047 Chapter Seven: Time
There’s a certain restlessness inherent in design, isn’t there? A constant churning, a dissatisfaction with the present, an urge to reshape what is into what might be. I’ve often felt it myself – this almost compulsive drive towards the new, the innovative, the ‘next’. We, as designers, frequently position ourselves, or are positioned by others, at the vanguard of change, embracing novelty almost as a synonym for progress, sometimes even mistaking fleeting trends for fundamental shifts. Yet, the more I’ve practiced, observed, taught, and reflected, the more I’ve come to believe that this intense focus on the ‘new’ often obscures, perhaps even willfully ignores, a deeper, more profound truth: design’s inescapable, intricate entanglement with time. Time is not merely a static backdrop against which design unfolds its dramas; it is the very medium, the relentless, dynamic current that shapes, constrains, enables, reveals, and ultimately defines the practice, its outcomes, and its enduring legacies.
Imagine standing perfectly still, perhaps on a vast, open plain, arms outstretched, feeling a constant, palpable wind against your skin, against your face, moving through your hair. That wind, insistent and perpetual, is time. It relentlessly approaches us as the future, an unseen pressure carrying unknown potentials and challenges. It swirls around us, almost imperceptibly, in the ever-fleeting, impossible-to-grasp present moment – the “Hic et Nunc” we strive to inhabit. And then, instantly, inevitably, it streams behind us, becoming the past, leaving behind traces, memories, consequences, foundations upon which the next moment is built. This perpetual flow, this ceaseless current of becoming, is perhaps the only true constant we experience, the inescapable medium within which design lives, breathes, adapts, struggles, succeeds, fails, and inevitably transforms.
Consider the most cutting-edge digital interface conceived today, lauded in design journals for its innovation, its seamlessness, its intuitive grace. It inevitably drifts, carried by that temporal wind. It becomes tomorrow’s legacy system, its interaction patterns studied as historical artifacts, its underlying code requiring patches and workarounds, eventually fading into the digital archaeology of usability trends. Think of the celebrated architectural forms of one era, revolutionary in their time, now perhaps seen as dated, energy-inefficient, or socially problematic in a later context. Witnessing this cycle repeatedly in my own projects and in the broader field – the rapid, often planned, obsolescence of technologies, the shifting semiotics of visual styles, the complex, often unforeseen social consequences emerging years, even decades, after a product launch or system implementation – used to fill me with a sense of frustration, even futility. Was design inherently flawed, constitutionally incapable of achieving permanence, failing to truly ‘solve’ problems in any lasting, meaningful way? Was its relentless pursuit of the new merely a frantic churning, a distraction from deeper, more enduring values?
But gradually, painstakingly, my perspective began to shift, influenced by wrestling with these questions and by encountering thinkers who grappled with the nature of living systems. What if this perpetual transformation, this constant state of flux, isn’t a failure of design at all? What if, instead, it is the very signature of its vitality, its aliveness? What if it’s evidence of design, viewed not just as a collection of techniques but as a complex human activity system, demonstrating something akin to what biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela described as the autopoietic capacity of living beings – a remarkable ability for self-renewal, self-maintenance, constantly regenerating its own methods, theories, boundaries, and practices within an ever-changing world?
If time is this uncontrollable, constant flow – that perpetual wind, that ever-present current, perhaps akin to the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus’s famous, evocative image of the ever-flowing river into which one cannot step twice – then how does design, as a specific, intentional human endeavor, operate within it? How does it navigate these currents? How does it maintain its identity while constantly adapting? How does it learn from the past that streams behind it, engage meaningfully with the present swirling around it, and responsibly shape the future approaching it?
This chapter is my attempt to explore this fundamental, temporal dimension of design. It seeks to understand design not as a practice that conquers or fixes time, freezing moments or imposing permanent solutions, but as an adaptive, evolving system learning, often imperfectly, to navigate time’s powerful, often turbulent, currents. This involves grappling honestly with design’s own shape-shifting nature, confronting the multifaceted character of time itself (moving beyond the simple linearity of the clock towards richer conceptions like kairos, the opportune moment), learning critically and expansively from design’s long, complex, and often ethically fraught journey through history, and ultimately, asking how we might cultivate a form of temporal wisdom – a deeper, more systemic, more responsible way of engaging with past, present, and future – that feels absolutely essential for ethical and effective design practice in our complex, rapidly accelerating, and profoundly interconnected era.
048 Design in Flux
If we hope to navigate time more effectively, perhaps the first step is to better understand once more the nature of the vessel we are sailing in – design itself. As my initial explorations suggested, and as my subsequent research confirmed, viewing design through the lens of autopoiesis – seeing it as a self-creating and self-maintaining system, much like a living organism – offers powerful illumination here. This perspective helps explain design’s remarkable capacity for adaptation, its persistence across centuries, and its resilience despite undergoing radical transformations in its tools, methods, scope, ethical concerns, and societal role.
Like any autopoietic entity, design maintains its core identity not through rigid, immutable boundaries or fixed doctrines, but through a continuous, dynamic process of internal regeneration and self-organization. It constantly refines its methods (think of the evolution from empirical craft-based techniques passed down through apprenticeship, to the rationalized processes of the Design Methods Movement, to the user-centered heuristics of interaction design, to the complex systemic approaches emerging today). It perpetually questions its own assumptions and redraws its own boundaries (consider the ongoing, sometimes tense, debates about the relationship between design and art, design and engineering, design and activism, or design and complex fields like artificial intelligence). It fosters internal dialogues among its diverse practitioners (through conferences like those organized by the Design Research Society, specific events like World Design Capital Valencia 2022, academic journals, educational programs, online forums, social media discussions, and critical discourse).
And crucially, design engages in constant, selective interaction and exchange with its complex environment – what systems theorists might call structural coupling. It absorbs technological innovations (like the printing press, CAD software, or generative AI), responds, however slowly or unevenly, to societal pressures (like calls for diversity, inclusion, and decolonization ), grapples, often inadequately, with ecological limits (the sustainability imperative that emerged strongly in the late 20th century ), influences and is profoundly influenced by dominant economic models (from industrial capitalism to the platform economy ), and actively shapes (and is shaped by) cultural norms, aesthetic preferences, and ways of living.
This inherent complexity, this fluidity, this sometimes-maddening resistance to easy definition – these are not weaknesses to be overcome, I realized through my research. They are its strengths. They are the very qualities that allow design, as a broad field of human endeavor, to persist and remain relevant across vastly different cultural contexts and historical periods. They are what allows it to weather, adapt to, and sometimes even steer within the constant, often disruptive, currents of time. Its ability to self-organize, to learn, to incorporate external perturbations without losing its core identity, is key to its survival and evolution.
Richard Buchanan, in his insightful work, mapped design’s expanding territory through his “Four Orders of Design”. He traced its historical evolution from a primary focus on symbols (the realm of visual communication, graphic design, typography – conveying meaning through signs and images) and things (the world of tangible artifacts, industrial design, architecture – shaping physical objects and spaces), to encompass actions (the domain of interaction design, service design, user experience – shaping processes, behaviors, and experiences unfolding over time), and ultimately, to grapple with thoughts – the design of complex systems, organizations, policies, strategies, and the very environments (social, cultural, political, ecological) within which interactions and thoughts unfold. This trajectory, as I see it, reflects design’s inherent tendency, perhaps its autopoietic drive, to engage with increasing levels of complexity over time as the world itself presents more complex challenges. It’s a necessary adaptation for navigating the intricate, interconnected “wicked problems” that characterize contemporary society and are themselves deeply embedded in the complex flow of time and societal evolution. Consider how contemporary service design tackles complex systems like healthcare delivery, urban mobility, or government service provision. It moves far beyond designing discrete objects or interfaces to orchestrating entire ecosystems of interactions, touchpoints, policies, and organizational structures, demonstrating design’s engagement with Buchanan’s higher orders.
Similarly, the very flexibility that allows design to borrow concepts, methods, and tools so readily from fields like art, engineering, anthropology, psychology, computer science, sociology, economics, biology, and countless others is not a sign of disciplinary impurity or weakness, but rather a key part of its adaptive strategy. Progress in any field invariably propels design forward, offering new materials, new understandings of human behavior, new platforms for creation. However, design maintains its coherence (its core identity as ‘design’) by translating, adapting, critiquing, and integrating this external knowledge through its own internal processes and values, rather than simply being subsumed.
Yet, this very permeability, this openness at the Frontier, creates challenges. As observers from other disciplines attempt to define or categorize design from the outside, they often capture only snapshots, freezing a moment in its ongoing evolution or focusing on only one facet (e.g., aesthetics, usability, economic function, social impact) of its multidimensional nature, missing the integrated whole. A deeper understanding, I believe, requires recognizing both design’s internal coherence – the shared practices, values, theoretical frameworks, educational pathways, and critical discourses that allow designers to recognize each other and maintain a sense of disciplinary identity – and its porous, dynamic boundaries, its constant negotiation with its environment. We need to appreciate how it maintains its core identity precisely through this continuous process of self-renewal (autopoiesis) and environmental negotiation (structural coupling).
However, I feel a growing concern, shared perhaps by many, that this inherent adaptive capacity faces unprecedented challenges today. The sheer speed, scale, and interconnectedness of contemporary change – technological disruption (AI, biotech), ecological breakdown, geopolitical instability, social fragmentation – feel like that temporal wind has intensified into a gale, a hurricane perhaps. This demands more than just incremental adaptation or passive responsiveness from design. It calls for a conscious, collective effort within the design field to cultivate its own robust conceptual frameworks (like the one proposed here), its own clearly articulated ethical compass, moving beyond simply borrowing paradigms from other fields or reacting solely to fleeting market pressures or technological hype.
As I’ve argued previously, drawing on thinkers like Arturo Escobar and Gabriel Matthey Correa, this is particularly vital for amplifying perspectives emerging from outside historically dominant centers of power (often Euro-American). These diverse viewpoints – rooted in different cultural contexts, ecological realities, philosophical traditions, and ways of knowing – offer crucial opportunities to enrich our discipline with more locally attuned, resilient, pluriversal, and ethically grounded ways of designing within specific temporal flows and ecological contexts. Recognizing design not just as a set of tools or outputs, but as a system responsible for its own evolution, its own learning (its Ethnoevolution), and its own ethical engagement with the world, feels like the essential first step towards navigating the complexities of time more wisely and responsibly.
049 The Nature of Time in Design: Beyond the Linear
Our conventional understanding, deeply ingrained by clocks, calendars, project management Gantt charts, and the linear narratives of progress that underpin much of Western modernity, often treats time as a simple, uniform, linear progression – a measurable, unidirectional arrow moving inexorably from a fixed past, through an infinitesimally small present, towards a predictable (or at least projectable) future. Design certainly engages with, and often relies upon, this linear conception of chronos. As the insightful Argentinian designer and theorist Tomás Maldonado, a key figure at the Ulm School of Design known for his rigorous approach, noted decades ago, design is fundamentally “proyectual” – it projects, it intends, it is oriented towards shaping what is yet to come. Every design brief, every initial sketch, every carefully crafted prototype is an attempt to intervene in that oncoming future, to materialize an intention, to impose a degree of order or achieve a desired state.
In the metaphor of the constant wind, this proyectual nature is like consciously turning to face that oncoming future-wind, opening our arms not just to feel its force but to actively engage with it, perhaps trying to shape its course, build shelters against its harshest impacts, or harness its energy for positive ends. Every design decision – from the grand scale of urban planning to the micro-level of interface button placement – carries intentions, embeds predictions (implicit or explicit about user behavior, material performance, market trends), and inevitably generates consequences that unfold as that future-wind becomes the swirling present and then flows irrevocably into the accumulating past. We plan projects linearly, we set deadlines, we measure progress against timelines, we define deliverables sequentially. This linear, chronological time is essential for coordination, planning, resource allocation, and the basic execution of complex tasks in any field, including design.
Yet, the more I reflected on the actual, lived experience of designing – the messy iterations, the unexpected breakthroughs, the frustrating dead ends, the constant learning and adaptation – and indeed, the experience of living itself, the more profoundly inadequate this purely linear, mechanistic view of time felt. It seemed to miss the richness, the texture, the unpredictability, the quality of temporal experience. What if time is less like a neat, segmented line marked on a ruler, and more like the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus’s evocative description: an ever-flowing river (potamos) into which you cannot step twice, because both the river and the stepper are constantly changing, constantly in flux? Or, returning to my earlier metaphor, what if time is better understood as that constant stream of wind we feel when we truly open ourselves to its passage – continuous, dynamic, felt subjectively rather than just measured objectively?
This suggests a different quality of time, perhaps closer to the Greek concept of kairos – the opportune moment, the right or critical time for action, qualitative rather than quantitative, concerned with fitness and timeliness rather than mere duration. This perspective, experiencing time not just as a clock ticking but as an “unending drift,” a continuous flow of becoming, shifts the focus dramatically for design. It moves away from an obsession with fixed milestones, completed products as final endpoints, and achieving permanent, unchanging solutions, towards embracing continuous process, adaptation, emergence, impermanence, and the value inherent in the journey itself.
