Lockton Tangible Thinking Workshop

1
Tangible Thinking:
Materializing how we imagine and understand
systems, experiences, and relationships
Full-day Workshop / Activity group. Ideally 15–20 participants.
Dan Lockton, Carnegie Mellon University, danlockton@cmu.edu
Lisa Brawley, Vassar College, lbrawley@vassar.edu
Manuela Aguirre Ulloa, Oslo School of Architecture and Design, Manuela.Aguirre@aho.no
Matt Prindible, Carnegie Mellon University, prindible@cmu.edu
Laura Forlano, IIT Institute of Design, lforlano@id.iit.edu
Karianne Rygh, Oslo School of Architecture and Design, karianne.rygh@gmail.com
John Fass, London College of Communication & Royal College of Art, john.fass@network.rca.ac.uk
Katie Herzog, Carnegie Mellon University, kherzog@andrew.cmu.edu
Bettina Nissen, University of Edinburgh, Bettina.Nissen@ed.ac.uk
Introduction
This workshop asks how we can use methods drawn from design, art, and craft, informed by
interdisciplinary and systems thinking, to materialize not just envisioned ‘things’, but abstract or
invisible ideas and relationships. There is an emerging set of research practices using tangible or
material models, or constructive making and embodying to visualize how people think about concepts
ranging from invisible systems and infrastructures to mental models, personal data which would
otherwise be invisible, or even the phenomenological dimensions of experiences themselves. Examples
include explorations of the design of public services, healthcare processes, mental health experiences,
career paths, crafters’ movements, and experiences of social networks (Aguirre Ulloa and Paulsen,
2017; Rygh and Clatworthy, 2019; Luria et al, 2019; Ricketts and Lockton, 2019; Nissen and Bowers,
2015; Fass, 2016).
While these methods and tools come from many contexts, they share an aim of helping people express
and communicate thinking about things we cannot see, to make them tangible, reified, to enable
discussion or peer support, or to facilitate group sensemaking. Methods and insights rooted in one
context may be transposable to others. This seems worth exploring for the systemic design and
innovative social research communities.
How can methods inspired by (often participatory) design and facilitation processes from user
experience and service design—or the attention to metaphor and novel translations of abstract
concepts emerging in data physicalization, synaesthesia research, and even art therapy—as a form of
research through design, a way to communicate otherwise intangible or inaccessible private worlds?
How important are material choices, aesthetics, ease of construction, and the life of ‘artifacts’ once they
have been constructed? What is the value of individual (even private) tangible tools, compared with
shared activities? Is the process as important as the ‘outcome’, as part of a constructionist learning
approach? There is no ‘right’ way to externalise thoughts: we need “visual prostheses” (Jonassen and
Cho, 2008) to share our mental imagery with each other.

Workshop proposal for RSD8: Relating Systems Thinking and Design, 2019
2
Workshop structure
The workshop will include participants i) trying out their own tools (or areas of focus) together and ii)
carrying out a tangible thinking activity called Interdisciplinary Landscapes focused on materializing
participants’ thinking about academic disciplines and their relations from a systemic perspective.
Before the workshop, we will invite confirmed participants to propose either their own tools or
something new that they want to test out, or a particular topic they would like to explore. We will aim to
curate parts of the session around these. We would be interested for other conference participants to
visit the workshop as observers, and perhaps document what they see happening.
09.30–10.15 Welcome, intros, and short presentation of variety of methods
10.15–11.30 Participants (and facilitators) introduce their tools and/or topics they’re interested in
exploring together
11.30–11.50 break
11.50–13.00 Interdisciplinary Landscapes activity part 1 (mapping / modeling)
13.00–14.00 lunch
14.00–14.20 Interdisciplinary Landscapes activity part 2 (discussion / feedback)
14.20–16.00 Participants set up their tools / topics. Split into groups and do the activities. Also
including a break.
16.00–17.00 Presentation / discussion / documentation. What have we learned? What do these kinds
of methods help us understand?
Expected outcomes
The workshop will produce a set of ‘artifacts’ or ‘tableaux’ created using the tools, which we aim to
exhibit—appropriately annotated—during the conference (we will do a separate Prototype Gallery
application). The exhibition could show co-created categories the participants determine, and visualize
interaction or engagement the tools trigger in those who interact with them (whether directly interacting
with the tools, observing, or seeing the visualizations after the activity itself).
We also intend to write up the workshop in an article for the RSD8 proceedings. The aim is to lead to a
review paper for a leading design journal, about the field of ‘tangible thinking’ tools and their value
within systemic design, and more widely.

