C R E AT I N G T H E CONDITIONS FOR CONFLICT
C ATRIONA BINNIE // DESIGNER IN PL ACE // MDES DESIGN INNOVATION AND SERVICE DESIGN // 2018
M O T I VAT I O N
2-3
CONTEXT
4-8
CASE STUDIES
9 - 10
HYPOTHESIS
11
DESIGN PROCESS
12 - 14
THE EXPERIMENT
15 - 18
CONCLUSION
19
BIBLIOGRAPHY
20
M O T I VA T I O N
This journal is my exploration through the process of creating the conditions for conflict to take place constructively within participatory design. Participatory design is an area I have been fascinated by for some time, due to its foundations being centred around providing a platform to those whose voices are often marginalised. Whilst I have had an opportunity to delve into its origins and theoretical background, I had not previously had the opportunity to experiment with its methodology within my own work. When exploring participatory design, the role of conflict in this process stood out to me as an invaluable tool to engender passionate engagement and change. As a designer, I am interested in exploring how to create the conditions for this conflict to manifest and be utilised to create mutual understanding between people of adverse opinions. 2
M O T I VA T I O N
“
“
conflict is t he gadfly of t hought. John Dewey (1922)
This conflict, to me, is essential. It is what sparks change and innovation, and as John Dewey, American Philosopher, asserts conflict ‘shocks us out of our sheep like passivity.’ (1922) Diverse opinions from a wide range of people, which forms the cornerstone of conflict, is critical especially as design moves into the public sphere. As designers, I believe it is important to be able to recognise these conflictions, utilise them and develop an understanding of why these controversies exist. Basing it upon my own experiences of collaborative projects with other students, my experience has always been that disagreement allows us to delve deeper into an context and develop a richer understanding- as opposed to only working towards consensus. Hopefully, this exploration will give me a basis of understanding around conflict and design. Moreover, it will give me opportunity for reflection, which in turn will allow me to appreciate how best to generate the conditions for conflict and harness it to build mutual understanding between participants.
3
CONTEXT
Participatory design’s origins began in 1970s Scandinavia, as a result of a desire to democratise the decision-making processes in the workplace. The rationale for this methodology is that everyone affected by the design should have a voice within the design process, and at that time it was expected that controversy rather than consensus would be anticipated (Björgvinsson, Pehn, Hillgren, 2012). Participatory design over the last forty years has grown beyond simply looking at the democratisation within workplaces and shifted into the public sphere and by extension our everyday lives, moving from working with pre-defined groups to milieus. This, therefore, constitutes a shift from democratisation of workplaces to ‘democratic innovation’, meaning a practice that involves innovation emerging from the bottom-up amongst diverse stakeholders (Björgvinsson, Pehn, Hillgren, 2012). However, despite the rapid adoption of participatory design as a method to induce new ideas, its core principle of providing a platform for marginalised voices has been somewhat diminished. Some researchers, such as Foucault (1977), have explored that participation is being used in some cases as a form of control, making existing structures stronger and less about giving a voice to diversity. (Hillgren, Seravalli, Eriksen, 2016).
4
CONTEXT
Moving forward, it is my view that participatory design should reflect what it originally aimed to do when the movement began: enabling marginalised voices to be heard, and with controversy expected in order to lead to change. However, it appears clear through my research that this is not an easy task, especially when design moves into the public sphere as conflict is viewed as negative and counter-productive. As Markus Miessen (2011), architect and theorist, denotes, we should begin to move away from the idea of participation as a round table discussion that ends in some form of consensus. I think it is common for this construct of a formalised, traditional setting to come to mind when we think of participation. For many, it brings an environment to mind where tensions are subdued, conflict is to be avoided and an agreement is necessary at the end of the discussion. This is not an environment that I feel best induces the conditions for conflict to create new understandings between people.
5
CONTEXT
How can I create a model of dissensus?
In Meissen’s view, within political structures, participation is framed so that we the ‘people’ feel as if we have a voice but actually these structures are being used to justify and legitimise a political agenda. Miessen wants to challenge this model for consensus, and instead push towards a model of dissensus, placing conflict at the core of the process (Miessen, 2011). This model allows the plurality of voices involved in participation to be heard, without leading to antagonism. This view is especially important when participation is part of a landscape of social, political and economic uncertainty, where consensus is not always achievable and in my experience I have noted in the current political environment, for example issues with Brexit and Donald Trump, there is tendency to create a self-imposed segregation of views and opinions. This brings me to wonder how can I create a model of dissensus, where conflict is not subdued, but rather is at the centre of what I do, without allowing it to devolve into an unproductive clash of opinions.
