

































 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
https://www.designforsocialchange.org/journal/index.php/DISCERN-J 
 
ISSN 2184-6995 
 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 
International License. 

 

  

 

 
 
Action-centred design to find opportunities in times of multiple crises: 
Designing a toolkit from a participatory conference 
 
Alastair Fuad-Luke, Seçil Uğur Yavuz, Corinna Sy, Jennifer Schubert, Kris Krois 
 
Published online: November 2020 

 
To cite this article:  
Fuad-Luke, A., Yavuz, S.U., A., Sy, C., Schubert, J., & Krois, K. (2020). Action-centred design to find 
opportunities in times of multiple crises: Designing a toolkit from a participatory conference.  
Discern: International Journal of Design for Social Change, Sustainable Innovation and  
Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 37-49. 
  



 

38 

Action-centred design to find opportunities in times of multiple crises: 
Designing a toolkit from a participatory conference 
 
Abstract 

The global crisis around the COVID-19 pandemic raises questions about our societal conditions while 

amplifying the challenges of our existing multiple crises to wider questions of sustainability. Such crises, 

which are both threat and opportunity, have been highlighted for 50 years within the design domain which 

has re-orientated towards ideas of ecological, social and economic transition and transformation. Against 

this background, a 7-year old conference series, presciently called By Design or By Disaster, had to convert 

to an online format during the COVID-19 lockdown in Italy. Applying eco-social and participatory design 

principles the participants of the conference, Beyond Crisis, co-created 21 parallel workshops tasked with 

the aim of each generating three actions on diverse topics reflecting the interests of the participants. Live 

reports and synthesis of the actions generated a broad mapping of the situation to help build a spirit and 

momentum for social-ecological transformation through design. Subsequent analysis of the content of the 

workshops and actions led to the development of a prototype opensource toolkit, the Toolkit for Designing 

Actions in Times of Multiple Crisis, that facilitates the creation of action plans with multiple actors. This 

toolkit for action-centred design has the potential to help diverse actors deal with multiple crises while 

simultaneously helping reconfigure our societal and human to other-than-human relations by materialising 

preferable rather than probable or possible futures. 

Keywords: Action-centered design, Diverse actors, Multiple crises, Toolkit, Transition, Social-ecological 
transformation 

Transition and transformation in times of multiple crises 

As the (still unfolding) realities of the COVID-19 pandemic reveal the fragility of our systems and 

infrastructures, questions asked of our societal condition over the last 60 years rise to the surface once 

again but with a new urgency. The pandemic amplifies the challenges as a phenomenon of our multiple 

crises - climate warming, destruction of biodiversity and habitat, the externalised costs of a neo-liberal 

global economic system and more (multiple crises reference). As the philosopher Antonio Gramsci sagely 

observed, crises destabilize socio-economic relations and cultural narratives of hegemonic regimes while 

simultaneously opening opportunities for the emergence of new symbolic and social possibilities (Gramsci, 

1971). Against the dramatic, generational event of the current pandemic, the need to ask critical questions 

about how we embark on urgent social-ecological transformation is pressing. Here we adopt Driessen et 

al.’s definition of ‘societal transformation’ as ‘alterations to society’s systemic characteristics and 

encompassed social, cultural, technological, political, economic and legal change’ (Driessen et al., 2013, 2 

cited in Brand, 2016). Brand acknowledges that there are many possible definitions of transformation 

because as a diverse concept it has ‘broad containers and epistemic terrains’ that depend upon implicit or 

explicit assumptions and on cognitive interests (Brand, 2016, p. 4). Nonetheless, these observers highlight 

the huge ontological, epistemological and cultural challenge that transformation represents to human 

societies. 

Notions of transition to more sustainable ways of living, working and modes of being through design have a 

long root of advocacy through ecological and social design in the 1970s, promoted by Victor Papanek, 

Tomas Maldonado, Ian McHarg and others (Papanek, 1974; Maldonado, 1972; McHarg, 1969). They 

believed that designing has to be cognisant of human and ecological needs and be underwritten with new 

political, economic and design value systems to respond to contingent realities. In the last 20 years, these 

earlier design theories and practices were linked with the concepts of Design for Sustainability (DfS) 



 

39 

(Charter & Tischner, 2001; Manzini & Jegou, 2003), sustainable product services systems (Roy, 2000), 

transformation design (Burns et al., 2006), design for social innovation (Chick, 2012; Hillgren et al., 2011; 

Manzini, 2014), design activism (Fuad-Luke, 2009; Thorpe, 2012), transition design (Irwin, 2015; Irwin et al., 

2015) and other emergent theories and practices. However, there has generally been little engagement 

from the design disciplines with transition management theory developed by various Dutch scholars such 

as Geels, Schot, Kemp, Loorbach and others from the early 2000s onwards and transformation perspectives 

from other disciplinary fields that try to better understand and map how societies can change themselves. 

A key theoretical model underlying transition towards more sustainable development is the framework of 

the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) identifying the socio-technical landscape, regime and niche innovators. 

Exploring and questioning the role of design, designers and designing in societal transformation is pivotal to 

teaching and research at the Faculty of Design and Art in the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, South Tyrol, 

Italy. Since 2015 it has operated a Master in Eco-Social Design and 2018 formed a research cluster entitled 

“trans-form” (Fuad-Luke, 2020) focused on ‘exploring design, art and social practices addressing political 

and eco-social issues’. As a core part of the curriculum activities, the Masters students and teachers co-

curate an annual conference called By Design or By Disaster (DoD) (2020) - a prescient naming given the 

ongoing circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. The first DoD conference, focusing on the 

transformative role of eco-social design practices in the transition towards more sustainable ways of living 

and working, was launched in Bolzano in South Tyrol in April 2013. Since then, except for the year 2014, it 

has been an annual conference steadily building an audience and a network of hundreds of researchers, 

designers, artists, NGOs, and others from Italy, Germany, Austria and other EU member states. The focus is 

on the dissemination of new practices, case studies and initiatives complemented by keynote talks, mini-

talks, open workshops (suggested and facilitated by the participants), performances and other activities 

aimed at maximising discourse between the participants in a convivial approach and situation. Since 2018 

DoD has partnered with the Hier und Da festival in the village of Mals/Malles in the Obervinchgau/Sopra 

Val Venosta, South Tyrol, Italy. Mals/Malles is a village renown in South Tyrol and internationally as a 

community who rejected the use of pesticides in the municipality through a referendum and its resistance 

to the dominant agricultural infrastructures, systems and policies (Ackerman-Leist, 2017). The community 

runs the Hier und Da festival (Hier und Da, 2020). As a result of the COVID-19 lockdown in Italy in March 

DoD20, scheduled for April 2020, was postponed to 1-4 October 2020. Yet the opportunity was seized in 

April 2020 to create an online conference, entitled “Beyond Crisis” to open up questions as to the threats 

and opportunities presented to transition to more sustainable societies and the role design and designers 

can play. 

A participatory approach to creating an online conference in the COVID-19 crisis 

A team from the Masters programme, trans-form research cluster and external collaborative partners from 

other universities and not-for-profit organisations came together to organise Beyond Crisis a two-day online 

conference and workshop event. The key questions framing the conference were: 

• How to use the virus-induced situation to build up momentum for social-ecological transformation? 
• Is the corona crisis an opportunity or threat to social-ecological transformation? 

 

A series of other, minor questions also framed the vision of the conference: 

 

• How can we establish another leading narrative that encourages positive actions? 

• What can we do now to nourish positive transformations and prevent the dystopian 

developments? 



 

40 

• What are the strategies, alliances and actions that can be activated for this purpose? 

• Which framings, narrations, images and aesthetics are promising? 