3
Interdisciplinary Landscapes activity
Field, n. From Feld: open country
-an open land area free of woods and buildings
-area or division of an activity, subject, or profession
-a space on which something is drawn or projected
(Merriam-Webster; OED)
The Interdisciplinary Landscapes activity focuses on materializing participants’ thinking about the nature
of academic disciplines and their relations from a systemic perspective, using landscape (and other)
metaphors in a tangible form. There is a growing scholarly literature describing ongoing transformation
of disciplinary structures of knowledge production in higher education (Klein, Biagioli, Chandler, Post,
etc). These changes are signaled by a growing list of prefixes—interdisciplinary, multidisciplinarity,
transdisciplinarity, post- pre- meta- cross- and anti-disciplinarity—that seek to name the ways that
disciplines are transformed as they accommodate new kinds of questions and new ways of asking
them.
Rather than attempt to map these shifts from above, or to advocate for or against a given form of
(inter)disciplinarity (as much of this scholarship does), the activity we propose seeks to surface how
participants conceptualize their own field(s) of inquiry—views of the ‘system’ from within. In his
discussion of “postdisciplinarity,” Mario Biagioli has argued that the conceptual model of the
organization of knowledge in the sciences is shifting—from “From Discipline and Canon to
Collaborations and Problems”—in ways that humanities scholars might find useful, especially given the
increasing sense that the humanities are in crisis. We aim to make the most of the opportunity of the
RSD community’s diverse disciplinary backgrounds to participate in the Interdisciplinary Landscapes
activity.
This systemic design approach to disciplinarity has relevance at the institution-specific level: the
particular ways that departments and programs are organized at a college or university enact mental
models: university departments are most often spoken about as if they were the same thing as
academic disciplines, and these are in turn mapped onto institutional structures: the humanities
building, the Science Quad, etc. Scholars working in emerging fields like, say, “Critical Ethnic Studies”
or “Disability Studies” must then navigate this intellectual landscape. To what extent do extant mental
models—rather than interdisciplinary lines of inquiry themselves—contribute to the way emerging fields
thrive (or don’t) at given institutions?

4
Some examples of ‘Tangible Thinking’ tools
“Alternative Unknowns Method,” for participatory scenario planning as part
of disaster preparedness. Developed by Chris Woebken and Elliott P.
Montgomery of the Extrapolation Factory
https://extrapolationfactory.com/Alternative-Unknowns-Method

5
A multi-sensory relational tool that supports the design process of complex public services, developed by
Manuela Aguirre Ulloa and Adrian Paulsen. Photos from RSD3, 2014.
https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/formakademisk/article/view/1608

6
Emotional Modeling, by Laura Rodriguez, Katie Herzog, Josh LeFevre,
Nowell Kahle, and Arden Wolf, https://medium.com/new-ways-to-
think-fall-18 Second image represents ‘anxiety’ from the participant’s
perspective.

7
Empathy Rock Garden, by Jen Brown, Carlie Guilfoile, Michal Luria, Uluwehi Mills, and Supawat
Vitoorakaporn, https://medium.com/empathy-rock-garden-personalized-potions/empathy-rock-garden-
personalized-potions-54daee729921
Actor mapping flags, tangible co-design communication tool created by Karianne Rygh, AHO (Rygh &
Clatworthy, 2019).

8
Mental Landscapes, by Delanie Ricketts and Dan Lockton,
http://imaginari.es/publications/p86-ricketts.pdf

9
Machine learning model, John Fass, 2018
Demonstrating data tools, John Fass, 2018

10
Algorithmic filtering, John Fass, 2018
A computational judicial system, John Fass, 2018

11
Digital social networks, John Fass, 2018

12
Model of a digital personal profile, John Fass, 2018
Model of algorithmic decision making, John Fass, 2018.

13
Some indicative references
Manuela Aguirre Ulloa and Adrian Paulsen, 2017. Co-designing with relationships in mind: Introducing relational
material mapping. Form Akademisk 10(1) 1–14.
Timo Arnall (2014). Exploring ‘immaterials’: Mediating design’s invisible materials. International Journal of Design,
8(2), 101-117.
Mario Biagioli (2009). Postdisciplinary Liaisons: Science Studies and the Humanities. Critical Inquiry 35, 816-833.
Joanna Boehnert, Alex Penn, Pete Barbrook-Johnson, Martha Bicket, Dione Hills (2018). The visual representation
of complexity: Definitions, examples & learning points. https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-
jspui/bitstream/2134/36771/1/The%20Visual%20Communication%20of%20Complexity%20-%20May2018%20-
%20EcoLabs-1.pdf
Flora Bowden, Dan Lockton, Rama Gheerawo and Clare Brass, 2015. Drawing Energy: Exploring perceptions of
the invisible. Royal College of Art, London.
Jeremy Bowes and Peter Jones (2016). Synthesis maps: Systemic design pedagogy, narrative, and intervention. In:
Relating Systems Thinking and Design Symposium (RSD), 13-15 Oct 2016, Toronto, Canada.
Candy Chang, 2018. A Monument for the Anxious and Hopeful. http://candychang.com/work/a-monument-for-
the-anxious-and-hopeful/
Priscilla Chueng-Nainby, John Lee, BingXin Zi, Astury Gardin (2016). A creative ontological analysis of collective
imagery during co-design for service innovation. Proceedings of DRS 2016: Design Research Society, Brighton,
UK, June 2016
Simon Clatworthy, Robin van Oorschot, and Berit Lindquister (2014). How to get a leader to talk: Tangible objects
for strategic conversations in service design. In D. Sangiorgi, D. Hands, & E. Murphy (Eds.), ServDes 2014. Fourth
Service Design and Innovation Conference (pp. 1–15). Lancaster University.
Emily Corrigan-Kavanagh & Carolina Escobar-Tello (2018). Art therapy techniques as a novel creative method for
exploring design for home happiness, Journal of Design Research 16(3/4), 175–195
John Fass, 2016. Self Constructed Representations: Design Research in Participatory Situations. In Proceedings
of Cumulus 2016, 21–24 November 2016, Hong Kong.
Laurie Frick, 2015. Stress Inventory. http://www.lauriefrick.com/stress-inventory/
Robert, Frodeman, 2010. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. New York; Oxford;: Oxford University Press.
Harvey J. Graff, 2015. Undisciplining Knowledge: Interdisciplinarity in the Twentieth Century. Baltimore, Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Peter Hayward and Stuart Candy (2017). The Polak Game, or: Where do you stand? Journal of Futures Studies
22(2):5-14.
Trevor Hogan, Uta Hinrichs, Yvonne Jansen, Samuel Huron, Pauline Gourlet, Eva Hornecker, and Bettina Nissen.
(2017). Pedagogy & Physicalization: Designing Learning Activities around Physical Data Representations. In
Proceedings of 2017 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '17
Companion)
David Jonassen and Young-Hoan Cho (2008). Externalizing mental models with Mindtools. In Understanding
Models for Learning and Instruction. D. Ifenthale, P. Pirnay-Dummer, and J.M. Spector, eds. Springer, Berlin, 145–
157.
Helen Kara, 2015. Creative research methods in the social sciences: A Practical Guide. Policy Press, Bristol

14
Julie Thompson Klein, 1999. Mapping Interdisciplinary Studies. Vol. 2.;2nd.;. Washington, D.C: Association of
American Colleges and Universities.
Chang Hee Lee, Dan Lockton, Stephen Jia Wang, John Stevens, and Sunghee Ahn, 2019. Synaesthetic-
Translation Tool: Synaesthesia as an Interactive Material for Ideation. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts (CHI EA ‘19). ACM, New York.
Dan Lockton, Devika Singh, Saloni Sabnis, Michelle Chou, Sarah Foley and Alejandro Pantoja, 2019. New
Metaphors: A Workshop Method for Generating Ideas and Reframing Problems in Design and Beyond. In
Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Creativity & Cognition Conference (C&C ‘19). ACM, New York.
Dan Lockton (2019). ‘Reifying through Design(ing)’. Paper for CHI ’19 Workshop: Doing Things with Research
through Design: With What, Whom, and Towards What Ends?, CHI 2019: ACM Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, Glasgow.
Giorgia Lupi and Kaki King, 2018. Bruises — The data we don’t see. https://medium.com/@giorgialupi/bruises-
the-data-we-dont-see-1fdec00d0036
Deborah Lupton, 2018. Towards design sociology. Sociology Compass. 2018;12:e12546. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12546
Deborah Lupton, 2018. How do data come to matter? Living and becoming with personal data. Big Data & Society
5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718786314
Michal Luria, Jennifer Brown, Katie Herzog, Laura Rodriguez, Supawat Vitoorakaporn, Josh LeFevre, Suzannah
Mills, Carlie Guilfoile, Nowell Kahle, Kailin Dong, Jessica Nip, Aisha Dev, Katie Glass, Zhiye Jin, Soonho Kwon,
Arden Wolf and Dan Lockton (2019). Potions, Rocks, Models, and Lexi-cons: Materializing Mental Health Using
Design Methods. Working paper available at
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dhnnjzfs3zct152/Potions_Rocks_Models_Lexicons_DIS_Pictorial.pdf?dl=0
Celia Lury & Nina Wakeford (2012). Inventive Methods: The Happening of the Social. Routledge.
Noortje Marres, Michael Guggenheim, and Alex Wilkie (2018). Inventing the Social. Mattering Press.
Andreas Metzner-Szigeth, Stephan August Schmidt-Wulffen, Alvise Mattozzi, Roberta Raffaetà (2018). Studying,
Portraying and ASSessing examples of good scientific practice in interdisciplinary work. RSD 8: Relating Systems
Thinking and Design symposium, Politecnico di Torino, October 2018.
https://www.unibz.it/assets/Documents/Faculty-Design/Research/Running/Enable/Metzner-Szigeth-SPASS.pdf
Gareth Morgan (1997). Images of Organization. Sage.
Bettina Nissen and John Bowers (2015). Data-Things: Digital Fabrication Situated within Participatory Data
Translation Activities. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (CHI '15)
Stuart Nolan (2009). Physical Metaphorical Modelling with Lego as a Technology for Collaborative Personalised
Learning. In John O’Donohue (ed.) Technology-supported environments for personalized learning: methods and
case studies. USA: Information Science Reference, pp. 364-385.
Seymour Papert and Idit Harel (1991). Situating Constructionism. In: Constructionism, Ablex Publishing.
http://www.papert.org/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html
Diana Rhoten, Veronica Boix Mansilla, Marc Chun and Julie Thompson Klein, 2007. Interdisciplinary Education at
Liberal Arts Institutions, Teagle Foundation White Paper. http://www.teaglefoundation.org/Library-
Resources/Fresh-Thinking/Interdisciplinary-Education-at-Liberal-Arts-Instit
Delanie Ricketts and Dan Lockton, 2019. Mental Landscapes: Externalizing Mental Models Through Metaphors.
Interactions 26(2), March-April 2019.

15
Karianne Rygh (2018). Designing tangible tools to support collaboration in the co-design of healthcare services.
ServDes.2018, Politecnico di Milano. http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/150/036/ecp18150036.pdf
Karianne Rygh and Simon Clatworthy, 2019. The Use of Tangible Tools as a Means to Support Co-design During
Service Design Innovation Projects in Healthcare. In: M. A. Pfannstiel, C. Rasche (eds.), Service Design and
Service Thinking in Healthcare and Hospital Management. Springer Nature, Switzerland.
Liz Sanders & Pieter Jan Stappers, 2014. Probes, toolkits and prototypes: three approaches to making in
codesigning, CoDesign, 10:1, 5-14
Liz Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers, 2013. Convivial Toolbox: Generative Research for the Front End of Design.
BIS, Amsterdam.
Peter Senge (1993). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization. Century Business,
London.
Birger Sevaldson (2018). Visualizing Complex Design: The Evolution of Gigamaps: Theory, Methods, and Practice.
In: Peter Jones and Kyoichi Kijima (eds.), Systemic Design Theory, Methods, and Practice. Springer
Jill Simpson, 2017. Visualising Mental Illness. openDemocracy, 10 May 2017.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/jill-simpson/visualising-mental-illness
Alice Thudt, Uta Hinrichs, Samuel Huron, and Sheelagh Carpendale. 2018. Self-Reflection and Personal
Physicalization Construction. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (CHI ‘18). ACM, New York, Paper 154, 13 pages. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173728
Josina Vink, Katarina Wetter-Edman & Manuela Aguirre (2017). Designing for Aesthetic Disruption: Altering Mental
Models in Social Systems through Designerly Practices, The Design Journal, 20:sup1, S2168-S2177
Other resources
Data physicalisation collection (Yvonne Jansen and Pierre Dragecevic) http://dataphys.org/list/
The 'Innovative Social Research Methods' Facebook group run by Deborah Lupton
https://www.facebook.com/groups/333716010504710/
Roberta Tassi, Service Design Tools http://www.servicedesigntools.org/
Extrapolation Factory, Alternative Unknowns Method https://extrapolationfactory.com/Alternative-Unknowns-
Method
Matthew Frye Jacobson, The Education Project http://educationproject.yale.edu
Technical and space requirements
A room with tables and chairs which can be re-arranged for group work. We can bring materials for the workshop
activities (and we will ask participants bringing their own tools to bring their own materials).
The conference themes of Systemic Design and Organizations, Business Practices, and New Economies,
Systemic Design Models and Processes for Sustainment, and Systemic Design and Governance:
Policymaking and Decision Making fit best with the workshop.

Lockton Tangible Thinking Workshop

More Related Content

What's hot (17)

Similar to Lockton Tangible Thinking Workshop (20)

More from Systemic Design Association (SDA) (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Lockton Tangible Thinking Workshop