Design, viewed through this Heraclitean lens, never truly reaches a final, static state. Its outcomes are caught in the flow. Artifacts age, acquire patinas, develop character through use, get repurposed in unforeseen ways, break down, decay (consider the lifecycle of electronics, the rapid cycles of fashion, or even the slow evolution and eventual ruin of buildings). Systems evolve, encountering unforeseen circumstances, generating emergent behaviors (think of how social media platforms have mutated beyond their creators’ initial intentions, fostering both connection and polarization, generating unexpected social dynamics and political consequences). Meanings shift as cultural contexts change (a symbol potent with meaning in one era becomes offensive or simply irrelevant in another; a functional object from the past becomes a nostalgic collectible imbued with new significance). Technologies become obsolete, sometimes with breathtaking speed (the rapid turnover in digital tools, rendering older designs unusable or requiring constant updates and migrations).
Embracing this unavoidable “drift” doesn’t mean abandoning intention, rigor, or the pursuit of quality. But it might lead to more resonant, humble, ethically aware, and ultimately more sustainable design approaches. It might encourage us to design with change rather than futilely against it, to acknowledge decay, transformation, and repair as integral parts of the lifecycle, finding value and beauty not just in the pristine, finished outcome, but in the ongoing process of making, living, maintaining, adapting, and even gracefully letting go.
This resonates strongly with the insights of anthropologist Tim Ingold, who emphasizes the fluid, processual nature of making (‘thinking through making’), where form emerges dynamically through the maker’s skillful engagement with materials in motion, rather than being statically imposed onto passive matter. It also echoes the Japanese aesthetic philosophy of wabi-sabi, which finds profound beauty in imperfection, impermanence, asymmetry, and the natural cycle of growth, decay, and transformation. Stewart Brand’s fascinating exploration of “How Buildings Learn” similarly highlights this temporal reality, meticulously documenting how designed structures inevitably adapt, change, and are modified over time by their inhabitants, changing needs, and environmental circumstances, often in ways completely unforeseen, and sometimes unwelcome, by their original creators. Designing for this inevitable adaptation – creating flexible “scaffolding” that supports ongoing life rather than attempting to dictate it through immutable monuments, as Brand suggests – seems a wiser, more realistic, and ultimately more humane course. Consider the work of recent Pritzker Prize laureate Riken Yamamoto, whose architecture often emphasizes transparency, permeable boundaries between public and private, and flexible community spaces designed explicitly to adapt to residents’ evolving needs and social interactions over time, rather than imposing a fixed, monumental form. His designs acknowledge and accommodate the drift of social life, designing the potential for relationships rather than just the physical container.
Within this continuous flow, however, certain themes, certain deep human needs and aspirations, seem almost eternal, recurring like powerful waves or persistent currents carried on that constant temporal wind. Remember the fundamental human requirements identified by Manfred Max-Neef – for Subsistence, Protection, Affection, Understanding, Participation, Leisure, Creation, Identity, and Freedom – they appear remarkably persistent across vastly different historical periods and cultural contexts, even as the specific ways societies and individuals seek to satisfy them (the “satisfiers”) change dramatically over time and place. Design finds itself constantly revisiting these enduring themes, giving them new form, addressing them with new technologies and materials, mediating them through new social structures, but ultimately engaging with fundamental aspects of the human condition that possess a deep temporal resonance. For example, Max-Neef’s need for Connection (encompassing Affection, Participation, Identity) is addressed differently by the design of traditional village squares fostering face-to-face interaction, 20th-century telephone systems enabling distant voice communication, and 21st-century social media platforms creating vast, complex, often problematic digital networks, yet the underlying human yearning for belonging and relationship persists.
Recognizing both the relentless drift of time – that constant, changing wind affecting materials, technologies, meanings, and contexts – and the persistence of these underlying human currents presents a profound challenge, and opportunity, for designers: how do we create interventions that are both adaptable enough to navigate the flux and unpredictable changes, yet also deeply meaningful and robust enough to resonate with these enduring needs and values? How do we design things that acknowledge and respond effectively to immediate circumstances while also considering their long-term resonance, their potential legacy, and their capacity to support human flourishing across generations? Understanding design as a living system constantly drifting within these complex, interacting currents of time – the ephemeral and the enduring – compels us, I believe, to adopt a more temporally aware, more ethically nuanced, and more systemically sophisticated stance. It requires us to critically examine its historical trajectory (the currents that brought us here), engage mindfully and adaptively with present complexities (the wind swirling around us now), and shape future possibilities (engaging the approaching wind) with far greater humility, foresight, and responsibility than our discipline has often demonstrated in the past.
050 The Past
If we are to navigate these currents of time more wisely, developing a deep and critical engagement with the past feels not just helpful, but absolutely essential. But what does it truly mean to learn from design history? My own exploration, moving beyond the celebratory narratives often presented in design education, revealed not a smooth, triumphant, linear progression towards ever-greater ‘betterment’, but a far more complex, ambiguous, often contradictory, and sometimes deeply troubling tapestry. It’s a history woven with brilliant threads of human ingenuity, genuine improvements in quality of life, moments of profound aesthetic insight, and solutions born of deep empathy, yes. But it is equally interwoven with threads of profound unintended consequences, devastating ecological impacts stemming from short-sightedness or greed, the reinforcement and sometimes active creation of deep social inequities, and the frequent complicity of design in systems of exploitation and unsustainability.
The past is not a static museum displaying finished artifacts behind glass; it’s an active force, a dynamic repertoire of legacies, assumptions, path dependencies, and unresolved tensions that continue to shape the conditions, constraints, and possibilities of the present moment. While celebrating human creativity and problem-solving is important and inspiring, I became convinced that we must rigorously, unblinkingly, and critically acknowledge how design, particularly since the Industrial Revolution, became fundamentally entangled with, and indeed a crucial engine for, extractive economies, colonial expansion, racialized capitalism, patriarchal structures, and models of mass production and consumption predicated on the myth of infinite growth on a finite planet.
These dominant models, as detailed by design historians like Penny Sparke and critical theorists like Victor Margolin, overwhelmingly prioritized values like mechanistic efficiency, standardization for mass markets, novelty for competitive advantage, and profit maximization over potentially conflicting considerations of ecological health, social justice, cultural integrity, local context, or long-term collective well-being. Think, for example, of the sleek functionalism championed by high modernism, particularly the legacy of influential institutions like the Bauhaus or the Ulm School of Design. While it offered certain advancements in rationality, standardization, material honesty, and arguably, a democratic aesthetic impulse (aiming to make “good design” universally accessible), its application often came at a steep cost. It frequently led to the displacement of vibrant, complex, organically evolved urban fabrics, as passionately critiqued by Jane Jacobs in her defense of messy, mixed-use neighborhoods. It contributed to the erasure of diverse local identities and rich craft traditions, deemed “backward” or inefficient by the modernist ethos. The “international style” in architecture and design, while aiming for universality, often resulted in the imposition of a specific, historically and culturally situated rationalist aesthetic as a global norm, ignoring climatic appropriateness, local materials, and diverse cultural sensibilities.
Furthermore, the deliberate, calculated strategy of planned obsolescence – designing products to fail prematurely (functional obsolescence) or become stylistically undesirable long before their functional life is over (psychological obsolescence) – became a cornerstone, almost a hidden axiom, of 20th-century industrial logic. Attributed conceptually to Bernard London during the Great Depression (though its implementation was far more complex and market-driven), this strategy actively fueled the unsustainable cycles of waste, consumption, resource depletion, and environmental degradation that now threaten planetary systems. This wasn’t an accidental byproduct; it was often a conscious design and marketing strategy, prioritizing short-term profit, market churn, and the continuous stimulation of consumer desire over durability, repairability, user well-being, and ecological responsibility. The infamous Phoebus cartel, which standardized shorter lifespans for light bulbs in the early 20th century, serves as a stark historical example of design colluding with industry to institutionalize wastefulness.
The enduring, cumulative legacy of these historical design choices, these embedded logics and values, surrounds us today in our built environments, our consumption patterns, our technological systems, and our ecological crises. They didn’t manifest overnight but rather unfolded over generations, interacting in complex ways to shape the multifaceted, interconnected “wicked problems” we now confront. Recognizing this historical entanglement helps explain, I think, contemporary critiques of overly simplistic or narrowly focused design methodologies. For instance, the critique of conventional ‘Design Thinking’ when applied superficially – reduced to a linear sequence of steps involving Post-it notes but lacking deep systemic analysis, critical ethnographic research, or robust ethical awareness – stems partly from a recognition that such methods, if unmoored from deeper understanding, can easily replicate shallow, market-driven solutions that fail to address root causes. Similarly, the limitations of approaches like the ‘Circular Economy,’ while valuable in principle (drawing inspiration from concepts like Cradle to Cradle ), become apparent when viewed historically. These approaches risk remaining trapped within fundamentally unsustainable industrial paradigms if they focus solely on recycling materials (a process often energy-intensive, downcycling materials, and achieving low recovery rates ) without simultaneously challenging the underlying drivers of overconsumption, planned obsolescence, inequitable distribution, and reliance on fossil fuels. The critiques highlight that simply closing loops within a broken system is insufficient; the system itself needs transformation.
How, then, can we learn more productively from the past? Several specific methodologies, adapted for design practice, provide structured ways to engage critically and generatively with historical precedents and contexts. These move beyond simply chronicling styles or celebrating canonical figures, fostering instead a deeper inquiry into the why and how of past design decisions and their consequences:
051 Precedent Analysis / Study
This is a foundational method, especially strong in architecture but adaptable to other fields. Its core purpose is not imitation, but systematic investigation to inform new work. The process involves:
Selection: Carefully choosing precedents (historical or contemporary) relevant to the current project’s goals, context (geographical, cultural, social), scale, typology, or specific challenges. Client input (inspiration images) can be a starting point. Relevance is key – selecting precedents that offer genuine insight into the problem at hand.
Analysis: Systematically dissecting each precedent into its key components and underlying principles. This could involve analyzing spatial organization, structural systems, material choices and assemblies, environmental strategies (daylighting, ventilation), formal composition (symmetry, proportion, hierarchy), programmatic function, and the relationship to the original socio-cultural context. Looking beyond surface appearances is crucial. For non-architectural fields, the focus shifts – analyzing information architecture, interaction flows, usability patterns, typographic systems, narrative structures, service touchpoints, etc.
Critical Thinking: Evaluating the precedent’s successes and limitations within its own context. Why were certain decisions made? What problems did they solve effectively? What were the trade-offs? What aspects were less successful or might be improved upon today with new knowledge or technologies? This critical evaluation distinguishes rigorous analysis from mere stylistic borrowing.
Synthesis: Drawing connections between the findings from multiple precedents and relating them to the specific requirements, constraints, and aspirations of the current design project. Identifying recurring patterns, contrasting strategies, or underlying principles across different examples is key.
Application: Applying the derived insights and principles to the new design problem. This is rarely a literal translation but involves adapting, transforming, and reinterpreting learned strategies to enhance the functionality, aesthetics, contextual relevance, sustainability, or overall performance of the new design. It also provides a rationale for design decisions, aiding communication with clients and stakeholders. This formalized methodology, particularly valued in architectural education, represents a systematic inquiry contrasting with earlier modernist tendencies that sometimes advocated “forgetting the past”. It values the wisdom embedded even in vernacular traditions refined over centuries. Adapting it rigorously to fields like UX or service design requires adjusting the analytical focus to relevant elements like interaction patterns or service blueprints.
052 Historical Trend Analysis
Designers adapt this broader analytical method to specifically analyze historical design trends – aesthetics, styles, forms, colors, typography, materials, user preferences – to inform future creative decisions and strategies. The goal is to move beyond intuition, understand the cyclical or linear nature of design evolution, identify emerging opportunities or potential pitfalls (e.g., avoiding fleeting fads), and create designs that resonate appropriately with contemporary and future contexts. The process involves:
Define Scope & Goals: Clearly articulating the objective – understanding the evolution of a specific aesthetic (minimalism in products), forecasting color palettes (fashion), predicting UI patterns (mobile apps), analyzing brand identity shifts. Defining the scope (time period, market, elements) is crucial.
Data Collection: Gathering relevant historical design data – visual examples from archives (design museums, publications, advertising archives, product catalogs, website archives like the Internet Archive), fashion photos, user-generated content (social media), sales data, etc..
Identify Patterns (Formal & Temporal): Analyzing data to spot recurring patterns, cycles, shifts over time. This includes Visual Analysis (mood boards, visual timelines, comparative analysis of formal elements like color, line, shape, texture, typography, layout ) and Temporal Analysis (mapping trends over time to understand duration, frequency, trajectory – macro-trends vs. micro-trends/fads ).
