RSD12 Theme & Focus

This focus area is inspired by the vision for climate justice in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada—“A city of interconnected communities collectively advancing climate action, Indigenous sovereignty, intersectionality, equity, and social justice toward a shared future of healing and hope” (City of Vancouver, 2022).

Guided by the Climate Justice Charter, which community leaders wrote for the City of Vancouver to provide guidance on how to embed justice into climate-related work, papers can be oriented around the ten forms of justice that constellate climate justice.

disability | distributive | gender, sexual, and reproductive | health | Indigenous sovereignty |migrant | multi-species | procedural | restorative | racial

The Vancouver Climate Justice Charter is grounded in five principles:

nə́ c̓aʔmat tə šxʷqʷeləwən ct (we are of one heart and mind) | Indigenous sovereignty | thinking beyond borders | redistribution | fluidity

Contributions to this focus area address the interconnectedness of design research and systemic design. Submissions that feature design research and developments in systemic design in Latin America are especially encouraged. Papers, presentations, workshops, and systems maps or exhibits might include some of the following aspects of design research in systemic design.

• Problem framing: research and mapping to deeply understand the problem context and its systemic nature.
• Systems analysis: systems thinking tools, mapping techniques, and modelling approaches to gain insights into the system’s complexity and interdependencies.
• Data collection and analysis: content analysis, thematic analysis, and statistical analysis, among others.
• Design intervention development: generating and evaluating multiple design options, prototyping and testing interventions, and refining them based on feedback and iterative design processes.
• Implementation and evaluation: monitoring and evaluating the outcomes and impacts of the interventions and feedback and results.
• Knowledge sharing and design education: creating awareness, disseminating knowledge, and influencing policy or decision-making processes.

Prompted by RSD12-Bogotá and RSD-12 Monterrey, the Latin America focus looks to submissions that feature design research and developments in systemic design in Latin America to reflect and inform work in this region. Papers, presentations, workshops, and systems maps or exhibits that illuminate design research and projects that have applied systemic design to placemaking and social innovation in ecosystems are especially encouraged.

In the Contexts article “Contra-Innovation: Expanding the innovation imperative in the context of futuring, defuturing and fictioning,” Dulmini Perera and Tony Fry propose second-order design fiction as an “evaluative means of the futuring or defuturing agency of the object of innovation.” (Perera & Fry, 2022). Design fiction practice and designed artefacts—and the speculative, provocative scenarios they produce—are compelling narratives of possible futures that provoke thought and discussion and are generally initiated with the expectation of innovation. However, once detached from the futuring in which it was conceived, innovation can accelerate an unsustainable future, erasing other futures—defuturing.  Second-order design fiction differs from other modes of design fiction as it calls on designers to take a critical view of the tension between futuring and defuturing, the consequences of innovation, and to introduce contra-innovation frameworks.

Design briefs typically call for a prototype, product, or innovation and means of accelerating its entry into the economic or social system. Designers are generally given the job of problem-solving and delivering upbeat results on projects that can be commercialised or offer societal cost benefits. Setting design research apart from invention has established a norm where designers have little agency over the prototypes, products, technologies, and services they create. However, systemic design innovation is futuring—systemic design makes the effects of design evident, including undesirable effects and dire consequences.

• How might design emerge? Where do second-order design fiction and contra-innovation fit in design practice and systemic design innovation?
• There’s a place for design as facilitated leadership for futuring services and systems. How might designers bring second-order design fiction and contra-innovation into their projects?
• Are designers able to argue effectively against acceleration, introduce contra-innovation frameworks, and be heard by policymakers and decision-makers?
• How to avoid a Cassandra dilemma? Are the tensions between stakeholders’ requirements and an awareness of futuring and defuturing resolvable?
• How to work with the already complex short-term and long-term values, individual and collective values, and values between different stakeholders?
• What are the current discourses around innovation, particularly the tension between creation/production and destruction?
• How might interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches serve futuring and contra-innovation frameworks?

To apply systemic design for hopeful futures, designers must first engage with stakeholders to understand their hopes & fears, needs, aspirations, and concerns. This requires designers to adopt a human-centred approach that prioritises empathy, collaboration, and co-creation.

By involving stakeholders in the design process, designers can ensure that their solutions are grounded in the needs and values of the people they are meant to serve. Designers also need to take a systems thinking approach to identify the root causes of problems and to develop solutions that are integrated, holistic, and sustainable. This involves considering the social, economic, environmental, and cultural contexts in which design interventions will be implemented and ensuring that these interventions are aligned with broader systemic changes that may be required.

