A sustainable design fiction

In this article, we argue that an approach informed by practice theory coupled with design fiction provides useful insights into the role of interaction design with respect to environmental sustainability. We argue that a practice-oriented approach can help interaction designers step away from models of individual behavior and studies of artifacts towards seeing sustainable behaviors as part of multidimensional and interrelated practices and practice elements. We analyze two previously conducted studies. The first study of everyday repair focuses on how people repair their broken objects. The second study of green-DIY examines how green enthusiasts facilitate their practices of making sustainable DIY (do-it-yourself) projects. We describe the practices of everyday repairers and green enthusiasts in terms of materials, competences, and meanings, and the interrelations among those elements, using the framework of Shove et al. [2012]. We argue that understanding the dynamics of practice and their unique configurations is a starting point to redefine the roles of sustainable interaction design (SID). We propose that designers design towards resources and tools in ways that reflect on the challenges of intelligibility of their design interventions in practices. In addition to considering SID in the light of practice theories, we reveal how design fictions are readily incorporated into green practices in ways that transform those practices and hold implications for transformations of design as well. We bring forward opportunities for designers to co-design with DIY enthusiasts, targeted as practitioners in their own right, designing toward or within a design fiction. As a result, we conclude with the possibility for sustainable interaction designers to become practice-oriented designers who design with transparent open strategies and accessible materials and competences.

[1]  Susan P. Williams,et al.  Practice theory & the foundations of digital document encoding , 2009, SIGDOC '09.

[2]  Eli Blevis,et al.  Sustainable interaction design: invention & disposal, renewal & reuse , 2007, CHI.

[3]  Khai N. Truong,et al.  Breaking the disposable technology paradigm: opportunities for sustainable interaction design for mobile phones , 2008, CHI.

[4]  Pierre Bourdieu,et al.  Outline of a Theory of Practice , 2020, On Violence.

[5]  James M. Buchanan,et al.  The Status of the Status Quo , 2004 .

[6]  Jonathan Bean,et al.  Learning from IKEA hacking: i'm not one to decoupage a tabletop and call it a day. , 2009, CHI.

[7]  Eric Paulos,et al.  Home, habits, and energy: examining domestic interactions and energy consumption , 2010, CHI.

[8]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do , 2002, UBIQ.

[9]  Eli Blevis,et al.  Understanding why we preserve some things and discard others in the context of interaction design , 2009, CHI.

[10]  A. Warde Consumption and Theories of Practice , 2005 .

[11]  G P Nolan,et al.  Resistance is futile: assimilation of cellular machinery by HIV-1. , 2001, Immunity.

[12]  Bruce Sterling,et al.  COVER STORYDesign fiction , 2009, INTR.

[13]  Eric Paulos,et al.  Rise of the expert amateur: DIY projects, communities, and cultures , 2010, NordiCHI.

[14]  John Postill Introduction: Theorising media and practice. , 2010 .

[15]  Andreas Reckwitz Toward a Theory of Social Practices , 2002 .

[16]  R. M. Scott ‘Plastics’ , 1952, Commodity Derivatives.

[17]  Allison Woodruff,et al.  A bright green perspective on sustainable choices , 2008, CHI.

[18]  E. Shove Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience: The Social Organization of Normality , 2003 .

[19]  James A. Landay,et al.  The design of eco-feedback technology , 2010, CHI.

[20]  David W. McDonald,et al.  Learning how: the search for craft knowledge on the internet , 2009, CHI.

[21]  Eli Blevis,et al.  Energy aware dwelling: a critical survey of interaction design for eco-visualizations , 2008, OZCHI.

[22]  Marita Sturken,et al.  Technological visions : the hopes and fears that shape new technologies , 2004 .

[23]  Mark Weiser The computer for the 21st century , 1991 .

[24]  Andreas Reckwitz The Status of the “Material” in Theories of Culture: From “Social Structure” to “Artefacts” , 2002 .

[25]  T. Schatzki Social Practices: A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social , 1996 .

[26]  K. K. Cetina,et al.  The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory , 2001 .

[27]  N. Brown,et al.  Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science , 2000 .

[28]  Jean P. Retzinger,et al.  SPECULATIVE VISIONS AND IMAGINARY MEALS , 2008 .

[29]  Steve J. Wurtzler Technological Visions: The Hopes and Fears That Shape New Technologies , 2004 .

[30]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Yesterday’s tomorrows: notes on ubiquitous computing’s dominant vision , 2007, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[31]  Phoebe Sengers,et al.  Mapping the landscape of sustainable HCI , 2010, CHI.

[32]  P. Gummett The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology , 1988 .

[33]  Andreas Reckwitz,et al.  Grundelemente einer Theorie sozialer Praktiken: Eine sozialtheoretische Perspektive , 2003 .

[34]  Ron Wakkary,et al.  A sustainable identity: the creativity of an everyday designer , 2009, CHI.

[35]  Anne Naukkarinen,et al.  Mapping social practices through collaborative exercises and visualizations , 2008, NordiCHI.

[36]  B. Latour 10 ''Where Are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts'' , 1992 .

[37]  K. Gegenfurtner,et al.  Design Issues in Gaze Guidance Under review with ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction , 2009 .

[38]  M. Weiser The Computer for the Twenty-First Century , 1991 .

[39]  Elizabeth Shove,et al.  On “The Design of Everyday Life” , 2007 .