Interpret Data & Contextualize: Moving beyond what trended to understand why. Analyzing influencing factors – technological innovations, socio-cultural shifts (values, lifestyles), economic conditions, political events, artistic movements (using frameworks like SETIG/PESTEL). Sentiment analysis (monitoring user reactions on social media, reviews) provides context on reception.
Forecast & Apply: Making predictions about future design directions based on patterns and context – ranging from simple extrapolation to sophisticated modeling, expert judgment, or discovering emerging tendencies and early adopters. Insights inform design strategy, concept development, branding, aesthetics, etc.. Designer-specific adaptations emphasize visual/aesthetic elements, incorporate qualitative interpretation of style alongside quantitative data, use tools like mood boards/visual timelines, and increasingly leverage AI for large dataset analysis and sentiment tracking. Effective analysis requires synthesizing what with why, combining data with aesthetic sensibility and historical awareness.
053 Artifact Analysis & Material Culture Studies
Designers adapt methodologies from fields like archaeology, anthropology, and material culture studies to systematically analyze historical artifacts beyond mere aesthetics. The purpose is to gain deep understanding of past solutions and contexts, and derive principles or inspiration for contemporary challenges. Material culture studies emphasize the reciprocal relationship between people and things, relevant to user-centered design. A structured approach involves:
Formal Analysis: Systematically examining visual/formal qualities. Decoding the visual language and the formal organization.
Material & Technical Analysis: Investigating materials used, their properties (texture, weight, durability), processing/manufacturing methods, available technologies of the time, and “honesty in materials”. Reveals historical approaches to material selection and fabrication.
Functional & Use-Wear Analysis: Determining intended purpose by examining form, features, and signs of wear/damage from use. Understanding function in daily life and ergonomics. Contrasting the intended use with the actual use.
Contextual Analysis (ICA/SETIG Application): Placing the artifact in its broader historical/cultural context. Frameworks like Interpreting Cultural Artifacts (ICA) analyze three levels: Surface Level (observable attributes: style, size, color, material, tech, usage); Deeper Reasoning (underlying decision factors: social rules, symbolic meanings, aesthetics, ergonomics, tech constraints); Influential Factors (wider cultural landscape: SETIG – Social, Economic, Technological, Ideological, Geographical, prevailing philosophies, traditions). Applying the SETIG lens systematically considers societal structures, economy, tech, beliefs, environment shaping the artifact.
Symbolic/Iconographic Analysis: Interpreting meanings of symbols, motifs related to cultural beliefs, status, ideologies.
Designer Adaptation & Application: Unlike historians (documentation/interpretation), designers use analysis explicitly for inspiration/knowledge for new creations – abstracting principles, understanding past user-artifact relationships, reinterpreting historical forms/concepts meaningfully in contemporary context. Structured methods like ICA compel designers beyond surface appreciation to grasp the cultural logic and design intent, avoiding superficial appropriation.
054 Design Archive Research
Design archives contain sketches, drawings, prototypes, models, photos, final products, business records, correspondence. For designers, they are invaluable resources for research, inspiration, understanding historical processes, and tracing evolution of ideas/styles/tech. They function as repositories of accumulated design knowledge and document the journey from concept to outcome. Effective use involves:
Access & Navigation: Identifying relevant archives (physical/digital) and using finding aids, catalogs, search functions, filters to locate pertinent materials. Digitization and semantic data structures enhance access.
Structured Inquiry: Formulating specific research questions or design problems to guide exploration. Focusing inquiry, e.g., tracing a product typology, analyzing a specific studio’s process, investigating material use over time, seeking solutions to analogous past problems.
Cross-Referencing & Contextualization: Supplementing archival findings with other sources (design history literature, period publications, oral histories, biographies) for comprehensive understanding of context.
Creative Interpretation & Re-appropriation: Engaging with materials as catalysts for creative thinking, not just factual info. This includes: Visual Inspiration (aesthetics, typography, color palettes); Process Insights (studying sketches, mock-ups, prototypes to understand past problem-solving strategies, iterations, rationales); Conceptual Springboard (using historical concepts, narratives, unfinished ideas as starting points); Reinterpretation (adapting historical forms/techniques for contemporary contexts, e.g., using archival photos for new digital stories). Practicing designers use archives actively for problem-solving and ideation, focusing on visual materials, process documentation, and the ‘why’ behind past choices. Collaboration between designers and archivists enhances value. A unique value lies in preserving process materials (sketches, prototypes) offering a window into the how of past design work, revealing iterations and decision pathways often invisible in finished objects.
055 Learning from Past Experience
These methods focus on learning from the immediate past of one’s own or a team’s design activities.
Reflective Practice (Schön’s “Reflection-on-Action”): Consciously stepping back after an event or project to critically examine actions, thoughts, feelings, assumptions. Seeking to understand what happened, why, and lessons learned for the future. Using structured models like Gibbs’ Cycle (Description, Feelings, Evaluation, Analysis, Conclusion, Action Plan ), Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle (Experience, Reflection, Conceptualization, Experimentation ), Driscoll’s “What? So What? Now What?” ), or the 5R Framework (Reporting, Responding, Relating, Reasoning, Reconstructing ) provides rigor, encouraging deeper analysis and concrete action plans. Transforms reflection into a deliberate methodology for professional development.
Post-Mortem Analysis: A structured team meeting after project completion to collectively reflect on the lifecycle, identify successes (“what went well”), challenges (“what went wrong”), and lessons learned to improve future processes, collaboration, outcomes. Key steps include timing (soon after completion ), preparation (objectives, participants, pre-meeting survey ), structured facilitation (agenda, roles, blameless environment ), guided discussion focusing on root causes, and follow-up (actionable insights, action plan with ownership/timelines, communicated recap, tracking progress ). Design/UX teams apply this to review research effectiveness, tool usability, brief clarity, iteration efficiency, feedback integration, cross-functional collaboration. Formalizes team-based reflection-on-action for systemic enhancement.
056 Case Study Method (Learning from Others’ Designs)
Involves in-depth study and analysis of specific, external design projects by other designers/organizations as learning tools. Focus is on understanding different problem-solving strategies, analyzing decisions in context, learning from others’ successes/failures, identifying best practices, and deriving transferable principles. Process involves:
Case Selection: Identifying relevant external projects based on criteria like problem similarity, industry, audience, tech, success/failure. Sources include publications, conferences, portfolios (analyzed critically), academic repositories,observations in terrain.
Data Gathering: Collecting comprehensive info – project descriptions, analyses, interviews, reviews, usability reports, examining the artifact.
Analytical Framework Application: Using a structured framework like the Symbiotic Design Framework or others adapted from methods like Yin’s, or other lenses like visual analysis, usability heuristics, ICA/SETIG, to examine: Problem Definition, Research & Analysis, Design Process & Iteration, Key Decisions & Rationale, Challenges & Solutions, Outcomes & Impact.
Comparative Analysis: Analyzing multiple related cases to compare approaches, identify patterns, synthesize broader principles.
Deriving Principles & Application: Extracting key learnings, effective strategies, cautionary tales – focusing on transferable principles (how/why it worked in context) adaptable to one’s own projects, not imitation. Requires applying analytical framework to dissect context, process, decisions, outcomes, asking ‘why’ to extract meaningful lessons.
057 Deconstruction / Reverse Engineering
Systematically taking apart an existing successful (or unsuccessful) design artifact – physically or conceptually – to understand constituent parts, how they work together, materials/manufacturing, underlying decisions/principles. Akin to creating “masterwork copies” for deep learning. Purpose is intimate knowledge of how effective designs are constructed/function to inform one’s own process/understanding. Process involves:
Selection: Choosing an exemplary artifact relevant to field or learning goal (physical product, UI, graphic, service blueprint).
Deconstruction: Methodically breaking down artifact into fundamental components (literal disassembly or identifying UI elements, info architecture, interaction flows, visual components, code structures).
Analysis: Critically examining elements and relationships, asking: Components? Effectiveness (how parts contribute)? Construction/Production (how made, materials/tech, why chosen)? Rationale (why specific decisions, problems solved, trade-offs)?.
Understanding: Synthesizing analysis to grasp underlying logic, principles, constraints, problem-solving strategies.
Emulation & Application: Attempting to replicate aspects or apply learned principles/techniques to own practice to internalize knowledge.
Improvement/Innovation: Identifying potential weaknesses/limitations (“white space”) to spark innovation ideas (new perspective, remix, address unmet needs). Offers highly practical, hands-on method, providing embodied knowledge difficult to acquire otherwise. Direct bridge from analyzing past success to informing future creation.
058 Nature-Based Research
Beyond analyzing human-made artifacts and systems, the vast, deep history of life itself offers profound methodologies for understanding the past, particularly regarding resilience, adaptation, and systemic success over immense timescales. Nature, through 3.8 billion years of evolution, represents an unparalleled archive of solutions to challenges like resource scarcity, environmental change, and complex system dynamics. Designers can adapt methodologies inspired by observing nature’s historical successes and failures to gain insights applicable to human design history and contemporary challenges. To learn from the time-tested strategies, principles, and patterns embedded in natural systems and evolutionary history to understand fundamental principles of sustainability, resilience, efficiency, and adaptation that might illuminate both past human design choices and inform future directions. This involves shifting the observational lens from purely human history to the history of life and ecosystems. Key approaches include:
Biomimicry: While often future-focused (emulating nature for new designs), biomimicry as a research method involves studying how organisms and ecosystems have solved specific functional challenges over evolutionary time. Analyzing historical adaptations – how did desert plants evolve to conserve water? How did social insects develop efficient collective behaviors? How have ecosystems recovered from past disturbances? – reveals fundamental principles of resource optimization, structural efficiency, information processing, and system resilience that were tested and refined over millennia. This understanding can provide benchmarks or analogies for evaluating the long-term viability or inherent flaws in past human design strategies (e.g., comparing the linear waste streams of industrial design to the closed-loop systems common in ecosystems). Janine Benyus’s work popularized this approach, emphasizing nature as model, measure, and mentor. The Symbiotic Design Framework is based on biomimesis: the principles that sustain life over time have been applied to the field of design.
Ecological Succession Analysis: Studying the predictable stages of change in an ecosystem over time after a disturbance (e.g., forest regrowth after a fire) provides insights into how complex systems self-organize, build complexity, increase resource efficiency, and develop resilience through stages. Analyzing these historical ecological patterns can offer metaphors or frameworks for understanding the developmental trajectories of past human settlements, technological systems, or even design movements – did they follow patterns leading towards maturity and resilience, or were they arrested in early, less stable stages?
Evolutionary Pattern Analysis: Examining the broader patterns of evolution – convergence (similar solutions evolving independently), adaptation to specific niches, co-evolution (reciprocal influence between species), punctuated equilibrium (long stability followed by rapid change) – offers systemic insights into how complex systems respond to selection pressures and environmental shifts over long durations. These patterns can provide lenses for analyzing the evolution of human technologies, design styles, or social systems, revealing underlying dynamics of innovation, adaptation, and obsolescence.
By studying nature’s historical R&D lab, designers gain access to principles tested over eons. This can inform critiques of past human designs (e.g., were they inherently brittle compared to resilient natural systems?), inspire more fundamentally sustainable approaches by revealing time-tested strategies, and provide a deeper, bio-centric perspective on concepts like efficiency, circularity, and adaptation, moving beyond purely anthropocentric or industrial paradigms. It involves asking: “How has life solved this challenge before?”
059 Beyond traditional research
However, truly learning from the past requires casting a much, much wider net than solely critiquing recent Western industrial history. It demands that we actively seek wisdom, inspiration, and alternative models from the vast reservoir of human experience that predates and exists outside this relatively recent, dominant paradigm. This involves, for me, a conscious effort to learn from:
Ancient Cultures & Long-Term Perspectives: As explored earlier, many ancient societies developed incredibly sophisticated systems for living in relative balance with their specific environments over extraordinarily long durations. Consider the intricate water management and agricultural systems of the Incas, Nabataeans, or Mesopotamians; the climate-responsive architectural principles embedded across diverse cultures adapting to local conditions without fossil fuels (e.g., passive cooling in desert regions, earthquake-resistant structures in seismic zones); or the profound material resourcefulness demonstrated globally in pre-industrial societies using local, renewable resources with minimal waste. These offer profound insights into resilience, long-term thinking (e.g., the Haudenosaunee Seventh Generation principle demanding consideration of impacts seven generations hence ), closed-loop systems (like the “Three Sisters” agriculture ), and designing with natural processes rather than against them. The systemic brilliance embedded in structures like Borobudur, meticulously planned and executed over decades to embody cosmology and guide spiritual transformation, fundamentally challenges Eurocentric timelines of design sophistication.
Diverse Design Histories & Traditions: We must actively counter the Eurocentric bias prevalent in mainstream design history by exploring, valuing, and learning from narratives originating in other regions and traditions. This includes the rich histories of textile design across Africa (e.g., the complex symbolism and weaving techniques of Kente cloth, the narrative mud cloths of Bogolanfini), the sophisticated ceramic traditions of East Asia (porcelain in China, stoneware aesthetics in Japan) and Mesoamerica, the intricate geometric patterns and architectural innovations of the Islamic world adapting mathematical principles to stunning visual effect, the complex urban planning of pre-Columbian American cities like Teotihuacan or Tenochtitlan, or the long evolution of boat-building techniques ingeniously adapted to specific maritime environments globally (e.g., Polynesian voyaging canoes, Arctic kayaks). Recognizing these diverse legacies, including early forms of technical or craft education in places like Mexico (Jesuit colleges ) or Chile (Escuela de Artes y Oficios ) that predate European “Design history” canons, enriches our understanding of design’s multiple origins and possibilities, challenging limiting assumptions about where ‘real’ or ‘innovative’ design happens.
Learning from Failures & Maladaptations: History, including design history, is also replete with cautionary tales, extending beyond the necessary critiques of industrialism. Jared Diamond’s work exploring societal collapses linked to environmental mismanagement (e.g., Easter Island deforestation, Maya resource depletion) offers stark warnings about exceeding ecological limits. The failures of grand, top-down modernist urban planning schemes that ignored human scale, social fabric, and local context (e.g., the Pruitt-Igoe housing project in St. Louis) provide crucial lessons in humility and the importance of participatory processes. The countless examples of seemingly benign technological or social interventions generating unforeseen negative consequences – the “revenge effects” of technology – (e.g., the social impacts of algorithmic bias in hiring or loan applications, the ecological disruption caused by introduced species intended for pest control, the health crises linked to “miracle” materials like asbestos or leaded gasoline) underscore the critical importance of foresight, systemic thinking, considering second and third-order effects, designing for adaptability, and perhaps even prioritizing reversibility where possible. Recognizing and analyzing failure – including design’s own historical missteps, ethical compromises (like designing discriminatory systems), or contributions to unsustainable economic models – without defensiveness, feels absolutely essential for avoiding hubris and making wiser choices moving forward. It’s also vital to distinguish between genuine error (unforeseen outcomes despite good intentions) and malpractice (deliberate negligence or prioritizing profit over safety/ethics, e.g., corporations hiding harmful product effects). A lack of holistic perspective and informed decision-making often underpins failures. Critical self-reflection on past failures is vital to prevent repeating harmful patterns, particularly those arising from Pseudo-Design (designing without adequate research or rigor).
Pluriversal Realities & Ontologies: Acknowledging the richness of the past, and indeed the present, requires moving beyond a universalist worldview that implicitly assumes one single, objective reality or one valid way of knowing and being. Instead, as I learned through engaging with decolonial thought, particularly the work of Arturo Escobar on “Designs for the Pluriverse”, we must strive to embrace the concept of the pluriverse – the radical recognition that multiple worlds, multiple realities, multiple ways of knowing (epistemologies), being (ontologies), and doing exist and co-create our planet. Design, therefore, must shift its ambition away from imposing supposedly universal solutions (often based on dominant Western scientific, rationalist, or capitalist assumptions) towards fostering dialogues between different worldviews, creating conditions for mutual learning and respect, and designing platforms, processes, and infrastructures where diverse realities can flourish side-by-side without hierarchy. This involves critically interrogating the ontological and epistemological assumptions unconsciously embedded within dominant design tools, methods, standards, and technologies. Whose reality counts as valid? Whose knowledge is privileged, and whose is dismissed as ‘myth’ or ‘superstition’? Learning from the past requires learning from multiple pasts, acknowledging different ways societies have understood and related to time, nature, community, and existence itself.
Community-Held Knowledge: Much of this alternative historical and cultural knowledge – whether ancient, vernacular, or contemporary – is often not codified in academic texts or stored in institutional archives easily accessible to mainstream designers. It resides dynamically within communities, passed down through practice, storytelling, ritual, apprenticeship, mentorship, and lived experience. This knowledge is often deeply tested, validated through generations of application in specific ecological and social contexts, and intrinsically linked to cultural identity, social cohesion, spiritual practices, and collective survival. Engaging respectfully and ethically with this community-held knowledge requires moving beyond extractive research paradigms towards genuine partnership. It demands profound respect for intellectual property and cultural heritage, genuine reciprocity (ensuring benefits flow back to the community), deep humility (recognizing oneself as learner, not expert), long-term relationship building based on trust, and a steadfast commitment to collaboration rather than appropriation. As Linda Tuhiwai Smith powerfully argued in “Decolonizing Methodologies,” research involving communities, particularly Indigenous communities, must prioritize their concerns, respect their protocols and sovereignty, ensure their control over their own knowledge, and contribute directly to their self-determination and empowerment. It is crucial to safeguard this knowledge, ensuring communities maintain ownership and control over its use and representation, provided, of course, that these practices align with the universal ethical principles safeguarding fundamental human dignity and well-being discussed previously. This community-based knowledge, when accessed respectfully through appropriate partnership models, offers invaluable insights for co-designing solutions that are not only effective but also locally relevant, culturally appropriate, resilient, and genuinely sustainable in ways that top-down approaches rarely achieve. Crucially, the community must be recognized as the owner of such knowledge and be the primary recipient of any benefits arising from its application.
By expanding our historical and cultural lens in these ways, employing these diverse methodologies for inquiry, we move beyond merely critiquing the mistakes made within a single, dominant historical trajectory. We begin to appreciate the immense diversity of human ingenuity, ecological wisdom, and resilient practices available to us as inspiration and guidance. The past, viewed not as a monolithic block to be either revered or rejected, but as a complex, contested, pluriversal tapestry containing failures, forgotten successes, marginalized narratives, and diverse, living traditions, offers crucial, timely lessons. Lessons about humility in the face of complexity, about the deep interconnectedness of social and ecological systems, about the far-reaching and often time-delayed impacts of our design decisions, and about the absolute necessity of grounding future innovation in principles of ecological integrity, social equity, cultural respect, and a genuine appreciation for pluriversal ways of knowing and being. Embracing this richer, more complex, and more critical understanding of the past feels fundamental to our ability to design more just, resilient, and truly sustainable futures.
060 The Present
Building upon this expanded, critical understanding of history and the fluid nature of time itself, we now confront the immense, often dizzying, challenge of designing in the present moment. This task, I’ve come to believe through continuous practice and reflection, is deeply complicated, even defined, by the very flux, the Heraclitean flow, that characterizes our reality. The ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus, whose fragments resonate with startling relevance across millennia, offered that profound, almost koan-like observation: “You cannot step into the same river twice, for other waters are ever flowing on to you.” His point, as interpreted through the ages, wasn’t just that the river’s physical waters are constantly changing, but crucially, that we, the observers, the participants stepping into the flow, are also changing moment by moment – perceiving differently, feeling differently, being affected differently by the ceaseless passage of experience. This ancient wisdom, this acknowledgment of radical impermanence and relational becoming, forms the central lens through which we must strive to understand the specific challenges, ethical quandaries, and creative possibilities for design now.
The present, therefore, is not a fixed point on a timeline, not a stable platform from which to objectively observe or act. It is a dynamic confluence, an ever-shifting, turbulent river, and we, as designers and as humans, are immersed within its currents, constantly navigating its eddies, undertows, and unpredictable surges. Today, perhaps more than at any point in human history due to the sheer speed and interconnectedness of global systems, designers operate within the most turbulent stretches of this river. Here, the accumulated legacies of past decisions – the environmental damage from centuries of industrial activity, the deep scars of social inequalities rooted in colonialism and systemic oppression, the technological lock-ins created by previous infrastructure choices, the mountains of waste generated by linear economic models, the failures of past designs (Pseudo-Design) – collide violently and visibly with accelerating contemporary crises.
Embracing Heraclitus’s insight, then, means recognizing that this “present” we inhabit is inherently unstable, fundamentally uncertain, and requires us to directly, courageously engage with this ongoing flux. We cannot pretend we can stand apart on some mythical solid ground or impose perfect, lasting, top-down order upon it. It demands cultivating what the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben, in his essay “What is the Contemporary?”, suggests is the core of being truly contemporary: the capacity to perceive, with a degree of critical distance yet profound engagement, the unique dynamism, the shadows, the flickering lights, even the constitutive darkness of one’s own time. It means acknowledging its fleeting, ever-changing nature without succumbing to paralyzing nostalgia for a lost past or naive utopian denial of present dangers. We simply cannot act effectively, ethically, or even relevantly within a reality defined by constant change if our methods, mindsets, and organizational structures remain stubbornly rooted in assumptions of stability, predictability, and linear progression.
Therefore, design processes themselves must become inherently adaptive, radically iterative, and deeply responsive to real-time feedback and shifting conditions. The complex, often precarious situations we find ourselves embedded within – the “wicked problems” first described by Rittel and Webber and later applied so insightfully to design by Buchanan, such as climate breakdown, systemic inequality, the algorithmic spread of misinformation and polarization, mass displacement driven by conflict and environmental change, pandemic risks amplified by global travel, and the catastrophic collapse of biodiversity – are not static obstacles waiting for neat, definitive solutions. They are powerful, shape-shifting, interconnected currents within this Heraclitean river of the present. They are deeply entangled, constantly evolving in response to our interventions and myriad external factors, demanding approaches that move decisively beyond linear, reductionist problem-solving. They require us, instead, to embrace inherent dynamism, feedback loops, non-linearity, emergence, and systemic complexity as fundamental characteristics of the reality we work within.
Designing interventions for such problems requires ongoing monitoring, continuous evaluation, humility about our predictive capacities, and a commitment to adaptation based on observed outcomes. Methodologies focused on learning from present actions become vital tools for navigating this dynamic landscape, and here we are mentioning just a few of them:
061 Reflective Practice (In-Action & Immediate On-Action)
Drawing on Donald Schön’s conceptualization, this methodology offers a framework for real-time experiential learning, essential for navigating present uncertainties. Its core purpose is to enhance professional judgment and adaptability by intentionally reflecting during and immediately following design activities in complex, unique scenarios. Schön highlighted two key modes applicable to the present situation as part of its methodology and process.
062 Reflection-in-Action
The critical “thinking on your feet” during the design activity. Designers notice unexpected results, question their current approach (“Is this working? Why not?”), experiment with different moves, and make real-time adjustments based on the unfolding situation, engaging in a “conversation” with the materials and context. It’s adapting strategies as new insights emerge now.
063 Reflection-on-Action (Immediate)
While often post-project, this can occur immediately after a specific action within an ongoing project. It involves pausing briefly to analyze a just-completed step (e.g., a user struggling with a prototype feature). What happened? Why? What immediate adjustments are needed for the next step? Frameworks like Driscoll’s “What? So What? Now What?” can structure these rapid cycles. It allows designers to learn dynamically from the present situation, adapting strategies and refining understanding as the design evolves, navigating inherent uncertainty.
064 A/B testing
It’s core purpose is to provide immediate, quantitative data on the impact of design choices on user behavior for rapid, data-driven optimization. The process involves defining a goal and hypothesis, creating isolated design variations (A/B), randomly assigning users to each variation, collecting quantitative data on the goal metric, statistically analyzing results for significant performance differences, and implementing the superior variation. This methodology offers direct, empirical evidence from current user behavior, reducing assumptions and enabling fast iteration based on real-time performance data, ensuring current design decisions effectively meet specific objectives by simultaneously presenting different versions to user groups to identify the higher-performing one against a predefined goal.
065 Research Through Design (RtD)
In its present iterations serves the core purpose of exploring complex problems and generating immediate insights by designing, creating, and testing artifacts during the design process. This iterative cycle involves problem exploration, artifact creation as a form of inquiry, engagement and testing with users using these immediate artifacts, reflection and analysis of the outcomes (including failures), and knowledge generation to refine the next iteration based on present insights. The application of RtD emphasizes immediate learning through experimentation, valuing unexpected results as opportunities to reveal deeper insights emergent from present engagement with materials, tools, users, and context, with each iteration providing immediate data for the subsequent step.
066 Prototyping and usability testing
Serve the core purpose of obtaining direct, observable evidence of current user interaction to identify immediate usability issues and guide refinements. The methodology involves defining test goals, creating a suitable prototype, recruiting representative users, conducting test sessions with think-aloud protocols, gathering real-time qualitative and quantitative feedback, analyzing findings, and immediately iterating on the design based on current insights. This application shifts learning from abstract assumptions to concrete observations of present user behavior, enabling rapid identification and resolution of current iteration problems and informing immediate next steps; different prototype fidelity levels provide varied real-time insights into concepts, interaction, and visuals.
067 User-Centered Design (UCD) or Human-Centered Design (HCD.)
aims to create solutions that meet actual user needs and are usable within their existing context through ongoing user involvement. This iterative process includes empathizing with users to understand their current reality, defining their present needs, ideating solutions, prototyping, testing prototypes to gather real-time user feedback, and iterating on the design based on this feedback. This approach emphasizes understanding and involving users’ present needs, limitations, behaviors, and contexts throughout the entire design process. Direct user engagement integrates learning from the present, offering immediate insights that ensure the design evolves based on a current understanding of users, rather than initial assumptions.