6
“
CONTEXT
“
t he crossbenc her takes par t wit hout an existing agenda or rules.
As I have delved deeper into Meissen’s work, I have come to appreciate and will look to utilise his concept of a ‘crossbencher’ to aid the conditions of conflict. Similar to the idea of an independent politician who is not affiliated with any political parties, the crossbencher takes part without an existing agenda or rules and simply enters the situation with the intention to support debate and discussion and in turn create change. The crossbencher, or ‘uninterested outsider’ takes part in the conversation but as a mediator between different views without taking a specific side. This concept is one I find intriguing and worthwhile to explore. However, upon reflection, a potential concern that could arise when creating this role is how can I ensure this individual actively stays within the middle ground during a passionate conversation without getting embroiled in the debate. Moving forward therefore, it is key that when I am adopting the idea of a crossbencher that I have actively try to ensure the individual’s impartiality.
The ‘crossbencher’
7
CONTEXT
Within Miessen’s argument he explores the work of political theorist Chantal Mouffe. Mouffe (2000) argues that there will always be antagonism as it defines the public and a collection of different identities. The concept of agonism was brought forward by Mouffe as a way to approach political hegemony (Emilson and Hillgren, 2014). In other words, it is an approach giving a platform to the marginalised voices in society. She argues that the goal of democracy is to move from conflict between enemies to constructive controversy – where everyone may have different views but everyone respects each other (Mouffe, 2000). These activities are driven by engagement and imagination. Therefore, for Mouffe agonistic democracy is when there is not a focus on general consensus, but on the value of the range of voices concerned brought together by passionate engagement. Within this perspective, design is, as Ehn, Bjögvinsson and Hillgreen denote: ‘envisioning emerging landscapes of design through which social and material transformations take place, landscapes shaped by the opening up of questions and possibilities’ (Ehn, Bjögvinsson and Hillgreen, 2012). On this note, through my research I firmly believe that in creating the conditions for constructive conflict, designers will have access to a potential plethora of perspectives and in turn utilise them in how we advance as a society.
8
CASE STUDIES
Malmo Living Labs
One example of agonism being used as a framework is the Malmo Living Labs, an open innovation environment. Within these living labs, issues, concerns and ideas are developed from the ground-up and guided by diverse stakeholders, which contributes towards the creation of long-term relationships and making participants active co-creators (Bjorgvinsson, Ehn and Hilgren, 2010). These labs are designed for community driven innovation, rejecting the consensual decision-making processes and in turn actively seeks out diversity rather than conformity. Malmo presents a unique and invaluable sociocultural context, being one of the most demographically diverse cities in Sweden (Robertson, Simonsen, 2012), which allows the designers involved to explore this at times sensitive context. This network of diverse actors allows them to explore and address pertinent issues in society (Emilson, 2014). The concept of agonism has been central to the work they do. They guide actors through the mutual learning process with designers using workshops, prototypes and scenarios. They feel important lessons participants should learn from this process are ‘how to create trust, how to show respect for the opinions of others, and how to facilitate mutual learning’ (Pelle Ehn, Elisabet M. Nilsson, Richard Topgaard.)
9
CASE STUDIES
An example of one of the projects they have been involved with is with the Herrgård’s Women’s Association, founded and organised by immigrant women living within a multi-ethnic neighbourhood in Malmo. This marginalised group has not been recognised by the City of Malmo, but it is hoped that by creating a long-term relationship with the Living Lab, and by extension link up with and benefit from working with other organisations connected to the lab, they can move towards being acknowledged by and in turn integrated within Swedish society (Bjorgvinsson, Ehn and Hilgren, 2010). When initially engaging with the group, they didn’t use tools to mediate or articulate the discussions. Rather, their experience led them to start the collaboration slowly ‘with informal meetings, sitting down, drinking tea, and discussing one another’s practices and everyday activities.’ (Emilson, 2014) They based this approach off of Donald Schon’s process of reflection in action, and through ‘artful inquiries,’ a fluid process that allows unpredictable situations and isn’t reliant upon rigid tools and structures. Through my investigation of the Malmo Living Labs, I have taken forward key aspects of their framework into my own experiment and view them as necessities in order to create the optimal conditions for constructive conflict. Firstly, I will aim to avoid a strict structure to facilitate a fluidity of understanding between adversaries. Furthermore, I will refrain from getting preoccupied with tools and equipment during the experiment, which will hopefully result in a more genuine experience for participants. Finally, as I, and my participants, will be entering into an uncertain situation, I feel it is more advantageous to allow there to be reactive change and adaptations to take place without being restricted by a preset structure in order to reflect and adapt for further experiments.
10
HYPOTHESIS
Through my research and exploration so far, I have decided to focus on bringing two people together with opposing views in order to uncover how design can help to create the optimal conditions for constructive conflict to lead to mutual understanding between two people and an awareness of different perspectives. Through looking at examples of the work other designers and theorists have conducted, I have come to understand some of the approaches that I would like to test. The hypothesis is that there is a space for design to establish a more conducive environment for conflict to manifest constructively.
11
DESIGN PROCESS
In order to create this experiment there were several key aspects that had to be considered beforehand. Firstly, it was important to establish an appropriate space for the participants to engage with each other, I decided that the key focus of the space should be one of informality, which I hoped would alleviate any unnecessary pressure on my participants and instil in them a confidence in airing their opinions. Secondly, it was vital for constructive conflict to take place that the topic chosen for the participants to discuss was chosen with delicacy, which would allow genuine debate without falling into unproductive bickering. Finally, I had to consider how to engineer the process, namely through the creation of accessible tools that did not encumber the fluidity of the discourse, yet still allowed me to gather invaluable information for progressing and adapting future experiments.
12
DESIGN PROCESS
Considering the space the conversation would take place within, I decided to take inspiration from the Malmo Living Labs and create an environment that facilitated casual exchanges over a cup of tea. Therefore, I decided to pick a cafe nearby the art school as I felt that this would engender an authentic and open conversation. Moreover, it helps move away from this idea of a round table discussion and would ensure that thoughts and opinions were not subdued, which may have been an issue if the venue was at the art school itself as due to our academic experiences there connotations of stress and scrutiny exist, which could stifle conversation.
Do you think autonomous vehicles are safe?
When it came to choosing the topic for the participants to discuss, I spent some time trying to decide upon a list of potential questions they could have a divergent opinion on. It was important that the two participants had differing opinions on the topic, in order to ensure confliction, so to understand my participants’ opinions I sent out a list of preliminary questions and asked for their views on the issues said questions raised in order to determine which of them would be the most fruitful in regard to creating an environment of conflict . The question that showed potential controversy was around autonomous vehicles and whether they felt they were safe. One participant felt they were, but that the infrastructure was not in place currently, and the other just responded no. Therefore, I felt there was potential here for a passionate discussion to take place that could ultimately lead to constructive conflict.
13
DESIGN PROCESS
co n f l i ct
The flow of the discussion would have to be facilitated in a way that allows the conflict to shape new understandings and an appreciation of each other’s viewpoint. Therefore, I considered what tools I could use to ensure this conversation could be constructive, and how I could measure this shift to mutual understanding. Firstly, I asked the participants before the discussion to write down what they felt the reasons would be behind the other person’s viewpoint, creating an empathetic sensation. Moreover, this information would allow us to try and challenge these assumptions during the experiment and help shift the participants into a new sense of awareness. These would also be used to provide topics of conversation, and highlight points to discuss that they had written down. Looking back on Meissen’s concept of the ‘crossbencher,’ I wanted to ensure I could incorporate this into the experiment. This role would be there to ensure that the conflict stayed at a level where it manifests constructively, and navigate the conversation if needed. However, they would not voice an opinion and would not be attached to either side of the argument. I ended up trying to take on this role in the experiment to see if I can act impartially, but at the same time navigate the conversation and play, almost devil’s advocate, to highlight points they may want to discuss.
m u t u al u nde rs t anding 14
THE EXPERIMENT As this is the first time I had tried to create a situation where conflict is created, my experiment highlighted both positive aspects and several areas to be worked on. The topic of conversation did highlight some controversy, as they did hold different opinions. However, these opinions weren’t particularly strong as it wasn’t a topic that they felt particularly passionate about. Also, I think that my two participants were quite similar in that they were the same age and are both art students. If there had been a greater diversity in the participants then I think that greater conflict could have formed and that is something I would endeavour to ensure in future experiments.
opinions held by one of t he par ticipants prior to t he discussion
15
THE EXPERIMENT
As the conflicting views arise within the discussion, it is interesting to see how important personal stories, experiences and thoughts are in shaping the narrative and fluidity of the conversation without it becoming a debate. I was glad that I hadn’t tried to give the conversation a structure that was too rigid as it felt the conversation developed naturally. However, this may have worked easier for them as they already knew each other and felt quite comfortable in stating their opinion, therefore if working with participants of different values, backgrounds and experiences in future experiments that have no prior relationship, I would organise some preordained questions that could be transferable to any topic and could help stimulate discussion.
discussing t heir t houghts
16
THE EXPERIMENT The tool I had prepared was useful in some aspects, as it did allow me to see that their understanding of the others opinion did shift. However, as the conversation flowed quite naturally, the tool was not needed much to facilitate the conversation. Therefore, it is not certain whether this would be beneficial with different participants where the conversation might not happen as fluidly. Although, it is my opinion that having these views in reserve would be an important tool in offering a safety net for the continuation of the conversation and protect myself from having to get involved, ensuring my impartiality, as it meant my interjections in the conversation would stem from their views that they had already stated prior to the conversation.
17
THE EXPERIMENT
In regard to the experiment’s environment the conversation taking place in a cafe over a cup of tea worked well, as this location allowed the participants to feel comfortable, both within the environment and in being able to express their views. Creating the optimal space for these conversations is critical, as it allows a colloquial environment to form around the conflict protecting it from devolving into a unproductive argument. Therefore, as a designer I feel that it is our responsibility to create and or find a mutual environment for participants in order to evoke genuine but manageable conflict, which can then be harnessed to create new avenues of social innovation, which put the views of those affected at the epicentre of the process.
18
CONCLUSION
This process was a journey of exploration into the ways that conflict between pluralities of voices can be utilised to the advantage of designers. Creating the conditions for these conversations was not simple, and should always reflect the complexity of the issue at hand to be discussed. Through my endeavours I discovered that what worked well in this process is the creation of a mutual and welcoming space, which contributed towards a casual and safe environment that aided participants in sharing their views without inhibition. Also, I found the idea of the crossbencher useful in facilitating the conversation and its importance in cajoling participants without adding unfair weight to one particular side of the debate. However, I have learnt that this is not an easy area to explore and that there are a number of factors that require significant consideration when working within a controversial context. For example, although useful, the role of the crossbencher is a difficult one to hold and they will need support in holding themselves to strict rules of impartiality to avoid making participants feel marginalised within the debate. Moreover, to help envision these new social landscapes it is imperative that the participants involved in future experiments represent the diversity of views that inhabit the complex contexts we as designers look to work within.
19
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dewey, J. (1922). Human Nature and Conduct. An introduction to Social Psychology. New York Modern Library, pp. 295-302. Pehn, E., Bjögvinsson, E. & Hilgren, P. (2012). Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges. Design Issues, 28 (3), pp. 101-116.
Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York, Vintage, 333 p Miessen, M. (2011). Lecture - Markus Miessen: The Nightmare of Participation. (Video) Available at: https://vimeo.com/31127013 Mouffe, C., (2000). The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso. Emilson, A. & Hilgren, P., (2014). Connecting with the Powerful Strangers: From Governance to Agonistic Design Things. In: Ehn, P., Nilsson, E. and Topgaard, R., eds. Making Futures: Marginal Notes on Innovation, Design and Democracy. Massachusetts: The MIT Press, pp. 63-84. Bannon, L. and Ehn, P., (2012). Design: Design Matters in Participatory Design. In: Simonsen, J. and Robertson, T., eds. Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. London: Routledge, pp. 37-63. Bjorgvinsson, E., Ehn, P. and Hillgren, P., (2010). Participatory Design and ‘Democratizing Innovation.’ Proceedings of Participatory Design Conference (PDC), Sydney, Australia.
Emilson, A., (2014). Designing Conditions for the Social. In: Ehn, P., Nilsson, E. and Topgaard, R.,eds. Making Futures: Marginal Notes on Innovation, Design and Democracy. Massachusetts: The MIT Press, pp. 17-33.
20