skip to main content
10.1145/2858036.2858124acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Learning from Green Designers: Green Design as Discursive Practice

Published:07 May 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper looks at the activities of environmentally minded technology designers and provides an account of how these designers think, behave and differ. In contrast to traditional designers, green designers appear to: (1) Bias decisions (2) Design from a deep, personal ethos; (3) Accept 'not knowing' as a part of the design process; (4) Rely on alternative ways of knowing, and; (5) Shift roles as needed throughout the design process. While a superficial treatment of these differences might seem to disenfranchise green designers, we show that an analysis of green design as a discursive practice highlights how, through engagement with others, green design can enhance pro-environmental dialog and enact meaningful change.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

p1312-friedberg.mp4

mp4

272.6 MB

References

  1. Henrikke Baumann, Frank Boons, and Annica Bragd. 2002. Mapping the green product development field: engineering, policy and business perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production 10, 5: 409--425. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0959--6526(02)00015-XGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Suzanne Benn, Dexter Dunphy, and Andrew Griffiths. 2014. Organizational change for corporate sustainability. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Hugh Beyer and Karen Holtzblatt. 1997. Contextual design: defining customer-centered systems. Elsevier. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Eli Blevis. 2007. Sustainable interaction design: invention & disposal, renewal & reuse. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM, 503--512. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240705 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Kenneth S. Bowers, Glenn Regehr, Claude Balthazard, and Kevin Parker. 1990. Intuition in the context of discovery. Cognitive psychology 22, 1: 72--110. http://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(90)90004-NGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Daniel Boyarski. 1998. Designing design education. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin 30, 3: 7--10. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/565711.565716 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Bill Buxton. 2010. Sketching user experiences: getting the design right and the right design: getting the design right and the right design. Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Nigel Cross. 2006. Designerly ways of knowing. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Carl DiSalvo, Phoebe Sengers, and Hrönn Brynjarsdóttir. 2010. Mapping the landscape of sustainable HCI. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 1975--1984. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753625 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Paul Dourish. 2010. HCI and environmental sustainability: the politics of design and the design of politics. Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, ACM, 1--10. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1858171.1858173 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Marcel Duchamp, Marc Dachy, Richard Hamilton, et al. 1994. The creative act. Sub Rosa, Brussels, Belgium.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Vernard Eller. 1973. The simple life: The Christian stance toward possessions. WB Eerdmans Publishing Company.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Daniel Esty and Andrew Winston. 2009. Green to gold: How smart companies use environmental strategy to innovate, create value, and build competitive advantage. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Michel Foucault. 1987. The ethic of the care for the self as a practice of freedom: An interview with Michael Foucault on 20th January 1984. In Foucault Live: Interviews 1961--1984. (1996). Sylvère Lotinger (ed.). NY: Semiotext(e).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Michel Foucault. 1998. The Will to Knowledge: The History of Sexuality vol. I.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Batya Friedman, Peter H. Kahn Jr, Alan Borning, and Alina Huldtgren. 2013. Value sensitive design and information systems. In Early engagement and new technologies: Opening up the laboratory. Springer, 55--95. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978--94-007--78443_4Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. William Bradley Glisson, Tim Storer, Gavin Mayall, Iain Moug, and George Grispos. 2011. Electronic retention: what does your mobile phone reveal about you? International Journal of Information Security 10, 6: 337--349. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-011-0144--3 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Gerard Goggin. 2012. Cell phone culture: Mobile technology in everyday life. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Maria Håkansson and Phoebe Sengers. 2013. Beyond being green: simple living families and ICT. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 2725--2734. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2481378 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Ann Harrison and Jason Scorse. 2004. Moving up or moving out? Anti-sweatshop activists and labor market outcomes. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved January 12, 2016 from http://www.nber.org/papers/w10492.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Elaine M. Huang, Eli Blevis, Jennifer Mankoff, Lisa P. Nathan, and Bill Tomlinson. 2009. Defining the role of HCI in the challenges of sustainability. CHI'09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 4827--4830. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1520340.1520751 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Elaine M. Huang and Khai N. Truong. 