068 Participatory Design (Co-Design)
Actively engages users and stakeholders as equal partners and co-creators throughout the design process. Its core purpose is to democratize design decisions and leverage the lived experiences of users directly in the present act of creation. The methodology involves establishing partnerships, collaboratively defining problems, conducting co-creation activities where users participate in brainstorming, sketching, and prototyping together in workshops, and engaging in joint evaluation and iteration based on present discussions and insights. The application of participatory design results in immediate and collaborative learning that emerges directly from present interactions and shared activities, leading to solutions deeply grounded in users’ present context, needs, and expertise.
069 Design Thinking (Present Focus)
Design Thinking is a human-centered methodology for creative problem-solving that emphasizes iteration based on present learning. Its core purpose is to solve complex problems through an iterative cycle fueled by understanding present needs and testing solutions now. The methodology typically involves these steps: Empathize (understand users’ present experiences); Define (articulate core problems based on present understanding); Ideate; Prototype (build tangible versions now); and Test (gather immediate feedback by sharing prototypes with users now). Its application and learning heavily rely on understanding the present. The Empathize phase focuses on current reality, while the Prototype and Test stages generate immediate learning from user interactions, driving the iterative cycle forward based on present insights.
070 Service Design (Prototyping Service Interactions)
Service design focuses on enhancing service quality by understanding and testing the present experience. Its core purpose is to identify issues and test new ideas through simulating parts of the service experience before full implementation. The methodology involves user research to understand present needs and pain points, journey mapping and service blueprinting to visualize the current experience, co-creation activities, service prototyping through methods like role-playing and physical mock-ups, and iterative testing to gather feedback from the simulated experience. This allows teams to evaluate aspects of a service in the present, identify potential breakdowns or friction points in the proposed design through simulation, and gain immediate, context-rich learning to inform refinement.
071 Real-Time Trend Analysis (e.g., Sentiment Analysis)
Real-Time Trend Analysis, such as sentiment analysis, involves using tools to monitor and analyze current online conversations and public perceptions relevant to design work. The core purpose is to gain immediate insights into how designs, brands, or trends are being received now, allowing for rapid responses and adjustments. The methodology includes defining the monitoring scope, selecting appropriate social listening and sentiment analysis tools, conducting real-time data collection by scanning online sources, utilizing AI for sentiment classification, identifying themes and trends in current conversations, and then reporting findings to inform immediate actions and validate emerging trends. The application and learning derived from this provide an immediate pulse check on present perceptions, allowing for an understanding of the unfiltered voice of the user or market now, which enables rapid responses based on immediate feedback circulating online.
Furthermore, Heraclitus’s wisdom deepens our understanding and appreciation of the pluriverse, a concept I found so crucial through the work of Arturo Escobar. If both the river (reality/context) and the stepper-in (the observer/designer/community participant) are constantly changing and mutually influencing each other through their interaction, then reality itself cannot be singular, objective, or fixed. It is inherently multiple, relational, emergent, constructed through interaction. Each engagement, each design intervention, each observation brings forth a unique, temporary world, a specific configuration of relationships, meanings, and possibilities. Engaging the present, therefore, means navigating this inherent plurality – the active co-existence of multiple, shifting worlds, diverse ontologies (ways of being), varying temporalities (different rhythms and perceptions of time), and often conflicting value systems, all unfolding simultaneously, sometimes harmoniously, sometimes contentiously, within the river’s overall flow.
This pluriversal reality fundamentally challenges the efficacy, and indeed the ethics, of imposing one-size-fits-all solutions, standardized models, supposedly universal best practices, or evaluation metrics that are often rooted, implicitly or explicitly, in dominant Western paradigms (e.g., prioritizing individual efficiency over collective well-being, or economic growth over ecological integrity). It underscores the urgency for design approaches grounded in ongoing dialogue across difference, deep listening to marginalized perspectives, mutual learning between diverse knowledge systems (scientific, traditional, experiential), context-specific adaptation guided by local wisdom, and the profound humility to accept that our designs will always interact with worlds, values, and consequences we don’t fully understand or control. There isn’t one monolithic present, but countless presents flowing together, interacting, sometimes clashing, and co-creating the future. Consider the different ways “well-being” is understood and designed for: compare the individualistic focus of some wellness apps designed in Silicon Valley with the community-centric approaches embedded in traditional healing practices or initiatives promoting Buen Vivir (“Good Living” or collective harmony with nature and community) in Andean nations – both engage the present reality of human needs, but through distinct pluriversal lenses and towards potentially different futures.
Within this context of ceaseless change and pluriversal complexity, the pioneering calls for profound social and ecological responsibility, articulated with such passion decades ago by Victor Papanek, gain even greater urgency and require deeper, more systemic interpretation. How do we design ethically, responsibly, within a constantly changing river where consequences are hard to predict, systemic effects are pervasive, and our actions inevitably ripple outwards in unforeseen ways? It seems clear that it requires embracing systemic thinking not just as an analytical tool but as a mode of practice, fostering deep, trust-based collaboration across diverse forms of expertise and lived experience, and cultivating radical adaptability within our processes and outcomes.
This adaptability, this capacity to respond effectively and gracefully to change, requires what the brilliant management cybernetician Stafford Beer, in his prescient book “Designing Freedom” – drawing partly on his experiences with the ambitious, ultimately tragic, Project Cybersyn in Chile – described as an essential ‘elasticity’ within our systems (social, organizational, technical). Elasticity isn’t just about changing passively; it’s the active capacity for systems to stretch, respond, absorb disturbances, learn from perturbations, and maintain coherence, identity, and purpose when confronted by the inevitable, often unpredictable, fluctuations and surprises encountered within the river of time. Rigid systems, including rigid design processes, brittle technological solutions, or inflexible organizational structures, break under pressure; elastic systems endure, adapt, and potentially even strengthen through challenge.
Crucially, within this flux, fostering healthy, symbiotic relationships – relationships built on trust, reciprocity, mutual learning, shared purpose, and open communication between individuals, communities, disciplines, and importantly, between humans and the more-than-human world – emerges as a vital capacity for finding orientation, stability, and shared direction within the river’s flow. In a constantly changing world where fixed plans quickly become obsolete, strong, resilient, reciprocal relationships provide continuity, a basis for collective sense-making, shared identity, and coordinated, adaptive action. These relationships can create stabilizing eddies within the current, fertile ground from which contextually appropriate, resilient, and collectively owned solutions can emerge. We see this principle embodied in projects like the participatory housing initiative “Quinta Monroy” in Iquique, Chile, led by Alejandro Aravena’s firm Elemental. The design process prioritized building community relationships and providing families with adaptable “half-houses” they could complete incrementally over time, acknowledging economic flux and empowering residents’ agency alongside delivering the physical structures. The relationships were as crucial as the architecture.
Therefore, truly engaging the present, as I now understand it through the lens of Heraclitus and systems thinking, means embracing flux without succumbing to nihilism or paralysis. It requires designers to cultivate the challenging ability to perceive and engage critically with the dynamic present (as Agamben suggests), to acknowledge the deep entanglement of wicked problems within this flow, to recognize and respect pluriversal complexity and diverse ways of knowing (as Escobar argues), and to commit wholeheartedly to collaborative, elastic (as Beer described), adaptive, and feedback-rich modes of working. It demands the patient, ongoing work of fostering symbiotic relationships, grounding actions in continuous observation and learning, and acting ethically within systems characterized by profound uncertainty, emergence, and transformation. Designing today, it seems, is less about attempting to build permanent monuments against the relentless current and more about learning the difficult, humble, collaborative art of navigating the river, together, with wisdom, responsiveness, and care.
072 The Future
Design, as Tomás Maldonado astutely identified decades ago, is inherently “proyectual” – it projects ideas, intentions, visions, and possibilities into the future. It is fundamentally concerned, perhaps more than any other discipline besides planning or policy-making, with shaping what is yet to come, with altering the trajectory of that oncoming temporal wind. Whether consciously and deliberately, or unconsciously through embedded assumptions and unexamined consequences, every act of design – from sketching a new chair to architecting a global software platform, from laying out a city block to formulating a public health campaign – generates possibilities, scripts potential interactions, materializes certain values while marginalizing others, and actively shapes potential futures, closing off some pathways while opening others.
This intrinsic future-orientation, this capacity to prefigure and influence what might be, places an immense, almost overwhelming, ethical weight on the practice of design. It begs critical questions that I find myself returning to constantly, questions that should haunt every responsible practitioner: Which futures, precisely, are being projected and potentially realized by current design trends, dominant methodologies, and specific project outcomes, whether intentionally or unintentionally? Whose possibilities, whose ways of life, whose values, whose very existence are being prioritized, amplified, or enabled by these projected futures? And, just as importantly, whose are being systematically marginalized, diminished, excluded, or even endangered? How does the very language we use to describe future possibilities, the imagery we employ in presentations and marketing, the narratives we construct around innovation, the prototypes we build to make futures tangible, the algorithms we code that shape future decisions, the systems we design that structure future interactions – how do all these design elements influence which visions of the future gain traction, feel desirable, seem inevitable, or become technologically and socially locked-in, making alternatives harder to imagine or achieve?
The words we use, the scenarios we paint, the prototypes we build, the images we circulate – these are never neutral descriptors of potential futures; they are active agents in shaping perception, framing possibilities, channeling aspirations, mobilizing resources, and constructing the very future they purport to describe. I vividly recall a mentoring session during my PhD studies where Dr. Verónica de Valle, reflecting on the power of discourse, made an observation that stuck with me profoundly: words, she suggested, “Create Magnetic Fields”. They attract energy – intellectual, emotional, financial, political. They focus collective attention on certain problems and certain types of solutions. They draw resources towards particular visions of the future, making some pathways seem more plausible, more exciting, more investable, or more desirable than others, while simultaneously rendering alternative pathways, perhaps quieter, slower, more equitable, or more ecologically sound ones, less visible, less viable, or simply unthinkable. Think of the powerful magnetic field created by the term “smart city,” attracting vast investment towards technologically-driven urban futures centered on data collection, surveillance, and efficiency optimization, sometimes overshadowing equally or perhaps more important investments in social infrastructure, community resilience, democratic participation, or ecological regeneration. Or consider the allure of terms like “disruption” or “exponential growth,” which often implicitly value rapid change and market dominance over stability, equity, or sustainability.
This insight underscores the immense responsibility inherent in design’s proyectual nature – the power embedded not just in the final outcomes, but in the very process of how we frame problems, envision solutions, and communicate possibilities for the future. It demands critical awareness of the narratives we construct and the values we embed in our projections.
Recognizing this power, and grappling with the profound uncertainties, high stakes, and complex systemic challenges of our current moment (the Anthropocene/Capitalocene context, the entanglement of wicked problems), has led to a growing, necessary interest within and adjacent to the design field in more formalized, systematic, and critical approaches to thinking about and shaping the future. These approaches often draw inspiration and methodologies from the broader interdisciplinary field of Futurology or Futures Studies. While sometimes historically associated with predictive forecasting (attempting to pinpoint the future) or overly simplistic utopian/dystopian speculation (and occasionally dismissed as such by skeptics), contemporary Futures Studies employs a diverse range of rigorous methodologies aimed at systematically exploring plausible, possible, probable, and, perhaps most importantly, preferable futures. Its primary aim is typically not to predict a single, deterministic future (widely recognized as impossible in complex, open systems), but rather to broaden our understanding of potential trajectories, surface underlying assumptions about change, identify emerging risks and opportunities (“weak signals”), challenge conventional thinking and dominant narratives about progress, stimulate imagination about alternatives, and ultimately, inform more strategic, resilient, ethical, and responsible action in the present. This aligns closely with design’s need for greater foresight, intentionality, and ethical grounding in its future-oriented work.
Several concepts and methods from Futurology and related fields are increasingly relevant and are being integrated, adapted, and further developed within contemporary design practice:
073 Scenario Planning
This is a systematic method used to explore multiple plausible futures based on key driving forces and critical uncertainties. Its core purpose is not to predict a single outcome, but rather to prepare for a range of possibilities, ultimately enabling more resilient decision-making in the face of uncertainty. When adapted for design, the methodology typically involves these steps: first, identify a key issue or focal question; second, identify the driving forces (such as STEEP trends) and critical uncertainties (factors with high impact and high uncertainty); third, develop several distinct, internally consistent, and plausible narratives or scenarios, often using tools like a 2×2 matrix or morphological analysis; fourth, explore the implications and potential design responses within each scenario by analyzing opportunities and threats and brainstorming tailored strategies and innovations; and fifth, identify indicators or early warning signs that might signal which scenario is unfolding. Scenarios can be exploratory, projecting forward from the present, or normative, working backward from a desired future. In application, scenario planning is used by strategic designers and foresight units to test strategies, identify risks, inform research and development, explore potential operating contexts, and foster adaptive capacity.