Finally, designers must be willing to experiment and iterate, recognising that the future is inherently uncertain and that solutions that work today may not work tomorrow. This requires a willingness to embrace complexity, ambiguity, and uncertainty and to remain open to new ideas, perspectives, and feedback.

The goal of systemic design for hopeful futures is to create solutions that are not only effective and sustainable but also inspiring and empowering. By creating solutions that resonate with people’s aspirations and that inspire them to take action, designers can help to create a future that is hopeful, just, and equitable.

Inspired by Tecnológico de Monterrey, the participatory ecosystems focus aims to discover research and design projects that have applied systemic design to placemaking and social innovation in ecosystems. Also beneficial are contributions that demonstrate theories and methodologies that are being employed in this work, such as Elena Porqueddu’s Context’s article on systemic spatial design, in which she identifies the need for further work on spatial-architectural theory.

In this regard, further transdisciplinary research investigating the complex relationship between these heterogeneous aspects could have a crucial role in constructing a systemic spatial design framework and in unlocking unforeseen potential for urban regeneration and sustainable development across our existing and emergent urban systems.  (Porqueddu, 2023)

Ecosystems are dynamic and complex creations, with systems and subsystems comprised of individuals and organisations, resources, networks, and institutions interconnected in the pursuit of social, economic, and environmental goals. Positive attributes of an ecosystem are collaboration, learning, and stakeholder participation, along with evidence of experimentation, co-creation, and iteration; however, ecosystems face challenges such as exclusivity, fragmentation, unmet needs, lack of resources for social innovation, inadequate policy or uncertain governance, and resistance to change.

At the heart of these systemic challenges, there is a central necessity for participation—engagement of public stakeholders in co-creating the emergence of collective well-being. Participatory ecosystems strive to optimise the potential for innovation while addressing challenges by prioritising emic approaches and engaging diverse stakeholders in decision-making processes, problem-solving, and implementation of solutions. Unsurprisingly, complexity abounds in ecosystems, encountering all of RSD12’s entanglements: technology, environment, policy and power, and foundational. As prompts, contributions to this focus area might respond to the following:

• How are participatory ecosystems providing ways for the inherent variety of knowledge, expertise, and perspectives to co-create and shape the future of society itself as it transitions through large-scale system changes?
• What theories and methodologies are being employed to develop, scale, and create governance?
• As this focus area is aligned with Distrito Tec, there is heightened interest in research and case studies on social innovation in urban ecosystems that are driving systemic change.

The scope of this call for contributions is inclusive of Indigenous knowledge and wisdom around the world. The four considerations are offered as references to complexity mindset and Indigenous worldviews and are intended to provide inspiration for contributors to this focus area.

Collective self-determination

The relationship between knowledge and governance and collective self-determination is a fundamental right called “collective self-determination” by Kyle Whyte, an enrolled member of the Citizen Potawatomi Nation:

I understand Indigenous governance according to two related conceptual constellations: resurgence and collective continuance, both of which are expressions of collective self-determination. Collective self-determination refers to a group’s ability to provide the cultural, social, economic, and political relations needed for its members to pursue good lives. In my understanding, resurgence involves thinking about collective self-determination while grasping the full impact of systems (or structures) of settler colonialism on Indigenous lives today and into the future. (Whyte, 2017)

Traditional ecological knowledge

A study of Australia, Canada and Brazil concludes that “Indigenous-managed lands represent an important repository of native vertebrate species richness in three of the six largest countries on earth” (Schuster, 2019, p. 4) and urges nation-to-nation partnerships as a way forward. Placed in the context of environmental policy, Rebecca Tsosie, of Yaqui descent, refers to this as traditional ecological knowledge:

It is perhaps more useful to speak of the category of “traditional ecological knowledge.” Indigenous peoples are unique because they have a longstanding and intergenerational presence upon their traditional territories, and this “ethics of place” is deeply embedded within their cultures and social organisation. For most indigenous peoples, sustainability is the result of conscious and intentional strategies designed to secure a balance between human beings and the natural world and to preserve the balance for the benefit of future generations. (Tsosie, 2018)

Edgewalkers

Contemporary global urbanisation also deeply affects Indigenous communities, reinforcing the inclination for people to move off the land to urban environments and away from traditional ways. Jessica Bolduc, Anishinaabe-French from the Batchewana First Nation, refers to this generation as edgewalkers:

Edgewalkers are a new generation of Aboriginal leaders who have no patience for the status quo, who are deeply interested in the potential of the future and who have a hunger to contribute to a better world. We’ve learned from the past and are using our Indigenous worldviews and understanding of modern systems to shape future possibilities that value the well-being of all. (The Walrus, 2015, 00:25)

Relational systems thinking

An ancient Haudenosaunee philosophy, The Seventh Generation Principle, considers seven generations into the future and guides decision-making for energy, water, and natural resources. Foremost, there is an understanding that we are all related and communicate through stories that seek to heal self and systems. Melanie Goodchild, Anishinaabe/Ojibway, expresses relational systems thinking as a dynamic interface theoretical model:

… relational systems thinking is an Indigenous standpoint, in which the relationships between everything are the most important elements of the work that you’re doing. … So when we would take on a design project, for example, if I were a designer, I would think about the medicines that would be necessary because when we’re doing our type of complexity and system scholarship, it’s about healing self and systems. So it’s not as much transformation of systems as it is healing those systems. And so that happens in a place of relationship with all of the elements—if we want to call it a system. (Soriano et al, 2022, 39:59)

Reflexivity can help designers better understand their own assumptions and values. This involves reflecting on their own experiences and perspectives.

• How might these be influencing their approach to the project?
• How can a design team identify potential biases or blind spots by engaging in a process of reflexivity?
• How have systemic design and reflexivity been used in combination to promote critical thinking in the design process?

Ecocentrism is an alternative worldview that places all life at the centre instead of just humans. Operating from this paradigm can help make our practice more-than-sustainable in the future.

• What can designers deeply learn from nature and the way it works?
• How can designers operate from an Ecocentric perspective before a human-centred perspective? What does this mean?
• What are the tensions that can emerge by operating from an Ecocentric perspective in a human-centric industry and practice?

Regenerative systems, human or natural, return more value to their environments and actors than what they extract. Systemic design as a practice should be oriented to creating regenerative systems in all senses.

• How can we make the conditions for regenerative systems to emerge?
• What shifts in perspective and practice are needed for us to shift towards regenerative systems?
• How can designers deal with the tensions and conflicts that are bound to come up in system transitions?

Liu Zhenmin, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, describes the imperative for this focus area.

To stay ahead of these crises, we need to understand where we are and where we are headed, and that will require significant investment in our data and information infrastructure. Policies, programmes and resources aimed at proceeding people during this most challenging time will inevitably fall short without the evidence needed to focus interventions. Timely, high-quality and disaggregated data can help trigger more targeted responses, anticipate future needs, and hone the design of urgently needed actions. To emerge stronger from the crisis and prepare for unknown challenges ahead, funding statistical development must be a priority for national governments and the international community. (Sustainable Goals Report 2022, p. 3)

Looking for synergies between systems science, design science, citizen science, and data science is critical. Therefore, this focus area seeks systemic design projects with elements of one or several disciplines to build evaluative and foresight capabilities for complex problems. Contributions on this topic may address questions such as:

• How can we foster and sustain (un)conventional collaboration across disciplines and actors?
• How can we foster fair citizen engagement to contribute to the understanding of complex issues and systemic change?
• How can we develop wisdom from big data to shape what we do now and what we want to achieve in the future?
• How can we develop collective sense-making, collective decision-making and collective change-making?

Wicked challenges of the present day are foremost on our minds, from climate change and population growth, totalitarian regimes and terrorism, economic insecurity and systemic inequities. The challenges are many and recursive: to fathom complicated situations, define scope, evolve our thinking, and build prototypes—all while fending off blocks to progress and discouragement to passion—leading us to question:

How do I see the world? What do I desire? What do I want to change? 

Contributions to this topic that explore the fullness of transdisciplinary collaboration could be framed within the following concepts; however, different approaches are welcomed and encouraged.

Effective action must emerge from framing and argumentation rather than analysis and problem-solving. Problem-finding and problem-definition must arise in conversation with all stakeholders. All must share the intention and hope of dampening harm rather than the illusion of erasing it.

Today’s world demands that designers share an understanding of complex adaptive systems. Their design challenges exist in the nested complexity of systems within systems within systems. We must see today’s world differently —presumptions about knowability and predictability no longer apply. At the same time, the domain of design is no longer that of products and services but of the consequential experiences of living beings embedded in the physical and social environments that sustain them.