Through the DoD blog and its extensive international network, a call was put out for proposals for 

workshop themes based on the above questions. During just 2 weeks, over 350 participants registered their 

backgrounds ranging from design practitioners and researchers, heterodox economics (Degrowth and 

Feminism Alliances), sustainability studies and practices (Environmental Governance, Ecovillages, etc.) to 

political activism. Data was gathered through the online registration form in which the participants were 

asked to offer a contribution (talk, workshop or theme or topic) and express their expectations about the 

conference. The organizing team analyzed the data and through several iterative sessions using post-its 

with affinity clustering on a Miro whiteboard, identified topics of interest, fields of knowledge and themes 

that could be tackled during the conference within a “workshop jam”. Over 25 workshop themes were 

generated by this participatory process through the inputs of the registered participants (Figure 1.). Some 

workshops were proposed by facilitators with a specific topic, while some thematic workshop themes 

emerged based on the analysis of the interests and expertise of the registered participants.  

 

 

Figure 1: The 25 workshops proposed by the registrants of the conference, synthesised by part of the 

conference team.  



 

41 

Online modes of participation 

The online format of the conference has its limits due to the restriction of screen-based communication. 

Therefore, the aim of the conference team was to use various interactive tools (such as Miro whiteboards 

with a workshop template, break-out rooms in Zoom and online social events such as a Social Presencing 

Theatre) to enhance the engagement of the participants providing an experience of conviviality, lively 

collaboration and of “social undistancing” as Saskia Hebert called it. The conference team tested 

Bigbluebutton and other open-source platforms for hosting the conference. However, due to the time 

constraints and technical limitations the Zoom platform was chosen since it was the tool with the best 

performance enabling a dialog between so many participants. Additionally, a live stream of the main 

conference inputs via Youtube was possible for those participants who did not wish to use Zoom due to 

data privacy issues. 

The conference was held over two days. On the first day, 9 experts shared their visions and thoughts 

around the conference topic with online presentations. Following these talks, and throughout the 

conference, short breakout sessions of ten minutes were organized by randomly assigning four people to 

discuss and reflect on the conference issues. 

The second day started with some warm-up activities such as yoga and social presencing theatre, which 

were proposed and conducted by the participants themselves. The main activity was the workshop jam 

comprising 21 workshops in the programme to which participants subscribed (Figure 1). A maximum of 13 

participants per workshop ensured groups were small enough to encourage interaction online. All 

workshops were offered in parallel sessions.  

Two different types of workshops were offered: 

• Seven specific workshop formats were planned, facilitated and moderated by the participants 

and/or speakers who proposed their formats during the registration process. 

• Eighteen thematic workshops were compiled according to affinity cluster analysis from the online 

registration forms. These workshops combined open space format, which means that they were 

facilitated and guided by the group itself, and the pro-action cafe, facilitating the move from 

questions to actions. This made it possible to offer multiple parallel workshops, as no major 

infrastructural preparation was required, but a custom-designed whiteboard, a Miro template 

(Figure 2), helped facilitate the process. The template offered a short instruction, a set of icons and 

post-its and was structured in four basic process steps: Introduction, Discussion, Idea development 

and Conclusion leading to three concrete Action Points. To support this open process, ensure a 

basic structure and provide visually substantive outcomes, each workshop had a visual note-taker, 

mainly students experienced in Miro but also external volunteers. 

On the second day at the plenum session of the conference a spokesperson from each group presented a 

brief narrative of their workshop with the focus on the three action points. This was followed by a synthesis 

of the Action Points from all workshops by two of the authors (see Figures 3 and 4, below). 



 

42 

 

Figure 2: The Miro template used by all the workshop groups. 

To provide an interactive feedback system for the participants at the end of the conference, another online 

tool, Mentimeter (2020), was used. Participants were asked open-ended questions (for example: “What are 

the inspirations, outcomes, learnings you gathered in the conference?” and “What is next? What actions 

will you take?”).  The results were simultaneously shown to all participants through sharing on-screen. The 

record of the feedback gathered with Mentimeter gave rise to the possibility to analyse expectations, 

insights and the actions of and by the participants while revealing their sentiments about the experience. A 

collective impression of co-presence in digital space emerged as the mind maps grew in real-time. 

Real time analysis and synthesis of workshop outputs for the conference audience 

After the workshops finished in the morning session of the second day, two of the authors cut and pasted 

the three specific actions from each workshop into a text document then undertook a pre-coding of the 

actions to draw out critical key words, following coding methods developed by Saldaña (2013). As this 

iterative process unfolded one author sketched the concepts and words generated by the key words (Figure 

3). The visual map shows the main concepts and the interrelations between them starting from the centre 

which represents the individual at a micro level and expands to actions that can be done collectively at a 

macro level. As seen in the illustration, most keywords range between two different states, for instance: 

micro-macro, individual-collaborative, digital-analogue, possible-impossible, secure-insecure, showing the 

fact that the crisis triggers a flexible, versatile, plastic thinking to cope with uncertainty and instability. 

Moreover, this visual and word mapping embraces keywords connected to ideas and solutions that are 

open and accessible, emphasizing the need for shared knowledge to overcome the obstacles in the times of 

crisis. 



 

43 

 

Figure 3: A visual and textual summary of key actions mentioned by the workshop groups. 

Another author tried to ascertain where the actions were intended to take place systemically by assigning 

them to the micro, macro or meso level in a Multi-Level Perspective framework (Geels & Schot, 2007) used 

by transition management theorists or by assigning them to categories of actions that could apply across all 

the levels (Figure 4). There was a perceived need across many of the workshops to do system infra-(re-

)structuring by “keeping the good and changing the bad” through supporting essential systems and building 

regenerative systems together, that is, by “co-creating difference”. At the macro level this requires “new 

politics”; at the meso level, “new rights”; and at the micro-level, “new stories, new lives”. This requires a 

(significant?) shift in attitudes and habits of individuals, groups and institutions which were better 

exemplified in five intertwined categories: 

• New values 

• New languages, bodying (embodied experiences) and imaginaries 

• New responsibilities and civic approaches 

• New upward pressures (from the lower levels) 

• New dispersed tools and skills 

… suggesting radical shifts in how we perceive and act in and on our world(s), with whom and for whose 

benefit. This ontological shift was best described as acquiring new languages and bodying (expressing this 

through embodied feelings and actions) and imaginaries through: “Bursting the bubbles, generating hope 

through action and exciting narratives, doing quantitative easing (euphemism for government central banks 

to print money or create bonds that inject liquidity into economies) for the people not the corporates, and 

by challenging politics by civic actions.” 



 

44 

 

Figure 4:  Workshop actions summarised across a Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) diagram. 

There was a sense from the conference participants that the participation, discourse and synthesis of 

outputs built a shared awareness of the threats and opportunities for transition during the COVID-19 

circumstances. Also, it was clear that experiencing the conference seemed to empower people emotionally 

and interpersonally.  

Post-conference outputs: The toolkit for designing actions in times of multiple crises 

The Mentimeter results for the question “What is next?” was answered by 50 participants. The results 

range from personal actions to collective ones. Most of the answers were emphasizing the importance of 

alliances and multidisciplinary perspectives for imagining and building more sustainable futures. Some 

reported that they would continue working on the ideas developed during the workshop jam in the future, 

expanding their group to take actions in their localities, such as community building, taking political actions, 

searching for funding, etc. Two of the groups of workshop participants actuated and formally organised 

active groups to generate specific initiatives - the Strategic Alliances Group and Diverse Economies 

Resource Fund. 

After the conference two of the authors revisited the original action outputs of the 21 conference 

workshops and the keyword coding exercise used to give the conference participants an initial synthesis of 

the actions within the transition management framing of the Multi-Level Perspective model. An extended 

keyword list was generated by going through the Word document of the original actions a second time. 

Keywords were allocated to emergent categories in a new coding exercise. Keywords were then checked 

against the final category list and either left in the original category or placed in one of the new categories, 

which were as follows: Issue/Topic/Theme; Concept; Attitude; Facilitation Tools; Actors; and Actions. These 

categories were used to develop a set of cards and a process - the Toolkit for Designing Actions in Times of 

Multiple Crises (Figure 5) - that can be used to develop an action plan by/for a group of actors for a 

particular Issue/Topic/Theme and/or Concept.  

 

 



 

45 

 

Figure 5: An overview of the Toolkit for Designing Actions in Times of Multiple Crises illustrating the cards, 

maps and action plan. 

The Toolkit provides a stimulating and flexible process for a group of people to co-generate an action plan 

for a particular context aimed at interventions to facilitate the transition to more sustainable projects and 

practices. There are three main steps to follow with the Toolkit: 

Step 01 Orient yourselves!  

1. Begin the discussion ideally with 4-8 people.  

2. Define your context together. 

3. Choose or randomly select three cards, one each from the categories: Issue/Topic/Theme, Concept 

and Attitude. You can also use the free cards to write your issues, concepts and/or attitudes. 

4. Based on the context and the three cards, define your idea(s) and objective(s). 

Step 02 Co-map the actors! 

1. Continue the discussion ideally with 4-8 people. 

2. Exploring the context you choose in Step 1, identify the actors in the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) 

“landscape”. Actors can be individuals, collective (groups, communities, not-for-profits etc.) or 

institutions but also non-human or other-than-human actors. 

3. Now select Actors that can best help deliver your idea(s) and objective(s) to create your Action 

Plan. 

Step 03 Co-create your action plan! 



 

46 

1. Place the completed Actor Cards one above the other on a table. 

2. Now choose the Facilitation Tools you would like the Actors to use and place them alongside the 

relevant Actors. 

3. Finally, for each Actor, think of the Actions they need to take to realize and concretize your idea(s) 

and objective(s). Write Action Cards for the Actors. 

4. Place the Action Cards alongside each Actor in the time sequence they need to do them i.e. one 

Action might be required before another Action. 

5. When all the Action Cards are in place with the Actor Cards and Facilitation Tools you have co-

created your action plan (Figure 6). 

 

Figure 6: Completing the Actor and Action cards generates the action plan. 

Playing with the Toolkit cards facilitates deep discourse around the Issue/Topic/Theme or a Concept, or 

both and shows how different Attitudes can dramatically affect the dialogue and outcomes for the chosen 

context. Blank cards also offer the opportunity for participants to write down their own issues, topics, 

themes, concepts or attitudes and to invent new facilitation tools.  New card proposals for the blank cards 

will grow and enrich the toolkit by each contribution. Brainstorming the potential actors, their needs and 

objectives also helps build a more systemic awareness of who can contribute to creating new actions that 

can change or improve a situation or context. 

Reflections and next steps 

The wide range of participants attending the conference and trans-/interdisciplinary participatory and 

dialogic design processes helped people from diverse knowledge domains turn workshop discussions into 

action plans for the contexts where they wanted to encourage ecological and social transformation. The 

diversity of actions suggested was notable for embracing and integrating actions at the macro, meso and 

micro levels of a Multi-level Perspective showing a more effective “bigger picture” of areas for change in 



 

47 

the socio-technical landscape, socio-technical regime and how a diversity of actions at the niche level could 

couple with actions at the higher levels. Adopting a Multi-Level Perspective analysis helps people to get out 

of their own knowledge and action bubbles and to see the bigger systemic challenges. This can reveal 

opportunities for seeing and building unusual (strategic) alliances to challenge or disturb existing socio-

economic and political systems. 

The design processes deployed during the online conference - including the co-designing of the 25 

workshop themes, the participatory design templates and working in small groups - helped frame and deal 

with different aspects of the COVID-19 situation and revealed the connections between the multiple crises. 

Moreover, most of the participants tended to see the Covid-19 crisis as an opportunity, although they did 

recognize threats from the existing socio-technical regime.  

As the conference was framed around “designing actions” and inviting the participants to come up with 

action plans, the results of the workshop jam were showing a range of characteristics of how to design, 

plan and take actions in the multiple crises. Therefore, the conference not only gave rise to many real 

actions that were taken afterwards by the groups of participants but also to a toolkit that emerged from 

the valuable insights and ideas generated by the workshop participants. This toolkit represents the 

participatory nature of the conference, as its content was based on the participants’ action plans. Whether 

to be a pandemic or other type of crisis, we urge to come up with not only new ideas centred with a human 

perspective but to take well-designed actions that are in the center of a network of multiple actors 

including, in Latour’s framing of human and other-than-human actors in Actor-Network Theory (ANT) 

(Latour, 2005). This will help drive the transition towards preferred rather than probable, possible or wild 

card futures (Hancock & Bezold, 1994). Although the focus in the conference was towards human, cultural 

and social factors, our contingent realities involve biological, ecological and microbial factors so we should 

also consider an ontological shift towards “natureculture” and multispecies co-existence in symbiosis 

(Haraway, 2003, 2016). In this sense, we also need an ontological shift in design(-ing) towards action-

centred design where the contributions of human and other-than-human actors co-regenerate our 

damaged (eco-)systems through social and material infrastructuring (Star & Ruhleder, 1996). Action-

centered design does not seek to put any actors whether to be human or non-human in the center, but to 

focus on actions that interrelate actors - humans and other-than humans. The prototype Toolkit for Design 

Actions in Times of Multiple Crises can catalyse fresh thoughts, perceptions, actions and new modes of 

production that can potentially change the “distribution of the sensible” (Ranciere, 2013 [2000]) and hence 

challenge the existing socio-technical regimes that exacerbate our multiple crises. The emergence of the 

toolkit from the conference activities can nourish positive transformations by helping people think about 

novel strategies, alliances and actions by bringing together different kinds of actors. In doing so actions are 

generated which create their new narratives challenging existing uncontested narratives towards further 

dystopian developments. The toolkit, available for download from the DoD blog (By Design By Disaster, 

2020) was further tested at the Hier un Da festival in October 2020 to generate more positive narratives for 

social-ecological transformation. 

Acknowledgements 

The authors would like to thank all the students, teachers in the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano and 

diverse contributors, speakers and workshop facilitators outside the university who made the Beyond Crisis 

conference a success during the Covid-19 lockdown. Full acknowledgements are detailed here, 

https://designdisaster.unibz.it/conference-beyond-corona-and-capitalism-17-18-april-2020/. The Toolkit 

for Designing Actions in Times of Multiple Crises is open-source and available online on the 

https://designdisaster.unibz.it/the-toolkit-for-designing-actions-in-times-of-multiple-crises/ 

https://designdisaster.unibz.it/conference-beyond-corona-and-capitalism-17-18-april-2020/


 

48 

 
References 
Ackerman-Leist, P. (2017). A Precautionary Tale: How One Small Town Banned Pesticides, Preserved Its 
Food Heritage, and Inspired a Movement. Canada: Chelsea Green Pub Co. 

 
Armstrong, B. U. (2016). “Transformation” as a New Critical Orthodoxy. The Strategic Use of the Term 
“Transformation” Does Not Prevent Multiple Crises. GAIA 25/1(2016): 23–27. 

Burns, C., Cottam, H., Vanstone, C., & Winhall, J. (2006). Transformation design. RED Paper 02, February 
2006. London: The Design Council. 

By Design or By Disaster (2020). Blog of the MA Eco-Social Design, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano. 
Retrieved from: https://designdisaster.unibz.it/ 

Charter, M., & Tischner, U. (2001). Sustainable Solutions. Developing products and services for the future. 
London: Routledge. 

Chick, A. (2012). Design for Social Innovation: Emerging Principles and Approaches. Iridescent, 2(1), 78-90. 
DOI: 10.1080/19235003.2012.11428505 

Driessen et al. (2013). Societal transformations in the face of climate change. Research priorities for the 
next decade. Paper prepared for the Joint Programming Initiative Connecting Climate Change Knowledge 
for Europe (JPI Climate). DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2504.5920 

Fuad-Luke, A. (2020). Trans-form. Retrieved from: https://www.unibz.it/en/faculties/design-
art/research/transform/ 
 
Fuad-Luke, A. (2009). Design Activism: Beautiful Strangeness for a Sustainable World. London: Earthscan.  
 
Geels, F.W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36, 399-
417. 

Gramsci, A. (1971). The prison notebooks. Q. Hoare and G.N. Smith (eds. & transl.). New York: International 
Publishers. 

Hancock, T., & Bezold, C. (1994). Possible Futures, Preferable Futures. Healthcare Forum Journal, 
March/April 1984, 23-29. 

Haraway, D. (2003). The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness. Vol. 1. 
Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press. 

Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the Trouble. Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, NC: Duke University 
Press. 

Hier und da (2020). Hier und da festival. Retrieved from: https://gutleben.da.bz.it/hier-und-da-festival.html 

Hillgren, P-A; Seravalli, A., & Emilson, A. (2011). Prototyping and infrastructuring in design for social 
innovation, CoDesign, 7(3-4), 169-183. DOI: 10.1080/15710882.2011.630474 

Irwin, T. (2015). Transition Design: A Proposal for a New Area of Design Practice, Study, and Research. 
Design and Culture, 7(2), 229 - 246. 

Irwin, T., Koskoff, G., Tonkinwise, C., & Scupelli, P. (2015). Transition Design. Retrieved from: 
http://design.cmu.edu/sites/default/files/Transition_Design_Monograph_final.pdf 

https://www.unibz.it/en/faculties/design-art/research/transform/
https://www.unibz.it/en/faculties/design-art/research/transform/
https://gutleben.da.bz.it/hier-und-da-festival.html


 

49 

Latour. B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford 
University Press. 

Maldonado, T. (1972). Design, Nature and Revolution. Toward a Critical Ecology. Harper and Row: New 
York, NY, translated by Mario Domandi. 

Manzini, E. (2015). Design, When Everybody Designs. An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. 
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Manzini, E., & Jégou, F. (2003). Sustainable Everyday: Scenarios of Urban Life. Milan: Edizioni Ambiente. 

McHarg, I. (1969). Design with Nature. Garden City. New York: Published for the American Museum of 
Natural History [by] the Natural History Press. 

Mentimeter (2020). Mentimeter. Retrieved from: https://www.mentimeter.com/ 

Papanek, V. (1974). Design for the Real World. St Albans, UK: Paladin. 

Rancière, J. (2013 [2000]). The Politics of Aesthetics. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013. First published 
in France under the title Le Partage du sensible: Esthétique et politique, La Fabrique-Éditions, 2000. 
 

Roy, R. (2000). Sustainable product-service systems. Futures, 32(3-4), 289–299. DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(99)00098-1 

Saldaña, J.M. (2013). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 2nd edition. London: Sage 
Publications. 
 
Star, S. L., & K. Ruhleder. (1996). Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large 
Information Spaces. Information System Research 7(1), 111–134. 

Thorpe, A. (2012). Architecture & Design versus Consumerism. How design activism confronts growth. 
London and New York: Routledge. 

 

 

 

https://www.mentimeter.com/

	 How to use the virus-induced situation to build up momentum for social-ecological transformation?
	 Is the corona crisis an opportunity or threat to social-ecological transformation?

