[雙語(yǔ)翻譯]設(shè)計(jì)外文翻譯--設(shè)計(jì)與設(shè)計(jì)思維當(dāng)代參與式設(shè)計(jì)的挑戰(zhàn)（英文）

1、Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges Erling Bjö gvinsson, Pelle Ehn, Per-Anders Hillgren 1 Tim Brown, Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and

2、Inspires Innovation (New York: HarperCollins Press, 2009). 2 See, e.g., Erling Bjö rgvinsson, Socio-Material Mediations: Learning, Knowing, and Self-Produced Media Within Healthcare, PhD Dissertation Series 2007-03

3、 (Karlskrona: Blekinge Institute of Technology, 2007); Pelle Ehn, Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts: Arbetslivscentrum (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988); and Per-Anders Hillgren, Ready-Made-Medi

4、a-Actions: Lokal Produktion och Anvä ndning av Audiovisuella Medier inom Hä lso- och Sjukvå rden (Ready-Made-Media-Actions: Local Production and Use of Audiovisual Media within Healthcare) (Karlskrona: Ble

5、kinge Institute of Technology, 2006). Introduction Design thinking has become a central issue in contemporary design discourse and rhetoric, and for good reason. With the design thinking practice of world leading design

6、and innovation firm IDEO, and with the application of these principles to success-ful design education at prestigious d.school, the Institute of Design at Stanford University, and not least with the publication of Change

7、 by Design, in which IDEO chief executive Tim Brown elaborates on the firm’s ideas about design thinking,1 the design community is challenged to think beyond both the omnipotent designer and the obsession with products,

8、objects, and things. Instead, what is sug-gested is: (1) that designers should be more involved in the big picture of socially innovative design, beyond the economic bottom line; (2) that design is a collaborative effort

9、 where the design pro-cess is spread among diverse participating stakeholders and com-petences; and (3) that ideas have to be envisioned, “prototyped,” and explored in a hands-on way, tried out early in the design proces

10、s in ways characterized by human-centeredness, empathy, and optimism. To us this perspective sounds like good old Participatory Design, although we have to admit it has a better articulated and more appealing rhetoric. A

11、s active researchers in the field of Par-ticipatory Design for many decades, we fully embrace this design thinking orientation. However, we also hold that, given design thinking’s many similarities to Participatory Desig

12、n today, some of the latter’s challenges also might be relevant to contemporary design thinking. In this paper we put forth both some practical-political and some theoretical-conceptual challenges and dilem-mas in engagi

13、ng in design for change. We do so using the background of our own idiosyncratic encounters with the field and our view on how Participatory Design as a design practice and the-oretical field has emerged and evolved since

14、 the early 1970s.2 © 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology DesignIssues: Volume 28, Number 3 Summer 2012 101 5 Ehn, Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artifacts. 6 Ibid. 7 Bruno Latour, “From Realpolitik to D

15、ingpolitik or How to Make Things Public” in Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel, eds., “Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy” in Catalogue of the Exhibition at ZKM – Center for Art and Media – Karlsruhe, 20/03-30/10

16、2005 (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2005), 4-31. Participatory Design, seen as design of Things, has its roots in the movements toward democratization of work places in the Scandinavian countries. In the 1970s participat

17、ion and joint deci-sion -making became important factors in relation to workplaces and the introduction of new technology. Early Participatory Design projects addressed new production tools, changes in production plannin

18、g, management control, work organization, and division of labor from users’ shop floor perspective.5 Participatory Design started from the simple standpoint that those affected by a design should have a say in the design

19、 pro-cess. This perspective reflects the then-controversial political con-viction that controversy rather than consensus should be expected around an emerging object of design. In this situation, Participa-tory Design si

20、ded with resource-weak stakeholders (typically local trade unions) and developed project strategies for their effective and legitimate participation in design. A less controversial comple-mentary motive for Participatory

21、 Design was the potential to ensure that existing skills could be made a resource in the design process. Hence, one might say that two types of values strategi-cally guided Participatory Design. One is the social and rat

22、ional idea of democracy as a value that leads to considerations of condi-tions that enable proper and legitimate user participation—what we refer to here as “staging” and ”infrastructuring” design Things. The other value

23、 might be described as the idea affirming the importance of making participants’ tacit knowledge come into play in the design process—not just their formal and explicit competen-cies, but those practical and diverse skil

24、ls that are fundamental to the making of things as objects or artifacts.6 Hence, Participatory Design, as it emerged in the 1970s, might theoretically and practically be seen as a “modern” example of Things (or rather “t

25、hinging,” as Heidegger would call it). Latour has called for a thing philosophy or object-oriented politics.7 His explicit references to object-oriented programming are interesting, not least because a key actor in the e

26、arly formation of Participatory Design in Scandinavia, Kristen Nygaard, also was one of the inventors of object-oriented programming. For our purposes, how-ever, we focus on participation in design Things and on strategi

27、es for “infrastructuring” them. Included in this focus is the design of objects as “matters of concerns.” So design Things are in focus when inquiring into the “agency” not only of designers and users, but also of non-hu

28、man “actants,” such as objects, artifacts, and design devices. How do they get things done their way? How are design and use related? How do design projects and design processes align human and non-human resources to mov