sensemaking, • and secondly, by bringing the notion of embodiment into play. T H E O RY
  9. 9. • System-Lifeworld 
 (HABERMAS, 1981) • Plurality
 (ARENDT, 1945) • Phenemenology of Perception
 (MERLEAU-PONTY, 1985) • Participatory Sensemaking
 (DE JAEGHER & DI PAOLO, 2009) • Deliberative Democracy
 (FISHKIN & LUSKIN, 2005) • Embodiment
 (HUMMELS & VAN DIJK, 2015) F R A M E • Scaffolds: inviting physical objects or spaces, props, that allow for creative thought and bind conversations or meaning and also gain meaning through interaction with them. • Traces: positions, selections or compositions of scaffolds that refer to the interactions in the meaning- making process; they form a tangible or visible history and they can become scaffolds themselves. T H E O RY
  10. 10. D E S I G N : [ X ] C H A N G I N G P E R S P E C T I V E S C O N T R I B U T I O N • PRODUCT
 (2) 15 tracking tables each with 15 tokens with icons and 1 real-time visualisation of token movements • SERVICE
 (1) Expectation management, Invitation, 
 (3) Analysis, report, video-impression, 
 (4) Collective evaluation session. • SYSTEM
 Token movements are tracked and visualised in a real-time visualisation.
  11. 11. 3 C A S E S C A S E S T U D I E S • What do citizen initiatives need to flourish? • How can housing corporation and tenants work together on enjoyable living in the city? • How can housing corporation and tenants work together on enjoyable living in the village?
  12. 12. vimeo.com/philemonne/aop080915
  13. 13. S E S S I O N : A C T I V E AT T E N T I O N O B S E R VAT I O N S & F I N D I N G S
  14. 14. O B S E R VAT I O N S & F I N D I N G S S E S S I O N : T R I G G E R S F O R P S
  15. 15. S E S S I O N : D I S P O S I T I O N O F P O W E R O B S E R VAT I O N S & F I N D I N G S
  16. 16. B E F O R E & A F T E R T H E S E S S I O N O B S E R VAT I O N S & F I N D I N G S
  17. 17. B A C K T O T H E F O C U S • “…our aim is to contribute to deliberative democracy, by designing and evaluating embodied deliberation tools that enable multi-stakeholders to collaborate on societal issues using participatory sensemaking.” I M P L I C AT I O N S F O R D E L I B E R AT I O N
  18. 18. • Introducing physical and visual elements to enrich deliberation • Scaffolds: icons, tokens
 (HUMMELS & VAN DIJK, 2015) • Traces: visual representation
 (HUMMELS & VAN DIJK, 2015) I M P L I C AT I O N S • Questioning each other • Elucidating viewpoints • Listening • Building onto each other’s contributions • Hierarchy I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
  19. 19. • Introducing physical and visual elements to enrich deliberation • Scaffolds: icons, tokens
 (HUMMELS & VAN DIJK, 2015) • Traces: visual representation
 (HUMMELS & VAN DIJK, 2015) I M P L I C AT I O N S • Reflection • Sense of scale • Other or unknown perspectives I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
  20. 20. • Introducing design tools in deliberation processes I M P L I C AT I O N S • Expectation management • Design tool not limited to one event • Close collaboration partners • Open process • Sharing research insights I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
  21. 21. F U T U R E W O R K D E S I G N D E V E L O P M E N T
  22. 22. [ X ] C H A N G I N G P E R S P E C T I V E S : E N R I C H I N G M U LT I - S TA K E H O L D E R D E L I B E R AT I O N W I T H E M B O D I M E N T I N PA R T I C I PAT O RY S O C I E T Y. [ X ] C P @ C E ’ D E M ’ 1 7 K R E M S , A U S T R I A | 1 7 - 0 5 - 2 0 1 7 P H I L É M O N N E J A A S M A P. G . J A A S M A @ T U E . N L

×