This 21st-century context demands a systems viewpoint and the discipline of cybernetics, which offers a unifying epistemology and rigour for engaging with the intersection of purposeful living systems and taciturn non-living systems. As designing is an intentional system, cybernetics has much to say about 21st-century design methods, which in turn must influence how designers train and practise. Creating conditions for designing that are participatory and inclusive requires a focus on designing for conversations in order to respond equitably and effectively to global challenges.

Systemic design is a problem-solving approach that helps co-design projects understand the interconnected systems that contribute to a problem and develop interventions that address the root causes of the problem.

• Co-design can be used to engage stakeholders and end-users in the systemic design process. How can systemic design help ensure that solutions are more effective, equitable, and responsive to the needs and perspectives of those impacted by them?
• The combination of systemic design and co-design can help create more inclusive and equitable solutions that address the root causes of complex problems by involving a diverse group of people in the design process and examining the underlying systems that contribute to a problem. What co-design use cases demonstrate effective, sustainable, and responsive solutions that meet the needs of all communities involved?

Localising systemic change will delve into work that integrates spatial thinking and analysis with systems thinking and design principles to the tangle of complex systems.  While these approaches often employ geospatial data and technologies, elements such as location, distance, history, and culture, can influence systems’ behaviour, interactions, and dynamics and takes an integrated and holistic perspective on territorial enhancement and industrial innovation.

• How are we building resilient local ecosystems together with the local stakeholders?
• What are the contexts and boundaries for systemic change?
• What are the initiatives and activities needed to activate a systemic change?

This focus area is inspired and supported by Sys_Lab, a research group within Politecnico di Torino that has been exploring systemic design methods and tools for sustainability and the circular economy for over ten years. Contributors to this focus might consider the Sys_Lab methodological framework in the organisation of their paper (Sys_Lab, n.d.).

1. The holistic diagnosis of the current scenario, considering both the surrounding context and the flows of energy and matter
2. The identification of challenges and opportunities of the current scenario and its flows
3. The design of a new systemic model based on relationships between processes and actors, which optimises information, energy and material flows and gives value to waste as resources
4. The identification and study of the new outcomes generated by the new systemic model
5. The validation of the system by demonstrating its feasibility and by implementing the project in the specific context

Entanglements of Interest

Technological Entanglements

Artificial Intelligence is on everyone’s mind, and the disruptions it portends justify that attention. However, AI, in all its manifestations, is just one of a collection of emerging technologies (quantum computing, nanotechnologies, CRISPR, etc.) that will have profound and destabilising effects on humanity. We aim to further discussions about technologies that are on the horizon and what futures they make possible — or impossible. Where should we place boundaries around technological development and adoption? What limits do we need to redefine? What processes should we use to set these boundaries?

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Biotechnology and Ethics, Citizen Science, Data Science

Natural Entanglements

Climate change has been with us for generations, but its long-anticipated consequences are finally being felt. While optimism about the possibility of mitigating the worst impacts of climate change should be a foundation of all work in this area, we also need to reckon with the reality that our world still lacks the structures and will to undo the damage we have already done to our planet and to acknowledge that the worst of those impacts are being felt by those least responsible. For these reasons, we are particularly interested in work that addresses the short- and medium-term impacts of climate change at local scales (household, neighbourhood, region), identifies and empowers communities that face the worst impacts, and offers transposable solutions for sustaining life amid profound environmental disruptions.

Keywords: Climate Justice, Adaptation, Resilience, Indigenous Knowledge

Entanglements of Policy and Power

No discussion of emergence in systems is complete without an understanding of the regulatory apparatus that shapes it — both from the external environment and from internal constraints. The power to influence emergence is not evenly distributed, but aggregated in localities of control. These leverage points have outsized effects, and deserve particular attention. What rules and regulations are having the most impact? Which need to be replaced and what should replace them? How do we identify leverage points, excavate their influence, and demonstrate their potential? How can the balance of power be shifted?

Keywords: Social Justice, Ethics, Leverage Points, Representation, Policy Metrics

Foundational Entanglements

As systemic design continues to emerge from the interaction of theories and methods in systems thinking and design, we must pay special attention to how these theories and methods shape our understanding of the world, the development of the field, and systemic design’s relationship to other disciplines. Submissions in this track should address some aspect of a foundational or fundamental element of systemic design. Examples include: interrogating a concept or method from a new perspective, introducing a concept or method from another discipline, exposing the limits or possibilities of existing theories and methods.

Keywords: Co-Design, Futuring, Reflexivity, Diffractive Methodologies, Systems Science, Design Science