074 Strategic Foresight
Is a comprehensive discipline that integrates various methodologies to enhance the capacity to anticipate, interpret, shape, and respond to future change. Its primary purpose is to integrate future-awareness into strategic thinking, drive innovation, and foster resilience, thereby moving beyond reactive short-term approaches. Key methods and components relevant to designers include Horizon Scanning (a systematic search for emerging “weak signals”), Trend and Driver Analysis, Stakeholder Engagement and Ethnographic Research, the application of Future Frameworks (such as Frog’s Analytical, Speculative, and Systems lenses), Scenario Development, Visioning and Backcasting, and Implication Analysis and Strategy Formulation. The application of strategic foresight informs long-term innovation strategy, helps identify unmet needs and market opportunities, facilitates proactive risk mitigation, and guides the development of future-resilient designs and services, ultimately positioning designers in strategic leadership roles.
075 Speculative & Critical Design (SCD)
Designers utilize provocative artifacts and scenarios to explore and critique potential futures and present assumptions, prioritizing the stimulation of thought, debate, and awareness of social, cultural, and ethical issues, particularly those related to technology. Critical Design specifically emphasizes the critique of present values and ideologies. The methodology involves defining a context and identifying assumptions for critique, ideating and developing scenarios (often through trend extrapolation, extremes, or counterfactuals), materializing these scenarios into provocative artifacts, prototypes, or narratives designed for debate (sometimes employing ambiguity or irony), and stimulating dialogue through public presentation in exhibitions or workshops. This approach facilitates ethical foresight and public debate before futures are realized, challenges techno-optimism and dystopianism, and acts as a pre-emptive critique. While sometimes perceived as abstract, it is valuable for strategic conversations and stimulating thought.
076 Design Fiction
Design fiction employs narrative storytelling and diegetic prototypes—artifacts existing within a fictional world—to envision future scenarios, focusing on the human experience within them. Its core purpose is to make abstract future concepts, especially technological ones, concrete, relatable, and emotionally resonant by exploring their lived implications. The methodology and process involve scenario planning and world-building, designing diegetic prototypes (tangible props within the story), and narrative crafting using storytelling techniques, sometimes influenced by science fiction. Its application bridges abstract foresight, such as trends, and tangible UX considerations, translating possibilities into relatable human stories, exploring the human implications of forecasts and strategies, and enhancing the communicative power of future exploration.
077 Backcasting
Backcasting is a normative approach in futures studies that begins with a clearly defined vision of a desirable future state and then works backward in time to identify the necessary steps, policy changes, technological milestones, behavioral shifts, and intermediate actions required to reach that future from the present. Its core purpose is to develop a strategic roadmap for achieving a preferred future, rather than simply predicting a likely one. This methodology, which is central to Transition Design, encourages the setting of ambitious long-term goals and focuses on identifying the key levers for change that need to be activated in the present to facilitate these long-term transformations, providing strategic direction for navigating complex transitions.
078 Anticipatory Design
Anticipatory Design aims to create a seamless user experience by predicting and addressing immediate user needs before they are explicitly stated, often leveraging data and machine learning. Its core purpose is to be “one step ahead,” prioritizing flow, convenience, and efficiency through streamlined interactions. The methodology involves identifying user objectives and streamlining their journeys, reducing choices by offering proactive and relevant options, personalizing experiences through data-driven tailoring, and providing proactive assistance such as suggestions, reminders, and pre-filled forms. This approach heavily relies on data collection and analysis, as well as predictive modeling. Applications of anticipatory design include personalized recommendations (like those on Netflix), context-aware menus, route suggestions based on calendar information, and pre-filled forms. While striving for an effortless and efficient user experience, anticipatory design raises ethical questions concerning user agency, data privacy, and potential manipulation.
079 Predictive Analytics & Modeling
Predictive analytics and modeling involve applying data science techniques to forecast various design-related outcomes. Their core purpose is to inform design decisions with quantitative forecasts derived from historical data patterns. The methodology includes gathering relevant data (visual, behavioral), employing algorithms for pattern recognition (visual trends, sentiment), selecting and training predictive models (regression, classification, machine learning), and critically interpreting and applying these insights to the creative process. This approach finds application in forecasting aesthetic trends by analyzing visual data for colors and styles, predicting user behavior and engagement with UI/UX through interaction data analysis, and optimizing design performance using machine learning with A/B testing. This marks a shift towards data-driven intuition but necessitates ethical vigilance regarding privacy, data bias, and transparency.
080 Iterative Methods as Future Probes (Prototyping & RtD)
Even present-focused methods contribute to understanding the future. Prototype testing, especially with high-fidelity prototypes, offers predictive data regarding future usability, reception, adoption potential, and areas of difficulty by observing current user interactions. Similarly, Research Through Design (RtD) utilizes exploratory and speculative prototypes as tangible probes into potential futures. The interactions with these prototypes reveal unforeseen implications, user responses, and emergent behaviors, providing valuable insights into future directions, challenges, and societal impacts. Learning from the “failures” encountered during RtD is a valuable form of foresight.
These critical, systemic, and foresight-oriented approaches stand in sharp contrast to much mainstream design effort that often offers only partial technological fixes for complex systemic problems (like a more efficient gadget that doesn’t address underlying consumption patterns or rebound effects) or proposes solutions that remain fundamentally trapped within unsustainable industrial or economic paradigms (like simplistic circular economy initiatives focused solely on recycling without challenging growth, planned obsolescence, or global inequalities, or the pitfalls of superficial Pseudo-Design masquerading as genuine future-oriented innovation). Such limited approaches frequently fail to adequately address the underlying systemic issues or grapple with the deep temporal dynamics and ethical complexities at play, a shortcoming forcefully critiqued by theorists like Tony Fry who calls for a more profound, critical, and ethically engaged practice of ‘futuring’ – actively designing for sustainment.
Perhaps the most profound shift required in how design engages with the future involves actively embracing pluriversal possibilities, moving decisively beyond the often implicit, homogenizing assumption of a single, universal, desirable future frequently shaped by dominant Western techno-optimistic, developmentalist, or neoliberal narratives. As Arturo Escobar argues, this means actively recognizing, respecting, valuing, and making space for multiple, diverse futures rooted in different cultural knowledge systems, cosmologies, values, spiritual traditions, and even non-linear understandings of time. This includes, crucially, learning from Indigenous perspectives which often embody deep temporal wisdom, cyclical understandings of time, profound relational responsibilities extending across generations and species, and sophisticated practices of long-term ecological stewardship. How can we design processes and platforms (like participatory futures workshops, culturally-situated design tools à la Ron Eglash, or intercultural dialogues) that allow these diverse futures to be envisioned, articulated, debated, and potentially realized, rather than being steamrolled by a singular, often implicitly colonial, vision of ‘progress’? This involves challenging the coloniality of the future, ensuring that foresight and design practices do not simply replicate past power imbalances but actively contribute to epistemic justice and the flourishing of diverse worlds and ways of being.
081 The Temporal Paradox and Event Types in Design
This engagement with past, present, and future brings us face-to-face with a fundamental paradox of time in design practice. Even when we meticulously analyze historical precedents (Past using methods like Artifact Analysis or Precedent Study), rigorously test prototypes in the Present (using methods like Usability Testing or RtD), or strategically project scenarios into the Future (using methods like Scenario Planning or Design Fiction), all this cognitive and creative work occurs irrevocably within the fleeting moment of the present. We cannot physically travel to the past to directly observe its unfolding, nor can we leap ahead to experience the future we envision. Our access to the past is always mediated through traces, memories, artifacts, narratives, and interpretations, all engaged with now. Our engagement with the future is always through imagination, projection, simulation, modeling, speculation, and intention, all enacted now. We exist, perceive, decide, and act only in the continuous unfolding of the present, the Heraclitean river. This realization doesn’t negate the value of historical learning or future foresight; rather, it grounds them. It emphasizes that our power to influence the trajectory of the river lies solely in the choices we make and the actions we take in this present moment, informed by our understanding of what has been and our aspirations for what might be. Our present actions, guided by temporal wisdom, are the only levers we have to shape the flow towards more desirable futures.
Within this temporal flow, events unfold in various ways, exhibiting different characteristics that designers must recognize and respond to. Understanding these patterns is crucial for choosing appropriate methods and strategies:
082 Unique Events
These are singular, often unprecedented occurrences that significantly alter the context, potentially disrupting established patterns (e.g., a major natural disaster like a Hurricane, a disruptive technological invention like the printing press or the internet, a global pandemic like COVID-19, a sudden political coup). Design often responds reactively to unique events (e.g., designing emergency shelters, adapting services for remote work). However, foresight methods like Scenario Planning aim to anticipate potential “wild card” or “black swan” events, while Resilient Design aims to build systems (social, technical, ecological) capable of absorbing such shocks, adapting, and transforming without catastrophic failure. Design for unique events focuses on preparedness, rapid response, and adaptability.
083 Predictable Events
These follow established, often cyclical or linear, patterns (e.g., seasonal changes influencing agriculture, fashion cycles, demographic shifts like aging populations, known product lifecycle stages, typical project milestones in a Waterfall process). Design leverages predictability for planning, efficiency, optimization, and aligning interventions with expected rhythms (e.g., designing seasonal product lines, planning infrastructure for known population growth, scheduling maintenance). However, over-reliance on predictability can lead to fragility when unexpected (Unique or Erratic) events inevitably occur. Design for predictable events involves optimization and planning within known cycles.
084 Erratic Events
These are unpredictable, irregular occurrences lacking clear underlying patterns or predictable timing (e.g., sudden market fluctuations driven by speculation, unexpected component failures in a complex system, rapid shifts in public opinion fueled by viral social media phenomena, volatile political decisions). Designing for erratic events requires building in elasticity (as Beer termed it), adaptability, redundancy, modularity, contingency planning, and rapid response capabilities. Agile methodologies in software design, with their short iterations and responsiveness to changing requirements, are well-suited to handling erratic events in project contexts. Design for erratic events emphasizes flexibility and robustness.
085 Recursive Events
These involve patterns or processes that repeat, cycle, or feed back into themselves, often creating reinforcing loops (positive feedback) or stabilizing cycles (negative feedback). Examples include iterative design sprints, seasonal fashion cycles driving consumption, feedback loops in complex ecological or economic systems, the addictive loops in some digital interfaces, or the autopoietic self-renewal of the design discipline itself. Understanding recursive patterns is key to Systemic Design, identifying points of intervention to either amplify positive cycles (e.g., community engagement building trust) or dampen negative ones (e.g., breaking cycles of poverty or pollution). Designing for Circularity explicitly leverages recursive material flows. Design for recursive events involves understanding feedback and intervening strategically within cycles.
086 Simultaneous Events
Multiple events, trends, or processes occurring concurrently, potentially interacting in complex and unpredictable ways. Wicked problems are often characterized by the simultaneity of interacting crises (e.g., climate change exacerbating social inequality, while political instability hinders effective action). Design requires coordination, prioritization, Systems Thinking (to understand interactions), and often Multi-disciplinary collaboration to manage simultaneity effectively, addressing potential interference or leveraging potential synergies between concurrent activities or impacts. Design for simultaneous events focuses on integration and managing interdependencies.
087 Sequential Events
Events unfolding in a specific, often predetermined, order, where one stage depends on the completion of the previous one (e.g., linear project phases like research -> design -> prototype -> test -> launch in a Waterfall model, the defined steps in a user journey map, the stages of material processing in manufacturing). Design relies heavily on managing sequences for planning, execution, and ensuring logical progression (e.g., using Gantt charts, service blueprints). However, designers must remain aware that real-world processes are often less linear and involve parallel activities (Simultaneity), feedback loops (Recursion), or unexpected disruptions (Erratic or Unique events) that complicate simple sequences. Design for sequential events involves planning and optimizing flow, while remaining prepared for deviations.
Recognizing these different event types – and crucially, understanding that they often co-occur and interact, especially within complex or wicked problems (e.g., a predictable demographic shift interacting with an erratic economic downturn and a unique technological disruption) – helps designers choose appropriate methodologies, anticipate challenges, manage complexity, and develop a more nuanced understanding of the dynamic temporal landscape within which they operate. It reinforces the need to move beyond purely linear thinking (chronos) towards a richer appreciation of timing, opportunity (kairos), cycles, feedback, uncertainty, and unpredictable flux.
Ultimately, designing responsible futures, as I’ve come to understand it through this exploration, is not just about trying to predict or control outcomes in an inherently unpredictable world. Nor is it solely about generating provocative speculations or technologically sophisticated forecasts. It is about consciously, ethically intending to modify that oncoming future-wind by cultivating the conditions in the present – the fertile ground of healthy ecosystems, the supportive structures of just and equitable institutions, the enabling relationships of strong and resilient communities, the development of appropriate and accessible technologies – from which ‘proper,’ more just, more equitable, more symbiotic, and more resilient relations can emerge and potentially thrive over time. It means designing with an awareness of time’s inherent uncertainty and flux, fostering the elasticity (as Beer urged) and adaptability necessary to navigate unforeseen changes (unique, erratic events), leveraging predictable and recursive patterns where appropriate, coordinating simultaneous activities, managing sequences effectively, and consistently, rigorously prioritizing long-term ecological integrity (Sustainability), social well-being and justice (Social Responsibility), and fundamental needs fulfillment for all (Ethics, Economics) over short-term efficiencies, fleeting market trends, narrow economic gains, or the pursuit of growth for its own sake. It’s about planting seeds in the present, nurturing potential, and building capacity for futures where collective flourishing is possible, rather than simply reacting to the wind as it hits us or, worse, contributing to the storm through uncritical, irresponsible, or ethically blind practice.
088 Design Ethnoevolution
To truly grasp the potential and pitfalls of design as it navigates the currents of time – learning from its past, acting in its present, and shaping its future – requires more than just chronicling historical styles or mastering contemporary methods. It necessitates a deeper understanding of how design knowledge itself evolves, adapts, persists, and sometimes stagnates or misleads. This led me to formulate the concept of Design Ethnoevolution, which I define as the process and study of the evolution of practical design knowledge systems (including methodologies, theories, values, tools, and practices) through time, driven by the dynamic, reciprocal interactions between the design discipline and its constantly changing societal, cultural, environmental, technological, and economic contexts. From this perspective, societies and design evolve side-by-side, engaged in a complex, ongoing, often asymmetrical symbiotic relationship. Ethnoevolution reframes design’s knowledge not as a static archive inherited passively from the Past, nor as a fixed toolkit applied mechanically in the Present, but as a living, adaptive system operating dynamically within the temporal flow, actively constructing potential Futures.
Like biological or cultural evolution, Design Ethnoevolution involves key mechanisms:
Variation: New ideas, novel techniques, critical perspectives, borrowed concepts from other fields, unexpected outcomes from experimentation, and responses to new contextual pressures constantly introduce variation into the design knowledge pool. Methodologies for future exploration (Speculative Design, RtD, Design Fiction) are key sources of variation, deliberately introducing novel possibilities and critiques.
Selection: Certain ideas, methods, or styles gain traction and become more prevalent, while others fade. Selection pressures can be internal to the discipline (e.g., perceived effectiveness, alignment with dominant theories, peer recognition, aesthetic appeal) or external (e.g., market success, client demand, technological feasibility, regulatory requirements, ethical critiques gaining momentum, ecological crises demanding new approaches). Methodologies for engaging the Present (A/B testing, Usability Testing, Design Critique, Participatory Design feedback) act as selection mechanisms in real-time, favoring approaches that demonstrate value or resonance now.
Transmission: Knowledge, practices, and values are passed on and replicated (though always with potential for mutation or reinterpretation) through various channels – formal education curricula, mentorship relationships, apprenticeships, publications (books, journals), conferences, online tutorials and communities, shared tools and platforms (e.g., software standards), and the tacit knowledge embedded in professional communities and studios. Methodologies for learning from the Past (Archive Research, Case Studies, Precedent Analysis, Deconstruction) are crucial mechanisms for transmitting knowledge, skills, and warnings across time.
What distinguishes Ethnoevolution as a useful concept, however, is its explicit emphasis on learning from this evolutionary process itself. The historical journey of any knowledge system – including design’s diverse global traditions – encompasses not only successes and innovations (which we might call evolutionary gains) but also missteps, maladaptations, dead ends, forgotten paths, and the systematic suppression or marginalization of certain forms of knowledge (evolutionary losses or occlusions). Critically examining this entire trajectory, not just the winners’ history, generates crucial second-order knowledge. This isn’t just knowing what worked or what failed in the past, but understanding how and why. It involves grasping how the design system responds to different kinds of change, its inherent resilience or brittleness, its vulnerabilities to specific pressures (e.g., market co-option, ethical drift), the complex feedback loops between design choices and their long-term consequences, and the power dynamics that shaped which knowledge survived and propagated. Just because a methodology or style was effective (or dominant) in one specific historical or cultural context (e.g., Bauhaus functionalism in post-WWI Germany, or user-centered design in the early digital era) doesn’t guarantee its appropriateness or success in vastly different circumstances or later times. Recognizing this context-dependency and the lessons embedded in past evolutionary pathways is vital. This deeper understanding often becomes encoded, implicitly or explicitly, in collective memory, critical narratives (like critiques of modernism or Design Thinking), ethical codes, and ongoing debates within the discipline, ideally informing present awareness and guiding future strategies more wisely.
Engaging critically with the history of design, therefore, requires inquiring into its Ethnoevolution. It means:
089 Acknowledging Plural Pasts & Trajectories:
Moving beyond a single, linear, often Eurocentric narrative to explore the diverse evolutionary trajectories of design practices across different cultures and time periods. How did design knowledge evolve differently in response to unique ecological, social, and material contexts globally (e.g., comparing the evolution of craft traditions in Japan vs. industrial design in the US)? What alternative models of resilience and sustainability can be found in these diverse histories? Methodologies like Artifact Analysis (examining objects from diverse pasts), Design Archive Research (seeking out non-canonical archives), and studying diverse traditions are essential here.
091 Learning from Both Gains and Losses
Celebrating innovation and success while also rigorously analyzing failures, unintended consequences, ethical lapses, and suppressed alternatives. Why did certain promising paths (like perhaps aspects of Project Cybersyn, or certain vernacular sustainable practices) fail to gain traction or get actively dismantled? What systemic factors contributed to harmful outcomes (e.g., the environmental impact of mass-produced plastics)? Methods like critical Case Studies (of both success and failure), Post-Mortems (if records exist or can be reconstructed), and historical critique of dominant paradigms (like planned obsolescence) are necessary.
092 Understanding Contextual Adaptation & Maladaptation
Recognizing that design methods and solutions are adaptations (or sometimes maladaptations) to specific environments. Applying a method developed in one context uncritically to another without understanding its evolutionary baggage and necessary adaptations can be ineffective or harmful. Reflective Practice on methodological fit and Cross-Cultural Design studies help here.
093 Identifying Path Dependencies and Lock-ins
Understanding how past choices (e.g., adopting QWERTY keyboard layout, prioritizing fossil fuels, standardizing certain software protocols) can constrain present options and make it difficult to shift towards more desirable future pathways, even when alternatives are known to be superior. Systems Thinking and Historical Trend Analysis can help identify these lock-ins, while Transition Design methodologies aim to overcome them.
094 Valuing Knowledge Diversity for Resilience
Recognizing that the resilience and long-term adaptive capacity of the design knowledge system depend on maintaining a diversity of perspectives, methods, tools, and approaches. Homogenization, often driven by globalization, dominant educational models, or market consolidation, reduces this adaptive potential, making the system more vulnerable to unforeseen changes. Actively fostering and learning from pluriversal design knowledge (through Participatory Design, engaging with Community-Held Knowledge, supporting Indigenous design practices) strengthens the entire ecosystem.
By incorporating insights from the methodologies discussed for navigating the Past, Present, and Future into our understanding of Design Ethnoevolution, we move beyond simply documenting history or mastering current techniques. We begin to see the interconnectedness of temporal dimensions: how learning from the past informs our present actions and our capacity to shape responsible futures. We understand how methodologies themselves evolve in response to changing needs and critiques.
Understanding Design Ethnoevolution helps us appreciate why simply importing a “successful” methodology from the past or another context might fail in the present, and why constant critical reflection and adaptation are necessary. It provides a framework for consciously steering the evolution of design knowledge towards greater resilience, ethical awareness, and effectiveness in addressing contemporary and future challenges. It highlights the importance of the relationships between components – temporal methodologies, design elements, ethical principles – over privileging any single component, recognizing that different contexts and times demand different configurations and adaptive strategies. Embracing this richer, more complex, and more critical understanding of Design’s own adaptive journey through time feels fundamental to our ability to design more just, resilient, and truly sustainable futures, avoiding the pitfalls of historical amnesia or uncritical repetition. It is, in essence, applying the symbiotic lens to the evolution of the discipline itself.
095 Cultivating Temporal Wisdom in Design
Where does this winding journey through the currents of time – exploring design’s living nature as a potentially autopoietic system, its deep entanglement with complex past legacies, its challenging navigation of present flux, its profound responsibility in projecting into uncertain futures, and the very evolution of its knowledge systems through ethnoevolution – ultimately leave us? Seeing design not as a static set of tools or a discipline with fixed, immutable borders, but as a dynamic, adaptive system, forever drifting within the powerful, encompassing flow of time, is ultimately, I believe, a profound call for a fundamentally different kind of practice. It demands more than just adding new methods to our toolkit or tweaking existing processes at the margins. It asks for a fundamental shift in posture, in mindset, in our very understanding of what it means to design responsibly and effectively in the turbulent context of the 21st century.
It calls us to move away from the seductive, yet ultimately flawed and often harmful, archetype of the heroic master-creator, the lone genius imposing fixed, permanent solutions onto a passive world or a supposedly blank slate. Instead, it invites us to embrace roles that are perhaps less glamorous but infinitely more vital: roles as thoughtful navigators charting courses through complex, shifting currents; humble stewards tending to intricate ecological and social relationships; critical reflectors constantly examining our own assumptions, biases, and impacts; adaptive learners responding intelligently to feedback and changing conditions; and responsible participants acting within complex, evolving, interconnected socio-ecological systems, acknowledging our agency but also our interdependence. It demands that we learn to look beyond the immediate artifact, the isolated intervention, or the short-term project goal, to perceive and consider the intricate web of relationships and consequences unfolding across time – connecting distant past legacies (unearthed through critical historical inquiry), reverberating through present actions (guided by real-time observation and adaptation), and projecting potential future possibilities (explored with foresight and ethical responsibility). It pushes us beyond the often-insufficient goal of merely mitigating harm or optimizing efficiency towards actively fostering regeneration, building resilience, cultivating reciprocity, and centering justice in all that we do. And it challenges us, urgently, to move beyond designing for a singular, often implicitly universalized and homogenized future towards designing with and within a multiplicity of possibilities, genuinely respecting and making space for pluriversal ways of knowing, being, and flourishing.
Cultivating this temporal wisdom in design isn’t easy. It requires developing capacities often marginalized or entirely absent in traditional design education and the intense pressures of contemporary professional practice:
Deep Listening: Attentively listening not just to clients and articulated user needs, but to the silences in the historical record, to the wisdom embedded in marginalized voices, Indigenous knowledge systems, and non-Western traditions, to the feedback signals from stressed ecosystems, and to the subtle “weak signals” indicating potential future change.
Critical Self-Reflection: Rigorously examining our own biases (cultural, cognitive, disciplinary), assumptions, privileges, positionality within power structures, and the ethical implications of our choices, understanding how these shape our perceptions and decisions.
Historical Consciousness & Ethnoevolutionary Awareness: Developing a nuanced understanding of Design’s own complex legacies – its complicities in harm, its diverse global trajectories, its past failures and successes – to avoid repeating harmful patterns and build upon genuine, context-appropriate wisdom.
Systemic Thinking & Complexity Literacy: Cultivating the ability to see interconnections, map feedback loops, understand emergent properties, identify leverage points for intervention, appreciate non-linear dynamics, and work comfortably with the inherent complexity of socio-ecological-technical systems.
Foresight & Future Literacy: Engaging responsibly and critically with methodologies from Futures Studies not to predict the future, but to explore diverse possibilities, anticipate potential consequences (intended and unintended), challenge limiting assumptions about what’s possible, and inform more strategic, ethical, and adaptive action in the present.
Cross-Cultural Humility & Inter-Epistemic Dialogue: Recognizing the limits of one’s own cultural framework and engaging respectfully, reciprocally, collaboratively, and non-extractively with diverse knowledge systems, worldviews, and community protocols.
Ethical Courage & Principled Action: Developing the clarity, conviction, and fortitude to challenge harmful norms within the profession or client organizations, question unethical briefs, refuse commissions that demonstrably contribute to injustice or ecological destruction, advocate effectively for responsible practices, and sometimes, strategically design for refusal, resistance, or systemic alternatives.
Capacity for Holding Complexity & Uncertainty: Resisting the professional and psychological pressure for premature closure, simplistic solutions, or easy answers when faced with wicked problems, ambiguous situations, contradictory data, or unpredictable futures. Learning to navigate uncertainty adaptively, iteratively, and collaboratively.
It means becoming comfortable, perhaps even finding creative potential, in the idea that our designs are never truly finished, that they will inevitably drift and change as they interact with the Heraclitean river of time and context. It means understanding that our responsibility as designers extends far beyond the moment of launch or implementation, encompassing the ongoing stewardship of our creations, anticipating the need for potential adaptations or graceful decommissioning, and acknowledging the long-term consequences and legacies of our work across generations and ecosystems.
The Symbiotic Design Framework, developed through the iterative, sometimes challenging, always illuminating process I’ve tried to recount across these chapters – grounded in systems thinking, informed by autopoiesis, validated through global dialogue, and centered on an ethics of collective flourishing – aims to be a navigational aid for this ongoing, necessary journey. It is not intended as a static map promising a final destination, a guaranteed outcome, or a prescriptive set of universally applicable rules. Rather, I hope it can function as a compass and a critical toolkit, offering principles (Ethics, Sustainability, Social Responsibility, Economics) and prompts (embedded in the Components, Variables, and guiding Questions) designed to help orient our practice within the dynamic, interconnected, pluriversal, and temporally deep realities we inhabit and shape.
By cultivating greater self-awareness within the discipline itself – acknowledging its nature, its historical weight, its ethical entanglements, its power – by consciously developing our own conceptual tools rooted in a systemic, temporal, and ethically plural understanding, and by embracing the profound responsibility that comes with our capacity to shape worlds, design can perhaps learn to drift more wisely, more justly, more carefully through the challenging waters of our time. Its greatest potential, its most meaningful contribution in this critical era, may lie not in futilely resisting the relentless flow of time, nor in merely optimizing a precarious present, but in learning the difficult, collaborative, ongoing art of dancing with its unending, challenging, ultimately creative currents – consciously shaping futures that are more equitable, regenerative, pluriversal, and truly alive for all.
096 References
Agamben, G. (2009). What Is an Apparatus? and Other Essays (D. Kishik & S. Pedatella, Trans.). Stanford University Press.
Adloff, F., & Neckel, S. (2021). Futures of sustainability: Trajectories and conflicts. Current Sociology, 69(3), 385-401. https://www.google.com/search?q=https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392121996266
Aravena, A. (2014). My architectural philosophy? Bring the community into the process [Video]. TED Conferences. https://www.ted.com/talks/alejandro_aravena_my_architectural_philosophy_bring_the_community_into_the_process
Archer, L. B. (Conceptual reference). Design Methods Movement.
Aristotle. (various editions). Nicomachean Ethics.
Bain, J. D., Ballantyne, R., Mills, C., & Lester, N. C. (2002). Developing reflection on practice. McGraw-Hill Education. (Conceptual source for 5R framework)
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Ballantine Books.
Beer, S. (1974). Designing freedom. House of Anansi Press.
Bell, D. (Conceptual reference). Critical Race Theory.
Benyus, J. M. (1997). Biomimicry: Innovation inspired by nature. William Morrow.
Bertalanffy, L. von. (1968). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. George Braziller.
Bleecker, J. (2009). Design Fiction: A short essay on design, science, fact and fiction. Near Future Laboratory.
Bonsiepe, G. (Conceptual reference). Design in peripheral countries.
Borton, T. (1970). Reach, touch, and teach: Student concerns and process education. McGraw-Hill. (Conceptual source for Driscoll’s model)
Brand, S. (1994). How buildings learn: What happens after they’re built. Viking.
Brundtland Commission (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford University Press.
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. https://www.google.com/search?q=https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637
Buchanan, R. (Conceptual reference). Four Orders of Design.
Bullard, R. D. (1993). Confronting environmental racism: Voices from the grassroots. South End Press.
Candy, S. (Conceptual reference). Experiential Futures.
Canclini, N. G. (Conceptual reference). Hybrid Cultures, Cultural Consumption.
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., Barnosky, A. D., García, A., Pringle, R. M., & Palmer, T. M. (2015). Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Science Advances, 1(5), e1400253. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400253
Collins, P. H. (1990/2000). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Routledge. (Conceptual reference for Intersectionality & Matrix of Domination)
Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. The MIT Press.
Crenshaw, K. (Conceptual reference – e.g., 1989, 1991). Key works include “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex” & “Mapping the Margins”. University of Chicago Legal Forum / Stanford Law Review. (Conceptual reference for Intersectionality)
Crutzen, P. J. (Conceptual reference). Anthropocene popularization.
Dahl, R. A. (Conceptual reference). Polyarchy, Democracy.
De La Torre, M. A. (Conceptual reference – e.g., 2004, 2015). Representative works might include Doing Christian Ethics from the Margins or The Politics of Jesús. Orbis Books.
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (Conceptual reference). Critical Race Theory.
Design Justice Network. (n.d.). Design Justice Principles. Retrieved from https://designjustice.org/read-the-principles
Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed. Viking Penguin.
Driscoll, J. (Conceptual reference, drawing on Borton). What? So What? Now What? model.
Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative everything: Design, fiction, and social dreaming. The MIT Press.
Earth Charter International. (2000). The Earth Charter. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/search?q=https://earthcharter.org/read-the-charter/
Eco, U. (various editions). On the Shoulders of Giants. (Conceptual reference)
Eglash, R. (1999). African Fractals: Modern Computing and Indigenous Design. Rutgers University Press.
Eglash, R. (Conceptual reference). Generative Justice, Culturally Situated Design Tools.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone Publishing.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2013). Towards the Circular Economy Vol. 1: Economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition. Ellen MacArthur Foundation Publishing.
Erlhoff, M., & Marshall, T. (Eds.). (2008). Design dictionary: Perspectives on design terminology. Birkhäuser.
Escobar, A. (2018). Designs for the pluriverse: Radical interdependence, autonomy, and the making of worlds. Duke University Press.
Fallan, K. (2010). Design History: Understanding Theory and Method. Berg Publishers. (Implicit context for design history methods)
Forrester, J. W. (Conceptual reference). Systems Dynamics.
Foucault, M. (Conceptual reference). Power relations, Politics.
Fry, T. (2009). Design futuring: Sustainability, ethics and new practice. Berg Publishers.
Fukuyama, F. (Conceptual reference). Americanization.
Fuller, R. B. (1969). Operating manual for spaceship earth. Southern Illinois University Press.
Garland-Thomson, R. (Conceptual reference – e.g., 1997, 2009). Representative works might include Extraordinary Bodies or Staring: How We Look. Oxford University Press.
Gattuso, J.-P., et al. (2015). Contrasting futures for ocean and society from different anthropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios. Science, 349(6243), aac4722. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4722
Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Further Education Unit. (Conceptual source for Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle)
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Harvard University Press.
Grimson, A. (Conceptual reference, cited via Canclini). Culture and politics.
Gropius, W. (Conceptual reference). Bauhaus, Modernism.
Hall, C. C., & Hernandez, M. (Expected Publication Year). Antiracist by Design. (Title mentioned in original text, publication details pending).
Haudenosaunee Confederacy. (Conceptual reference). Seventh Generation Principle.
Heraclitus. (Various editions, e.g., Robinson, T. M. (1987). Heraclitus: Fragments. University of Toronto Press). (Conceptual reference)
Holmes-Miller, C. D. (1987). Black Designers: Missing in Action. Print Magazine. (Further bibliographic details might be needed).
Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. Routledge.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge University Press.
International Labour Organization (ILO). (1998). ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Retrieved from https://www.ilo.org/declaration/thedeclaration/textdeclaration/lang–en/index.htm
Irwin, T. (2015). Transition design: A proposal for a new area of design practice, study, and research. Design and Culture, 7(2), 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2015.1051829
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Random House.
Jaggar, A. M. (Conceptual reference – e.g., 1983). Representative works might include Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Rowman & Allanheld.
Jones, J. C. (Conceptual reference). Design Methods Movement.
Kahn, H. (Conceptual reference, e.g., Thinking About the Unthinkable, 1962). Scenario Planning.
Kéré Architecture. (n.d.). Philosophy. Retrieved May 8, 2025, from https://www.google.com/search?q=https://www.kerearchitecture.com/philosophy1
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.
Kossoff, G. (Conceptual reference). Transition Design co-developer.
Kroeber, A. L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. Peabody Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. (Cited via Canclini)
Lipsitz, G. (Conceptual reference). Anti-essentialism, Cultural Appropriation.
London, B. (Conceptual reference, 1932). Planned Obsolescence.
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. Stanford University Press.
Malm, A. (Conceptual reference, e.g., in Moore, J.W. (Ed.) (2016). Anthropocene or Capitalocene?: Nature, History, and the Crisis of Capitalism). Capitalocene concept.
Maldonado, T. (1972). Design, nature, and revolution: Toward a critical ecology. Harper & Row. (Original work published 1970).
Maldonado-Torres, N. (Conceptual reference). Coloniality.
Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation. The MIT Press.
Margolin, V. (2002). The politics of the artificial: Essays on design and design studies. University of Chicago Press.
Matthey Correa, G. (2015). ¿Cual es tu Sur? Editorial Serifa.
Maturana, H. R. (Conceptual reference). Biology of Cognition, Emotion, Observation.
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1987). The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Shambhala Publications.
Maturana, H. R., & Verden-Zöller, G. (1996). Liebe und Spiel: Die vergessenen Grundlagen des Menschlichen [Love and Play: The Forgotten Fundamentals of the Human]. Carl-Auer-Systeme Verlag.
Max-Neef, M., Elizalde, A., & Hopenhayn, M. (1991). Human scale development: Conception, application and further reflections. Apex Press.
McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. North Point Press.
Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens III, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth: A report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Universe Books.
Mignolo, W. D. (Conceptual reference). Coloniality.
Moore, J. W. (Ed.). (2016). Anthropocene or Capitalocene?: Nature, History, and the Crisis of Capitalism. PM Press. (Conceptual reference for Capitalocene & Four Cheaps)
M’Rithaa, M. K. (Conceptual reference, e.g., various publications). Focus on socially relevant and contextually appropriate design in Africa.
Naess, A. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. A summary. Inquiry, 16(1-4), 95-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201747308601682
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A Relational Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. University of California Press.
Papanek, V. (1971). Design for the real world: Human ecology and social change. Pantheon Books.
Peirce, C. S. (Conceptual reference, cited via Ynoub). Abduction.
Price, S. (Conceptual reference). Primitive Art, Civilized Gaze.
Quijano, A. (Conceptual reference). Coloniality of Power.
Radjou, N., Prabhu, J., & Ahuja, S. (2012). Jugaad innovation: Think frugal, be flexible, generate breakthrough growth. Jossey-Bass.
Raineri, G. R. (2020). [Title of PhD Thesis – replace with actual title if known] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). [University Name]. (Implied reference for framework development)
Raineri, G. R. (Forthcoming). Ethnoevolution: Conceptual Paper. (Self-citation for coined term).
Raineri, G. R. (Forthcoming). Pseudo Design: Conceptual Paper. (Self-citation for coined term).
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
Robèrt, K.-H. (Conceptual reference). The Natural Step framework.
Samaja, J. (Conceptual reference, cited via Ynoub). Ternary/Abductive Logic in Research.
Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization. Doubleday/Currency.
Simon, H. A. (Conceptual reference). Design as Science of the Artificial.
Simón Sol, G. (2011). 100 Definitions of Design. Tipo e.
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books.
Sparke, P. (2004). An introduction to design and culture: 1900 to the present (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Steffen, W., et al. (2011). The Anthropocene: Conceptual and historical perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 369(1938), 842–867. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0327
Steffen, W., et al. (2018). Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(33), 8252–8259. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115
Sterling, B. (Conceptual reference). Design Fiction.
Stoermer, E. F. (Conceptual reference). Anthropocene coining.
Sukhdev, P. (2012). Corporation 2020: Transforming business for tomorrow’s world. Island Press.
Superflux. (Conceptual reference). Speculative design examples.
Syvitski, J. P. M., Vörösmarty, C. J., Kettner, A. J., & Green, P. (2005). Impact of humans on the flux of terrestrial sediment to the global coastal ocean. Science, 308(5720), 376–380. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1109454
The Center for Universal Design. (1997). The principles of universal design. NC State University.
Tonkinwise, C. (Conceptual reference). Transition Design co-developer.
Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. Routledge.
United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
United Nations. (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/convention/text/
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. (Resolution A/RES/70/1). Retrieved from https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2011). Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to sustainable development and poverty eradication. UNEP.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (2015). Paris Agreement. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. MIT Press. (Implicit context for enactivism/autopoiesis extension)
Vredenburg, K. (Conceptual reference, cited in text). Pseudo-Design.
Waters, C. N., et al. (2016). The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene. Science, 351(6269), aad2622. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad2622
Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. MIT Press.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford University Press.
WWF. (2022). Living Planet Report 2022 – Building a nature-positive society. WWF International.
Yamamoto, R. (Conceptual reference). Architectural works.
Yin, R. K. (Conceptual reference). Case Study Research Methods.
Ynoub, R. C. (2015). La investigación científica como proceso de abducciones. Contextos metodológicos y reconstrucción lógica. In Metodología de la investigación social: lógicas y procesos para el diseño y la construcción del dato. Universidad Nacional Arturo Jauretche.
Ynoub, R. C. (2018). [Specific work on exploratory research – replace if known]. (Conceptual reference)
Young, L. (Conceptual reference). Speculative architecture.