2008. Breaking the disposable technology paradigm: opportunities for sustainable interaction design for mobile phones. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 323--332. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357110 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Heekyoung Jung, Eli Blevis, and Erik Stolterman. 2010. Conceptualizations of the materiality of digital artifacts and their implications for sustainable interaction design. University of Indiana.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Bryan Lawson. 2006. How designers think: the design process demystified. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Mattias Lindahl. 2006. Engineering designers' experience of design for environment methods and tools-Requirement definitions from an interview study. Journal of cleaner production 14, 5: 487--496. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.02.003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Jennifer C. Mankoff, Eli Blevis, Alan Borning, et al. 2007. Environmental sustainability and interaction. CHI'07 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, ACM, 2121--2124. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1240866.1240963 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. William McDonough and Michael Braungart. 2010. Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. MacMillan.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Jason F. McLennan. 2004. The philosophy of sustainable design: The future of architecture. Ecotone publishing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Debra Meyerson. 2001. Tempered radicals: How people use difference to inspire change at work. Harvard Business Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Paul Newland, James A. Powell, and Chris Creed. 1987. Understanding architectural designers' selective information handling. Design Studies 8, 1: 2--16. http://doi.org/10.1016/0142--694X(87)90026--3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Peter Nicholson. 2005. Green Design vs. Sustainable Design. Dexigner. Retrieved January 12, 2016 from http://www.dexigner.com/news/4166.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Ram Nidumolu, C. K. Prahalad, and M. R. Rangaswami. 2015. Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Engineering Management Review, IEEE 43, 2: 85--91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2015.7123233Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Official Journal of the European Union. Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. 37/19, (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Official Journal of the European Union. Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament on the restriction of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. 174/88, (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Official Journal of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency. (2006)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Yue Pan, David Roedl, John C. Thomas, and Eli Blevis. 2012. Re-conceptualizing fashion in sustainable HCI. Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference, ACM, 621--630. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2318049 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. David Pepper. 2007. Tensions and dilemmas of ecotopianism. Environmental Values 16, 3: 289--312. http://doi.org/10.3197/096327107X228364Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Donald A. Schön. 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Stephen RJ Sheppard, Alison Shaw, David Flanders, et al. 2011. Future visioning of local climate change: a framework for community engagement and planning with scenarios and visualisation. Futures 43, 4: 400--412. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2011.01.009Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Stefan Thomke and Barbara Feinberg. 2009. Design thinking and innovation at Apple. Harvard Busyness School: 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Johan Tingström and Reine Karlsson. 2006. The relationship between environmental analyses and the dialogue process in product development. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 15: 1409--1419. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.012Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. UN Resolution A/60/1, adopted by the General Assembly on 15 September 2005. United Nations General Assembly, (2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. US Environmental Protection Agency. My Green Apps. http://www.epa.gov/greenapps/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Papanek Victor. 1982. Design for the real world: Human ecology and social change. NY, Pantheon Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Ron Wakkary, Audrey Desjardins, Sabrina Hauser, and Leah Maestri. 2013. A sustainable design fiction: Green practices. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 20, 4: 23. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2494265 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Galit Zadok and Riikka Puustinen. 2010. The green switch: Designing for sustainability in mobile computing. The First USENIX Workshop on Sustainable Information Technology. http://static.usenix.org/legacy/events/sustainit10/tech/full_papers/zadok.pdf. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Learning from Green Designers: Green Design as Discursive Practice

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2016
      6108 pages
      ISBN:9781450333627
      DOI:10.1145/2858036

      Copyright © 2016 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 7 May 2016

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '16 Paper Acceptance Rate565of2,435submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      Upcoming Conference

      CHI '24
      CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 11 - 16, 2024
      Honolulu , HI , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader