Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:53:10.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relational Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

B. F. Nielsen  and
M. Bjerck
B. F. Nielsen*
Affiliation:
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
M. Bjerck
Affiliation:
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
*
brita.nielsen@ntnu.no

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

There is a mismatch between the way public services are designed, and the chronic dilemmas of the welfare state. Through two case studies we show how tool-dependent, instrumental and systems-oriented approaches fall short in tackling these dilemmas, and how the there is a need for a new, relational turn in design. Relational design takes into account interdependencies and dynamic situation of society, and calls for a new design vocabulary that discusses and approaches the relational aspects and opens up for a more situational and sensitive design agency.

Keywords

relational designrelational welfaredesign theoryservice-oriented designsustainability
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 1061 - 1070
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2022.

References

Bosco, F. J. 2006. Actor-network theory, networks, and relational approaches in human geography. Approaches to human geography, 136–146.Google Scholar
Braathen, M., Kropf, R. & Stangeland, S. H. 2012. Helen & Hard: Relational design.Google Scholar
Cottam, H. 2011. Relational welfare. Soundings, 48, 134–144.Google Scholar
Crossley, N. 2010. Towards relational sociology, Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deyoung, P. A. 2015. Understanding and treating chronic shame: A relational/neurobiological approach, Routledge.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. 2004. On the problem of design problems-problem solving and design expertise. Journal of design research, 4, 185–196.Google Scholar
Galster, G. & Wessel, T. 2019. Reproduction of social inequality through housing: A three-generational study from Norway. Social science research, 78, 119–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gold, S. J. 2005. Migrant networks: A summary and critique of relational approaches to international migration. The Blackwell companion to social inequalities, 257–285.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 2006. A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late 20th century. The international handbook of virtual learning environments. Springer.Google Scholar
Healey, P. 2006. Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times, Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hem, E. 2020. Hva er egentlig helsekompetanse? Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kickbusch, I., Pelikan, J. M., Apfel, F. & Tsouros, A. 2013. Health literacy, WHO Regional Office for Europe.Google Scholar
Kolb, A. Y. & Kolb, D. A. 2005. Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of management learning & education, 4, 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krippendorff, K. 1989. On the essential contexts of artifacts or on the proposition that" design is making sense (of things)”. Design issues, 5, 9–39.Google Scholar
Kusenbach, M. 2003. Street phenomenology: The go-along as ethnographic research tool. Ethnography, 4, 455–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le, C., Finbråten, H. S., Pettersen, K. S., Joranger, P. & Guttersrud, Ø. 2021. Helsekompetansen i fem utvalgte innvandrerpopulasjoner i Norge: Pakistan, Polen, Somalia, Tyrkia og Vietnam. Befolkningens helsekompetanse, del II. Rapport IS-2988.Google Scholar
Narvestad, R., Nielsen, B. F. & Forshaug, A. K. 2021. Utvikling av sosialt bærekraftige boligløsninger i Boligstiftelsen i Trondheims bygningsmasse.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, J. E., Reynolds, L. & Deluca, S. 2002. How do places matter? The geography of opportunity, self-efficacy and a look inside the black box of residential mobility. Housing studies, 17, 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schön, D. A. 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions, Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Shostack, G. L. 1982. How to design a service. European journal of Marketing.Google Scholar
Stickdorn, M., Hormess, M. E., Lawrence, A. & Schneider, J. 2018. This is service design doing: applying service design thinking in the real world, “O'Reilly Media, Inc.”.Google Scholar
Tranøy, B. S., Stamsø, M. A. & Hjertaker, I. 2020. Equality as a driver of inequality? Universalistic welfare, generalised creditworthiness and financialised housing markets. West European Politics, 43, 390–411.Google Scholar
Vargo, S. L. & Akaka, M. A. 2009. Service-dominant logic as a foundation for service science: clarifications. Service Science, 1, 32–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Heimburg, D., Ness, O. & Storch, J. 2021. Co-Creation of Public Values: Citizenship, Social Justice, and Well-Being. Processual Perspectives on the Co-Production Turn in Public Sector Organizations. IGI Global.Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. 1998. The abridged version of case study research. Handbook of applied social research methods, 2, 229–259.Google Scholar